Democratic Presidential Nominees: Who will it be?

We should get a thread going on this topic. All in all, I would have to say that they are so far quite unimpressive. One of my conservative Democratic friends says she will vote Libertarian if they nominate Dean. I put them in order of power.

1.Dean- By far the angriest of the nine. He is running on an “I hate Bush the most” strategy. He is a good public speaker, but he comes off cold and kind of heartless. He is raising money from the most liberal wing of his party. He is more attuned to local issues because he was a small time governor and a “Washington outsider.” His problem is that he was against the war in Iraq and most do not trust him to do the right thing if elected. Another problem Dean has is he is insultive and rude. He also has to escape the shadow of McGovern and Mondale, which he will not be able to do. Besides being hateful, he really does not have an interesting personality and he comes off as a “limo liberal.” How does he get the nomination without the South (thanks to his stupid comments)? New York, California, Michigan, New Hampshire, and Washington state are all probably favorable to him in the primary if others drop out after the first couple of primaries. Right now, I would say Dean gets the nod. His base is the activists, college students who have a vast amount of time on their hands, liberal organizations, limo liberals, and antiwar protesters.

2.Gephardt- I see him as the Democrats best at beating W. He is articulate and passionate and he was for the war, but does not seem to be for the peace. He ran before and lost in the primaries. He can be appealing to southern Democrats because he is not a northern liberal, but he is really old news. Big labor is basically behind him, but the AFL-CIO endorsement of Dean really hurt. He might win Iowa and he might pick off some southern delegates in the South and Midwest. I do not know if he can raise the big bucks because he is not “hateful” enough like Dean. He just does not energize the base very well. His base is labor and moderate to conservative Democrats. If he loses Iowa, then he is out.

3.Clark- His nickname is definitely “flip-flop.” This guy is really lost in space. He looks like he has no clue when he sites sources for his foolish remarks. His remark about the 16 soldiers that died in the helicopter crash because of a failed Iraq policy was ridiculous. His voting record will also hurt him since he voted for Nixon and Reagan, which are hated in the liberal underworld. His military record is the only reason why he is in this race and the only reason why he is 3 on my list. I was in Europe during Kosovo and many of us did not care for Clark or Shinseki. His base is those who feel he can beat Bush, which he cannot do. Personally, I think Bush will beat him down in a debate. He might get some delegates in the South to go for him and maybe the Midwest. He has to win South Carolina.

4.Edwards- Sounds southern, but lives in the best houses in NC. What can I say? He is a trial lawyer and a very rich one. He hasn’t passed any bills he has written and he is a national Democrat from a fairly conservative state. He might do will in the South, but he has to win South Carolina to stay in. Clark really hurt him in the South when he jumped in. Edwards sealed his death when he voted against the money for Iraq and Afghanistan. He called it a “blank check,” but the check read 85 billion dollars. How is that a blank check? The only thing he has got going for him is his accent and his looks. But he resembles Clinton too much and America is not ready for another sweet talker. This is the age of straight talk, which he cannot do. His base is the trial lawyers and the endless amount of cash they possess.

5.Kerry- I think Kerry is done. Dean has beaten him. He is a Dukakis all over again. He was Lt. Governor during Dukakis’ term. Kerry is getting pounded in NH and is well behind in Iowa. By the way, no one will remember who came in second or third because it is irrelevant. You usually have to win one of the first three. Kerry shook up his campaign this week, but really to no avail. He is another limo liberal and he comes off kind of boring. His base is the people who do not want Dean to be the nominee, but have the same politics.

I predict Lieberman will be out pretty quickly along with the rest. He is just not resonating with the liberal base and he is running out of money. Let me also say that this is not 1992 all over again. Clinton got the nominee by chance and money is big in this primary. Right now I think Dean will get it. Things could change, but there is only 2 months until the primaries.

Something odd happened to me tonight. I live in Iowa, the first major battleground in the primary season. I'm a registered Republican. So tonight I got a phone call from an automated system, from some company I never heard of. It starts out, "Hello, Registered Republican. We would like to ask you a few questions." They then asked questions about abortion, gun control and school vouchers -- was I for or against each, and how important were my views on each issue in deciding how to vote.

My question is, who is the client for this poll? There is absolutely no reason for Dubya to be polling Iowa a year before the general election. Could it be someone thinking about challenging him from the right? Seems unlikely, despite the occasional frothing. So I'm left with the conclusion that one of the Dems is considering trying to entice Republicans to attend the Democratic caucus and support him. But which one?

Well, Lieberman, Clark and Kerry have all pulled out of Iowa, iirc. There is no way Moseley-Braun, Kucinich or Sharpton would be crazy enough to think that they could ever attract significant GOP support. Same for Dean. Edwards campaign is on life support. That leaves Dick Gephardt.

Does any of this make sense to anyone? Could Gephardt be considering trying to reinvent himself by moving a little to the right on social issues in hopes of attracting Republicans who don't have any pressing need to attend their own caucuses? Or is there something else I'm not thinking of?

It will be a brokered convention. The Democrats changed their nomination rules this year to get rid of winner-take-all primaries. All pledged delegates will be apportioned by congressional district - any contender receiving at least 15% of the vote in a given CD will secure an accordant proportion of the delegates.

In light of the 'superdelegates', the frontrunner will need to take at least 61% of the pledged delegates in order to win the nomination outright. I doubt it'll happen with this nine person field so evenly dividing the party along regional & demographic lines. So, for all we know, the D nominee next year will be Hillary Clinton or Al Gore because I think there's an excellent chance for a brokered convention.

I actually believe that Howard DEAN is the Democrats' best hope for beating Bush (with the possible exception of Hillary!, who isn't running [this is unquestionable truth, subject to the "it depends upon the definition of is" standard of truth, and is erased from history should it prove embarrassing to Clinton]).

Dean was a governor, as was every president to win the office by defeating an incumbent president. The sole exception, Benjamin Harrison, grandson of ex-president William Henry Harrison, lost the popular vote in 1888 but won the electoral college. Dean also hasn't proven inept at exciting people, even if it's just his left-wing base. And unlike Davis, his record as governor isn't particularly bad. His foreign policy experience resembles Bush's before his inarguration. He even embraces pre-emptive unilateralism--at least in the politics of personal destruction.

Having said that, I don't think Dean will win. But he's MUCH stronger than most conservatives will admit. He'll perform far better than McGovern-Mondale. He may run a campaign as solid as Gore-Lieberman. I'd give him an shot at victory.

Meanwhile, it isn't yet certain who will be the Republican nominee. He faces a tough primary contest that may be too divisive for him to survive the general election. This is now a FOURTEEN-way race. Here are the challengers, most of whom have ideologies dramatically different from the President's:

Albertha Moultrie Brinson (R-New York)
Edie Bukewihge (R-California)
F. Dean Christensen (R-Arizona)
Carten Cordell (R-Alabama)
Thomas S. Fabish (R-California)
Lowell "Jack" Fellure (R-West Virginia)
Hoover Mark Gee (R-California)
Michael Idrogo (R-Texas)
Mildred "Millie" Howard (R-Ohio)
Derrick C. Johnson (R-Oregon)
Louis J. Rapuano Jr. (R-Connecitcut)
Keith Slinker (R-Pennsylvania)
William "Bill" Wyatt (R-California)

It is disagree not "dissagree" and it is I not "i". The Democratic Underground is on another web site. No one here cares that you are a fan of Howie Dean. By the way, which party controls the governorship in Vermont now after Dean's tenure? He must not have left too good of an impression. Dean is cold and countless and even your own party establishment knows that and does not want him to be the nominee. Dean already has the label of liberal and everyone knows that and just like Mondale and McGovern, he will be rejected.

I would agree Dean has the best shot against Bush, but not because of his political record or his policies. I think Americans are more interested in leadership qualities today - especially how a leader talks. Clinton's speaking abilities were the only reason he was as popular as he was. Bush would be maybe the most popular president of the last 50 years if he was a dynamic orator (which he is not). The fact that Bush's popularity ratings are so high despite his relatively poor speaking ability tells me that people agree with his leadership decisions.
Anyway, Dean, even though he comes off as angry when he's speaking, doesn't try to be someone he isn't. Gephart (as well as Gore and Daschle, by the way) sound like they are trying so hard to have some kind of presence about them. It's like they will say anything, whether it is truthful or not, in order for people to think of them as strong leaders.

By the way, I think if Dean had a couple screws in his neck he's be a dead ringer for Frankenstein...

I pretty much agree with most of what's been discussed. Wesley Clark had great potential. If he had articulated himself, done some triangulation (against flag-burning and gay marriage, for example), and stuck to his guns, he could have beaten Bush. But he repeatedly stumbled out of the starting gate, and is now an also-ran. John Kerry is beaten. He'll announce his withdraw before the year is out. John Edwards, the Southern Regional Chairman of the Eastern Liberal Establishment, is now positioning hiself for V.P. Dennis Kucinivich has been overshadowed by Howard Dean, and Al Sharpton & Carole Mosley-Braun are, at best, mascots. I figured a few months ago, it would boil down to either Howard Dean vs. Joe Leiberman, or Howard Dean vs. Richard Gephardt. Well, Leiberman is fading away. So it's Dean vs. Gephardt. To those who are old enough to remember, does anyone remember George McGovern vs. Hubert Humphrey in 1972? The parallels are striking. I think that Dean will prevail through a combination of money and leftist grass-roots support. But the general election won't be a wipeout like 1972 or 1984. In those elections, America was divided by economic status and to a lesser degree, by national security outlook. The so-called social issues were an afterthought. But now the nation is polarized by a social, cultural, and even religious divide. This division has far, far more emotional resonance than income or foreign policy. It also leaves less room for compromise or middle ground, and therefore will have a smaller swing vote. So, in a Bush/Dean race, Bush would win by around 10%-14%, not the broad national mandate enjoyed by Lyndon Johnson in 1964, Richard Nixon in 1972, and Ronald Reagan in 1984. But Bush could boast more down-ticket effect, too.

I have just joined freerepublic, and I hope that here is a good place to post this query: are all members here supporters of Bush? It seems to me that from all perspectives, from darkest liberal to lightest conservative,
he is a terrible president. He has fought two wars without
achieving his desired objective in either one. And he lies
constantly! He is for "the front line", but has cut funds
for firemen and police. He "supports our troops" but has
cut stuff for veterans. He "defends the environment", but
he lets us drink arsenic and breath mercury. The list goes
on and on.

If you like him, tell us why!

Best wishes,

Alan17b

Sure. I'll tell you why. He keeps our taxes low, he does not bow to rabid abortion groups, he is tough on criminals including terrorists, he speaks plainly and calls a spade a spade, he does not approach the world through humanistic eyes, he is trying to get us off the dependence of foreign oil, he believes faith is a big part of the American way, he believes I should have the right to own a gun, he believes in free markets, he keeps us safe, he does not sleep with interns in the White House, he comes from a respectable family, he does not allow Arafat to BS us about his support for terrorism, he has signed a bill that has given more money to education than any president in history, our military deeply respects him, he does not allow mob-run unions to run all over government, he is principled, he is not wrapped in Jimmy Carter idealism, he is the only president since Reagan to make terrorists pay for killing Americans, he is giving us choice on Medicare and is trying to on social security. You need more?

Questions for you:
Why if he is so bad are people leaving liberal states like Massachusetts, California, Washington, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and New York leaving in droves to come to conservative states like GA, TX, NC, Fl, and Nevada?

Why didn't the Clinton/Gore administration do anything about terrorism?

Why should anyone pay more than 25 percent of their paycheck in taxes?

How do you condone the murder of over 1 million babies a year in abortion clinics?

How can any creature say partial birth abortion is not plain execution?

Why can we abort fetuses, but let criminals get life instead of death for murder?

Why can I not own a gun?

Why should France or the UN tell the US how to conduct its affairs if it cannot tell N Korea or Iran what to do?

Why should the Palestinians be given a state when terrorist organizations are allowed to roam free?

What is the Democratic policy on Iraq? Is there one? More troops? Withdraw?

What's wrong with choice in Medicare and social security?

You need to look at another site. Try the Democrat. Underground.

Ok, there..obviously, you are ill-informed about the state of the world, in general, or the US, in particular. I don't know if you have noticed or not, but we are living in a very dangerous time in history..navigating the waters internationally is treacherous..President Bush has steered the US thru some dicey times since Sept.11th..and he has done it with the focused intensity of a great leader...he has not fought two wars..the US has been in WW3 since 9-11....and we are in the process of achieving those objectives, which does not happen overnight...I can see that you will persist in your belief regardless of what is said here, so perhaps you can post somewhere with like minds..because, here, though there are some who will disagree with the President on some issues, his leadership is not in question...as for the remarks on the issues you address, they aren't worth answering...
President Bush is honest, direct, tenacious, committed, patriotic, spiritual, and humble..he has no patience for BS, and does not suffer fools easily..neither do I...he is every liberal's nightmare....
If your mind is made up, try www.moveon.org

Good replies fellow FReepers!

Under GWB, Afghanistan was liberated from the tyranny of The Taliban. We did achieve our objective and the people there have freedom and the country is no longer an open, safe haven for Al Queda.

Under GWB, Iraq was liberated from a brutal 30 year dictatorship who tortured and murdered their own people by the thousands, looted the people's money and built palaces for themselves, attacked their neighboring countries (Iran, Kuwait) and million+ died. We have achieved our primary objective and continue to build a free nation.

Under GWB, we have a President who has responded immediately, and effectively, to direct attacks on our citizens...unlike the previous administration who sat on their Radical Islam loving hands after the World Trade Center was bombed in 1993, after the attacks in Africa, Germany, the USS Cole, etc...but found time, money, and will to provide military support to the radical islamic terrorist Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) under the false pretenses of mass graves and ethnic cleansing.

Last, but not least, under GWB we have a President who has moral character and fiber, not a pervert who didn't even have the self control to keep his crooked d-ck in his pants in front of one of his woman subordinates while occupying the people's house.

GWB will not pardon perverts (Mel Reynolds), criminals (Marc Rich), or protect foreign billionaires from prosecution (Riady).

GWB won't hold up public air traffic at LAX so he can get a 'haircut' on Air Force One, GWB won't tell citizens that 'he considered to return their surplus money with a tax cut, but we might not spend it right', GWB won't take bag money from foreign criminals, etc etc etc.

alan17b, we know you are already gone from here and don't have the courage, conviction, or the facts to dispute or debate us. You are just like a pigeon who flies over a beautiful park, poops once from far away, and keeps on flying.

Bye bye!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.