The economy will probably play a bigger role than usual this time around.. afterall, wasn't it financial incompetence that made the Cali recall possible? Problem is, I don't think Americans have the attention span to digest it all while pols and media don't have the patience or competence to explain it coherently. So, yes, it'll probably be an issue, but no one's gonna make a point, or sense even.
Fraudia, that's what the conspiracy theory revolves around.. the idea is that Gore is getting behind Dean so that folks in 08 can say that he stuck with his morals/whatever and didn't just pick the popular guy.. trying to inflate him as some stand up guy with convictions. But then it goes further in that Dean is expected to lose, however, Gore will have solidified the party split from the DLC and inherited Dean's grassroots election machine. Then in 08 he uses all that to prop himself up as the strong Dem.. or something like that.. a bunch of people have been writing about this in the last 24 hrs.
yup, because if dean wins, gore will not challenge an incumbent from his own party and then wait until 2012. This way he is seen stronger than Hillary in terms of visible democrats, and all set to come in and beat up on some new candidate from GOP in 2008.
but then there are some other strong dems who were smart nuff not to go against an incumbent with a huge war chest this year. you have durbin and daschle who could have been stronger than others who did run this year, but stayed out for strategic reasons..me thinks
so who is going to be GOp darling after W?
Here's a question: What would life be like with Dean as prez with a Republican congress?
Congressional Republicans have gained some serious strength the past few years.. now, thinking of how things were with Clinton, who wasn't nearly as inept and confrontational as Dean would be...
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Fraudz: *
MV
do you think that its possible for us to see candidate bids from Gore, as well as Hillary in 2008, if W wins, he will not be running again anyways, and unless Jeb has presidential aspirations duno who the next leader from GOP could be, Ridge comes to mind.
because..i may be wroing, but Gore did nto say he did not want to run again, but just that he did not want to run in 2004.
[/QUOTE]
You know, I'm really beginning to wonder if there is some real bad blood between Gore and the Clintons. There's got to be some bad blood now between Joe and Al. There may be a lot of different factions struggling for control of the leadership position in the party. If Dean survives the primaries, it will be the Pelosi wing that goes down in flames in this election. Maybe Gore made the endorsement just so he could come back in 08 and remind the liberal activists that he was the first to support their candidate in 04. Then he could stake out the center position and hold their grudging support against a Hillary candidacy.
This would actuaslly make a great miniseries or TV show.
Seminole:
Just picked up this little blurb from Reuters that relates to our discussion.
“The Fed’s policy-makers voted unanimously to hold the federal funds rate, charged on overnight loans between banks, at 1 percent, the lowest since 1958. They also renewed a vow to keep borrowing costs down for a long time while still saying the threat of falling prices had eased.”
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=businessNews&storyID=3965323
This is a pretty good indication that the Misery Index will stay pretty much where it is through the election season. The middle class (center) of American politics are most susceptible to these two indicators and they decide the outcome of the election. Unemployment rate is, of course, the third most significant economic factor that they consider. If unemployment is falling (regardless of whether the working poor are only getting jobs in low paying service sectors) too, the Dems cannot run and win an election based on the economy.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *
You know, I'm really beginning to wonder if there is some real bad blood between Gore and the Clintons. .
[/QUOTE]
Its quite possible, did he not distance himself from slick willie during the whole white house hanky panky stuff. If i recall he was in Hawaii then and had made soem pretty general remarks but otherwise had stayed out of the way.
"The biggest unknown right now and for our foreseeable future is the devastation that could be caused by another terror attack on our soil. BUT, if such an event were to occur between now and November 2004, I wonder which way that would cut in a Dean/Bush election. It is very possible that the reaction would be Americans clamoring for even more military force and action rather than less."
MV,
If anything else happens, we may vote in Sharon.
Dean=Dukakis too far north, too far left. Look for Dean to ride around in a tank with an ill fitting helmet.....
If the economy continues as it is, and Iraq gets no worse, Bush is in....
For the most part, Bush has not blamed the OBL 9/11 attack on Clinton, but you can bet that someone is going to slide in a mention that Clinton was too soft on terror and never hunted down OBL as he should have. The whole "Democrats don't have the stomach to fight terror" card has not been played, but it is the ultimate ace in the hole....
The good news is that the Bush twins will still be in Rehab by 2008, so the likelyhood of BushIII is unlikely. Perhaps Jeb?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
Dean=Dukakis too far north, too far left. Look for Dean to ride around in a tank with an ill fitting helmet.....
[/QUOTE]
Funny. Why didn't someone tell Dukakis what that looked like?
[QUOTE]
For the most part, Bush has not blamed the OBL 9/11 attack on Clinton, but you can bet that someone is going to slide in a mention that Clinton was too soft on terror and never hunted down OBL as he should have. The whole "Democrats don't have the stomach to fight terror" card has not been played, but it is the ultimate ace in the hole....
[/QUOTE]
Not at all. The Bush administration had at the very least the same information about Al Qaeda that the Clinton administration had and did nothing about it until the attackes occurred. The fact is that Clinton authorized the assassination of Bin Laden on several occasions only to be told that the credible information of Bin Ladens whereabouts was not so credible. They bring up the inaction by the Clinton Administration and they bring themselves down.
Dean will barely clear 40% of the vote if you start looking at the southern states. Too liberal for middle America and the south. He could take California......
(Added Later)
Funny, I just took an admittedly unscientific aol poll, and here were the results after my vote:
Who would you vote for if the presidential election were today?
President Bush 56%
Howard Dean 36%
I need another option 8%
He doesn't even have the nomination yet or a VP.
and as Faisal said
"Due to the strange way of American politics, a candidate first has to convince his core constituency that he is the right person for the job, and then go and convince the whole nation that he is not as bad as they think he is. In simple terms, at this point all serious Dem Pres Candidates are out to prove that they are left of the left. Who ever then bags the nomination will go out to prove he is actually at the center."
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
Perhaps Jeb?
[/QUOTE]
This is beginning to sound like a constitutional monarchy. And unfunnily enough, Bush's are not the brightest of the lot either. Go figure! :)
Lieberman may feel hurt about Gore's endorsement for Dean, but being a reasonably intelligent person, Joe should realize he has no chance, anyway. May be in another life time.
Found an interesting web site that summarizes poll results:
^^ Is that part of Bush re-election campaign sites? Not to say that Bush is not leading in almost all the polls, but this website looked kinda lopsided. Also, I guess once the primaries start giving direction to Americans about which way the Dem candidates are going, then the poll results will get less skewed.
Unfortunately the things that are going to win it for Bush are based on falsehoods and propaganda. Any economic boom next year are either short term or cyclicle in nature. Any perceived 'tough on terror' security blanket is nothing more than smoke and mirrors, BILLIONS of dollars, a stretched military and failed nation-building policies. Even more unfortunate is that there is no leader on the horizon to take his place.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Seminole: *
Unfortunately the things that are going to win it for Bush are based on falsehoods and propaganda. Any economic boom next year are either short term or cyclicle in nature. Any perceived 'tough on terror' security blanket is nothing more than smoke and mirrors, BILLIONS of dollars, a stretched military and failed nation-building policies. Even more unfortunate is that there is no leader on the horizon to take his place.
[/QUOTE]
When I was studying economics and government in college (admittedly there have been a whole bunch of different versions of new math since then and probably a trillion new economic theories), the prevailing theory was that government, fiscal, monetary and Fed actions taken today begin to have a real economic impact about 9 to 18 months later. That's why the Fed tries to anticipate what things will look like way down the road based upon prevailing trends and set policy today to counteract or bolster their negative or positive predictions.
There are natural boom and bust cycles but the duration and strength of the booms and busts vary dependent upon these policies.
We actually went into recession two months after Bush took office. The high tech bubble on wall street had burst before Bush took office. After years of boom, we were in a cyclical economic decline. You either have to say the rising economic tide that we see in its early stages today is a natural cyclical event that happened despite GW's economic policies or you have to give credit to actions taken 9 to 18 months ago.
Given the huge negative shocks that occured in the system including the huge stock market declines and 9/11, I think most independent economists would have to give some credit to government and Fed actions to get this economy going in the right direction again. Sure, the boom is at the expense of budget deficits. But the economic expansion that commenced during the Reagan years and lasted through the Clinton years with only brief periods of interruption demonstrated that we can grow ourselves out of deficits provided their is some fiscal restraint on entitlement programs and domestic spending.
Latest poll on Howard Deans chances for selection.
Howard Dean Now Clear Democratic Leader in National Poll](http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp) Harris Interactive 22 Dec 03
Howard Dean has established a strong national lead over all other candidates for the Democratic candidates. While the selection of the Democratic candidate will depend on the Iowa caucuses and primary elections in New Hampshire and many other states, the former Vermont governor has pulled ahead of all other candidates among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents nationwide.
The Harris Poll® finds that Dean is now the preferred candidate of 21% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents, with a strong lead over Senator Joe Lieberman (10%), who is in second place, and all the other candidates. …