ex-idaho

There has been a great deal of banter regarding what is perceived by us on the board and those in media see as the greatest obstacles to a Democratic win in '04. I would like to address these and add a few of my own.

Kerrey: He has some real positives such as a war record and true lefty creditials as a anti-war activist during the Vietnam era. Unfortuantely he has abandoned that position for political reasons post 9-11 so he could look like a another tough guy. I think he will have a very difficult time relating to electorates in the South and to minorities. I also think that Kerrey suffers from a lack of charisma a'la Gore.

Dean: Dean will have to work on his delivery under pressure. There has been a lot of talk suggesting that he was a hot head and while I haven't seen anything to suggest this I can see it as true considering his firey rhetoric and obvious passion. I also think that Dean will have a difficult time in the South and in minority relations. He lacks the Clintonesque quality that made it so natural for him when talking with the poor and disenfranchised.

Gephardt: His biggest obstacle is history. He is a known element that most people outside of Missouri don't really care to much about. He has strong ties to unions which is great but they have dwindling power. If Gephardt manages to make it through the first couple of primaries then the Union money could make a difference but I don't think he will get that far.

Leiberman: I don't believe that he has a snowballs chance in hell. While he certainly has name recognition on his side he isn't very likeable and the people that vote in the Democratic primary find his positions to be way to far to the right. His willingness to work with Bush on Mid-East policy I believe is also a major flaw. The primary electorate will hold accountable any candidate that is too closely associated with this administration.

Graham: I think he has a lot to offer on the foreign policy agenda but I think he is a bit to radical in his approach. He favors sending troops into Isreal to crush Hezbollah which is the last thing we need in Mid-East realtions. I also think that if he were to get the nod he could easily be painted as strange considering his journal habit.

The are the only candidates that have declared that I think have a shot.

ieyeasu

I think there are a few problems with the Democratic party.

The first being that they don't lock step the way the Repubs do. They still act as the individual's political party--there's way too much leeway on what a Democrat can do within the party. Of course, that's how it ought to be, but with the disciplined Repubs on the opposition, it makes things hard. The right just plays better power politics right now.

Second--and I know this sounds very conservative to say, but I think its the truth--Is that I believe the party still rallys behind Clinton. Unfortunately, he can't run, so he's really a dead issue.

I don't think there really is a candidate strong enough to defeat Bush in our personality driven popularity contest. The fact is, most people in the good old US of A are stupid enough to want Georgie's cowboy act. I think the election really depends on how much he can screw up between now and November 04.

ex-idaho

From this article: Howard Dean's Low-Rent Allure

Danya

I think Krugman was on to something when he said this in an article comparing why Bush has gotten more of a free ride than Blair.
I believe a great deal has to do with not only issues but presentation. IMO, Graham would have a problem winning even if he didn't have 'radical' views. He seems kind of flakey no matter what he's talking about or how much sense he's making. Gephardt comes off as wimpy. lieberman comes off as already being bought and paid for but at least that's an honest representation. Kerry, like Gore, doesn't inspire. Edwards comes off as defensive. And arrogant but without the experience or age to carry it off.

Whoever is chosen has to have a certain style in presentation. Style before substance seems to be a very real issue in this country. This is something I've believed since the 2000 elections. Neither Bush nor Gore were that great at presenting themselves and had Gore been stronger in that area I don't think the whole race would have come down to Florida...I think he would have taken more electoral votes in other states AND been further ahead in Florida as well...even with all the cheating.

I also don't think it's as deep as the DLC seems to imagine. I don't believe it's that Dean's policies are too far to the left (I think that's actually why he's doing so well) but that he has a problem being able to handle himself well, including his delivery under pressure. He doesn't come off as being responsible and level headed enough. But it's more than that.

Clinton was derisively called 'Slick Willy' because the GOP saw that as a threat and they were right...it was. But that is what sold him so well and carried him through certain issues his base would normally not have supported him in, such as welfare reform. I see this as the major problem with all of the candidates we have to choose from right now. The issues DO matter...but Bush's policies and performance have created so much damage already that he is already weak in that area as it is. If it were only about the issues almost any of the current candidates could beat him. But they lack the right combination of presentation and style. Hillary has it...but she's a woman and has too many enemies. Clark has it but he lacks the experience although I still think he could carry it off with the right running mate.

Bill

ex-idaho: Did you leave Edwards out because you felt his only appeal was in the south? If so, why did you leave Graham in, who is largely indistinguishable from Edwards on the issues, and is way behind Edwards in fundraising? Sure, Graham has a big following down here in Florida, but that won't get him the nomination.

I don't give either Edwards or Graham a real shot at the top spot, and the quicker that Lieberman flames out and gives up on his campaign, the happier I will be (the early signs of turmoil are setting in as Lieberman has been forced to make major changes in his campaign staffing and funding as the money wasn't coming in to support his original strategy).

Finally, there is no real need to discuss the bottom 3, Kucinich, Sharpton, and Mosely-Braun.

=====

So, we are back to what the pundits are calling the "top tier" of candidates: Gephardt (still leading in Iowa, by a lot), Kerry (still leading in New Hampshire, but only by a nose), and Dean, the "up and coming" attraction.

Of those three (and in fact, of the top six), Dean has a tremendous built-in advantage because he is campaigning literally full-time, while the rest of them have to keep one foot in Washington DC. Dean can do at least twice the campaign events of any of the "serious candidates" because he is currently among the "unemployed." Dean has one other major advantage over all the rest of them: his money to date has come from a far larger number of contributors, meaning that his primary matching funds check from the government will be much larger than any of the rest of them. That will be important when it comes to who can afford to make what sort of media buys in January, February, and March. "People-Powered Howard" translates directly to cash in the bank because the federal government only matches the first $250 that any one person donates to any one candidate.

=====

I've been active in politics for more than three decades, beginning as a Republican under Nixon (I have signed memorabilia from the 1972 campaign when I went to Republican Party events in Washington, DC; along with some signed books from people like Maurice Stans, who went to jail as part of the Watergate mess). I "divorced" the Republicans in 1982 after Reagan emulated LBJ and gave us guns, butter, and an unimaginably large federal budget deficit. 2004 will be the first election for President since 1980 that I've voted for a major party candidate. Needless to say, I've registered as a Democrat for the first time in my life (glad my parents are dead or they would disown me for sure...).

I give you this history background in order that you not take lightly what I'm about to say. In other words, I'm pulling out the argument from authority on you all.

Bush will probably beat Kerry. I have some bad recollections of Kerry in earlier races for President. People talk about Dean's temper, well Kerry has problems under pressure too. Sort of like Edwin Muskie was famous for (if you are old enough to remember that fiasco). My gut tells me that if Kerry wins, his campaign will implode sometime before November, 2004, and the wounds are most likely to be self-inflicted. Also, Kerry has been in politics for such a very long time that Bush will have no problem pulling out old sound bites and accusing Kerry of "waffling" on the issues.

Gephardt can't excite voters that are too far outside of his congressional district (where he is known for supporting the aerospace industry that provides a lot of good-paying jobs in his district). Gephardt is leading in Iowa by virtue of the fact that he went through this exercise four years ago and still has a base there. But if Al Gore could beat Gephardt four years ago, you have to know that Gephardt isn't the best candidate that the Democrats can put forward; not by a long shot.

Yes, there are some negatives about Dean, including his increasingly-famous temper. But so long as Dean can control his temper on camera, he is the odds-on favorite to win because he is running a classical Carter/Reagan/Clinton/Bush, Jr. "outside the beltway" campaign. Please also note that all four of those Presidents were Governors! The only two Governors in the current crop are Dean and Graham, and people just don't take Graham seriously outside of Florida.

Graham needs to make a decision fairly soon as to whether he is running for President or for re-election to the Senate next year. "The natives are restless" here in Florida, as a number of top Democrats want to run for Graham's seat if Graham himself is going to run for President. I don't think that Graham can get away with a Lieberman and run for both. Florida isn't Connecticutt, and we have the third Bush as our Governor down here to call attention to Graham if he tries to have it both ways.

But even as long ago as May 30, ABC news was talking up a Dean / Graham ticket. The reasons given bear a strong resemblance to what I've been talking about, above. If Graham can't get his presidential fundraising cranked up rather quickly, by the end of September he will be too far behind the power curve to have any realistic chance to catch up. At that point, if he has already given up running for re-election as Senator, he may well begin angling for the VP slot on a Dean ticket. If so, that might prove to be a dream come true for the Democrats because Graham, with all his years as Senator, would give the ticket the "inside the beltway" expertise while Dean could continue to run as the "outside the beltway" former Governor who will "set things right again" in DC.

=====

Anyway, that's my analysis of this year's crop of candidates. I've thrown my money and time behind Dean because I view him as having the best chance to prune the shrub.

== Bill

Bill

Many pundits have noted that certain politicians just seem to come "teflon coated." Nothing sticks to them.

John Kennedy had that quality. Ronald Reagan was famous as the "teflon President" in spite of some of the huge scandals during his administration. I think that Bush, Jr. is getting some of that same foregiveness from the American people. See HERE: But Bush, Jr. isn't quite as resistant as Reagan was to bad news that wasn't scandalous. Average Americans couldn't bring themselves to think ill of Reagan on any topic. That clearly isn't the case with Bush, Jr. Bush, Jr. needs to go back to the factory to be re-coated.

== Bill

ex-idaho

I left out Edwards because he is polling in the single digits in S Carolina where he was born and is in last or damn close to it in Iowa and NH. He will be the first candidate to drop out because it is just humiliating after all the early talk of him be the next Clinton.

I left Graham in because with the release of the Congressional report n 9-11 he is getting a tremendous amount of exposure. This may or may not translate into support and donations but it certainly can't hurt. Just yesterday I heard him on 3 different NPR programs.

Beer God

The biggest obstacle is not any of the political issues for the democrats, its money. And Bush has more, lots more.

In fact Bush is probably going to spend more money on the next presidential campaign, than any candidate in the history of the US.

Its going to make the democrats wonder why they are bothering to compete in the first place.

If anything there may be one debate between Bush and the democrat nominee, but the real battle will be fought on TV ads, radio, advertisements and so on. And Bush simply has more money to spend on those.

ohwilleke

As far as I can tell Graham is well to the right of Edwards on the issues. I doubt it would be a good match for Dean as a VP.

If I'm Graham, I'm likely to hitch my star to either Gephardt or Lieberman. Graham's value in the race is his ability to deliver Florida. Graham can do that attached to Gephardt or Lieberman, who are consistently #1 and #2 in the South (except in Florida where Graham is #1). Given that I agree that Lieberman is falling fast as soon as his competition gets better known and his fund raising falls apart, more likely Gephardt, who at least has more support in the North and Midwest.

The theory would be that a Gephardt-Graham ticket, for example, could deliver more Southern states to Democrats than any other ticket, and that Northern Democrats who are repulsed by Bush would be forced to go along. (Not necessarily true as the Nader run showed).

People who are not going to vote for Dean in Florida, are not going to do so just because Graham is widow dressing in the VP slot. If I'm Dean, I'd rather have Clark, or if not him, Edwards.

CALDONIA

Bush's money will be quite enough for tons of stupid photo-ops and lying campaign commercials. But in Presidential Debates (and there will be some) he is very vulnerable to an aggressive debater. He is no longer the untainted "new face" and in defending his four-year rule he cannot rest on such indefinable concepts like "compassionate conservative" and "a uniter, not a divider."

Therefore, rather than pander for the Moron-American vote, the Dems must go on the attack and expose the current Fraud for the pretender that he is. So far, Dean alone seems to have this spirit within him.