2004 Elections: Democratic Party Contenders

A California that would elect an Arnold seems not an entity any more predictable than a busload of lunatics pulling into a whore house.

Speaking of my Army days.....

timberlandko wrote



Precisely. There is a degree of commitment and organization there that is lacking on the Dem side. And they have shown their staying power.

To say that someone seems to be too much of a company man for one's tastes is, I would think, a luxury no longer afforded to us. It is only for the loyal opposition to make their best educated guess as to who can beat Bush that is important now. All else is chaff, and wasted effort.

Win lose or draw. California will not go republican in a presidential election. IMO All of the electoral college votes will be in the democratic column no matter who runs for president.

Dean is my man, but \i will vote for anyone the Dems put up. I wouldn't have made that statement in the past, but I now feel the number one priority for this country is to get Bush and his group out of there.

I think they're dangerous and I believe a couple of them are mentally unbalanced.

NO ONE could do a worse job IMO.

I have to agree with BPB, I too will be voting for anyone the Democrats put up. I just hope that elections occur.

Oh Sofia you are so clever!

...and I thought I had concealed my feelings for Dean.






;-)

I have become very adept divining nuance.





:wink:

That is why I don't think we should count Clark out at the moment...he may well be able to get more Rep. votes than Dean, when the election is held. It is still way off.

What is known about Joe Trippi of the Dean campaign?

I'm going to vote also for whoever I think will defeat Bush. I think that's probably Clark. But maybe a Clark/Dean ticket would be a strong ticket. We'll see. There's room for a lot of water under the bridge before decision time.

Sharpton will hold out until the last minute, almost like a spoiler, and then back the candidate. Would there be any political advantage if he were to be persuaded to get out, now, rather than later?

How can those contenders, who at this point should be realizing that they can't be nominated for this election but may be inclined to hang around (too long?) to mine for their political future, be persuaded to follow Graham?

Ha ha ha! bien dicho.

how could you not around here sofia?

The only way is to get the $$ to dry up. The ones that are way behind in the polls know they aren't going to get anywhere but they are still drawing in more $$ than they are spending. Once they drop to break-even or losing $$ they'll drop out of the race. It's all about the Benjamin's.

The big money Dem contributors haven't even kicked in yet.

fishin',
I'm not too sure about that, in all cases. If you are running now for name recognition and to develop a following, in your state or nationwide, for whatever opportunity next presents itself, then you will plug along, taking in as much as you can, running up a debt if absolutely necessary, to achieve those goals.

For instance, this guy from NC here, Edwards or whatever is his name is, is young, ambitious, and may have some talent. But surely both he and his advisors know that he has no chance for this election. They have to be thinking beyond 2004 at this point.

We know Sharpton's game. Joe L. will pull out sooner rather than later.

What of the others?

True. But the big donors are likely to drop large amounts on someone with .5% of the primary voters. The big donors are what I call "Institutional Investors". They want a return on their donations (i.e. political favors) and you don't get a return from somone that can't do any better than 9th place in a field of 9.



Interesting. Why do you think so?

He's running neck and neck with Dean for 2nd place in national polls. Unless something drastic happens I expect he'll hang in there until the party convention and then try to parlay some sort of deal for the votes of his backers.

If things come down as a 3 way race (which is how it looks right now) between Dean, Clark and Lieberman the person in the #3 position has leverage on the other two. #3 won't win the nomination but whoever he directs his followers to vote for will.

I'm interested in your thoughts on Lieberman pulling out...

I see Lieberman's more centrist position as affording The Democrats their only viable opportunity for mounting a credible challenge to Bush. I am confident The Democrats fail to see that, and will continue to do so. I find that personally comforting. Whoever The Democrats nominate is assured of being included among the footnotes referrencing Humphrey, McGovern, Dukakis, Gore, and Stevenson.

History repeated -- Bush I to Clinton with two terms, Bush II to Clark, two terms. A lot of wishful thinking goes into what happens in politics from both sides. It's political beliefs that are constantly under scrutiny but it's the pragmatism that often prevails. I don't find Bush II to be pragmatic at all, he's going by instinct and making decisions now by the seat of his pants. I'm sure he's frustrating his advisors but as far as anyone having the potential of being a statesperson (I have to observe a political correctness here that is often ignored), I just don't see anyone in his cabinet or advisors who has the potential. Condelezza Rice was tentative and very nervous on Meet the Press -- the tremble in her voice was unnerving. Any of the Democrats Timber just mentioned if they had won may have changed our history for the better. That's entirely a feeling and subjective but this is exactly why objectivism often fails in politics.