The "Implosion" of the Democratic Party

[LovetoGiveRoses]

Will the democrats coelesce or continue to split?

 

[Ishmael]

Will the democrats coelesce or continue to split?

All of that is up in the air and depends on Dean primarily.

If he wins the nomination the party will split and may or may not make it back to be competitive in '08.

If he loses the primaries and vigorously backs the nominee, then they might pull together, if he forms a third party as he's threatened to do, then it's back to the drawing boards for the Dems.

The problem is Deans supporter's. They rabidly hate Bush and are anti-war. Any candidate that doesn't preach hatred is going to lose that base of campaign workers.

Looking at the recent polls in Iowa and NH, Deans nomination is by no means assured. But he has a LARGE war chest compared to the other candidates and that will count for something.

Going to be interesting to watch.

Ishmael

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

It will be interesting to see.

 

[RobDownSouth]

All of that is up in the air and depends on Dean primarily.

If he wins the nomination the party will split and may or may not make it back to be competitive in '08.

If he loses the primaries and vigorously backs the nominee, then they might pull together, if he forms a third party as he's threatened to do, then it's back to the drawing boards for the Dems.

The problem is Deans supporter's. They rabidly hate Bush and are anti-war. Any candidate that doesn't preach hatred is going to lose that base of campaign workers.

Looking at the recent polls in Iowa and NH, Deans nomination is by no means assured. But he has a LARGE war chest compared to the other candidates and that will count for something.

Going to be interesting to watch.

Ishmael

Exactly. For all the 202 posts in this thread, you've summarized it quite nicely.

In my mind, this is what it boils down to: How can the Democratic party effectively transform the residual animosity that a sizable portion of the United States population feels toward the current president without alienating it's mainstream base.

As such, its absolutely pragmatic for the Democrats to have a focal point for the "Ho ho ho Bush must go" crowd, but NOT in the number 1 slot. It's got to be in the number 2 Veep slot for the calculus to work. Dean, in my mind, doesn't have enough pull with mainstream Democrats to carry the torch. Put him in the number two position though and we have quite a horse race.

I'm still convinced it's going to be Clark/Dean vs. Bush/Cheney or Bush/Rice in the fall. this will allow Dean to play Nixon to Clark's Eisenhower to inflict maximum damage on Republicans.

On the other hand, if Dean and his supporters go third party a la Anderson 1980, Bush will most likely coast into a second term.

 

[Ishmael]

Exactly. For all the 202 posts in this thread, you've summarized it quite nicely.

In my mind, this is what it boils down to: How can the Democratic party effectively transform the residual animosity that a sizable portion of the United States population feels toward the current president without alienating it's mainstream base.

As such, its absolutely pragmatic for the Democrats to have a focal point for the "Ho ho ho Bush must go" crowd, but NOT in the number 1 slot. It's got to be in the number 2 Veep slot for the calculus to work. Dean, in my mind, doesn't have enough pull with mainstream Democrats to carry the torch. Put him in the number two position though and we have quite a horse race.

I'm still convinced it's going to be Clark/Dean vs. Bush/Cheney or Bush/Rice in the fall. this will allow Dean to play Nixon to Clark's Eisenhower to inflict maximum damage on Republicans.

On the other hand, if Dean and his supporters go third party a la Anderson 1980, Bush will most likely coast into a second term.

Interesting choice of candidates. Which begs the following questions;

1.) Will Dean agree to 'second fiddle'? This is a very real issue.

2.) Can Clark survive that lambasting that he's going to get from the Republicans vis a vis his congressional testimony re. Iraq and his current utterances? Any one can have an epiphany, but Clark isn't claiming that. He's saying that he always was against Iraq.

3.) Clark is also going to take it on the chin for being fired by Cllinton. They both have some explaining to do there.

Quite frankly I think that either Lieberman or Gephardt would have the best chance of giving Bush a run for his money. But unless there's a miracle, Leiberman is out.

The other problem is that Clark is a Clinton guy. Which is strange given the past but politics makes for strange bedfellows. And Dean is definitely NOT a Clintonite. Interesting brew though.

Ishmael

 

[RobDownSouth]

***
1.) Will Dean agree to 'second fiddle'? This is a very real issue.

I honestly can't hazard a guess at this point...it depends on the size of his ego, I suspect.

***
2.) Can Clark survive that lambasting that he's going to get from the Republicans vis a vis his congressional testimony re. Iraq and his current utterances? Any one can have an epiphany, but Clark isn't claiming that. He's saying that he always was against Iraq.

I think so. If the past 90 days has shown us anything, is that Clark gives as good as he gets.

***
3.) Clark is also going to take it on the chin for being fired by Cllinton. They both have some explaining to do there.

Quite frankly, I'm looking forward to this "clearing of the air". I personally think that President Clinton was too hands-off with regard to the military. He had lackluster political hacks as his two secretaries of defense (Aspin and Cohen). His choices for JCS Chairman (Shakazulu or whatever his name was and Shelton) were also uninspired (compared to their predecessors, Crowe and Powell). The 1986 Goldwater-Nichols act effectively neutered the JCS, which rendered it more or less a paper-pushing agency where the politics of personnel became Machiavellian. It hasn't improved on Bush's watch either, thats why Gen. Tommy Franks took retirement rather than the offered "plum" of JCS Chairman.

***
Quite frankly I think that either Lieberman or Gephardt would have the best chance of giving Bush a run for his money. But unless there's a miracle, Leiberman is out.

I think Lieberman hasn't caught fire because as near as I can tell, his campaign is more or less "Bush policies without George Bush". Gephardt has too much political baggage as a consummate Washington insider. I think Dick Gephardt wants to run a Jimmy Carter aw-shucks campaign, but the public (Democratic public anyway) isn't buying this time around.

 

[Ishmael]

Re. Clinton and the "hands off." I think it was more than that. I think he was downright contemptuous of the military. One of the reasons that his choice of Clark as the annointed one has me a bit confused. The move is most certainly political. But Clark basically came out of nowhere.

Don't count Gephardt out. He's competitive in Iowa and has the national backing of the unions. He does have a huge 'iron tail' that he's dragging behind him, but he has been a Democratic faithful from the get go. That's not going to hurt him all that much I think.

It's too bad about Leiberman in one respect. Although, as a conservative, I'm glad that he's mostly eliminated I think he was ill served by the party and literally back stabbed by Gore. Confirmation, in my mind anyway, that Gore was not the best man for the job. About the only good thing there is that Gore has basically killed any political future he might have had.

Ishmael

 

[EarthquakeMan]

Interesting choice of candidates. Which begs the following questions;

* I've not read the first coupla hundred posts here, but . . .

1.) Will Dean agree to 'second fiddle'? This is a very real issue.

* There is little reason for another candidate to choose Dean as VP. Dean's supporters will vote against Bush, regardless of who the D candidate is. Therefore, no gain, except for possible increased turnout. And the potential loss is Dean's real or perceived baggage.

2.) Can Clark survive that lambasting that he's going to get from the Republicans vis a vis his congressional testimony re. Iraq and his current utterances? Any one can have an epiphany, but Clark isn't claiming that. He's saying that he always was against Iraq.

* That would a generic 'flip-flop' charge which almost all candidates are accused of at one time or another. A multitude of flip-flops can have an effect, but not sure about one.

3.) Clark is also going to take it on the chin for being fired by Cllinton. They both have some explaining to do there.

If Clark is the nominee, Clinton will cover Clark's ass on this. Plus, it's sort of inside baseball. How do you make this point to the 'average' voter? Clinton fans won't vote for Bush because he fired Clark. Clark fans, some of who are not Clinton fans, might see this as a positive.

Quite frankly I think that either Lieberman or Gephardt would have the best chance of giving Bush a run for his money. But unless there's a miracle, Leiberman is out.

I think Clark and Kerry - and maybe even Edwards - still have a very legitimate shot at the nomination. And all would be less vulnerable than Dean in the general.

The other problem is that Clark is a Clinton guy. Which is strange given the past but politics makes for strange bedfellows. And Dean is definitely NOT a Clintonite. Interesting brew though.

Great spectator sport.

 

[Lasher]

I think Clark and Kerry - and maybe even Edwards - still have a very legitimate shot at the nomination. And all would be less vulnerable than Dean in the general.

Kerry is fucking Lazarus if he actually wins in Iowa. It'll be interesting to see how it effects his NH numbers if he does.

Edwards gets new life with a first or second in Iowa but will be long forgotten otherwise.

I think a lot of Dean's support flies under the radar and the polls do not accurately reflect his numbers in Iowa. My gut feeling is he wins with about 30% of the vote about 10 pts ahead of Gephardt, Kerry and Edwards who finish 2nd thru 4th in no particular order I can figure out - probably Kerry at 22%.

Clark's poll numbers are good enough that in a two horse race with Dean he may very well drag the primary season deep into March and that's a bad scene for the Democrats. They need it over early and cheap for the nominee to stay in the game. But I haven't seen anything that shows me Clark can win. Christ, he's even trailing Dean in South Carolina and there is no way that should happen.

 

[EarthquakeMan]

Kerry is fucking Lazarus if he actually wins in Iowa. It'll be interesting to see how it effects his NH numbers if he does.

I think a lot of Dean's support flies under the radar and the polls do not accurately reflect his numbers in Iowa.

Lazarus indeed. Hard to figure how Kerry never could get traction, and now all of a sudden he's pushing 30 in Iowa. The concerted Dean bashing has certainly had an effect, bringing Dean's numbers down. Not sure why Kerry seems to have inherited much of that support. It could work to Dean's benefit, since so much is the 'expectations' game. Ten days ago expectations were a clear Dean victory. Now he's perceived by the media as trailing, so if he wins by a point he's a big winner.

Agree on the 'beneath the radar', although Zogby is one hell of a pollster and is touting his screening of respondents.

 

[Ishmael]

Kerry is fucking Lazarus if he actually wins in Iowa. It'll be interesting to see how it effects his NH numbers if he does.

Edwards gets new life with a first or second in Iowa but will be long forgotten otherwise.

I think a lot of Dean's support flies under the radar and the polls do not accurately reflect his numbers in Iowa. My gut feeling is he wins with about 30% of the vote about 10 pts ahead of Gephardt, Kerry and Edwards who finish 2nd thru 4th in no particular order I can figure out - probably Kerry at 22%.

Clark's poll numbers are good enough that in a two horse race with Dean he may very well drag the primary season deep into March and that's a bad scene for the Democrats. They need it over early and cheap for the nominee to stay in the game. But I haven't seen anything that shows me Clark can win. Christ, he's even trailing Dean in South Carolina and there is no way that should happen.

You bring up a point that I've posted before and that's the notion of the press manipulating the polls by the way that the questions are constructed. In order for the press to be in the limelight there has to be a contest and I've long thought that the press will do anything in their power to create a contest, or at least the impression of a contest.

Of course, we're going to know for certain by Tuesday and that's going to tell us just how much of that, if any, was taking place.

The Clark scenario is interesting, as is the surge by Kerry.

Ishmael

 

[EarthquakeMan]

You bring up a point that I've posted before and that's the notion of the press manipulating the polls by the way that the questions are constructed. In order for the press to be in the limelight there has to be a contest and I've long thought that the press will do anything in their power to create a contest, or at least the impression of a contest.

Many factors can influence poll results. Among them, the wording of questions, the order in which the questions are asked, how the sample universe is selected and executed, and a multitude of other factors, some scientific, some artistic. But no respectable pollster (and there are such critters) would allow the press to manipulate a poll, even if the press is the client. If they did, they wouldn't be in business for long.

Agreed, however, that the press will do much to create a contest. That's why we have the 'flavor of the week', and why the person surging as front runner is subject to intense scrutiny while the also-rans get a free ride.

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

Is the catalyst for Kerry's improved numbers the negative ads against Dean, or is it something else? Has Kerry come out with a new strategy? Has he gripped a new issue that has some traction?

 

[WriterDom]

Is the catalyst for Kerry's improved numbers the negative ads against Dean, or is it something else? Has Kerry come out with a new strategy? Has he gripped a new issue that has some traction?

Heinz money.

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

Heinz money.

Free catsup for anyone who votes for Kerry! LOL.

Do you suppose if I vote for him, I could get some mustard too?

 

[Lasher]

Heinz money.

There hasn't been any indication that Teresa Heinz is giving any of her money to the campaign, yet. This is something that's been highly publicized here in Pittsburgh and if she were to use Heinz money for Kerry's campaing it would be front page news here.

And if that's not enough you can verify contributions to any candidate at www.opensecrets.org.

 

[WriterDom]

There hasn't been any indication that Teresa Heinz is giving any of her money to the campaign, yet.



just her Heinz friends would be enough

rich bastard

 

[teddybear4play]

Is the catalyst for Kerry's improved numbers the negative ads against Dean, or is it something else? Has Kerry come out with a new strategy? Has he gripped a new issue that has some traction?

From what I've read, Kerry's basically decided to be Kerry. He's dropped the motorcycle-riding, F-bomb-dropping ego trip and gone a little bit more "back to basics." He hosted a town hall meeting in the Des Moines Playhouse with open questions and was there for several hours.

Plus, I think he's inheriting most of the "anti-Dean" effect. People who don't want Dean as the nominee need a viable option, and I think Kerry is getting the biggest bounce out of this, though certainly Gephardt and (to a lesser extent) Edwards are getting some, too.

TB4p

 

[Fawkin'Injun]

How come Democrats only love rich white guys during election years?

Sharpton best reflects their "core" constituencies...

 

[Ishmael]

How come Democrats only love rich white guys during election years?

Sharpton best reflects their "core" constituencies...

Funny you should mention that. I found this yesterday and found it to be insightful.

The significane of Carol Mosely Braun

(TownHall link)

Enjoy.

Ishmael

 

[Fawkin'Injun]

It's exactly like Bob Geldoff (sp?) said when he praised Bush for delivering on some aid for African AIDS [A_J's big myth]. He said that all Bill Clinton ever did was talk about it and that's the same damn things the Democrats have done with African, scratch that, black America. Other than destroying the black family with the welfare system, all they've done is talk about race issues in an inflammatory manner during election cycles.

 

[Ishmael]

It's exactly like Bob Geldoff (sp?) said when he praised Bush for delivering on some aid for African AIDS [A_J's big myth]. He said that all Bill Clinton ever did was talk about it and that's the same damn things the Democrats have done with African, scratch that, black America. Other than destroying the black family with the welfare system, all they've done is talk about race issues in an inflammatory manner during election cycles.

But it works, and it keeps working. I can't help but wonder why?

In a few more years it won't matter anyway. The black community will be politically irrevelant.

Ishmael

 

[Fawkin'Injun]

You know, people used to vote for the good of their country and not the good of their race...

Teddy Rooseveldt was spot on when it came to the hyphenization of America.

And I am SO in the minority with my family's melting pot attitude towards breeding!

 

[Fawkin'Injun]

Fawkin' Injuns!

 

[Fawkin'Injun]

Fawkin' German Crackers!