Thomas Ash

Hi all,

I know as a non-American it might not seem like this should concern me (though actually given the United States' current prominence in the world it should concern everyone) but for this question can I be an honorary - or dishonorary, depending on your PoV - Democrat?
My question is: who, from the current field, do you think the Democrats should choose as their presidential candidate for 2004? You can consider both how much you like their position, and how likely you think they are to win, though I'd prefer if yu could concentrate on the former, as I think this makes for a more interesting (and focused) debate.
My answer is probably John Kerry. He's more electable than, say, Howard Dean (thugh I'm not entirely sure I'd like to see Howard Dean elected), though maybe not the Democrats mst mainstream, 'ordinary guy', electable character (that would be someone like John Edwards.) But I think he'd make a good liberal President who would be in practice able to steer the country in a more liberal direction. He's solidly socially liberal, and though I'm not aware of any stated position on this, strikes me as someone who would be willing to steer against the political wind to, for instance, get generous, few-strings-attached funding for stem cell research and maybe even thereapeutic cloning thrugh, in way that a Clinton or Edwards wouldn't. (Not that there's any evidence that the majority of the American public are that against stem cell research.)
But at the same time, he seems like someone who would be economically reasonable, but without that meaning paying no attention to programs for the poor or where tax cuts should be targeted.
That's my two cents. Any thoughts?

See also:
My website section on politics.
Atheist Ground, my other website.

slept2long

John McCain.

I like Dean the best so far. I don't know if he or any of them for that matter will be able to rock the boat though. Bush is sitting on a powder keg and the Dems are weilding fire extinguishers instead of blowtorches.

Thomas Ash

Agreed. This is definitely a winnable election... but I don't think the Democrats are going to take the right approach to winning it.
On the domestic agenda, Bush has done a lot of things that could be turned against him as using a contested election win to advance a radical right-wing aganda. And he's presided over a real recession, arguably just through bad luck. The exact shape and size of his tax cuts, though not seriously unpopular (tax cuts rarely are), are not exactly what people wanted. If it weren't for September 11th and Iraq, this would have created a political landscape in which he was quite vulnerable. It still could if the chosen Democrat can be credible on national security, while shifting the main focus of the debate to the domestic arena.

Optional

Well, the candidate I'd most like to see would be Dean. After him, I mostly agree with Kucinich but think he wouldn't be particularly electable, not so much agree with Kerry but think he WOULD be electable...

Sharpton and Mosely Braun are completely UNelectable, so I wouldn't want them.

Lieberman would be a fucking disaster. If Lieberman wins the primaries, it will prove once and for all that the Democrats are no longer viable as a seperate political party.

Outside of those, ehhh... I'd vote for the dem in order to vote AGAINST the bush, but I wouldn't be particularly excited about the candidate.

I also think the democrats have PLENTY of issues to attack bush with... Handled right, the election will be a democratic lock. But it will require boldness and the willingness to heavily criticise the current administration, and I haven't seen very many democrats lately with a spine...

So why wouldn't you want to see Dean as president?

-me

Nickle

I think as election nears, more of the problems of the Bush administration will come to light. I know the dems seem to be pussyfooting around, but perhaps they are just saving their ammo.

I think the major problem is most people just don't know/care about the state of our country. Having an election forces some (most?) to look into it. Remember, everything was fine and dandy for Bush Sr. right up to election time. I know Perot took away his votes, but his son has more problems than he did.

Bush won much support in the last election because he was a 'moderate' candidate. In a nation of fence sitters, that gets votes. Clinton came off the same way. But since then Bush has shown his true colors: he's holds exreme ideologies that are far from moderate. Most voters will find that unpalatable.

There is a laundry list of problems with this administration. I'd like to think most people will know about these by election time. By election, Bush will lose support of the moderate voters and be stuck with just the fundies.

So basically, to answer the OP, any moderate democrat would have a good chance. I'm not sure if Dean fits the bill.

Tom Sawyer

I think either Dean or Kerry would have a chance if they start attacking Bush more. I'm generally not in favour of attack-style campaigning, but I have so many problems with the current administration that I would welcome it.

Also, the main problem with the democrats right now is that they've rolled over on everything and don't stand for much on their own. They need to grow a spine and start holding Bush accountable and calling him on all the crap he's trying to pull.

This is going to be a close election at best (at worst, it will be a Bush sweep). The Democrats are not going to win the so-called "red" states. The candidate will either be going for democratic ideals, so thse ones will vote Republican, or they'll be little Republicans, so those ones will vote for the real Republican. If they want to have a chance, they have to give voters a real choice between ideologies, so people will bother to go to the voting booth.

Oh ya, also the Nader voters will have to swallow their bile and vote Democrat. It's the lesser of two evils.

Viti

I am pulling for Dean...but just don't know if he has enough support to win the nomination. Of those I have heard about, I would LEAST like Lieberman...the guy is way way too far to the right for me.

Godless Dave

Dean really is pretty moderate, but because he doesn't suck big business dick the DLC are portraying him as far-left ala Wellstone. Dean is against any further gun control laws at the federal level () and his "universal" health care is really more an expansion of Medicare/Medicaid, and relies on the private sector.

Gurdur

But do you see any signs of such impending rationality ?

scarmig

Democratic nomination?

The dead one.


Same for the republican guy.

Hell with it.

Same for the libertarian and green guys.

None of them are worth their water.