Talk Elections

I believe Dean still has the nomination all wrapped up, regardless of Saddam's capture.

Dean has it and it's going to damage the Dems in the general.

They've already invested to much into Dean to leave him now.  Besides, Dean's support comes from those who hate Bush no matter what happens.

gotta say Dean.  Gephardt would be second guess though.  Others could quit now and no one would care less.

You got it.

Plus, at this point Dean already has the kind of inertia you'd expect a candidate not to have till after NH and Iowa. Scary as it seems, by Feb. 3 Dean may be powerful enought to sweep (yes, even SC).

I think what the media keeps focusing on--that Dean will be hurt by Saddam's capture--is based on an assumption that this is the general election Dean is in a race for here and not the Democratic primary for president.  Were this the general election, Dean would be dead and Bush would be reelected.

But it's not the general election, and thus you have the joy of Howard Dean.  When analyzing this situation, you have to ask yourself, who votes in the Democratic primary?  No other group but the hardcore Democrats, the liberal (and dominate) wing of the party.  Hardcore liberals (those that intend to vote in the primaries) love Dean--Saddam's capture hasn't changed that.  They can't keep enough of him, in fact.

And what do hardcore liberals hate more than ever?  George W. Bush.  Hardcore liberals also hate the war in Iraq.  Even though Saddan has been captured, their stance hasn't changed; "the war was wrong," "getting Saddam changes nothing--troops still die every day," "where's Osama?" "where are the WMDs?"

The capture of Saddam might even add a little more fuel to Dean's campaign.  ALL Democrats recoiled from the news of Saddam's capture.  But the hardcore liberal wing of the party, after their initial despair, will regroup and get behind Dean again even stronger than before.

Al Gore's HUGE endorsement stills stands, as do the many endorsements he has received from black leaders across the country and certain Unions.  Saddam's capture has changed nothing.  You may even see Al Gore out there again actively campaigned for Dean all the way to Iowa.

Why does everyone see Dean being this hardcore extreme liberal????  I think he's more moderate than Edwards or Lieberman.  Check his stance on the issues.

I think Dean will get the nomination but will lose in a landslide.  I think this will be OK.  I view Dean like Goldwater in '64: he will lose, but galvanize a party in disarray and set the foundation for a new political ideology.

He's moderate in the sense that he supports a balanced budget, which means less government spending, but also a faster end to Bush's temporary taxes. Over the long term that's a very sensible solution. Over the short term it won't be popular.

I wouldn't say noone. I don't like Dean. I don't trust him. He's Nixonesque. I prefer Clark or Edwards.

I really like Dean, but I agree, I think it's doubtful he can win in 2004. I think he will do well in the Nth Est, even very well, but will be in trouble everywhere else, except perhaps California, DC and Hawaii!

Well, if he gets California, he'll win the election more than likely.

Why if he wins Cali will he wint he election?? Gore didn't.  Bush doesn't need Cali to win.

Why is Dean seen as a liberal, someone asked.

Wants tax increases on EVERYONE!

Supports Civil Unions, even signing it into law

Is ANTI WAR

Wants more regulations on Business

For all the clark supporters an honest question.  How does he get the nomination what state does he break through in?  Are other candidates knocked out first, such as Gephardt in IA and kerry in NH, would that be better or worse for Clark.

Ask this all over and no Clark supporters ever give an answer.

The big thing about Clark is that no one knows where he stands on anything.  His campaign has failed to get any kind of message out, and it isn't that they haven't had the time.

At first he was for the war, then he was against, then he was for, then against, and now he's somewhere in between.

And jravnsbo is right.  What state does he make his big breakthrough in?  Dean is currently leading in ALL early states save Missouri, which obviously Gephardt is leading, and Oklahoma for Lieberman. (Though it is quite possible that Dean knocks both of those candidates out of those states by winning Iowa and N.H.)

From the polls I've seen, the first primary that Clark is leading is California, which doesn't have it's primary until March 2.  But by March 2, Dean will have won almost every state prior to California and will be seen as the nominee.  That will be more than enough to push Dean ahead in the first state Clark is leading.

Does anyone even support Clark on this forum?

He got 3 votes, so I thought I would ask.

This thread is about who you THINK will win. Not WANT. So when those 3 people voted for Wesley Clark, non of their personal feelings should have went into their decision to vote for him.

Thought I'd ask as I said I ask in other forums and no Clark supporters have a clue.  They just try ot change the subject.

O.K., but I did vote for who I think will ultimately win the Nomination. It just so happens that I also want Clark to. Republicans would be shaking in their Cowboy Boots then!

No shaking here.  Economy is coming up, situation is getting better in IRaq.  Bush is getting legislation passed that he promised.  Bush is also keeping the base happy with Judges and PBA.  

Bush is definately on the upswing.  And Clark still, STILL hasn't made a lot of his positions known on domestic issues, he just always changes the subject to foriegn policy.  I know that is his strength, but come on.

I think Howard Dean is going to win the nomination and he pretty much has it locked up. I think that Dean is bad for the party and will hurt it nationally. I'm a strong Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) supporter and even though he probably won't win I'm still all for him. NJ FOR KERRY!

Kerry will be gone after NH.  He is doing very poorly int eh Feb 3 contests and got outflanked ont eh left by Dean.  The liberal base did not like his stand ont he war.  

Should be a fun convention iN Boston, MAss.  Kerry's home state and a big party for Dean.

I do agree Dean will hurt the Dem party and swing them HARD LEFT.

I hope that doesn't happen. I HOPE that if Dean were nominated, he would settle down more in the center.

This country may one day elect a liberal Democrat, but not anytime soon, especially after 9/11.

Foriegn Policy debates and ones with the military favor the GOP.  The GOP has always been strong on defense whereas the Dems are immediately remembered with the 60's peace movement.

Reagan, Bush 41 were both tough on defense and you felt safe.  I'll never forget the quick strike on Libya, and how much have you heard of Khdafi since?

Carter flubbed up and got balmed for Iran and Clinton just ignored attack after attack, which is coming to light.  PLus he could have been handed OBL by Nigeria and said no.  SIGH.

For you Gephardt fans:

The Gephardt campaign announced this morning that former House Whip David Bonior (D-Mich.) will formally endorse Gephardt today and begin serving as the campaign's national co-chairman.

There is something of an axiom in politics that when you have a decent chance at the highest office, you more or less will settle down in the center. This is bunk. Hitler did not move to the center, he just stayed angry as ever. Do not uderestimate human beings, we are capable f incredible stupidity.

As to Dean, I do not see any sign that he will be moving back to the center. I think he will run a campaign on hate, anger, and vitriol, with a neo-socialist give-peave-a-chance flavor.

Great, now all Gephardt needs is an endorsement from Harvey the rabbit.

You know, Edwards could have been great- right accent, right looks, right money, right positions. His flop has been one of the biggest disappointments of the campaign season, in many ways worse than Kerry's, which is easily attributable to Dean.

Edwards = slick ambulance chaser with Breck hair.

I agree.  I remember when Edwards announced his candidacy, I said to my friends and family when talking politics, "that's the guy Bush needs to look out for."  Looking back, I see I was very wrong.  Edwards is nowhere, and I really don't see him getting anywhere.  I've said it before though, he would be a good VP candidate.  However, should Dean win the nomination, I don't see him choosing Edwards for VP; I see him choosing Clark.

Edwards should have waited till 2008, but not sure if he could get reelected to the Senate.  So much like Braun in IL, who got beat for reelection and is running.

Can't win in the home state, so hey lets run nationwide.

Edwards would have likely been defeated.

But CLARK has already stated in an interview with Wolf Blitzer of CNN that he would never play second fiddle.
My dream candidacy would be Wesley Clark/Jonathan Edwards. Reminiscent of the Clinton/Gore Eras. Of course, that was before GORE became a turncoat.

How do you know he uses Breck? Could be Vidal Sasson Vo5!

Well that does it: Madonna has officially endorsed Wesley Clark for President.  That makes my decision easy: Clark for Prez!

Frankly, why don't we just skip the election and have Clark select his White House office desk?

(Perhaps sarcasm doesn't travel well via e-mail)

Micheal Moore has endorsed him as well(not good for Nader)

Good another out of touch liberal endorsement for Dean, good.  

Just curious here ... where do you get the characterization of Edwards as an "ambulance chaser"?  Yeah, he was a lawyer ... but so are about 85% of the guys in politics.

Moore endorsed Clark.

Moore does was Clinton tells him too.

Umm ... Michael Moore attacked Clinton ... indirectly, but it was an attack when he called him "one of the best Republican presidents we've ever had."

Methinks he doesn't do as Bill says.

...And Moore was really pissed off about NAFTA...

And Michael Moore supported Ralph Nader in 2000. So no, Moore is no fan of Clinton. Kind of surprising actually that he would support Clark and not one of the more liberal Dems, but I think he has realized that Clark would stand the best chance of defeating Bush, and has become more pragmatic.

I wouldn't brag about having Michael Moore on my side.  The man is out of control and I'd feel pretty safe to bet that the majority of Americans (the few who actually know who he is) do not like him.

He is very loved in Sweden though!

He is very funny, but you have to take everything he says with a grain of salt.
Bowling for Columbine was good.

Someone got some common sense finally. Hmm, been waiting to see that for a long time.

Perhaps Moore would make a good running mate for Howard Dean.  We could all be entertained by Michael Moore's "humor" at the same time we enjoyed Howard Dean's angry tirades against Bush.  Real entertainment.

   The game plan that would get Democrats a victory is a campaign that has its main focus on economic issues, running as a economic populist, while at the same time, keeping the focus on economic issues, while at the same time de push social issues that have hurt Democrats in states such as MO and WVA, and have the potential to sink Democrats in WI and IA.

   The perfect canidate for Democrats, lets call  him Canidate X. He would not be from the Midwest, he would have a long history with private industry unions. He would not be known for his stands on economic rather than social issues, on social issues he would be somwhat liberal, but at the same time, not far left and he would if need be avoid these issues in the general election. He would not have a whiff of elitisim about him, and on military issues, he would be cautious, but not a "peace & justice" type, and his record would be as such.

   Such a canidate would put Bush on the defensive in states like WVA, MO and OH and AR. Now who comes closest to Canidate X?

Actually, I've heard a LOT about Qadafi since the 80s. He managed to pull off much worse terroristic hijinks. Of course, lately, it looks like QUIET BRITISH DIPLOMACY got Qadafi to start to come round to normality.

Incidentally, the revolution happened in Iran because of Reza Shah Pahlavi (Hitler's friend) and Mohammad Reza Shah, corrupt monarchs aided into power by the US. Khomeini and his ilk created the Islamic Republic, and some really terrible backlash broke out against American embassy staff. Not really Carter's fault. Man did everything possible to get them freed, and they were let go on Reagan's inauguration day as a slap in the face to Carter.
Clinton was never offered bin Laden by the Nigerians. Get your lies straight. It was Sudan, and the offer was made by a Sudanese-American businessman who promised he could convince the Sudanese government to turn over bin Laden for a substantial sum of cash and a promise to lift sanctions on Sudan (a state sponsor of slavery). The Clinton State Department tried to verify this offer, but it turned out to be a hoax.

No, I didn't feel safer during the Reagan years. I was scared of a nuclear holocaust. Reagan was building like mad, but Gorbachev at least was smart enough to know how the arms race would kill the Soviet Union.

Moore is in favour of Clark because he thinks that Clark is the candidate most likely to beat Bush.
And because of Dean's stance on Gun control...

Cool. I can only hope that DEMS that enjoy Moore's satire will come around to Clark.

You mean his satire that he passes as truth?

Sweden can have him if they like, no loss to America.  Maybe we can have him make an Alec Baldwin like promise ( which he never kept- damn!)

Dean will have huge problems in the South and MT West, greatly reducing the electoral map and making him play defense most of the time.  Plus Dean will kill dem candidates for congress.

Please nominate Dean!

It's all about perception isn't it. Politics are mere perception strategies/tactics to seduce the populace one way or another or somewhere on the spectrum.