John Kerry vs GOP Congressmen

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

Yes, it was. And that is why I don't say Bush is guaranteed to win.

I wasn't even talking to you. I was talking to Marney.

 

Edwards is nothing special. Dean is nothing special. Kerry will be lambasted. And the rest of the field is just a series of bad jokes.

 

Personally, I think you're brushing the guys aside just a little much.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

Yes, it was. And that is why I don't say Bush is guaranteed to win.

I wasn't even talking to you. I was talking to Marney.

 

Edwards is nothing special. Dean is nothing special. Kerry will be lambasted. And the rest of the field is just a series of bad jokes.

 

Personally, I think you're brushing the guys aside just a little much.

Sorry. Wasn't aware that others weren't intended to comment. You could've gone the PM route --- but hey, no biggie. Heck, you could've mentioned Marney by name, but again, I suppose the misunderstanding is my fault here.

 

Edwards is hoping and praying that people think he's Clinton II (not realizing that Clinton wouldn't win). Kerry is hoping that his military record can mask his liberalness. Dean is a pompous ass.

-=Mike

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

And Bush should be convicted of insider trading.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

Heck, you could've mentioned Marney by name,

[Guest NoCalMike]

So I see that Marney is back. Why did I not catch this earlier.

[Guest EricMM]

Jobber that is not mentioning her by name.

 

Not to nitpick, but there's no reason to complain when someone else weighs in an opinion. If you want a dialogue, use PM's. This is a forum.

[Guest Kingpk]

I don't know if anyone has said this already, but I think it really depends on what Bush does in the year and change he has left. If he decides to go into Syria, NK or somewhere else, I'll probably not go for him. If he spends most of the time on the economy and the Israel/Palestine conflict (which he should, since he owes Blair BIG TIME), that will help his chances.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

Heck, you could've mentioned Marney by name,

And if you wish to correspond with Marney alone, there is this MIRACULOUS little thing called "PRIVATE MESSAGES" that this very forum has available to you. God knows I neither bitch --- nor moan --- when people I'm not "referring" to respond to what I write.

 

It's called maturity.

 

Again, private messages are for when you DON'T WANT ANYBODY ELSE TO RESPOND. They're not hard to use.

 

Barring that, everything you write is fair game.

 

Learn to like it.

-=Mike

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Yes, it was. And that is why I don't say Bush is guaranteed to win.

I wasn't even talking to you. I was talking to Marney.

You're lucky that Mike responded to you, then. Personally, I can't be bothered to address substanceless twits who refer disrespectfully to my President.

[Guest EricMM]

To get back on a semblance of topic, (not to talk about Kerry because that issue was trite, I don't think the soldiers CARED what Kerry had to say about them since he's a politician and either way it wasn't that big of a statement)

 

How does the coming (not TOO TOO far away) election look to everyone? What about the primaries? Any republicans so upset about Bush's domestic policy that they'll vote dem/ind? Any democrats so proud of the toppling of ruthless dictators that they'll vote for Bush? Or is the possiblity of change so remote that I'm wasting my breath? What about the primaries. Is anyone going to run against Bush? Who is the choice for the Dems? I mean it, even you reps who wouldn't you choose out of the dems?

[Guest Spicy McHaggis]

I think W is going to roll over the Dem candidate. That being said, a moderate is their best bet... Lieberman or Edwards. Despite Pelosi, I think the far left of the party is dying. Look at Hillary's comments during the war, or lackthereof. The American people (read: a majority, not all of them) showed in the last election that a moderate, possibly even a Rep stance is an ideal one. Lieberman or Edwards, sez my objective self, though I'd like to see a real lefty get his ass handed to him.

[Guest NoCalMike]

The problem is nobody is really a moderate most of the time. They just act like it in order to get into office and once in, all the money goes to their own private interest groups and lobbyists.

 

IMO, if the Dems try to act to moderate in 2004, they will just look weak and afraid to express their own ideas and therefore LOSE. Not to say the opposing view is gonna automatically win either, but an Opposing view needs to be expressed and FAIRLY represented and if the Democrats won't do it, then just let the Green Party representative into the debates.

[Guest Spicy McHaggis]

IMO, if the Dems try to act to moderate in 2004, they will just look weak and afraid to express their own ideas and therefore LOSE. Not to say the opposing view is gonna automatically win either, but an Opposing view needs to be expressed and FAIRLY represented...

Oh I agree that it's better in the long run for the dems to develop an actual platform and stick to it. But their best chance at short-term success is a "moderate".

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

You're so completely wrong that it isn't even remotely funny.

[Guest EricMM]

So say something Tyler, something factual.

 

I don't personally know much about the candidates so I don't open my mouth.

 

I'd have to check up and see which one of them has the best environmental stance, which would heavily influence my vote, since I am a registered Dem. But I really think that a democrat is not going to win the election.

 

Since it seems that this War On Terror thing is going to continue with Syria, Yemen, etc. I think Bush will become like FDR and not be voted out during a time of conflict.

 

I really think that's what's going to happen, although I've heard that we won't exactly go militarily against those countries, just economically. But still.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

A moderate dem, as evidenced by the 2002 midterm elections, will NOT WIN!

 

They need a strong, left wing democrat who can manage not to alienate the entire population with views that would be seen as "radical". Dean seems to be that man, as much as the Republicans on this board bemoan him. If he gets out there on the national spotlight and preaches his word, he has a very decent chance. He stands for something, unlike Lieb and Edwards. He's not just an anti-republican or anti-war candidate, either. He's their best choice to take back the White House in 2004.

[Guest EricMM]

But do you think he has a strong chance, or just a slim chance, or no chance to win?

 

*EDIT* and in fairness he can have a 100% chance to win. But no neutral chance~!

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Hmm...

 

I'm gonna say it's too early, simply because the debates and the campaigning itself will make or break him. He's got a strong enough platform to win the presidency, and I think he'd do quite a good job. However, I can't really make a judgement on it until he starts to sell himself to the American people who don't actively read his and other candidates' sites to read their platforms.

[Guest NoCalMike]

As of right now I would almost bet Bush is going to win no what who he runs against, but that is just AS OF TODAY. He is already bringing back up his tax cut garbage and most reports say a good portion in his own party are already scoffing at that notion.

 

I think Tyler is right in saying the Dems already took the moderate route during the mid-term elections and the problem with that is it didn't do anything to help bring the fence-riders over to their side. To me, the moderate view of the mid term elections(dem mod) came off as looking like Republican sympathisizers who were afraid to be called un-american.

 

Maybe the extreme left view won't win in 2004, but it can set up ideals for 2008, and it can once again break apart the left from the right some more, because ever since 9/11 the majority has been glued together at the hip.

 

A lot of ideas that have had eventual success, were considered when first brought up, "extreme"

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Eh, the thing is that he's not even extreme... he's just a democrat with democrat ideas.

[Guest NoCalMike]

Eh, the thing is that he's not even extreme... he's just a democrat with democrat ideas.

oh, let me clarify. When I said "extreme ideas" I wasn't necessarily referring to that candidate. I just meant "extreme ideas" in general.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

The problem is nobody is really a moderate most of the time. They just act like it in order to get into office and once in, all the money goes to their own private interest groups and lobbyists.

 

IMO, if the Dems try to act to moderate in 2004, they will just look weak and afraid to express their own ideas and therefore LOSE. Not to say the opposing view is gonna automatically win either, but an Opposing view needs to be expressed and FAIRLY represented and if the Democrats won't do it, then just let the Green Party representative into the debates.

The Dems are unlikely to win because it is BRUTALLY difficult to beat a sitting President who faces NO serious primary opposition (Bush I had to deal with Buchanan in '92 and that did him no favors).

 

They'd be idiots to run a REALLY strong candidate, since Bush will both have more money and won't have to spend very much in the primaries --- which gives him a HUGE advantage.

-=Mike

[Guest TheMikeSC]

As of right now I would almost bet Bush is going to win no what who he runs against, but that is just AS OF TODAY. He is already bringing back up his tax cut garbage and most reports say a good portion in his own party are already scoffing at that notion.

 

I think Tyler is right in saying the Dems already took the moderate route during the mid-term elections and the problem with that is it didn't do anything to help bring the fence-riders over to their side. To me, the moderate view of the mid term elections(dem mod) came off as looking like Republican sympathisizers who were afraid to be called un-american.

 

Maybe the extreme left view won't win in 2004, but it can set up ideals for 2008, and it can once again break apart the left from the right some more, because ever since 9/11 the majority has been glued together at the hip.

 

A lot of ideas that have had eventual success, were considered when first brought up, "extreme"

And if ANY of the Dems truly think that they lost because they were "too moderate", they will get ANNIHILATED for a long, long time.

 

They lost in '02 because they had NO platform. The ONLY thing that they had was that they don't like Bush.

 

And that really hasn't changed too much.

 

It's easier to get people to vote FOR something rather than AGAINST something.

-=Mike -- giving the Dems more help than their advisors have been as of late

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

It's easier to get people to vote FOR something rather than AGAINST something.

 

Agreed 100%, which is why you need a strong candidate... and it's been shown via quite a few studies that heathcare is a huge issue in America, and that's one of Dean's strongest issues. He actually does have a real program, not just "LET'S SOCIALIZE HEALTHCARE!", if you care to look up his platform on his website.

 

But uh, the whole moderate thing DOES have a lot to do with their losses as well. The platform was, indeed, a problem, but a lot of that also had to do with the fact that their "platform" was to agree with everything Bush said except the war.

[Guest Crazy Dan]

The problem is nobody is really a moderate most of the time. They just act like it in order to get into office and once in, all the money goes to their own private interest groups and lobbyists.

 

IMO, if the Dems try to act to moderate in 2004, they will just look weak and afraid to express their own ideas and therefore LOSE.  Not to say the opposing view is gonna automatically win either, but an Opposing view needs to be expressed and FAIRLY represented and if the Democrats won't do it, then just let the Green Party representative into the debates.

The Dems are unlikely to win because it is BRUTALLY difficult to beat a sitting President who faces NO serious primary opposition (Bush I had to deal with Buchanan in '92 and that did him no favors).

 

They'd be idiots to run a REALLY strong candidate, since Bush will both have more money and won't have to spend very much in the primaries --- which gives him a HUGE advantage.

-=Mike

Hey Mike I think that Bush I had to deal with Perot more than Buchanon. If Perot didn't run, then Bush would have beaten Clinton. But with Perot taking a good percentage of the votes from Bush, that proved to be the deciding factor, more than Buchanon.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Why the President is, in fact, unbeatable

The smartest Democrat aspirant today is the one not running - Hillary Clinton.

Exactly so. Consider why.

[Guest Kotzenjunge]

(starts campaigning for a Democrat to win in 2008, because, barring a complete and utter disaster for Bush's image or record, he ain't going down in 2004)

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Whoa, a conservative journalist saying Bush is unbeatable? No shit...

[Guest Powerplay]

While they are from a Conservative, the point about not alienating the Conservative base is a very good point. Considering that even with some of his Conservatives spliting and Perot fucking him over that Bush was still close to winning the election, you can hardly say that Clinton got in alone. He got very lucky that the winds of fate blew as they did, because Daddy Bush might have had a second term if Perot hadn't been around.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Perhaps, but you also have to remember that Clinton was seen as a weak candidate. Thus, I believe the dems need to run a strong candidate to have a shot.

 

I believe they have some strong candidates, and I think it will come down to how they are percieved in the debates to see if they will be elected. It's truly going to be make-or-break in the debates, this election. I think this tax cut, which is already drawing criticism from other Republicans, is just what the Democrats need to have a shot in 2004.