2004 Democratic Presidential Nominee

Yes, some thoughts: i believe, quixotically perhaps, that Kerry has the best chance, saying this because he has the best name recognition currently, and i believe a dark horse would make the Democrats unacceptably nervous. Having said that, i would also add that i think it is still to early to have a reasonable basis for making such a statement. I rather think the original discussion in the now-hijacked thread was more useful . . . but it's your thread, Boss, you get to set the theme . . . Dark Horses have a by-now hoary old tradition of torpedoeing the odds makers.

Early on, I thought Lieberman would get the nomination, mainly owing to the name recognition from his run as Veep with Gore.

Now, I see in the polls he has taken a significant dive (from 21% to 13%).
Kerry has gained 1 percentage point, but because of Lieberman's losses, this puts Kerry at the top of the pack by 1%.

Sharpton has surprised me-- #4, behind Kerry, Lieberman and Gephardt.

Of course, this can all change in a moment.

I still think Lieberman will win the nomination. But, I don't think what I consider to be the authentic Democrat party wants him. I think they prefer a more liberal candidate. I think the machine behind the nomination (both parties have them) will opt for the more electable candidate. Unless they can mold Kerry to fit the preferred profile.

You point to a significant issue, that Kerry carries, at least in the eyes of some pundits, regional baggage, and that name recognition in his case does not equate necessarily with popularity. I left Lieberman out of my consideration because parties traditionally have rejected failed candidates--this is not to cast an aspersion on him, merely to point out that power brokers likely see him in those terms.

You know, Setanta, you bring up a interesting point... How many previously failed attempts made the nomination later? This, I shall research. Nixon comes to mind... (But I hate to use Dick as an example for anything...) :wink:



I wonder if Kerry could defray the 'Boston liberal' baggage with a Southerner, or a centrist as Veep? I do seem to remember Clinton being considered a liberal at the outset of his first campaign--and seeming much more to the center as it wore on. I don't think it was all deception--as he had policies from the centrist and liberal spheres of thought. I think they all (both parties) accentuate the vote getting stuff and keep some issues in the closet during election season.

Maybe, if Kerry tauts his more centrist views, he will seem more palatable to the masses. The main thorn in his side may be Dean, who seems to have his hands on the strings of the authentic Democrats. His barbs seem to force Kerry to make 'more liberal' pronouncements.

Well, it's correct, in my view, that some of the candidates all of the time, and all of the candidates, some of the time, serve to force a consensus on the issues to be fought out, as this serves to take the temperature of the public "pool of concerns" before diving into the convention, at which the platform will be firmly in the hands of the activists from each constiuency who work to achieve an agenda. It has never been my take that the Republicans end up with a program as conservative as that desired by the more "rightist" elements of their party, nor the Democrats with that desired by the more "leftist" elements of their party. That sort of spoiler candidate, who, for whatever they hope for in the long watches of the night, is very useful in getting public opinion involved in the platform negotiations.

Good Lord.

I agree with everything you have said.

What do you think the odds are that the national Green party might sit this one out, and opt for some planks in the Dem platform?

I believe that may be the trend, although any evidence i would have is anecdotal. I rather think this nascent party's membership is profoundly mortified to have gotten the result of the 2000 election. Although you likely know my feelings about Bush and Company, that is not offered as a slur--just a realistic assessment of how the greens likely feel right now.

I'm glad you brought up those folks. If they can maintain some kind of coherent agenda, and not implode from bickering, or be taken over by a charismatic crackpot, they may represent the first realistic shot at a third party since the Whigs. And the lesson of the Whigs is that such a party can make itself irrelevant in a few generations--so it will be interesting to follow, should i live that long . . .

Setenta and Sofia: It really is not necessary for y'all to post your opinions every couple of minutes. You might want to think about communicating with each other via pm
For the rest of us, I ask this:
What ever has happened to the 9-Dems? Has anyone seen them in the last week or so? --rjb--

So, sorry rjb.

Didn't realize you were establishing rules for your thread beyond the normal ones on A2K.

I relieve you of my participation.

I say Lieberman. Simply because many Repblicans wish he was on their side (my radical right wing brother amongst them).

It's always good to have a guy that the other side covets.

Disclaimer: If the roadmap works I will give Bush a chance, despite... well, Bush.

Realjohnboy, your position as initiator of this thread is not analogous to President for Life. Were any two posters to decide to post inanities back and forth at one another each 15 seconds, not only would you be powerless to stop them, they would be violating neither the rules nor the spirit of this site.

In the crusty old expression popular when i was a teen: "So who died and left you in charge?"

Setanta,

That's why the debate room is coming...

Maybe, if a democrat is going to win, another candidate will have to step out of the crowd. We are in some trying times and need a very strong person who is afraid of exactly nothing. We need a person of few words who means what he says. We have no use for "looks" and "good speakers." We need a Winston Churchill. I for one will vote for whomever fits the bill, democrat or republican.

I have an opinion but am afraid of being scolded by the new boss...(who was the old one that died) so I'll keep it to myself. sheesh..

At this stage of the game most of the electorate, even the primary electorate, is not paying much attention.

Right now poll numbers signify name recognition more than anything else (hence Lieberman's initial numbers).

I don't think Leiberman has much chance to win the nomination however. He is too much of a supporter of business interests (notably the accounting industry) and too far to the right to be palatable to the democratic base.
He is also (in my opinion) a lackluster campaigner with very little charisma). Understandably he will be a source of pride to Jewish Americans, as Michael Dukakis was with Greek Americans, but that's not enough to get elected.

Sharpton of course has high name-recognition in the African-American community. Although he is perceived by many, if not most, whites as a demogogue, the African-American community tends to see him as an advocate for their issues, which is why his numbers should not be a surprise.

Gephart has a following particularly with blue collar Americans and (one would suppose) with some mid-westerners. He has a long record of being one of organized labor's most faithful friends in the Congress. Still, Gephardt, like Lieberman has not demonstrated an ability to inspire enthusiasm broadly in the Democratic party or among independents.

Kerry has a lot going for him. He presents himself as strong and articulate. he is a war hero. He is acceptable to a wide range of democrats, and he has (potentially at least) the vast financial resources of his wife. He presumably would not be too popular with conservative white southern Democrats. The conventional wisdom is that he would have to have a strong southern running mate (like Edwards or Graham)

Howard Dean is a long shot of course. However, Jimmy Carter was also also a long shot until he won a couple of primaries. Dean is well liked in New England. He could potentially hurt Kerry who will be pressured by the expectation game...ie. Kerry will be virtually EXPECTED to win the New Hampshire primary. If Dean wins or comes in a close second he will get a big boost. whether or not he could build on that would be the sixty four dollar question. If he had enough campaign funds to advertise and run aggressive campaigns in the succeeding primaries he might then make it very interesting.

Edward's poll numbers are low right now because the vast majority of Americans don't have a clue as to who he is. (same with Dean)
From what I have heard however, Edwards is an excellent, articulate, attractive campaigner. I think the repubs expect the nominee to be either Kerry or Edwards and so you can bet that the republican 'opposition research' folks are trying to dig up anything that they can use against him.

Carol Mosely-Braun is an interesting figure. She is not going to be nominated by the democrats to oppose Bush but she is likely to draw
strong African-American support. How much white support is unclear but it is probably safe to say that she'll be in the second tier of candidates with the overall electorate. Al Sharpton cannot be happy that she's running. If he had hopes of drawing large numbers of African-American votes and then becoming a power broker in the party a la Jesse Jackson, she makes it more difficult. As a matter of fact conspiracy theorists might even theorize that Mosely-Braun was induced to run for just that reason!

Very good analysis, Boss, very thoroughly done in a short space.

Setanta

Thank you for the kind words. I am particularly pleased as they are from someone whose posts I always read with great interest.

Tom Vilsack, the governor and self appointed "king maker" in Iowa has annointed Gephardt as the person to beat, and refers to Dick, Kerry, and Dean as the "first tier" of candidates.

As we consider who will be the one, it might also be interesting to consider the "rush to be first" dance that states are presently engaged in to try to keep their particular issues uppermost in the candidates mind.

While federal law apparently states that New Hampshire must be the first primary, and Iowa must be the first caucus (what's up with that?) it is becoming even more important to get as much money as possible and get it early.

SHOW ME THE MONEY!!

Lieberman will get the nod, and I predict he will pick up Dean as his running mate. They will do better than expected against Bush/Cheney, denying them two states.

(What the heck, if you're going to make predictions, make 'em specific. If you're wrong, who cares? But if you're right... )