The All New United States 2004 National Elections COUNTDOWN!

True enough, DS77, but the Dems have swung too far to the left to win the general election I think.

Your base is on the far left, and it will take more than mere anger and hate to defeat Bush in November.

 

...but the Dems have swung too far to the left to win the general election I think.

I disagree, but thats certainly how the GOP will portray the Dems, and vice versa.

Your base is on the far left, and it will take more than mere anger and hate to defeat Bush in November.

Again, I respectfully disagree, and add that the GOP base is as far towards one 'side' as the Dems. I think a lot of more mainstream Dems came out to the primaries for the very reason that they have been energized by the desire to defeat Bush.

Also, neither Kerry or Edwards come across as an 'angry' candidate like Dean did. As I have said, they both have records that will be scrutinized...but so does Bush.

Anyway, its been fun...but I must get some sleep!

 

Hey, anyone here notice Kerry looks like the lead singer for that old 80s group 'The Cars'?

 

Ric Ocasek (sp)?

E_S

 

The GOP isn't going to have to 'portray' the Dems, especially Kerry, like anything. That's what he is - far left. Kerry is attempting to make himself appear moderate in the primaries, but his record hasn't been truly challenged, and it will. I don't think it can stand the national scrutiny of a general election - he's far too liberal. The GOP doesn't even have to go on saying 'liberal, liberal, liberal', etc, they just have to show him in the same light as Reagan showed Mondale, or Bush Sr. showed Dukakis. Clinton won because of Ross Perot, first of all, and secondly because he moderated the Democratic Party (except certainly in the judiciary: see the insane 9th Circut Court of Appeals). All that has gone by the wayside now, Howard Dean has pulled the party left.

 

Hang on, Kerry's record doesn't make him appear far left. Didn't he support Fritz Hollings, a Conservative Democrat, when most liberals wouldn't? I don't see Kerry as a far leftist, I see him a centre-left. Dean was more liberal than Kerry.

E_S

 

Yeah E_S, think about it.

 

DM: in order to perfectly emulate the defeat of Dukakis, Bush needs to get Kerry in a tank with a stupid grin on his face. That ain't gonna happen.

 

The southern states that Kerry won had almost no independants voting. It was all registered Democrats. The state that Edwards won was his home state, but don't bank highly on that as there was a high turnout of independant voters there. This in a state that President Bush won in 2000.

I would hate to see the Democrats make the mistake that the mid west will decide the election. I don't think it's wise to put all the eggs in that basket as there are many southerners that are not happy with Bush's domestic agenda and if given a viable alternative (Edwards), they would vote for him.

It just seems to make more sense to open up to fronts against the GOP, because with CA, NY, & MA already in the Democrats pockets it just makes each state that much more important for the GOP to win. To cede any region of the country to Bush is a mistake.

 

Kerry's record doesn't make him appear far left

In the US, Kerry is on the far left, and his US Senate record exemplifies this. He's one of the most (if not the most) liberal United States Senators, more liberal than even Ted Kennedy.

He's certainly no moderate - Leiberman was the only moderate out of the Democratic primary bunch this year.

Dean was a bit farther to the left (not by much, Kerry is adopting the same platforms that Dean was talking about during the primaries). Kucinich who is out in la la land is off the charts.

 

DM, maybe that's a good barometer for how much more conservative the US is, because I never saw Kerry as being a lefty. Granted, the left here are actual socialists, so...

E_S

 

I agree with that assessment, E_S.

 

OWM:

"what shenanigans?

I'm hearing rumours of a big brouhaha involving the Governor of Texas, his wife, and his Secretary of State. Two of them were caught in bed together by the other and it's not as simple an equation as you might think.

 

Lieberman was a conservative, not a moderate.

That's why he couldn't win in the liberal primaries.

All candidates run to their respective bases in primary season and then to the center in the general election. Even Dean was starting to come back to the center before his defeat, which is a lot closer to his true colors (if you look at his record from governing Vermont) than he was running in the early primaries.

It's the same game played over and over.

Peace,

V-03

 

Just when I say to myself 'I gotta spend more time away from politics' due to my hectic schedule, you folks here keep it interesting.

Well said V03. It is a circular pattern.

DM -
The GOP isn't going to have to 'portray' the Dems, especially Kerry, like anything. That's what he is - far left.

And likewise, the Dems will show how right wing Bush is. IMO, and this isn't directed at you, it is foolish to think that Kerry will just sit there and allow Bush (who is no centrist himself) to define him with no response.

Sure he will be tagged as buddies with Ted Kennedy, but Bush will be associated with people like Tom Delay and John Ashcroft, who are certainly not centrists/independents either.

Kerry is attempting to make himself appear moderate in the primaries, but his record hasn't been truly challenged, and it will.

As will Bush's record.

Clinton won because of Ross Perot

By that same token, Bush won because of Nader.

Gonk
Hang on, Kerry's record doesn't make him appear far left. Didn't he support Fritz Hollings, a Conservative Democrat, when most liberals wouldn't?

Yes, and you are referring to deficit reduction.

MoonTheLoon
The southern states that Kerry won had almost no independants voting. It was all registered Democrats.

But he still beat Edwards.

The state that Edwards won was his home state, but don't bank highly on that as there was a high turnout of independant voters there. This in a state that President Bush won in 2000.

Oh, I agree that Bush will win in South Carolina.

I would hate to see the Democrats make the mistake that the mid west will decide the election. I don't think it's wise to put all the eggs in that basket as there are many southerners that are not happy with Bush's domestic agenda and if given a viable alternative (Edwards), they would vote for him.

I agree that the Dems should campaign in the South, I just think that it is going to be tough versus Bush. I can assure you, I am not misunderestimating Bush the candidate.

I just don't see how Edwards is such a strong candidate at the top of the ticket if he is having trouble winning in the primaries.

DM
In the US, Kerry is on the far left, and his US Senate record exemplifies this. He's one of the most (if not the most) liberal United States Senators, more liberal than even Ted Kennedy.

Yes I've heard that from the RNC too.

I told you that I watched Fox News from time to time.

I believe that this is according to one survey.

According to Time magazine...

The Senator and Vietnam vet is from Massachusetts, but is not as liberal as his colleague Ted Kennedy. He's liberal on social issues, more moderate on economics and foreign policy.

DM
He's certainly no moderate - Leiberman was the only moderate out of the Democratic primary bunch this year.

As I showed a few pages back, Lieberman's voting record is not that much more 'moderate' than Kerry's.

Also, Lieberman's weak showing in the primaries showed how weak he would've been as a national candidate. Republicans seem to love him, but they ain't going to vote for him.

Its like if Arlen Spector ran against Bush. Spector is certainly more moderate, but would he really beat Bush in the primaries? AND would he really be a better general election candidate? I'd say certainly not on both counts. The trick is a balancing act...secure your base while ALSO reaching out to moderates.

 

Ok, then, DS77, I will give you concrete examples why Kerry will not win a single Southern State:

He is against the Partial Birth Abortion ban.

Example:

Q: Do you support the ban on partial-birth abortions recently signed into law?

Kerry: I don't support the President's law because it doesn't allow the exception for situations where the health of the woman is at risk. I believe this is a dangerous effort to undermine a woman's right to choose, which is a constitutional amendment I will always fight to protect.

Source: Concord Monitor / WashingtonPost.com on-line Q&A Nov 7, 2003

The vast majority of Americans (over 60%) are against partial-birth abortion in all cases. In the South, even the Democrats are against it. The bill passed in the US Senate 64-33.

He voted against the DOMA.

Those two issues alone will kill him.

V03: Leiberman certainly isn't a conservative. (maybe to the Democratic liberal left he could be construed as such, but he's not - he's moderate center-left).

 

Actually, DM, both Edwards and Kerry didn't cast a vote on the 'Partial Birth' abortion ban. And Lieberman voted against it.

I'm by no means saying that Kerry will triumph in the South. It will be extremely tough for any Democrat. But there are other parts of the country too. Sometimes Southerners forget that.

Besides, issues like jobs, health care and national security will be large factors. Probably more so than wedge issues.

 

That's where I disagree with you, DS77.

Edwards has a much better chance of carrying a Southern US State or two than does Kerry.

No President in modern history has won the White House without carrying at least a few southern US states.

No President in modern history has ever won the White House losing them all.

 

DM: That's a correlation, not a causal relationship.

DS77: Er, I didn't write anything about Fritz Hollings. Who exactly are you responding to there?

 

I don't think abortion is going to be that big of an issue in this election, DM.

Certainly not as much as security and the economy-both issues on which there is a fair amount of dissatisfaction with Bush. While I agree that the South is needed to win, electorally, one can win without it-although it would be a mistake to ignore the South, IMHO.

Peace,

V-03

 

It the partial-birth abortion issue has more of an effect than you think, V03, especially to Southern voters. Social issues are extremely important here, especially with the anarchy going on in San Fransisco. People will definitely be concerned about it.

The DOMA is probably even more of an issue here.

Unemployment rate 5.6%, that's really not much of an issue (6.0% is considered full employment). The economy is in recovery. The deficit is bad, but Mondale tried to use that issue along with the exportation of jobs to Japan and such, and it didn't work, either.

I'm quite sure people also prefer the way Bush is handling terrorists than the way Clinton did, and Kerry will bring us back to that era. The GOP will surely make the valid comparisons of how each men would handle the War on Terror and captialize on that.

The fact is that the GOP holds the issue of national security pretty much to itself, and in this time of national peril, the GOP is the more trusted party on security issues.

That's what this election will come down to, I think.

 

Gonk -

Sorry about that. The post I was referring to was made by the dasterdly Ender Sai.

And I agree with...That's a correlation, not a causal relationship.

DM -

That's where I disagree with you, DS77.

We disagree?

No President in modern history has won the White House without carrying at least a few southern US states.

No President in modern history has ever won the White House losing them all.

And no President in modern history had won the Electoral vote but NOT the popular vote until 2000.

Its important to use history as a guide, I certainly do. But things obviously change, and power shifts.

Edwards has a much better chance of carrying a Southern US State or two than does Kerry.

Possibly, but he would have a far more difficult time than Kerry in holding on to other regions of the country.

In other words, I don't believe that South + Democrat necessarily equals 'best chance'.

Big surprise that I agree with V03 here and my disagreements with your last post have been documented DM...respectfully of course!

 

Of, course...

with all due respect!

I honestly hope we don't go through another nightmare nuclear election scenario of 2000 again. Sheesh.

The campaign will really begin once the Dem nominee is finalized, but I don't think the GOP will start to unload until then.

Bush has the tendency to lay traps and lull people into thinking he's easily beatable, and then he comes back and bites you in the arse.

 

Abortion, I doubt it will help the GOP. All Kerry has to say is "I support a ban on partial birth abortions, but I will not support a ban that does not allow the procedure if the mothers life or health is at risk."

EDIT: Deathstarr, good points all around.

 

Good luck with that OWM.

Well over 60% of the nation totally opposes partial-birth abortion. In the South, the number is much higher, I can assure you of that.