The W
Views: 98601632
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
1.9.07 1853
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Who Should The Demos Run In 2004? Register and log in to post!
Pages: 1 2 3 Next(1946 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (58 total)
Big Bad
Scrapple
Level: 145

Posts: 559/6720
EXP: 37458443
For next: 145729

Since: 4.1.02
From: Dorchester, Ontario

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 4 hours
#1 Posted on 18.11.02 0126.54
Reposted on: 18.11.09 0129.02
Heh heh, typing 'Demos' always makes me think of Demolition. Maybe Smash should run in 2004, with Ax as the Veep.

But anyway, onto the topic. What Democarat do you think has the best chance of knocking off Dubya in the next election? Let's just hope it isn't Al Gore.
Promote this thread!
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 580/4700
EXP: 21459239
For next: 377423

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1218 days
Last activity: 1014 days
#2 Posted on 18.11.02 0600.44
Reposted on: 18.11.09 0601.31
I let other Dems come up with a list. But they better hope they have an ace in the hole because it's going to be pretty tough. This isn't like the '92 election where the Dems were coming off of a few gains in Congress and built up to the election of the Philanderer-in-Chief. Election day was a trainwreck for them and things haven't gotten much better for them since...
MoeGates
Andouille
Level: 88

Posts: 763/2104
EXP: 6560444
For next: 90246

Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 13 days
Last activity: 35 min.
#3 Posted on 18.11.02 0922.36
Reposted on: 18.11.09 0924.02
Please PLEASE just squash all talk of Hillary and Al right now. 3 folks I'd be OK with:

1. Howard Dean is essentially going to run as Jeb Bartlett, which might be kind of neat.

2. John Kerry (if he gets a haircut), probably has the best shot and is pretty decent.

3. But my candidate (and personal favorite) is Russ Feingold.

The thing the dems need more than anything is to run a squeeky-clean, reform candidate. This matters a ton more than if the candidate is liberal or moderate or from the south or midwest or whatever. The #1 priority should be to get voters' minds away from the current image of the Democratic party as that of Clinton, Torricelli, McAwful, fund-raising abuses, etc.

Please note that I think the GOP are far worse offenders, as they have a lot more practice at this stuff and generally manage to avoid any really stupid obvious shit. Also, the media is much harder on Democrat's when it comes to this stuff.

Anyway, a 2004 candidate that manages to distance the party from this image, win or lose, liberal or conservative, is the best thing the Democrats can do for themselves in the long run.

There's some other things I'd like to see out of an ideal candidate, but they are all secondary to this one.
redsoxnation
Scrapple
Level: 152

Posts: 933/7534
EXP: 43487599
For next: 814163

Since: 24.7.02

Since last post: 427 days
Last activity: 427 days
#4 Posted on 18.11.02 1115.35
Reposted on: 18.11.09 1116.50

    Originally posted by Big Bad
    Heh heh, typing 'Demos' always makes me think of Demolition. Maybe Smash should run in 2004, with Ax as the Veep.

    But anyway, onto the topic. What Democarat do you think has the best chance of knocking off Dubya in the next election? Let's just hope it isn't Al Gore.






Does that mean, if successful, Crush will get the VP spot in 2008, and push for the legalization of all illegal substances?
Seriously now, a look at some of Democratic contenders.
Howard Dean: Might do well in the New Hampshire primary, small electoral state, left of most of the party. Odds 75-1
John Edwards: Southern senator will now be senior senator from North Carolina. Has the looks to run, but does he have the substance. He gets beat up to badly before Super Tuesday. Odds 40-1.
John Kerry: Has an edge in New Hampshire and has his wifes money. Strong candidate, but something tells me he won't sell outside of the Northeast. Odds 15-1.
Joseph Lieberman: Has run for national office and has been viewed as a positive to the Democratic ticket. Pledge to not run if Gore runs could be used to undermine his credibility. Will attract the Jewish vote in the New York primary. Odds 6-1.
Al Gore: Mr. Charisma himself. He'll run, because this was what he was raised to do. He'll get the nomination, but I doubt he can win the general election. Odds 1-2.
OlFuzzyBastard
Knackwurst
Level: 103

Posts: 752/3024
EXP: 11166842
For next: 304603

Since: 28.4.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 15 days
Last activity: 2 hours
AIM:  
#5 Posted on 18.11.02 1156.39
Reposted on: 18.11.09 1156.48
Oh, I think Ax would head the ticket. You know the GOP would bust out embarassing footage of Smash reposessing cars in a smear campaign anyway.

If that wolf in sheep's clothing GOP-closet case Leiberman runs, I'm voting for Nader. Not gonna happen - and if he does, he won't get the nomination anyway.

I'd like to see Kerry run, but I have a feeling it'll be Gore, who I could live with, I suppose. I just hope whoever it is has the guts to say "Hey, look at the shithole this country's become in the last four years. Do you really want another four like this?", but you know they won't.


Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 581/4700
EXP: 21459239
For next: 377423

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1218 days
Last activity: 1014 days
#6 Posted on 18.11.02 1202.58
Reposted on: 18.11.09 1210.06

    Originally posted by OlFuzzyBastard
    I'd like to see Kerry run


Somehow, I can see the "party of the common man" nominating a man who is part of a family worth three-quarters of a BILLION dollars...
MoeGates
Andouille
Level: 88

Posts: 766/2104
EXP: 6560444
For next: 90246

Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 13 days
Last activity: 35 min.
#7 Posted on 18.11.02 1221.54
Reposted on: 18.11.09 1229.01
You mean like John Kennedy?

Dems have fallen in love with self-financed candidates recently, because they don't have the deep doner pockets of the GOP. Any candidate, no matter how much they suck, that says "oh, and don't worry about funding me" that Dems jump on, because that's one less race they have to split up their party money. The GOP has a little more leeway to nominate good candidates that don't have money over bad ones that do, because they aren't as desperate for party money.

I personally hate the rich-democrat Senator syndrome, and think those guys should give all their money toward electing someone good.

I only see this getting worse with the new laws also. IN 20 years we're going to have a government of 536 millionaires.
bash91
Merguez
Level: 55

Posts: 87/711
EXP: 1289373
For next: 24825

Since: 2.1.02
From: Plain Dealing, LA

Since last post: 747 days
Last activity: 6 hours
#8 Posted on 18.11.02 1236.35
Reposted on: 18.11.09 1237.41

    Originally posted by OlFuzzyBastard
    I'd like to see Kerry run, but I have a feeling it'll be Gore,


Somehow, I don't think Kerry has much of a chance once silly season hits and his opponent(s) in either the primaries or the general election begin to remind the voters that Kerry is a self-confessed war criminal. Admittedly, Kerry is a bit vague about the whole issue, but that is the kind of skeleton in one's closet that pretty much precludes any serious run for national office without one hell of a mea culpa and a hellaciously good pr campaign. Since I really doubt that Kerry has the oratorical skills to pull off the necessary apologia, that leaves the pr campaign and I highly doubt that it would work in this day and age of the negative attack ad.

As for Gore, the best thing he can do for the Democrats is regrow the beard, go back into hiding, and let someone who has a chance of winning run. Some of his recent political posturing puts him at odds with some of the traditional power bases in the party and his proclamation that the US needs a single-payer universal health care system is both frightening and deluded.

Tim
evilwaldo
Lap cheong
Level: 78

Posts: 862/1597
EXP: 4323521
For next: 58724

Since: 7.2.02
From: New York, NY

Since last post: 3356 days
Last activity: 3136 days
AIM:  
#9 Posted on 18.11.02 1330.56
Reposted on: 18.11.09 1333.55
I hate to say it but the best candidate out there is Gore. The Democrats have some stars waiting in the wings (governors mansions) but it would be foolish to waste them in 2004. Gore has an outside shot should the economy stay weak and the hunt for Bin Laden and Omar be as successful as the War on Drugs. If you put Edwards as a VP, you could have someone with a Clintonian vibe to spruce up the stodgy Gore. Even if Gore loses it will not damage Edwards that much which giving him the opportunity to showcase him on a national stage.
MoeGates
Andouille
Level: 88

Posts: 769/2104
EXP: 6560444
For next: 90246

Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 13 days
Last activity: 35 min.
#10 Posted on 18.11.02 1419.02
Reposted on: 18.11.09 1423.46
Somehow, I don't think Kerry has much of a chance once silly season hits and his opponent(s) in either the primaries or the general election begin to remind the voters that Kerry is a self-confessed war criminal.

Other Kerr(e)y. You're thinking of Bob Kerrey, former Senator from Nebraska. We're talking John Kerry, current Senator from Massachusettes (thank goodness he's a Dem. To the GOP that might be a handicap worse than being a self-confessed war criminal).

John Edwards is the worst candidate the Dems could nominate. A "Clintonian Vibe" is the LAST thing the Democratic Party needs.
evilwaldo
Lap cheong
Level: 78

Posts: 866/1597
EXP: 4323521
For next: 58724

Since: 7.2.02
From: New York, NY

Since last post: 3356 days
Last activity: 3136 days
AIM:  
#11 Posted on 18.11.02 1452.18
Reposted on: 18.11.09 1453.33
Going for a liberal candidate would be the worst thing the Dems can do. Clinton got people excited and captured the moderate vote.

The Dems can retake the White House in 2004 if they focus on the economy and the failure of the war on terror. It really is winnable if they can hold onto their base states and capture a couple of swing states. One of the keys is to choose a candidate and VP from states that they lost in 2000 with the hopes of retaking those states in 2004. Someone from the Midwest would be a bad choice because of the administrations obsession with the farm vote. They should go back and try to split the South and retake a western state like Arizona.

Anyway, everything right now hinges on what Gore says at the end of the year. If he says yes, then he wins, end of story. If he decides not to run, then the field is wide open.
redsoxnation
Scrapple
Level: 152

Posts: 940/7534
EXP: 43487599
For next: 814163

Since: 24.7.02

Since last post: 427 days
Last activity: 427 days
#12 Posted on 18.11.02 1548.03
Reposted on: 18.11.09 1549.39

    Originally posted by evilwaldo
    Going for a liberal candidate would be the worst thing the Dems can do. Clinton got people excited and captured the moderate vote.

    The Dems can retake the White House in 2004 if they focus on the economy and the failure of the war on terror. It really is winnable if they can hold onto their base states and capture a couple of swing states. One of the keys is to choose a candidate and VP from states that they lost in 2000 with the hopes of retaking those states in 2004. Someone from the Midwest would be a bad choice because of the administrations obsession with the farm vote. They should go back and try to split the South and retake a western state like Arizona.

    Anyway, everything right now hinges on what Gore says at the end of the year. If he says yes, then he wins, end of story. If he decides not to run, then the field is wide open.






One problem for the Dems: Last time, they couldn't even win the home state of the candidate. If that happens again, the party will look very bad.
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong
Level: 81

Posts: 484/1759
EXP: 4901359
For next: 91511

Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1264 days
Last activity: 30 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#13 Posted on 18.11.02 1730.58
Reposted on: 18.11.09 1735.09
I honestly think that if the Dems want to have a chance... it has to be someone out of the blue. Everyone who is out there right now has huge black eyes, and it would take a lot to turn their images around.
No- it would have to be someone almost unthought of that would emerge as a leader with a vision. That is the Dem's problem right now... lack of vision. Republicans have been presenting a plan, and the Dems have been responding by saying NO! and not much else. They need someone who can clearly present a picture of what he/she wants the country to be like, and can silence all of the old guard who are really hurting the party. THEN they might have a chance, at this point...
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 582/4700
EXP: 21459239
For next: 377423

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1218 days
Last activity: 1014 days
#14 Posted on 18.11.02 1746.11
Reposted on: 18.11.09 1759.04

    Originally posted by Pool-Boy
    I honestly think that if the Dems want to have a chance... it has to be someone out of the blue.


That's what happened with Clinton back in '92. The combination of 1) a lot of guys with damaged goods and 2) Bush 41 looking unbeatable led to a lot of guys taking a pass on the race...which gave us the reason why people had to learn how to spell "Tsongas."
PalpatineW
Lap cheong
Level: 77

Posts: 379/1528
EXP: 4062023
For next: 129125

Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2778 days
Last activity: 2621 days
AIM:  
#15 Posted on 18.11.02 2306.01
Reposted on: 18.11.09 2306.46
Grimis: Paul Tsongas has an arena named after him out here.

OFB: Yeah, no kidding. This country HAS gone to shit. I can't look out my window without seeing race riots, satan-worshipping, and other forms of mass carnage. Not to mention how Bush (& co.) planned this whole "terror" thing to scare people into voting for them!
evilwaldo
Lap cheong
Level: 78

Posts: 872/1597
EXP: 4323521
For next: 58724

Since: 7.2.02
From: New York, NY

Since last post: 3356 days
Last activity: 3136 days
AIM:  
#16 Posted on 18.11.02 2356.38
Reposted on: 18.11.09 2357.56

    Originally posted by redsoxnation

      Originally posted by evilwaldo
      Going for a liberal candidate would be the worst thing the Dems can do. Clinton got people excited and captured the moderate vote.

      The Dems can retake the White House in 2004 if they focus on the economy and the failure of the war on terror. It really is winnable if they can hold onto their base states and capture a couple of swing states. One of the keys is to choose a candidate and VP from states that they lost in 2000 with the hopes of retaking those states in 2004. Someone from the Midwest would be a bad choice because of the administrations obsession with the farm vote. They should go back and try to split the South and retake a western state like Arizona.

      Anyway, everything right now hinges on what Gore says at the end of the year. If he says yes, then he wins, end of story. If he decides not to run, then the field is wide open.






    One problem for the Dems: Last time, they couldn't even win the home state of the candidate. If that happens again, the party will look very bad.



That was due to a change in demographics in TN. During the 8 years Clinton was in office a lot of people moved to TN and voted Republican. I may be off but I believe that they elected 2 Republican Senators and some Republican Congressmen. Yes, it was embarassing but expected.

However, the best way to retake the South is pick 2 candidates from there.

To Pool-Boy:

The Democrats have a lot of potential candidates sitting in state mansions. However, they are saving them for 2008 and afterwards. The hope is that the economy turns around and they repair the problems in their respective states turning them into Clintonlike candidates who would come out of nowhere.
TinMan
Blutwurst
Level: 36

Posts: 152/259
EXP: 283195
For next: 24918

Since: 11.1.02
From: TX

Since last post: 1389 days
Last activity: 1158 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
#17 Posted on 19.11.02 1723.53
Reposted on: 19.11.09 1725.11
OK, so WHY would we want a democrat in office?
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong
Level: 81

Posts: 492/1759
EXP: 4901359
For next: 91511

Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1264 days
Last activity: 30 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#18 Posted on 19.11.02 1746.29
Reposted on: 19.11.09 1757.06
    Originally posted by TinMan
    OK, so WHY would we want a democrat in office?

For me personally, I see nothing at all wrong with postulating how a Democrat might get into office. My Republican (some say Libretarian, but whatever) leanings are well known, but that does not mean that Democrats are dead and buried. There IS a way for them to regain some power, and this thread is all about how they might go about that.
Does party warring ALWAYS have to come into play? This is a hypothetical debate here... it does not necessarily have anything to do with what you, I, or anyone else want...

(edited by Pool-Boy on 19.11.02 1547)
evilwaldo
Lap cheong
Level: 78

Posts: 881/1597
EXP: 4323521
For next: 58724

Since: 7.2.02
From: New York, NY

Since last post: 3356 days
Last activity: 3136 days
AIM:  
#19 Posted on 19.11.02 1930.03
Reposted on: 19.11.09 1932.45

    Originally posted by TinMan
    OK, so WHY would we want a democrat in office?



A candidates party affiliation does not mean as much to me as their standing on matters that are important to me.

Ex: During the recent election I voted Democrat for Governor and Lt. Gov. and Republican for my state and national congressmen. The main reason for voting Republican was that they do not support putting slot machines at racetracks in PA. I live in the shadow of a track and do not want the additional crime, traffic, etc. that will come with the introduction of slot machines. However, I feel that Rendell was clearly the best candidate for Governor.
Dahak
Frankfurter
Level: 57

Posts: 319/772
EXP: 1438149
For next: 47788

Since: 12.5.02
From: Junction City OR.

Since last post: 1974 days
Last activity: 1627 days
#20 Posted on 19.11.02 1944.01
Reposted on: 19.11.09 1944.01
I am not a Democrat but I will give my opinion. First and foremost it matters what happens in the next 2 years. If the economy improves and the Iraq situation doesn't go to hell then it will be hard for the Dems to win. Basicly good times equal reelection.
So if the country goes to crap then the Dems only need to run a decent campaign. Not too liberal but use the old I feel your pain crap that all challengers use.
But if things are good here is what the Dems need to do. The GOP appears to be the rich white man party. There is certainly some truth to that but it's not exactly like the Dems are poor, minorities, or women. But if they picked up a woman, black, or Hispanic for the VP spot they would have a pretty good chance. Especially since the GOP isn't smart enough to get rid of Chaney. Personally I would think a Hispanic is the best choice. The Hispanic population has the greatest population growth potential and is in general somewhat conservative. Gaining two things a semi-conservative for a Democrat could steal a good percentage of the moderate right vote.
I don't think a Senator is the best choice for the Pres spot. Governors have a far better track record. They appear to know how to run a state which is a kind of a small country. But while Senators have more real power they don't run anything directly. Plus they are the worst kind of politicians. The Washington D.C. kind. For the VP spot a Senator is a fine choice but not for the President.
Pages: 1 2 3 NextThread ahead: Sweet sexy irony
Next thread: More Reasons to Damn the US Public Schools
Previous thread: Another Candidate for Worst Story Ever
(1946 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Who Should The Demos Run In 2004?Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.359 seconds.