2004 Elections: Democratic Party Contenders

As the field of Democratic hopefuls continues to get more crowded, the number saying they would vote for a Democratic candidate in the 2004 presidential election is increasing...

Support to re-elect President Bush has dipped slightly in the last year, but much of the shift has been from "undecided" to an unnamed Democratic challenger. When asked how they would vote if the 2004 presidential election were held today, a plurality says they would vote to re-elect Bush (42 percent) and almost as many (38 percent) say they would vote for the Democrat, up from 21 percent who said they would support the Democratic candidate in January 2002...

Gallup Poll

PDid, Too early for polls to determine the 2004 elections, but thanks for sharing. c.i.

As I posted elsewhere, Bush has already accumulated $250,000,000 purse for the 2004 campaign.

From the New Republic on Howard Dean and Iowa....

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030310&s=lizza031003

Interesting crowded field. Right now it looks like the republicans are concentrating on anti-Edwards, but I'm not so sure about him. Graham has just started - and Florida would be an interesting state for the democrats to take hold. And he's well respected.

Secretly, I still look to Gary Hart - same craggy look that says America; mid-west, don't think his early romantic interludes would be such a hurdle, and his teaming with Warren Rudman has given him a lot of credibility.

And when you come down to it - George Bush is the only candidate the republicans have. They can't run anyone else. And he's got everything riding on his war. Tonight, for the first time, I heard some of the army discussing the odds, and the estimate of causalties on our side alone is maybe 30%. I don't recall if this was on PBS or somewhere else, but it's the first time I heard an in-depth discussion of training and probable casualties. And the prediction that house-to-house fighting would be hard. And damn all have jumped on our bandwagon.

Now, it will depend on if the democrats hang together, if they sound leader-like, if they can really sound anti-Saddam Hussein but against a war, if they can present the economic picture in plain talk, stressing the two million and growing job loss.....

Mj,
Enjoyed the article...well done. Also, appreciated your posting.

Thanks for this posting. I've liked Dean for six months or so, since seeing him stand up well to Russert on Meet the Press. I'd prefer Kerry as my candidate though, Dean a close second, Edwards a distant third. The thought of what the republicans would do with a Gary Hart candidacy is frightening. I don't think he'd have a chance against Bush. No disrespect, mamajuana, I like the guy too and think he would be a very good president.

If only because Florida remains every bit the linchpin of presidential politics that it was in 2000, one Democratic contender stands out in the crowded field: Bob Graham. After all, he was the popular two-term governor of the nation's fourth most populous state. He has been in the United States Senate for 16 years and knows education, health and tax policy cold.

He is a bona fide Southerner, a rancher and builder, in a party whose last three successful nominees have come from the old Confederacy. He has an extensive fund-raising network that could slow other candidates in one of the richest states. As chairman of the Senate intelligence committee and co-chairman of the joint Congressional inquiry into the Sept. 11 attacks, he had firsthand knowledge of the most alarming threats to national security.

He was scrappy enough to oppose President Bush's first $1.3 trillion tax cut on the ground that it would run up the deficit, and the Congressional resolution authorizing use of force in Iraq on the ground that it would distract from the global campaign against terrorism. He once even spat on a future publisher of The Washington Post (though he was 3 years old at the time and the publisher-to-be was Katharine Graham, who would become his half-sister-in-law).

New York Times

First, do you have a source for this number? Too many "facts" get tossed around here that turn out to be complete garbage. Second, I take it that you think that's a bad thing. Why? And third, are you equally uncomfortable with the huge sums of money Democrats raise, or is it only bad in your view when the people support Republican candidates?

Obviously, I'd like to see only the Democrats have any money and power, Tres. Unfortunately, the Republicans (and notably Bush) get huge amounts of lucre from somewhat filthy places! Facts do indeed get tossed. You've got a splendidly strong throw yourself, when it comes to facts! This one I heard in a discussion on NPR and, in the original post, I think I presented it as an "I heard" rather than "God told me"!

I understand wanting verification of the numbers, but where do you get all the rest of this from, about Tartarin not liking it, etc.?

Can you define "filthy places" for me and provide any specific examples that you believe are unlawful? I'm guessing that what you are describing is likely both legal and done equally by Democrats, but I could be wrong, so I would welcome a little better definition of what you are writing of than "filthy places".

As to your questioning such facts as I have "thrown" (???) around these parts, if you would like to offer me a single item I have offered as fact without offering a citation or source to back it up ANYWHERE in any discussion I'll be more than happy to either find you a source or retract the statement. Beyond that I would thank you to refrain from making sweeping and unsupported accusations as to how I handle myself here. You may not care for my opinions, but I am not one to go around making statements of purported fact that I am unwilling to support.

And thanks for letting me know that the number you quoted is just something you heard on NPR. (I missed that.) I think it's important to be clear about such things here. (Of course, that does not mean it might not be true, just that we don't currently know it to be so.)

A completely valid question. Let me look back at his comments in context and see whether I think I had reason to reach that conclusion or just jumped because of my own bias... (looking...)

Okay, here's what Tartarin shared in another discussion...

Now, first, you'll note he does not tell us where he got the information, hence my request for same. Second, I took what he wrote as an indication that he thinks it is bad that Bush has such a strong backing for his campaign.

So I guess I brought my conception of his point of view over from the other discussion where he first shared this information, though as it stands in this discussion your question is valid. It does look like I'm inferring a lot here. I tend to think I'm not, and Tartarin's response does seem to bear my reading out.

Lastly, it seems both Tartarin and you read something contentious into my response to him. Nothing like that was intended. I asked questions I thought appropriate given the issues I felt had been raised. I wondered why it seems that he thinks it is bad if Bush has garnered a lot of support for his reelection. I wondered whether he thought large sums of money raised by any candidate were a bad thing, or just didn't like that Bush has (if this is true) such a large war chest. I considered these pertinent, valuable questions to ask, and while I didn't waste a lot of time worrying about whether they sounded friendly enough, I assume we're all big boys and girls and come here to share our opinions and answer questions when those opinions are probed.

But again, Snood, I do think your question is completely valid as asked, and I'm glad you challenged me to check my actions here. I could have worded my questions better, but very often I haven't the time to do more than read, respond, and run. I hope that everyone here tends to assume we all have an interest in discussion, not in sniping or fighting, and will respond with courtesy even if the other person hasn't earned it.

TW, you were on the rational response track until the last sentence
Snood, I hope you can accept his response.

Anymore news about the candidates? Watching the situation in which President Bush finds himself, I am swaying towards individuals who have had experience at the federal level. Also, I realize how much we need people who feel secure within themselves. I can't imagine myself bucking Rumsfeld, Chaney and the crowd. (spelling)

Mapleleaf - I tend to go along with you on federal experience - making that Congressional and/or gubernatorial, but with some years behind them. For me, Edwards, Frist, some others just don't have the seasoning.

Gephardt, you notice, is using that very argument I've never understood that thing about being ouside the beltway (paticularly ludicrous when tried by Bob Dole). Me, I'll take a seasoned politician, warts and all, who knows how things get done and where bodies are buried. With flexibility.

I think the big thing happening here is the knowledge that Bush is beatable. Few republicans like to admit to the probablity, but it's there.

Re Gary Hart - well, everybody has some dark horse. I find today I admire him, and am just beginning to appreciate the intelligence and grasp that's there. Plus which, at this point, who does he owe? I doubt he'd be a candidate, but I do like him.

Perhaps you misunderstand me then. While I am surely not perfect, I try to be civil in these discussions even with those who are not civil towards me, and I hope that those who infer a lack of civility in anything I write--whether it is actually there or is not--will afford me the same courtesy.

My point is that we all have our moments, and that if at a moment when I lose my cool and fail to be civil the person responding chooses to ignore my less than courteous tone and rise above we all benefit.

"...Lastly, it seems both Tartarin and you read something contentious into my response to him. "


"While I am surely not perfect, I try to be civil in these discussions even with those who are not civil towards me"


...good thing you don't take yourself too seriously, or anything...

TW, point made.

MJ, I tend to agree with you. Next for me, FORCE OF PERSONALITY AND/OR WILL. Does anyone have any stories, behind the scenes type, which shred light on this factor. I believe we have to distinguish between oratory and the ability to make the machinery run. EG. The mayor of New York (during 9/11 event) was in control. Things got done. The community spirit soared.

Also, PERSONAL HABITS OR ADMINISTRATIVE STYLE which might work in a small state or office but not in the Federal situation. EG. Jimmy Carter tried to run the details of Federal government from his desk...didn't work like it did/didn't in Georgia.

FULL ARTICLE

Tres, I always feel I'm repeating my sources -- perhaps not enough? When I say "I hear," you can bet it's an NPR discussion or report which I've already cited in this or another thread we all participate in, and I almost always say so. I always try to give sources, sometimes to the point of pedantry. Sometimes I listen to a local right wing talk show. I usually cite that clearly and with particular pleasure -- to make a distinction and/or because lately they have swung away dramatically from Bush and this fascinates me. Don't have TV. Read NYTimes daily and get all kinds of periodicals, but these are weeklies or monthies, so not particularly fresh and startling by the time they hit my post office box.

Whichever party is piling up the lucre in such amounts as to imply extortion, that's the one I like the least. So far, as everyone has noticed, the biggest case of naked, shameless, unlimited fundraising is that of the Republicans. The Dems aren't goody goodies, but they are significantly less tarnished, in my view, than the Republicans who depend to an embarrassing extent (in Congress and the Executive) on large, greedy corporations who know they're going to get a payback. These contributors aren't "donating" because they're in love with an idealogue but because they're looking for a return. So presidential campaigns are now about who's the most bribed, who owes the most returns. That's filthy enough for me -- how 'bout you?

A suggestion, Tres. Perhaps if you came back at someone with whom you disagree with fresh info and a source you've found, I'd say, Whew, that guy's got a point! But you seem to take issue and respond contentiously (yes) instead of responding with original input. If I say I've heard Bush has $250M setting him up for the next election and you think this is way off, come back with a figure you've heard, a figure you feel is more accurate, along with a source (if possible). Then let's both pursue the question, see what we can find, okay? Seems friendlier and more productive to me, anyway.

So, Mamajuana, I think Bush is beatable (to a pulp!) in a democratic process, for sure. But I think this is no longer a democratic process. Rather, it's a sale to the highest bidder(s). Peace and justice do not make these bidders money. War and imperialism do, n'est-ce pas?

Meanwhile, has anyone else heard Warren Buffett's very, very, very gloomy prognostications?

Wouldn't you guys pay good money to see a head to head debate between Bush and Dean? Especially if there was some way to assure the questions were unknown, so that the exchanges had to be impromptu?