So who will it be 2004?

[Capt Dizle]

Kerry will look strong and Gephardt and Lieberman and Daschel will seem formidible going in. But the latter three are all fighting for the same vote and Kerry gets the "we want a fresh face" vote because he is perceived as less Beltway.

But then the voters will get a couple of looks at him and say, oh no, not that guy.

The breakout threat is Edwards who can make a race in the south. None of the other Dems can do that. No way is a Northern or MidWestern Dem getting elected.

If Edwards isn't ready for prime time then the only game in town is Hilliary.

[Shi Huangdi]

Kepler, you are correct for the most part on demographics(all though if you compare blacks and whites of the same educational/income/age level blacks tend to be more politically active), that if most nonvoters did vote it would probably be to the Democrats advantage. Where I disagree with you though is the reason they aren't voting is because they are discouraged over a lack of liberal candidates. Nonvoters are reather simply not interested in politics. I think you'd find these are the same people who don't keep up with current events and they don't have strong political opinions. Again, I'd point to the 1984 election. That race had a very clear cut choice between the conservative Reagan and the liberal Mondale, but their was no massive surge in turnout for Mondale and Reagan won decisively. Even when presented with a clear choice between a conservative and liberal candidate, most non-voters simply won't care.

[Imran Siddiqui]

RACE: higher proportion of minority than white.
GENDER: virtually even.
INCOME: directly related: the poorer, the less likely to vote.
AGE: directly related: the younger, the less likely to vote.

That seems to favor the Greens or even more left than the Dems.

BAM: If every eligible voter voted in this country, the House would barely change at all in the first cycle (since the districts are gerrymandered for incumbents), and then gradually move more Dem in futurecycles (as they picked up more Governorships and began to control gerrymandering), the Senate would shift Dem only where there are Republican senators in non-southern states with large cities), and the Presidency would go Dem by about 67-33 every time.

That IS a BAM . In the South and lot of the Midwest and Mountain regions, poor whites tend to be more conservative, and they are the ones that tend not to vote in those areas.

At the same time, a lot of those voters are obviously disenchanted so they'd vote BIG TIME for 3rd party candidates. Libertarians and Greens win big. Communists get decent poll numbers too.

[Kepler]

A midwestern Dem could get elected. Carrying the rust belt, the northeast, california, and the pnw is a win, baby.

A northeasterner will NEVER win again. You've NY and NJ that everybody hates, and then a buncha small states that aren't worth spit.

A rugged, western style liberal like Kitzhauer (former OR gov) could win, but only if he came from CA.

The next Democratic governor of either Texas or Florida has an automatic shot.

A Republican Black wins if he has anything to offer.

A Democratic Evangelical wins if he has anything to offer.

Hispanics, Jews, and Women are still dead in the water.

[Imran Siddiqui]

A midwestern Dem could get elected. Carrying the rust belt, the northeast, california, and the pnw is a win, baby.

A northeasterner will NEVER win again. You've NY and NJ that everybody hates, and then a buncha small states that aren't worth spit.

A rugged, western style liberal like Kitzhauer (former OR gov) could win, but only if he came from CA.

The next Democratic governor of either Texas or Florida has an automatic shot.

A Republican Black wins if he has anything to offer.

A Democratic Evangelical wins if he has anything to offer.

Hispanics, Jews, and Women are still dead in the water.

I agree (mostly).

Also a Southern Dem or Repub Governor who wins reelection has an automatic chance.

I don't agree with the northeasterner will never win again. Guiliani would win EASY. And Pataki would have a decent shot as well.

The next Republican governor of California has a BIG shot.

Hispanics, Jews, and Women can still make a run at Veep. After Bush, look at the next Republican VP candidate to be either Hispanic or a Woman.

[Kepler]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
but their was no massive surge in turnout for Mondale and Reagan won decisively. Even when presented with a clear choice between a conservative and liberal candidate, most non-voters simply won't care.

I agree that there are other factor. For example, being on the bottom of SES also tends to correlate with an inability to make the sort of plans or decisions that get you registered, to the polls on time, and checking the right box.

In the Mondale case -- yee gads, it was Mondale! Possibly the worst stump or TV candidate in modern presidential history. He made Gore look animated. And he had mission impossible: it would have been like not seeing John Wayne's final picture.

I'm sure we'll never have 100% turnout, but we should damn well aim for it. Have voting for one entire 24 hour period (4 pm ET to 1 pm PT the next day), and have it be over a weekend. Have it in the summer when the weather's nice. No exit polls or released information until all the polls close simultaneously at 4 pm ET / 1 pm PT. Have the absentee and mail ballots sent earlier and counted before the physical polls close. Everybody in line gets to vote. Give the states a buttload of money to buy and test systems that work.

[Zkribbler]

Howard Dean will be the next Democratic nominee.

All of the big states except New York have open elections. The independents won't have anyone to vote for in the Republican primaries, and so the indies will all be voting in the Democratic primaries. And Independent voters outnumber Democratic voters.

Dean is the only candidate who speaks his mind on the issues regardless of the consequences and who is not afraid to do what he believes is morally right even when it is not politically popular. He'll attract independents like bees to honey.

You heard it here first!

[Imran Siddiqui]

If he is pro-gun or anti-abortion he'll never make it out of the Dem primaries .

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Why on earth are we talking about people's ideological positions? Has Bush's GOP coronation in 2000 taught us nothing? In US politics, it doesn't matter what your politics are, or how charismatic you are, or even how bright you are. It matters how much money you can put together, especially early on.

The early money is already following Kerry and Edwards, but more is going to Kerry. Hollywood money, not yet heard from, will go to Kerry as the more liberal of the two. On top of that, Kerry is married to multi-millionare Ketchup-and-Baked-Beans heiress Theresa Heinz.

Kerry, absolutely.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Obviously ideology and charisma matters, or else Steve Forbes would have won the Presidency in 1996. The reason the money lined up behind Bush was because the party backed him early. Saw him as the most charasmatic guy who'd be willing to run who would back their ideology.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Obviously ideology and charisma matters, or else Steve Forbes would have won the Presidency in 1996. The reason the money lined up behind Bush was because the party backed him early. Saw him as the most charasmatic guy who'd be willing to run who would back their ideology.

But if ideology and charisma mattered more than money, Jesse Jackson would have been the nominee in '88; he was both mor charismatic than Dukakis and more ideologically in tune with the average Dem primary voter (who tends to be way to the left of the average Dem voter in a general election).

The Forbes point is a good one; money matters, but people don't like the perception that someone (Forbes, Perot) is trying to buy the presidency (even though that's what happens regardless). I'd bet that if he runs, Kerry will agree to federal spending limits in exchang for public funds, just to avoid the perception that he's using his wife's fortune to buy the office.

As for Bush, the party backing and money backing was a bit of a dialectic; the money followed the party support, but the party support also followed the money (Bush had money, especially oil money, lined up before he had clear party support). This is the likliest Kerry dynamic.

I also think Kerry will benefit from the 2002 election backlash -- that is, from the feeling of the party faithful (i.e., primary voters) that the party has failed in its bid to be a kinder, gentler GOP and needs to get back to basics.

But I think you can bet on the veep being a Southerner and/or a conservative; probably Edwards, but possibly Evan Bayh. I'd love to see Mary Landrieu in the veep slot, but that'd be an all-Catholic ticket, which is probably still a no-no, alas.

[Kepler]

I still don't think a Northeastern Republican can overcome the "gol' darned eastern city slicker" label that the GOP has worked hard to fasten onto anybody coming from a state with indoor plumbing. Having lived around the country, the only two enduring values I have observed are a hatred of Northeasterners and Carrot Top.

[Kepler]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly

But if ideology and charisma mattered more than money, Jesse Jackson would have been the nominee in '88; he was both mor charismatic than Dukakis and more ideologically in tune with the average Dem primary voter (who tends to be way to the left of the average Dem voter in a general election).

Those are all reasons that Jackson would have won if ideology and charisma were ALL that mattered. Jackson might well have been the choice if he were white, but that just wasn't going down with the voters then.

The Dems' best possible choice is if Powell ever gets tired of being the Bushie's lawn jockey and abandons the Dark Side. Since he's evidently decided on an even tougher (and more honorable) mission: trying to wrest control of the party back from the chickenhawks and weasels now in power, that leaves the Dems to grow their own, in the Clinton sense. Er, not in THAT Clinton sense... Best nominee I've seen so far is probably Edwards, though I'm not that excited by him.

This is all assuming the Naderites have finally put down their dope and learned by now that, hey man, gee whiz, Bush actually IS a worse president than Gore would have been -- imagine that. The Closeted One would get far less this time around but still maybe enough to screw the Dems' pooch out of another election. OTOH, if Bushy doesn't hammer throuigh at least one insane christian demand, he might get a right wing defector, and even if he does he might get McCain bouncing off the walls again. I thionk the internal gestapo of the GOP can take care of any insurgency without it even surfacing, but it still doesn't help the money teat to have party challengers as an incumbent prez.

[Giancarlo]

So you democrats are still looking for somebody? Try Hillary. That is all your party has left. The worst of the worst. Hillary Clinton, Lieber(liar)man, Al "I invented the internet" Gore... wow... you got a real selection there.

The democrats are pretty much screwed for the presidental elections.

Bush is making a great president... Gore wouldn't of. Kepler are you delusional or something? Or a leftist? Heh... I can't distinguish between the two anymore.

[SlowwHand]

I'd consider voting Kerry. The only Democrat listed that I would consider.
Gore? If he cares for his party at all, he'll go away and stay away.