2004 Elections: Democratic Party Contenders

"The republican juggernaut." That's funny!

Timber, timber ... you're spinning numbers again <shakes head>

PD was saying that the turnout in the Democratic primary was "massive".

You respond that turnout wasnt, in fact, particularly high, because "even" if you count the sum of Dem + Rep primary turnouts, the total is, at 24% of the electorate, no higher than it was in 2000 or 1996.

But ... that would be because Rep turnout this year was extremely low, right? Your turnout numbers are only average, not "even" if you add the Rep and Libertarian numbers, but because you add them.

Lets not compare apples with oranges - and compare the turnout for this year's Democratic primary with previous one-party primaries.

REP 1996: 573,769
DEM 1996: 354,634 (from fec.gov)
REP 2000: 495,769
DEM 2000: 371,196 (from gwu.edu)

DEM 2004: 820,385 ('ccording to your data)

Ergo, turnout in this year's DEM primary was more than twice that of 1996 and 2000, and almost twice that of the 1996 and 2000 REP primaries. "Below-par turnouts", indeed ...

Thanks, nimh. It's a full-time job keeping conservatives honest, which means it takes several of us just to keep up...



Most of us know the origin of that German word into the English lexicon, as it was used often during WWII to refer to the Hitler's charge across Europe.

Aren't Republicans supposed to dislike comparisons of themselves to Nazis?

But Bush has already been compared to Hitler.

McGentrix
The republican juggernaut may be running on empty

PD - The origin of the term is actually from the Hindu faith...

To paraphrase from another poster:

PDiddie, you really stepped over the line of civil discourse with your Republican-Nazi party comment. It seems you will go to any extreme to belittle those with whom you disagree. It also shows you have little or no intellectual imagination because we always know what your response to a post will be. Someone whose thinking is in such a rut is so predictable and soooo boring.

hehehehe...

Read the sentence again, Scrat.

"into the English lexicon."

Now maybe if I had said, 'entry', instead of 'origin', you wouldn't be so confused...

Of course, you may have just selected a minor semantical difference instead of addressing the topic in order to say something when you had actually nothing to say, or perhaps you think I meant to leave my wording open to the wrong inference (wrong again, if so), or maybe you're one of the minority of conservatives that just likes Nazi comparisons.

It really doesn't matter which it happens to be, to me...

I saw a great film this past weekend, "The Fog of War", a long interview with Robert McNamara. He served under Gen'l Curtis LeMay duing WWII, and the two of them organized the firebombing of Japanese cities toward the end of the war.

McNamara recalls LeMay saying afterward, "You know, if we lose this war, we may be tried as war criminals."

Food for thought, perhaps, in light of the Nazi comparisons going on here...

It's not uncommon for those who call themselves "independents" to vote for someone other than the front runner. I think you read too much into that.

Who used the word 'juggernaut', Gomer?

It's amusing, but a bit sad, to see you get overpowered intellectually in these fora on a daily basis.

I'd actually feel less sorry for you if you weren't so consistently embarrassed.

The dysynergistic combination of your wits and an intellectually bankrupt political philosophy make it no surprise -- really -- to see you lash and thrash like a drowning man every time you're corrected.

Most adults would move on, but I have observed you always like to get in the last word, even if that last word makes you look like a fool.

I'll try to understand that from now on and just ignore you (if you think that would make you feel better)...

Now I'm off to dinner and some lively face-to-face conversation with a few liberals and conservatives, which should allow you ample time to compose a response that doesn't involve an ad hominem.

Good fortune... :wink:

Meanwhile, over at the Dean blog, the mood is ... ahem ... STRIDENT

You gotta scan the comments down for a while to get the full impression ..

Am curious to see how many signatures the petition to keep all Dean volunteer info out of the hands of the other candidates will get ...

It will be interesting to see how history treats the Dean phenomenon. I've already read a piece in the NY Times opining that it didn't really amount to much. What, after all, did Dean stand for that differentiates him from the other Democrats?

D'art...Mr McNamara later ran the war in VN during the Kennedy and Johnson administrations. I didn't see the film but I have read a lot and heard a lot of stories about it (including one this morning on NPR).

Mr McNamara is an old man now (I don't know his exact age) and it seems to me (and I mean this sincerely) that he is attempting to reflect on the decisions he made in his public life.

We, the warriors in VN in 1970 had a saying:
"Here we are: the unwilling, led by the incompetent, to do the impossible for the ungrateful."

I'm going to stop right there for now. -johnboy-

nimh
Sour grapes. These people will vote for whatever democrat gets the nomination and when the smoke clears may also work for him.

Yeah, and the VN vets got the worst welcome home of any war this country fought in another land.

The Korean veterans were luckier. They were ignored. War what war?

What's in a name when soldiers and airmen kill each other for a cause often-times that doesn't make any sense?

First, you're sure there are precedents for the "frontrunner" to do twice as badly among Independents than among Democrats in the primaries - and yet go on to win them over for the general elections, after all?

Second - its not just the Independents. Look at those WI exit polls:

- Kerry clearly led Edwards among those who are angry (43% vs 30%). But those will vote Dem anyway. He led Edwards more narrowly among those who are merely dissatisfied (43% vs. 38%). And he collapsed among those who are "satisfied, but not enthusiastic" about Bush (23% vs 51%). Yet he'll need many of those, too.

- Kerry did very well among Blacks (54%), but those will mostly vote Dem anyway. Among whites, he polled 37%, against Edwards 38%. Among white men, 34% vs 37%.

- Kerry did well (44%) among those who thought the Iraq war was most important - but those will vote against Bush anyway. Among those who thought the economy and jobs were most important, he trailed Edwards 34% to 47%.

- Looking at city/suburbs/countryside, Kerry did worst among suburbians (34%, Edwards 41%). Another 'famous' swing voter group.

- Among those who decided only last week for whom to vote - waverers, thus, more likely to waver at general election times, too - Kerry trailed Edwards 30% to 46%.

Consider, finally, the last two questions I cited. Among the sizable voter groups who cast their vote for someone who "agrees [with me] on [the] issues", "cares about me", "stands up for what he believes", or "[has a] positive message", Kerry came in second or third, trailing Edwards by mostly double-digit numbers. The only sizable groups he got by a huge margin were those who cared about "who can defeat Bush". I'd submit that the main reason they think Kerry can, is that he's won the primaries thus far. Its a self-sustaining bubble. Bush will try to pop it.