New Hampshire result

[Jac de Molay]

Lieberman needs to drop out. He won't win the nomination, and he certainly has no chance of beating Bush. I wouldn't even vote for LIEberman. We don't need a Bush-lite.

Agree. The guy is just a flake, and is starting to look like an albatross around the party's neck.

Anybody who speaks out so vehemently against violence in the media, but votes for a resolution for us to vaporize thousands of innocents in Iraq, is a pure hypocrite

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Jac de Molay


Agree. The guy is just a flake, and is starting to look like an albatross around the party's neck.

Anybody who speaks out so vehemently against violence in the media, but votes for a resolution for us to vaporize thousands of innocents in Iraq, is a pure hypocrite

I share Joes concerns about violence in the media, and think that the invasion of Iraq was the right thing to do. Perhaps youd like me to vote for Bush??

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
Thanks Ben. I'd sure would like a site or sites where I could get tracking polls for next week's primaries.

Well, we now have a real frontrunner. Dean has no choice but to go negative on Kerry. He has the money to keep this thing muddy for a bit. Clark has to get negative also. I expect we will see some fireworks this week.

What does ole Joe want out of this anyway? Is he just pissed off at Al Gore and hanging around to take shots at Dean out of spite?

1. Theres still a possibility of a brokered convention. Good to hang around for that, if he can pick up some delegates
2. To make an ideological point to the party, to allow a minority within the party a chance to express themselves and make their presence known, and stake a claim to the future. Kinda like Jesse Jackson in '88.

[Ramo]

Yeah, I don't understand why Lieberman's still in the race. Now that Kerry stole his thunder by officially becoming the "anti-Dean," his only role is further splitting the support of the other DLC-friendly candidates.

[SpencerH]

How's about because only a tiny number of delegates have been chosen from a lefty state?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo
Yeah, I don't understand why Lieberman's still in the race. Now that Kerry stole his thunder by officially becoming the "anti-Dean," his only role is further splitting the support of the other DLC-friendly candidates.

Who are the DLC friendly candidates??? Not Wesley "i voted for Reagan but now like Mike Moore" Clark, who's anti DLC from both ends. Kerry - we'll see, but hes not in much danger of having his vote split - if anything, he needs to be challenged and tested. Edwards - maybe, though IIUC hes still rather on the protectionist side, which is important to DLC. In any case it looks like Joe will be focusing on Delaware and Oklahoma, while Edwards will be focusing on SC and MO, so probably not a lot of splitting at least on Feb 3.

[Ramo]

Kerry, Edwards, and Clark are all the DLC-friendly in the sense that they aren't trying to take away leadership of the Party from the DLC (as opposed to folks like Dean). And the DLC is fairly protectionist in certain areas - farm subsidies, textile quotas, and IP, for instance.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo
Kerry, Edwards, and Clark are all the DLC-friendly in the sense that they aren't trying to take away leadership of the Party from the DLC (as opposed to folks like Dean). And the DLC is fairly protectionist in certain areas - farm subsidies, textile quotas, and IP, for instance.

the dlc supports textile quotas?? thats news to me.

I think Kerry and Clark are willing to leave control in the hands of "the party establishment" I think its a mistake to equate "the party establishment" and the DLC, despite the DLC's influence under Clinton.

[Imran Siddiqui]

he claimed he was "split" at third with Clark and Edwards.

Well in total delegates he's close (the number that includes all the superdelegate party boss types).

Who are the DLC friendly candidates

Kerry is a member of the DLC, IIRC.. and is a very free trade candidate (I also wondered about the 'protectionist' DLC... Clinton wasn't very protectionist).

[Ramo]

the dlc supports textile quotas?? thats news to me.

Folks like Clinton were fine with them, last I checked. Nontariffal trade barriers aren't usually opposed by the DLC.

I think its a mistake to equate "the party establishment" and the DLC, despite the DLC's influence under Clinton.

Why do you say that?

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


the dlc supports textile quotas?? thats news to me.

I think Kerry and Clark are willing to leave control in the hands of "the party establishment" I think its a mistake to equate "the party establishment" and the DLC, despite the DLC's influence under Clinton.

Well, it seems democratic voters no longer car for the DLC, given Liebermans very poor showing. And his attempts at sidding with Clinton will fail because:

1.Gore was Clinton's sideman, not Lieberman
2. Most of Clinton's friends go for Clark
3. Liberman denounced Clinton, so how can you then try to make yourself the standardbearer?

[Ned]

Sava, what we do know about Clark was that he was fired from his Nato command due to lack of integrity. His fellow generals have nothing good to say about him.

In contrast, everyone who served with Kerry think the world of the man.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Ramo
Yeah, I don't understand why Lieberman's still in the race. Now that Kerry stole his thunder by officially becoming the "anti-Dean," his only role is further splitting the support of the other DLC-friendly candidates.

Do you have an explanation for Kucinich?

[Imran Siddiqui]

it seems democratic voters no longer car for the DLC

Well Kerry is DLC. At least that is what it says on his site.

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by Ned


Do you have an explanation for Kucinich?

I said it a page ago--he (and Sharpton) are flagrantly psychotic.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo


Folks like Clinton were fine with them, last I checked. Nontariffal trade barriers aren't usually opposed by the DLC.



Why do you say that?

Not everything clinton said or did was supported by the DLC - he was a VERY pragmatic pol, who did things for political reasons.

Why not the establishment - er, is Ted Kennedy DLC? Is Robert Byrd?? The Dem establishment is much broader than the DLC, and this was true even during the Clinton Presidency.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


Well, it seems democratic voters no longer car for the DLC, given Liebermans very poor showing. And his attempts at sidding with Clinton will fail because:

1.Gore was Clinton's sideman, not Lieberman
2. Most of Clinton's friends go for Clark
3. Liberman denounced Clinton, so how can you then try to make yourself the standardbearer?

1. Lieberman was running as the standardbearer of Clintonism, not of Clinton. Free trade, higher taxes on the rich while pandering to the middle, friendly to high tech, pro-environment, etc. Not fun with interns or quibbling about the meaning of "sex".

2. From the exit poll results and comments from NH and Iowa it seems that Joe lost not because of his policy stands, but because of poor performance as a campaigner, which was not only directly a problem, but also caused concern about his electability. (note that Pro-war voters in NH chose Kerry over Joe by 2 to 1) Of course its also true that free trade plays better in good economic times. I think its also true that Clinton didnt emphasize free trade that much during the primaries in '92. In that sense (as well as many others) maybe Kerry is more truely Clintonian than Joe

[Ned]

LotM, being right on the issues is only half of what makes a good presidential candidate.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

2. From the exit poll results and comments from NH and Iowa it seems that Joe lost not because of his policy stands, but because of poor performance as a campaigner, which was not only directly a problem, but also caused concern about his electability. (note that Pro-war voters in NH chose Kerry over Joe by 2 to 1) Of course its also true that free trade plays better in good economic times. I think its also true that Clinton didnt emphasize free trade that much during the primaries in '92. In that sense (as well as many others) maybe Kerry is more truely Clintonian than Joe

The largest chunk of voters who said they were voting due to thier agreement with a candidate on the issues voted for Dean, not Lieberman.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
Do you have an explanation for Kucinich?

Kucinich and Sharpton are running to try and get their issues aired and discussed. Neither or them think they have, nor did they ever think they had, a shot at winning.

[Ned]

Kerry seem to have what it takes to be a president based on what I have seen to date -- much more so than Dean or Clark or Edwards.

They call it "electability." But there is an "intangible" in good leaders that seems to come to the fore in America's grueling campaigns.

[chequita guevara]

The word you are looking for is integrity. Kerry is very good at faking it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Or he may actually have some .

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Or he may actually have some .

He used to have some, but then he became a politician.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Not all politicians have a lack of integrity. Lieberman, for one (while he is a tool), has tons of integrity, even though he's been a politician for so long

[SpencerH]

From what I've seen and heard, I'd say Kerry has a chance to beat Bush, while I dont think Dean does.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


The largest chunk of voters who said they were voting due to thier agreement with a candidate on the issues voted for Dean, not Lieberman.

well yeah, since dean got almost 3 times as many votes as lieberman, i suppose the larger numbers of voters who chose someone for any particular rationale chose Dean rather than Joe Frankly i dont see your point - i was disccusing why people who might have been expected to vote for Joe didnt, not why those who DID vote for him did so. I suspect most the would be Joe voters went for Edwards, Kerry or even Clark - not Dean.

[Ben Kenobi]

LoTM:

What proportion of voters who voted for Lieberman voted for his integrity vs. that of Dean? I'll bet the answer here would support your argument.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by SpencerH
From what I've seen and heard, I'd say Kerry has a chance to beat Bush, while I dont think Dean does.

I think that's a meme. If people weren't convinced that Dean couldn't beat Bush, Dean could bea Bush. Since they have been convinced that he can't, they won't support him. This system sucks.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


I think that's a meme. If people weren't convinced that Dean couldn't beat Bush, Dean could bea Bush. Since they have been convinced that he can't, they won't support him. This system sucks.

the folks in Iowa and New Hampshire spent a lot of time watching and listening to both. I think they decided based on their own observations, not on a media meme. (note that my fave candidate lost, mainly cause the good folks up there deemed him unelectable - id didnt agree and m frustrated, but sometime youve got to accept reality.