Howard Dean is a frickin' idiot!

[MichaeltheGreat]

Anybody's a conservative compared to you.

[chequita guevara]

That may be so, but Lieberman's a conservative compared to he rest of his party, with the possible exception of Zeller.

[lord of the mark]

"It is hard to see how a centrist like Liberman can separate himself from Bush, given how much security and the aftermaths of the wars will weigth on the coming elections."

If you dont think domestic issues will matter much in 2004, than how does Dean win??? Unless Iraq in fall 2004 looks like Viet Nam in 1968, with dozens of US deaths a week, I dont see him winning on foreign affairs.

Big states - Texas no. Florida no. Illinois and Ohio - if the race is dominated by security rather than economics, no. New York - if he's running on a dovish view of the Mid East, probably not (theres a reason Hilary sat next to Leiberman when Dubya gave his speeches on Iraq) California - hard for any Dem with an unpopular governor there - can you really mobilize East LA better by talking about multilateralism than by talking about health insurance??

Nah, I dont see the strategy.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
"It is hard to see how a centrist like Liberman can separate himself from Bush, given how much security and the aftermaths of the wars will weigth on the coming elections."

If you dont think domestic issues will matter much in 2004, than how does Dean win??? Unless Iraq in fall 2004 looks like Viet Nam in 1968, with dozens of US deaths a week, I dont see him winning on foreign affairs.

Big states - Texas no. Florida no. Illinois and Ohio - if the race is dominated by security rather than economics, no. New York - if he's running on a dovish view of the Mid East, probably not (theres a reason Hilary sat next to Leiberman when Dubya gave his speeches on Iraq) California - hard for any Dem with an unpopular governor there - can you really mobilize East LA better by talking about multilateralism than by talking about health insurance??

Nah, I dont see the strategy.

Bush doesn't have much of a chance in California anyway. Wen the "serious" rep candiate is Ahnold, come on. Again, you are handicapping a race a year in davance, which is absurd. No one, one year in advance, would have picked Bill Clinton to be running in 1992, far less win. (oh, and NY is not likely to vote rep. no matter the stance on the ME, which is not a crucial issue for most of the electorate when compared to local social issues like gun control or abortion).

Dean has an army oif supporters willing to work for him. The other have not being able to show a passionate base whatsoever.

And if dean is so far behind, what the heck was your first post about? how would Dean get the nomination if you keep saying he oculd never win this state or that state? To get the nomination he would have to win those delegates in thier primaries, no?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
Becuase we are more than one year from the elections, so polls right now are meaningless. Election victories are built on groundwork. (where was Bill Clinton in Dem. polls back in 1991?) Dean has a corp of highy motivated staffers and voluteers laying down the groundwork. The other guys?

?

Not sure where Clinton was in the polls in 1991 - dont recall anyone else with the position of Lieberman or kerry now.


And its hardly surprising he has motivated staffers and volunteers. So did George McGovern. Im not saying he can't win the nomination. Given early wins in Iowa and New Hampshire to gain "momentum" and money, and continued split among the new dems, its quite possible.
But winning the general is something else entirely. And i thought you meant more by "doing so well" than gathering staff and volunteers. But if thats all you meant, than i will not dispute it.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
That may be so, but Lieberman's a conservative compared to he rest of his party, with the possible exception of Zeller.

That's because we have yet to rid ourselves of the losers in the party that have put it in the great place it's in today.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


Bush doesn't have much of a chance in California anyway. Wen the "serious" rep candiate is Ahnold, come on. Again, you are handicapping a race a year in davance, which is absurd. No one, one year in advance, would have picked Bill Clinton to be running in 1992, far less win. (oh, and NY is not likely to vote rep. no matter the stance on the ME, which is not a crucial issue for most of the electorate when compared to local social issues like gun control or abortion).

Dean has an army oif supporters willing to work for him. The other have not being able to show a passionate base whatsoever.

And if dean is so far behind, what the heck was your first post about? how would Dean get the nomination if you keep saying he oculd never win this state or that state? To get the nomination he would have to win those delegates in thier primaries, no?

a big difference between the dem primary electorates and the general electorates. You are aware of that, arent you?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


. No one, one year in advance, would have picked Bill Clinton to be running in 1992, far less win. (oh, and NY is not likely to vote rep. no matter the stance on the ME, which is not a crucial issue for most of the electorate when compared to local social issues like gun control or abortion).

i'll have to check some history, but im quite sure youre wrong about 1992. ISTR the Dem "front runner" was Mario Cuomo. Once he decided not to run, Clinton had as good a chance as anyone. IIRC his opponents were Tsongas, Tom Harkin, and Jesse Jackson. Surely youre not saying any of those was ever expected to win?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


(oh, and NY is not likely to vote rep. no matter the stance on the ME, which is not a crucial issue for most of the electorate when compared to local social issues like gun control or abortion).

New York voted for Reagan in both 1980 and 1984, and for Nixon in 1972. Its quite capable of voting Republican against a weak Democrat. New York has a very large constituency thats anti-abortion (you really do need to get out of Manhattan) I'll grant you if Dubya were to come out for an amendment banning abortion hed lose New York to anyone. But hes too smart for that - he'll take baby steps as a sop to the right, while not going far enough to alarm the soccer moms. Ditto on Guns - he wont oppose an assault weapons ban.

Now thats not to say Dubya doesnt start at a disadvantage in New York - but a dem to beat him needs the swing constituencies, and somebody who blows all but the most dovish elements of the pro-Israel constituency, in a race that by your own statement will largely be about foreign policy, is unlikely to win in NY.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by GePap
PLATO: if no one expects honesty from a politican, you won;t get it. And if voters know politicians lie, who are the dumbasses? The Pols, or the citizens? I say citizens.

GePap, We must expect honesty, but that doesn't mean we get it. I can't recall any President that I can remember (Which goes back to Johnson) being totally honest. I think that the most we can realistically hope for is one that will at least act on his(or her) convictions. Whatever else you can say about W, he seems to be doing this. Clinton didn't, Sr. didn't, Reagan did, Carter did, Ford was stupid, Nixon didn't, Johnson didn't.

How's Dean's record on this? Given National politics, this would be more important than weather or not he used the correct phraseology to explain a statement.