Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Are Democrats making the wrong choice in who could defeat Bush?

Scipio · 02-13-2004, 01:07 PM

This guy makes the point better than I can, and suffice it to say that I agree with him.

http://www.emergingdemocraticmajorit...s/000382.shtml

There's a tendency to frame current events in the context of familiar past events. Is John Kerry a Dukakis, or is he a John F. Kennedy? The answer is probably neither.

The point made by the link is this: a strategy that doesn't focus on the south can be successful for Democrats. States like Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi aren't realistic targets. States like Arkansas, Florida, and Tennessee are pickup opportunities, but they aren't critical to success.

Winning Florida won't cause success in and of itself, but a win in Florida would be symptomatic of a larger victory taking place in the campaign.

All that said, John Kerry can win, and John Edwards can win. Personally, I think that Edwards carries a more moving and persusasive message than Kerry does, but I also think that Kerry can draw from that message and become a better candidate, in much the same way that the organizational advantages of Dean's campaign will plug into the campaign of the eventual nominee. Hell, Edwards might even end up as the running mate.

So, Kerry is electable. He has two key advantages over Edwards: no federal spending limits, and greater national security credibility. With a Dean-like fundraising setup, I'm convinced that it's possible for a Democratic candidate to fight Bush head-on in the money department.

02-13-2004, 01:07 PM	#5 (permalink)
Scipio Mencken Location: College	This guy makes the point better than I can, and suffice it to say that I agree with him. http://www.emergingdemocraticmajorit...s/000382.shtml There's a tendency to frame current events in the context of familiar past events. Is John Kerry a Dukakis, or is he a John F. Kennedy? The answer is probably neither. The point made by the link is this: a strategy that doesn't focus on the south can be successful for Democrats. States like Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi aren't realistic targets. States like Arkansas, Florida, and Tennessee are pickup opportunities, but they aren't critical to success. Winning Florida won't cause success in and of itself, but a win in Florida would be symptomatic of a larger victory taking place in the campaign. All that said, John Kerry can win, and John Edwards can win. Personally, I think that Edwards carries a more moving and persusasive message than Kerry does, but I also think that Kerry can draw from that message and become a better candidate, in much the same way that the organizational advantages of Dean's campaign will plug into the campaign of the eventual nominee. Hell, Edwards might even end up as the running mate. So, Kerry is electable. He has two key advantages over Edwards: no federal spending limits, and greater national security credibility. With a Dean-like fundraising setup, I'm convinced that it's possible for a Democratic candidate to fight Bush head-on in the money department. __________________ "Erections lasting more than 4 hours, though rare, require immediate medical attention."