2004 Elections: Democratic Party Contenders

This election is about everything we stand for, from national security to domestic security to the economy to health care to civil liberties to women's rights to the environment. It's about two competing views of American life. And more, it's about America itself, and how we define it and what we want it to be.

I see value in each of the Democratic candidates, but I volunteered for John Kerry because I believe he has the singular qualities and experience to harmonize tomorrow's America with the time-tested principles that have always defined it. Choosing a candidate isn't a scientific process, but considering what's at stake, it's imperative that we take a hard look at the facts. We won't have a second chance to get this right, and we have to judge the totality of the individual, not the buzzwords, the polls, and the easy-to-digest storylines written by inside-the-Beltway analysts.

The backdrop for this election season is America's deeply polarized socio-political environment. The chasm between left and right, between progressives and conservatives, between moderates and extremists, gets wider and uglier by the day, and the natural dialectic that anchors a healthy democracy has been replaced with barbed soundbites and push-button catch phrases. The deterioration of our national discourse poses an insidious danger: the signal hallmark of American life is the right to speak up and speak freely, and freedom of expression withers in an atmosphere of name-calling and intolerance.

...Taking sides and parroting the pundits has become a substitute for reasoned debate and common sense solutions. George W. Bush is a touchstone for this growing polarization, and our shared responsibility is to nominate a presidential candidate who can reverse the divisive -and destructive - course our nation has taken.

John Kerry is a sincere and principled man, but knowing that is not enough to make a decision in an election this pivotal. There are a number of character traits that any Dem candidate must display in order to best represent the core values of the party, rewrite the language of division that splits American from American, establish civility in our political discourse, and provide a sense of comfort and security to an angry and frightened nation: Dedication, Insight, Leadership, Strength, Flexibility, Knowledge, Experience, Bravery, Wisdom and Balance.

The Disapproval polling results for Bush are concentrated overwhelmingly among those identifying themselves as Democrats.

broad-based support, something Bush seems to be maintaining, even if not vigorously increasing.

Overall, The Republican Party is showing much more solidarity than is The Democratic Party, and has done so for a couple of years now, at least.

If turnout in Iowa, regardless of outcome, is less than absolutely astounding, The Democrats nationally may have considerable cause for alarm.

If turnout in Iowa, regardless of outcome, is less than absolutely astounding, The Democrats nationally may have considerable cause for alarm.

One thing is certain; the surest way apart from armed intervention to limit the growth of an entity is to tax it.

That means, however, that what ican was suggesting here yesterday - basically, that the disapproval rates should not be considered automatically as potential support for the Democrats because conservatives are disapproving, too, but would never vote Democrat - is wrong. When the poll has 50% disapproving, those are almost all Democrats and Independents - all fertile ground for campaigning. Whereas the 45% approval rate for Bush includes about a quarter of the Democrats, most of whom are not very likely to actually vote Bush (unless Dean actually wins and then scares them off).

nimh wrote:

That means, however, that what ican was suggesting here yesterday - basically, that the disapproval rates should not be considered automatically as potential support for the Democrats because conservatives are disapproving, too, but would never vote Democrat - is wrong. When the poll has 50% disapproving, those are almost all Democrats and Independents - all fertile ground for campaigning. Whereas the 45% approval rate for Bush includes about a quarter of the Democrats, most of whom are not very likely to actually vote Bush (unless Dean actually wins and then scares them off).

I am actually suggesting that those currently disapproving of Bush include a large group of Republicans. I am actually suggesting that many of these Republicans will none-the-less vote for Bush in the election in November because they will perceive Bush as the least worst candidate.

I'm against raising taxes for the very rich but I'm also against making the very poor pay more. In my hypothetical world, there would be a progressive tax structure up to say, $150,000. Above that it should be flat.

Second there is a balance. If we have a 1% flat tax, you can be sure that tax revenue will decrease dramatically no matter how much the economy grows. Tax revenue grew faster under Clinton than it did under Reagan.

That 50% of those polled who disapprove of Bush thus consists overwhelmingly of Independents (50% of whom disapprove) and Democrats (68% of whom disapprove). Both of which groups can in principle be persuaded to vote Democrat (again).

The 45% that approves of Bush, on the other hand, includes a fair bunch of Democrats (25% of whom approve) - of whom at least a part is not very likely to cross over.

Interestingly, furthermore, that 11% of disapproving Republicans corresponds exactly with the percentage of Republicans that indicated in a poll, last September, that they would vote for Clark over Bush.

Development of the CBS poll over time:

Bush - approve - disapprove - date

50 - 45 1/04
58 - 33 12/03
49 - 42 11/03
54 - 36 10/03
52 - 39 9/03
55 - 35 8/03
60 - 32 7/03
66 - 27 6/03
67 - 26 5/03
73 - 21 4/03
58 - 35 3/03
54 - 38 2/03
59 - 35 1/03
65 - 27 11/02
63 - 29 10/02
66 - 27 9/02
66 - 25 8/02
70 - 20 7/02
70 - 20 6/02
77 - 16 5/02
76 - 15 4/02
78 - 14 2/02
82 - 12 1/02
86 - 9 12/01
85 - 7 11/01
90 - 7 10/01
90 - 5 10/01

I am actually suggesting that those currently disapproving of Bush include a large group of Republicans. I am actually suggesting that many of these Republicans will none-the-less vote for Bush in the election in November because they will perceive Bush as the least worst candidate.

Trippi on how the John Zogby tracking poll has created the current dynamics:

"You know, put a light on anybody and scream at the world, "They're really moving!" and guess what happens with a lot of people? "You know, I kind of like him." That's what you guys are doing.

It's like, "Hey, we'll put a light on him and we'll say, 'He's really moving.' Then we'll go out and interview people who say, 'Hey, he's really moving!'" Which feeds back to, "He really is moving."

It's the John Zogby surge. Why don't we just let John go out and say, "He's it," whoever it is. Who cares?"

Bush would get 51 + 2 = 53 million votes
Dem's candidate will get 46 - 2 = 44 million votes

Or Bush would get 100% x 53/102 = 51.96% of the votes.

I mean, you derive your overall numbers - 50% approve of Bush, 45% disapprove of Bush - from the CBS poll, right?

But then you break those up into Reps, Dems and Independents according to your own guesses - and your own guesses are opposite to what that very same poll says.

Thus, for example, you end up with the conclusion that:

"Independents who approve of Bush now = [..] 20 million
Independents who disapprove of Bush now = [..] 9 million"

But according to the poll you're taking your overall numbers from, Independents break into a plurality of 50% disapproving of Bush, and only 45% approving Bush.

Independents break into a plurality of 50% disapproving of Bush, and only 45% approving Bush.

Quite a different story ... <grins>