0
   

2004 Elections: Democratic Party Contenders

 
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2003 05:36 pm
The incumbent always has to run on his record, and the challengers always have to challenge the record of the incumbent.

If the election results of last Tuesday (and last month in California) send any message, it's that the incumbents, regardless of affiliation or location, are in big trouble.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2003 05:40 pm
Running as opposition is too easy not to use. You don't have to have solutions, you just have to play up the problems.

Since there are always problems running against incumbents will always feature a bit of oppositionist campaigning.

There has rarely been such a good case for an opposition campaign, this administration has had a very polarizing effect.

I just home the Dems don't overdo it. Running as opposition can be dangerous if the status quo improves.
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2003 05:40 pm
Just to balance the scales a bit re who scored more runs this week, today's NY Times has an article on how well the Democrats did in traditionally Republican suburbs. Check it out:

http://nytimes.com/2003/11/06/nyregion/06DEMS.html

And if Bush doesn't win the suburbs, he may as well as saddle up and ride back to Crawford...
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2003 05:43 pm
Apart from a few local contests I haven't noticed much inconvenience falling on Republican incumbents here of late. I figure theres a message there.
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2003 10:15 pm
D'artagnan wrote:
And if Bush doesn't win the suburbs, he may as well as saddle up and ride back to Crawford...

Just keep telling yourself that. Very Happy
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Nov, 2003 08:23 am
Quote:


NYT LTTE
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Nov, 2003 08:37 am
PDiddie -- One of the most encouraging lines in the NYRB article on Clark was his description of the campaign as a dialogue, a refining of positions. That's the reason why I'm so supportive of the existence of a high number of primary candidates, arguing, discussing: it's the way to refine the issues. The Republicans, by running one candidate, won't (and evidently don't want to) hear from voters. Theirs is a one-way shout.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Nov, 2003 10:44 am
Well, now, Tart, I would opine The Dems' plethora of wannabees is indicative of a lack of a voice which speaks to The Electorate, while the focus and unanimity of The Repubs indicates the voice of The Electorate.
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Nov, 2003 10:52 am
I think the left take the refreshing view, Timber, that they'd like to hear what the electorate wants rather than tell the electorate what they want.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Nov, 2003 11:01 am
Your call, Tart. Your's is as valid an opinion as the opinion that The Repubs ARE the Voice of The Electorate. There's no rule against being mistaken. Twisted Evil
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Nov, 2003 12:07 pm
Info on Howard Dean, and the flag.
***********
Flags Versus Dollars
November 7, 2003
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Howard Dean's remarks about the need to appeal to white Southerners could certainly have been better phrased. But his rivals for the Democratic nomination should be ashamed of their reaction. They know what he was trying to say - and it wasn't that his party should go soft on racism. By playing gotcha, by seizing on the chance to take the front-runner down a peg, they damaged the cause they claim to serve - and missed a chance to confront the real issue he raised.

A three-sentence description of the arc of American politics over the past 70 years would run like this: First, Democrats and moderate Republicans created institutions - above all, Social Security and Medicare - that provided a
measure of financial security to ordinary working
Americans. The biggest beneficiaries of these institutions were African-Americans and working-class Southern whites, and both were part of the moderate-to-liberal coalition that dominated American politics until the 1960's.

But the right opened an increasingly effective
counterattack, with a strategy that included using racially charged symbolism to get Southern whites to vote against their own economic interests. All Mr. Dean was saying was that Democrats need to understand and counter this strategy.

I know these are fighting words. But the reliance of modern Republican political strategy on coded appeals to racism is no secret. Controversies over efforts to remove the Stars and Bars from the top of the South Carolina Statehouse, and to reduce its size on the Georgia flag, played a significant role in Republican victories in 2002. And the evidence that race is still a crucial factor is as fresh as
Tuesday's election.

The big story in that election was the victory of
Republicans in Mississippi and Kentucky. The secondary story, however, was a string of victories by Democrats in affluent suburban areas in the Northeast. In my state, New Jersey, Democrats took firm control of the state's Legislature.

What this tells us is that some people - either in New Jersey, Mississippi or both - voted against their economic interests. For whatever you think of Bush's economic plan, it's clearly much better for New Jersey - a rich state, which gains a lot from tax cuts tilted toward the affluent - than for a poor state like Mississippi.

Consider, for example, the effects of estate tax repeal, a central feature of the 2001 tax cut. Almost nobody in Mississippi pays the estate tax. In 2001 only 249 estates in Mississippi paid any tax at all; raising the exemption to $5 million, which some Democrats suggested as an alternative to full repeal, would have reduced that to a couple of dozen. By contrast, New Jersey, with three times
Mississippi's population, had almost 10 times as many taxable estates.

Or consider the 2003 tax cut. It was also heavily tilted toward the affluent, and therefore toward rich states. According to Citizens for Tax Justice estimates, the typical New Jersey family got a $409 tax cut. In Mississippi, the number was only $165.

So did Mississippi voters support the Republicans, even though they get very little direct benefit from Bush-style tax cuts, because they - unlike New Jersey's voters - understand the magic of supply-side economics? If you believe that, I've got an overpass on the Garden State Parkway you may be interested in buying.

Now maybe New Jersey voted Democratic because of irrational Bush hatred. But I think it's a lot more likely that white Mississippi voters, unlike their counterparts up north, are still responding to Republican flag-waving - and it's not just the American flag that's being waved.

Yet the fact is that Mississippi, being relatively poor, will lose disproportionately if the right wins on its full agenda, which involves a big rollback of New Deal and Great Society programs. (I'll explain in a future column how Republicans are using the prescription drug bill to lay the groundwork for later Medicare cuts.)

Mr. Dean wasn't suggesting that his party adopt the G.O.P. strategy of coded racial signals, and by and large African-Americans - my wife included - understand that. What he meant by his flag remark was that Democrats must make the case to working Americans of all colors that the right's elitist agenda isn't in their interest. And he's right.


http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/07/opinion/07KRUG.html?ex=1069208084&ei=1&en=d0e92d428b0c77e0
I agree. c.i.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Nov, 2003 12:15 pm
I don't. Then again, I mostly disagree with Krugman. Have for decades. Its comforting that there are still some things you can count on.
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Nov, 2003 12:50 pm
Krugman's assumption that people voted locally based on national politics is stretching things a bit. Who any of us vote for in state elections has little if any effect on national politics and vice-versa unless the voter is a complete moron and votes the party line instead of paying attention to issues.

Musgrove lost in Missippi because the state is in terrible financial status and he's been feuding with the state legislature there for the last few years to the point of vetoing state budgets and then having the legislature over-ride him. He's had no control over anything in the state and he's demonstrated no leadership ability.

Of course Krugman would prefer to believe that it's all those big bad racist Rebublicans that's to blame for Musgrove being ousted. Admitting that Musgrove led to is own downfall wouldn't have drawn many readers now would it???
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Nov, 2003 01:04 pm
An Editorial from todays Washinton Post:

Quote:

Dr. Dean's Diagnosis
Friday, November 7, 2003; Page A30

IT'S BEEN A WHILE since Howard Dean practiced medicine, but the Democratic presidential candidate did a good job of self-diagnosis the other day in the aftermath of the flare-up over his remarks on the Confederate flag. "You know how I am, if somebody comes at me, my tendency is to go right back at them and worry about it later," the former Vermont governor told reporters. In an interview with the New York Times, Mr. Dean elaborated on this theme: "I tend to be reflective rather later than sooner," he said. "Now, unfortunately, we all know that nobody's personality is perfect. So the things that make me a strong candidate are also my Achilles' heel."

Mr. Dean's mythological reference may have been particularly apt: Achilles was a heroic warrior, the Greeks' best hope to take Troy, but he could also be arrogant, obstinate and short-tempered. And so, as Mr. Dean himself recognizes, the very characteristics that appeal to many Democratic voters -- his confrontational, even angry attitude -- could also be his downfall. That, and not bogus suggestions that he is a racist, is the real concern raised by Mr. Dean's flag remarks and their aftermath.

Mr. Dean's rivals went after him for saying he wants to be "the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks." This wasn't racist, but it was doubly insensitive: first, to African Americans and others for whom, as Mr. Dean himself put it, the Confederate flag is a "loathsome signal"; second, to the white Southerners Mr. Dean was stereotyping. Mr. Dean would have done himself a service if he had recognized that earlier, and gracefully -- not after he found himself in a self-described "jam."

But Mr. Dean, as he acknowledges, has a tendency to pop off in ways that he regrets, as well as a hard time backing down in the face of criticism -- troubling attributes in a presidential candidate or a president. Questions about his personality have been a simmering but persistent theme through the campaign. He's quick to criticize, reluctant to say he's sorry. Mr. Dean apologized to Sen. John Edwards (N.C.) for incorrectly accusing him of fudging his stance on the war in Iraq. "The only time I've had to apologize, just for the record," Mr. Dean pointed out to ABC's George Stephanopoulos -- and he refused to back off his equally incorrect claim to be the only candidate to speak about race to white audiences.

He gets testy over the words of others, but can be loose with his own. Mr. Dean said he regretted saying that Sen. Bob Graham (Fla.) wasn't in the top tier of candidates, then mystifyingly took issue with those who said he had apologized. When Mr. Stephanopoulos asked about his past strong support of the North American Free Trade Agreement, Mr. Dean pounced, demanding, "Where do you get this 'I'm a strong supporter of NAFTA'?" -- though in fact he had described himself as "a very strong supporter of NAFTA" on that same network eight years earlier. And there is an edge, in his remarks, not just of anger but of condescension. He recently likened members of Congress to insects, saying that they are "going to be scurrying for shelter, just like a giant flashlight on a bunch of cockroaches" after he is elected.

Like Achilles, Mr. Dean knows he has a vulnerability. Whether he will be more successful in avoiding its consequences remains to be seen.



Personally, I think they over-state dean's vulnerability but I would agree that it is there. He may very well end up being his own worst enemy as the race continues.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Nov, 2003 01:07 pm
Now, here's someone who writes something with which I do agree:

In [url=http://www.msnbc.com/news/990099.asp?0cl=c1][b][i][u]Newsweek[/u][/i][/b][/url], Howard Fineman wrote:
Last spring, Dean pledged to accept public financing, and said he'd make an issue of it if any of his rivals (Kerry is the only other likely possibility) opted out. "I think most Democrats believe in campaign finance reform", he said.
But not, as it turns out, Howard Dean.


Apart from the "Lets-keep-turning-left", agenda-blindered Democratic Party activists, lots of folks may be expected to take notice of Dean's cynicism too. Right now, I think its a toss-up between Dean and McAulife for the Republican MVP award.
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Nov, 2003 01:30 pm
From MoveOn:

Quote:
In June, twenty thousand MoveOn members interviewed each other by phone to help us explore the values underlying our work together. One striking theme emerged: the deep concern Americans have with the Bush administration's attacks on our cherished liberties, in the name of security. Since June, we've been looking for a powerful way to respond to this clear mandate, and when former Vice President Gore asked us to co-host a policy address on Freedom and Security, we jumped at the chance.

You are invited to view this important speech on Sunday, November 9 at 2pm EASTERN by web cast, or on Link TV. In Washington DC, this event will be attended by local MoveOn members and by members of our partner in this effort, the American Constitution Society. Unfortunately, all seats for the event are filled. But we encourage you to tune in this Sunday, at 2pm Eastern, by going to:

http://www.moveon.org/gore/webcast.html

The program will be broadcast live on Link TV, the national television network available on DIRECTV (channel 375) and DISH Network (channel 9410). C-SPAN will likely broadcast the speech as well, as long as another news event doesn't supercede the speech on Sunday.

In this, his third major speech on the Administration's response to terrorism, Mr. Gore will describe the Administration's assault on our civil liberties as un-American and will charge that the Bush/Ashcroft attack on the Constitution is actually a smokescreen that obscures the Administration's fundamental failure to meaningfully protect our national security, and that their efforts have weakened rather than strengthened America.

In August, Mr. Gore delivered a speech sponsored by MoveOn that opened a space for other leaders to speak out against the Bush Administration's deliberate use of false impressions to mislead the nation on war, taxes, the economy and the environment. That speech did nothing less than shift the terms of the national debate, and we expect this speech to have as big an impact.

Again, here are the details:

Al Gore Speaks on Freedom and Security
Sunday, November 9, 2:00 pm Eastern
Webcast: http://www.moveon.org/gore/webcast.html
Broadcast: Link TV and possibly C-SPAN
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Nov, 2003 02:13 pm
timberlandko wrote:
I don't. Then again, I mostly disagree with Krugman. Have for decades. Its comforting that there are still some things you can count on.

Yeah, he's like a friggin' Timex, but in reverse. You can't beat sense out of the man.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Nov, 2003 03:04 pm
LOL, Tart Laughing
Bleating in a widely unnoticed press release, wingnut fringe group MoveOn wrote:
In August, Mr. Gore delivered a speech sponsored by MoveOn that opened a space for other leaders to speak out against the Bush Administration's deliberate use of false impressions to mislead the nation on war, taxes, the economy and the environment. That speech did nothing less than shift the terms of the national debate, and we expect this speech to have as big an impact

So, apart from having invented The Internet, Gore is now credited with being the architect for the Democrat Campaign to Regain Relevance?
A webcast, satellite TV coverage on a channel most subscribers don't even know they get, and C-Span but only if nothing else is going on isn't exactly a Bully Pulpit, particularly given that on TV it will be up against NFL, Nascar, and Golf late-season sure-draws. Hell, I'll bet the co-timed Miami Book Fair on C-Span2 will pull higher ratings than the Gore non-event. Pandering to an already devoted niche market is not the stuff of substantive political discourse.
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Nov, 2003 03:42 pm
Timber - Every far-left liberal is being asked to watch with at least 3 cardboard cutouts of other people in the room (templates available for download from the DNC website) so as to enhance the illusion that these people represent a powerful constituency. Very Happy
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Nov, 2003 03:51 pm
Quote:
http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/javascript/channelnav/images/news.gif
Five Candidates Withdrawing From D.C. Primary


News > Metro

By Craig Timberg
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, November 7, 2003; 4:02 PM


Four of the nine Democratic presidential candidates have formally withdrawn from the Jan. 13 D.C. primary, and a fifth is also bowing out, undercutting the city's bid to influence the nomination process and highlight its lack of congressional voting rights.

Removing their names from the ballot were Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.), Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.), Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) and Rep. Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.). All four had letters hand-delivered to the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics late Thursday afternoon withdrawing.
More[/u][/i]


Dean stays in, despite McAuliffe's wishes. For Dean, probably a smart move. For Sharpton, a clear win, for Mosely-Braun probably the high-point of her political career, for Kucinich, who cares. For the dropouts, probably a move which will not play well to Blacks on a national basis.

Oh, and another Entertainment Update: The Dems have cancelled Monday's already once-rescheduled debate, the topic of which was to have been Jobs and The Economy.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 07/12/2025 at 02:57:35