Democrats...who's your next candidate

[Flint]

Ok...with the election less then two years away who do you think or who do you want to be the top runner for the presidency in the Democratic party...who has the best opportunity to defeat Bush and Cheney.

Some of the names thrown in the hat so far are: Tom Daschle, Dick Gephardt, John Kerry, Wesley Clark, John Edwards, Christopher Dodd, Al Gore, Joseph Lieberman and John Edwards.

Third party candidates are welcome too.

[ism]

Gephardt sided with Bush on the most notable bills passed lately, Patriot Act and the "Declare War on Iraq for Free" card. With the 2002 election past, and no Nader to blame it on, he has garnered some of the blame, as a symbol of Democrats who do not act like so. Had Congress gone the way of the Dems, his bowing out would be looked at in a good light, a way of letting newer blood direct legislation. Of course, it did not, and Pelosi is treading lightly to the other direction. Can Gephardt overcome the blame in two years to win the Dem primary? Well, his hope hinges on what Al Gore does, and I think right now it is going in his favor, as they are two very different candidates.

Al Gore has been positioning himself as the opposition candidate. He criticized the war on Iraq, the handling of Afghanistan, the failure to capture bin Laden, the faltering economy (but it will probably get better by 2004). The oddest thing is that Gore now endorses single-payer national health insurance, which he and Clinton was vehemently against when they were in office. Gore says he's making all the decisions himself, letting "the chips fall where they may." With Bush shifted to the Right (remember, they both ran as centrists in 2000), is Gore shifting to the Left the smartest thing to do? He's still my favorite to win the primary simply because he has name recognition and the Dems are betting a lot of people will remember what happened in 2000.

Kerry is going to have a problem. Like Gore he has criticized Bush's handling of Afghanistan. In fact, he goes on further to say the way the Middle East has been handled is completely wrong. With the polls indicating the majority of people approve of the Bush is doing things, this may spell trouble. Of course, the longer war drags on in a Democracy (okay, okay, a republic) the faster that rating drops. Of course, we're not technically in a real war; Bush is saving Iraq until Election Day comes closer. In fact, we may or may not be waging war based on who wins the Dem primary.

Ahh, Lieberman. Oddly enough he and McCain have been hanging out. Is he trying to pass himself off as a moderate that is willing to bridge partisan politics? He called for Whitman's resignation... oh, he cares about the environment. He's enraged over Enron. Okay, it seems he's positioning himself somewhere in the middle. That's not a candidate for the Presidency. Vice-Presidency, sure.

Still, there is a full year ahead, and we dance with Iraq while bin Laden is playing hide-and-go-seek. Gore has got balls for committing as much as he did, but then again, he really has nothing to lose and everything to gain by doing so. But I really donno what's up with that health insurance. Oregon had a measure for government-provided universal healthcare on the 2002 ballot, and 79 percent of voters there didn't want it. He's going to have a tough time selling that. Of course, in 6 months, that may conveniently be forgotten depending on whatever hot-button issue is available.

[Shuriken]

I'd like to point out that just after the 1990 midterm elections, hardly anyone knew who Bill Clinton was.

[Hiroshi2]

What about Gray Davis?

John Edwards doesn't seem that bad. (he's that congressman from North Carolina, right?) He's a pretty fresh face and this party needs it bad.

[Flint]

Originally posted by ism@Nov 29 2002, 05:59 AM
Gephardt sided with Bush on the most notable bills passed lately, Patriot Act and the "Declare War on Iraq for Free" card. With the 2002 election past, and no Nader to blame it on, he has garnered some of the blame, as a symbol of Democrats who do not act like so. Had Congress gone the way of the Dems, his bowing out would be looked at in a good light, a way of letting newer blood direct legislation. Of course, it did not, and Pelosi is treading lightly to the other direction. Can Gephardt overcome the blame in two years to win the Dem primary? Well, his hope hinges on what Al Gore does, and I think right now it is going in his favor, as they are two very different candidates.

Al Gore has been positioning himself as the opposition candidate. He criticized the war on Iraq, the handling of Afghanistan, the failure to capture bin Laden, the faltering economy (but it will probably get better by 2004). The oddest thing is that Gore now endorses single-payer national health insurance, which he and Clinton was vehemently against when they were in office. Gore says he's making all the decisions himself, letting "the chips fall where they may." With Bush shifted to the Right (remember, they both ran as centrists in 2000), is Gore shifting to the Left the smartest thing to do? He's still my favorite to win the primary simply because he has name recognition and the Dems are betting a lot of people will remember what happened in 2000.

Kerry is going to have a problem. Like Gore he has criticized Bush's handling of Afghanistan. In fact, he goes on further to say the way the Middle East has been handled is completely wrong. With the polls indicating the majority of people approve of the Bush is doing things, this may spell trouble. Of course, the longer war drags on in a Democracy (okay, okay, a republic) the faster that rating drops. Of course, we're not technically in a real war; Bush is saving Iraq until Election Day comes closer. In fact, we may or may not be waging war based on who wins the Dem primary.

Ahh, Lieberman. Oddly enough he and McCain have been hanging out. Is he trying to pass himself off as a moderate that is willing to bridge partisan politics? He called for Whitman's resignation... oh, he cares about the environment. He's enraged over Enron. Okay, it seems he's positioning himself somewhere in the middle. That's not a candidate for the Presidency. Vice-Presidency, sure.

Still, there is a full year ahead, and we dance with Iraq while bin Laden is playing hide-and-go-seek. Gore has got balls for committing as much as he did, but then again, he really has nothing to lose and everything to gain by doing so. But I really donno what's up with that health insurance. Oregon had a measure for government-provided universal healthcare on the 2002 ballot, and 79 percent of voters there didn't want it. He's going to have a tough time selling that. Of course, in 6 months, that may conveniently be forgotten depending on whatever hot-button issue is available.
Though Gephardt may be out as a Congressional leader, don't count him out for the White House. Last month's election proved that the Democratic Party must walk a thin line between the center and left. Besides Lieberman, Gephardt has done that more then anyone else in the DNP. I like to see these two candidates run together. They have a good shot at the New Hamshire primary.

[Flint]

Originally posted by Hiroshi2@Nov 29 2002, 11:03 AM
What about Gray Davis?

John Edwards doesn't seem that bad. (he's that congressman from North Carolina, right?) He's a pretty fresh face and this party needs it bad.
Yup...the DNC is in high water with the voters...they better get connected with America fast before 2004. Edwards is a junior senator from N.C. The people down there are not too happy with him right now. He's too busy trying to get his name recognize in New Hampshire and Iowa. If he doesn't win the White House he will definitely be out of a job in North Carolina.

[lethal]

Originally posted by Hiroshi2@Nov 29 2002, 02:03 PM
What about Gray Davis?

John Edwards doesn't seem that bad. (he's that congressman from North Carolina, right?) He's a pretty fresh face and this party needs it bad.
Davis has no shot. No personality and people still remember the power crisis. With Simon, the Republicans nominated the only guy who could lose to Davis that badly for governor.

I just read about Edwards. He's a Senator from North Carolina (I think, maybe Congressman). He was compared favorably to Clinton as far as their unknown political stature and their shared Soutehr heritage. He seems like a possibility.

But as was pointed out above, in 1990, hardly anyone knew who Bill Clinton was. We migt have to wait a while before someone makes a move.

[lethal]

Originally posted by Flint@Dec 1 2002, 01:05 AM
Edwards is a junior senator from N.C.
Small point of contention. He'll be the senior Senator as soon as Elizabeth Dole is sworn in.

[loserbutt]

one question, why is being from the south such an advantage? personally I really like Kerry, I saw him speak on tv once and he was smart, articulate, and had good ideas. Gore is a moron who blew the 2000 race. as for the others, lieberman, edwards, and gephardt, I really don't care for.

[ism]

Originally posted by loserbutt@Dec 1 2002, 01:31 AM
one question, why is being from the south such an advantage?
Candidates usually have a "hometown" advantage. There is also the "Solid South." The Confederate states tended to vote Democratic, stemming from the events surrounding the Civil War. These two facts combined created an edge for Dems from the South. Lately though, it hasn't really been a factor, as the Dems are being seen as socially liberal, and Republicans are seen as protecting... certain interests, socially.

[ism]

Originally posted by Flint@Dec 1 2002, 12:53 AM
Though Gephardt may be out as a Congressional leader, don't count him out for the White House. Last month's election proved that the Democratic Party must walk a thin line between the center and left. Besides Lieberman, Gephardt has done that more then anyone else in the DNP. I like to see these two candidates run together. They have a good shot at the New Hamshire primary.
Gephardt is definitely a viable candidate. My contention was that his major stumbling block is within his own party -- as contributing to the midterm losses. Voters seem to have a short memory so this may not be a factor at all. As Gore had done him a favor by surprisingly moving leftward, he has a good chance.

And yes, Lieberman would make a great bottom half of a ticket for pretty much any name so far. The ticket you propose sounds pretty good.

[loserbutt]

the dem party should walk a thin line between left and center??? look at the good that did. the midterms were a disaster. if anything the party has to move left and make some distinctions, though Pelousi looks to be shaping like a iffy leader isofar. hope she lives up to her rep and gains a backbone. we'll see.

btw, the south is now decidedly republican, its been in motion ever since the civil rights movement of the 60's

Kerry's seriously the man for the job, he's got great ideas and he's reminiscient of kennedy

[Flint]

There's no way Democratics can win the next election if they move further left....that's impossible against this President...With American's overwhelming support for Bush...he will crush the Democratic Party if they move further left...The Democratic Party loss last month's election because they could not connect with the American people...they didn't have a decisive agenda...if they move any further to the left they will lose any chance of getting the undecided and 10-15 percent of the Republican votes.

The Democratics have a tough battle ahead...they must find a equilibrium to win...with Iraq at his disposal if the Democrates begins to gain any momentum...Bush seems unlikely to be defeated in 2004.

[ism]

2004 is a long ways away. Don't think W is so invincible. People were saying the same thing about his dad in 1991. America is still in an economic quagmire (and yes I know W is not directly responsible for it) and if it doesn't shape up, War on Terrorism or not, it's going to be a major issue.

I don't think Bush has "overwhelming" support, no matter what the "approval" rating says. It's more like "tolerance" simply because no one has any real idea how to effectively deal with the Spectre of Terrorism. The midterm election shows the opinion of only 30 percent of the American populace. If people consider the results as a mandate, they're dead wrong; the election is based on the 16-17% of eligible voters who chose Republican, which is par for the course; that is not "overwhelming."

Democrats today are mapping out an economic recovery plan. Bush will release his soon. If Democrats can make this the focus, Bush will be weakened. It's all about providing alternatives. Still, it's too early to tell how alternative a Bush-toppler needs to be.

[pfc beansprout]

bush.....~sigh, what a joke...... :pissed:

[wylin]

i vote for hilary!

[Chris]

hilary

[kimchee63]

Mario Cuomo. Why the bastard never ran is beyond me. I was ready to sell my soul.

[ChinaLama]

I think the Dems should go for Jimmy Carter. Carter and Reagan, Part II! The Revenge of the Peanut PeaceBoy. :D

[ism]

Breaking news... a Gore senior advisor said that Gore will not be running in 2004. Wonder if this decision had anything to do with his appearance on Saturday Night Live.

Anyway, if this proves to be true, that leaves Vermont Governor Howard Dean who is officially in, John Kerry who has an "exploratory committee," and Joseph Lieberman shows interest. Other possibilities are Tom Daschle, Dick Gephardt, and North Carolina Senator John Edwards. This certainly changes the playing field.

[BaiginLong]

Well in my personal opinion, Bush is an idiot and since I am stuck in the land of Bush (Texas), there isn't much I can say against him that people here will agree with. However, my take is that it doesn't seem that democrats have much of a chance against Bush since there is no one nearly popular enough in the Democratic party to defeat Bush at the moment. But perhaps it will all change as election time rolls around. Besides, looks can bve deceiving. In addition to the failure to capture Bin Laden, the Enron connections, and the economic situation, Bush also has the depleted surplus going against him. Bush is dangerous. Some of my military friends will go as far as to say that he's a trigger-happy, power hungry lunatic that will get us all killed by this unneccessary war with Iraq he's calling for.

[Flint]

I just want to reinterate on what Ism said before....the best chance for Democrats to win in 2004 is to devise an economic package. Some what like the Republicans did in 1992 with the "Contract With American" agenda. Since Gore is reportedly out....a Gephart and Liebermen ticket sounds damn good right now.

[TyroneK(prettypretty)]

I think it's got to be someone with less baggage than Lieberman or Gephart. Someone like Clinton who Democrats know but most of the country doesn't have a good hold on. Problem that happened with Gore is that he had negative Clinton baggage (from Monicagate et. al.) that only Clinton himself could have shaken off.

Our country is right now dominated by swing voters, so really focusing on issues is just a losing battle because everything's so arbitrary with them. You can't put any message too far out for them because people with such lack of ideological backbone tend to like things the way they are as long as the economy's doing well and they feel safe at home. If the fear of terrorism keeps lingering (which it could given the tireless efforts of the White House/GOP hype machine), the GOP can keep playing on voter worries aboud domestic security to stay in power as long as the economy doesn't completely sink into the toilet.

As a result, I think The Dems need to outBush Bush in a way by putting forth the most charismatic, "natural," and normal-acting politician possible. The party organization can always rouse the faithful, but you need someone more personable who won't get too constrained by the 9/11 fallout. Someone whose patriotism isn't at issue and hasn't rankled anybody's sensibilities in the past. Very few of the Democratic congressmen from the past couple of years will have to fight off allegations of not towing the patriotic line. I think it's too hard for the American people not to see Daschle and Gephart as that sort of opposition figures diametrically opposed to Bush's jingoism. Even if they have made compromises, they're too visibly high on the Democratic totem pole to make swing voters feel comfortable with voting for them.

On a more superficial note, Lieberman's too Jewish. I hate to say it, but that's going to cost him. His voice is also too weasely. He's just not the kind of guy that non-liberals like.

To make a long post short, I'm thinking Edwards.