JoeyB

After seeing the Democratic candidates for the 2004 Presidential race debate this weekend in South Carolina, it appears to me that the race is clearly in George W. Bush's favor (as is generally the case for the incumbent--but not always a given).

Question: Do you think any Democratic contender has a genuine chance in 2004? Which one?

State your case---and please, as much as I love negative comments, let's stay positive. It was a polite enough question.




I think Leiberman has an outside shot since he and Gore did well in 2000, winning the popular vote.

Kerry also has a chance since he is one of the few men who can speak on the challenges of war from personal experience.



What do you think?

__________________
My mom is a Diamondbacks fan. She really likes the Big Unit

maximusveritas

Both of those guys are just as stiff as Gore was. Plus, they have no real angle on Bush. All they can say is, "we can be just as tough as him" or "we would have done things a little differently, but basically the same".
I'd rather see a candidate who can really stand apart from Bush and offer a clear alternative. The only guy who resembles this is Howard Dean. I just don't know if the country is ready for a candidate like him yet.

oane

Democrats are lost. They don't know on which issues to campaign. They don't have any leader that stands a chance against Bush 43 (assuming he runs, which IMHO he will). Dems might as well field Hillary Clinton for pure amusement value.

All things being equal, I already predict a landslide Bush victory. I also predict that there will be much whining about fixing elections and cheating, irrespective of the margin GW wins by.

__________________
Make me Mad.
Make me Sad.
Make me feel Alright.

Phaenx

Out of all of them I doubt any will have a chance, but to pick one I'd say Lieberman has a shot as far as name recognition will take him.

__________________
"I went shopping last night at like 1am. The place was empty and this old woman just making polite conversation said to me, 'where is everyone??' I replied, 'In bed, same place you and I should be!' Took me ten minutes to figure out why she gave me a dirty look." --Some guy

smooth

According to this article, we shouldn't write the democratic party off yet. I haven't seen any recent polls but I will try to catch the debate. I've been watching a lot of commentary lately, too. The picture isn't all that bleak.

Deciphering the Democrats' Debacle

By Ruy Teixeira, Washington Monthly
May 1, 2003

Last year, John Judis and I published a book entitled "The Emerging Democratic Majority," which argued that a series of economic, demographic, and ideological changes was laying the basis for a new Democratic majority that would materialize by decade's end – not certainly, we argued, but very probably as long as the Democratic Party put forth decent political leadership to challenge the dominant, but dwindling, current Republican majority.

Our book arrived in stores last September. Two months later, in the midterm elections, the Republicans surprised nearly everyone by winning control of the Senate and further solidifying their majority in the House, unifying Republican control of the federal government for only the second time in half a century. Needless to say, this wasn't my ideal outcome. In the annals of publishing, this wasn't quite so unfortunate as, say, James Glassman's prediction of a 36,000 point Dow just before the 2000 stock market crash, but it still evoked a fair amount of understandable ribbing and forced me to think hard about our thesis. So after the election, I pored over survey data, county-by-county voting returns, and a great deal of underlying demographic data and thought long and hard about what the data showed. And as a result, I've decided that ... we're still right!

The Myth of a 9/11 Majority

First, despite the Republican tsunami described by many media outlets, the actual electoral shift was quite mild. Though politically the election was a landmark, the underlying numbers suggest a continuing partisan balance. Democrats lost two seats in the Senate, six in the House, and gained three governorships. As nonpartisan analyst Charlie Cook has pointed out, "A swing of 94,000 votes out of 75,723,756 cast nationally would have resulted in the Democrats capturing control of the House and retaining a majority in the Senate on Nov. 5. If that had occurred, obituaries would have been written – inevitably and prematurely – about the presidency of George W. Bush. Instead, we are entertained by predictions that the Democratic Party, as we know it, may cease to exist."

Given the very evenness of partisan division in this country, even minor fluctuations in public sentiment can cause sudden lurches in political power. Indeed, the last election differed markedly from 1994, when huge Republican gains (52 House and nine Senate seats, 10 governorships) really did change the partisan balance dramatically.

Nevertheless, the shock of '02 initially devastated Democratic morale. Many in the party seemed helpless before the Republican success, ready to concede the 2004 election. For their part, Republicans were riding high, canonizing Karl Rove, and mentally fitting Bush for a spot on Mount Rushmore. Conservatives like Fred Barnes even spoke fondly of an "emerging 9/11 majority."

But that has begun to change. Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu's December runoff victory in Louisiana put Republican triumphalism in perspective. Subsequent events have revived Democratic hopes, as Bush's approval ratings, especially on the economy, have fallen and his diplomatic failures leading up to the Iraq war have been exposed. That's not the only encouraging news. A careful reading of the election and its aftermath suggests the GOP position has serious underlying weaknesses. In fact, the Republican victory depended on a series of unsustainable advantages that a tough, smart Democratic effort should be able to counter, forcing a competitive 2004 election and the likely – though not certain – ascendancy that Judis and I predicted by the end of the decade.

The White Stuff

The GOP's midterm wins depended heavily on their advantages in five areas that are either unlikely to persist or were overrated to begin with: a reliance on white voters, the growth of exurban voters, heavy GOP turnout, the tax-cut issue, and war. I'll tackle these in order.

Last November was all about the white vote. For all the talk of Republican minority outreach, the voters who showed up for the GOP on election day were, with few exceptions, white. In the 2000 election, 54 percent of whites voted for Bush and 56 percent for congressional Republicans; in 2002 that figure rose to 58 percent, which, coupled with higher turnout of whites, especially conservative whites, was enough for victory. Viewed one way, that's good news for Republicans, since whites comprise the overwhelming majority of U.S. voters. Trouble is, that majority is steadily diminishing. What's more, Republicans' core constituencies among white voters – those in rural areas, married men, married homemakers, and so forth – are also shrinking relative to other voter groups, which makes the demographic challenge of maintaining a majority even tougher.

As Matthew Dowd, polling director at the Republican National Committee, has pointed out, if minorities and whites vote in 2004 as they did in the 2000 election, Democrats will win by 3 million votes, for just that reason. In the long term, unless the GOP can make inroads among minority voters, they'll lose. In 2002, they made essentially no inroads at all. Recall that in the 2000 election, Al Gore got 90 percent of the black vote; in 2002, blacks appear to have voted at similar rates – if not slightly higher – for Democratic congressional and gubernatorial candidates. Hispanic support for Democrats was similarly rock solid, despite strenuous GOP outreach efforts. For example, California governor Gray Davis beat his Republican challenger Bill Simon by 65 to 24 percent among Hispanics – figures essentially identical to those by which Davis beat his 1998 challenger, Dan Lundgren. Nationally, a Greenberg-Quinlan-Rosner poll taken after the 2002 election indicated that Hispanics supported Democrats by 62 to 38 percent, figures nearly identical to 1998 numbers.

Research by political scientist James Gimpel confirms that Hispanic voting patterns haven't shifted. He found that Hispanics in 10 states polled by Fox News supported Democrats over Republicans in Senate races by more than two to one (67 percent to 33 percent). Democrats didn't fare quite so well among Hispanics in governors' races in these states (54 percent to 46 percent), but that result probably had a great deal to do with the inclusion of Florida and the noncompetitive Colorado election in their sample. Gimpel found little evidence that Latinos are moving toward the Republican Party, despite all the talk of Hispanics as swing voters.

What limited data there are on Asian voters indicate that they, too, haven't wavered in their support of Democrats. In California, Asians voted for Davis over Simon by 54 to 37 percent, similar to their preference for Al Gore over George Bush in 2000. In other words, practically all the available data indicates that minority support for Democrats didn't budge in this election. For the GOP, that's a very bad sign.

County Line

Republicans naturally want to make the case that their strong showing wasn't simply a result of demagoguing craven Democrats on national security. Surely, they'll tell you, there were deeper trends at work. One of the most fashionable of the theories put forward is that Republican gains reflected the rise of "exurbs" – those fast-growing edge counties on the fringes of large metropolitan areas that tend to vote Republican. Since these areas are booming, argue conservatives like David Brooks, who wrote an influential post-election article in The New York Times, the future belongs to the GOP.

But while Brooks is correct that exurbs contributed to the 2002 Republican victories, his assertion that they were central to these victories is much shakier. Consider his two main examples, Colorado and Maryland. Colorado's quintessential exurb, Douglas County, just outside Denver, did vote overwhelmingly Republican in the state's Senate race, choosing Wayne Allard over Democrat Tom Strickland, 66 to 32 percent. That's about the same margin by which Bush beat Gore in Douglas County in 2000. But pull back a bit and the picture changes: The Denver-Boulder area as a whole voted for Democrat Strickland by a 6-point margin; that's larger than the 3-point victory Gore won in 2000, which in turn improved on Michael Dukakis's 1-point loss in 1988.

How can this be? Partly it's the influence of vote-rich Denver County, which is strongly Democratic and becoming more so. But another part of it is suburban Arapahoe and Jefferson counties around Denver that, as they've grown bigger, denser, and more diverse – less "exurban," if you will – have also become much less Republican. Arapahoe voted for Reagan in 1980 by 39 points, for Bush I in 1988 by 22 points and for W. in 2000 by only eight points. In the same period, Jefferson favored Reagan by 34 points, Bush by 15, and his son by just eight. These swings have contributed to a pro-Democratic trend in the Denver-Boulder area – a trend that buoyed Strickland's candidacy, rather than hurt it. The real story in Colorado was Strickland's poor showing elsewhere in the state, especially in small towns and rural areas.

Maryland's gubernatorial election is an even stronger refutation of the exurban thesis. To begin with, Democrats picked up two House seats in the 2002 election, and Gore beat Bush by 17 points in the last presidential election. While Republican gubernatorial candidate Robert Ehrlich did very well in exurban counties like Frederick (north of Washington, D.C.) and Harford (north of Baltimore), both of which already tend to vote Republican, Ehrlich's real coup was carrying counties Brooks doesn't mention – closer-in counties like Baltimore (the state's third-largest) and Howard (the state's fastest-growing county with more than 100,000 in population), both of which traditionally vote Democratic and have become more so over time. In other words, the real story is that Ehrlich's opponent, Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, ran a lousy race and lost many counties she should have won, and lost badly where she should have at least come close. Consequently, Ehrlich's victory hardly suggests an impending era of Republican exurban dominance in the very Democratic state of Maryland.

Elsewhere, examples of the exurban phenomenon run into the same problem: They are usually examples of – not the reasons for – pro-Republican voting. Take Northern Virginia's Loudon County, the sixth-fastest-growing county nationwide, cited by Brooks in another article. As Loudon has grown, it has grown more Democratic, moving from a 66-33 Republican advantage in 1988 to a much more modest 56-41 advantage in 2000. And, critically, the northern Virginia suburbs as a whole have shifted from a 20-point Republican edge to a mere two-point edge over that same period. Evidently, Loudon's booming growth isn't enough to stop a political trend toward voting Democratic, much less start one toward voting Republican.

In fact, Loudon County illustrates an important, and – for Democrats – positive trend: Many of these fast-growing, Republican-leaning exurban counties are part of larger metropolitan areas that are actually trending in the opposite direction. That's because exurban counties are generally too small to outweigh pro-Democratic developments elsewhere in large metropolitan areas, and also because as exurban counties become bigger, denser, and more diverse, they generally become less – not more – Republican. So, in a sense, today's right-leaning exurb is tomorrow's left-leaning suburb. This makes a strategy based on exurbs as they appear today – nearly all white and low density – a tenuous one. If the GOP expects long-term political dominance from the growth of these same counties, it's likely to be disappointed.

Turn On, Tune In, Turnout

The 2002 election was also an aberration from the perspective of voter turnout. Usually, it's the Democrats who fire up their base and deliver a bravura performance of getting voters to the polls. Last year, however, Democrats dragged their feet, while Republicans did an outstanding job. The GOP's "72-Hour Project" did particularly well, boosting white turnout. But Democrats didn't match this effort among their base; while minorities supported them at typically high rates, fewer showed up at the polls. In California, a Los Angeles Times exit poll – the only functioning exit poll in the nation – indicated that only 4 percent of voters in 2002 were black, compared to 13 percent in 1998. That's almost certainly an underestimate, but it does suggest a substantial falloff. The same poll indicated that just 10 percent of California voters in 2002 were Hispanic, down from 13 percent in 1998. And Gimpel's study of Fox News polls in 10 states indicates that Hispanics of low to middle income and education were much less likely to vote last year than those of high income and education, meaning that not only was Hispanic turnout likely lower in 2002, but those who did show up were unusually unrepresentative of the Hispanic community in a way that hurt Democrats and helped Republicans. (Turnout was especially low among independent Latinos with middling levels of education, who tend to vote heavily Democratic.)

More broadly, county-level voting returns suggest that turnout in Democratic-leaning large cities and inner suburbs, even where it did not decline, did not keep pace with increases in Republican-leaning exurbs and rural areas, which, on the whole, were highly mobilized. In Missouri, for example, the increase in votes cast over the 1998 election was much more moderate in heavily Democratic St. Louis city and Democratic-leaning St. Louis County than in the heavily Republican suburb of St. Charles County and especially in rural and extremely Republican Cape Girardeau County. The same pattern was true in Minnesota, where many Republican-leaning rural counties seemed to show exceptionally high turnouts, while Democratic-leaning urban ones lagged behind.

Of course, the relatively low turnout among minorities and in Democratic areas probably didn't matter much in states like California, where the Democrats prevailed by a large margin, or Florida, where they were so far behind that no reasonable increment of minority turnout could conceivably have saved them. But in close races like Missouri's, it may have cost the Democrats victory – and perhaps nationwide also, since it only took a swing of two seats for Republicans to take the Senate.

So the GOP was clearly the turnout party in 2002. But it's unlikely to be able to repeat this. To begin with, Democrats won't be caught napping again. They've launched their own version of the "72-Hour Project" called "Project 5104" – shorthand for winning 51 percent of the vote in '04. The labor movement will match this expanded turnout initiative with its "Partnership for Working Families," which will target not just union voters, but also non-union liberals and Democratic-leaning voters in the party's 158 million-voter database.

Of course, better mechanics alone can't make up for low motivation, which was clearly one of the reasons Democratic voters didn't turn out in 2002. But three things will be different next time around. First, the 9/11 effect will have dissipated, and far fewer voters will be patriotically inclined to give President Bush the benefit of the doubt. Second, the Democrats are learning that "No ideas don't beat bad ideas." In 2002, they had no agreed upon economic policy, no plausible alternative foreign policy, and a handful of domestic program proposals like prescription drug benefits for seniors that Republicans neutralized with vague proposals of their own.

Leading Democrats now know they need a broader agenda to give Democratic-leaning voters reason to show up. Finally, nothing drives voters to the polls like anger – the desire to strike a blow against the opponent. That desire was absent in 2002 due to a short-term confusion among many Democratic voters and lawmakers about whether and how to oppose Bush. But the president's virulent partisanship has erased such concerns among Democratic-leaning voters. In a recent Los Angeles Times poll, for example, 95 percent of Republicans approved of Bush's job performance, compared to just 28 percent of Democrats. This extraordinarily high point spread shows that non-Republican voters have become alienated by the administration's hard-right policies on everything from tax cuts and Medicare to Iraq. Bush may indeed be mobilizing his own base – but in the process he's mobilizing the other side's, too.

Tithes that Bind

It is an article of faith in the GOP these days that there is no such thing as a bad tax cut. Indeed, this extraordinary concept has overshadowed the "compassionate conservatism" Bush touted in his 2000 campaign. So the Republicans are betting, at least domestically, on the political appeal of tax cuts. They had an easy time of it in 2001, and now they're proposing a new round, including the complete elimination of the dividend tax. The Democrats didn't dare run against tax cuts last November, they reason, so why should the future be any different?

But early reaction to Bush's new tax-cut plan is remarkably tepid considering that the public's initial reaction to any new economic proposal (if no potential drawbacks are cited) tends to be positive. In this case, the lack of enthusiasm has a great deal to do with the fact that just 22 percent of the public paid any direct dividend tax at all last year. And a closer examination of the general apathy toward Bush's latest cuts reveals a remarkable fact: More people now think the amount of federal income tax they pay is "about right" (50 percent) than think it is "too high" (47 percent). Someone resuscitate Grover Norquist! According to Gallup, the last time the public felt this good about paying their taxes was March 1949. Perhaps this wasn't the ideal time to propose a large, deficit-ballooning tax cut for the rich after all.

Sure enough, survey data from a Greenberg-Quinlan-Rosner poll shows that Bush's new plan is sparking much less interest than his first tax cut did in January 2001. Back then, 49 percent thought Bush's proposal was good for the middle class, while 42 percent disagreed; this time just 37 percent think it's good for the middle class, compared to 48 percent who don't.

Other recent survey questions reveal that the public may have had its fill of tax cuts. By more than two to one, people would prefer more spending on education, health care, and Social Security to Bush's proposed tax cut (ABC); 61 percent believe the Bush plan will be "just somewhat" or "not very" effective in stimulating the economy (NBC); almost twice as many think the Bush economic plan would benefit the wealthy over Americans as a whole (NBC); 56 percent believe that if the Bush plan mostly benefits the wealthy, it will be an ineffective way to stimulate the economy (NBC). The public also expresses a preference for a stimulus program focused on infrastructure spending (roads, bridges, schools) rather than tax cuts, and by a whopping margin is nervous about the prospect of Social Security funds helping to fund the government if Bush's tax cut goes through. In other words, it's a considerably less friendly world for tax cuts in 2003 than it was in 2001 and – partly reflecting this fact – this time Democrats are lining up to oppose them.

Polling data suggests that this is a doubly smart move. Not only are tax cuts unpopular, but voters believe them to be an ineffective remedy for the public's real area of concern: the lousy economy. A recent Pew poll revealed that more people disapprove of Bush's performance on tax policy (44 percent) than approve of it (42 percent). On the economy, the president fares even worse. Before the invasion of Iraq, he was regularly drawing approval ratings in this area in the low 40s (and only in the high 30s among political independents, the best simple proxy for swing voters), with disapproval ratings in the low 50s. He received a slight bump from the war (rallying around the president on one issue commonly bleeds into unrelated areas), but is heading right back down. Should that continue into '04, being identified with tax cuts is likely to be a liability, even in the short term. Over the long term, the fiscal damage wrought by tax cuts drains the economy, generates huge deficits, and ensures that voters' priorities can't be met: hardly a recipe for political dominance.

The Spoiler of War

That brings us to the GOP's biggest advantage in the last election and the one they're clearly relying on to carry them through the next: war and national security. Right now, the Bush administration's war in Iraq enjoys the support of about 70 percent of the American public. But even this advantage is unlikely to last. The war is temporarily suppressing Americans' genuine skepticism about the administration's approach to foreign policy, and the underlying softness of their support means that they could quickly tire of a lengthy occupation and the ancillary foreign and security problems.

For example, before the invasion, polls showed that Americans opposed invading Iraq without U.N. support and strongly supported giving weapons inspectors more time, reflecting the public's overwhelming view that Iraq was a long-range, not an immediate, threat. And while general, no-conditions-specified questions about military action against Saddam Hussein always elicited support, this ebbed once stipulations were raised about U.S., and even Iraqi, casualties or about the possibility of a long-term occupation – now a certainty. Moreover, moderates and independents held these viewpoints more strongly than the broader public, indicating that this was the true center of U.S. public opinion.

In other words, the public held a very different view of Iraq than the president did. The administration espoused an evolving ideology that essentially relies on asserting unilateral American power, while the public preferred a more nuanced and pragmatic approach of working through allies – more Wesley Clark, if you will, than Donald Rumsfeld. And, like Clark, they were inclined to see Iraq as more of an "elective war" than one waged out of necessity.

Of course, after the troops hit the ground, these doubts and nuances gave way to patriotic support. But they remain, evident even in post-invasion polls – such as Gallup's – that consistently find just 59 percent supporting the war as "the right thing to do," while the remaining 11-13 percent who favor it do so out of a desire "to support the troops" (25-27 percent oppose the war outright). There is more doubt and even opposition than during the first Gulf War or the attack against the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. Consequently, the public is less likely to cut Bush slack if the Middle East situation worsens than it was immediately following 9/11.

Besides, to truly benefit from being hawkish, it helps if your opponent is a softie whose party is implicated in a major foreign policy debacle. Today's Democratic Party is not handicapped by this and seems more intent on channeling the spirit of John F. Kennedy than George McGovern or Jimmy Carter. Four of the five leading candidates for the Democratic nomination voted for the resolution supporting Bush on Iraq. And the voguish term for today's Democratic frontrunner, decorated Vietnam veteran John Kerry, isn't "pinko," but "tough dove."

The Road Ahead

Despite all the evidence that Republicans are not assured of winning in 2004, Democrats are hardly certain to knock off a sitting president. What the 2002 election and its aftermath reveal is that the underlying trends identified in The Emerging Democratic Majority have not been negated; they've been temporarily overwhelmed by Republican successes. The country is still changing in ways congenial to Democrats. A Democratic Party that practices smart, tough politics and fields viable candidates faces no fundamental obstacle to achieving political dominance by decade's end.

But let's get serious – can we really expect that from the Democrats? That's what Republicans ask – and even many Democrats, who see the weaknesses in the current GOP position, but can't quite bring themselves to subscribe to the message of my book. The truth is that many intelligent members of both parties believe the Republicans to be the only true practitioners of effective politics.

Perhaps this is why my party is currently out of power, but I believe differently. Take the Democrats' minority vote. Skeptics will point out that that devious Karl Rove has access to the same numbers I've laid out above and will certainly devise a plan to snare minority voters for Republicans in 2004 and beyond. True as far as it goes, but it doesn't mean he'll succeed. The 2002 elections showed just how little success Republicans have enjoyed so far. The fact of the matter is that the partisan affiliations, policy priorities, and views on the role of government of blacks and Hispanics skew dramatically toward the Democrats. It's going to be difficult for Republicans to change their own priorities and approach to government enough to appeal to these groups and break down their Democratic affiliations.

So what about the gender gap? Isn't the GOP making headway there as smart, tough Republican operatives take advantage of women's sensitivity to public safety issues to move them away from the Democrats? Not really. Survey data from the 2002 election indicates that the gender gap favored Democrats about as much as it ever has. Gallup, whose pre-election poll nailed the result almost perfectly, had the gender gap slightly larger last year than in 2000. And Gallup data indicate that what really drove the surge toward Republicans just before the election was not security-conscious women, but those reliable Republican stand-bys: white men.

Now, it is true that women are substantially more likely than men to fear being the victim of a terrorist attack. So, even though it wasn't much of a factor in 2002, perhaps those worried women will gravitate toward the GOP's national security toughness over the longer haul? Not likely. On virtually every poll question one might care to look at, women are less likely than men to trust and support Bush administration policies on Iraq and related issues, the main vehicle through which the president is supposedly fighting terrorist attacks. Before the war started, a Los Angeles Times poll showed that more women opposed a U.S. invasion of Iraq without Security Council blessing than supported it; and even after war began, far fewer women than men approve of the way Bush is handling the situation.

Beyond that, look at the record Bush has amassed on his 2000 campaign promises. "Compassionate conservatism" flummoxed hapless Democrats the first time around, but by now the administration has several years of not-so-compassionate baggage to explain away. And its hard-right policies on the environment, Medicare, Social Security, tax cuts, and Iraq have polarized Democrats against them (so much for being "a uniter not a divider") and alienated moderates and independents – the principal targets of compassionate conservatism in the first place. In other words, a party's policies and track record set real limits to what smartness and toughness can accomplish. The idea that Karl Rove can negate all this simply by waving his magic wand should not be taken seriously by Democrats or anyone else. What the Democrats should take seriously is the need to fight back and fight back hard, so they can exploit the underlying trends that are moving the country in a Democratic direction.

But these are trends, not guarantees. They're meaningless unless Democrats can find the right combination of politics and ideas to fire up their base while appealing to independents and other swing voters. Can they do it?

There are encouraging signs. From Sen. Landrieu's hard-fought special election to congressional Democrats' relentless campaign against the latest Bush tax cut to the hawkish position of most Democratic frontrunners, the party is in the process of refashioning itself to take advantage of Republican weaknesses and – just as important – avoid dumb mistakes. They need to build on this in 2004 and beyond by articulating an agenda that goes beyond reining in Republican excess and defending Social Security. Again, the signs are encouraging. The Democratic frontrunners, who set the tone for the party, have advanced serious proposals in areas like education, health care, pension reform, and international relations that could give voters a reason to back the Democrats.

John Judis and I argued that a Democratic majority was likely by the decade's end. That's still where I'd place my bet. But all the evidence I've laid out here suggests that Bush and the Republicans are vulnerable sooner, if Democrats can exploit those weaknesses. That would mean new ideas and compelling candidates. But, if they pull it off, that majority could come much sooner than you think – maybe even in 2004. You can say you read it here first.

Ruy Teixeira is a senior fellow at The Century Foundation and the author, with John B. Judis, of "The Emerging Democratic Majority."

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

Lebell

Politics is such a hard thing to predict.

No one doubted Bush Sr. would NOT get reelected after GW1, but Clinton came along and beat him handily. Now his son is enjoying high popularity after his own war, but unemployment is high and the economy is still poor.

You also have to factor in the two hot issues for Americans. Abortion is a Republican Loser while Gun Control is a Democratic Loser. Clinton himself said the NRA was responsible for Gore's loss, especially in Gore's homestate of Tennessee (unbelievable he lost there).

The Smart Dem will be strong on Defense, weak on Gun Control and focus on the economy. It remains to be seen if the party is capable of playing it smart or will do what it has done lately, which is playing it loud and left.

__________________
"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!

Macheath

On a name recognition basis (from a perspective outside of America), Kerry is the one I'd be most able to pick out of a crowd.

I dunno why, I just happen to have read more articles about him online.

Liquor Dealer

And one must say he really appears prezidenshuual!

I think the 'Bushaters" better think about getting ready for six more years. And as the anthem says - "No! Canada!"

__________________
Life isn't always a bowl of cherries, sometimes it's more like a jar of Jalapenos --- what you say or do today might burn your ass tomorrow!!!

boatin

Anyone see the debate? I think Leiberman fits the bill that Lebell describes. I think that description is pretty accurate. If the Dems figure out how to unify about the economy, it's all over for W.

I wouldn't have said that gun control was such a huge issue, but I do know that the NRA is worth a ton of votes. I just never think about them. Of course, I don't shoot off the big boys like you do, Lebell.

Liquor Dealer

I am not trying to make this an ethnic issue but that is exactly what it will become if Leiberman is the Democratic candidate. I stole the following but they are points to consider:

"His ultra-religious orthodox Judaism is not typical of most American Jews' view of their religion.

He does not care that his intense focus on orthodox Judaism makes him an unattractive candidate and makes it less likely that Americans will consider electing any Jew president in the foreseeable future.



These are points that one probably should consider in dealing with the choice of a Democratic candidate. I don't vote straight party in any election but with the choices offered, and the election was today, Bush would get my vote at this time.

__________________
Life isn't always a bowl of cherries, sometimes it's more like a jar of Jalapenos --- what you say or do today might burn your ass tomorrow!!!

guthmund

__________________
No signature. None. Seriously.

JoeyB

Hey...let's not give him any ideas, okay?!?!

__________________
My mom is a Diamondbacks fan. She really likes the Big Unit

Daval

If Al Gore had a little more charisma than the average cabbage he would be a great president. And would probably be the president now :P

__________________
"It is impossible to obtain a conviction for sodomy from an English jury. Half of them don't believe that it can physically be done, and the other half are doing it."
Winston Churchill

Liquor Dealer

I respect and admire Daval but damn! I hate to see a cabbage belittled in that manner. A cabbage has much more charisma (and probably common sense) than Gore.

__________________
Life isn't always a bowl of cherries, sometimes it's more like a jar of Jalapenos --- what you say or do today might burn your ass tomorrow!!!

Sun Tzu

Liquor Dealer is Leiberman from the Judaism philosophy that there's is not suppose to be a created state of israel until the "messiah" returns?

__________________
To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking

Liquor Dealer

Sun Tzu I know absolutely nothing about Judaism. It would just appear to me that in the current world of international politics it would be extremely difficult for any person that is Jewish to deal with the Arab world on any level. I am aware that Israel is perceived as several different things in this country - Back east it all but appears to be the sixth burrough of NYC because of the continuous interaction between NYC elected officials and the government of Israel. In our part of the world it is a foreign country that is an ally of the U.S. There is a vast distance between these two concepts. Back to your question - all I know is that he is perceived as being ultra-orthodox. That he & his wife, Hadassah, offend many who are already anti-Semitic and many believe his orthodox lifestyle will cost him the election - not the fact that he is a Jew.

http://www.opinioncenter.com/leiberman/
http://www.liebermansucks.com/

__________________
Life isn't always a bowl of cherries, sometimes it's more like a jar of Jalapenos --- what you say or do today might burn your ass tomorrow!!!

j_o_brown

Bill Mahr for President.

__________________
JB

May the Force be with you...

samremy

<div align=justify>
I personally feel that Kerry will win the nomination and loose the election. I feel that Howard Dean might be the only one capable of giving Bush a good run, especially if no WMDs are found by Nov 2004. Whatever the outcome, it will be most interesting.

My thoughts on the Democrat's debate are; I was suprisingly quite impressed with Sharpton. He seemed very well prepared. Kerry seemed too eager to continue Bush's war and his voice was cracking, which some would associate it as a weak trait, especially for a veteran. The little guy from Ohio, Dennis Kucinich is just pissed at everybody and loud, which translated to me, 'little man syndrome' even though he was making his points. Dean seemed unprepared and bumbling, unfortunate, for I feel his platform and agenda might get the Democrats back on track a give Bush a scare. Gephardt is visually the most presidential out of the bunch, but he's to liberal. His awesome healthcare plan will never fly; thus he's easy pickens! Lieberman doesn't have the look or the platform to distance himself adequately from Bush. Why elect a democrat for president if his views parallel that of the incumbent too closely? John Edwards, the redheaded southerner has future potential but he's too young. I truly liked Carol Moseley Braun, the female ambassador, the best. Her views and concerns seemed most noble and urgent compared to the all the others', but realistically this country isn't mature enough to allow her a chance. Bob Graham is too old and jolly without any color or substance to impress or stand above any of the others.

</div>

www.DeanForAmerica.com

__________________
"...to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government .. " -- The US Declaration of Independence

seretogis

Bill Maher is funny, but there's no way I would want him to be president.

As for the polls, wait until after the primaries. I bet that once the Democratic party settles on a candidate, there will be a surge of positive stories on said candidate (*cough*Hillary*cough*), and a large amount of speculative stories about W's handling of 9/11 and the war on Iraq. The media spin will be desperate and immense.

__________________
seretogis - sieg heil
perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost
no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

Sparhawk

It has been said that only Nixon could go to China. As far as his 'jewness' goes, it was a total non-issue in 2000, why should it be one in 2004? The republicans can have the anti-semite votes for all I care...

__________________
"In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."

Peetster

Clinton (the senator) is hoping Bush keeps it for 4 more. Then she will be able to take on the next Republican nominee in '08. Assuming we start to show an uptick in the economy (big assumption), Bush will have an easy time of it in '04. He's far from perfect, but he has had more of an impact on my life and my paycheck than any Democrat.

rogue49

I'm not going to argue a moot point at this moment.

There's still a year & a half.
GW could improve himself & his administration's policies...he's not perfect.
And the Dems could have a contender in the long run.
No one expected an Arkansas governor could come out of nowhere to beat Bush Sr. either.

I'll wait and see who's there at the end.
How everything is going. (policies, trends, economy, etc.)
And cast my decision on who's the best out of the options given to me.

The_Dude

it's tilted in bush's favor now, but after that investigation i'm sure it'll turn around

__________________
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

seretogis

The investigation itself will do nothing, I'm sure. It's the mass-media's twisting of the facts and dramatization of "what might have happened, and how it's all Bushy's fault!" that will effect the election, if anything.

__________________
seretogis - sieg heil
perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost
no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

The_Dude

it's gonna get a whole lot worse if committee investigation finds foul play

__________________
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

MuadDib

The democrats have a very real and not necessarily difficult shot at the presidency this coming election. Bush's numbers are dropping and he's beginning to alienate his won party with irrational decisions about legalizing all current illegal immigrants and not releasing 28 pages of 9/11 documentation. He's also taking unnecessary stances on non-issues such as gay marriage in order to further alienate himself from the left (as though thats necessary).

What lost the dems the last election is one of two things. Either the introduction of real liberal canidate that split the democratic vote in many states or the fact the the only real canidate was merely a Bush light. This defies the rules of the game if you're playing to win. There are two ways to win an election, first you either appear similar to the status quo in the majority of issues and then stake your ground on non-issues that are popular to edge the incumbent out, or second you present a real difference... a real choice and go after the issues and let Americans side were they may. I have my preferences here, but the important thing is that you must do one or the other. If you have a real choice canidate from another party (read: Green) then you can't ride the fence into the oval office.

There are two canidates that have a chance in this election if you look at all the canidates public statements and books. First, Howard Dean who goes along with prinicple one. He is the psuedo-liberal everyone sees on television critiquing the war and the tax cuts and so on. People know who he is, he has the appearance of progressiveness, and he has tons of cash from the many businesses he is in the pocket of from his day as governor of Vermont. Then we have the Seabiscit-like long shot Dennis Kucinich. This man is the real deal. A true progressive in the make of the late Paul Wellstone. Highly intelligent, truly blue collar, no business connections, and an honest to God reformer for the last 4 terms he has served as a congressman going clear back to his days as mayor of Cleveland. Unfortunately, no one know who he is, he does not have physical stage appearance not a cut throat political attitude. He isn't camera friendly. Someone earlier categorized him "a angry short man" and did so in popular public opinion.

It saddens me greatly that people rely so heavily on the sound bytes from television and pragmatic politics to make their voting decisions, but thats life I suppose. Either canidate (along with possibly Kerry or Edwards) could easily defeat Bush in the general election if all other canidates bow out gracefully and hopefully pick a fellow former-canidate as a running mate. In the end nothing is going to change in America unless Americans start doing their own homework on the canidates, get involved, and elect Kucinich. However, this is about as likely as G.W. going a month without some misspeaking ending up on the Daily Show with John Stewart. So I won't hold my breath waiting for America to pull it's head out of it's ass and sit back and wait for the inevitable standard issue politician to win from either side and have nothing to change. I think I'll go pack and get ready for my long trip to Canada where the people who actually take part in politics at least are mildly responsible citizens/adults.

Peace

Xell101

I think this one doesn't matter for the Dems, I'm willing to bet that Hillary Clinton shall run in '08 and with no Bush to comete she will win.

archer2371

I don't really think the "investigation" will turn up anything foul about Bush. It will turn up something foul about the idiotic and childish pissing contest between the CIA and FBI and NSA, etc. As far as the WMDs are concerned, I never expected to find them right away, because Saddam in a last ditch effort to foil the Brits and Americans tried his damndest to hide all of the WMDs. Iraq is a huge country and there are many places to hide things (like the mass graves that we're just finding now). However, the Democratic Party, if they're smart, will exploit the fact that there are no WMDs found, however, if they are found by Nov. 2004 they are going to look really, really dumb. If not, it will pay off and they will get some votes and whatever candidate they have just might win. I'm not counting anybody out just yet. Most likely the Dems will get Cali in 04 because it is a Democratic stronghold (or they may not with the fiasco with their governor at the moment). Bush will get Texas for sure, he will want to campaign heavily in New York, Pennsylvania, Florida, Virginia. He's got quite a bit of the Mid West states (Bible Belt) altho Ashcroft did lose to a dead guy in Missouri...... Anyways, if anything the 04 elections should be interesting.

__________________
"This ain't no Ice Cream Social!"

"Hey Grif, Chupathingy...how bout that? I like it...got a ring to it."

"I have no earthly idea what it is I just saw, or what this place is, or where in the hell O'Malley is! My only choice is to blame Grif for coming up with such a flawed plan. Stupid, stupid Grif."

JumpinJesus

Al Gore will hop in to "save" his party at the last minute. It'll be billed "The Thrilla of Vanilla" and be seen as the greatest re-match since Rocky Balboa and Apollo Creed duked it out.

In all honesty, the Democratic party is done for. They've lost touch with their base voters. Aside from that, the only candidate who will stand a chance against Bush will be one is not afraid to take Bush on in a serious manner and question every move he's made and every motive behind those moves. The Democrats are too afraid to do that. I look for an independent or 3rd party candidate to stand the only real chance against Bush. If a Democrat wins, it will only be if the economy tanks between now and election day or it is discovered that Bush has done something highly illegal.

__________________
"I can normally tell how intelligent a man is by how stupid he thinks I am" - Cormac McCarthy, All The Pretty Horses

ctembreull

You're probably more right than you know, but not for the reasons you think. The notion of the "liberal media" has been quite thoroughly and effectively debunked recently, shown up as nothing more than conservatives "working the refs". But even given the media's astounding lack of willingness to challenge the Bush Administration, signs are starting to show that the free ride is over. The media will be pivotal in the 2004 campaign, and if - IF - the media wakes up and realizes that it has spent the last four and a half years parroting Republican spin points as if they were gospel, then I think it safe to say that there'll be a rapid, immediate, and titanic backlash against the Bush administration. George W. Bush will find himself quite thoroughly "Gored", and even given his prodigious campaign war chest, it's almost impossible to win an election when the news media has decided to pit itself against you. Al Gore knows all about this; after all, he did win an election in this sort of climate.

Why is this relevant? Because if you look at the way the media coverage has turned over the Iraq buildup, you could say that the scenario I've described is already happening. And that should quite simply terrify any conservative beyond the capacity for rational thought. Conservatives cannot win without a compliant media. If the media decides that Bush is untrustworthy, it's all over.

__________________
Mac
"If it's nae Scottish, it's crap!

ctembreull

MuadDib:

That's an excellent analysis. I agree with you about Kucinich, but I got the feeling that you found him to be somewhat electable. I don't. I love his views and his willingness to fight, but I think he's just a shade too idealistic for the modern political climate. Conservatives would have a field day with a good amount of the stuff that he's put out there. And so would the media; at first blush, a lot of Kucinich's ideas even made my eyebrows go up. He's the kind of guy who eventually would make a great chief of staff or policy-maker, but I can't see him as being President.

For the record, I've thrown in with Kerry. I would have been more interested in Dean except that he has no more qualification for office than did Bush four years ago. I'd like to see Dean do the Senator thing for a couple of terms, and then run again once he's accustomed to the national stage. Kerry's the real deal, he's got the experience and he's got the moderate-to-liberal credentials that I want in my candidate. And his experience is unimpeachable. Personally, I think Kerry as president, followed by Hillary Clinton, followed by Howard Dean would be one hell of a way to establish a Democratic majority in this country that would take a hundred years to erode.

__________________
Mac
"If it's nae Scottish, it's crap!

MuadDib

ctembreull:

It really depends on what you mean by thinking Kucinich is electable. On one hand, I do think he could win. That is, as I said, if Americans (dems in particular) pulled their collective heads out of their asses and took a real idealogical stance and stood behind a canidate that represents a progressive view of America without fear of being "too left" or of supporting a dark horse canidate. On the other hand, I also expressed my sincere doubt that this will be happening in modern America due to the disillusion most Americans feel towards the political system in this country and our 5 second soundbyte attention span. I do feel that this is real shame. My second choice would be Hillary and after that its really a wash for me since I feel all others are just standard issue republicrats playing the election game. Regardless, I'll vote for whoever the dems nominate.

ctembreull

MuadDib:

I disagree strongly with you about Kucinich's electability. Part of it is his stand on the issues. It's been said that 40% of the country will vote Democrat no matter what, 40% will vote Republican no matter what, and it's the middle 20% that makes the difference. That 20% is the key battleground, but Kucinich is in practical terms too far left. This isn't saying that I don't agree with him, but to capture that middle 20%, a candidate needs the appearance of moderation. Bush lied his ass off to get there, but he appeared moderate enough to take away a good portion of that 20% - enough to make Florida an issue. Kucinich, I think, is too honest and too forthright to appear as anything short of what he is - a very liberal Democrat. Hence, I consider him unelectable.

This is why I said that we need a moderate - and Kerry is a very good moderate-to-liberal candidate - to pave the way for real liberals like Kucinich later on. Right now, though, the country has been "conservatized" by Republican propaganda, and we need a moderate who can step in and do battle with Bush in the turf he's trying to claim - the moderate 20%. In the future, you could be right - Kucinich would be an excellent liberal candidate. But today, right now, after the last three years of conservative depredations and a media culture that makes the country think they're getting a good deal, we need someone who can battle Bush on his own turf and win. I see Kucinich's role right now as being an influence to pull Kerry and Dean and Gephardt - the three big dogs of this race - enough to the left to keep the liberal base happy, but without sacrificing their ability to draw in the moderate middle by hammering Bush on the ground that he claimed in 2000.

You know and I know that Kucinich is savvy, compassionate, and intelligent. But to the rest of the country right now, he's fringey. Give it eight years of Democrat control, and we may just be in a position to elect someone like Kucinich. But not now. Certainly not now.

__________________
Mac
"If it's nae Scottish, it's crap!

MuadDib

ctembreull:

Umm... I think we are agreeing in different terms. I'm pretty much saying he's electable if the public would get out of the funk of the current political climate. I also don't really believe thats going to happen at this time. Maybe Kerry could pave the way, maybe Dean could, or maybe things will continue to get worse and worse until people go out on a limb and vote for the biggest change possible. Regardless, something needs to happen and I donn't know what it is.

mustang91

I love Kucinich, he's from my home town, really works for his district. Like others have said though, he's too far to the left.

Oh, and the fact that when he was mayor Cleveland defaulted on their loans. Yeah, the Repub's would have a field day with that.

__________________
"I'm desperately not trying to feel the early, preconceived notion of love that only exists in top 40's pop songs."

"He who wants money, means and content are without three good friends." - Shakespeare

"...like Vietnam, or those bands that never got over the fact they opened for Nirvana, I never got over her." -Nick Hornsby

MuadDib

If I'm not mistaken wasn't that his big ticket into modern politics? I mean he defaulted the loans because he refused to sell the public power district to a private company with tons of bank execs on the board because he didn't want to create a monopoly. Now, that company ended up saving people in Cleveland almost 200 million over the company that wanted to buy it out, plus in recent years has spread coverage to other areas of Ohio because it was so successful. If I'm not mistaken that was his entire campaign back in the late 90s, complete with little light bulb shaped buttons that said "Vote Kucinich... Because I was Right!"

alpha phi

There are many people democrat and "other" who would do a fine job as president.
I like Joe Libermin :sp? (which is odd, I'm not often in step with a democrat)

However; we are in a war time, Bush started it...it's best for him to see it through.

__________________

MuadDib

Leiberman is among my last choices, personally. Way to far to the right for me. But I would guess by your statement that you rarely find yourself falling in step with a democrat that you are generally a republican voter so I think its very cool that there is someone in democratic party that represents your interests.
The whole war time presidency thing is a whole bunch of crap if you ask me though. It just opens too big a can of worms. It actually gives politicians the incentive to endanger the lives of American soldiers for personal gain! As if there wasn't already enough self-centered reasons politicians start wars, I don't think its time to start rewarding our officials for starting these endless crusade-like wars by making them a "get re-elected free card" as well. Not to mention I think Bush botched this war horribly. He has handled the war and himself more dishonorably than any politician within living memory and I think the best thing for America and the war is to get someone else in here to fix the problems he's created

pangavan

He gets to say alot now because he is the only veteran and no one wants to bring that up. But he has also admitted to commiting war crimes against innocent Viet Namese civilians, this will give GW alot of ammunition against him.

__________________
He is, moreover, a frequent drunkard, a glutton, and a patron of ladies who are no better than they should be.

pangavan

he would get my vote just to get him out of my district

__________________
He is, moreover, a frequent drunkard, a glutton, and a patron of ladies who are no better than they should be.