So who will it be 2004?

[Boris Godunov]

I saw Hillary speak at my campus the day the Lewinsky scandal broke in the news and was able to meet her briefly due to being on the student government executive board. She was quite charming and personable, and I found her speech to be very engaging.

[Drake Tungsten]

Bush is described as articulate in person, Boris. That hasn't affected the public perception of him any. Clinton always appears cold and lifeless in the mass media and that is the image she will have to contend with. She may be the warmest person in the world on a one-to-one basis, but it won't matter.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Liberalism is dying, Kepler. Pushing the Democratic party to the left will just give the Republicans an iron grip on the government. Do you really want that to happen?

No, it's not dying. The upcoming generations are already more liberal than any that preceeded them. Liberalism will make a comeback, it's cyclical. And in the end, progressivism always wins, because ya just can't go back as easy as you can go forward.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Bush is described as articulate in person, Boris.

I called you on this before, I think. I've never seen this substantiated anywhere except from a couple of right-wing sources that wouldn't know it for a fact anyway.

[Drake Tungsten]

No, it's not dying. The upcoming generations are already more liberal than any that preceeded them.

I don't agree. Not that either of us can proof our points.

[Drake Tungsten]

I called you on this before, I think. I've never seen this substantiated anywhere except from a couple of right-wing sources that wouldn't know it for a fact anyway.

Doesn't Woodward deal with this in his new book?

And no, I don't think you've called me on this before. I don't think I've mentioned it before. I'm not a big Bush defender. I hate him as much as I hate Clinton...

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Liberalism is dying, Kepler. Pushing the Democratic party to the left will just give the Republicans an iron grip on the government. Do you really want that to happen?

That's just what liberal Democrats said about Reagan and the Republicans twenty years ago.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
I saw Hillary speak at my campus the day the Lewinsky scandal broke in the news and was able to meet her briefly due to being on the student government executive board. She was quite charming and personable, and I found her speech to be very engaging.

I saw here interviewed about a month ago. I was happily surprised at her handling of hard questions, her detailed grasp of a wide range of issues, and her ability to explain her political point of view.

But she had as much charisma as a pair of barbed-wire underwear.

[Drake Tungsten]

True. But who's the liberal equivalent of Reagan? Martin Sheen?

[Shi Huangdi]

"about 50% of eligible voters in the country even in a Prez year -- are overwhelmingly young, poor, or minority, and are far left of center. "

It seems everyone seems to believe that non-voters are really just secret holders of their ideology. Libertarians seem to think they're discouraged by two similar parties and would be very receptive to libertarians. Other Green parties think all the nonvoters are natural Green sympathizers. I think the truth is that most of the non-voters simply are not interested in politics.

Take for instance the 1984 election. You had a very clear cut choice between a very conservative Reagan and a liberal Mondale. Where was this army of traditional non-voters then?

"The Democrats need to regain the center and he's the best chance for them to do that."

Edwards is actually pretty liberal I think, their best hope to retake the center would probably be Lieberman.

"He wasn't. He didn't even get a majority in either election. He managed a plurality because the alternative candidates were SO ghastly."

George H.W. Bush and Bob Dole were that ghastly!? You should have checked out Clinton's approval ratings, near the end of his second term they were extremely high.

"The upcoming generations are already more liberal than any that preceeded them. "

Not nessecarily. For instance, the young are for more likely to suppor military action against Iraq than the previous generation(possibly due to Vietnam). Although they tend to be liberal on such issues as the environment and gay rights, more and more are adopting conservative viewpoints.

[Kepler]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
True. But who's the liberal equivalent of Reagan? Martin Sheen?

Sheen's smarter (irony of that statement fully accepted). I think the right comparison for brainpower is Alec Baldwin.

There is nobody stoking the fires from below and getting the Dems to answer the real questions: Why is the middle class shrinking? Why are the impoverished growing? Why has everyone in the country except the top 5% been standing still, even though the innovation, education, and work has been provided by the middle class? After 40 years of progress why is race becoming such a horrible issue again? How does colonizing the world with our overbearing corporate interests make this a safer or more stable place for typical Americans? How does mobilizing a police state apparatus protect our freedom? ow does gutting SEC guidance keep the white collar crooks in line? How does becoming even more dependant on fossile fuel get us out of our energy wedgie?

These are questions the right could be asking as well, but their job is to get fatter and not ask who gets hurt. It's the raison d'etre of the LEFT to hold government accountable, and nobody on the left has the desire or capacity to do so.

[Kepler]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
"It seems everyone seems to believe that non-voters are really just secret holders of their ideology.

Well, naturally -- that way we can claim the silent majority!

But seriously, demographics correlate very well with voting patterns, and the demographics of non-voting is:

RACE: higher proportion of minority than white.
GENDER: virtually even.
INCOME: directly related: the poorer, the less likely to vote.
AGE: directly related: the younger, the less likely to vote.

There are some interactive effects as well -- for example, while students are young and poor and don't tend to vote, students who come from money DO vote and vcote conservatively. Hence, your conservative students are already being counted -- if student participation spiked, the liberals would win big.

This is also the case across the board. Blacks tend not to vote because of the interraction between black and lower income. However, higher income blacks do vote and tend to be slightly more conservative (say, 80-20 liberal), while the blacks who are lower income don't vote and are virtually 100% liberal (check out DC's results sometime).

BAM: If every eligible voter voted in this country, the House would barely change at all in the first cycle (since the districts are gerrymandered for incumbents), and then gradually move more Dem in futurecycles (as they picked up more Governorships and began to control gerrymandering), the Senate would shift Dem only where there are Republican senators in non-southern states with large cities), and the Presidency would go Dem by about 67-33 every time.

The only reason our political center has moved right is that either intentionally or unintentionally our systems has disenfranchised the entire left half of the electorate, so the fight is for a balance point between centrists and right wing wackos.

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by UberKruX
i wish someone had a statistic of people who didnt vote gore because leiberman was jewish. i bet you it's higher than you'd think.

I'd be more interested in statistics of people who didn't vote Gore because Lieberman was simultaneously running for the Senate (what an astute bastard ).

[The Vagabond]

Anyway, a very wise decision by Gore. He'll run in 2008 and win. Especially if his VP candidate is Hillary Clinton.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I don't think Gore will run this time. He will wait until after Bush is assassinated in Dallas in 2003, **** Cheney assumes office and gets us deeply entrenched into an unwinnable war in Iraq. Then Gore swoops down in 2008, wins the presidency, escalates and then ends the war, wins a second term by a landslide and then resigns in disgrace after a lengthy scandal.

Not that anything is cyclical.

For 20 years the good guys haven't had one ball between them. One day they'll get a genuine spokesperson to say it like it is, and then you won't be able to find a Republican north of the Mason-Dixon line.

Living in a (non-existant) dream, are we?

The upcoming generations are already more liberal than any that preceeded them.

That's a BAM. Studies have shown the upcoming generations are more CONSERVATIVE than the younger generations of past. They are more anti-abortion and pro-police than the youth have been in ages.

[Capt Dizle]

Kerry will look strong and Gephardt and Lieberman and Daschel will seem formidible going in. But the latter three are all fighting for the same vote and Kerry gets the "we want a fresh face" vote because he is perceived as less Beltway.

But then the voters will get a couple of looks at him and say, oh no, not that guy.

The breakout threat is Edwards who can make a race in the south. None of the other Dems can do that. No way is a Northern or MidWestern Dem getting elected.

If Edwards isn't ready for prime time then the only game in town is Hilliary.

[Shi Huangdi]

Kepler, you are correct for the most part on demographics(all though if you compare blacks and whites of the same educational/income/age level blacks tend to be more politically active), that if most nonvoters did vote it would probably be to the Democrats advantage. Where I disagree with you though is the reason they aren't voting is because they are discouraged over a lack of liberal candidates. Nonvoters are reather simply not interested in politics. I think you'd find these are the same people who don't keep up with current events and they don't have strong political opinions. Again, I'd point to the 1984 election. That race had a very clear cut choice between the conservative Reagan and the liberal Mondale, but their was no massive surge in turnout for Mondale and Reagan won decisively. Even when presented with a clear choice between a conservative and liberal candidate, most non-voters simply won't care.

[Imran Siddiqui]

RACE: higher proportion of minority than white.
GENDER: virtually even.
INCOME: directly related: the poorer, the less likely to vote.
AGE: directly related: the younger, the less likely to vote.

That seems to favor the Greens or even more left than the Dems.

BAM: If every eligible voter voted in this country, the House would barely change at all in the first cycle (since the districts are gerrymandered for incumbents), and then gradually move more Dem in futurecycles (as they picked up more Governorships and began to control gerrymandering), the Senate would shift Dem only where there are Republican senators in non-southern states with large cities), and the Presidency would go Dem by about 67-33 every time.

That IS a BAM . In the South and lot of the Midwest and Mountain regions, poor whites tend to be more conservative, and they are the ones that tend not to vote in those areas.

At the same time, a lot of those voters are obviously disenchanted so they'd vote BIG TIME for 3rd party candidates. Libertarians and Greens win big. Communists get decent poll numbers too.

[Kepler]

A midwestern Dem could get elected. Carrying the rust belt, the northeast, california, and the pnw is a win, baby.

A northeasterner will NEVER win again. You've NY and NJ that everybody hates, and then a buncha small states that aren't worth spit.

A rugged, western style liberal like Kitzhauer (former OR gov) could win, but only if he came from CA.

The next Democratic governor of either Texas or Florida has an automatic shot.

A Republican Black wins if he has anything to offer.

A Democratic Evangelical wins if he has anything to offer.

Hispanics, Jews, and Women are still dead in the water.

[Imran Siddiqui]

A midwestern Dem could get elected. Carrying the rust belt, the northeast, california, and the pnw is a win, baby.

A northeasterner will NEVER win again. You've NY and NJ that everybody hates, and then a buncha small states that aren't worth spit.

A rugged, western style liberal like Kitzhauer (former OR gov) could win, but only if he came from CA.

The next Democratic governor of either Texas or Florida has an automatic shot.

A Republican Black wins if he has anything to offer.

A Democratic Evangelical wins if he has anything to offer.

Hispanics, Jews, and Women are still dead in the water.

I agree (mostly).

Also a Southern Dem or Repub Governor who wins reelection has an automatic chance.

I don't agree with the northeasterner will never win again. Guiliani would win EASY. And Pataki would have a decent shot as well.

The next Republican governor of California has a BIG shot.

Hispanics, Jews, and Women can still make a run at Veep. After Bush, look at the next Republican VP candidate to be either Hispanic or a Woman.

[Kepler]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
but their was no massive surge in turnout for Mondale and Reagan won decisively. Even when presented with a clear choice between a conservative and liberal candidate, most non-voters simply won't care.

I agree that there are other factor. For example, being on the bottom of SES also tends to correlate with an inability to make the sort of plans or decisions that get you registered, to the polls on time, and checking the right box.

In the Mondale case -- yee gads, it was Mondale! Possibly the worst stump or TV candidate in modern presidential history. He made Gore look animated. And he had mission impossible: it would have been like not seeing John Wayne's final picture.

I'm sure we'll never have 100% turnout, but we should damn well aim for it. Have voting for one entire 24 hour period (4 pm ET to 1 pm PT the next day), and have it be over a weekend. Have it in the summer when the weather's nice. No exit polls or released information until all the polls close simultaneously at 4 pm ET / 1 pm PT. Have the absentee and mail ballots sent earlier and counted before the physical polls close. Everybody in line gets to vote. Give the states a buttload of money to buy and test systems that work.

[Zkribbler]

Howard Dean will be the next Democratic nominee.

All of the big states except New York have open elections. The independents won't have anyone to vote for in the Republican primaries, and so the indies will all be voting in the Democratic primaries. And Independent voters outnumber Democratic voters.

Dean is the only candidate who speaks his mind on the issues regardless of the consequences and who is not afraid to do what he believes is morally right even when it is not politically popular. He'll attract independents like bees to honey.

You heard it here first!

[Imran Siddiqui]

If he is pro-gun or anti-abortion he'll never make it out of the Dem primaries .

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Why on earth are we talking about people's ideological positions? Has Bush's GOP coronation in 2000 taught us nothing? In US politics, it doesn't matter what your politics are, or how charismatic you are, or even how bright you are. It matters how much money you can put together, especially early on.

The early money is already following Kerry and Edwards, but more is going to Kerry. Hollywood money, not yet heard from, will go to Kerry as the more liberal of the two. On top of that, Kerry is married to multi-millionare Ketchup-and-Baked-Beans heiress Theresa Heinz.

Kerry, absolutely.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Obviously ideology and charisma matters, or else Steve Forbes would have won the Presidency in 1996. The reason the money lined up behind Bush was because the party backed him early. Saw him as the most charasmatic guy who'd be willing to run who would back their ideology.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Obviously ideology and charisma matters, or else Steve Forbes would have won the Presidency in 1996. The reason the money lined up behind Bush was because the party backed him early. Saw him as the most charasmatic guy who'd be willing to run who would back their ideology.

But if ideology and charisma mattered more than money, Jesse Jackson would have been the nominee in '88; he was both mor charismatic than Dukakis and more ideologically in tune with the average Dem primary voter (who tends to be way to the left of the average Dem voter in a general election).

The Forbes point is a good one; money matters, but people don't like the perception that someone (Forbes, Perot) is trying to buy the presidency (even though that's what happens regardless). I'd bet that if he runs, Kerry will agree to federal spending limits in exchang for public funds, just to avoid the perception that he's using his wife's fortune to buy the office.

As for Bush, the party backing and money backing was a bit of a dialectic; the money followed the party support, but the party support also followed the money (Bush had money, especially oil money, lined up before he had clear party support). This is the likliest Kerry dynamic.

I also think Kerry will benefit from the 2002 election backlash -- that is, from the feeling of the party faithful (i.e., primary voters) that the party has failed in its bid to be a kinder, gentler GOP and needs to get back to basics.

But I think you can bet on the veep being a Southerner and/or a conservative; probably Edwards, but possibly Evan Bayh. I'd love to see Mary Landrieu in the veep slot, but that'd be an all-Catholic ticket, which is probably still a no-no, alas.

[Kepler]

I still don't think a Northeastern Republican can overcome the "gol' darned eastern city slicker" label that the GOP has worked hard to fasten onto anybody coming from a state with indoor plumbing. Having lived around the country, the only two enduring values I have observed are a hatred of Northeasterners and Carrot Top.

[Kepler]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly

But if ideology and charisma mattered more than money, Jesse Jackson would have been the nominee in '88; he was both mor charismatic than Dukakis and more ideologically in tune with the average Dem primary voter (who tends to be way to the left of the average Dem voter in a general election).

Those are all reasons that Jackson would have won if ideology and charisma were ALL that mattered. Jackson might well have been the choice if he were white, but that just wasn't going down with the voters then.

The Dems' best possible choice is if Powell ever gets tired of being the Bushie's lawn jockey and abandons the Dark Side. Since he's evidently decided on an even tougher (and more honorable) mission: trying to wrest control of the party back from the chickenhawks and weasels now in power, that leaves the Dems to grow their own, in the Clinton sense. Er, not in THAT Clinton sense... Best nominee I've seen so far is probably Edwards, though I'm not that excited by him.

This is all assuming the Naderites have finally put down their dope and learned by now that, hey man, gee whiz, Bush actually IS a worse president than Gore would have been -- imagine that. The Closeted One would get far less this time around but still maybe enough to screw the Dems' pooch out of another election. OTOH, if Bushy doesn't hammer throuigh at least one insane christian demand, he might get a right wing defector, and even if he does he might get McCain bouncing off the walls again. I thionk the internal gestapo of the GOP can take care of any insurgency without it even surfacing, but it still doesn't help the money teat to have party challengers as an incumbent prez.

[Giancarlo]

So you democrats are still looking for somebody? Try Hillary. That is all your party has left. The worst of the worst. Hillary Clinton, Lieber(liar)man, Al "I invented the internet" Gore... wow... you got a real selection there.

The democrats are pretty much screwed for the presidental elections.

Bush is making a great president... Gore wouldn't of. Kepler are you delusional or something? Or a leftist? Heh... I can't distinguish between the two anymore.

[SlowwHand]

I'd consider voting Kerry. The only Democrat listed that I would consider.
Gore? If he cares for his party at all, he'll go away and stay away.