Which Democrat has the best chance to beat Bush in 2004? (no spam, please)

Gwalchmai · Post by **Gwalchmai** » Fri May 16, 2003 2:17 pm

Which Democrat has the best chance to beat Bush in 2004?

So far there is a field of nine contenders. I don’t know much about them, but I understand Gebhardt to be a solid front-runner. I guess he wants to explore alternative energy sources in a Manhattan Project-style effort. I hear Kerry is causing a stir by pointing out that the Democratic Party is almost indistinguishable from the Republicans these days.

Al Sharpton
John Edwards
Dennis Kucinich
Joe Leiberman
Richard Gebhardt
Carol Moseley-Braun
Howard Dean
John Kerry
Bob Graham

So, what do you think? Notice I am only asking which Dem has the best chance of beating Bush, not whether Bush will or should be beaten. That’s a different discussion. I’m more interested in understanding the Democratic hopeful’s platforms, strengths, and weaknesses. I am not interested in Bush bashing (here).

smass · Post by **smass** » Fri May 16, 2003 2:29 pm

What about Hilary?

Gwalchmai · Post by **Gwalchmai** » Fri May 16, 2003 2:30 pm

She's not running, but look for her in 2008.

CM · Post by CM » Fri May 16, 2003 3:04 pm

Lieberman could take it.

Gwalchmai · Post by **Gwalchmai** » Fri May 16, 2003 3:27 pm

I guess the questions I ask about Leiberman, are, considering his staunch support for the war in Iraq, how much appeal will he have to the disaffected in the Democratic Party? Maybe he doesn’t need to appeal to the disaffected?

Nippy · Post by **Nippy** » Fri May 16, 2003 3:28 pm

I am completely unaware of any of the Democrat candidates up against Bush in 2004, so it'd be nice if someone could do a review, or point me to a site that has one, I might give a better opinion that way, LOL.

CM · Post by CM » Fri May 16, 2003 3:29 pm

One issue cant affect his standing in the party can it?

fable · Post by **fable** » Fri May 16, 2003 4:13 pm

It's a bit early to tell, IMO. I think when the bottom of the economy falls out over the next year to pay for Iraq, we'll see just how the 30% of US citizens who are still willing to vote in a national election feel about voting for a pro-Iraq invasion candidate like Lieberman or an anti-Iraq invasion candidate like Kerry.

Gwalchmai · Post by **Gwalchmai** » Fri May 16, 2003 4:42 pm

It may be too early for sure, but the candidates are starting to position themselves now. I will be interested in seeing how their stances change as the economy and attitudes change.

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Fri May 16, 2003 4:46 pm

In presidential elections, there are only three essential factors, regardless of the candidates: war and peace, the state of the economy and the incumbent.

During times of war, the incumbent will almost always get re-elected. The lone exception is Lyndon Johnson who was undone by his "guns and butter" policies and an unpopular war; even Abe Lincoln, who was wildly unpopular in 1964 won re-election because US Grant was winning the war.

If there is no war going on, the next most important issue is the economy. If the economy is doing well, the incumbent will probably be re-elected. If the economy is flagging, they will probably be outsted.

All other issues, make virtually no difference in the way people vote. We saw this here in my town when a graduate student at the university here was elected mayor (carrying something wild like 60% of the vote; a landslide!) over an incumbent because the local economy sucks so bad.

We also saw this with President Bush who had 90% approval ratings at the height of Gulf War I, but then was ousted from office for burying his head in the sand after the economy bottomed out. Al Gore lost the election because Dubya made people believe that the economy was flagging; the election was Gore's to lose and he ran a poor campaign and allowed Dubya to dictate the tone. Instead of being proactive with the economy, he was reactive to Dubya's attacks and lost.

Whichever candidate the Democrats put forth in 2004 will have to rely heavily on the economy to go into a recession after Dubya's massive fiscal irresponsibility (which it probably will) and he will also have to hope Dubya can't start another war to boost his popularity.

at99 · Post by **at99** » Sun May 18, 2003 4:48 am

the only democrat that could win is one that can create a world in 7 days, failing that ......say hello to more mr bush

fable · Post by **fable** » Sun May 18, 2003 11:12 am

But remember, @at99, some of the pundits were saying the same thing right after the elder Bush's performance during the Gulf War. So if the economy goes south--as we've every indication it will--Dubya's popularity could evaporate overnight. Only one thing is certain in American national politics: absolutely nothing.

Gwalchmai · Post by **Gwalchmai** » Mon May 19, 2003 9:33 am

As a concerned liberal, I sometimes secretly hope that the economy really tanks, just so Bush looes.... Unfortunately, if the economy gets any worse I'll be out of a job. My co-workers are dropping like flies all around me...

I was wondering - can another Republican (like John McCain maybe) choose to run against Bush, or does he have the nomination locked up tight?

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Mon May 19, 2003 10:10 am

The hardline Republicans (ie-the fundy Christians and "re-treads") love Dubya because they can manipulate him and he is pre-disposed to following their agenda. McCain is too much of a wild card for the conservative elements in the Republican party to reign in, as are more centrist elements in the party like Chrstine Todd Whitman and Colin Powell.

I'd say the Republican party machine is going to lock up the nomination for Dubya because if the economy bombs out (which it's looking like it will), then they can't afford the divisive in-fighting which cost them the 1992 and 1996 elections.

fable · Post by **fable** » Mon May 19, 2003 10:23 am

Also, traditionally in the US, a party will not jettison a leader who is president and running for a second term; it hasn't happened in the 20th century. I suspect this is because doing so would be tantamount to an admission that their party platform under the current president was a failure, and no political party likes to admit having made wrong policy decisions.

Nightmare · Post by **Nightmare** » Mon May 19, 2003 1:08 pm

Even though I'm more left-winged about my views (and hence don't support Republicans), I would've like to have seen McCain beat Bush for the Republican leader race for the year 2000 elections.

Unfortunitely, as HLD said, McCain is mostly a wild card, kind of inbetween the two parties, ideologically. At least, thats the impression I got from him from a documentary I saw of him on TV.

To win in 2004, the Democrates need a very strong leader which can rebute many things said by the Bush administration with fear of being called anti-american. Does such a leader exist right now?

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Mon May 19, 2003 1:33 pm

The Democrats need to pick a candidate early and rally behind that candidate. They need to form a platform, stick to it and dictate the terms of the election the same way that Dubya did in 2000. Remember, the election was Gore's to lose; the economy was still going strong, there was no war going on and Al was the heir-apparent, but he allowed Dubya to talk down the economy and transfer Clinton's shortcomings on to him. As a result, he lost.

The Democrats needs to stick to one issue, "It's the economy, stupid" and beat into the electorate's head how irresponsible Dubya's fiscal policy has been and how the recession (which is where the economy will be in November 2004) is his fault. If Dubya is allowed to keep the initiative and dictate the pace of the election, he will win (and not need the Supreme Court to re-install him in office).

The Democrats have a few candidates who could stand up to Dubya: Joe Lieberman, Bill Bradley and Bob Graham to name three (although I don't think the Democrats want Graham to give up his seat as the senior senator from Florida; the Republicans control both houses of the legislature, the governorship, the junior senator and the majority of the state's Congressional delegation). However, as I said before, the Democrats need to pick a leader early, rally behind that person and spend more time campaigning against the Republicans than each other.

Gwalchmai · Post by **Gwalchmai** » Tue May 20, 2003 10:11 am

Listening to NPR this morning, they interviewed Bob Graham. He has the most political experience of the lot, including Governor, Senator from Florida, and many years on the National Security Committee. He advocates reducing taxes by ignoring the first $10,000 of earnings for everyone – an across-the-board tax cut that would be felt most by the middle and lower income citizens. He was one of the few who did not vote for the October Iraq resolution, citing that Iraq did not pose a significant threat to the US and that terrorism should remain the focus. He feels that the draw-down of troops and intelligence away from the terrorist threat and Al-Qaida to support the Iraq war has allowed the terrorists to re-group and the recent spate of bombings is a result of this.

He has recently had by-pass surgery, but his doctors have given him the green light. He is 66 years old, and if he were elected president, he would be the second oldest to hold the office. I have heard that some Democrats would not want him to run simply because he holds a senior senator seat and is from Florida, which is very Republican. They don’t want to lose their foothold there.

at99 · Post by **at99** » Tue May 20, 2003 6:02 pm

I think these democrats have to pick someone who was not anti-war. The reason being you will isolate yourself from the large populace who liked the idea the US seemed to take decisive action on terror. Many democrats are hoping the war on terror will be largely over by the election (take make it a non-issue).
I think the US public does not a like a wimp guy (an anti-war do nothing guy) and would hate the idea of 1 leading the country. (even movies show this Independence Day). If some the anti-war people can swallow their pride about the war and appeal to the public on this then this could give them a near equal footing with republicans ......(I think I am rambling a bit and being optimistic)

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Tue May 20, 2003 7:02 pm

Unless Dubya picks a fight with someone else, the public's memory of the war will have faded and the prevailing issue of the day will be the economy.