2004 Elections: Democratic Party Contenders

Re: Dean/Edwards

If you think NC is one of those states, you've got another think coming.

i know it' s kinda sad but i honestly think clark has the best shot at beating bush. not because he's experienced or has views i agree with or anything.

just because he comes off looking presidential. he looks tough and determined, like a leader. plus he is a military man and thus can steal a lot of conservative votes.

and i honestly think that most americans don't really have a clue what each candidate even stands for. they just vote for whoever looks and sounds like a good leader.

Democrats are totally tuned in to the often discordant music of the various single issue interest groups that dominate the party. They are, as a result, deaf to general drift of the population at large. The only unifying idea they have is their antagonism to Bush and the various imaginary bogeymen of the right. They are well on their way to locking in the least electable (except perhaps for Braun, Kucinich, and Sharpton) of their candidates, and are headed for a very big loss in next year's election.

How much you wanna bet, Georgie? Or would you prefer quiet humiliation?

Tart,

Name your bet. I'm game.

First you gotta define "very big loss" ;-)

I think I'll go for humiliation, George, because if your guys win, none of us will be able to afford to pay off bets.

Are voters really that shallow?
Do they ignore issues and just vote for whomever appears the most "Presidential'?

Really ?? But the economy is in a pronounced upswing. Things are looking pretty good. Bush will win, but I won't attempt any humiliation - just not that kind of guy.

Sure you're not george........we all believe you, don't we gang? Economic figures are up........you bet they are. and they're all engineered....phooey

Re: Are voters really that shallow?

Unfortunately, there's a helluva lot more of that than anuyone who actually looks at issues is likely to be aware of.

Lola,

Just once or twice I have seen just a sliver of warmth and humor slip through Tartarin's hard facade, but I haven't given up on her. While I might want to slap her around a bit, I would not care to see her humiliated.

Phooey yourself babe! The stock market is up, consumer spending is up, GDP grew at an annual rate of 6% last quarter, and corporate spending and investment is starting to pick up (I can see that in my business). -

george,

But what about unemployment? Those figures are engineered.......I'll believe it when I see it. Actually, I stand to profit big if the economy truly improves. But, I'm not banking on it........I think there's a good chance we'll all suffer from the engineering that's going on now with the figures, all to make Bush look good just long enough to get re-elected (heaven forbid.) I guess we'll all soon see....

And I know you're not the humiliating type. Of course you're not. You were raised by Democrats and they taught you right. I was just teasing you. Hope you weren't offended.

I'm afraid I have to agree with this. Most people don't have the time or energy to truly understand the issues and make up their minds properly. And so they just make decisions as if it were a soap opera or something.

Lola,

The normal sequence of events in a recovery is for business profits to rise which kicks up the stock market. That is followed by increased consumer spending and increased business investment to meet demand. When all that is in place employment starts to rise. That is exactly what is happening now. The fact is that unemployment in the U.S. is quite low by both our historical standards and in comparison to that of other countries today.

What figures have been "engineered" in your view? Both the Federal Reserve and most reputable independent analysts have expressed the same view about the economy.

You should plan on good things for yourself.

george, If you can find articles by these same financial pundits and what they were saying in 2001 for 2002, you'll understand that their prognostications are only their "best guess." In early 2002, they were saying the economy would improve by the third quarter. Then in late 2002, they were saying that the economy would improve by the second quarter of 2003. We are now in the last quater of 2003, and the pundits are now saying that the eocnomy will show improvement in the first quarter of 2004. Yes, as a matter of fact, the economy is improving, but not by the rates they were predicting. The 8 percent economic growth sounds awfully impressive, but I still see many professionals without jobs and struggling to make ends meet. We need to see that 8 percent growth every quarter for more than one quarter - preferably for 36 quarters, then maybe we have something to smile about.

Cicerone,

36 quarters, 9 years - that would be a record boom. It will be a long time before the peninsula & silicone valley recover from the IT/dot comm bubble. Meanwhile much IT work has been exported to India where skilled programmers cost a good deal less, and the government has invested heavily in education (for some). Other parts of the country are doing much better right now.

Do keep an eye on interest rates and what they do to dampen the spending of consumers and industries. I think this chicken will roost in a matter of months.

There is something else, somewhat tangential: In March a whole section of the country will be seeing a change in what they're paying for their prescriptions. A couple of months later it will sink in that the bill passed yesterday is full of yes-buts. Those yes-buts will be at the top of their minds by mid-summer. Yesterday the NYTimes published a relatively easy-to-read analysis of what some may gain and it ain't much.

And then, quite apart from the ongoing screw-up in Iraq, Afghanistan is being scrutinized -- I see Hillary is spending part of Thanksgiving there.

I doubt the rest of the world will remain mute and polite in order to let Bush be re-elected. There will be diplomatic problems, impediments.

And then there's Iraq...

I have previously mentioned a truly wonderful bit of dialogue from Sorkin in one West Wing episode. The context was an important election lost by the Democrats. One of the White House staff was bemoaning this unexpected negative turn of events, and another, the charcter who plays the head speechwriter, responded, "Democracy means that sometimes the bad guys win."

I do believe that there are people now within the power structure of the RNC who TRULY intend that democrats never again gain the White House. By 'truly', I mean this mindset is not merely that of, say, a baseball coach doing whatever he can to have his team win, but rather that the traditional 'liberalism' of the Democrats is deeply unAmerican and treasonous. For some, even Satanic. This isn't Buckley conservatism, this is something else.

george will say, "bernie, you and other leftists do the same thing...look at how you talk about Bush and the evangelicals!!".

But it is not that I wish the demise of the Republican party or the loss of its viewpoint...it is that I think this present variant is ahistorical and reflects a deep and dangerous pathology.

Vide Frist yesterday, toying with a football as he spoke about his party's "wins" -- showing a graphic with little footballs measuring their success in getting bills passed. As I keep saying, These are not grownups.

Actually, they are Midwych Cuckoos and I'll now go to Google and see if I can back that up...!