Will Bush beat Dean if Dean is the nominee?

[Gordon B]

I cast the first vote. Option 1.

[GoodSpeak]

OK.

Let me see if I've got this right, OK?

I post the Kobe Bryant thread and people are on me like ugly on an ape for allegedly trying this case in the court of public opinion before the trial begins.

You and others post Presidential election threads in advance of any declaration of the actual candidate OR any causual link to the presidential election OR the president appointee and somehow this is acceptable.



I AM amazed.

























Maybe if I was a republican things would be different, eh?

[Pete C]

Specious comparison.

Hypothetical polling is done all the time. A better analogy would be announcing a winner on election night before the results are in.

[GoodSpeak]

Predictions are predictions, Pete.


Plain and simple.

[Monte Smith]

Option 1.

[Salvador Dali Lama]

option 7: I vote, but not for either of those two demonseed, and Bush still wins.

[cookie]

I voted that I would vote for Dean and he will win. That is what I would personally like to see happen based on what I know right now (which is admittedly somewhat sketchy at this point).

In general, I personally like Dean on principle: he's about as liberal as a Democrat dares get these days. I think that what the country REALLY needs is radical change, but I'll settle for getting Bush et al out of office.

I will vote in the primaries and will do my homework more thoroughly as it approaches, but right now, I'm leaning toward Dean.

I want to believe that he can win. I don't think the Green Party will be an issue this year (for the record, I voted for Nader, but my state still went to Gore which I could live with. I don't feel that my vote was "wasted". I voted my conscience and I cherish that as my right). I'm willing to vote for pretty much ANY Democrat at this point (and oh, how I wish there was a wider palette of viable parties! ) and I would prefer to vote for one with liberal views on the environment, women's reproductive rights, civil (constitutional) rights, and social responsibility.

[walto]

I vote for Dean (if it IS Dean--I'm not so sure it will be), but he loses to the one, the only, G-Dub, who, in his second term, takes over the entire world.

[walto]

BTW, I don't think Goodie's analogy is specious. IMHO, there's nothing particularly wrong with either thread. People just noted with respect to the Bryant thing, that , prior to trial, nobody knew beans about the principle players. What we knew about Bryant, we knew about his basketball abilities and how he looked/sounded selling underwear or soft drinks; we knew nothing at all about his accuser except a couple of paragraphs in police logs. Here, most of us don't know much about Dean yet, though most know all we need to know about Bush.

In neither case is there any harm done. I don't see any similarity to the election eve reporting of winners by news outlets at all.

[Gordon B]

Originally posted by GoodSpeak
OK.

Let me see if I've got this right, OK?

I post the Kobe Bryant thread and people are on me like ugly on an ape for allegedly trying this case in the court of public opinion before the trial begins.

You and others post Presidential election threads in advance of any declaration of the actual candidate OR any causual link to the presidential election OR the president appointee and somehow this is acceptable.



I AM amazed.


Maybe if I was a republican things would be different, eh?

Goody,
I'm just taking a poll one year before the election. It expires after 14 days. People in RBS' thread speculate all the time about who was going to win. I'm only asking people their preferences, coupled with their predictions.

Now that Dean's nomination odds have shot up over 50%, I figured it was a good time to try a hypothetical election, almost one year before the fact.

[Gary Sisco]

I think if the Green Party puts up a candidate this time around, they'll become pariahs with the very people they're trying to attract and also with the bulk of their membership. They all want Bush gone more than they want an unsuccessful Nader, who isn't even a member of their party and won't be. He's said so, both times. And they don't have anyone else with his name recognition or even close, and it's too late now to get started anyway. So, I agree they won't be a factor this time out. Or if they are, it'll be the last time they are, ever. Their membership and supporters, nearly to a person, can be counted on to vote against whoever runs against Bush, no matter who the dems put up.

I didn't vote in your poll, Gordon, as I'm neither a Dean nor a Bush guy, and the election is going to be much too close to call, even on election day. This society is split almost exactly 50/50, from all I can tell, and there's way too much that can happen, here and overseas, between now and next year. No one has a crystal ball that looks that far into the future, with the way things are going in the world today, with two major military engagements going on in two chaotic societies where the "government" or even the hope for one is wishful thinking at best. Literally anything could happen and the odds are much better that it will than that it won't.

Curiously, both Bush and Dean have done some major backsliding on the 2nd Amendment, one of my absolute litmus tests. Bush supported the attempt to extend the Clintoid's idiotic "assault" weapon ban -- anathema to millions of guys in the country -- and Dean refuses to say the words "individual right," and has been idiotically trying to play both sides against the middle on what he knows is a potentially dangerous issue, esp for him, by claiming some sort of "state's rights" or even "cities' rights" position on the question. As if the Constitution is a matter of locality. Duh. I thought there'd already been a civil war over that question. I'd love to see him try to argue that position vis-a-vis abortion and see far he gets. :-) Anyway, he's shapeshifted too much on my key issue, and I never trusted him all that far on it to begin with, but he was smart enough to keep his mouth shut about such things while he needed to run in VT.

And yeah, yeah, the NRA endorsed him. So what. They've never given him any campaign money or done any work for him. None. Most people don't understand that NRA endorsements are based strictly (and I and many VTers especially say idiotically) on actual voting records. But in VT the question never comes up, so no one has a voting record on it. Therefore, the NRA is always endorsing people in VT that it shouldn't be and we've been clamoring about that for the past couple of election cycles, that they can't do that in VT and that they've been endorsing people who would institute gun control if they were ever given a chance, which they haven't and won't, in VT. The last time the VT NRA membership got way involved with a VT campaign was when we tossed out Peter Smith from Congress after only one term because he lied about his position during the campaign. Ironically, Bernie Sanders can thank the NRA for his congressional seat, as he wouldn't have it without our votes. Strange but true. Sanders doesn't lie. Better to have someone you know up front disagrees with you, than someone who is a proven liar and opportunist.

So, frankly, I can't vote in any of your options because I don't know what I'm going to do as far as voting goes this time, nor can I even begin to predict what might happen between now and election day.

[Uli]

I did not vote in this poll because there was no option of another appointment.

[Brian Olewnick]

If it comes down to Bush vs. Dean, I could easily see voting for Dean (if I don't, as usual, "waste" my vote on the Libertarian). I don't like him any more than I like Bush, but I wouldn't mind seeing the pendulum swing back toward the middle at this point. By "middle", I mean the point that Monte finds too far left and Gary finds ridiculously to the right. ;-)

Ideally, I like a balance between the Presidency and Senate/House so they can be gridlocked into doing as little harm as possible.

[Tom Storer]

I'm a pessimist at heart. I voted option 4 - I'll vote for Dean (I guess, and without enthusiasm), but barring the unforeseen I doubt Bush will lose.

[walto]

Gary, I'm surprised by your post. I thought you'd said on numerous prior occasions that this time would be different: Bush was dangerous enough in your view for you to vote for ANY Dem. I think there's been more "backsliding" with you than with the candidates!

[tippy]

>>Ideally, I like a balance between the Presidency and Senate/House so they can be gridlocked into doing as little harm as possible.<<

That sounds about right. Does anybody watch "NOW"? I think it's a great show but it also nauseates me. Last night it was about how there is no accountability of how our tax dollars are being spent in Iraq (being gouged by Halliburton, etc.) and how Iraqi companies are unable to get contracts to rebuild their own country and the program also covered the disintegration of civil liberties by the Patriot Act. yes yes all old news but it made me not want to pay any taxes and to go out and buy a gun.

Steamed and getting on the horse...

[Gordon B]

I agree with Walter that there would be nothing wrong with a Kobe poll. I thought that Goody's reference was to the Kobe thread that he dominated for awhile. Tim, did you try to start a poll and get shot down?

My Kobe vote would be -- Kobe acquitted, but I don't have any feeling as to whether he is actually guilty as charged. I'm skeptical that the evidence, much of which has made it into the press, will make it clear beyond reasonable doubt one way or the other. Hence, acquittal.

Like Brian, I voted for the Libertarian candidate, Harry Browne, in 2000. It's a vote I regret now. Never again will I support a candidate who thinks the U.S. should have stayed out of WWII. Like many people, my 2000 vote didn't put much weight on foreign policy.

Gary, could any national politician ever pass all of your litmus tests? The 2nd Amendment test is bound to trip up a majority of Democratic candidates. Walt's right, you did say a few months ago that you'd vote for the Democrat just to vote against Bush. Even if you don't vote for the reasons you gave, will you still root for Dean against Bush?

[RBS]

Thanks for posting this Gordon. I'm right there with Cookie.

[Gary Sisco]

Brian -- We are today much closer politically than you might be imagining. The only real disagreement we have is on the social question, which, in my view, has been answered by history and so is only a source of discussion for any time period meaningful to me.

Gordon -- I've also said repeatedly through the years that I won't vote for anyone who isn't pro-abortion and pro-Second Amendment. I'm also having to adjust my thinking to the world situation as it unfolds. I do think the Bushists are the most dangerous gang on the planet, but there are so many possibilities of so many major disasters between now and next November, that I think many people will be finding themselves surprised by events by then. When situations are as dangerous and fluid as they are today, anything can happen and quite probably will. The US may well be *way* at war in multiple places by then. It's going to force many pols, the Bushists included, to reveal their real selves under pressure, which is the only place anyone ever reveals their real selves.

But I'm more interested in my rights and living in a free society than I am in what party or which person holds office for one four-year period. It won't help me out if there's another regime insisting on other violations of my rights and abrogations of the Constitution, albeit in different ways.

Frankly, also, I expect some form of major scandal that won't wash off between now and then, quite apart from anything else.

Also, you narrowed the choices too far, for me. Bush or Dean. Bush is the only known player so far, and I've been maintaining and still maintain that the dem leadership won't go for a Dean nomination at the convention, unless he just destroys all comers in the primaries, which is unlikely. He'll be a player at the convention but I'll be very surprised indeed if he comes out the candidate. The dem people might want him, but the leadership doesn't want a party leader that makes his living trashing the party, which is its leadership, after all. He has to get not only votes but huge (and fiercely loyal) support within the party apparatus. The only pol today that attracts fierce loyalty from anyone is Bush. Dems are not famous for their loyalty. In fact, quite the opposite.

But you're also right in a way, as, since I made up my mind that the things that really matter to me, politically, are not going to happen any time within any future meaningful to me, yes, I've had to make my compromises with the present and dig in for a defensive effort to protect whatever remains of the basic elements and principles that are enshrined in the Constitution and which alone can govern a democratic republic that is one in anything but name alone. So I am, in fact, and consider myself, more genuinely conservative today than the people who call themselves conservatives, most of whom are not conservative at all, since they're not trying to preserve anything. Rather, they are radical rightists who are seeking to reorder society in their own way; in short, the conscious ones at least, are really rightist revolutionaries. No society like the one they envision has ever existed, in the US or elsewhere, ever in history.

So, yeah, it's a new ballgame and the old labels and ideological lenses from the 20th C and the Cold War no longer apply, IMHO. Liberals aren't liberals by any historical standards. Conservatives aren't conservatives. Leftists aren't leftists. etc. We're long out of that era, now. I'd made up my mind to that back around 1990 or thereabouts, and made my views public only about '95 or so as I didn't want to disillusion the younger rads around me. But, I'm not a liar, either, so I have to tell the truth as I see it. And I'm not religious, so I don't accept anything on faith, nor encourage others to do so, either, young people very much included.

What's important now is to come to grips with the society that *does* exist and the issues that the very radical social changes underway really are generating. Using lenses from past eras won't help, in that regard. We need some new ideas and new understandings, but it's going to take some time for history to shake itself out. There's never any smooth transitions of this kind, and they happen faster or slower, depending on where one lives in the world and in what class and etc.

When people ask me today for my chosen political label, I tell them I'm a non-party, constitutional republican, with a very heavy libertarian streak.

That leaves me rather out in the cold today, as neither of the major parties represent my views in any way at all, especially at the national levels, and, from my perspective, there isn't left to operate in, and protest alone doesn't interest me and never did, as it's only a form of petition (and therefore a tacit recognition of the moral validity of the powers that be and their insitutions), and I don't petition. I believe in democracy, and I'm a citizen, not a subject. I don't petition anyone for anything. My efforts are always directed at engaging with other "regular" people (and the arrogance in that term makes my point for me).

In short, by today's definitions, I'm neither left nor right, though I'm *of* a left that has ceased to exist.

[Monte Smith]

Originally posted by Brian Olewnick
...the point that Monte finds too far left and Gary finds ridiculously to the right. ;-)

Ideally, I like a balance between the Presidency and Senate/House so they can be gridlocked into doing as little harm as possible.

Actually, I am pretty comfortable at that point. I just hope it doesn't bring Gary out into the armed resistence he so often reserves as his right.

[walto]

Re. the NRA, FWIW, I'm much more concerned/fed up with laws prohibiting leaf burning than I am with laws regulating the ownership of firearms. Particularly this time of year. I mean, I understand the need for Michigan residents to be protected from the acid rain caused by east coast leaf burners and all that, but crimony. Isn't there ANYTHING in the freaking constitution about the right to light a freaking match to a pile of oak leaves on one's own property? If you can shoot a gun, you ought to be able to light a match, no?

I'm starting a public interest group. Send me some money, easterners.

[patricia]

As an interested observer, I think that the biggest problem with the upcoming election in 2004, given the numbers supporting either side, is to avoid the voting results being bypassed in favour of arbitration by the Supreme Court again. Despite what was said about the decision in 2000 not being a precedent, it is, by definition. It could happen again, especially if the results are close and the skulduggery [voters being disenfrancised, votes not being counted etc.] that was suspected then recurs.

Impossible you say??? Really??? I would have said that in 2000, but here you are with a President whose very legitimacy is still being questioned.
Given that the support of the electorate seems to be almost neck and neck now, I wouldn't be surprised if no matter what the voters decide, Bush is given his second term. This time, he may very well be elected by an actual majority who think that they would rather go with the devil they think they know, than the devil they don't know.
If the war in Iraq continues, or even expands, the reasoning may be that the administration which got the country into this terrible situation should get it out.
Of course, after the second term, the problem becomes the concern of whoever takes over the mess.
A very troubling dilemma.

[cookie]

Patricia: I think you just described my biggest fear concerning this election. Bush was appointed once, he could be appointed again. It's pretty much 50/50 and who knows what will happen. I feel like anything could happen, and like Gary pointed out, it just might. Who knows what will happen between now and November?

[patricia]

Originally posted by cookie
Patricia: I think you just described my biggest fear concerning this election. Bush was appointed once, he could be appointed again. It's pretty much 50/50 and who knows what will happen. I feel like anything could happen, and like Gary pointed out, it just might. Who knows what will happen between now and November?

Exactly so. I couldn't believe that the counting of votes and, more importantly the disenfrancising of legitimate voters was so screwed up during the last election.

In our press, as well as in yours, there were stories of voters being turned away at the polling stations, due to supposed criminal records, which turned out to be not so. Also, there were stories of manipulation of legitimate votes not being counted and that whole polling stations' votes were not counted. Also, the butterfly ballot was, even to me, confusing. Imagine if English wasn't your first language, as is the case in some of your southernmost states? Would Pat Buchanan actually have gotten the votes he did if the voter had understood the ballot in prominently Jewish areas, given his thinly veiled anti-Semitism??

The whole 2000 election smelled like a fish to me. I was particularly interested in the news footage, while the counting was progressing on voting night in Florida. There seemed to be genuine surprise that the Bush people seemed to exhibit when they weren't the clear winner on the first ballot in Florida. I remember thinking that they seemed to assume that they were going to win and were surprised by the initial results coming in.
Of course, we'll never know if there was genuine vote-tampering, or just my paranoia, but it has left a bad taste in my mouth ever since.

I do hope that a repeat of that fiasco doesn't happen in 2004. The voters should and must decide who will lead them. That's the foundation of your whole system.
As I say, troubling.

[Monte Smith]

Here's an idea: why don't we agree that for 2004, all vote tabulation and election certification will be done ACCORDING TO THE EXISTING LAW. We'll use the machines the existing law says we should use, we will count them as the existing law says we should, we will recount them as the existing law says we should, the results will be certified by the officers the law says have discretion, and this will happen according to a calendar decreed by existing law. Wouldn't that make things perfectly regular?

[graypencil]

option #4 ( as much as the thought of it makes me ill..)

200 plus mil for the DUBByareichstadt ..is formidible ..

next comes" D and C nacht" for all the abortion providers ..

and brown shirts and leather overcoats for Bechtel and Halliburton..



after all, DUBBya and his wacko born again general have essentially
decided were back in the crusades again ..and it'll take at least four more years
to force democracy down the throat of islam ...

• I find comfort in the fact that Monte hasn't been doing too well in the prediction department lately. Of course, both Gordon and Monte may take comfort in the fact that Bush already once got his job without being elected. Well, guys, it's not going to be as easy to pull those dirty tricks this time around--we're on to you.

[GregM]

Weren't you predicting a Democrat sweep in '02? Look what happened there. It's amazing how out of touch with the American electorate some democrats are. You throw a rock in San Francisco and you'll hit one of them. Southern democrats seem to be the only ones with any semblance of sanity.

[Monte Smith]

What did I predict? I did not predict a Jindal win in Louisiana, although I did express my hope that he would win. I didn't predict Republican wins in Kentucky or Miss., although they did win. I didn't take up an offer to bet that Gephardt would lose Iowa although I do think he might (far too close to call). The only prediction I can recall making recently is in a bet with gary, that Wolfowitz will return to Iraq by the end of March. More losely, I have suggested that the Republicans would be winning more than they lose in electoral contests. That is self-evident.

[bluenoter]

Originally posted by Monte Smith
More losely, . . .

Monte must be getting worried. He just fell into a Freudian slip.