[thunderous_funker]

Came home and happened across this.

I don't watch Larry King and I didn't really know anything about Ann Richards, but she was saying something interesting so I stopped and listened.

She's GREAT!!!

Smart, witty, insightful and totally charming! Man, what a gal!

She'e endorsing Dean and making a great case for him. Veep? Veep?

[NYCFarmboy]

LOL

Didn't G.W. face Ann in his election to be Texas Gov?

That would explain her personal animosity towards W.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
LOL

Didn't G.W. face Ann in his election to be Texas Gov?

That would explain her personal animosity towards W.

Yeah. She's not principled, just bitter.

By the way, who said anything about personal animosity? She's endorsing Dean and plugging her book.

[zigzag]

I think she's the one that said Dubya was born on third base and thought he had hit a triple. A good line any way you look at it.

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by zigzag:
I think she's the one that said Dubya was born on third base and thought he had hit a triple. A good line any way you look at it.

I think that was Molly Ivins, who vaguely knew Bush (or "Shrub") growing up.

I have a lot of respect for her (Richards) too. A Dean/Richards ticket? Wow. I think it would be a bit much for the blinkered American public right now, but it's something to contemplate all right.

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Yeah. She's not principled, just bitter.

t_f, didn't you receive your briefing? All criticism of the Bush administration is nothing more than envy, hostility and resentment against Bush himself. And you call yourself well-informed!

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Nonsuch:
I think that was Molly Ivins, who vaguely knew Bush (or "Shrub") growing up.

Could be. Actually, based on a Google search, we might both be wrong - seems as though Richards said it in reference to Bush I. I remember her saying it at a convention speech but I got the wrong convention. Of course, I could still be wrong.

No matter - it's a funny line.

[boots]

Ann used to ride a Harley to work at the capitol building in Austin. She quite a spitfire.

I think I would vote for a Dean/Richards ticket even if I'm not real hot on Dean at the moment.

[SimeyTheLimey]

So Dean gets endorsed by Anne Richards, who was defeated for reelection by Bush. He's also been endorsed by George McGovern, Al Gore, and Jimmy Carter. All he needs now is Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis and he'll have a clean sweep of loser endorsements.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
So Dean gets endorsed by Anne Richards, who was defeated for reelection by Bush. He's also been endorsed by George McGovern, Al Gore, and Jimmy Carter. All he needs now is Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis and he'll have a clean sweep of loser endorsements.

AHAHHA

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
So Dean gets endorsed by Anne Richards, who was defeated for reelection by Bush. He's also been endorsed by George McGovern, Al Gore, and Jimmy Carter. All he needs now is Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis and he'll have a clean sweep of loser endorsements.

I want you and every other died int he wool Republican to keep just that attitude.

Yes, Bush's election is inevitable. Please, keep that in your heart and mind no matter what you hear from the media about polls and whatnot.

BlackGriffen

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
I want you and every other died int he wool Republican to keep just that attitude.

Yes, Bush's election is inevitable. Please, keep that in your heart and mind no matter what you hear from the media about polls and whatnot.

BlackGriffen

I think I hit a nerve.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I think I hit a nerve.

Oh, no no no! Not so!

I want you to keep that attitude, seriously. Don't worry about the election at all, every Republican should have it firmly set in their minds that Bush has it locked.

BlackGriffen

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Oh, no no no! Not so!

I want you to keep that attitude, seriously. Don't worry about the election at all, every Republican should have it firmly set in their minds that Bush has it locked.

BlackGriffen

Because the only way Dean can win is if Republicans and independents stay at home.

Personally, I doubt that will happen on either side. This isn't going to be an election like 1992 or 2000 where a sizable chunk of the electorate really didn't care which candidate wins (even I was pretty neutral both times). If Dean is the nominee, the choice will be pretty stark. My guess is that turnout on all sides will be relatively high.

However, you might want to ponder the track record. Incumbent presidents since WW-II have all won reelection unless they are challenged by their own party. When they are challenged, they lose. Examples of incumbents who were challenged include Johnson (though he subsequently withdrew), Ford, Carter, Bush I. Examples of presidents who went into the election unchallenged and who won are Truman, Eisenhower, Johnson (in 1964), Nixon, Reagan, and Clinton.

Another bellwether is the spoiling factor of a third party candidate who splits the vote. This is a bit less stark. Perot obviously tipped the election to Clinton in 1992. Nader may have tipped the election to Bush in 2000. On the other hand, Anderson didn't do Reagan much harm in 1980. Reagan still defeated Carter.

Historical trends don't decide the future, and no Republican who is smart would say this election is in the bag. However, I do think Dean has assembled the right group of experienced people to help him write a really good concession speech It looks to me that the odds are that will be the speech he'll be reading.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Because the only way Dean can win is if Republicans and independents stay at home.

Mwah ha ha ha!

I see you've caught on to my evil scheme. Yes, pride goes before the fall, and I want every Republican to be as smug and proud as possible.



I seriously doubt it will happen that way, though, or else I wouldn't have said anything. I know very well that honeyed words from my mouth would not be trusted by you.

I also disagree that independents will all break for Bush, or even majority, but we'll see.

BlackGriffen

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Mwah ha ha ha!

I see you've caught on to my evil scheme. Yes, pride goes before the fall, and I want every Republican to be as smug and proud as possible.



I seriously doubt it will happen that way, though, or else I wouldn't have said anything. I know very well that honeyed words from my mouth would not be trusted by you.

I also disagree that independents will all break for Bush, or even majority, but we'll see.

BlackGriffen

It strikes me that you are the one who sounds overconfident.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
It strikes me that you are the one who sounds overconfident.

The thought had occurred to me that it might, but you need to work on your tone comprehension. What, specifically, in my post sounds overconfident? Or were you subconsciously assigning tone to my words that is not there in the words themselves?

Or does thinking of Bush's reelection as anything less than inevitable strike you as overconfident?

I was trying to sound diabolical to the point of silliness, though.

BlackGriffen

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
The thought had occurred to me that it might, but you need to work on your tone comprehension. What, specifically, in my post sounds overconfident? Or were you subconsciously assigning tone to my words that is not there in the words themselves?

Or does thinking of Bush's reelection as anything less than inevitable strike you as overconfident?

I was trying to sound diabolical to the point of silliness, though.

BlackGriffen

OK, diabolical.

Of course the reelection isn't inevitable. I don't think anyone thinks it is, which is why your little overconfidence plot probably won't work.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
OK, diabolical.

Of course the reelection isn't inevitable. I don't think anyone thinks it is, which is why your little overconfidence plot probably won't work.

Just like I said... 4 posts ago.

BG

[ghost_flash]

Voting for Bush here, and that is one more vote among many that I know he didn't get last year, so I feel confident he'll win. I just wish there were some opponents that would make it a race.

[thunderous_funker]

The question is who gets the votes of the people who didn't vote last time around?

Who didn't vote in 2000?

Young people who thought it didn't matter. I think we know which campaign has energized young people.

The Disenfranchised Left who stayed home or voted Nader. They have no illusions this time around about Bush being a relatively harmless moderate like his dad.

The generally apathetic who typically think it doesn't matter who wins. After the feel good 90's, it wasn't hard to fall into that trap and feel like either choice was going to be the same old shyt, different suit. I think those illusions are shattered. Times are bad for great big chunks of the population and they'll be paying attention this time around.

I also think you can't underestimate just how different Bush was perceived in 2000 vs today. He's getting a ton of heat from the Right that he certainly wasn't getting back then. I'd love to see the Buchananites mount a challenge, but we know they won't be voting Bush this time around.

Bush was the outsider. The regular joe. He was moderate and down to earth. He can't pretend to be that any more. And if he does, Dean will steal his thunder. Just look at what Dean is doing to insider Democrat opponents.

In a lot of ways, Dean is winning over people the same way Bush 2000 did. He's the down-to-earth outsider that thinks we should be balancing the budget and not playing world cop. Sound familiar?

Bush can't play that card this time around. He'd make a fool of himself. Now he's got to preach danger, war, blood and sacrifice for the WoT and that what's good for Wall Street is good for middle class America. If Americans don't buy it, I'm not sure what else he's got to run on other than resorting to Gray Davis "at least I'm not one of them" politics.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
I also think you can't underestimate just how different Bush was perceived in 2000 vs today. He's getting a ton of heat from the Right that he certainly wasn't getting back then. I'd love to see the Buchananites mount a challenge, but we know they won't be voting Bush this time around.

He's getting a "ton of heat from the Right" at the moment because he's mopping up the center with issues like immigration reform. Most people on the right will still vote for him, because he's closer to them than Dean is. Conservatives, by and large vote consistently. Even if upset, they will still vote. That's different from the Angry Left, many of whom are angry enough at "the system" to either not vote at all, or vote for some 3d party candidate. Or they are young and as we know, the young are the least likely to actually drag themselves down the polling booth. The same demographic who didn't vote in 2000 or in the congressional midterms in 2002 mostly won't do it again this year.

No, the fringes aren't going to decide this. It's going to be the middle 20% of swing voters. I think they will vote more than in 2000, but my gut tells me they are swinging a little to the right this year. On top of the fact that the Democrats are doing their level best to show that they can't be trusted with national security, it just doesn't feel like a "throw the bums out" year. The economy is clearly picking up and, all in all, it feels more like 1984 or 1996 than an angry recession election like 1980 or 1992. Polls also indicate that the majority of the country do not share the left's visceral dislike of Bush, whcih makes it more likely that there will be a segment of the undecided who feel put off by all the negativity. Again, that feels like 1984 or 1996, when respectively the left and the right ran ideologically polarizing campaigns against presidents that most people personally liked.

To repeat, however, nothing is done until it is done. It will be decided on election day (he says, praying that we don't repeat 2000!).

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
He's getting a "ton of heat from the Right" at the moment because he's mopping up the center with issues like immigration reform. Most people on the right will still vote for him, because he's closer to them than Dean is. Conservatives, by and large vote consistently. Even if upset, they will still vote. That's different from the Angry Left, many of whom are angry enough at "the system" to either not vote at all, or vote for some 3d party candidate. Or they are young and as we know, the young are the least likely to actually drag themselves down the polling booth. The same demographic who didn't vote in 2000 or in the congressional midterms in 2002 mostly won't do it again this year.

No, the fringes aren't going to decide this. It's going to be the middle 20% of swing voters. I think they will vote more than in 2000, but my gut tells me they are swinging a little to the right this year. On top of the fact that the Democrats are doing their level best to show that they can't be trusted with national security, it just doesn't feel like a "throw the bums out" year. The economy is clearly picking up and, all in all, it feels more like 1984 or 1996 than an angry recession election like 1980 or 1992. Polls also indicate that the majority of the country do not share the left's visceral dislike of Bush, whcih makes it more likely that there will be a segment of the undecided who feel put off by all the negativity. Again, that feels like 1984 or 1996, when respectively the left and the right ran ideologically polarizing campaigns against presidents that most people personally liked.

To repeat, however, nothing is done until it is done. It will be decided on election day (he says, praying that we don't repeat 2000!).

"immigration reform"??
"mopping up the center"??

What is centrist about rewarding employers for hiring illegals? It still amazes me that people who frothed at the mouth about giving them Driver's Licenses so we could insure they know how to drive are suddenly happy at the prospect of actually rewarding the underground economy and legalizing it.

And how exactly is record deficits "centrist"? How exactly is global cop "centrist"?

As for the economy, Wall Street is doing well. That doesn't mean much for most of the country. Ameicans have more money on their credit cards than in their stock portfolio.

As much as they want to shout "Leftist" as Dean, the fact remains he is about as populist as you can get. He sounds like a conservative when it comes to government spending. A real conservative, not Karl Rove who seems to think we spend our way out of everything. He sounds like pre-2002 Collin Powell on foreign policy. He sounds like nearly every Senator on Iraq ("stay the course because failure isn't an option"). He thinks gun control is a state issue and that existing federal laws should be vigorously enforced. He's religious but private about it.

His most "radical" position is that we have to do something about 40 million uninsured Americans. That's not Lefty Socialism, that penny-pinching realism. Ever seen the numbers on what emergency and public health services for the uninsured costs the rest of us?

Dean might ruffle feathers in soundbytes, but once he is making a clear case to a wide audience in a general election, I think most of the fears about his "starkness" will be shattered. You might not agree with him, but its not going to be the fringe appeal you suggest. He's talking good old fashioned populist politics when it comes to policy.

National Security is only an issue if Americans continue to feel scared. I think a lot of that is wearing off. The constant hysteria tactic is back-firing a bit and I think Americans want to hear some sensible talk about regaining our allies, regaining our status as an envied nation rather than a hated one, and get away from charging the windmills of "evil" all over the globe.

You know, much like what Bush was selling in 2000-- a strong national defense only to be used when necessary and not in "nation building". That's the "centrist" position. This time around, Bush can't claim it.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
"immigration reform"??
"mopping up the center"??

What is centrist about rewarding employers for hiring illegals? It still amazes me that people who frothed at the mouth about giving them Driver's Licenses so we could insure they know how to drive are suddenly happy at the prospect of actually rewarding the underground economy and legalizing it.

And how exactly is record deficits "centrist"? How exactly is global cop "centrist"?

As for the economy, Wall Street is doing well. That doesn't mean much for most of the country. Ameicans have more money on their credit cards than in their stock portfolio.

As much as they want to shout "Leftist" as Dean, the fact remains he is about as populist as you can get. He sounds like a conservative when it comes to government spending. A real conservative, not Karl Rove who seems to think we spend our way out of everything. He sounds like pre-2002 Collin Powell on foreign policy. He sounds like nearly every Senator on Iraq ("stay the course because failure isn't an option"). He thinks gun control is a state issue and that existing federal laws should be vigorously enforced. He's religious but private about it.

His most "radical" position is that we have to do something about 40 million uninsured Americans. That's not Lefty Socialism, that penny-pinching realism. Ever seen the numbers on what emergency and public health services for the uninsured costs the rest of us?

Dean might ruffle feathers in soundbytes, but once he is making a clear case to a wide audience in a general election, I think most of the fears about his "starkness" will be shattered. You might not agree with him, but its not going to be the fringe appeal you suggest. He's talking good old fashioned populist politics when it comes to policy.

National Security is only an issue if Americans continue to feel scared. I think a lot of that is wearing off. The constant hysteria tactic is back-firing a bit and I think Americans want to hear some sensible talk about regaining our allies, regaining our status as an envied nation rather than a hated one, and get away from charging the windmills of "evil" all over the globe.

You know, much like what Bush was selling in 2000-- a strong national defense only to be used when necessary and not in "nation building". That's the "centrist" position. This time around, Bush can't claim it.

It will be interesting to see if Dean can convey the sense you project in the election to the general public. I don't think he has so far. But in any case, we'll see as the campaign progresses.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
It will be interesting to see if Dean can convey the sense you project in the election to the general public. I don't think he has so far. But in any case, we'll see as the campaign progresses.

The current meme coming out of his campaign, AFAICT, is primarily about the novel organization he has going. He's running an anti-establishment (both anti-Democratic establishment and, as if he had any choice, anti-incumbent establishment) campaign.

Most of the things you're hearing, especially judging by the news sources you read, are actually attacks from his rivals. Sadly, the RNC has been able to sit back, oiling its guns.

BlackGriffen

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
The current meme coming out of his campaign, AFAICT, is primarily about the novel organization he has going. He's running an anti-establishment (both anti-Democratic establishment and, as if he had any choice, anti-incumbent establishment) campaign.

Most of the things you're hearing, especially judging by the news sources you read, are actually attacks from his rivals. Sadly, the RNC has been able to sit back, oiling its guns.

BlackGriffen

In elections, perception is reality. Remember the recession during the election in 1992? You know, the recession that actually ended months earlier?

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
It will be interesting to see if Dean can convey the sense you project in the election to the general public. I don't think he has so far. But in any case, we'll see as the campaign progresses.

You're right. I don't think we've seen a terribly media savvy campaign so far. It remains to be seen whether or not they can do that in a general election.

I'm confident that Dean's platform really can speak for itself. What I'm concerned with is how well his campaign can manage perception for everyone too lazy to actually investigate the platform.

Bush's team has proven frighteningly capable in this regard. That is what makes him such a formidable incumbent. Not his policies, but his marketing.

[Jim Paradise]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Good stuff snipped.

Wow, you gave me a bit of hope that Bush might be elected out of office.

[AKcrab]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
[B]Another bellwether is the spoiling factor of a third party candidate who splits the vote. This is a bit less stark. Perot obviously tipped the election to Clinton in 1992. Nader may have tipped the election to Bush in 2000. On the other hand, Anderson didn't do Reagan much harm in 1980. Reagan still defeated Carter.

Electoral College Votes:
Ross Perot 0
Ralph Nader 0

They had zero impact on anything.

Remember, it doesn't matter who we vote for. Personally, I will not vote for another president until my vote actually counts.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by AKcrab:
Electoral College Votes:
Ross Perot 0
Ralph Nader 0

They had zero impact on anything.

Remember, it doesn't matter who we vote for. Personally, I will not vote for another president until my vote actually counts.

You are missing the point. The question isn't how many electoral college votes they won outright. It is what the effect was of their presence on the votes going to the other two parties. Electoral college votes go to the candidate with the largest number of votes in the state. It doesn't matter if that is the largest number by one vote, the candidate gets all the electoral votes. A third party can split votes up such that they tip the state.

This is how the math can work. These are made up figures, bit it demonstrates the principle:

State X 100% divided between 2 parties.
Party 1: 55%; Party 2: 45% Party 1 wins all electoral votes.

State X 100% divided between 3 parties.
Party 1: 42%; Party 2: 45%; 3d Party 13%. Party 2 wins all electoral votes.

This is basically how it works. Third parties do not have to themselves win any electoral votes to tip an election in a first-past-the-post system. All that you need is for a third party to split the vote of one of the major parties for the other major party to win. In 1992, most Perot voters would have voted Republican had Perot not attracted their votes. In 2000, most Nader voters would have voted for Gore had Nader not attracted their votes. In a close election, third parties can be enough to tip the result.

And by the way, not only can votes for third parties affect elections in odd ways, so can non-votes such as yours. If you oppose Bush, but decide not to vote, your non-vote is music to a Republican's ears. Remember, the pie that is divided up to find who has the majority or plurality in each state is a pie made up only of people who cast their votes.

Then again, maybe I shouldn't tell you that.

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
... On the other hand, Anderson didn't do Reagan much harm in 1980. Reagan still defeated Carter.

Just a hunch but I think Anderson took more votes from Carter rather than Reagan. Didn't he win the Massachusetts Republican primary that year? Anderson was the kind of Republican that Democrats tend to get all dewey-eyed over.

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
I want you and every other died int he wool Republican to keep just that attitude.

Yes, Bush's election is inevitable. Please, keep that in your heart and mind no matter what you hear from the media about polls and whatnot.

BlackGriffen

I guarantee you Bush won't have that attitude. He saw his father go from sky high approval ratings to an election loss a couple of years later. All of his father's political strategists were hoping Clinton would be nominated. He learned a bitter lesson in 1992.

[zigzag]

I predicted Kerry or Edwards a year ago and I'm afraid (I say "afraid" not because I dislike them, but because it's such a predictable phenomenon) that it's coming true. It didn't require any special insight on my part - it's a fact of political life. People get excited by renegades but ultimately gravitate towards the safe choice. It doesn't matter how smart or moderate Dean's ideas are if people perceive him as unelectable.

Kerry represents maturity, experience, gravitas (I say "represents" - I can't say whether he actually is all those things). The flip side of that coin is boring, boring, and boring. I happen to think he'd make a good, sensible, capable President, he just doesn't seem to have the ability to inspire or energize people, despite a genuinely heroic military record. Sadly, I don't think people want to hear about Vietnam, even in a heroic context.

Edwards has no notable flaws as a politician, a rare thing. He's easily the warmest and most articulate of the bunch, and the best-looking. He's Southern and comes from a working-class family. He's a rich trial lawyer but seems good at turning that to his advantage - it not only makes him fast on his feet, but allows him to claim the "represents the ordinary man" position. He's learned from Reagan and Clinton that you have to send a positive, optimistic message. If he has a flaw, it's the boyishness, but I just noticed that he's adopted a shorter, more Presidential hairstyle. I think he's the one to watch.

Clinton never had the chance to debate Dubya. (Gore was such a stiff that he doesn't really count). I think Edwards vs. Dubya could be the next best thing - a smooth-talking Southern Baby Boomer vs. an inarticulate-but-down-to-earth Southern Baby Boomer. The smooth-talker would not necessarily win - a lot of people relate to Dubya's clumsy, aw-shucks persona.

Clark is an unknown but I suppose he could come on in New Hampshire and South Carolina. However, there's a steeliness and a know-it-allness about him that I suspect won't wear well, for the same reason he didn't make a lot of friends in the military. But who knows.

Dean could prevail and make me eat my words but I still have trouble seeing him as a viable national candidate. If he wins the nomination and makes things interesting, that might be a good thing, but I doubt that will happen. He wants to win and therefore I expect he'll gravitate towards the safe center, as all major party candidates do.

Meanwhile, Dubya will be handing out pork like nobody's business and keeping the spotlight on himself with stuff like the Man On Mars proposal. He's well aware that his old man had a problem with the "vision thing," and he's doing his damnedest to avoid that.

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
... In a lot of ways, Dean is winning over people the same way Bush 2000 did...

I know you support Dean but he's not the only horse in the race. I think at least some Democrats are feeling a little buyer's remorse which is why the race has tightened in recent weeks. I said a couple of months ago that Dean was peaking too soon. I still think I'm right.

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by zigzag:
... I think Edwards vs. Dubya could be the next best thing - a smooth-talking Southern Baby Boomer vs. an inarticulate-but-down-to-earth Southern Baby Boomer. The smooth-talker would not necessarily win - a lot of people relate to Dubya's clumsy, aw-shucks persona...

Not that I'd vote for him over Bush but I do like Edwards. This probably means he doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Perot obviously tipped the election to Clinton in 1992.

This has become Republicans mythology, but I believe the voter studies show that Perot took more from Clinton than Bush. There was just a real dislike of Bush and a desire to get him out. Clinton and Perot split that anti-Bush vote.

And then in 2000 Florida, Buchanan took more from Gore than Bush.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by zigzag:
I predicted Kerry or Edwards a year ago and I'm afraid (I say "afraid" not because I dislike them, but because it's such a predictable phenomenon) that it's coming true. It didn't require any special insight on my part - it's a fact of political life. People get excited by renegades but ultimately gravitate towards the safe choice. It doesn't matter how smart or moderate Dean's ideas are if people perceive him as unelectable.

Kerry represents maturity, experience, gravitas (I say "represents" - I can't say whether he actually is all those things). The flip side of that coin is boring, boring, and boring. I happen to think he'd make a good, sensible, capable President, he just doesn't seem to have the ability to inspire or energize people, despite a genuinely heroic military record. Sadly, I don't think people want to hear about Vietnam, even in a heroic context.

Edwards has no notable flaws as a politician, a rare thing. He's easily the warmest and most articulate of the bunch, and the best-looking. He's Southern and comes from a working-class family. He's a rich trial lawyer but seems good at turning that to his advantage - it not only makes him fast on his feet, but allows him to claim the "represents the ordinary man" position. He's learned from Reagan and Clinton that you have to send a positive, optimistic message. If he has a flaw, it's the boyishness, but I just noticed that he's adopted a shorter, more Presidential hairstyle. I think he's the one to watch.

Clinton never had the chance to debate Dubya. (Gore was such a stiff that he doesn't really count). I think Edwards vs. Dubya could be the next best thing - a smooth-talking Southern Baby Boomer vs. an inarticulate-but-down-to-earth Southern Baby Boomer. The smooth-talker would not necessarily win - a lot of people relate to Dubya's clumsy, aw-shucks persona.

Clark is an unknown but I suppose he could come on in New Hampshire and South Carolina. However, there's a steeliness and a know-it-allness about him that I suspect won't wear well, for the same reason he didn't make a lot of friends in the military. But who knows.

Dean could prevail and make me eat my words but I still have trouble seeing him as a viable national candidate. If he wins the nomination and makes things interesting, that might be a good thing, but I doubt that will happen. He wants to win and therefore I expect he'll gravitate towards the safe center, as all major party candidates do.

Meanwhile, Dubya will be handing out pork like nobody's business and keeping the spotlight on himself with stuff like the Man On Mars proposal. He's well aware that his old man had a problem with the "vision thing," and he's doing his damnedest to avoid that.

Don't be too quick to jump the gun, there. My understanding of the Kerry/Edwards rise is that they are the beneficiaries of a brutal dogfight between Gephardt and Dean. The negative attacks drove support for Gep and Dean down, but because the voters had other options, Gep and Dean didn't "benefit".

Now, for an interesting fact about Edwards that could hurt him in the general, apparently he never did any pro bono work in his long (20 years?) and prosperous ($30 million?) career as a tort lawyer.

Also, despite Kerry and Edward's surges in the Iowa polls, Gep and Dean still have a decided advantage: ground organization. Apparently, the ability to drag people to the caucuses accounts for more, even, than the ability to drag people to the polls. Kerry is in a better position than Edwards, in this respect, but Dean and Gep both have it in spades.

Frankly, nobody is willing to call the race in Iowa tonight, except on tight margins and gut instincts.

*shrug* we'll know tomorrow, I guess, and then it's off to New Hampshire.

BlackGriffen

[zigzag]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Don't be too quick to jump the gun, there. My understanding of the Kerry/Edwards rise is that they are the beneficiaries of a brutal dogfight between Gephardt and Dean. The negative attacks drove support for Gep and Dean down, but because the voters had other options, Gep and Dean didn't "benefit".

Now, for an interesting fact about Edwards that could hurt him in the general, apparently he never did any pro bono work in his long (20 years?) and prosperous ($30 million?) career as a tort lawyer.

Also, despite Kerry and Edward's surges in the Iowa polls, Gep and Dean still have a decided advantage: ground organization. Apparently, the ability to drag people to the caucuses accounts for more, even, than the ability to drag people to the polls. Kerry is in a better position than Edwards, in this respect, but Dean and Gep both have it in spades.

Frankly, nobody is willing to call the race in Iowa tonight, except on tight margins and gut instincts.

*shrug* we'll know tomorrow, I guess, and then it's off to New Hampshire.

BlackGriffen

Didn't have to wait - the results are in, and are as I predicted. Actually, worse for Dean than I predicted. I respect Dean and don't mean to pile on, but there's clearly more at work than a dogfight with Gephardt - I think people mostly decided that he's not all that likable or electable. Whether it's because of Gephardt or not is mostly beside the point. I mean, 18% is dreadful in light of his previous standing and all the endorsements.

Of course, it's not over, a lot can still happen. But I stand by my prediction of a Kerry or Edwards nomination (or both).

[BlackGriffen]

How else, but a dogfight do you explain the fact that both Dean and Gephardt imploded?

There's more to it in the details, of course, but we'll see.

BlackGriffen

[zigzag]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
How else, but a dogfight do you explain the fact that both Dean and Gephardt imploded?

There's more to it in the details, of course, but we'll see.

BlackGriffen

It's possible, but my gut still tells me that (a) no one but hardcore unionists ever cared about Gephardt anyway, and (b) when it came to crunchtime, the voters couldn't bring themselves to vote for Dean because they don't think he's electable. I don't think people who are involved enough to participate in caucuses needed a dogfight with Gephardt to come to this conclusion, not enough to account for an 18% third-place finish, although it no doubt contributed. That I've been predicting this since Dean became the "front-runner" only serves to corroborate my gut feeling.

I could, of course, be wrong, but it seems to be a familiar pattern.

I still think Edwards is the one to watch, moreso than Kerry. And Clark is waiting in the wings. But anything could happen.

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by zigzag:
... I still think Edwards is the one to watch, moreso than Kerry. And Clark is waiting in the wings. But anything could happen.

Kerry should be able to ride the bounce from Iowa to restart his New Hampshire campaign. Maybe Dean falls off a cliff now but I really don't see that happening. Dean and Kerry will vie for one and two there. If Clark finishes third in New Hampshire, which I think is probable now, he's done. Edwards next opportunity is South Carolina. My gut says he wins there. It'll be Kerry, Dean and Edwards all the way to the convention.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
Kerry should be able to ride the bounce from Iowa to restart his New Hampshire campaign. Maybe Dean falls off a cliff now but I really don't see that happening. Dean and Kerry will vie for one and two there. If Clark finishes third in New Hampshire, which I think is probable now, he's done. Edwards next opportunity is South Carolina. My gut says he wins there. It'll be Kerry, Dean and Edwards all the way to the convention.

If you can call it that close, you da man!

I don't see Dean recovering. I think the poor showing in Iowa will reinforce people's doubts, and he's up against the Clinton/McCauliffe party machine to boot. I see a steady decline and a Kerry-Edwards-Clark contest. Could be wrong but it's fun to speculate.