The sensible liberal's quandry made easy

[Imran Siddiqui]

Is there a single Democrat that would have a chance in the South against Bush?

Ya, Zell Miller for one . Bob Graham for another. Graham is/was running.

I can't see any reason why Dean wouldn't carry every one of those states, with the exceptions of Pennsylvania and New Mexico.

Cause he's more liberal than Gore, and Bush is more popular now. I'd bet that the states that went narrowly for Gore end up going to Bush this time if he runs against Dean. Or maybe even Kerry.

[GePap]

The thing that makes Dean "a libera" is his opposition to the war. IN most other, domestic issues he is only slightly to the left of Gore, like in gun control and medicare and so forth.

As for Iraq: if by a year from now 1) no WMD's yet, and 2) still 140,000+ American troops there wihout Bush having gone on TV and making a big seech outlining why and how much longer they will be there, then Dan's original opposition to the war will not be a significant handicap.

[GePap]

Oh, and Bush's core numbers are under 50% (meaning that having been asked if they would vote for Bush, no matter whom he ran against, Bush came in under 50%, aorund 42-3%). Bush won the middle with his foreign policy, but if that turns sour, there is plenty of room open for a challenge. Bush biggest advantage will the the fact that he will go into the elction with record amounts of money. the dems. simply wil not be able to match all the money Bush will have.

[DinoDoc]

The Dem primary season is going to be interesting with 9 candidates. I can only imagine the bloodletting that will happen.

[Kidlicious]

I consider Kerry and Dean moderates. I wouldn't vote for either one.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by GePap
The thing that makes Dean "a libera" is his opposition to the war. IN most other, domestic issues he is only slightly to the left of Gore, like in gun control and medicare and so forth.

Then there's that bit about tax rates and spending in the People's Republic of Vermont.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Kidicious
I consider Kerry and Dean moderates. I wouldn't vote for either one.

Then you deserve four more years of Bush and Ashcroft.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by GePap
Oh, and Bush's core numbers are under 50% (meaning that having been asked if they would vote for Bush, no matter whom he ran against, Bush came in under 50%, aorund 42-3%).

Those type of hypotheticals always change at the ballot box, when you see what the opposition really is, and contemplate four years of that.

That's the only way Davis won reelection.

[GePap]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Then there's that bit about tax rates and spending in the People's Republic of Vermont.

And if that is the way the people of vermont like it, then good for them.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

The greens are lucky to get their two percent looney fringe protest vote, and that's it.

They'd do a lot better if you had proportional representation. But aside from that, calling Ralph Nader a looney fringe candidate just shows how far away the US has drifted from the rest of the civilized world. Nader is only campaigning for what most centre left parties in Europe, Canada and Australasia take as a matter of course.

Nader is so moderate it isn't funny. Our old right-wing NZ government enacted a consumer policy that could have come straight from his mouth (wildly popular act too, I might add).

[GePap]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Those type of hypotheticals always change at the ballot box, when you see what the opposition really is, and contemplate four years of that.

That's the only way Davis won reelection.

Bush has core support, but also core strident opposition. He is a polerizing figure. And Dean is not as far off form the whole electorate as Simons was form HIS whole electorate. After all, Dean is por-choice, as was Gore. He got a very high rating form the NRA of all people, environmentally he is not much to the left of Gore. Ans as for the economy and Iraq, those things are up in the air. Bush is the favorite, but he is not by any stretch invincible.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by GePap
Bush is the favorite, but he is not by any stretch invincible.

Not at all, but you have to admit the Democrat's ability at self-immolation is impressive.

[GePap]

The question is how vicious the primaries will be. I think that a vicious set of them will hurt the dems, and I can guess that Bush will spend a lo9t in them to hurt the dems. even ebfore the main campaing starts.
Half the dem. camp is made up of candidate who don't have any chance. Beside Kuni-whatever, Braun and Shrpton, i would add Edwards.

[Drake Tungsten]

I don't see why you're writing Edwards off. He's not a frontrunner, but he's definitely not in the same lowly category with Sharpton, Braun and Kucinich.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Agathon
They'd do a lot better if you had proportional representation. But aside from that, calling Ralph Nader a looney fringe candidate just shows how far away the US has drifted from the rest of the civilized world. Nader is only campaigning for what most centre left parties in Europe, Canada and Australasia take as a matter of course.

Now look at our economic size and relative power in the world. Yes, I suppose you could call moving further ahead of the pack "drifting."

Nader is so moderate it isn't funny. Our old right-wing NZ government enacted a consumer policy that could have come straight from his mouth (wildly popular act too, I might add).

I'm sure that helps explain NZ's economic might in the world.