2004 Elections: Democratic Party Contenders

I don't assign any broad national relvance to th Louisiana Gubernatorial contest; its one of 4 such races this year, 3 of which went to Republicans, and whichever way the Louisians race goes, its sure to be close, establishing no mandate for its winner. If the Democrats hang on there and win, the fact remains that Republicans are in more Governor's Mansions than are Democrats, and control more state legislatures. I agree with the MSNBC-quoted observation that " ... what we're really seeing here is change", and I agree neither party "Dominates". All I posit is that there has been a Republican tilt, and that Republican sentiment appears to have both depth and momentum.

A look at PollingReport.Com shows Bush may be gaining strength, or at the very least is not weakening, while the Democrats cannot draw the same comfort.

The latest CBS News poll. sampled Nov 10 through 13, offers a mixed view:

One sample group of 501 respondants say they would "Probably vote for" a generic Democrat 43% to 41% who say they would "Probably vote for Bush", while in a second sampling, run at the same time and asking the same question, 30% of 501 asked said they would "Probably vote for" Bush over 24% who would choose the generic Democrat.

The Gallup head-to-head Bush vs each of the named Democratic candidates, run Nov 10-12, shows Clark the strongest competitor, with 47% to Bush's 53%, and, when compared to the previous same survey, Bush has climbed from 46% while Clark has dropped from 49%, a pro-Bush swing. Dean scores 44% to Bush's 53%, and again, Bush has gained 4 points compared to the previous poll while Dean has lost 2 points. Gephardt is steady at 46%, while Bush has picked up 4 points to 52%. Against Kerry, Bush is shown to have made a 5 point gain and now is at 52%, While Kerry has dipped from 48% to 46%.

The most recent Wall Street Journal poll shows Bush with a double-digit lead over any of the announced Democratic hopefuls.

Whatever The Nine are doing relative to one another, none of them is gaining on Bush.

and Nixon won TWICE and Spiro could have been President. Ain't politics fun?

I think polls are more fun. They're not predictable 100 percent of the time. You say "x" while I say "y."

With all precincts reporting, Blanco has defeated Jindal 52% to 48%. The Republicans lost one, and must content themselves with only 3 out of 4 possible gubernatorial wins this year. Worth noting however, is that according to figures from The Louisiana Secretary of State, current as of Nov 9 '03, Louisiana's registered voters are 56.8% Democrat, while Republicans split the remainder with "Other" at 21.6% each. Blanco's vote total equals barely a third of the state's registered Democrats, while Jindal's count is greater than the total of all registered Republicans. Given those statistics, Blanco's 52-48 win is seen in a somewhat different, and not particularly "Democrat Freindly", light.

Since nimh has already most eloquently pointed out the latest dichotomies in your posts, let me leave it at this:

It is a source of tremendous amusement that you continue to even make predictions, given your track record. Jean Dixon has a higher batting average.

I wish I was your bookie. :wink:

If we want to continue discussing the LA race in this thread, why don't address a question such as:

WTF happened to Jindal? He collapsed like a souffle'. This was supposed to be the new face of the Southern Republicans, to try to make Dems and Indies forget about the old faces (Haley Barbour and Ernie Fletcher).

Here's my prediction: Bush can't count on Louisiana next November.

Seein' as how it's Sunday and all, shall we bow our heads in prayer?


Bush is my shepherd, I am in want.

He maketh me to lie down on park benches.

He leadeth me besideth the still factories.

He restoreth my doubt in the Republican party.

He leadeth me in the party of destitution for his party's sake.

I fear evil for thou art with me.

The politicians and the profiteers they frighten me.

Thou preparest a reduction in my salary before me in the presence of mine enemies.

Thou anointest my income with State tax increases;

My expenses runneth over.

Surely unemployment and poverty will follow me all the days of the Republican administration and I will dwell in a mortgaged house forever.

PD

I think timber is on to one critical point...who's bothering to come out and vote.

As you know, the right is supported by huge money, marketed by a machine which has perhaps no scruples, and forcefully driven in much of what it believes and does by a notion of an over-arching celestial battle between the forces of good and evil.

Free-wheeling, 'live and let live' democrats are, I think, going to have to get scared, angry and very organized to win.

Something advantageous may come down the pike (increasing realization of quagmire, or further economic horrors) but the converse could be true as well. Or more likely, the converse successfully marketed as being real to a populace too trusting or too apathetic. Sorry for the downer.

suzette

See! That is very funny.

blatham

At least we think it is. :wink:

I think Suzette has broken a large number of the commandments and will suffer the slings and arrows of rightous indignation (Cheney shall annoint her head with oil from the Alaskan Nature Refuge) and she will live in the house of the dis-infranchised voter forever and ever. Amen. Oh, and pass the bisquits over here, honey.

Well, I have done a heap o' coveting in my time.

Honey, please have another bisquit. :wink:

No apologies necessary, bern.

I don't always disagree with the Big Bird (and certainly don't give him enough credit when I don't).

Hell, I thought Jindal was gonna stroll to the the gov'nuh's mansion in Red Stick.

And timber's stats above about registered voters in the Bayou State was a surprise to me also, given recent trends.

(Vanity sidebar: The LA Secretary of State nimh quotes and whose office compiles those statistics is an old family friend. Fox's dad John was the first LA governor in the century just past to be elected to serve consecutive terms; Governor 'Bud' gave the eulogy at my great uncle's funeral.)

Back to topic: the 2004 election is going to turn on the economy first and the war a distant second.

People always vote their pocketbooks. Always.

Deans' popularity, and the momentum he has built from it from through efficient organizing and fund-raising, is due to his taking Bush head-on as well as the fact that he has no track record of assisting Bush in going to war. That helps in the early going and hurts in the stretch. "Soft on defense" is a lie the Republicans have tarred the Democrats with going back to Reagan, despite that GOP politicians have always found ways to escape serving. That battle stance serves them well in the South.

The election this cycle IMHO turns not on the undecideds but on the mobilization of each party's base--in the case of the Repubs, that's the most evangelical and fundamentalist Republicans you know or can imagine. They will paint Dean as a gay-marriage-approving, pull-out-of-Iraq'n, abortion-supporting librul. (What's new?) As several right-wingers here have already testified, they like this scenario.

If Dean is not the nominee, then General Clark will be-- a candidate who ignites less passion than Dean among the plugged-in Dems who vote in the primaries but is considerably the strongest general election prospect.

It'll still be the economy, stoopid.

I heard the word "Iraqniphobia" this morning for the first time and think it codifies the extent to which Bush will be up against his Iraq mess for the foreseeable future.

Louisiana's 60/40 vote was not expected and may show the "Dean machine" is purring along.

David Brooks had a go at Dean in yesterday's NYTimes op-ed pages, casting Dean as a spoiler. His arguments are old and decreasingly persuasive.

_______________

Harper's [latest] Index has some interesting stats:

Chance that a civilian federal worker is employed by the Department of Homeland Security: 1 in 12

Number of new government jobs created since 2000: 721,000 [yeah, right, Republicans want smaller government]

Number of private sector jobs lost since then: 2,692,000 [and with any luck, most of them are voters]

Date on which Arnold Schwarzenegger met with Enron CEO Kenneth Lay to discuss California's energy policy: 5/17/01

Percentage change between 2001 and 2002 in GI Joe sales: +46 [and you thought some Republicans were grown-ups]

Average number of US soldiers wounded in Iraq each day since the invasion began: 9.2

Average number killed: 1.6

Percentage of Iraq's urban areas with access to potable water a year ago and today, respectively: 92, 60

Percentage change since last year in the number of US millionaires: -3

Percentage change since 2001 in the number of US families in poverty: +6

"huge money"? How would you describe George Soros and 'Move On'?? Indeed the top twenty or so individual political contributors are generally Democrats. Republicans have a very large base of contributors in the middle that does net a lot for them.

"Live and let live Democrats" !!! My strong impression, both from history and recent politics, is that the left is much farther from libertarianism than the right. Most political solutions offered by the left (and Democrats), whether on environmental, social, or economic matters involve much higher degrees of government coercion, redistribution of property and control than the right (or even today's Republicans). If it suits your fantasies to visualize the left as "free wheeling and live and let live" it is OK with me, but don't put it forward as anything resembling the truth.

Wasnt it 52/48? And whats "impossible to distinguish her platform from Jindal's" Blanco to do with Howard Dean?

Concerning Iraq - big news last week, I think, was the announcement that Bush wants to transfer formal government authority to the Iraqi council by June next year. That - though good news for Iraq - makes life more difficult for the Dems, doesnt it? Not that the casualties will stop falling pr the bombs will stop exploding, but they would have lost their underlying "no exit strategy" argument. I think Americans would be more likely to accept casualties if they feel the end of their government's involvement is near ...

NIMH -- I'm quoting what I heard in the news this morning (and in commentaries. It wasn't exactly 60/40, they said, but close. Maybe that's been updated -- haven't a clue.

Doyle McManus said this morning that the mess in Iraq will not be over in time for the election, that it's bound to get worse. This guy is usually a centrist type. You may have seen that although the understanding is that the Council can ask American troops to leave if they want, Rumsfeld has already come out and said, in effect, That ain't gonna happen.

Also, it looks as though the casualty figure (which has been rising fairly dramatically during the past weeks) has reached the ceiling of tolerance. I doubt that if, 11 months from now, there are still casualties, it will help the status quo.

George, the Republicans are dab masters at using "coercion." Vide the Patriot Act, the invasion of Iraq, the spending down of the surplus, the use of tax cuts -- all of which have caused sudden and unpleasant changes for the majority of Americans (not to mention the rest of the world). I don't think the Dems are even in their league when it comes to "coercion."

I believe Nimh's observations above are correct. In addition Tartarins imaginative "Its still the economy stupid" mantra is likely (to the extent it is true) to benefit the Republicans: we are on an expansionary cycle now, profits are up, the stock market is up, consumer spending and (more importantly) business investment is up. Employment will soon rise with gathering momentum.

Democrat opposition to the tax cuts and obsession with deficits will look less and less defensible as GDP, investment, employment and tax revenues begin to rise.

Yes Tart, those coercive Republicans forcibly took those tax cuts right out of the hands of those government bureaucrats, who, of course are only thinking of (and for) us.

George -- Stop with the cliches! Lose Limbaugh! Think for yourself!

As much as I want to see George Bush II defeated, I'm with George on both accounts. The Kennedys, Sulzbergers and Soroi are just as "huge money" as the supporters of the Republicans. Moreover, I fail to see how the previous three Democratic presidents -- Clinton, Carter and Johnson --were any more freewheeling than the previous three Republicans -- Bush I, Reagan, and Ford.

Bush II is a departure from any tradition, Democratic or Republican. And it is worth noting that three of Bush's four most shameful pieces of legislation -- Iraq, the PATRIOT act, and the steel tariffs -- passed with the Democrats consent.