2004 Elections: Democratic Party Contenders

Incredibly good point.
They have not done well as the party of the opposition. Any ninny can critisize. Even the Dem talking heads say we have to develop a platform.
They need to hurry.

I found that Media Whores Online expressed it better than I could (which means they're batting 1.000 in THAT department, still):

John Kerry

Pros: Smart; aggressive; competent; does not allow media to get away with attempts to mischaracterize his positions or otherwise mislead when interviewed

Cons: Geographical issues (Massachusetts 'librul') that aren't helped by his opposition to the death penalty; Karl Rove will likely attempt to link that position to a generalized reluctance to kill people under any circumstance including self-defense (expect Bernard-Shaw-like hypotheticals about whether Kerry would execute a captured Osama bin Laden, and if so, why he differs from a serial killer). A strong war record could mitigate the problem, but if the domestic crime rate continues to rise and becomes a serious issue in '04, forget it.

Howard Dean

Pros: Smart; aggressive; competent; executive experience; likeable; telegenic; physician; is WAY onto the media whores

Cons: Northeastern

Joe Lieberman

Pros: Smart; decent

Cons: Bush worshipper; drones; no gravitas; not telegenic; wimpy when the chips are down (recall his declaration that military ballots would be allowed in Florida, regardless of whether they were cast before or after election day)

John Edwards

Pros: Telegenic; energetic; articulate; appears willing to take Bush regime on directly and aggressively

Cons: "Trial lawyer"; green; crucial Moron-Americans might calculate, "I watch 'Crossing Over' all the time but I don't think he'd make a good president."

Bob Graham

Pros: Florida, Florida, Florida! Would deliver Florida in a walk; executive and DC experience; gravitas; strong terrorism experience; moderate; voted against Iraq resolution

Cons: Aggressive and courageous in voting patterns, but so far not in rhetoric; unclear if he fully understands media whore effect - though squeaky clean and bland enough that whores might have difficulty inventing and selling psychological pathologies

Al Sharpton

Pros: Smart; aggressive

Cons: Tawana Brawley - would be better off caught with dead girl and live boy; Flamboyant, unelectable hair.

Dick Gephardt

Pros: None

Cons: No Eyebrow alopecic has ever won the presidency.


==============================================


So that's their opinion. I like a fellow who hasn't declared yet, but under the totalitarian posting guidelines I cannot tell you who it is. :wink:

To a certain extent the Dems will develop a 'platform' of a sort this year in form of a legislative agenda.

However, with six to eight or more candidates, each trying to distinguish himself from the others, we will, of necessity, be seeing a LOT of differentness.

To expect anything else is unrealistic and probably unfair as well.

As the winnowing process goes on, and the candidates dwindle to two or three, the Dems issues may be narrowed. The successful candidates will modify and fine tune their emphases based, in part, on the responses of polls and primary votes.

The surviving candidate, the nominee, will be the principle architect of the party platform that is formalized at the Democratic convention.

Naturally the Republicans will seek to exploit the differences expressed by democrats during the primaries. (Just as the Dems would if the repubs had a contested nomination)

It's kind of interesting, too, to watch the RNC and some others play up Edwards. Obviously they think Edwards would be easy to beat (which I do too, for a number of reasons) and therefore would like to see him in play as a candidate. Just like the democrats and Dan Quayle.

But it's also beginning to look like the republicans are a little afraid of Kerry, who is developing a stronger look.

mediawhoresonline is a great source for all kinds of information. I like them too. pdiddle.

I don't think the GOP is a'feared of Kerry in the least. As was stated from mediawhores--Boston Libruls haven't faired well in the Big election.

They don't appeal to Mr and Mrs. Heartland.

He brings alot of baggage. Nobody's shaking over Kerry.

It was interesting to see that mediawhores thought Leiberman's insistance to have military votes counted was 'wimpy'. It was the highest display of character in a member of the Dem party I have seen in ages. It was not seeking what was best for him in the short-term, but what was right no matter how it affected him personally.

That IS gravitas to many of us. If he decides to run, I will be watching closely. He is respectable, spiritual, honest, forthright and not blindly tied to partisanship. A rare and lofty bird.

P.S.--I don't know what newsie decided that 'gravitas' was something they could define. I feel silly even commenting on that word.

It does seem as though there may be some behind the scenes "goings on" with the RNC about Edwards, mamajuana. To me, Kerry does seem the stronger candidate. He may have the Northeastern Massachussetts backdrop, but HE is a bonafide war hero, something our president is not. Plus, if you add a southerner to the ticket like Edwards for Veep, or even Graham with his foreign policy expertise, you come around with something a bit different. What the RNC blasts out negative is not necessarily a negative to what people may choose in the Dem contender. Kerry is very savvy about responding to attacks quickly and appropriately. Lieberman is not going to get the nomination in my opinion. Yes, he was wimpy in Florida and he also has been backing Bush on almost everything. That is why I place him in the "highly unlikely" category.

as usual i dont agree with anyone here: i don't think platforms win presidential elections and have little to do with congressional elections. Pesonalities and Events are what determine american politics, if there are events perceived as negative in the next 2 yrs Bush will lose, be it a war not won, the economy, a scandal whatever. in this past election neither party had any coherent platform and no voter seems to have noticed. platforms are for people like those here on forums that have ideas and opinions, not the general electorate.

dys--
Say it ain't so!

Don't you think the majority of voters seek out the candidates' views, and use this info to make their opinion?

God, what do they use....looks, straight teeth, the way a suit falls on them?

SAY IT AIN'T SO!

lash: i think in the jargon its called "presence" and no i don't think the voters give a rat's a** about issues. Clinton was elected to 2 terms hands down followed by Bush. if you can make any sense out of that my hats off to you.

Thta's exactly what they do, Lash: roughly 20 % of the electorate makes up their mind in the last two weeks before the election.

They are the Moron-Americans; previously called "swing voters", also gender-specifically identified in prior elections as "soccer moms" and "angry white males".

These are the people who say that "they'd like to have a beer with Bush" even though Bush is a recovered alcoholic (allegedly).

What kind of informed voter offers a drink to an alkie?

A moron, that's who.

event-depression=FDR
event-FDR dies in office=Truman
event WW II=Eisenhower
presence=JFK
event-JFK killed=Johnson
event-Viet Nam=Nixon
event-scandal=Carter
event-economy=Reagan
Bush 41 ?
presence=Clinton
presence=Bush 43

A nice synopsis, lex.

Let me suggest for Bush 41 that it was neither 'event' nor 'presence' but LACK of presence on the part of his competitor, Dukakis.

And that Clinton I was event=economy, and that Bush 43 was NOT presence but event=blowjob.

With Clinton's first term, I would submit the following equation:
"No new taxes"...whoops + Ross Perot = Clinton by a plurality.

Also, I remember Bush was seriously underestimating Clinton. I think he figured "This guy is a draft dodger and a proven womanizer. " He didn't believe Clinton was electable. Bush hardly campaigned at all. (Not that this would have made a difference.)

The blowjob had nothing to do with Bush 43.
People say Gore may have edged Bush 43 out in the election if he had used Clinton during the campaign.

Blowjobs don't seem to hurt Dems in the polls.

Wonder if Bush 43 should...

They are the Moron-Americans; previously called "swing voters", also gender-specifically identified in prior elections as "soccer moms" and "angry white males".

**PDiddie--
Glad to see you don't ascribe the angry white males to the GOP.

I would attribute Bush 41's presidency to his position as vice-president.
The last election not withstanding, this is still the preferred office to hold while running for the presidency.

At least history would lead us to believe that.

I think money makes a huge difference now in elections -- THE difference, probably. Where I live there was a blitz of expensive "dirty tricks" TV ads during the final ten days of the 2002 campaign (this may have been a national phenomenon, coordinated) so that the outspent candidates could do nothing to "set the record straight" -- that is, respond to the ads. We're up against a big flaw in our system -- the amount of campaign money raised and spent. We need to fight hard for reform starting now, even though it may not affect the 2004 election, while also saving our pennies to give to our candidates once they're nominated.

Gosh, you're right Lash: event=USSC theft-Bush 43.

Thanks for clearing that up.

I thought I DID ascribe "angry white males" to the GOP; at least I would if that were in question. Why, do you not want them anymore? :wink:

Last time I looked, the USSC was still there, they have not been stolen.