2004 Elections: Democratic Party Contenders

A DEFINITION OF IRRATIONAL
Doing the same thing over and over again while expecting a different result each time.

In other words, just because one desires a certain consequence from a certain action does not mean one's expectation of that consequence is rational.

Yes, it's way past time for DEM voters to get real.

0 Replies

Brand X wrote:

If all the candidates had started capaigning the same day and started off with a televised debate, Dean never would have been the front runner.

I disagree. Kerry and Gephardt were being championed by the media and covered extensively for much of 2003. It was only when it was revealed that Dean has amassed 30 million dollars, the most supporters and a huge grassroots movement behind him that the media even started mentioning Dean as if he were a serious candidate.

Dean's message resonated with people, that's what made him popular. The media simply jumped on the bandwagon after he amassed a huge following.

0 Replies

Centroles wrote:

Dean's message resonated with people, that's what made him popular. The media simply jumped on the bandwagon after he amassed a huge following.

And I disagree with that postulate. Dean's "resonance" was confined to a small, but very activist, group of internet-savvy folks. The bulk of his funds have come from academic enclaves on both coasts and in major college towns inland, as shown by zipcode analysis of his contributions record. I don't deny the Deaniacs have energy, but energy is not broadbased, cross-demographic support. Gephardt's weakness was similarly revealed by examining the "where" of his financial contributors ... largely from rustbelt areas, but not the equal in overall dollar terms of some of his opponents. I should have noticed that earlier ... I could have saved myself the embarrassment of thinking, and positing, that he would fare better than he did. The Dem who's money has the widest demographic distribution is Kerry. Clark and Edwards have similar demographics to Kerry, though nowhere near as much actual cash inflo. Lieberman is sunk ... if contributor zipcodes are any indication, and I think they are, he'd be lucky to carry a few cities, mostly on the Atlantic Seaboard, though he might do well in Florida. Of note is that the most inclusive zipcode distribution is that of Bush the Younger; not only has he raised far more money than anyone else, it comes from a far more representative sampling of The Nation as a whole.

0 Replies

Well maybe the most important question to answer is which of the current DEM candidates will attract the most primary votes.

However, I think the more important question is which if any of the current Dem candidates would make a president capable of providing the leadership our nation needs now.

If none possess that capability, then which alternate Democrat would make a president capable of providing the leadership our nation needs now.

Real substantive competition for Bush is required; not merely some candidate that can more effectively charm DEM voters with the most resonating message.

0 Replies

ican, What you say is true, but all that doesn't matter, because most presidents are elected not for their political acumen, but for their charisma and the party leadership. There's a big difference between the ideal and what actually happens in American politics. We all know that money now plays a big part in elections.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

ican, What you say is true, but all that doesn't matter ... We all know that money now plays a big part in elections.

OK, who should we put our money behind: The most charismatic probable loser, or the most charismatic probable winner, or--the hell with it--the most charismatic?

0 Replies

Even I'm not so sure any more. I started with Dean, but he seems to be losing steam, and Kerry seems to be leading the pack. Let's wait for a few more primaries. Maybe, we'll get some idea who we should support before November.

0 Replies

This is one of the "real" issues of our elections.
**************************************
GET A BILL STARTED TO PLACE ALL POLITICIANS ON SOC. SEC.
This should be an issue in "2004".
Perhaps we are asking the wrong questions during election years.

Our Senators and Congresswomen do not pay into Social Security and, of course, they do not collect from it.

You see, Social Security benefits were not suitable for persons of their rare elevation in society. They felt they should have a special plan for themselves. So, many years ago they voted in their own benefit plan.

In more recent years, no congress person has felt the need to change it. After all, it is a great plan.

For all practical purposes their plan works like this:

When they retire, they continue to draw the same pay until they die.

Except it may increase from time to time for cost of living adjustments.

For example, former Senator Byrd and Congressman White and their wives may expect to draw $7,800,000.00 (that's Seven Million, Eight-Hundred Thousand Dollars), with their wives drawing $275,000.00 during the last years of their lives.

This is calculated on an average life span for each of those two Dignitaries.

Younger Dignitaries who retire at an early age, will receive much more during the rest of their lives.

Their cost for this excellent plan is $0.00. NADA....ZILCH....

This little perk they voted for themselves is free to them. You and I pick up the tab for this plan. The funds for this fine retirement plan come directly from the General Funds;

"OUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK"!

From our own Social Security Plan, which you and I pay (or have paid) into, -every payday until we retire (which amount is matched by our employer)- we can expect to get an average of $1,000 per month after retirement.

Or, in other words, we would have to collect our average of $1,000 monthly benefits for 68 years and one (1) month to equal Senator Bill Bradley's benefits!

Social Security could be very good if only one small change were made.

That change would be to jerk the Golden Fleece Retirement Plan from under the Senators and Congressmen. Put them into the Social Security
plan with the rest of us ... then sit back and watch how fast they would fix it.

If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of awareness will be planted and maybe good changes will evolve.

How many people can YOU send this to?
************
The next time these elected officials talk about "public service," you know they mean "fleece the public."

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

GET A BILL STARTED TO PLACE ALL POLITICIANS ON SOC. SEC. This should be an issue in "2004".

Now that's an excellent idea Exclamation

cicerone imposter wrote:

Perhaps we are asking the wrong questions during election years.

You bet we are Exclamation

How about:

What's probably the best way to help the domestic economy prosper and provide more opportunity for more people to be self-reliant?

What probably is the best way to help the children of more people and adults to get first, a better education, second, an adequate education, third, an excellent education?

What probably is the best way to combat, destroy and discourage terrorism?

EARNED EMPHASIS ADDED:

cicerone imposter wrote:

Social Security could be very good if only one small change were made. That change would be to jerk the Golden Fleece Retirement Plan from under the Senators and Congressmen. Put them into the Social Security plan with the rest of us ... then sit back and watch how fast they would fix it.

cicerone imposter wrote:

How many people can YOU send this to?

Wait, I'm still counting Exclamation

cicerone imposter wrote:

The next time these elected officials talk about "public service," you know they mean "fleece the public."

Farmers sometimes talk about having their bulls service their cows. Perhaps that's what public officials mean by "public service", or more specifically service the public..

0 Replies

Surprisingly, Zogby is noting (source: MSNBC) that in the very last of the three days of the last tracking poll, Dean was doing better again:

Quote:

Kerry led Dean 31 percent to 22 percent in the latest three-day tracking poll, but the last day of polling showed Kerry with a much smaller margin over Dean while John Edwards and Joseph Lieberman both gained ground on the leaders.

“Kerry’s lead is now nine points over three days, however he led only by 26 percent-22 percent over Dean in Friday polling alone, while Edwards and Lieberman each hit 10 percent,” pollster John Zogby said.

“Dean’s showing on Friday may suggest that he has bottomed out and may in fact be starting to increase,” Zogby said. “Another day like this and Dean may be in striking distance again.”

Of course, this doesnt necessarily mean much. Dean went back up a little in the last Iowa tracking polls, too, and he still got trashed.

Also, it's relatively easy to go back up some if you've just lost half of your supporters in a post-catastrophe rush-out; some are always bound to return to the fold.

Furthermore, Zogby is not the most reliable of the pollsters. As is shown by this quote, in fact. The "may in fact be starting to increase" quip, for example, is mere speculation, according to his own poll. After all, when a 31-22 lead for Kerry over Dean turns into a 26-22 lead, that means that Dean's 22% remained unchanged. Its just that Kerry started losing to Edwards and Lieberman.

Today's Boston Globe/WBZ-TV two-day tracking poll, as Timber already pointed out, still has Dean at only 15% - down another 4% in a day. Worse are his favourability ratings in that poll. 45% of the likely voters polled had a favourable opinion of him; 35% an unfavourable. Only +10%. Clark scores +37%, Edwards +44%, Kerry +64% (or 76-12).

Interesting is the specification of results "among those who have decided for whom to vote in the past week". It most clearly shows where momentum is. Up till last Sunday it was with Clark (38-39%). Then Kerry took over, scoring up to 53% of recent decidees last Thursday. Today, his score is down 5 to 48%, and Edwards is slowly making headway, going from 11% to 21% in four days.

There are some who believe in a last-minute Edwards surge - Slate even has an "Edwards surge watch".

0 Replies

In 1983, Public Law 98-21 required Social Security coverage for federal civilian employees first hired after 1983 and closed the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) to new federal employees and Members of Congress. All incumbent Members of Congress were required to be covered by Social Security, regardless of when they entered Congress. Members who had participated in CSRS before 1984 could elect to stay in that plan in addition to being covered by Social Security or elect coverage under an 'offset plan' that integrates CSRS and Social Security. Under the CSRS Offset Plan, an individual's contributions to CSRS and their pension benefits from that plan are reduced ('offset') by the amount of their contributions to, and benefits from, Social Security.

0 Replies

Get involved.
***********
http://us.f801.mail.yahoo.com/ym/us/ShowLetter?box=Inbox&login=1&uid=1310

0 Replies

Meanwhile, on the campaign trail at least, Dean seems to have recovered OK.

Here, for example, is Talking Points Memo, by Joshua Micah Marshall, on a Dean town hall meeting that wasn't at all the dispirited mess one might have expected (and note the three good one-liners in a row):

Quote:

Dean [..] has a good mix now of a positive setting forth of his positions with focused criticisms of his opponents. In addition to his opposition to and Kerry's support of this gulf war, he's now adding that he supported and last one while Kerry opposed it.

Dean says he was right twice and Kerry was wrong twice.

He also have a few good laugh lines at his own expense ("Thank you so much. You made me so happy I could scream.") that went over well. [..]

At the press conference after the event Dean had what was one of the best one-liners [..] about Bush administration foreign policy: the president promised a humble foreign policy. What he gave us was one not of "humility but one based on humiliation."

Meanwhile, Kerry sticks to the negative mailings ...

http://www.tnr.com/graphics2004.1/012304blog_ryan3.jpg

0 Replies

Kerry will change America? Once is enough during my life time!

0 Replies

Quote:

POLL ANALYSES
January 24, 2004

Kerry Maintains Double-Digit Lead in New Hampshire
Leads Dean by 12 points

by Jeffrey M. Jones
GALLUP NEWS SERVICE

PRINCETON, NJ -- The latest CNN/USA Today/Gallup New Hampshire tracking poll results show Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry continuing to have a healthy lead over the rest of the field. According to the poll, which includes interviews conducted Wednesday night through Friday night, 35% of likely Democratic primary voters say they would vote for Kerry if the primary election were held today. Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean is second with 23%. The gap between Dean and retired Gen. Wesley Clark has widened in the latest poll, from five points to nine points, with Clark now at 14%. North Carolina Sen. John Edwards (11%) and Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman (10%) are vying with Clark for third place.

So, yesterday, it was:
Kerry: 34% (previous - 30, 28, 25) Today, Kerry's carry is 35%, up 1.
Dean: 22% (previous - 25, 30, 32) Howard The Angry somehow garners another pont, to come in at 23%
Clark: 17% (previous - 18, 19, 21) Wes gives up a few, coming in at 14%
Edwards: 12% (previous - 11, 9, 7) And The Lawyerr yields a point, to show at 11%

Lonesome Joe (not included in the graphic), meanwhile, breaks out of the single digits, to place a solid 5th spot, with only 90% of the folks neglecting to give their nod to him. Still, that's a gain from 8%, and the largest percentage gain relative to any of The Contenders. Is Joe's turn at the top coming? I somehow doubt it. He still strikes me not as a contender, but as an anachronism, an echo of the past. I see no bright light in his future, not even a bestseller. Folks seen to enjoy ignoring Joe.

Kerry continues to hold major advantage and edge upward, Dean's Decline may have peaked and begun to reverse, while Clark slips lower, and Edwards essentially holds his own, relative to Kerry and Dean.

Where at this relative point in the leadup to the event, the Iowa polls were tightening, NH seems to be jelling. Is the pattern set? Does the pattern mean a damned thing? Who knows ... certainly not me, but I'll hazard another guess.
1- Kerry
2- Edwards
3 -Dean
4 - Clark

That's a little different from my call yesterday, but for little reason other than gut feeling, that's the way I see it unfolding as of now. Be assurred changes may happen.

0 Replies

c.i. - re: your link - even should we want to, we can't look into your inbox! ;-)

timberlandko wrote:

CBS observed, re Dean and both the The Youth Vote and The Liberal Vote in Iowa's recent contest,
Quote:
Despite much talk of Dean’s popularity with young voters, Kerry also won the most support among 17-to-29-year-olds 35 percent to Dean’s 25 percent. [..]

Centroles, I have to agree with Timber's post (now there's something). You speak a lot about what "the youth" thinks and feels and finds (how old are you, yourself, if I may ask?) - but the numbers, at least those from Iowa, speak against your argument.

I found these further details in a point-by-point MSNBC demento on where the pundits were proven wrong on Iowa. Not just the 17-29's, but also, specifically, the 18-24s at the Iowa caucuses preferred Kerry over Dean. Amazingly, even the Internet devotees did; as did those who attended the caucuses for the first time. (Remember, these are the three groups that Dean was supposed to newly bring into the game, and flood the caucuses with).

In all three groups, Dean did better than average and Kerry worse than average, but in absolute terms, they still preferred Kerry over Dean:

Quote:

NBC News entrance poll interviews indicated that only 40 percent of the caucus goers got political information from the Internet, and Kerry won those. He took the support of 33 percent of such voters to 24 percent for Dean and 22 percent for Edwards. [..]

Among voters ages 18 to 24, Kerry did 10 percentage points better than Dean, according to entrance poll interviews. Kerry also won the backing of 36 percent of the first-time caucus attendees, while Dean took only 22 percent, behind the 24 percent who backed Edwards.

Oh, and on Dean's "speech" I can't agree with you either, Centroles. I downloaded the audio newsclip with Dean's "listing-the-states" bit and subsequent rebel yell, and it was - scary.

I also downloaded two of those "user remixes" thats been P2Ping around since - the funk remix and the dance remix of Dean's rant - I liked those a lot more! Razz

0 Replies

Nimh, the sound that came from Dean at the end of Iowa was NOT a "rebel" yell. That sound belongs to the Southern soldiers in our Civil War.
Supposedly the relatively high-pitched yelping from the Confederate troops scared the s**t out of the yanks. That's another topic.
It's improbable that one image of a candidate could end up derailing him. So I'm reluctant to say that the Iowa "scary" snarl doomed Dean...but
I think that he is on the defensive and, as has been pointed out, his popularity has been dropping.
I see it as Kerry, Dean and Edwards in NH. Clark #4 hoping fo something to happen in SC. -rjb-

0 Replies

Iowa doesn't define the views of the general population. The last person who won Iowa that got the nomination was Carter.

Edwards did exceptionally well in Iowa. Did this carry over anywhere else in the country, no.

The media hasn't been very critical of Kerry the past week. Anywhere you look, all the news networks are talking about how Kerry is unbeatable and has a steller record, that is when they aren't talking about how Dean is a hot head. But they have a lot of ammo. Kerry served on the senate for over 2 decades. In this time, he has taken many controversial stances all of which he quickly abanoned when the proved unpopular, voted against many popular bills and he will be cannon fodder against Bush for this very reason.

Clark lot a lot of momentum from his poor performance on the debate, Kerrys surge, and the unexpected results in Iowa. Edwards didn't see much of a surge from Iowa either. And neither has the finances to continue for long without raising more money.

The week following Iowa, it was Dean who surprisingly enough raised the most money, not Kerry. Kerry's finances are in trobule.

This will quickly shape up to be a two man race. And once the past actions of Kerry come to light and more people hear Dean's speeches, Dean can overtake Kerry.

0 Replies

realjohnboy wrote:

It's improbable that one image of a candidate could end up derailing him.

Oh, I dunno ....

http://www.able2know.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10156/dukakis.jpg

0 Replies

oh, I dunno,

http://www.dailyprobe.com/arcs/050603/bush.jpg

0 Replies

2004 Elections: Democratic Party Contenders

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know