I don't really understand about Dean.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
In fact, of the last 4 presidents, the only one to shrink the government was Clinton, the most liberal.

Perhaps you mentioned the fact that I mentioned Clinton myself. So, I fail to see your point. I'd also dispute Clinton being all that liberal. Then again I'd also dispute McCain "as staunch a conservative you could ask for."

Dean isn't proposing raising taxes per se

I'm merely telling you how such a stance is going to be portrayed by people with more money than Dean has to get thier message out.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Perhaps you mentioned the fact that I mentioned Clinton myself. So, I fail to see your point. I'd also dispute Clinton being all that liberal. Then again I'd also dispute McCain "as staunch a conservative you could ask for."

Of the last 4 presidents, whom would you say was the most liberal, DD? This shouldn't take long to answer.

McCain received 100% approval in his voting record for several conservative watchdog groups. What about his stances are so liberal? McCain's sole offense was being pro-campaign finance reform. That's why he was labeled liberal, and for no other reason.

Dean isn't proposing raising taxes per se

I'm merely telling you how such a stance is going to be portrayed by people with more money than Dean has to get thier message out.

The misportrayal is entirely the point. Dean's stances are not particularly liberal--they are quite centrist. Will the right wing portray it as liberal to quash his campaign? Of course. But that doesn't change the fact that his positions and record are not that liberal. Again, the right wing will accuse any candidate who actually answers to the voters rather than corporate interests as being liberal.

[Timexwatch]

Originally posted by MrFun


Haven't you heard of the voting mobilization of younger adults called, "Rock the Vote?"

"Rock the Vote"? Are you serious? They're good about doing backoffice work like sorting and mailing voter registration forms and other gruntwork that University student groups would find hard to do, but I haven't seen them as that effective (I've worked with them on several occasions during student-run voter registration drives).


The best way to mobilize the under-30 set would be a drive to bring the voting age back up to 21.

Gepap:
As well as Bush campaigning on massive cuts to programs, unless he decides to stick with his program to raise deficits.

Large sections of the Bush tax cut have not even come into being, and some, like raising the minimum alternative tax would INCREASE the middle class tax burden, so calling repealing a tax cut that has not come inot being a tax hike is not that honest. As for reapealing the sections that have come into being-if the deficit is as big as it is, fiscal dicipline is needed.

So basically Dean can run on fiscal disicpline, and as far as I know, centrists like fiscal dicipline.

If the Bush camp keeps hammering on the idea that "Repealing Tax Cuts = Raising your taxes" and makes it stick, Dean is in trouble.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Don't believe the spin, Lancer. Dean is pro-gun, pro-death penalty, and fiscally moderate to conservative. He is pegged as a leftie because he is an outspoken critic of the war, the President, and the Democratic Party. He's rather the to right of McCarthy, but becuase the media is lazy and the Repubs love to lie (and because the other Dem hopefulls will say anything to knock Dean down to try and get the nomination themselves), it's "convention wisdom" that Dean is some kinda leftie.

Frankly, all these folks saying Dean can't win, were also saying he'd never get the nomination in the first place. I think it's time to stop paying attention to the pundents and the "conventional wisdom." Stop being lazy and actually do some research on the candidates.

I myself do not like Dean, but I like the movement around Dean, which is exceedingly (small d) democratic.

When Dean calls the Clintons the Republican Wing of the Democrat Party, he defines himself fairly well.

Given this self-definition, he will have an enormously hard time winning the election since he will have alienated both conservatives and moderates.

I hardly think he as a hope of taking any Southern states. So Bush starts with the election all but rapped up and can spend his time attacking the Democrat base states, like California. Dean has very little chance of winning.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
How well do you think campaigning on raising taxes will go for him?

Shouldn't hurt. The electorate is rather nervous about that totally Republican deficit.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Lol Keep telling yourself that Che.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Lol Keep telling yourself that Che.

:shugs: That's what the polls say. Most people didn't want the tax cut but wanted the government to be solvent and the debt paid down.

Question, why are Republicans so obsessed that Dean might win if they're sure he's going to lose to Bush?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Not obsessed just wondering how they need to frame their attack rhetoric. Need to know which of the 9 is the player.

[Ramo]

Interesting article on electoral math by Republican pollsters: http://www.moore-info.com/Poll_Updat...in Sept 03.htm

Hmmm.. it should work fine now. And finally, it does!

[chequita guevara]

That link, she's a no good.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


:shugs: That's what the polls say. Most people didn't want the tax cut but wanted the government to be solvent and the debt paid down.

Question, why are Republicans so obsessed that Dean might win if they're sure he's going to lose to Bush?

I think any Republican who truly advocates one of the Democrat candidates over others is a fool. They may pick a radical and that radical may just get elected. Most Dems thought Ronald Reagan was just such a radical, after all, and were eager that he be nominated over Bush.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Here is the politicalcompass of the 2004 primary candidates... based on VOTING RECORDS and policy plans... not propaganda speeches.

So you think Dean is more authoritarian than Kerry? Then why back Dean?

[Guynemer]

Fascinating article, Ramo. Summarizes what I've been arguing all along, only from a GOP point of view.

[OzzyKP]

Dems move left for the primary and right for the general election. Dean is doing the same thing. You'll hear more about his conservativism after he seals up the nomination.

And I think he has a better shot to challenge Bush than anyone. Polls in Time show him trailing Bush 46% to 51% if the election were held now. That's pretty amazing, considering lots of people are still unfamiliar with Dean, and he hasn't done his run to the center after the primaries are over.

The new conventional wisdom is that Gore lost in 2000 cause he was too centrist. He didn't turn out his base, and lost lots of votes to Nader. This election will be about turning out the party faithful, less about capturing the middle swing voters. Dean is better positioned to do that than Kerry or Lieberman.

I think it'll be an interesting year.

I might be going up to NH in two weeks to hob nob with some candidates and possibly campaign for Dean a bit. We'll see how it plays out.

[Ramo]

Also Guy, the article pre-dates the steel tariff repeal, so Dean's even stronger in places like WV and Ohio than the article suggests.

And if developing states start taking us to the WTO over agrisubsidies - which they almost certainly will do now that the "peace clause" has expired, Shrub can lose very, vergy big. If he repeals the subsidies, all of those Republican farming states in the midwest will go Democrat and he'll lose the election badly. If he rejects the WTO's demands, he'll piss off everyone else because of the retalitory tariffs that'd trigger, and lose the election even worse.

I'll be rather suprised if Dean manages to lose the election.