Lieberman dropped.

[jaichind]

Excellent.  Of all the Dem candidates, I have always been the most hostile to Lieberman.  While I do not object to a good part of his domestic agenda, I am very hostile to his foreign policy views.  The earlier he is out the better.

[Gustaf]

Excellent.  Of all the Dem candidates, I have always been the most hostile to Lieberman.  While I do not object to a good part of his domestic agenda, I am very hostile to his foreign policy views.  The earlier he is out the better.

I suppose you would.

[opebo]

Excellent.  Of all the Dem candidates, I have always been the most hostile to Lieberman.  While I do not object to a good part of his domestic agenda, I am very hostile to his foreign policy views.  The earlier he is out the better.

Hah, he was the only remotely decent Democrat in the contest.

[Gustaf]

Excellent.  Of all the Dem candidates, I have always been the most hostile to Lieberman.  While I do not object to a good part of his domestic agenda, I am very hostile to his foreign policy views.  The earlier he is out the better.

Hah, he was the only remotely decent Democrat in the contest.

Jaichind has some odd views on foreign policy. To put it mildly.

[© tweed]

It was nice to see Joe go out with some grace, something that Dean isn't doing.  I think he should have dropped out after NH though.

Gore's concession speech in 200 was the best speech of his campaign.

[12th Doctor]

Question: Who gets Lieberman's supporters if they stick around?  I can't see them going to Kerry or Dean, really.  Edwards and Clark, perhaps?

Honestly, I think that a sizible part of Liebermann's support goes to Bush.

[© tweed]

Honestly, I think that a sizible part of Liebermann's support goes to Bush.

No more than 15%, at most.  Plus, Lieberman hardly had a following.

[Gustaf]

I agree with MiamiU. I am actaully not sure whether Lieberman would have made such a strong candidate. Seems to me like a lot of Republicans liked him, but would still have voted for Bush.

[7,052,770]

Yeah.  Lieberman had little support, and those who did support them are unlikely to move to Bush, and Lieberman, like the other 8, criticized him much.

[zachman]

Lieberman finished second in my town, which is predominantly Republican, registered as independents for the primary. Most republicans in my town do not like Bush or Dean. They split their vote between Lieberman and Kerry.

I hated Lieberman when he was arguing against Dean, but since Dean has struggled I have liked him more in the last few weeks, except that he kept mentioning his Bush-like speech about Saddam Hussein.

Dean and Lieberman neutralized each other. Dean really helped the democratic party switch away from the party of unconfidently made republican choices, and became a party that cares about responsibility and action. Lieberman gave opposing words to a man who is viewed by too many as not mainstream. The attacks on Dean that Lieberman and Gephardt made killed them, but saved Kerry? Do you remember when Kerry was Dean's harshest critic?

[© tweed]

Zachman-what town in NH do you live in?

[Demrepdan]

Zachman-what town in NH do you live in?

In what town in NH do you live.

[CHRISTOPHER MICHAE]

His concession speech is putting his own family to sleep

I agree. If Lieberman was on Dave Letterman, and he gave the TOP 10, the Audience would be in a coma before he reached number 4 on the TOP 10 List.

[zachman]

Bedford, its suburban Manchester. Its host to the BVI (Bedford Village Inn) where NBC news stayed and the Wayfarer Inn where CBS news stays every time. I heard that the Today Show will be back at the BVI for election day.

[M]

Oh, good. When I heard most Republicans somewhere in NH do not like Bush, I though, "oh, no, a previously unknown rural souring on the president".  But thank gosh, you're not from NH, you're from Boston. Except fpr my uncle, I know of very few Boston Republicans. (My uncle is the only Republican in Cambridge).

[Beet]

It's startling how much the Democrats are in disarray only a single term after they held a two-term presidency.

Clinton himself threw away much of what he had brilliantly accomplished for the party through his personal flaws (not only his sex addiction, but his unfathomable inability to work things out with Gore and campaign for him in some mutually agreed capacity).

All this leaves the Democratic party so disaffected by Clinton-Gore that they have totally rejected that part of the party's winning formula: the moderate, third way political philosophy that is so appealing to middle class and working Americans.

Democrats do not understand that it's been 40 years since a Democrat has been elected with a political philosophy resembling the current remaining candidates. Those elections in which they've run someone like any of the remaining candidates (72, 84 and 88) have resulted in crushing landslides for them.

I'll wait until the Democratic convention, but my color is likely to change to blue for this cycle. I'm sure I'm not the only Lieberman supporter that the Democrats may lose this year.

Neither Kerry or Edwards has any of the huge problems that McGovern, Mondale and Dukakis did.
For a start they can actually run a good campaign...

A Kerry-Edwards or Edwards-Kerry ticked would be formindible.

And Carter is no more right wing than either of 'em.

McGovern and Mondale were not mushy, they were great campaigners. They both gave energetic, rousing speeches, neither had character issues or any taint of scandal. Mondale was a former VP who was the heir apparant of the liberal wing of the Democratic party (although he would have lost the nomination to pre-DLCer Gary Hart except for the Donna Rice scandal - what is it with these Democratic centrists?).

The problem with McGovern, Mondale and Dukakis was that they failed to bring out more than the Democratic left, because they were successfully and accurately labeled by the GOP as too left for the American people in foreign affairs (McGovern), domestically (Mondale), or both (Dukakis).

I see Kerry-whoever fighting the same philosophic and electoral battle as any of them.

As far as Carter's political philosophy, his appeal in 1976 was similar to Clinton's in 1992: after devastating losses with liberals, the Dems successfully went with the governor of a Southern state, a church-going Southern Baptist seen as "progressive" on civil rights, but with moderate fiscal views.

Which brings us full circle, and I'm back to my original question, why does Kerry get such high ratings for electability? You would think that after the '70s and '80s experiences people would have learned something. At the very least, Kerry is not more electable than Edwards.

[Mort from NewYawk]

It's startling how much the Democrats are in disarray only a single term after they held a two-term presidency.

Clinton himself threw away much of what he had brilliantly accomplished for the party through his personal flaws (not only his sex addiction, but his unfathomable inability to work things out with Gore and campaign for him in some mutually agreed capacity).

All this leaves the Democratic party so disaffected by Clinton-Gore that they have totally rejected that part of the party's winning formula: the moderate, third way political philosophy that is so appealing to middle class and working Americans.

Democrats do not understand that it's been 40 years since a Democrat has been elected with a political philosophy resembling the current remaining candidates. Those elections in which they've run someone like any of the remaining candidates (72, 84 and 88) have resulted in crushing landslides for them.

I'll wait until the Democratic convention, but my color is likely to change to blue for this cycle. I'm sure I'm not the only Lieberman supporter that the Democrats may lose this year.

Neither Kerry or Edwards has any of the huge problems that McGovern, Mondale and Dukakis did.
For a start they can actually run a good campaign...

A Kerry-Edwards or Edwards-Kerry ticked would be formindible.

And Carter is no more right wing than either of 'em.

McGovern and Mondale were not mushy, they were great campaigners. They both gave energetic, rousing speeches, neither had character issues or any taint of scandal. Mondale was a former VP who was the heir apparant of the liberal wing of the Democratic party (although he would have lost the nomination to pre-DLCer Gary Hart except for the Donna Rice scandal - what is it with these Democratic centrists?).

The problem with McGovern, Mondale and Dukakis was that they failed to bring out more than the Democratic left, because they were successfully and accurately labeled by the GOP as too left for the American people in foreign affairs (McGovern), domestically (Mondale), or both (Dukakis).

I see Kerry-whoever fighting the same philosophic and electoral battle as any of them.

As far as Carter's political philosophy, his appeal in 1976 was similar to Clinton's in 1992: after devastating losses with liberals, the Dems successfully went with the governor of a Southern state, a church-going Southern Baptist seen as "progressive" on civil rights, but with moderate fiscal views.

Which brings us full circle, and I'm back to my original question, why does Kerry get such high ratings for electability? You would think that after the '70s and '80s experiences people would have learned something. At the very least, Kerry is not more electable than Edwards.

It's the Democratic primary voters who have conferred the "electability" title on Kerry, after Dean forfeited it with The Scream. Kerry is seen as the candidate with the most gravitas and experience out of this remaining sorry crew. Of course his gravitas and experience doesn't hold a candle to Joe's.

But even if it did, it's POLICY POSITIONS, POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY that the electorate wants to hear - where you stand on taxes, the war, social issues, that's the bottom line. That's why Joe Lieberman was the most, perhaps only, electable Democrat.

I think the Democrats are still looking to the  60's, the anti-war movement, the civil rights movement, and Watergate for their glory, when they were successful as an opposition movement (but not in getting elected!).

Even though Dean's out, they still want someone to "take back the party", i.e. make the liberal philosophy work.

So, unfortunately, the Democrats are in disarray. This happens every time they're facing a popular GOP incumbent.

This persistence in steering their ship to the left is destroying their party, and with it, resistance to some of the more obnoxious positions of the hard right.

[zachman]

The reason Kerry is ahead of Edwards in comparison polls to Bush, is that not everyone who answers the polls has heard of Edwards. This is what is holding Edwards behind is his lack of exposure.

[12th Doctor]

The reason Kerry is ahead of Edwards in comparison polls to Bush, is that not everyone who answers the polls has heard of Edwards. This is what is holding Edwards behind is his lack of exposure.

Not everyone in those polls has any clue who Kerry is either.  They know he is running against Bush.  That's it.  Remember, not everyone is as politically savey as you or I.  That's why polls this early out are nothing to get exited over.  Especially polls that show Bush down, because most of the country hasn't gotten a goodlook at these candidates, but they know Bush.

[© tweed]

The reason Kerry is ahead of Edwards in comparison polls to Bush, is that not everyone who answers the polls has heard of Edwards. This is what is holding Edwards behind is his lack of exposure.

Zachman, what town do you live in, or which town in which do you live?  Something like that.

[zachman]

I answered that on the last page of this post.

[© tweed]

I answered that on the last page of this post.

Sorry.  Bedford, I see it now.