2004 Elections: Democratic Party Contenders

Wouldn't it be cool, just for argument's sake, if the Democrat, say Dean, gets more electoral votes in 2004, but Bush gets more popular votes? Yes, that would be sweet...

I'd love to see Rove stew in his own juices. Little Mr. Clever...

Yes, D'art, it would be very sweet.

Yes, Nader was certainly a spoiler, in principle and maybe outcome as well.

While I am sick to death of Arnold and the entire California scene, I am intrigued by the totally contradictory possibilities that a win by him would either hurt or help GW. While this discussion is on the Democratic contenders, the outcome in California, and whether that implies anything at all, necessarily, for GW, would surely have an effect on which Dem could best compete.

Anyone have any thoughts here?

Either Arnold or McClintock would serve as a momentary boost to the Republicans ... but likely a longer-term drag; nobody can sort out California as long as the legislature's hands are tied by the ability of the electorate to pass laws directly by referendum. An election isn't going to make the problems go away. Davis is toast, but a Bustamante win, while a momentary setback for Republicans, likely would be a boost to them in the long run as California continues to wallow in its self-made mire under Democratic leadership, which it would do under Republican leadership as well. Another factor mitigating against any Republican success at straightening out California's woes is that the California Legislature is in Democratic hands ... not an arrangement condusive to the passing of Republican initiatives.

and, perhaps not at the very beginning, whoever is elected will have a ask for a tax increase.

Sort of like the same problems we have at the national level, except the democrats are playing republicans for fear of being unpatriotic.

The 10 Little Indians are down to 9:

The Graham Cracker Crumbles

The feds giveth a pittance, and the state taketh away a bundle.

One down, eight to go. Get used to saying "President Dean!"

So, then, are you all saying that there will be no long term effect for GW, regardless who wins in California?

As long as we don't have to say President Bush!

So, our Dean voters didn't turn into Clark voters...?
Anyone certain of who they'll vote for in the primaries?
I think jjorge is a safe bet for Dean... anyone else decided?

Dean. Clarke seems like too much of a "company man" for my tastes.

I used to think the happiest day of my life was when I got my discharge from the air force 45 years ago, but the happiest day of my life will be when GWBush is no longer in the white house.

while i would smile (probably) if Bush was to be replaced, I am far more concerned about the House and Senate.

Dys, do you think there will be a change? How do you think people here in Colorado will swing? In Boulder and parts of Denver people seem wuite progressive, but folks here in Northglenn seem quite conservative, at least from the talk I overhear in the cafe at Borders periodically!

The way I see it, this bunch called the "adminnistration" has to be replaced in total. The House and Senate will follow like sheep if the right leader takes over the white house - as they are doing now.

No neccesarily. Remember the way the far right rallied to take over the legislative branch after Clinton was elected?

Yeah, but Clinton was successful in passing most of his initiatives, because he 'stole' the conservative agenda.

How so?

Remember too they have maintained the initiative and proceed from their current position with considerable momentum.

As to California ... a Democratic victory there could well serve Bush better in '04, if California is unable to come up with a miracle within a year. Of course, either way, for California, Republican or Democrat in the Governor's Office, only a miracle will be of any significant help within the next year. A California dissatisfied with a Republican Governor will not much help the '04 Bush Campaign.