0
   

2004 Elections: Democratic Party Contenders

 
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2004 07:10 pm
Not abandoning the vice-presidential speculation...

Upcoming delegate-rich primaries are Michigan and Washington state on Saturday, Feb. 7, Tennessee and Virginia on Tuesday Feb. 10, and Wisconsin on Feb. 17.

Dean needs a win somewhere; Clark needs a win (in TN, perhaps); Edwards needs a win (VA perhaps).

Keep us posted on anything of an "Inside Baseball" nature in your states, D'art and rjb.

And anyone else who may be voting soon...
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2004 08:11 pm
PDiddie wrote:
Not sure how it works in CA, so Californians in the know, weigh in please...

Some states don't allow a senator to run for President, or VP, and their Senate seat at the same time (is Feinstein up this cycle?). In Texas we do allow that. (LBJ was Senate Majority Leader in 1960 and ran for the Senate and VP both; Lloyd Bentsen also ran for VP with Dukakis and re-election to the Senate in 1988.)


Feinstein ran/won her 6 year term in 2000 so she doesn't have any distraction in running this year for a Senate office.

I didn't know there were any states that require a Presidental/VP candidate resign their current office (First I've ever heard of it.). Most that have run did as Leiberman did last time - and as you mention, LBJ and Bensten did when they ran.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2004 08:25 pm
I wonder how Nadar feels about being responsible for the last four George Bush years. Nadar may have fine principles and ideas, but he surely must know that if he runs, he's simply leaving the door open for GW to continue to do his dirty work.

Here's an interesting article from the Village Voice:

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0405/barrett.php


Quote:
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2004 08:58 pm
Lola, I'm one of those guilty blokes that voted for Nader, because I didn't understand the destructive policies of GWBush, and I voted on "principles." When the democratic candidates started to fight amongst themselves rather than point out the problems with GWBush, I was ready to vote for Nader again. Now that Kerry has a good chance against Bush, I'm voting just on the principle of removing Bush as a one term president. He's done enough damage to this country and world. I'm almost afraid to vote for another christian.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2004 09:10 pm
fishin' wrote:
I didn't know there were any states that require a Presidental/VP candidate resign their current office


I don't think there are any (and I'll stand by that until someone corrects me).

I think there are states that require a person to run for one office at a time (but Texas isn't one of them).

If Feinstein ran with Kerry as his VP and won, then Schwarzeneggar would appoint her replacement. Same with, say, Mary Landreiu of Louisiana (but newly-elected Democratic Gov. Kathleen Blanco would tap a Dem). Isn't Mitt Romney a Republican? :wink: He gets to appoint Kerry's successor when Kerry is elected President... that's already a net loss of one :wink:

It's just one of those Rubic's cubes that the nominee would have to consider when picking out a running mate.

Geographic balance doesn't always take precedence; there was none such to Clinton-Gore...

But Kerry is already getting "Massachusetts liberal" thrown at him, so I think he would be wise to pick a Southerner.

JMHO.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2004 09:11 pm
me too, C.i............however, as george keeps pointing out.........not all Christians are created equally. There are many people I'm afraid to vote for. Evangelical Christians are only one catagory. Out with GW Bush in 2004!
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2004 09:45 pm
I'm still taking bets. Bush will win.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2004 09:47 pm
Lola, I know that all too well, but when a dog bites you once, other dogs will have an effect on you - even knowing 99 percent are safe.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2004 10:16 pm
Let's see how the polls did (edit -- and NOW the numbers line up! Thanks, Thomas):

Code:Iowa

Actual ARG SUSA DMRegister Zogby
Kerry 38 - 21 26 25
Edwards 32 - 22 23 21
Dean 18 - 24 20 22
Gephardt 11 - 20 18 18

New Hampshire

Actual ARG SUSA Gallup Zogby
Kerry 38 35 33 36 37
Dean 26 25 28 25 24
Clark 12 13 12 13 9
Edwards 12 15 14 10 12
Lieb 9 6 7 10 9

Arizona

Actual ARG SUSA LATimes Zogby
Kerry 43 32 34 29 42
Clark 27 21 28 22 28
Dean 14 10 18 13 15
Edwards 7 11 7 8 7
Lieb 7 9 - 3 6

Delaware

Actual ARG SUSA
Kerry 50 27 42
Lieb 11 16 10
Edwards 11 9 11
Dean 10 14 12
Clark 10 8 9

Missouri

Actual ARG SUSA Zogby
Kerry 51 46 44 56
Edwards 25 15 20 17
Dean 9 7 15 9
Clark 4 6 6 6
Lieb 4 3 - 3

Oklahoma

Actual ARG SUSA Zogby
Clark 30 28 29 31
Edwards 30 21 27 26
Kerry 27 25 26 29
Lieb 6 7 - 6
Dean 4 8 7 6

South Carolina

Actual ARG SUSA CBS Zogby
Edwards 45 31 34 28 36
Kerry 30 24 17 24 32
Sharpton 10 10 12 13 8
Dean 5 9 9 8 8

The verdict? Zogby has been stunningly accurate. SUSA and ARG have been pretty good. In fact, other than Iowa (and to a far lesser degree, South Carolina), the pollsters seem to have done surprisingly well.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2004 03:01 am
Interesting comparison. Thanks, PDiddie!

Technical note: if you want columns to line up, you can edit the table in Notepad, insert blank spaces to make it look right, copy and paste it into the A2K editing window, and surround it with "Code" tags. That makes it look geeky, but it works. For example:
Code:
South Carolina

Actual ARG SUSA CBS Zogby
Edwards 45 31 34 28 36
Kerry 30 24 17 24 32
Sharpton 10 10 12 13 8
Dean 5 9 9 8 8


Hope that helped

-- Thomas
0 Replies
 
yeahman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2004 03:55 am
Lola wrote:
I wonder how Nadar feels about being responsible for the last four George Bush years. Nadar may have fine principles and ideas, but he surely must know that if he runs, he's simply leaving the door open for GW to continue to do his dirty work.

Nader really believes that the people who voted for him would not have voted at all had he not run. It might be a mental defense mechanism of his to deal with his guilt.

I saw him on Crossfire last month. I was surprised that he said that he believes that Al Gore actually won. He then took the side of the Democrats in the debates and when asked by Begala if he was implying that Gore would have been a better president he replied with something like "Well when Bush is screwing up this badly, the mediocre looks pretty good."
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2004 05:51 am
Thomas wrote:
Hope that helped


Aha! Yes, and thank you.

(Look for major geekarama in my next post...)
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2004 06:10 am
Interesting ye110wman. The mediocre looks very good indeed compared to Bush. And as far as Nadar voters being otherwise non-voters, take c.i. for instance. Are you usually a non-voter, c.i.? I doubt Nadar's claims in this regard.

And george, I'm not prepared yet to bet, but let's just say that I'm getting my hopes up.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2004 06:33 am
PDiddie wrote:
Let's see how the polls did (the numbers don't line up worth a damn; sorry about that):


Thats really interesting, PD. Not just to check on the polling agencies, also to check on the candidates.

Kerry did better than any poll had predicted in 4 of 7 cases, and better than the average of polls in all cases.

Edwards also did better than any poll had predicted in 4 of 7 cases, and did better than the average of polls in 5 of 7 cases.

Clark did better than the average of polls in 4 of 5 cases, but in each case only very narrowly so.

Dean did worse than any poll had predicted in 4 of 7 cases, and worse than the average of polls in 5 of 7 cases.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2004 07:03 am
timberlandko wrote:
That Newsweek poll is ammunition for The Opposition, and likely will get more play on The Left than will either of the similar, essentially contemporaneous Fox and Gallup polls, which offer rather different results. The Newsweek poll's divergence from the indications of a larger body of polls, including Pew Research, Zogby, ARG, and others besides the afore mentioned Fox and Gallup surveys merits attention, for sure. I would be unsurprised, really, if there developed a convergence of downturns for Bush the Younger over the next few weeks, as The Democrats, by virtue of the primaries, get more and more press.


Concerning the approval rates for GWB, Timber's assertions about the "divergence" of the Newsweek poll from the "larger body of polls" seem to be rapidly getting disproven as his subsequent prediction about downturns for GWB becomes true ...

The 1/22 Newsweek poll itself, which had Bush's approval fall to 50%, was already preceded by the 1/12 CBS poll, in which it did, too. It has now been followed up by a 1/31 Quinnipiac University Poll, in which it fell to 48%, a 2/1 CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll, in which it fell to 49%, as well as a new (1/30) Newsweek poll, in which it fell to 49% too.

Only the Fox and ABC/WaPo polls are still lagging.

The Gallup poll is significant also because the disapproval rate shot up to 48%, higher than any poll since Bush's term began has had it.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2004 07:06 am
Today's Polling Report graphs ... ;-)

http://www.pollingreport.com/images/GALparties.GIF

http://www.pollingreport.com/images/Giraq-pres.GIF
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2004 07:21 am
Dammit, nimh, I'll out-geek you yet... :wink:

SUSA made their calls before the Feb. 3rd contests:

Tennessee (February 10 primary)
MoE 3.9%. 1/31-2/2. (1/8)

Kerry 31 (4)
Clark 26 (26)
Edwards 20 (6)
Dean 15 (27)
Other 6
Undecided 3

The most interesting trend-line is Clark's. His support hasn't moved, up or down.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2004 07:38 am
PDiddie wrote:
Dammit, nimh, I'll out-geek you yet... :wink:


LOL!

Well, you can try with the [ code ] stuff, I never used that ... ;-)
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2004 08:39 am
No ambiguity in this:

Quote:
Howard Dean sent an overnight e-mail message to supporters saying he would quit the Democratic presidential race if he did not win the Wisconsin primary on Feb. 17.

"The entire race has come down to this: we must win Wisconsin," Dr. Dean, the former governor of Vermont, said in the e-mail, which asked for $50 contributions, with a goal of raising $700,000 by Sunday, to put television advertisements up before Wisconsin's primary.

"Anything less will put us out of this race."

Dr. Dean predicted decent showings in this weekend's caucuses in Michigan and in Washington state and Maine, but said "our true test will be the Wisconsin primary," where a victory, he said, could propel the campaign forward to the major showdowns on March 2, known as Super Tuesday, and March 9.

"All that you have worked for these past months," he warned, "is on the line on a single day, in a single state."


So if the Dean campaign has any mojo left in the tank, we're all gonna find out in two weeks.
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2004 09:07 am
It's interesting that Dean is pinning everything on what happens in WI. What's so special about WI's primary when compared to MI, WA or ME?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 07/23/2025 at 04:17:18