I don't really understand about Dean.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
In fact, of the last 4 presidents, the only one to shrink the government was Clinton, the most liberal.

Perhaps you mentioned the fact that I mentioned Clinton myself. So, I fail to see your point. I'd also dispute Clinton being all that liberal. Then again I'd also dispute McCain "as staunch a conservative you could ask for."

Dean isn't proposing raising taxes per se

I'm merely telling you how such a stance is going to be portrayed by people with more money than Dean has to get thier message out.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Perhaps you mentioned the fact that I mentioned Clinton myself. So, I fail to see your point. I'd also dispute Clinton being all that liberal. Then again I'd also dispute McCain "as staunch a conservative you could ask for."

Of the last 4 presidents, whom would you say was the most liberal, DD? This shouldn't take long to answer.

McCain received 100% approval in his voting record for several conservative watchdog groups. What about his stances are so liberal? McCain's sole offense was being pro-campaign finance reform. That's why he was labeled liberal, and for no other reason.

Quote:

Dean isn't proposing raising taxes per se

I'm merely telling you how such a stance is going to be portrayed by people with more money than Dean has to get thier message out.

The misportrayal is entirely the point. Dean's stances are not particularly liberal--they are quite centrist. Will the right wing portray it as liberal to quash his campaign? Of course. But that doesn't change the fact that his positions and record are not that liberal. Again, the right wing will accuse any candidate who actually answers to the voters rather than corporate interests as being liberal.

[Timexwatch]

Originally posted by MrFun


Haven't you heard of the voting mobilization of younger adults called, "Rock the Vote?"

"Rock the Vote"? Are you serious? They're good about doing backoffice work like sorting and mailing voter registration forms and other gruntwork that University student groups would find hard to do, but I haven't seen them as that effective (I've worked with them on several occasions during student-run voter registration drives).


The best way to mobilize the under-30 set would be a drive to bring the voting age back up to 21.

Gepap:
As well as Bush campaigning on massive cuts to programs, unless he decides to stick with his program to raise deficits.

Large sections of the Bush tax cut have not even come into being, and some, like raising the minimum alternative tax would INCREASE the middle class tax burden, so calling repealing a tax cut that has not come inot being a tax hike is not that honest. As for reapealing the sections that have come into being-if the deficit is as big as it is, fiscal dicipline is needed.

So basically Dean can run on fiscal disicpline, and as far as I know, centrists like fiscal dicipline.

If the Bush camp keeps hammering on the idea that "Repealing Tax Cuts = Raising your taxes" and makes it stick, Dean is in trouble.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Don't believe the spin, Lancer. Dean is pro-gun, pro-death penalty, and fiscally moderate to conservative. He is pegged as a leftie because he is an outspoken critic of the war, the President, and the Democratic Party. He's rather the to right of McCarthy, but becuase the media is lazy and the Repubs love to lie (and because the other Dem hopefulls will say anything to knock Dean down to try and get the nomination themselves), it's "convention wisdom" that Dean is some kinda leftie.

Frankly, all these folks saying Dean can't win, were also saying he'd never get the nomination in the first place. I think it's time to stop paying attention to the pundents and the "conventional wisdom." Stop being lazy and actually do some research on the candidates.

I myself do not like Dean, but I like the movement around Dean, which is exceedingly (small d) democratic.

When Dean calls the Clintons the Republican Wing of the Democrat Party, he defines himself fairly well.

Given this self-definition, he will have an enormously hard time winning the election since he will have alienated both conservatives and moderates.

I hardly think he as a hope of taking any Southern states. So Bush starts with the election all but rapped up and can spend his time attacking the Democrat base states, like California. Dean has very little chance of winning.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
How well do you think campaigning on raising taxes will go for him?

Shouldn't hurt. The electorate is rather nervous about that totally Republican deficit.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Lol Keep telling yourself that Che.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Lol Keep telling yourself that Che.

:shugs: That's what the polls say. Most people didn't want the tax cut but wanted the government to be solvent and the debt paid down.

Question, why are Republicans so obsessed that Dean might win if they're sure he's going to lose to Bush?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Not obsessed just wondering how they need to frame their attack rhetoric. Need to know which of the 9 is the player.

[Ramo]

Interesting article on electoral math by Republican pollsters: http://www.moore-info.com/Poll_Updat...in Sept 03.htm

Hmmm.. it should work fine now. And finally, it does!

[chequita guevara]

That link, she's a no good.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


:shugs: That's what the polls say. Most people didn't want the tax cut but wanted the government to be solvent and the debt paid down.

Question, why are Republicans so obsessed that Dean might win if they're sure he's going to lose to Bush?

I think any Republican who truly advocates one of the Democrat candidates over others is a fool. They may pick a radical and that radical may just get elected. Most Dems thought Ronald Reagan was just such a radical, after all, and were eager that he be nominated over Bush.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Here is the politicalcompass of the 2004 primary candidates... based on VOTING RECORDS and policy plans... not propaganda speeches.

So you think Dean is more authoritarian than Kerry? Then why back Dean?

[Guynemer]

Fascinating article, Ramo. Summarizes what I've been arguing all along, only from a GOP point of view.

[OzzyKP]

Dems move left for the primary and right for the general election. Dean is doing the same thing. You'll hear more about his conservativism after he seals up the nomination.

And I think he has a better shot to challenge Bush than anyone. Polls in Time show him trailing Bush 46% to 51% if the election were held now. That's pretty amazing, considering lots of people are still unfamiliar with Dean, and he hasn't done his run to the center after the primaries are over.

The new conventional wisdom is that Gore lost in 2000 cause he was too centrist. He didn't turn out his base, and lost lots of votes to Nader. This election will be about turning out the party faithful, less about capturing the middle swing voters. Dean is better positioned to do that than Kerry or Lieberman.

I think it'll be an interesting year.

I might be going up to NH in two weeks to hob nob with some candidates and possibly campaign for Dean a bit. We'll see how it plays out.

[Ramo]

Also Guy, the article pre-dates the steel tariff repeal, so Dean's even stronger in places like WV and Ohio than the article suggests.

And if developing states start taking us to the WTO over agrisubsidies - which they almost certainly will do now that the "peace clause" has expired, Shrub can lose very, vergy big. If he repeals the subsidies, all of those Republican farming states in the midwest will go Democrat and he'll lose the election badly. If he rejects the WTO's demands, he'll piss off everyone else because of the retalitory tariffs that'd trigger, and lose the election even worse.

I'll be rather suprised if Dean manages to lose the election.

[Alexander's Horse]

You need a real President not the hand puppet you have now.

[Boris Godunov]

That's why if I ever meet Karl Rove, I'll make sure not to shake his hand. I know where it's been...

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Shouldn't hurt. The electorate is rather nervous about that totally Republican deficit.

How well did Mondale do in his run for the White House again?

[GePap]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
How well did Mondale do in his run for the White House again?

The Babyboomers are now 20 years closer to retirement- and we know how "me" oriented they are.

[chequita guevara]

Gepap makes an excellent point. The Boomers know they're retiring soon. They want the government to be able to pay Social Security to them. That means paying down the debt and no deficits.

[Shi Huangdi]

Most political science research that has looked at what voters look to be most important in assesing the economy, and deficits are not one of them. Note how the GOP when they increased deficits greatly in the 1980's won in both 1984(against a pro-tax raise) candidate and 1988. The Democrats tried this populist "Wealthiest 1%" argument against Bush's tax cuts in 2000, and the Democrats lost after 8 years of peace and propserity and most forecasting models gave Gore winning with as much as 55%-60% of the vote. Anti-Tax populism, while inspiring to the Democratic base, just typically does not work.

[chequita guevara]

Yes, but Gore lost in 2000 because of vote fraud, not because of he lost the vote. And the Dem's took control of Congress and kept it during the Reagan-Bush era. Plus, the Boomers weren't gonna be retiring for another thirty years. Now it's only six years away, and the government, if it doesn't fix things, is gonna be hard pressed to make its payments.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by GePap
The Babyboomers are now 20 years closer to retirement- and we know how "me" oriented they are.

I still see no real evidence that a pro-tax raise candidate like Dean would be able to carry the day but we'll find out for sure before the end of the year.

Yes, but Gore lost in 2000 because of vote fraud

Gore lost because he was an idiot. Given the conditions of the time, it was his to loose from the start.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
Most political science research that has looked at what voters look to be most important in assesing the economy, and deficits are not one of them. Note how the GOP when they increased deficits greatly in the 1980's won in both 1984(against a pro-tax raise) candidate and 1988. The Democrats tried this populist "Wealthiest 1%" argument against Bush's tax cuts in 2000, and the Democrats lost after 8 years of peace and propserity and most forecasting models gave Gore winning with as much as 55%-60% of the vote. Anti-Tax populism, while inspiring to the Democratic base, just typically does not work.

Interestingly, i remember the press having discussions about what GW would do in case he lost fater winning the popular vote. Never did those models get any reporting in the press. As far as jan 2000 it was assumed Bush was the frontrunner and for most of the race that was the talk. Gore was NEVER seen as the frontrunner in the race, NEVER.

[GePap]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I still see no real evidence that a pro-tax raise candidate like Dean would be able to carry the day but we'll find out for sure before the end of the year.

Its how the debate is framed: if the republicsn succeed in saying it about tax and spend liberals, they have an edge. if democrats succeed at making it about spend and burden with debt quasi-conservatives, they have an edge.

[Ned]

GePap, I don't see how Dean can win given his anti-war, pro tax positions. At least Clark is has some credibility on defense because of his status as a four-star general.

[Lancer]

"GePap, I don't see how Dean can win given his anti-war, pro tax positions. At least Clark is has some credibility on defense because of his status as a four-star general."

Dean's anti war stance won't wash in a time when we need someone like Bush who doesn't shy away from a fight. People see that Bush has caught many of the terrorists who attacked the WTC the first time around, blew a hole in the Cole killing US servicemen, and blew up the embasys in africa...all events that occured during Clinton's watch. I got sooo sick of the US getting bloodied and not hitting back, that I'm glad to finally have a fighter in the ring. So glad that I'm willing to forgive a few screw ups on Bush's part. Dean makes me worry that once again US servicemen will die and once again we will do nothing.

[Shi Huangdi]

""Yes, but Gore lost in 2000 because of vote fraud, not because of he lost the vote. "

Bear in mind the forecasting models predict the popular vote anyway, which Gore did win. But since you mention voter fraud, it's likely Gore's numbers there could be inflated in terms of the popular vote because of more sophisticated Democratic Party machines. (Chicago being the worst example)

"
Interestingly, i remember the press having discussions about what GW would do in case he lost fater winning the popular vote. Never did those models get any reporting in the press. As far as jan 2000 it was assumed Bush was the frontrunner and for most of the race that was the talk. Gore was NEVER seen as the frontrunner in the race, NEVER."

Political forecasting models often don't get much attention, but that doesn't mean they aren't there, and they are nearly always right(1960 being the only exception, and that was a case of known voter fraud). Gore's 48% of the popular vote didn't come clost to what was predicted of him by political scientists.

"Also Guy, the article pre-dates the steel tariff repeal, so Dean's even stronger in places like WV and Ohio than the article suggests. "

Even stronger? Those are both very socially conservative states and the races there will likely be decided on social issues. The latest polls, and they were before Saddam's capture, Bush had a huge lead in Ohio in a potential matchup: 57-38

"And if developing states start taking us to the WTO over agrisubsidies - which they almost certainly will do now that the "peace clause" has expired, Shrub can lose very, vergy big. If he repeals the subsidies, all of those Republican farming states in the midwest will go Democrat and he'll lose the election badly. If he rejects the WTO's demands, he'll piss off everyone else because of the retalitory tariffs that'd trigger, and lose the election even worse."

I think you are overestimating the effects of them. It isn't clear that a trade war will break out, and if it does how long it will take it to break out, and if longer peace can be negotiated, and with the EU and Japan on our side I doubt there is much the WTO can do. Moreover, those farming states again are extremely socially conservative and it is highly unlikely many would be competetive under any circumstance.

From the article:

"With no significant opposition to Harry Reid in the Senate race and the nuclear repository issue alive and kicking, Nevada is going to be tough for the President. "

These people ought to look more at empirical evidence, and it doesn't look like the nuclear issue will be that big of a deal, BUsh is ahead there by a huge margin.

Also interesting from the current polling is Bush's 25 point lead in New Hampshire, where Dean has gotten the most exposure, showing just how well Dean's message is getting across to voters.

[Shi Huangdi]

Oh, and if they really think Bush is going to be hampered in Nevada due to lack of opposition from Harry Reid, as if that would greatly affect turnout for an important Presidential contest like this, they are truly nuts.

[Ben Kenobi]

You'll hear more about his conservativism after he seals up the nomination.

I really appreciate how he uses his Christianity when it's popular, and puts it aside when it is not. Bush doesn't care what people think about his faith, if they disagree, they just have to deal with it. I would rather he just not try to pander to these votes, it would give me more respect for what Dean believes. Now he's just a weathercock.