Democrats are screwed

[JeffL]

My opinion, sure to be countered with great passion. But I think Gore's backing of Dean just hosed the Dems. Dean is not the candidate to beat Bush. He is too far left and can easily be portrayed as too liberal for mainstream America. Yeah, yeah, here come the google quotes, etc. But it's tough to impossible for the more liberal folks here to see what mainstream moderates and middle America sees.

I think Lieberman could beat Bush. I think a Lieberman with the full weight and support of the Democratic party could beat Bush next November pretty handily. I'm pretty sure that Clark, with some better handling, could have a decent chance. I think Dean is going to get trounced.

I'm sure many will now tell me how wrong I am. :) I'll take side-bets with anyone willing to back their opinions. :wink:

[Jason McCullough]

I agree, the way for the Democrats to beat Bush is to nominate a moralizer with no executive experience who's deeply in hock to the insurance industry.

[Daniel Morris]

Gore or no Gore, your analysis of Dean is right on the mark. He is not so much a candidate as he is a collective anti-Bush circle jerk.

Clark would have a shot at prevailing if the DNC got serious about him -- and his strength is exactly where Dean is so weak. Did you see that outstanding Clark TV spot? It made clear that Clark was taking bullets in the war that most of our leaders ducked -- "Red America" cares about that, maybe more than can be properly understood by the armchair campaign managers of Blue America. For that matter, if Hillary came in, she'd most likely win.

But every head-to-head poll that wargames Bush vs. Dean ends up in a thorough trouncing, and exactly for the reasons you summarize.

[XPav]

It amuses me to see all this helpful campaign advice from Bush supporters. Thanks guys, I'm not surprised that you think a candidate has to lean more to the right to win. Not at all.

Yeah, and man, the fact that the guy that won the popular vote in '00 supported him, shit, that's the end!

We're 329 days away from Election Day.

Don't forget what Bush did, and what his daddy told him to do in the SNL skit.

Former President George Bush: Don't make me do that. Look, no one knows
what the hell that means. And I wrote it and I don't even know what the
hell that means. "I'm a uniter, not a divider." Now, let's review our
strategy. Now, to get the nomination, you successfully cozied uo to the
Religious Right..

George W. Bush: Right.

Former President George Bush: Cozy up right over there - I saw you!
Went down to Bob Jones University down there - "Hi, Mr. Bob Jones! Love
your school - very festive!" Now, you're the nominee, time to do that
dance to the middle - that middler dance over there.. where King
Centrus rules, 'cause that's where politicians get elected, that vast
middle area!

Mirror that.

[SolomonGrundy]

I think it is a DnC ticket- Dean and Clark. They offset each other, and will carry different parts of the country. DNC get it? D and C for DC? Whatever.
Personally I think Dean is going to kick the shit out of Bush. Why? Bush has to play to the issues this time. He can't get away with the cute good ole boy thing like last time. All Dean has to do in debates with dubba is not come off looking smug. Unlike Gore I think Dean will keep his cool until the right moment then go for the jugular. Debates have to be the scariest thing for Karl and Co. Hell, Bush's speeches on a daily basis have fuck ups- Dubba without a net is priceless. Can't feel sorry for the guy this time he is the leader of the fricking world- not some lost puppy dog governor from Tx.

I also think there is a large % of people that have not voted lately that are very pissed off/ scared/freaked out that are going to vote for anything other than Bush.This is turning into a race of ideals not a race of 2 guys that are kinda alike. So the question really is can the left get as galvanized as the right? As long as the Greens and Indies stay out of the race stealing Dem votes I truly think Dean stands a chance.
Here's hoping McCain and Buchanan get in the race to help steal some of the right's vote.

[antlers]

Dean is not as liberal as Gephardt or Kerry. On the right-to-left spectrum, he's in the middle of the "serious" candidates. Opposing Bush's handling of foreign policy doesn't make him more liberal. Portraying Dean as a crazy liberal is just a tactic of the right-wing media.

Basically, with the economy on the (deficit-fueled) rebound, the Dems are only going to win if Iraq is going badly, and Dean is the Democrat best positioned to take advantage of that. Clark could be in that position, but his candidacy just hasn't caught on. Dean's demonstrated the ability to generate a lot of enthusiasm among his supporters, which is probably as important as anything else.

[Bub, Andrew]

Dean is usually thought of as a moderate, if you judge him by policy, but Jeff is right that the Right will have no problem slathering him with the Liberal brush. I also agree with Morris that Dean is hardly a candidate of substance. He just panders to the far left. Also, does he have a neck? If he does, can he move it? His head is just sort of mounted on his shoulders, isn't it?

Lackey, I think you're nuts to think Lieberman could make it. I really think he has no chance. He has too hard a time articulating a position. Then there's his religion (which some have a problem with) but also the depth of his religion (which other people have a problem with).

Clark, Kerry, maybe... Gephart, maybe, but not Lieberman. I'm falling asleep just thinking about a Lieberman run.

Dean's demonstrated the ability to generate a lot of enthusiasm among his supporters, which is probably as important as anything else.

The problem is that his supporters, it seems, are the far left. A group that moderate-to-left leaners (like me), by and large, aren't comfortable with.

[Midnight Son]

I'd enthusiastically vote for the local retard if he had a chance of beating Dubya. (I stress again just how important an HONEST election is.)

[XPav]

But seriously -- Bush was the candidate of the far right. Bob Jones and all that, who pulled out the nasty smear campaign in order to take down McCain, the fiery plaint talking moderate Republican (that I switched my party too to vote for in the primary). That's the way things always happen in the primaries, where the candidates that tend to do well energize the Democratic or Republican base in an effort to raise money. In most states, the only people that can vote in the Democratic or Republican parties are registered members of that party.

The point we're at now, rather early in the campaign cycle, is that Dean, because of his fundraising, endorsements, and momentum, is looking clearly like the front runner. He's going to start emphasizing the moderate elements of his campaign, and point out that he is for gun rights and did support fiscal conservacy when governor of Vermont to point out that indeed, he's the right choice for every American.

Of course, if you want to find a pundit that supports your particular viewpoint, then go right ahead. They're a dime a dozen, and this is all opinion anyway.

[JeffL]

It amuses me to see all this helpful campaign advice from Bush supporters. Thanks guys, I'm not surprised that you think a candidate has to lean more to the right to win. Not at all.

Assumption/Mistake 1: where did I say I was a Bush supporter? Why can't someone try to analyse the Dems approach and point out what they assume is an error without being dismissed as a "Bush supporter?" Sounds mighty insecure. (See, I can make unfounded assumptions too! ;) )

[JeffL]

Lackey, I think you're nuts to think Lieberman could make it. I really think he has no chance. He has too hard a time articulating a position. Then there's his religion (which some have a problem with) but also the depth of his religion (which other people have a problem with).

Clark, Kerry, maybe... Gephart, maybe, but not Lieberman. I'm falling asleep just thinking about a Lieberman run.


I remember when Lieberman and Chaney debated each other. A LOT of people, right and left and middle, as well as some columnists, said basically "why can't we choose between these two for president?" It was so much more intellectual and professional than Bush and Gore.

Lieberman can come across as intelligent, non-partisan, mature, reasonable. His campaign has been much more intelligent than the petty name calling/hate campaign led by the other Dems, that so turns on the liberals and so turns off so many moderates who are looking for something to vote FOR. That's hard for a lot of folks here to understand, because they are so consumed with hatred for Bush. But I don't think that approach is going to fly in the election.

I think Lieberman can give most Americans what they are seeking: someone who they feel comfortable with and trust running the country in very dangerous times. Calm, experienced leadership. I doubt many people are going to want to put their trust in Dean.

Just my thoughts.

[JeffL]

The point we're at now, rather early in the campaign cycle, is that Dean, because of his fundraising, endorsements, and momentum, is looking clearly like the front runner. He's going to start emphasizing the moderate elements of his campaign, and point out that he is for gun rights and did support fiscal conservacy when governor of Vermont to point out that indeed, he's the right choice for every American.

Of course, if you want to find a pundit that supports your particular viewpoint, then go right ahead. They're a dime a dozen, and this is all opinion anyway.

Hey Xpav - let's make it fun. I'll bet you the PC game of your choice that if it's Dean vs. Bush, Dean will lose. :)

[XPav]

Assumption/Mistake 1: where did I say I was a Bush supporter? Why can't someone try to analyse the Dems approach and point out what they assume is an error without being dismissed as a "Bush supporter?" Sounds mighty insecure. (See, I can make unfounded assumptions too! ;) )

Oh nowhere, but I'm just pointing out hilarious advice from conservative commentator to Democrats and vice versa about what they have to do to win.

As for you, sir, I'm not saying that you're a Bush supporter. You're just wrong! :lol:

The "Dean is a crazy far out liberal" idea is just wrong. In Vermot, he balanced the budget, cut taxes on business, and so on.

But don't listen to me, go read Reason (www.reason.com/rauch/120803.shtml).

And Jeff: Sure, I'll make that bet. :lol:

[Jason McCullough]

The problem is that his supporters, it seems, are the far left. A group that moderate-to-left leaners (like me), by and large, aren't comfortable with.

Bush somehow managed to get over this problem in the GOP.....

The thing with Dean is that yes, on paper, he looks like electoral suicide - but so did Reagan, whose positions were way farther out there from the center. The interesting thing with Dean is that he really is a moderate, unlike Reagan; he's just doing the anger liberal rhetoric to nail down the base.

Dean has this charming McCain-style personal appeal thing going on that completely changes the dynamics. On the right, Stephen Moore and Rauch compare him to Clinton; on the left, he's compared to Harry Truman.

Oh, and there's the whole "rebuild the Democratic party on the views of individual commited donors, not those of business PACs" thing. Looks promising.

Dean as Reagan:

http://www.moore-info.com/Poll_Updates/2004%20Election%20%20Why%20Dean%20can%20win%20Sept %2003.htm

Moore on Dean:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/073ylkiz.asp

There's also the "none of the other candidates have a chance" problem. Clark is literally the only one I can see getting elected, and he just doesn't have the campaign organization to do it. Dean does.

[Jakub]

Lieberman's got the unfortunate censorship of gaming stigma going (seriously, it's what I and probably a million other gamers know him for), plus he's Jewish. Electing a Jew as President of America, while America's meddling in Iraq and the Mid-East in general is like... oh I don't know... sticking a big "terrorize me" sticker on the back of the jock in class who everyone's too scared to face man-to-man.

[Jason McCullough]

http://www.moore-info.com/Poll_Updates/2004%20Election%20%20Why%20Dean%20can%20win%20Sept %2003.htm

Another thing about the Dean-as-Reagan memo: check out the electoral college breakdown they have. Wouldn't take much.

Howard Dean’s appeal is closer to Ronald Reagan’s than any other Democrat running today. Granted, that’s not saying much with this field, but there are similarities here. The Democrat party used to chuckle about Reagan and his gaffes which they believed would marginalize him to the far right dustbin of history. But when his opponents tried to attack him for some of his more outlandish statements, the folks in the middle simply ignored them. Voters in the middle looked to the bigger picture where they saw a man of conviction who cared about them and had solutions for their problems. Howard Dean has the potential to offer a similar type candidacy.

Furthermore, the “far-left liberal” charge which Republicans have used effectively in the past to define Democrats has much less impact today than it used to. The problem here is that the GOP spent years warning America about the ills of a left-wing liberal Clinton presidency and how it would destroy the economy, ruin our children, and leave America a twisted wreck. Well, we survived and the economy actually did well during much of the Clinton years. America didn’t have a problem with Bill Clinton being a far-left liberal, they had a problem with his inability to tell the truth and his total lack of morals.

[JeffL]

And Jeff: Sure, I'll make that bet. :lol:

You're on! (virtual handshake.) Half-life 2 may be out by then. ;)

[DennyA]

Shame Wesley Clark didn't turn out to be the miracle candidate he appeared to be before he jumped into the election and actually started speaking. He seemed the best bet.

I think Lieberman could beat Bush. I think a Lieberman with the full weight and support of the Democratic party could beat Bush next November pretty handily.

Lieberman? He has no chance. There's the whole telegenic issue, and there's the Jewish thing too, an issue on both discimination and international fronts. Not to mention the fact that gamers aren't going to vote for him. :)

I think the country's biggest hope is that so many people are fed up with Bush and what's happened over the past three years that I'd guess 25% of the population would even vote for Sharpton or Koontz rather than support a Bush reelection.

[DennyA]

I think Lieberman can give most Americans what they are seeking: someone who they feel comfortable with and trust running the country in very dangerous times. Calm, experienced leadership.
Yeah, but what tiny percentage of votes uses logic to select their candidate of choice?

As for Dean, the Civil Union issue alone will insure that Bush will take 100% of the South. (Such as ever-progressive Mississippi, which responded to Vermont's Civil Union law by passing a law saying gay couples can't adopt.)

[Jason McCullough]

The thing is that Dean doesn't even need the south, technically. He can even win without FL (though it'd be hard).

http://www.carlwithak.com/files/2003DeanSpeech.pdf

That's Dean's big breakout speech at the 2003 CA Democratic convention; the crowd went absolutely apeshit for it. The interesting thing is that it's technically not that liberal....

[Nathan Phoenix]

I'm leaning toward Dean personally. I tend to be mostly moderate and he seems the best fit of any real contender for my views. If the dems nominate Lieberman though, I'll vote republican no matter how much I hate Bush. Just because of the anti-gaming thing.

[steve]

If the dems nominate Lieberman though, I'll vote republican no matter how much I hate Bush. Just because of the anti-gaming thing.
Do you seriously think gaming is more important than, I don't know, the Middle East situation? Terrorism? Taxes? Healthcare?

Lieberman may be a terrible candidate, but really... he called the industry out for its marketing of violent games to kids. I'm not entirely sure he wasn't right, that it was pretty distasteful (and still is; The Matrix games are Teen, while the movies are rated R?). Hate him for being a wishy-washy moderate, a boring curmudgeon, for having all sorts of screwy policies, or for being Jewish, but picking out "he's anti-gaming"... yeesh.

[Case]

I think Lieberman could beat Bush.


No. And it has nothing to do with policy. Lieberman has all the charisma of a sock.

[Bub, Andrew]

I think Jason McCullough wrote that Dean is charming? Yikes! I see a guy spouting anger, waffling, looking defensive, and somehow raising lots of money from people who really don't understand that politics are about compromise. In short, Nader voters.

Basically I think Dean has ruined it for himself with his anti-war, let's get out of Iraq rhetoric, and then being inconsistent on it. Bush will capitalize on the War on Terror, the Dems need someone who looks tough, strong, and "more competent than Bush in a flight suit" does.

And Jeff, all the reasons you put in Lieberman's favor - smart, reasonable, moderate, etc., - are overrun by his lack of charisma, dynamism, etc., As I recall, Chaney buried Lieberman in those debates.

[Dirt]

The thing is: endorsing Dean is the only way Gore is going to have a chance in 2008.

[Jason McCullough]

I think Jason McCullough wrote that Dean is charming? Yikes! I see a guy spouting anger, waffling, looking defensive, and somehow raising lots of money from people who really don't understand that politics are about compromise. In short, Nader voters.

Or Reagan voters, or Truman voters - anger lovers, all of them! I'm telling you, read his posititons, they're not that liberal.

Don't confuse style with substance. Are you seriously arguing that Nader had the same style or positions as Dean?

[Desslock]

I remember when Lieberman and Chaney debated each other. A LOT of people, right and left and middle, as well as some columnists, said basically "why can't we choose between these two for president?" It was so much more intellectual and professional than Bush and Gore.

As a non-American, and someone who is as athiest and libertarian as it gets, I have to state that despite not agreeing with the bent of either of these guys, I thought this was a phenomenal debate for all of the reasons Jeff mentioned. Incredibly smart, capable guys, who civily argued substance instead of trite crap and rhetoric.

[JeffL]

I think Lieberman could beat Bush.


No. And it has nothing to do with policy. Lieberman has all the charisma of a sock.

Sigh. OK, you guys convinced me. It's the age of the sound byte, where how good you look on TV and on the Late Night shows determines who gets to be president. (well, once you get past having to have a gazillion dollars and pleasing the most extreme factions of your party to get the nomination.) I guess America gets what we deserve.

I'm not convinced that Dean can win, though - ironically for some of the same reasons, but from a different aspect. People can post all of the PDFs and links, etc. that show how Dean is a reasonable moderate liberal in spite of his strident angry spewing during the primaries, but Americans aren't going to read policy reports and pdfs. They're going to watch commercials on TV. And I think they can make Dean look like a clueless pacifist wild eyed liberal. I'm not saying he is - I'm betting that they can put the sound bytes together to make him look like that to America.

I've voted about 50/50 for Democrats and Republians for president in my voting life, so I don't think I see things with as much a partisan eye as some. But I'm just another schmuck with an opinion. :)

[Jason McCullough]

Well, you can put together some rather embarassing Bush soundbites.

Anyway, Dean isn't going to be yelling about Democrats 4 EVAR once the general starts.

[awdougherty]

Well, my primary vote will go to Clark most likely, and then when he loses, I'll vote for Dean in the general election.

[Shawn Metcalf]

I'll take side-bets with anyone willing to back their opinions.

Put me down for fifty bucks. I win if Dean gets sworn in; you win if Bush gets sworn in. Kang/Kodos results are a tie.

[Tyjenks]

I am looking for anyone to vote for other than Bush. Didn't vote for him last time and will not this time. Granted I have moved from the left as a teen and in my 20's to a spot somewhere around the middle, none of these guys have impressed me.

If the economy keeps powering up, I do not think any of them have a chance anyway unless Iraq continues to get worse. Even then, it has been shown time and again that if people feel their bank accounts have a little money in them and most are gainfully employed, the incumbent will win regardless. Right now, that is where I see it heading.

[Jason McCullough]

BTW, I'm not some crazed Dean supporter. I really like the guy, but the only reason I don't support Clark is I don't think he has the mad political organizing skillz to get elected. If I'm wrong, he's going to need to hurry up and show us.

[Squirrel Killer]

I see a guy spouting anger, waffling, looking defensive, and somehow raising lots of money from people who really don't understand that politics are about compromise. In short, Nader voters.

Are you seriously arguing that Nader had the same style or positions as Dean?

I'm going to pipe in here for Andrew (correct me if I'm wrong). Bub's not arguing anything of the sort (that Dean=Nader). What he says, pretty clearly if you ask me, is that Dean is raising money from people who don't understand politics and are quintessential Nader voters. This is not to say anything about Dean's style or positions as they relate to Nader, mearly that Dean's supporters look and act an awful lot like Nader supporters.

[Jason McCullough]

Ah, ok. I don't think that's true, though; any backing for it?

[Squirrel Killer]

I don't think Bub was trying to say that Nader supporters became Dean supporters, or anything like that. I think he was just trying to say that Dean's supporters behave and seem to have a similar outlook to Nader's supporters.

[Daniel Morris]

This will be a single-issue election, rightly or wrongly, and that issue will be national security. Dean, while pleasing to the ears of the "mad as hell" crowd, will be eviscerated in a presidential election against Bush, and the reason for his evisceration will be a perceived softness on defense. It's easy to identify the Dean quotes that Karl Rove has already snipped out for the attack ads.

It amuses me to see all this helpful campaign advice from Bush supporters. Thanks guys, I'm not surprised that you think a candidate has to lean more to the right to win. Not at all.

I am a lifelong Democrat. I have never voted for a Republican candidate and never will. It's my fervent desire to see Bush out of office that makes me so nervous about Dean.

[JeffL]

Two tangential thoughts:

- Sharpton could hurt Dean if he decided to run as an independant. He should figure out a way to get something big from the Democrats to keep him from running as an independant - he could sink Dean completely. (And even if you don't agree with his politics, he is an incredible speaker - makes Jesse Jackson look stilted.)

- I'm really dissapointed that Gore didn't give Lieberman an advance courtesy call to let him know he was about to endorse Dean. C'mon, this is the guy who went through an incredibly grueling presidential campaign with you, who was by your side and fought for you and made your case for the entire 2000 campaign. The least he could have done was let Lieberman know a day before the press.

[Bub, Andrew]

Heh, nothing scientific McCullough. Squirrel's got me right. I'm not saying Nader and Dean are the same. Aside from the huge policy differences, Dean is far more electable then Nader was. I think they share the same supporters. The idealists. At this point I consider Dean to be the "Leftie Idealist" candidate even though I understand that he's sort of hoodwinking them. Most of the Dean supporters I've met are the "War is evil, Republicans are evil, big business is evil" types. Also, most of the Dean supporters I know also voted for Nader.

Oh heck, ok, I was also trying to troll the Dean supporters on this board a bit.

[Tyjenks]

After hearing much of Gore's "Dean Rulez" speech, I am reminded of why I did not vote for the "real winner" in the last presidential election. He may genuinely mean every word he says, but he could not sell me a glass of water in the desert.

Lieberman definitely got the shaft. Yet another reason to be irritated with Gore which in turn reflects onto my feelings for Dean.

[Bub, Andrew]

This will be a single-issue election, rightly or wrongly, and that issue will be national security. Dean, while pleasing to the ears of the "mad as hell" crowd, will be eviscerated in a presidential election against Bush, and the reason for his evisceration will be a perceived softness on defense. It's easy to identify the Dean quotes that Karl Rove has already snipped out for the attack ads.


I agree. But it might be duel issue if the economy tanks again. But if the economy keeps recovering, even at a slow pace, Bush can gain a lot of mileage from that. Bush's clear asset is defense and the War on Terror. We NEED a Democrat who can render that issue null and void, or maybe use it to put Bush in a poor light (it wouldn't be hard). Bush and co. would find it extremely difficulty to attack Clark or Kerry on defense issues. They have too big a credibility advantage. If either of them were nominated Bush would have to shift the argument to the economy and domestic issues, a far weaker position for him even if there's a slow recovery going on.

[JeffL]

I agree. But it might be duel issue if the economy tanks again. But if the economy keeps recovering, even at a slow pace, Bush can gain a lot of mileage from that. Bush's clear asset is defense and the War on Terror. We NEED a Democrat who can render that issue null and void, or maybe use it to put Bush in a poor light (it wouldn't be hard). Bush and co. would find it extremely difficulty to attack Clark or Kerry on defense issues. They have too big a credibility advantage. If either of them were nominated Bush would have to shift the argument to the economy and domestic issues, a far weaker position for him even if there's a slow recovery going on.

Clark could make a good stand on defense issues, but Kerry (in spite of telling everyone in every speech that he served in Vietnam) never has caught on as an expert in international defense matters. Clark has to be looking around, looking at his pile of Time and Newsweek magazines with his face on the cover, reading Gore's early endorsement of Dean (I still haven't figured what's up with that - someone in Gore's position endorsing a candidate before the first primary - something's going on under the covers here) and wondering what happened.

The Democrats are in big trouble with regard to the economy. In spite of attempts to minimize the recovery by those with vested interests, this has every sign of being a solid recovery. Which means, if it follows the cycles that the economy always does follow, around next summer things are going to look quite strong. Which means the most effective target on the back of an incumbent president, a weak economy, isn't going to be there.

If I were the "handler" of a Democratic candidate, I'd be going after flag waving issues that you could make great commercials from and that would put the Republicans on the defensive. So I ask myself, as someone who is a moderate who votes both ways, what would outrage me the most? The answer isn't Iraq - it's a perceived attack on "liberty" and civil rights by the changes in the laws a la the "Patriot Act." And as someone not in Congress, you couldn't respond with "Well, you voted for it."

[JeffL]

I'll take side-bets with anyone willing to back their opinions.

Put me down for fifty bucks. I win if Dean gets sworn in; you win if Bush gets sworn in. Kang/Kodos results are a tie.

OK, but cash is no fun: what do you spend your frivilous money on? Games? DVDs? Single Malt Scotch? :)

[Bub, Andrew]

Clark could make a good stand on defense issues, but Kerry (in spite of telling everyone in every speech that he served in Vietnam) never has caught on as an expert in international defense matters.

Sure, but Kerry doesn't have to. This isn't about being an "expert" in defense. Kerry is a decorated Vietnam vet who joined the "get our troops home" movement. He's bullet proof. If Bush (who's military record is um... shall we say... weak?) attacks him on defense, Bush looks really bad. Meanwhile Kerry can attack Bush on defense. He can do it relentlessly, simply because he's a decorated veteran and Bush is, well, he's not. Flight suits and fake turkey's aside.

[Xaroc]

After hearing much of Gore's "Dean Rulez" speech, I am reminded of why I did not vote for the "real winner" in the last presidential election. He may genuinely mean every word he says, but he could not sell me a glass of water in the desert.

So you knew he was extremely bright and competant but decided to let the fact he is not a charismatic speaker sway you from voting for him? I would expect charisma to be an issue among the idiot masses but to actually understand what is going on and let it affect you like that is just mindblowing to me.

-- Xaroc

[Shawn Metcalf]

OK, but cash is no fun: what do you spend your frivilous money on? Games? DVDs? Single Malt Scotch? :)

When I get your $50 I'll be spending it to take my wife out to dinner, and I figure it's going to be tricky for you to mail me a nice restaurant. So cash will be fine.

[Squirrel Killer]

So you knew he was extremely bright and competant but decided to let the fact he is not a charismatic speaker sway you from voting for him? I would expect charisma to be an issue among the idiot masses but to actually understand what is going on and let it affect you like that is just mindblowing to me.

You do know that there were more than two choices in the 2000 Presidential election, right? Maybe Ty found Nader to be brighter and more competent. He's arguably less charismatic than Gore too.

[Jason McCullough]

Heh, nothing scientific McCullough. Squirrel's got me right. I'm not saying Nader and Dean are the same. Aside from the huge policy differences, Dean is far more electable then Nader was. I think they share the same supporters. The idealists. At this point I consider Dean to be the "Leftie Idealist" candidate even though I understand that he's sort of hoodwinking them. Most of the Dean supporters I've met are the "War is evil, Republicans are evil, big business is evil" types. Also, most of the Dean supporters I know also voted for Nader.

Oh heck, ok, I was also trying to troll the Dean supporters on this board a bit.

Ok, fair on the anecdotes. But theoretically the "Nader" candidate this time around should be Kunischischish, right? Goofy looking, way left, no shot in hell at winning - why are they supporting the mostly-centrist guy instead? I actually kind of agree with the Kaus analysis, of all things - that's Dean is locking up the base with angry "I'm with you, goddamn it" rhetoric, while leaving plenty of room for the general election. There's even a bit of a parallel to how Bush got elected - hey did the right motions and made the right sotto-voice noises to get the base behind him, but he left tons of room to play the centrist.

Maybe Nader voters are going bonkers to Dean, but I haven't seen much of it. What I have seen is truly crazed supporters who are all low-level Democrats - precinct captains, old ladies who've voted Democratic for the last 50 years, what have you. If you watch the videos of the CA convention, for one, it's hardcore Democratic party supporters blowing a gasket with love for Dean. These are the same people that Nader voters professed to loathe so much in 2000, remember?

Maybe I'm going to be totally disappointed next year, but I really do think Dean's crazed level of support is something we haven't seen in a long time.

I also just don't see how Clark is going to beat Bush. Yes, people like him, he has some good policy proposals, but he's a complete political neophyte. I think Bush will eat him alive.

And it is Dean or Clark; none of the other candidates have a shot in hell. Not in this environment. How they look on paper isn't as important as what people see. For Kerry, people see this bizarre New England blue blood who can't for the life of him talk like a normal person; Gephardt's as uninspiring as a wet grocery sack; and Edwards has even less qualifications than Bush got elected on.

[Jason McCullough]

Oh yeah - Dean turning the internet into practically the only fundraising source a Democratic candidate needs is an earthquake that hasn't fully worked itself out yet. I don't even know what all the angles there are.

[Tyjenks]

So you knew he was extremely bright and competant but decided to let the fact he is not a charismatic speaker sway you from voting for him? I would expect charisma to be an issue among the idiot masses but to actually understand what is going on and let it affect you like that is just mindblowing to me.

You do know that there were more than two choices in the 2000 Presidential election, right? Maybe Ty found Nader to be brighter and more competent. He's arguably less charismatic than Gore too.

Thanks for the help Squirrel Killer. :)

I do appreciate Xaroc lumping me in with the ignorant masses, but it really comes down to career politicians and my own history of voting for the lesser of two evils. I was and am tired of both. When I look at Gore and listen to him speak, I see only the politician. Unfortunately, he was not very good even at that when running in 2000. He should have either had Clinton pound the pavement with him or completely distanced himself from him. I feel he straddled the fence and it cost him votes. (Sorry, don't want to rehash the 2000 debacle again, but a popular incumbent's VP losing is just nuts. Of course, he did not lose. Did he? :wink: )

It has nothing to do with charisma or his monotonous speech pattern. I would havevoted and I guess would today vote for Lieberman before Gore and he has a sleep inducing voice and I cannot remember a single flattering soundbyte he has uttered.

This whole election is setting up a Gore v. Clinton showdown in 2008 and it seems many in the party are resigned to that...again, IMO.

[Qenan]

As long as the Dem candidate is breathing I will probably vote for him. The thought of four more of Bush makes me seasick.

[extarbags]

(I still haven't figured what's up with that - someone in Gore's position endorsing a candidate before the first primary - something's going on under the covers here)

It's this: if Dean gets the nomination and doesn't win, Gore runs again in 2008, this time with all of Deans supporters from this election behind him. Very shrewd move on his part.

[XPav]

(I still haven't figured what's up with that - someone in Gore's position endorsing a candidate before the first primary - something's going on under the covers here)

It's this: if Dean gets the nomination and doesn't win, Gore runs again in 2008, this time with all of Deans supporters from this election behind him. Very shrewd move on his part.

Be sure to work in some Gore vs Hillary and Gore hate Bill action in there too.

Or... (www.matthewyglesias.com/archives/002046.html#002046)
2008

Not to rain on media colleagues' parade to an undue degree here, but speculation along the lines of "...if Dean loses in 2004, then what will happen in 2008" is really a bit silly. This is 2003 -- five years from 2008. Five years ago, it was 1998. Who in the world was sitting around in 1998 saying "Al Gore will almost certainly be the Democratic nominee, and if he loses in 2000 then it looks like the primary will be fought out between the Howard Dean camp and the Wesley Clark camp?" The answer, of course, is no one. I consider the fact that The Harvard Independent ran interviews with Dean and Clark as recently as fall 2002 to have been a pretty remarkable piece of foresight on the part of my trusty Executive Editor and that, in truth, was much more coincidence than foresight.

They say a week is a long time in politics, but five years is a long time everywhere. There's just absolutely no way to handicap a race like that. There's not even any real way to handicap the 2004 general election. 2008 -- nobody knows, and nobody will for a good long time.

[Xaroc]

So you knew he was extremely bright and competant but decided to let the fact he is not a charismatic speaker sway you from voting for him? I would expect charisma to be an issue among the idiot masses but to actually understand what is going on and let it affect you like that is just mindblowing to me.

You do know that there were more than two choices in the 2000 Presidential election, right? Maybe Ty found Nader to be brighter and more competent. He's arguably less charismatic than Gore too.

Thanks for the help Squirrel Killer. :)

I do appreciate Xaroc lumping me in with the ignorant masses, but it really comes down to career politicians and my own history of voting for the lesser of two evils. I was and am tired of both. When I look at Gore and listen to him speak, I see only the politician.

It has nothing to do with charisma or his monotonous speech pattern. I would havevoted and I guess would today vote for Lieberman before Gore and he has a sleep inducing voice and I cannot remember a single flattering soundbyte he has uttered.


This is far different than what you said initially. I see what you are saying now. And I didn't lump you in the with ignorant masses reread what I said. The ignorant masses vote based on things like charisma without knowing it.

-- Xaroc

[Tyjenks]

I realize you did not lump me in and I also realize I was thinking one thing and it made its way here in an abbreviated form. I was feeling a bit contrary so I stirred the pot a little. :)

I have no idea who I am going to vote for. If only there was a millionaire trial lawyer who was running as a completely selfless act and doing so for the good of the common man and woman.