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

dy156 · 02-13-2004, 12:13 PM

Though the author doesn't say it, if I were a Democrat that just wanted to defeat Bush, I'd be campaigning for Edwards, based in part on this article:

link

(text posted at the end of this, but you should click the link to see the article that contains the hyperlink citations.)

Summary:
People are voting for Kerry, because they think he's a Democrat that can beat Bush, not because they especially agree with his stance on issues. Edwards does better among moderate and conservative Democratic exit poll takers, and it is harder to successfully court the political middle ground than the party faithful, who will eventually back the party nominee anyway.

The author doesn't come out and say it, but it's pretty clearly implied that the Democrats should be voting for Edwards. (note no mention of the intern rumors.) Even without taking into consideration the rumors, I have to agree. The Democrats would have been better off having a candidate that appeals to the moderates. Leiberman, probably didn't stand much of a chance, probably because of his lack of charisma and Jewishness; while Edwards has charisma but lacks whatever experience and "gravitas" Leiberman brought to the table.

I think it's somewhat similar to the Paul Tsongas candidacy when Dukakis was chosen. I seem to recall that Clinton was one of the more conservative of the Democratic primary candidates four years after that. Maybe my memory decieves me, but Dukakis was successfully portrayed as a real liberal, while Clinton fared better. Are the Democrats trying to prevent another Nader left flanking manuever? Are the Democrats just being aggressive in thinking that they can win with a more liberal candidate? Do the parties even think about the big picture this strategically, or are they simply following along, or worse, picking a candidate based on his looks? This is just like Republicans holding their nose to vote for Bush, but they weren't really given a choice, and therefore can't strategize, like this. (Of course, this helps make my case that the Dems should have picked someone with whom more conservative voters can identify.)

Enough of my ramblings, what do ya'll think?

Here's the article:

Quote:

Kerried Away
The myth and math of Kerry's electability.
By William Saletan
Posted Tuesday, Feb. 10, 2004, at 9:41 PM PT

By media consensus, the race for the Democratic presidential nomination is over. Why? Because John Kerry has won 12 of the 14 primaries and caucuses held so far. And why has Kerry won these contests? Not because voters agree with him on the issues. The reason, according to exit polls, is that voters think he's the candidate most likely to beat President Bush. There's just one problem: The same polls suggest this may not be true.

Two weeks ago, Kerry beat Howard Dean by 12 percentage points in the New Hampshire primary, convincing Democrats around the country that Kerry was their most electable candidate. How did Kerry win? By racking up a 4-to-1 advantage over Dean among voters who chose their candidate because "he can defeat George W. Bush in November." Among voters who chose their candidate because "he agrees with you on the major issues," Dean and Kerry were tied.

Let me say that again: Among voters who picked the candidate they wanted based on the issues, not the candidate they thought somebody else wanted, Kerry did not win the New Hampshire primary.

OK, maybe Dean wasn't the most electable guy. But in the states that followed, voters applied the same theory to other candidates, padding Kerry's delegate count and aura of inevitability. They figured the guy who had won Iowa and New Hampshire was a winner. So, they voted for him, proving themselves right. The biggest delegate prize on Feb. 3 was Missouri, where Kerry beat John Edwards 2 to 1, filling the airwaves with talk of a juggernaut. How did Kerry thrash Edwards so badly? He won "agrees with you" voters by 10 points—a healthy but not awesome margin, largely attributable to the fact that Kerry was the candidate the media were talking about, since he had just won New Hampshire. No, the people who gave Kerry his enormous vote tally in Missouri—and nearly two-thirds of the state's delegates—were the "can defeat Bush" voters, who went for Kerry over Edwards by a ratio of more than 3 to 1.

Everywhere you look, Kerry collected big wins and delegates for this reason. In Arizona, he squeaked past Wes Clark by just two percentage points among "agrees with you" voters. But he crushed Clark among "can defeat Bush" voters, netting a 16-point victory. In Delaware, Kerry did twice as well among "can defeat Bush" voters as among "agrees with you" voters. In Oklahoma, both Clark and Edwards beat Kerry by 13 points among "agrees with you" voters, but Kerry got away with a competitive finish by thumping them among "can defeat Bush" voters. In South Carolina, Kerry lost "agrees with you" voters to Edwards by a 2-to-1 margin but escaped with a respectable second thanks to "can defeat Bush" voters.

Last weekend, the press wrote Dean out of the race after Kerry beat him 3 to 1 in the Michigan caucuses. A poll of Michigan absentee voters taken by the CBS News Elections and Survey Unit showed Kerry crushing Dean by 29 points among "can beat Bush" voters. But in the same survey, "agrees with you" voters chose Dean over Kerry by four points. To be fair, the poll showed Dean doing 19 points better, relative to Kerry, in the absentee sample than in the final returns. But the logical explanation for that gap is that many absentee ballots were cast before the race turned upside down. And the logical implication of that explanation is that while the poll understated Kerry's share of "can defeat Bush" voters, it was less likely to understate his share of "agrees with you" voters.

Tuesday, the electability factor wasn't just big; it was decisive. The networks anointed Kerry the nominee based on his sweep of Virginia and Tennessee. But Kerry wasn't the first choice of Tennesseans who selected their candidate based on the issues. Edwards was. The "can defeat Bush" voters were the ones who reversed the outcome and put Kerry on top.

All of which raises the $200 million question: Are these "can defeat Bush" voters correct? Is Kerry the most electable Democrat?

It's a hard question to answer, because most of the evidence is circular. If people support Kerry because they think he's electable, he goes up in the polls, which makes him look more electable. The best way to filter out this distortion is to focus on the voters least likely to make their decisions in November based on electability. These happen to be the same voters who hold the balance of power in most elections: independents, conservative Democrats, and moderate Republicans. They aren't principally trying to figure out which Democratic candidate can beat Bush, because they don't necessarily want the Democratic nominee to beat Bush. They're trying to decide which Democratic candidate, if any, would be a better president than Bush.

How well has Kerry done among these voters? In absolute terms, well enough. But in relative terms, the numbers show a disconcerting pattern. By and large, the closer you move to the center and center-right of the electorate, where the presidential race will probably be decided, the worse Kerry does. The opposite is true of Edwards.

In Missouri, Kerry's vote share was 19 points lower among independents than among Democrats, and another seven points lower among Republicans than among independents. Edwards' trend moved in the other direction: He scored five points higher among independents than among Democrats, and another nine points higher among Republicans than among independents. Kerry performed about as well among moderates as he did among liberals, evidently because Dean took a solid chunk of the liberal vote. But Kerry's share of the conservative vote was 10 points lower than his share of liberals or moderates. Edwards, meanwhile, came in four points higher among moderates than among liberals, and another two points higher among conservatives than among moderates.

In Oklahoma, Kerry's vote share was 11 points lower among independents than among Democrats, and another 11 points lower among Republicans than among independents. (Republicans were self-identified, not registered.) Clark followed the same pattern, scoring five points lower among independents than among Democrats, and another 14 points lower among Republicans than among independents. Edwards, on the other hand, scored six points higher among independents, and two points higher among Republicans, than among Democrats. Kerry came in seven points lower among moderates than among liberals, and another eight points lower among conservatives than among moderates. Clark's trend was similar: His vote share was one point lower among moderates than among liberals, and another eight points lower among conservatives than among moderates. But Edwards' trend went the other way: He scored seven points higher among moderates than among liberals, and another three points higher among conservatives than among moderates.

In South Carolina, Kerry's vote share was 11 points lower among independents than among Democrats, and another six points lower among conservatives than among moderates. Again, Edwards reversed the curve: He scored five points higher among independents than among Democrats, and another six points higher among Republicans than among independents. Kerry came in two points lower among moderates and conservatives than among liberals, while Edwards scored seven points higher among moderates, and four points higher among conservatives, than he did among liberals.

In Arizona, Delaware, and New Hampshire, the pattern was a bit different. Joe Lieberman campaigned hard in these states, taking a significant number of the moderate and conservative voters who, in other states uncontested by Lieberman, went to Edwards or Clark. Moreover, in New Hampshire and Delaware, Dean took a sizeable chunk of the liberal vote from Kerry. Still, Kerry performed slightly worse among conservatives than among moderates and liberals. In New Hampshire, he came in four points lower among independents than among Democrats, and another eight points lower among Republicans than among independents. In Arizona, he came in 11 points lower among independents than among Democrats. He did five points worse among moderates than among liberals, and six points worse among conservatives than among moderates. In Delaware, he came in 10 points lower among independents than among Democrats. Clark, Edwards, and Lieberman went the other way, scoring higher among independents than among Democrats. (Self-identified Republicans were too few to cross-tabulate in Arizona and Delaware, because both states closed their primaries to registered Republicans.)

The Michigan exit poll was somewhat unique, since the event was a caucus and the sample was confined to absentee voters. Nevertheless, Kerry's numbers ran in the same direction, putting him 11 points lower among independents than among Democrats. There were too few Republicans to cross-tabulate. Kerry performed somewhat better among moderates than among liberals, as did Clark and Edwards, evidently because Dean took much of the liberal vote.

Tuesday, the pattern was particularly stark. In Tennessee, Kerry's vote share fell from 48 percent of liberals to 39 percent of moderates to 32 percent of conservatives. Edwards went the other way, attracting 26 percent of liberals, 32 percent of moderates, and 35 percent of conservatives. In Virginia, Kerry's trend was less clear—he did slightly better among moderates than among liberals before plummeting among conservatives—but Edwards' trend was the same, ascending two points from liberals to moderates and another 11 points from moderates to conservatives. While Kerry fell from 59 percent of Democrats to 41 percent of independents to 13 percent of Republicans, Edwards rose from 21 percent of Democrats to 31 percent of independents to 45 percent of Republicans.

If I were a Kerry believer, I'd make three arguments against this analysis. The first is that Kerry's higher score among liberals shows strength on the left rather than weakness in the center. But unless you think liberals wouldn't vote for Edwards against Bush, it's logical to assume that Edwards, as the nominee, would end up matching Kerry's strength on the left. Building support in the center is a lot harder.

The second objection is that in addition to the issues-versus-electability question, the exit polls asked voters a question that included other factors, such as "has the right experience" and "cares about people like me." On "has the right experience," Kerry routinely whipped the field, and deservedly so, given his military service and his expertise in national security and foreign policy. But on "cares about people like me," Edwards did, on average, slightly better than Kerry.

The third objection is that the simplest way to measure electability is a national head-to-head poll, and by this standard, Kerry does a bit better than Edwards. The problem with this method is that most voters haven't seen the candidates in their states and haven't been obliged to focus on the election. Only those in early primary states have. So, while Kerry, having received favorable nationwide press coverage for his primary victories, scores well on the "if the election were held today" question, the underlying data are often less auspicious. A week ago, for example, a CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll found that Kerry would beat Bush by seven points, while Edwards would beat Bush by just one. (A follow-up poll this week shows Bush beating Kerry by one point and beating Edwards by four.) But among Republicans and Republican leaners, Kerry's image was on balance unfavorable, while Edwards' image was on balance favorable.

Could I be wrong about all this? Sure. We pundits have been wrong before. Punditry is a dangerous game. But according to the exit polls, that's exactly the game Democratic voters have played in nominating Kerry. And if they're as shaky at it as we are, the price isn't just embarrassment. It's defeat.

Lebell · 02-13-2004, 12:23 PM

I think that analysis is spot on.

The Dem's need more of a centrist and Kerry is not.

Ustwo · 02-13-2004, 12:52 PM

Ironicly in most exit polls, Dean voters tended to be the most 'issue' oriented voters.

Part of the problem is that the rank and file doesn't always vote in the primaries, but the activists and 'gung-ho' types.

brianna · 02-13-2004, 01:04 PM

I think it's a problem that people are voting for a candidate based on his electability instead of his candidacy. Everyone i talk to seems ambivalent about Kerry the man but resigned to voting for him because he's the most likely to win. The win margins in modern elections are so tiny (note the 2000 presidential election as the most obvious example) and core voters so devoted to towing the party line that national elections have come down to swing voters. I very much doubt you can bring out a new voter with the current "vote for Kerry he can win!" mantra.

Of course having said that if the choice were bush or a sack of potatoes I'd be pro-spuds all the way.

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.

maximusveritas · 02-13-2004, 02:48 PM

Its impossible to tell who has the best chance of beating Bush. You can't spend time thinking about who other people might like best almost a year down the road. Edwards might be more charismatic than Kerry, but he's also much less experienced.

In the end, this election is going to be a referendum on Bush's performance in office. Unless sometime changes drastically between now and the election, any Democrat will defeat Bush.

Ustwo · 02-13-2004, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by maximusveritas
In the end, this election is going to be a referendum on Bush's performance in office. Unless sometime changes drastically between now and the election, any Democrat will defeat Bush.

Bush hasn't even started to campaign yet and polls have them 50-50 (some Kerry wins, some Bush wins). Once the hoopla dies down and Kerry gets the nomination the GIGANTIC war chest of GWB gets opened. I hope he spends my money wisely

Superbelt · 02-13-2004, 05:10 PM

He hasn't spent money wisely in his entire life. Not in the private sector with is oil firms and baseball team, not at the state or federal level where he amassed huge deficits.
I wouldn't bank on him making smart choices with his reelection funds.

Though he will need every penny of it to compete with the democrats as his policies just suck, so he needs to pound us with cash to stay competitive.

filtherton · 02-13-2004, 05:17 PM

Who hasn't bush pissed off? He's just like a tax and spend liberal, without all the pesky taxing.
All anyone really need to ask themselves is, "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" Fortunately, the obscenely wealthy don't add up in terms of voting numbers compared to the vanishing middle class.

maximusveritas · 02-13-2004, 07:02 PM

yeah, its true that Bush has an obscene amount of money to use in the election, but as we've seen in the Democratic primaries, money doesn't automatically get you votes. If the candidate isn't a good one, it doesn't matter how much money he can spend.

Ustwo · 02-13-2004, 08:24 PM

Guys, I hate to break it to you, but you wouldn't have ever voted for him anyways. We could find live nukes in Iraq, he could capture Osama personaly rambo style, and he could cure cancer and you still wouldn't vote for him. In the grand picture, you don't matter any more then I would. You are always going to vote for some liberal no matter what. Facts don't matter so you don't matter. You don't swing that way.

Its those millions of people who see the sound bytes and get caught up into the moment that matter. You will always vote against the Republican, they just sort of vote on what they feel at that moment. Bush can lose it but you are delusional if you think he doesn't have a chance.

theusername · 02-13-2004, 09:48 PM

Very well said ustwo.

It's not the people who discuss the issues and are knowledgeable about politics that decide close presidential elections, its the large percent that just vote with their gut and which candidate they like better at that moment and they will vote for him.

Scipio · 02-14-2004, 12:56 AM

The die hards do matter. There are Nader democrats. It's important for a Democratic candidate to turn those people out. I contend that they'll turn out to vote against Bush in a lesser of two evils type situation, and that they learned well the lesson of 2000.

In that sense, ustwo is correct; democratic hard-liners will turn out only to vote against Bush, though the number of swing voters in play is lower than in previous years.

Strange Famous · 02-14-2004, 04:20 AM

Honestly, I cannot imagine a scenario in which Bush can win the next election. The American people will reject him and vote for almost anyone who isn't him. I personally dont think much of Kerry, he is far to right of most ordinary American's, and there is also a lot of sleaze stories coming out about him already (the supposed affair with the intern - big deal, but the alleged crooked deal with the insurance company when he basically was paid to vote and act for their interests is very worrying)

I mean, outside of very political die hard republicans, does anyone actually know someone who will vote for Bush?

Scipio · 02-14-2004, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Honestly, I cannot imagine a scenario in which Bush can win the next election. The American people will reject him and vote for almost anyone who isn't him. I personally dont think much of Kerry, he is far to right of most ordinary American's, and there is also a lot of sleaze stories coming out about him already (the supposed affair with the intern - big deal, but the alleged crooked deal with the insurance company when he basically was paid to vote and act for their interests is very worrying)

I mean, outside of very political die hard republicans, does anyone actually know someone who will vote for Bush?

The election is certainly winnable for Bush. His current low popularity rating isn't a good leading indicator, though it doesn't help him very much. I think his teflon coating is more damaged than it has ever been, and that stories are starting to stick, the press is becoming more hostile, and his approval rating is falling, but he's by no means out for the count yet. The hope among republicans is that he will begin to do better when he cracks open that war chest of his and actually starts running. In 2000, he was able to spend considerable amounts of money while Gore was still recovering from the primary. For a good 3 weeks, Gore was more or less running on fumes. I would look for Bush to hold off on heavy-duty campaign spending until the Democrats have a nominee.

Bush will try to make the election about gay marriage and national security. Kerry will spend his time talking about health care, the economy, and probably education. He might also talk about national security himself if he thinks people want to hear about it, which is likely because Bush will put it on the agenda. Look also for Bush to use his position in the White House as a campaign tool. He's made no bones about scheduling some things (like additional military spending) after the election. He might announce some kind of new counter-terrorism initiative, education plan, or something in the coming months.

So, don't count out our president quite so fast. I think he's not going to be nearly as formidable as Rove would like, but people like to like their president, and he has astute advisors.

Strange Famous · 02-14-2004, 10:17 AM

I would be astounded if 98% of American's did not support Gay marriage. I have never met and do not personally know of anyone who is against it.

I also cannot see how anyone can imagibe America is a safer place now than it was 4 years ago... America now has far more enemies, and has spent much of Bush's time in charge at war.

I mean, these are precisely the reasons why I cannot see how Bush can win... if he wants the votes of people who oppose gay marriage, by all means let him have them, he will be lucky to beat Al Sharpton.

theusername · 02-14-2004, 10:44 AM

I oppose gay marriage. Close to 50% of americans oppose gay marriage. You obviously dont know too many americans.

Bush is way too far to the right for the american people, but Kerry is way too far to the left for the american people. And that is why Edwards has a better chance to beat Bush than Kerry does.

maximusveritas · 02-14-2004, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Strange Famous
I would be astounded if 98% of American's did not support Gay marriage. I have never met and do not personally know of anyone who is against it.

Well, according to the latest Gallup poll, in response to the question "Would you favor or oppose a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as being between a man and a woman, thus barring marriages between gay or lesbian couples?"
47% would favor it.

Even more interesting, in a December NY Times poll, 49% of respondents think "homosexual relations between consenting adults" should not be legal.

This is why even most Democrats have come out against gay marriage. This election won't be fought over these divisive and relatively unimportant social issues. Rather, it will be fought over the war and the economy, two areas where the President is very vulnerable.

And of course the President has a chance of winning. It'll be close, just as 2000 was. But it's interesting that we're even discussing whether the President has a chance since the pundits have been saying for months now that the Democrats don't stand a chance. Things change and I wouldn't put it past Rove to suddenly "find" Bin Laden around October. Of course, that might backfire once it gets out that the President has exploited our fears for political gain.

Strange Famous · 02-14-2004, 11:09 AM

Well, I wont dispute that a poll may have been produced that says things, but i find it beyond belief that 49% of Americans think homosexuality should be criminalised. I cannot understand any moral argument against gay marriage. if it makes two people happy to marry, what is the reason to deny them this happiness? What possible argument is there against two gay people being married? Still, that is another thread.

I hope very much that "President" Bush stand on the war, the economy, and social issues - such as his wish to outlaw abortion and ban gay marriage.

This will ensure that he is rejected utterly. We know that the Democrats need to win big, the last election proved that merely winning more electoral votes was not enough to win, as Florida was thrown to Bush by the corrupt Supreme Court... but this time it will not be close, I do not see Bush having scope to win even by electotal fraud. The war economy is a mess, the war on Iraq a failure and a sham (no WMD's found), and Usama Bin Laden has been elevated by America from a religious maniac that no one was listening to, to a very powerful and influential enemy. Bush has failed in almost everything, he is an embarassment to his country - many people believe he cannot even read (I don't know if that is true, but I can tell you, in the UK Bush is generally supposed to be incredibly stupid)

Seaver · 02-14-2004, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Honestly, I cannot imagine a scenario in which Bush can win the next election. The American people will reject him and vote for almost anyone who isn't him. I personally dont think much of Kerry, he is far to right of most ordinary American's

Dude... I hate to break this to you but the majority of Americans are slightly conservative. They are truely swing voters, and are far right of Kerry. America is a lot more conservative than you may think, go outside of San Fransico or New York and you will see that.

Lebell · 02-14-2004, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Strange Famous
(I don't know if that is true, but I can tell you, in the UK Bush is generally supposed to be incredibly stupid)

Just a point.

All the other "facts" about Bush aside, stupid people generally can't learn to fly modern jet fighters.

So I think your arguments would benefit greatly if you could stay away from the rediculous.

Carry on.

Strange Famous · 02-14-2004, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lebell
Just a point.

All the other "facts" about Bush aside, stupid people generally can't learn to fly modern jet fighters.

So I think your arguments would benefit greatly if you could stay away from the rediculous.

Carry on.

I was actually talking about the common perception of Bush overseas, rather than any facts. It is a fact that in the UK, Bush is thought of by most people as being hugely stupid. Whether he is or not is a different issue.

Personally, I belive Bush suffers from a learning disability, and in fact I believe that many dyslexic people have above average intelligence.

But nevertheless, in the same way that the Soviet Union was humiliated by the internationally held image of Khruschev as a blundering and bullying fool (which was a very false image), I think many American's feel embarassed that they are represented by a "president" who speaks very poorly, stumbles over simple words and often confuses his words, and revels in a kind of philistine disdain for intelectuals.

The image of Bush reading the upside school book or staring through the bins with the caps still on is of the same order as Khruschev taking off his shoe and hammering it on the desk in rage in the UN assemby.

Scipio · 02-14-2004, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Dude... I hate to break this to you but the majority of Americans are slightly conservative. They are truely swing voters, and are far right of Kerry. America is a lot more conservative than you may think, go outside of San Fransico or New York and you will see that.

Dude, I hate to break it to you, but most Americans support progressive policies. They want strong and well funded public schools, health care for everyone, a government that uses its money as wisely as they do (and that doesn't run half-trillion dollar deficits), and a government that respects the privacy of them and their neighbors. And I live in Arkansas, so leave your San Francisco/New York bashing at the door. I've never even been to New York.

Lebell · 02-14-2004, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Strange Famous
I was actually talking about the common perception of Bush overseas, rather than any facts. It is a fact that in the UK, Bush is thought of by most people as being hugely stupid. Whether he is or not is a different issue.

Personally, I belive Bush suffers from a learning disability, and in fact I believe that many dyslexic people have above average intelligence.

But nevertheless, in the same way that the Soviet Union was humiliated by the internationally held image of Khruschev as a blundering and bullying fool (which was a very false image), I think many American's feel embarassed that they are represented by a "president" who speaks very poorly, stumbles over simple words and often confuses his words, and revels in a kind of philistine disdain for intelectuals.

The image of Bush reading the upside school book or staring through the bins with the caps still on is of the same order as Khruschev taking off his shoe and hammering it on the desk in rage in the UN assemby.

I understand what you are saying.

I think what I am trying to say is that when the obvously untrue is brought into a discussion/argument and bandied about as "fact", then nothing is really gained, except more misinformation is spread.

That's why I always double check what I write and say to myself, "is this a fact or is this my opinion?" and then rewrite accordingly.

Strange Famous · 02-14-2004, 12:03 PM

It is a fact that "President" Bush is believed to be an idiot by many people, especially overseas.

Lebell · 02-14-2004, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Strange Famous
It is a fact that "President" Bush is believed to be an idiot by many people, especially overseas.

It is also a "fact" that many men in Africa believe that wizards can steal your penis just by shaking your hand.

So what?

In both cases, these people are wrong and I generally don't pay much attention to their opinions.

Boo · 02-14-2004, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Strange Famous
I would be astounded if 98% of American's did not support Gay marriage. I have never met and do not personally know of anyone who is against it.

Be astounded, be very astounded. I really do not believe that even a small minority are in favor of gay marriage. There may be another % that just don't care what 2 (to 100) consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedroom. The "bible belts" are entire states that will "raise hell" to prevent it. I don't believe that even San Fancisco or New York have 98% in favor. While it may be gaining momentum, it is not as favorable as many would like to believe it is.

98% of all statistics are made up at the time of need.

Quote:

Originally posted by Strange Famous
It is a fact that "President" Bush is believed to be an idiot by many people, especially overseas.

IMNSHO - Unlike the Dixie Chicks who blast our president to feel good about themselves. Some Americans believe that President Bush is "OUR IDIOT" and might not care so much what the rest of the world thinks of him.

Some of us "YANKS" believe that he has learned to watch who he trusts for information. That he will scrutinize his informants more diligently and weigh his options with more objectivity. I also think that Bush is doing a tough job in a tough time (Blair too BTW). I also look around and have problems seeing anyone else that I would want to put in his position in the middle of such a huge undertaking. I don't want an armchair quarterback with no real experience coming in and screwing it up more than it already is. Sometimes it takes time to "fix" things. I really don't think that we have had more than a few presidents in our history that have taken on as many serious problems at one time.

I also believe that the only Democratic ticket worth voting for is Dean and Edwards (I don't care who gets top). I also believe that they would get beaten by Bush in 2004, but may be HUGELY successful for the US following the current crisis.

Quote:

Originally posted by Ustwo
Guys, I hate to break it to you, but you wouldn't have ever voted for him anyways. We could find live nukes in Iraq, he could capture Osama personaly rambo style, and he could cure cancer and you still wouldn't vote for him. In the grand picture, you don't matter any more then I would. You are always going to vote for some liberal no matter what. Facts don't matter so you don't matter. You don't swing that way.

Its those millions of people who see the sound bytes and get caught up into the moment that matter. You will always vote against the Republican, they just sort of vote on what they feel at that moment. Bush can lose it but you are delusional if you think he doesn't have a chance.

I really really don't think that mainstream America feels this way. Americans want another Kennedy to save the day. Since there isn't one, we will re-elect Bush.

mml · 02-15-2004, 11:54 PM

Wow, what a thread. We can really blow a topic out of the water can't we? To get back to the point - Yes, I actually think that Edwards may be a better overall candidate than Kerry. I have supported Kerry since he entered the race, but I have always been a fan of Edwards. He has that wonderful "it" quality that makes you feel good about being an American ( much like Ronald Reagan - but a hell of a lot younger). Kerry does not have that quality, but I tend to agree with him on issues and he is someone who is able to get things done in Washington. (As much as Bush and the RNC want to paint him as a wacko liberal, he is not) All this being said, if Edwards is the nominee, I won't be sorry(except that my wife is an Edwards volunteer and I am a Kerry volunteer). No matter what it will be interesting.

Benny · 02-16-2004, 05:02 AM

I think none of the Dem's have a chance against Bush because they dont have what it takes and America knows it.
The only remote offering is Edwards and he is an ambulance chasing trial attorney who got rich sueing other people, just the kind of president I want.

Bush is a war president and Americans love their wars, even if a monkey started it. We should be looking to 08 and trying to find someone who can actully run this country on the democratic ticket.

Kadath · 02-16-2004, 07:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Benny
We should be looking to 08 and trying to find someone who can actully run this country on the democratic ticket.

What, you don't think Cheney is a lock in '08?

In all seriousness, I don't think we should ever concede four more years, no matter our politics.

Boo · 02-16-2004, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Benny
Bush is a war president and Americans love their wars, even if a monkey started it. We should be looking to 08 and trying to find someone who can actully run this country on the democratic ticket.

Cheers Benny!

buffto · 02-17-2004, 09:30 PM

I wouldn't prefer him, but as far as the person most likely to defeat bush, it was probably dean. I say this because come election day, EVERY liberal will vote against bush, and I think dean is most likely to bring over people from the right.

theusername · 02-17-2004, 09:39 PM

I seriously hope thats a joke buffto.

Bush was praying for a Dean victory. Dean is a looney and if he had just not exposed himself he may be walking away with the ticket to lose to Bush where they surely would have gotten him to embarass himself on national tv.

The right would not vote for Dean, no matter how conservative others say he was as governor.

Edwards would be best just because hes a good looking guy and charismatic speaker while Kerry is a little dull.

Edwards is 1st in ability to beat Bush and Kerry a close 2nd because of his military experience. In my mind no one else comes close. (well besides lieberman who never had a prayer.)

Mojo_PeiPei · 02-17-2004, 09:56 PM

Edwards is also from the South which helps. I seem to remember hearing somewhere that in the last 50 years the person that was able to carry the southern vote has won the presidency. I don't know how well a smug smarmy NorEaster catholic will be able to do that.

Kadath · 02-18-2004, 05:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei
Edwards is also from the South which helps. I seem to remember hearing somewhere that in the last 50 years the person that was able to carry the southern vote has won the presidency. I don't know how well a smug smarmy NorEaster catholic will be able to do that.

Just doing the electroral math, the south(starting at VA and extending all the way to LA, with KY and TN ) is 128 votes. The smug smarmy NorEast is 122. They seem pretty even to me.
However, Bush II did take the south...though in Clinton's second election Dole and he more or less split the south, and similarly with Clinton vs Bush. So I'd say it seems more likely that a Democrat needs to get a couple southern states (most obviously Florida and maybe the Carolinas) in order to carry the overall vote.

Sparhawk · 02-18-2004, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei
Edwards is also from the South which helps. I seem to remember hearing somewhere that in the last 50 years the person that was able to carry the southern vote has won the presidency. I don't know how well a smug smarmy NorEaster catholic will be able to do that.

Kerry isn't catholic. Or smug. Or smarmy. So 1/4, not bad. He also won in Tennessee and Virginia against Edwards, so...

Superbelt · 02-18-2004, 11:20 AM

Since when is Kerry not Catholic?
I seem to remember a story from the arch-diocese of Boston where church leaders asked that Kerry refrain from accepting communion and asking that his church refuse to give it to him because of his stance on abortion.

Mojo_PeiPei · 02-18-2004, 11:22 AM

He definitly is all of the above. He is refused communion at mass by the catholic bishop because his stance of abortion and issues like that. Plus by many accounts he is a smug arrogant bastard. And Kerry taking southern states in the democratic primary is way different then being able to carry those states in the actually election.

Sparhawk · 02-18-2004, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Superbelt
Since when is Kerry not Catholic?
I seem to remember a story from the arch-diocese of Boston where church leaders asked that Kerry refrain from accepting communion and asking that his church refuse to give it to him because of his stance on abortion.

Oops! I was wrong. This is what I get for not google-vetting my post.

Sparhawk · 02-18-2004, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei
He definitly is all of the above. He is refused communion at mass by the catholic bishop because his stance of abortion and issues like that. Plus by many accounts he is a smug arrogant bastard. And Kerry taking southern states in the democratic primary is way different then being able to carry those states in the actually election.

Again, my bad on the catholic thing. But anyone can just turn around and say "by many accounts, President Bush is a _____". And you are arguing that Edwards stands a better chance of winning the South, when he's only won 1/3 (Virginia's, IIRC, is even an open primary - so both independents and Republicans were voting on that one).

02-13-2004, 12:23 PM	#2 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	I think that analysis is spot on. The Dem's need more of a centrist and Kerry is not. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

02-13-2004, 12:52 PM	#3 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Ironicly in most exit polls, Dean voters tended to be the most 'issue' oriented voters. Part of the problem is that the rank and file doesn't always vote in the primaries, but the activists and 'gung-ho' types. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

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."

02-13-2004, 08:24 PM	#11 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Guys, I hate to break it to you, but you wouldn't have ever voted for him anyways. We could find live nukes in Iraq, he could capture Osama personaly rambo style, and he could cure cancer and you still wouldn't vote for him. In the grand picture, you don't matter any more then I would. You are always going to vote for some liberal no matter what. Facts don't matter so you don't matter. You don't swing that way. Its those millions of people who see the sound bytes and get caught up into the moment that matter. You will always vote against the Republican, they just sort of vote on what they feel at that moment. Bush can lose it but you are delusional if you think he doesn't have a chance. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

02-14-2004, 12:56 AM	#13 (permalink)
Scipio Mencken Location: College	The die hards do matter. There are Nader democrats. It's important for a Democratic candidate to turn those people out. I contend that they'll turn out to vote against Bush in a lesser of two evils type situation, and that they learned well the lesson of 2000. In that sense, ustwo is correct; democratic hard-liners will turn out only to vote against Bush, though the number of swing voters in play is lower than in previous years. __________________ "Erections lasting more than 4 hours, though rare, require immediate medical attention."

02-13-2004, 01:04 PM	#4 (permalink)
brianna Addict Location: nyc	I think it's a problem that people are voting for a candidate based on his electability instead of his candidacy. Everyone i talk to seems ambivalent about Kerry the man but resigned to voting for him because he's the most likely to win. The win margins in modern elections are so tiny (note the 2000 presidential election as the most obvious example) and core voters so devoted to towing the party line that national elections have come down to swing voters. I very much doubt you can bring out a new voter with the current "vote for Kerry he can win!" mantra. Of course having said that if the choice were bush or a sack of potatoes I'd be pro-spuds all the way.

02-13-2004, 02:48 PM	#6 (permalink)
maximusveritas Winner	Its impossible to tell who has the best chance of beating Bush. You can't spend time thinking about who other people might like best almost a year down the road. Edwards might be more charismatic than Kerry, but he's also much less experienced. In the end, this election is going to be a referendum on Bush's performance in office. Unless sometime changes drastically between now and the election, any Democrat will defeat Bush.

02-13-2004, 05:10 PM	#8 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	He hasn't spent money wisely in his entire life. Not in the private sector with is oil firms and baseball team, not at the state or federal level where he amassed huge deficits. I wouldn't bank on him making smart choices with his reelection funds. Though he will need every penny of it to compete with the democrats as his policies just suck, so he needs to pound us with cash to stay competitive.

02-13-2004, 05:17 PM	#9 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	Who hasn't bush pissed off? He's just like a tax and spend liberal, without all the pesky taxing. All anyone really need to ask themselves is, "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" Fortunately, the obscenely wealthy don't add up in terms of voting numbers compared to the vanishing middle class.

02-13-2004, 07:02 PM	#10 (permalink)
maximusveritas Winner	yeah, its true that Bush has an obscene amount of money to use in the election, but as we've seen in the Democratic primaries, money doesn't automatically get you votes. If the candidate isn't a good one, it doesn't matter how much money he can spend.

02-13-2004, 09:48 PM	#12 (permalink)
theusername Insane	Very well said ustwo. It's not the people who discuss the issues and are knowledgeable about politics that decide close presidential elections, its the large percent that just vote with their gut and which candidate they like better at that moment and they will vote for him.

02-14-2004, 04:20 AM	#14 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	Honestly, I cannot imagine a scenario in which Bush can win the next election. The American people will reject him and vote for almost anyone who isn't him. I personally dont think much of Kerry, he is far to right of most ordinary American's, and there is also a lot of sleaze stories coming out about him already (the supposed affair with the intern - big deal, but the alleged crooked deal with the insurance company when he basically was paid to vote and act for their interests is very worrying) I mean, outside of very political die hard republicans, does anyone actually know someone who will vote for Bush? __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

02-14-2004, 10:17 AM	#16 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	I would be astounded if 98% of American's did not support Gay marriage. I have never met and do not personally know of anyone who is against it. I also cannot see how anyone can imagibe America is a safer place now than it was 4 years ago... America now has far more enemies, and has spent much of Bush's time in charge at war. I mean, these are precisely the reasons why I cannot see how Bush can win... if he wants the votes of people who oppose gay marriage, by all means let him have them, he will be lucky to beat Al Sharpton. __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

02-14-2004, 10:44 AM	#17 (permalink)
theusername Insane	I oppose gay marriage. Close to 50% of americans oppose gay marriage. You obviously dont know too many americans. Bush is way too far to the right for the american people, but Kerry is way too far to the left for the american people. And that is why Edwards has a better chance to beat Bush than Kerry does.

02-14-2004, 11:09 AM	#19 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	Well, I wont dispute that a poll may have been produced that says things, but i find it beyond belief that 49% of Americans think homosexuality should be criminalised. I cannot understand any moral argument against gay marriage. if it makes two people happy to marry, what is the reason to deny them this happiness? What possible argument is there against two gay people being married? Still, that is another thread. I hope very much that "President" Bush stand on the war, the economy, and social issues - such as his wish to outlaw abortion and ban gay marriage. This will ensure that he is rejected utterly. We know that the Democrats need to win big, the last election proved that merely winning more electoral votes was not enough to win, as Florida was thrown to Bush by the corrupt Supreme Court... but this time it will not be close, I do not see Bush having scope to win even by electotal fraud. The war economy is a mess, the war on Iraq a failure and a sham (no WMD's found), and Usama Bin Laden has been elevated by America from a religious maniac that no one was listening to, to a very powerful and influential enemy. Bush has failed in almost everything, he is an embarassment to his country - many people believe he cannot even read (I don't know if that is true, but I can tell you, in the UK Bush is generally supposed to be incredibly stupid) __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

02-14-2004, 12:03 PM	#25 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	It is a fact that "President" Bush is believed to be an idiot by many people, especially overseas. __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

02-15-2004, 11:54 PM	#28 (permalink)
mml Adrift Location: Wandering in the Desert of Life	Wow, what a thread. We can really blow a topic out of the water can't we? To get back to the point - Yes, I actually think that Edwards may be a better overall candidate than Kerry. I have supported Kerry since he entered the race, but I have always been a fan of Edwards. He has that wonderful "it" quality that makes you feel good about being an American ( much like Ronald Reagan - but a hell of a lot younger). Kerry does not have that quality, but I tend to agree with him on issues and he is someone who is able to get things done in Washington. (As much as Bush and the RNC want to paint him as a wacko liberal, he is not) All this being said, if Edwards is the nominee, I won't be sorry(except that my wife is an Edwards volunteer and I am a Kerry volunteer). No matter what it will be interesting. __________________ Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so." -Douglas Adams

02-16-2004, 05:02 AM	#29 (permalink)
Benny Upright Location: Deep South	I think none of the Dem's have a chance against Bush because they dont have what it takes and America knows it. The only remote offering is Edwards and he is an ambulance chasing trial attorney who got rich sueing other people, just the kind of president I want. Bush is a war president and Americans love their wars, even if a monkey started it. We should be looking to 08 and trying to find someone who can actully run this country on the democratic ticket.

02-17-2004, 09:30 PM	#32 (permalink)
buffto Crazy Location: Missouri	I wouldn't prefer him, but as far as the person most likely to defeat bush, it was probably dean. I say this because come election day, EVERY liberal will vote against bush, and I think dean is most likely to bring over people from the right.

02-17-2004, 09:39 PM	#33 (permalink)
theusername Insane	I seriously hope thats a joke buffto. Bush was praying for a Dean victory. Dean is a looney and if he had just not exposed himself he may be walking away with the ticket to lose to Bush where they surely would have gotten him to embarass himself on national tv. The right would not vote for Dean, no matter how conservative others say he was as governor. Edwards would be best just because hes a good looking guy and charismatic speaker while Kerry is a little dull. Edwards is 1st in ability to beat Bush and Kerry a close 2nd because of his military experience. In my mind no one else comes close. (well besides lieberman who never had a prayer.) Last edited by theusername; 02-17-2004 at 09:41 PM..

02-17-2004, 09:56 PM	#34 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Edwards is also from the South which helps. I seem to remember hearing somewhere that in the last 50 years the person that was able to carry the southern vote has won the presidency. I don't know how well a smug smarmy NorEaster catholic will be able to do that. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

02-18-2004, 11:20 AM	#37 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Since when is Kerry not Catholic? I seem to remember a story from the arch-diocese of Boston where church leaders asked that Kerry refrain from accepting communion and asking that his church refuse to give it to him because of his stance on abortion.

02-18-2004, 11:22 AM	#38 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	He definitly is all of the above. He is refused communion at mass by the catholic bishop because his stance of abortion and issues like that. Plus by many accounts he is a smug arrogant bastard. And Kerry taking southern states in the democratic primary is way different then being able to carry those states in the actually election. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.