2004 Elections: Democratic Party Contenders

Too clever by half, Bill.

There seems to be a change in the air, hmmmmmmmmmmm!

I have enjoyed the exchange.



Interesting, as the months pass, old Al looks better...mmmmmh.

Al Gore like any retread will not stand up in the long run.

If Gore is stupid enough to run again, and I don't think he is, I bet Lieberman wouldn't run with him. (That's how bad an idea it would be.)

My spirits were crushed in the last election by separate events: Gore's performance in the debates was, to be charitable, god-awful and Nader's refusal to withdraw when he had the chance, essentially throwing the election Bush's way.
I'd have to see Al Gore in a ton of confident, articulate, public forums before I would put him up against the smirking hayseed again.

I also look at how much better America would have been if the jerk had not of been appointed. Well, there goes the legacy for my children. Maybe in a hunnerd years we will have outlived the losing Bush legacy. If only Gore hadn't of represented facially what everone was feeling - ("what a jerk this guy is").

Yes, we all know you don't like the way the last election worked out. With any luck you'll have a whole new loss to pretend never happened in a couple of years. (Won't that be fun for you!)

For efficiency, why not A Candidate Already Behind Bars

In the summer of 1991, only Paul Tsongas had made it clear he was running for the Democratic nomination.

Prompting sentences like this, from the August 8, 1991 Financial Times:

I recall that, PDiddie. I dunno that the climate and conditions promise the same sort of unexpected storm, though. Tempting as it is to draw parallels between Bush the Elder's final Year and Bush The Younger's comming year, there are significant differences. Too, trends are vastly disimilar in the financial sector, and the international picture is quite different. A nightmare scenario for The Opposition would comprise continued moderate across-the-board GDP growth along with solid consumer confidence, an upsurge in investment, increased foriegn trade accompanied by an easing of global tensions and a stabilization of energy prices, a widespread domestic backlash against Gay Rights liberalization, and the substantiation of significant Iraqi emgagement in WMD activity and liason with Al Queda, along with conclusive proof of either or both Osma's or Saddam's capture or demise. Sure, that's a lot of "What Ifs" ... but Bush doesn't need all his hopes come true to achieve his dream. In fact, if there is at electiontime some ongrowing crisis in which he can plausibly claim success, coupled with just one or two of the "Wish List", plenty of folks will see no reason to rock the boat. The Opposition has to count on an awful lot gowing wrong, while The Younger really only needs to get a few things right. The opposition faces a formidable task, one not eased at all by the Republican Resurgence which began in '98 (or '96, depending on how you wish to tally the pickups of legislative and gubernatorial seats). "Stunning Upsets" don't come around all that often, and I sense The Opposition is counting on one. At this point, with the available evidence, The Republicans enjoy the secure prospect of further increase in power, Local, State, and Federal. The California Recall circus now definitely on for this fall could provide a preview glimpse of what will be the public mood from the caucus and primary season through to Novembe '04. The well-populated field of candidates already announced may itself prove a hinderance to establishing effective Democratic momentum. As I'm more a less a Centrist myself, the prospect of a solid Republican Mandate offers me little cheer, yet appears to be in the offing.

JOBS

Yeah, JOBS ... continued GDP growth, solid consumer confidence, and increased investment activity all pretty much presuppose a brighter employment picute, wouldn't you say?

when it comes down to votes whatever the GDP is doing or for that matter the market is doing will be meaningless without the jobs that go with it. we have just seen the "jobless" rate drop and behind it the statement that there are fewer imployed, simple statistics dont mean anything to those out of work or those that fear to become out of work. friday Univ of Wisconson released their study of what people do with their tax rebates with 75% of those studied responding that they are paying down debt because they fear loss of jobs/income.

timber

I like that post very much. Nice detailed address to the issues which seem sure to be critical and a fair assessment of liklihoods.

However, I look at the picture somewhat differently. And that is because I think your analysis suffers from something much like the modern media's malady - not nearly enough affliction of the comfortable and a horizon devoid of any afflicted other than those who clearly deserve it. A sort of Calvinist accountants ledger, penned with the affectionado's sense of the beauty of ledgering, and all this while his wife is leaving him for another man.

There is too much too wrong. I'm very nearly convinced we humans are actually too stupid to survive. I'm completely convinced that truly good people, curious and caring and with a sense of resposibility for his/her community - people just like you timber, will witness a community not close to what you hope for.

Now, I admit that I am holding a repent sign, and that is slightly embarrassing, but on the other hand, my sex life is extraordinary.

All the Democrats have to do is register to vote all those who have lost jobs during the present administration. That would be a net gain of about two million votes, and if you add the spouses of those unemployed you reach a net of nearly four million.

Jeeze, blatham ... now I'm really jealous. I don't even have a SIGN, fer chrissakes.

I think it's a violation of TOS for Blatham to make a statement like that about his sex life and then not give, uh, links. More info, please.

TMI on anyone's escapades, thankyewverramuch.

Tar,
I thought of that but I was afraid to mention it.