I don't really understand about Dean.

[MrFun]

Ben -- you're not allowed to participate in any other threads until you respond to my answer to your question in Boris' thread about work harrassment.

It's a new rule.

[Ramo]

Even stronger? Those are both very socially conservative states and the races there will likely be decided on social issues.

Why do you say that? Both Ohio and WV were tight races in 2000. Jobs usually determine who wins, and steel is very imporant in both states.

The latest polls, and they were before Saddam's capture, Bush had a huge lead in Ohio in a potential matchup: 57-38

IIRC, those polls were taken in September. That doesn't tell you anything. Most people had little idea of who Dean was at the time, and national numbers for Bush vs. Dean were comparable. More recent national polls (like the CNN one a little while ago) show the gap to be much smaller.

It isn't clear that a trade war will break out, and if it does how long it will take it to break out, and if longer peace can be negotiated, and with the EU and Japan on our side I doubt there is much the WTO can do.

I doubt that. If a country like China tells us that we're gonna have problems exporting to them until the farm subsidies go, just about every export industry we have will be up in arms.

Moreover, those farming states again are extremely socially conservative and it is highly unlikely many would be competetive under any circumstance.

The midwest isn't that socially conservative. Not anything like that South, anyways. That's why Dems are perfectly competitive there, even have advanges in places like Iowa. And if farm subsidies go, so will their support for Shrub.

These people ought to look more at empirical evidence, and it doesn't look like the nuclear issue will be that big of a deal, BUsh is ahead there by a huge margin.

Also interesting from the current polling is Bush's 25 point lead in New Hampshire, where Dean has gotten the most exposure, showing just how well Dean's message is getting across to voters.

Links to polls?

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Ramo
Are you kidding? Shrub made verbal gaffes all the time, particularly during his first campaign. In contrast, Gore was very disciplined.

An even better example might be Reagan.

Yes, but that's not a lack of political wisdom on Shrub's part, it's dyslexia. He seems to have taken Reagan as his role model politically. While it might be good for him politically, it removes the presidency even further from the people. We never see him doing anything but transmitting the message of the day.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Of course most of the people commenting here are the kind of people whose vote Dean isn't interested in.

If he annoys you he must be doing something right.

Yes you are right Horsie. Most of us are men, and a good number of us are white men. Dean is interested in appealling to Democrats, and only 22% of white men are registered Democrats.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


Actually if the repubs are successful in advertising it will be:

Option A: I hate Dean
Option B: I hate Bush


I predict this will be one of the dirtiest campaigns to date from both sides given the absolute hatred of Bush.

It seems likely I'll make my usual selection and choose:

Option C: I hate them both

[KrazyHorse]

I like Dean. Him and Clark should team up, kick the **** out of Dubya and his fat bastard VP.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I like Dean. Him and Clark should team up, kick the **** out of Dubya and his fat bastard VP.

I don't have much respect for Dean or Clark, especially Clark. He supported the war and claims he didn't. That makes him likely wrong IMO as well as a liar by any definition. Dean spends way too much time ripping Bush and way too little time delineating his policy proposals. If elected no one is going to care how well he can rip Bush. Of the Dems Lieberman seems to be the class of the field. He's an adult who pretty much says what he beleives and does what he says.

[KrazyHorse]

He's a Republican wearing a Democrat suit.

If his nose had been any further up Bush's ass during Iraq then they would legally have been considered conjoined twins.

Clark did support Iraq, unfortunately. But that's part of why Dean needs him.

Plus they're both closet pinkos.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ben -- you're not allowed to participate in any other threads until you respond to my answer to your question in Boris' thread about work harrassment.

It's a new rule.

Or what?

You'll sic the gay Mafia on me?

[KrazyHorse]

And somebody needs to rip into Bush, big time. You can't win against him without tearing him down. He's not vulnerable to high-minded platform debate because he's a demagogue.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
And somebody needs to rip into Bush, big time. You can't win against him without tearing him down. He's not vulnerable to high-minded platform debate because he's a demagogue.

I just don't think swing voters are going to respond to that without being presented with a set of alternatives. Not going into Iraq is not an alternative for any non-time travelling candidates.

[Nubclear]

After doing a little more research on the candidates, I'm convinced of only one thing:

The democratic candidate will be as bad as Bush.
It's difficult to choose the lesser of two evils when they are so similar to each other

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Sikander


It seems likely I'll make my usual selection and choose:

Option C: I hate them both

[CerberusIV]

Can someone explain to a non-American whether it makes any difference who the Democrat candidate will be.

As I understand it any of the Dems will have spent most of their funding to get the party nomination. GWB is a shoe-in for the Repub nomination so just at the point his challenger is starting to scrabble around for the cash to run the actual presidential campaign Bush will be unlocking his $100 million campaign piggy bank.

Whatever the Dem candidate's message is - who is actually going to hear it in the deluge of the Bush campaign message?

[SpencerH]

The money to run for the nomination is seperate from the candidates money to run for president i.e. the candidate will have party funding.