2004 Elections: Democratic Party Contenders

Sofia,
Yeah, Carvell, or Cavelle, or whoever he is. I check him out on Crossfire once in a while just to see how fast he is...he is a wonder to watch.

My beef with GW is multifaceted, and I very reluctantly supported the idea of taking out Hussein, just wished he hadn't gone about it the way he did.

The bottom line - GW is an embarrassment to us in terms of the way the world views the US, and his values and cronies are a danger to the US in terms of domestic politics.

As to the WMD, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if they weren't eventually found buried somewhere - just on the other side of one border, or another, or both.

The world as a whole had insufficient concern for what we knew was going on in Iraq in terms of the way he mistreated his people and appropriated the oil revenue for himself and those loyal to him. That is not to say that other countries do not have leaders and power bases worthy of being removed. To say let the people rise up and do it themselves is just plain stupid. They can't do it.

As to the quality of the intelligence we were getting out of Iraq, in general terms, I don't think we know all the answers yet. It may, in fact, not be as bad as people are inclined to view it at this point in time.

<sigh>

The point I was attempting to make, Italgato, was that I found it entertaining that you had taken facts found in a liberal pundit's opinion piece and used those facts to counter the assertion put forth by some here that the Democrats had a reasonable chance.

I'm sure the communication failure was mine alone.

WOW! While I was carefully composing my thoughts, and typing them, 20 posts came in and I am left coughing in the dust. Better think, or type, or both, faster.

Yes, things move fast on these political threads. Some posters are known to repeat themselves multiple times at great length while others are still working on brief ripostes...

Just wait, D'artagnan, I've stocked some sites of Posner quotations now... :wink:

Can't wait to see them, Walter...

Mr. Timberlandko_ I do understand now. The failure was mine.

Mr. Hinteler:

I am heartened that you have become interested in the writings of the distinguished jurist Judge Richard Posner.

If I may, I would inform you that his writing, as I am sure you will discover, is very well reasoned and complex.

If you quote from some of his sources, I hope that you will not mind if I add from those same sources.

You see, I am very familiar with Posner and I do know how he carefully qualifies and constructs his arguments.

I will await your presentations and can only hope that we two can inspire more people to read the learned Judge's books.

IMHO, I think Clinton would have won by a big margin. I'm not a democrat, but would have voted for him over the other candidates except Bill Bradley and John McCain.

Mayhap, I should get out the dictionary. I meant mistakes and foibles, not verbal gaffes.

sumac-- How reasonable! I agree with you. You're not found here often enough. I sometimes feel I take too long (typing, organizing thoughts... )as well. But, your thoughts are worth the time to me.

Guys,
Like I said, I was only basing my opinion of Gore V Clinton popularity, and how close Gore came. I could definitely be wrong. It happens.

Yes. CI, I think you may be right. It is possible that CLinton would have won. It's just too bad, from a Democratic perspective that is, that Clinton could not keep the House and Senate in Democratic hands as they were when he was elected.

I am sure you realize that a President can't do a great deal if the House and Senate are in the hands of the opposition. It forces the poor guy to vote for abominations like the welfare bill, for example.

Then tell me why Bush spends money like Ted kennedy. Three out of the five largest increases in total federal spending over the entire history of our country have occurred during the first three years of the presidency of George W. Bush. The other two years were during World War II. Yes, George Bush has had to increase defense spending, but so did Ronald Reagan. The difference? Reagan cut nondefense spending, Bush hasn't. The budget for the useless Department of Education is 60% higher than it was three years ago.

How kind of you, Sofia.

I will try to be more like that Carvelle fellar, but my mind just ain't programmed that well.

There appears to be a lull here. Dare I?

Yes, I heard that on the news tonight too. Doesn't bode well for his campaign. Wonder what the real circumstances are (were).

I haven't taken a political science course, ever. Am wondering which is preferable for a party:

1) To unify early on one or two candidates, or

2) The more the merrier. Let every contender build a base of support, and then throw their support at some crucial juncture to someone else, with the hope or promise of return favors?

Does anyone know whether that particular block of voters does as requested, or do they get disgusted and not vote, or vote for someone else entirely?

If I were a strong Lieberman supporter, and then he backs out and asks his supporters to vote for Dean.....would I?

Good question,. Sumac. I would opine the air of consistency and focus provided by a very few interesting and credible front-runners better serves than a protracted, often bitter, scramble for leadership. The latter case I think brings more attention to the squabble than to any of the candidates, while risking a public impression of lack of leadership ability. The upside is that a contentious, complicated contest will generate more headlines than will a calmer, more regimented campaign. Conversely, if relatively unified, a more focused party will be able to remain "Above the Fray" relatively longer, husbanding resources and preparing for an intense, well-thought-out end-game against an already bloodied foe. The Democrats need not a mere survivor out of this, they need a champion of heroic proportion.

That's my take, anyway.

Well, I guess protracted, high-publicity primaries with much debate are a good way to gradually acquire name recognition for a candidate who otherwise would have had to come from nowhere. (Thats a metaphorical nowhere, for even if (s)he were a respected senator, still most of the electorate wouldnt have heard of him/her).

Labour Party here had its very first primary ever last year, worked out well. Among the minor candidates there were two that stood out: a woman who had long been at the party's top, and a young guy who had only switched over from a Shell job into Parliament 5 years before.

When the primary started, his name was only really known among the political insiders who tipped him as the new big hope; and the two months of campaigning served to make his face and opinions familiar to most people. All this time the Labour party as a whole didnt budge in the polls: all the media attention didnt translate into an increased overall support yet, as people waited to see who would be elected first. But once the younger guy did, in the end, win the primary and launched the actual national elections campaign, the party almost immediately surged in the polls, up 10% within no time. I dont think he could have pulled that off if he hadnt had the chance of having the voters get to know him first during the primaries.

Optimistic people could take a hopeful sign from that for the Dem primaries. Some like to point out that, in polls opposing Bush with this or that specific Dem candidate, the latter individually doesnt seem to have "caught fire" with the overall electorate yet. But perhaps thats not the name of the game at this stage yet. This is the time for them to first get the electorate acquainted with them, used to them - and to get the Dem base energised and excited. If that does succeed to get the "starting ground" paved well, then the actual "real" campaign can see someone suddenly shoot up in the polls ...

Of course - re: your question - if the contenders fall out in too much bitter acrimony, its another story altogether. Though even then: better to have a fellow Democrat "out" your weak point or skeleton in the closet at a point when the overall electorate isnt all that attentive yet - so that thats out of the way and wont be considered "news" anymore by the time the real race is on - then have that skeleton sit in the closet until Rove finds it a week or two before election day. So even primary attacks can serve a function.

But yeh, Lieberman - Dean ...

the primary season between george and mccain was quite bitterly fought without much end game consolation between the two, but that did not seem to distract from George moving into the nomination process with ease. as to the current rancor with the dems and who will drop out and where to throw their support seems to be up in the air, personally if the nomination went to Lieberman i would most likely not vote, although i support Kucinich there are other candidates i could fall behind without much reservation. I would not vote for Lieberman for the same reasons i did not vote for Clinton, I perfer having a democrat in office. btw I still think Clinton was the best Republican President of the 20th century.