Dean has nomination locked?

[DanS]

if Bush wins it will not be due to any of his actions, but the points of view he represents

FYI, this is the way all presidential campaigns work. It is classic coalition building.

[GePap]

Not really-there have been plenty of presonality driven campaings- Teddy Rooselvelt, Ronald Reagan, FDR, kennedy are people who won either becuase of their own background and charms, or becuase their predecessor was so disliked, or both.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
Bush will have so much more money that it does not matter, he wins the money game, period.

The thing is, legislators have little chance of getting elected because they have no executive experience, and they have to justify every vote they make during the campaing. Can anyone name the last senator to become president?

Without prior service as VP, it would be JFK. With prior service as VP , it would be Nixon.

[DanS]

I'm just telling you how campaigns are run, not how successful they are in running them.

[GePap]

Having just worked a LOT of hours in a campaing.... (and one that won...)

[Imran Siddiqui]

that means stopping him in the south (why Kerry announced in South Carolina) But what does Kerry have in the South - i think his war record thing is wearing thin - he's up against 2 southerners (edwards and Clark) and one yankee whose ideology and religiosity have appeal in the south - Joe - and one guy with stronger economic and union appeal - Gephardt.

I think Kerry can make inroads in the South. Southern Democrats are still fairly conservative, and they aren't too fond of Liebermann (He's Jewish and they want a Christian). Edwards isn't considered a heavyweight, hardly any experience. I think Kerry could run with the South.

[DanS]

GePap: Presidential?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


Ford was electable? and if you meant Reagan..well, what is your definition of moderate? cause Goldwater did transform the Republican party, even with his loss.

I meant Nixon in '68 and '72 ( i suppose you could discount the latter cause Nixon was an incumbent, but on purely ideological grounds the right had plenty of reason to be unhappy about Nixon in '72, and at the start of the campaing he didnt look so overwhelming.)

BTW - of couse Ford was electable, he came very close to being elected.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
I am sorry, but if Bush wins it will not be due to any of his actions, but the points of view he represents- there is just so much to attack this white house on, specially it's "pledge to bring back integrity"..I mean, when the military press satrts to villify your "pro-military" administration..what positives are left?

If the country is in a Bush state of mind, then no democract could win..and if they aren't, any dem, save Sharpton, Kusinich and Mosely-Brown (probalby misspelled, but so what?)

Im quite sure there will be fence sitters for whom it will matter who the Dem is.

In any case I was hoping to discuss the horserace on the Dem side, not the general election.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The McGovern campaign should have told you differently.

I thought they'd changed

Really, when I thought the Dems could give me someone I could vote for, they try to put in some wacko instead... bleh!

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

that means stopping him in the south (why Kerry announced in South Carolina) But what does Kerry have in the South - i think his war record thing is wearing thin - he's up against 2 southerners (edwards and Clark) and one yankee whose ideology and religiosity have appeal in the south - Joe - and one guy with stronger economic and union appeal - Gephardt.

I think Kerry can make inroads in the South. Southern Democrats are still fairly conservative, and they aren't too fond of Liebermann (He's Jewish and they want a Christian). Edwards isn't considered a heavyweight, hardly any experience. I think Kerry could run with the South.

southern (WHITE) dems may be conservative - but is Kerry? Enough so to do well? I dont think so.

Im not sure Joes Judaism hurts him that much in the South. In 2000 he seemed to draw very well in the South - his overt religiosity played well, and he could express it more openly in some ways than a Christian could. I think most culturally conservative southern white would prefer a religious Jew to a secularist Christian - and which of the DEM candidates comes across as a religious christian (other than Al Sharpton) - no Jimmy Carter this time around. There may be antisemites in the south, but few in the Dem party I think. And dont forget at least half of the Dem vote in the South is Black - does Kerry have any appeal to them?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


and if you meant Reagan..well, what is your definition of moderate? cause Goldwater did transform the Republican party, even with his loss.

well yeah, and i dont rule out Dean transforming the Dems, even if it takes 16 years to see the fruits.

[GePap]

Kerry threw away his leader-status, Edwards has gone nowhere, neither have Lieberman and Gephardt and Clarcke has gone back down..

1. The south does not matter in the internal dmeocratic race (honestly, there is little the dems can do to win most of it-Florida, Georgia and North Carolina maybe, but most of the deep south, why even try unless black turnout was the largest ever), so the canard that only a southern democract can make it won;t work too much..

2. Iraq- Gephardt and Lieberman are the two most encumbered by this war, given that both are the most enthusiastic dem supporters in the race. Continually justifying the war (just like Bush) won;t get them far with the people who will vote in Dem primaries.

3. Trade- This is where gephardt has the most strenght, with unions, but he has not kept up on other issues. None of the other candidates have done much, save Dean, who now has the big unions with him.

It boils down to grassroots and party faithfull support- Dean has shown he has a base simply by how much he has raised from so many. None of the other dems, even with party institutional support, have shown anything like an energized support base.

[Imran Siddiqui]

southern (WHITE) dems may be conservative - but is Kerry? Enough so to do well? I dont think so.

Who'd beat him? Kerry plays better than Liebermann down here, I can tell you that... then again, Bush plays best of all .

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
1. The south does not matter in the internal dmeocratic race (honestly, there is little the dems can do to win most of it-Florida, Georgia and North Carolina maybe, but most of the deep south, why even try unless black turnout was the largest ever), so the canard that only a southern democract can make it won;t work too much..

the south matter cause it has a lot of delegates. But if somebody comes out dominant in the north, and no one is dominant in the south that doesnt matter. Re the general election. Dems may only be able to win a few southern states, but those states are still crucial to an electoral college majority.

2. Iraq- Gephardt and Lieberman are the two most encumbered by this war, given that both are the most enthusiastic dem supporters in the race. Continually justifying the war (just like Bush) won;t get them far with the people who will vote in Dem primaries.

And the timing is very bad for Joe and Gephardt. Even if Iraq turns around, it may be in time to help Bush, but not in time to help Dem hawks, given the early weighting of the primary season. (BTW - in my more paranoid conspiratorial moments it strikes me that it would be to Bush's advantage to hold back any intell that justifies the Iraq war - like eviedence of WMD - till AFTER Dean had locked up the nomination - farfetched I know, but Im not sure id put it past this White House - at least Karl Rove)