Let's not sit back in self assurance but continue to work hard to ensure that it does in fact become reality.
Posted on 11/09/2003 10:39:19 AM PST by Congressman Billybob
John / Billybob
John / Billybob
A computer program can be set to automatically donate to Dean at a predetermined time (like when he announces a "fundraiser" on the net) and the money is transferred to Dean from all those dummy credit card accounts. The accounts are then paid from the funds deposited by the donor.
Democrats do not donate small amounts over a long period of time to a primary candidate. I have two democrats in my family, and one (my union brother) NEVER donates, as he counts on the union to do so. The other, one of my sisters, donates only as the general election approaches, and she gives small amounts one time.
Democrats have NOT been able to count on small donors for a long time. Why does Dean suddenly have all these donors? I maintain that it is an elaborate fraud, and one which will remain hidden unless we get lucky.
If you have been following the resignations of Southern Democratic Senators, including Zell Miller, you know that the Republicans stand to pick up four or five Senators -- even if Thune decides to retake his House seat and doesn't hand Li'l Tommy Dashcle his well-deserved and final defeat.
In short, the Democrats have zero chance to take control of either House of Congress, based on hard-headed analysis of the facts on the ground. I'd be curious to see why you think otherwise.
Especially, why do you think the "real strategy" is to retake the House and Senate at the same time that the Democrats' presidential nominee is going down the toilet? It's sort of like throwing a drowning man an anchor rather than a life buoy, don't you think?
John / Billybob
From a policy standpoint, the man is a disaster, combining as he does the worst features of McGovernite cut-and-run foreign policy, Carterish one-worldism, and Mondalesque tax hikes. Electorally, he's even worse; no geographic base to speak of, only some unions and (maybe) the traditional black, homosexual, professioriat, and lockstep loony lefty voting base.
What states do he or the 'Rats think he'll carry, f'Heaven's sake? VT, ok, probably. MA ME, likely enough, RI, too. CT? Tossup, at best. NH, forget it. NY, assuming Hitlery doesn't torpedo his ass, very possibly as is NJ. But south of there, he's got only DC and a shot at MD. Scratch PA and OH -- battleground states no more, or at least not with Howard the Doc as the head of the ticket.
MI? Dunno -- can our MI FReeper friends tell how much influence the Mohammedan vote has in Wayne Co. and statewide? Enough to tip it? I've no idea. IL is a possible, courtesy of Crook County and the utter disarray of the Pubbies there. WI, don't think so, I believe the idiot Gov there has stabbed the 'Rats in the knee with his shenanigans on marriage and CCW. MN, far less likely than in 2000, and IA goes in the GOP column this time, too.
Which leaves, fapp for the 'Rats, NM, CA, OR, WA, HI, and conceivably NV -- and they'll lose a couple of those states, likely enough, esp. if the economy is into a solid recovery. What's that add up to? Maybe 130-140 EVs, best case, and could be well under 100 if Dean continues to make remarks weird enough to make the average psychotic look like Einstein. Hell's bells, even the inept Dole did better than that.
OK, that's my 2 cents, take it from there.
I am curious how the revilation the Kerry is not even a little bit Green will cost him among the Irish vote.
Let's not sit back in self assurance but continue to work hard to ensure that it does in fact become reality.
The money has to be spent wisely. The volunteers have to be well organized and well motivated. But mechanics and facts on the ground do determine whether a given candidate in a given election is almost certainly dead meat. Or whether his/her opponent is almost certainly a winner.
Imagine pitting the Oklahoma football team against Harvard. No rational person would bet on Harvard. But you still do have to play the game. It is still necessary to "execute." And Karl Rove is a past master at "execution" in political campaigns.
John / Billybob
He is neglecting the third and most important condition; Hillery would have to be relatively sure she could beat Dubya. I believe she would only consider it if the economy is tanking and Dubya's approval rating is significantly below 50%, in the 40% range. My bet is she will wait until 2008.
POKER NOTE
They are "table stakes" games. That means any competitor can at any time go "all in."
The term the author is looking for here is "no limit". "Table stakes" means that you can only play with money already on the table when the hand starts. You can add money between hands, but not during the hand.
I hope that some computer gurus are, even as we speak, having a look-see at the question you raise.
John / Billybob
I'm not quite as convinced as you are about the outcomes of the Democrat nomination and the general election, but I'm leaning that way in both cases.
At this point, I'd say Dean is almost even money to take the nomination. His decision to forego matching funds has to be a psychological blow to the other dwarves, and will bring confidence to his followers. Still, it should be noted that 1) not a single delegate has yet been selected, and it might be a tad early for the coronation; 2) Dean, as the leader for the nomination, will get ganged up on by the others, as we saw in the aftermath of the pickup truck/Confederate flag flap; 3) Dean, being hot-tempered, will have ample opportunity to again "step in it"; and 4) I question whether Dean can carry South Carolina against a field that will have been effectively narrowed by then, even if there are no official dropouts.
I confess to still having a touch of Gephardtphobia. If he manages to win the Iowa caucus (which he must to remain viable; 2nd place in a Midwestern state by the only major Midwestern candidate won't cut it), he could survive a 3rd place finish in New Hampshire, and look toward the South, where he is (inexplicably) viewed by some as a moderate.
Everyone will have his opinion, of course, and everyone's guesses will change based on events (I, for instance, had thought Graham would have made an impact, and I couldn't have been more off the mark). As of now, I'd give Dean a 45% chance of taking the nomination; Gephardt 15%; Kerry 10%; Hillary 10% (things would have to break "just right" for her to "parachute in," as you pointed out); and the rest combined 20%. Clark was among the leaders for a few hours, as I recall; it looks like he has the staying power of a soap bubble.
With respect to the general election, I think a failure of our incipient economic recovery is the only thing that could beat President Bush. Certainly I'd feel better about his chances even if the recovery falters if Dean is the nominee. But any Democratic candidate who could manage to couch his image in moderate terms could be dangerous under such circumstances. "It's the economy, stupid" could still resonate if the stock market re-tanks and the payroll rebound reverses.
I'm optimistic with regard to both the economy and the general election. But I don't see it as a lock.
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.