9/7 http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/07/poll/index.html
Clinton is Dem's favorite with virtually no chance of winning,
and Gore is Dem's second favorite with Gore virtually no desire
of running. This is the story of how Dems fuck it up for the
third time. This is the story of '08.
\_ As with Bill Clinton and Dubya, it is quite likely that the actual
Democratic nominee in 2008 will be someone who is not on the radar
screen in 2006. -tom
\_ Who is the GOP going to run against her? Rice? Clinton would win.
John McCain is not nutty enough for the Religious Right, so he
won't get the GOP nomination. Guliani is pro-choice and pro-gay
rights, so he is too *gasp* "liberal." Who else does the GOP have?
\_ George "Macaca" Allen. Rick "Don't get it on the sheets" Santorum
\_ This isn't much, but my picks are:
Hillary > Mark Warner, Edwards >> Feingold, in that order.
(fyi, it turns out that the first three are tops on tradesports
other than Gore, but I came to this independently)
I would say Hillary in front with VP Warner; alternatively, Warner
with VP Obama.
Barbara Boxer is my secret "average American" Democratic candidate
\_ If Barbara Boxer wins the Democratic nomination, the
Dems should just pack up and disband. Nominating her
with her out-of-touch views and shrill personality would
be the stupidest thing the Dems have ever done. Boxer
is so polarizing that she makes Hilary seem like a quiet
reasonable, helpful librarian type.
\_ yeah, and the Republicans have succeeded with
moderate, collaborative centrists like...uh...tom
delay and dubya. -tom
\_ Sorry, pops, but recent history has shown that the
GOP can get away with ultra-conservatives and still
appeal to the unwashed masses of the South, Midwest
and Rocky Mountain states. The Dems, however, have
to run a centrist candidate to have a shot. Bill
Clinton is the only Dem to win the White House in
the past 30 years, and he did so as a centrist.
Real liberals like Mondale and Dukakis tried to
succeed...and were completely humiliated. I foresee
something even more drastic if a born loser like
Barbara Boxer gets the nomination.
\_ To suceed in the long run, the Democrats need
to articulate and pursue their own agenda, not
become Republicans. -tom
\_ Of course, but if that agenda only appeals
to 1% of the population, they will still
lose, no matter how well the pursue it.
lose, no matter how well they pursue it.
I'm sorry, but comprimising and coming to
the middle to form a consensus is what
democracy is all about. If you
represent many Dems in beliving that
means "becoming Republicans", then the
party is truly hopeless.
\_ How many people do you think support raising
the minimum wage? National Health care?
Keeping Social Security as it is? Ending
the war? Take your 1% and shove it.
\_ Comprimising and coming to the middle is
not how the Republicans got into power,
and it won't be how the Democrats reclaim
it. I do not think it should be difficult
to come up with a platform which is both
truly distinct from the current Republican
platform, and attractive to a large number
of Americans. -tom
\_ That's exactly what they did, they
didn't compromise with YOU, but they
compromised with > 50% of the
population.
\_ No, that's not what they did at all.
Republican policies do not serve the
interests of most of the people who
vote Republican. Republicans did
a lot of work on getting people
to identify with their agenda; that's
not compromising. -tom
\_ You're confusing what's going
on now (when the Republicans
are losing) with what was going
on when they came to power.
Remember the Contract with
America? The Rs are failing
now because they aren't finding
the issues that the majority
people care about. The Ds can't
capitialize on it because
they're even worse.
\_ Voters *identified* with
the rhetoric around the
Contract With America--they
didn't *care about* the
Contract With America. It's
an important distinction. -tom
\_ I guess you're going to
have to explain this more carefully, because I have no idea what
you're talking about.
\_ Most people don't vote on the issues; they vote for
the person they identify with most closely. A
typical red-state hick doesn't really *care* about
flag burning, or gay marriage, or welfare moms.
When you survey people and ask what their most
important issues are, those are not the things that
come up. But conservatives use those kinds of
issues to project an *identity* for themselves
which red-state hicks comprehend and identify with.
The liberal challenge is to come up with an identity;
right now there is no clear liberal identity which
voters can align with. -tom
\_ What I can't understand is how they did that with
an Ivy league cheerleader rich boy from Connecticut
who used his dad's infulence to avoid military
service.
who knows exactly what's going on and deserves a chance
Definite no's: Biden, Clark, Daschle, Kerry, Richardson
\_ These guys are each superior by 10 times over the
opinionated, self-absorbed dunderdead that is Barbara Boxer.
\_ I think the key word here is your opinion that she is
a "dunderhead". All those guys you mentioned are
opinionated and self-absorbed, except maybe not
Daschle on the self-abosrbed part.
Gore isn't going to run.
\_ I disagree. Gore is starting at running back for the 49ers
this season. That's why they traded away Kevin Barlow to the
Jets. |
http://csua.com/feed/