2004 Elections: Democratic Party Contenders

Will they be TRUE debates,where conservatives like myself can actually challenge the candidates and their views,or will they be community lovefests where the questions are all prescreened softballs?
If they are the former,they might be worth watching,if the latter,they wont be.

Blatham-
I am a gullible soul who has been suckered - but no more. I am sick to my stomach.

s

Oh no, Mr. Nimh. I believe the Gallup Poll. I do think this may be a difficult period for President Bush. However, I do know that there will be more polls to follow in November, December etc.

I do not abjure the results of the polls.

It is indeed possible that George W. Bush will be severely tested on Nov. 2nd. It is not impossible that he would lose the election since the latest Gallup Poll shows that his some of his possible opponents are tied with him( within the margin of error).

I am going to watch the Gallup Poll closely and I will report on it from time to time, but as long as we are discussing the election of 2004, I might be interesting to point out some other pertinent facts.

But, first, somebackground.

The last president of the United States was, of course, William Jefferson Clinton. His party was drubbed in 1994, 1996 and 1998 when they lost the House and Senate.

This fact crippled any real chance for Clinton to introduce any meaningful legislation. When the important legislation of the Clinton era is viewed, it is clear that most of it was the kind of legislation that was near and dear to the hearts of Republicans.

NAFTA, Admittance of China to the WTO and Welfare reform.

One of the reasons, of course, was that he did not have his party controlling the House or the Senate.

So, while viewing the Gallup Poll which shows that Bush is tied with some of his opponents( he will, of course, only face one of them), one must also ask, What will the next president face with regard to the composition of the next House and Senate?

Correction: last elected President.

Why, it would appear that the next president is going to have to deal with a REPUBLICAN CONTROLLED HOUSE AND A REPUBLICAN CONTROLLED SENATE.

Says who?

Says the very left wing "consortium news.com

See

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2003/062503a.html

QUOTE

"While the Democrats may still have a real shot at beating Bush, their prospects appear

much dimmer

in Congress with both the House and Senate

likely out of the Democrats's reach."

"The Democrats must defend more seats than the Republicans in the Senate with 19 Democratic Seats up against 15 for the Republicans. On top of that, 10 of these seats are in states-Nevada-North Dakota-Arkansas-Louisiana-Georgia-Florida-South Carolina- North Carolina and Indiana- Bush won in the 2000 campaign.
In Georgia(Miller) and possibly Florida. North Carolina( Edwards) and South Carolina( Hollings), Democratic encumbents may not run for another term leaving open seats in hard-to-win states for Democrats.

By contrast, there are only two vulnerable Republican seats. Illinois and Alaska.

Other than these two seats, the pickings appear slim for Democratic challengers. Barring any surprises bewteen now and election day, the only seats that are even worth mentioning are Kit Bond's seat in Missouri( though the Democrats are having a terrible time finding a candidate, Jim Bunning's seat in Kentucky( where Democratic Gov. Paul Patton's sex scandal appears to have spared Bunning a serious reelection fight) and Arlen Spector's seat in Pennsylvania( only worth mentioning because of a primary challenge from conservative Rep. Pat Toomey.

As for the House, it is too early to say where the national electorate will be, but REDISTRICTING HAS MADE ALL BUT A HANDFUL OF SEATS SAFE FOR ONE PARTY OR THE OTHER, leaving only betwen 25 or 30 seats up for grabs depending on what the national campaign looks like. THE DEMOCRATS MAY HAVE A CHANCE OF GAINING SEATS. THOUGHT LIKELY NOT ENOUGH TO TAKE BACK THE HOUSE>'

end of quote.

Now,punditgs like Krugman, Safire and the like may spin their philosophical columns but the hard headed in the field- the bean counters- know what the demographics are.

Some folks just can't get off the Sore-Loserman bandwagon. As to polls, Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, and Clinton all suffered Poll drops at this relative position in their first terms. They were not noticeably inconvenienced.

No,Pdiddie.Bush is the President,and he was elected.I wont fight that battle again,but you need to get past your childish pout over losing that election and move on.Its over.

Professor Hobibit really should use spell check. He has misspelled Communist and Unchristian.

If he had not misspelled these words but was only attempting satire, I would say that he is violating the guidelines against personal attacks.

You may be right- P Diddie. I will cancel my subscription to the New York Times immediately.

The New York Times on November 12th recounted the following:

"A comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last year's presidential election reveals that George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward>"

I feel betrayed by the NY Times and am beholden to P Diddie for setting me straight.

By some reckoning, Bush the Younger is the Most Elected President in History; one general election, several recounts, and a couple of multi-judge court decisions. Whats the difference ... ya win once, ya win half a dozen times ... yer still the winner.

both sides seem to continue flogging a dead horse.

Making mud pies in spilt milk may be satisfying as a play time thing, but ultimately, it is a waste of time and energy.

I'm not so worried about the candidates as I am about the voting populace.

You can take a dead horse to the spilt milk, but Tom Waits would beat you there.

A day or two ago, there was an evening of performance and entertainment in LA (I think). The first personage on stage was the Dalai Lama, who gets up at 3:30 each morning for spiritual exercises so goes to bed a 7:30 each night. Bracketing the evening's events was Waits, who said, "His holiness goes to bed at 7:30. That's not the holiness I used to know."

Blatham said, and I am too lazy to use anything but the Quick Reply:

"His holiness goes to bed at 7:30. That's not the holiness I used to know."

Ah, aging. When my critters start trying to wake me up at 3:30-4, since they are nocturnal anyway, you can bet your boots that I will nod off sitting upright on the couch by any old hour, or drag my ass off to bed by 9;30-10:00.

Some dead horses are only playing dead and when you know they are capable and very likely to get up any minute and trample you, it's best to be remembering that the horse isn't actually dead yet.

Italgato wrote:


and:



The horse that is not dead is the evidence in the past that the Republican Right Wing, by the use of dirty tricks, have attempted but failed or succeeded to alter the will of the American voter repeatedly in the last few years. Call it a coup d'etat, or simply an attempt to overthrow the government, but the people involved in the impeachment of the President and the election fiasco bear watching. I am looking for evidence that these same people are involved in the California recall election and the redistricting efforts in Texas and Colorado, and in any sex scandals that alter the results of the 2004 election. These dirty tricks go way beyond just good politics, they are covert and still threatening the rights of the voters of this country.

I'm speaking specifically of Richard Mellon Scaife funded "elves" (as Joan Didion has reported Ann Coulter identified herself as one of these "elves"). I'm compiling a list of these people and the foundations and organizations financed by Richard Mellon Scaife. I think we should beat this horse until we are sure, absolutely sure it's stone cold dead.

Lola,
Scary indeed, and all of this was learned, in part, by the religious zealots who sought to gain control of important entities by starting local, like school boards of ed and PTAs, and then branching out from there. Thinking out of the box...they were very inventive...and successful.

If your concern is really the "will of the voters" then you had better start looking in your own party before you go looking elsewhere.

The left is all up in arms over the Texas redistricting issue but ignores that THEY altered the will of the voters and got the current districts setup through a court order instead of using the established legistlative process - just as the courts have been used through the years for numerous cases where the "will of the voters" wasn't what a few people decided they wanted.

Hmm, I seem to be recognising a parallel.

Republicans say that, even should it turn out that Saddam did not actually posess any WMD when Bush was pressing for war, the fact that he refused to have this verified at the time still makes him the dangerous world criminal that would justify starting a war and invasion.

Democrats say that, even should recounts (like the NYT's) bear out that Gore did not actually carry the state of Florida, the fact that the conservatives refused to have this verified at the time through a full recount still makes Bush an "unelected" President who cant speak for the American people.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, I have little patience with either of these kind of arguments. I mean, formalities are important (more important than they are credited for), but bottom line is: if Saddam didnt have WMD, that case for war collapses, no matter how many ways Saddam used to obstruct verification (if you cant prove someone's actually got 'em, you shouldnt start a war about 'em). And if Gore didnt actually win Florida, Bush is the rightful president, no matter how many ways his partyfolk used to obstruct verification.

Yeh. That should suffice to alienate swathes of A2K participants on both sides of the field in one go :wink:

nimh,
You are still overlooking something. You said..."Democrats say that, even should recounts (like the NYT's) bear out that Gore did not actually carry the state of Florida, the fact that the conservatives refused to have this verified at the time through a full recount still makes Bush an "unelected" President who cant speak for the American people. "

You forget,Gore DID NOT ask for a recount of the whole state,only 5 counties.He got what he asked for,and still lost.
Other then that,I agree with your statement.