I don't really understand about Dean.

[MrFun]

Ben -- you're not allowed to participate in any other threads until you respond to my answer to your question in Boris' thread about work harrassment.

It's a new rule.

[Ramo]

Even stronger? Those are both very socially conservative states and the races there will likely be decided on social issues.

Why do you say that? Both Ohio and WV were tight races in 2000. Jobs usually determine who wins, and steel is very imporant in both states.

The latest polls, and they were before Saddam's capture, Bush had a huge lead in Ohio in a potential matchup: 57-38

IIRC, those polls were taken in September. That doesn't tell you anything. Most people had little idea of who Dean was at the time, and national numbers for Bush vs. Dean were comparable. More recent national polls (like the CNN one a little while ago) show the gap to be much smaller.

It isn't clear that a trade war will break out, and if it does how long it will take it to break out, and if longer peace can be negotiated, and with the EU and Japan on our side I doubt there is much the WTO can do.

I doubt that. If a country like China tells us that we're gonna have problems exporting to them until the farm subsidies go, just about every export industry we have will be up in arms.

Moreover, those farming states again are extremely socially conservative and it is highly unlikely many would be competetive under any circumstance.

The midwest isn't that socially conservative. Not anything like that South, anyways. That's why Dems are perfectly competitive there, even have advanges in places like Iowa. And if farm subsidies go, so will their support for Shrub.

These people ought to look more at empirical evidence, and it doesn't look like the nuclear issue will be that big of a deal, BUsh is ahead there by a huge margin.

Also interesting from the current polling is Bush's 25 point lead in New Hampshire, where Dean has gotten the most exposure, showing just how well Dean's message is getting across to voters.

Links to polls?

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Ramo
Are you kidding? Shrub made verbal gaffes all the time, particularly during his first campaign. In contrast, Gore was very disciplined.

An even better example might be Reagan.

Yes, but that's not a lack of political wisdom on Shrub's part, it's dyslexia. He seems to have taken Reagan as his role model politically. While it might be good for him politically, it removes the presidency even further from the people. We never see him doing anything but transmitting the message of the day.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Of course most of the people commenting here are the kind of people whose vote Dean isn't interested in.

If he annoys you he must be doing something right.

Yes you are right Horsie. Most of us are men, and a good number of us are white men. Dean is interested in appealling to Democrats, and only 22% of white men are registered Democrats.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


Actually if the repubs are successful in advertising it will be:

Option A: I hate Dean
Option B: I hate Bush


I predict this will be one of the dirtiest campaigns to date from both sides given the absolute hatred of Bush.

It seems likely I'll make my usual selection and choose:

Option C: I hate them both

[KrazyHorse]

I like Dean. Him and Clark should team up, kick the **** out of Dubya and his fat bastard VP.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I like Dean. Him and Clark should team up, kick the **** out of Dubya and his fat bastard VP.

I don't have much respect for Dean or Clark, especially Clark. He supported the war and claims he didn't. That makes him likely wrong IMO as well as a liar by any definition. Dean spends way too much time ripping Bush and way too little time delineating his policy proposals. If elected no one is going to care how well he can rip Bush. Of the Dems Lieberman seems to be the class of the field. He's an adult who pretty much says what he beleives and does what he says.

[KrazyHorse]

He's a Republican wearing a Democrat suit.

If his nose had been any further up Bush's ass during Iraq then they would legally have been considered conjoined twins.

Clark did support Iraq, unfortunately. But that's part of why Dean needs him.

Plus they're both closet pinkos.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ben -- you're not allowed to participate in any other threads until you respond to my answer to your question in Boris' thread about work harrassment.

It's a new rule.

Or what?

You'll sic the gay Mafia on me?

[KrazyHorse]

And somebody needs to rip into Bush, big time. You can't win against him without tearing him down. He's not vulnerable to high-minded platform debate because he's a demagogue.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
And somebody needs to rip into Bush, big time. You can't win against him without tearing him down. He's not vulnerable to high-minded platform debate because he's a demagogue.

I just don't think swing voters are going to respond to that without being presented with a set of alternatives. Not going into Iraq is not an alternative for any non-time travelling candidates.

[Nubclear]

After doing a little more research on the candidates, I'm convinced of only one thing:

The democratic candidate will be as bad as Bush.
It's difficult to choose the lesser of two evils when they are so similar to each other

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Sikander


It seems likely I'll make my usual selection and choose:

Option C: I hate them both

[CerberusIV]

Can someone explain to a non-American whether it makes any difference who the Democrat candidate will be.

As I understand it any of the Dems will have spent most of their funding to get the party nomination. GWB is a shoe-in for the Repub nomination so just at the point his challenger is starting to scrabble around for the cash to run the actual presidential campaign Bush will be unlocking his $100 million campaign piggy bank.

Whatever the Dem candidate's message is - who is actually going to hear it in the deluge of the Bush campaign message?

[SpencerH]

The money to run for the nomination is seperate from the candidates money to run for president i.e. the candidate will have party funding.

[CerberusIV]

Thanks SpencerH.

Can the Dems afford a campaign to match what the Bush team will run?

[Patroklos]

It depends on how ugly this Democratic primary get. I am acctually pretty suprised at the scale os smearing going on considering they all want to depose what they feel is the great Satan, Bush.

If they burn all their bridges now....

[Lancer]

"I really appreciate how he uses his Christianity when it's popular, and puts it aside when it is not. Bush doesn't care what people think about his faith, if they disagree, they just have to deal with it. I would rather he just not try to pander to these votes, it would give me more respect for what Dean believes. Now he's just a weathercock."

Ben, I see this as the biggest hole in Dean's bucket. Nobody wants another fella who will wait on the polls before acting.

"Yes you are right Horsie. Most of us are men, and a good number of us are white men. Dean is interested in appealling to Democrats, and only 22% of white men are registered Democrats."

Real men don't vote democrat...

Btw, nobody responded to my previous post. Should I take it that it's easier to ignore than debate with?

[SpencerH]

I dont think the dems'll have quite as much as the repubs but I think thats the normal situation.

[Ned]

Ann Coulter said yesterday that Dean has the nomination and that the media are just hyping the Democrat campaign because there is nothing better to do.

In truth, Dean does seem to be far ahead at this point. Does anyone else have a real shot at the nomination?

[chequita guevara]

Early leads can still disappear in a puff of smoke. Remember Gary Hart?

[Imran Siddiqui]

I just don't think swing voters are going to respond to that without being presented with a set of alternatives. Not going into Iraq is not an alternative for any non-time travelling candidates.

Yep... Dean needs to read **** Morris' "The New Prince".

Early leads can still disappear in a puff of smoke. Remember Gary Hart?

We don't even have to go that far. Phil Gramm was the guy with the money and poll numbers in 1996, until Dole smoked him.

[Wraith]

--"It's difficult to choose the lesser of two evils when they are so similar to each other"

That's why there are other parties around...

Wraith
"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear."
-- George Orwell

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by Patroklos
It depends on how ugly this Democratic primary get. I am acctually pretty suprised at the scale os smearing going on considering they all want to depose what they feel is the great Satan, Bush.

If they burn all their bridges now....

What makes you think they all want to get rid of him?

I know two specific inviduals who more than likely don't -- one backed Dean, the other backed Clark

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Early leads can still disappear in a puff of smoke. Remember Gary Hart?

But he didn't have the money.

No candidate who led in money at this point in the race has failed to get the nomination since 1976. Dean is so far ahead fiscally that I think he's virtually bagged it. Only Clark has a reasonable chance of catching up, and I think it's a longshot.

Latest polls show Dean ahead in Iowa now, outpacing Gephardt by several points. He continues to lead strongly in New Hampshire, and Kerry's dropped to third, which spells his death knell.

IMO, Dean wins the Iowa caucuses, which stops Gephardt dead. He then goes on to mop up in NH, so Kerry's done. Clark will use his 2nd place finish to pick up strength and will win SC. His winning SC will kill Leiberman and Edwards, as that would be their only hope of staying in the race.

But it's over after that, because Dean will win enough of the primaries on Super Tuesday to end all serious contention.

[Guynemer]

Here's another scenario, Boris:

After the dust settles following SC, the other candidates and power brokers unify behind Clark. It's not enough to prevent Dean from winning most of the delegates, but he's close.

Fast forward to the convention, and the superdelegates vote overwhelming in favor of Clark, giving him the edge and the nomination.

--Would there be a revolt on the convention floor?
--Would Clark ask Dean to be his VP? Would Dean accept?
--Would the Democratic party be toast, or would they unify for the sole purpose of beating Bush?

[The Mad Monk]

But it's over after that, because Dean will win enough of the primaries on Super Tuesday to end all serious contention.

Gore over Clinton. Interesting...

[Ned]

Why would the other candidates move their support to Clark?

He is a Republican, after all.

[Drake Tungsten]

I don't have much respect for Dean or Clark, especially Clark. He supported the war and claims he didn't. That makes him likely wrong IMO as well as a liar by any definition. Dean spends way too much time ripping Bush and way too little time delineating his policy proposals. If elected no one is going to care how well he can rip Bush. Of the Dems Lieberman seems to be the class of the field. He's an adult who pretty much says what he beleives and does what he says.

I always love it when Sikander says exactly what I'm thinking, but can't communicate effectively because I'm a moron.

[Alexander's Horse]

If foreigners like me like I suspect Dean is dead in the water.

I also like General Clarke so that's the end of him.