Who Wins the Democratic Nomination?

[crawjo]

On the eve of the first primary, I thought it would be fun if we all made our prediction as to who gets the nod. It looked like Dean was a sure thing a few weeks ago, but the race is clearly tightening up.

Now, I'm not asking who you support, or what candidates do you like, or anything. Just, who do you think takes the nomination?

As I see it, this is now a four-man race. Sharpton and Kucinich of course don't stand a chance. And I don't like the odds on either Gephardt or Leiberman. That leaves Dean, Kerry, Edwards, and Clark.

I predict that Clark falls out of the running pretty quickly, and Edwards hangs in there for a while before bowing out. I think it comes down to Dean or Kerry. In an upset, I'm going to take Kerry.

[walto]

Probably be better to do this as a poll. Incidentally, I understand that the Dem. primaries aren't winner take all this year: the delegates are being distributed proportionally. That seems to guarantee a brokered convention. May still be Hillary Clinton after all!

[Bill Ashline]

Originally posted by crawjo
Sharpton and Kucinich of course don't stand a chance. And I don't like the odds on either Gephardt or Leiberman. That leaves Dean, Kerry, Edwards, and Clark.

I wouldn't count out Kucinich just yet. Gephardt has a good chance in Iowa. Sharpton finished second in DC (no surprise, but that's an interesting read in itself). Dean is still the guy to beat, though. Too much grassroots support. If Kerry takes Iowa, Dean still gets New Hampshire.

[Gordon B]

Originally posted by walto
Probably be better to do this as a poll. Incidentally, I understand that the Dem. primaries aren't winner take all this year: the delegates are being distributed proportionally. That seems to guarantee a brokered convention. May still be Hillary Clinton after all!

A brokered convention is not a guarantee but not a major longshot, either. If Iowa, NH, and South Carolina produce three different winners, there will be a lot of press talk about a brokered convention.

Bill, why wouldn't you count out Kucinich? Sharpton's second place finish in DC doesn't mean anything. The other candidates pledged not to campaign in DC in deference to the Iowa caucuses because Iowas traditionally goes first. Dean was caught breaking the pledge but in a minor way.

I read that Dean and Gephardt just pulled ads attacking each other in Iowa. They are both going to attack Kerry now.

[Bill Ashline]

Originally posted by Gordon B
Bill, why wouldn't you count out Kucinich? Sharpton's second place finish in DC doesn't mean anything. The other candidates pledged not to campaign in DC in deference to the Iowa caucuses because Iowas traditionally goes first. Dean was caught breaking the pledge but in a minor way.

Kucinich is the smartest one in the lot and the most articulate. The problem is that the media have written him off before he has a chance to deliver his message and see the primary process through. I suspect Kucinich will start to cause problems as the race continues. Sharpton's finish in DC is not a write off. he won't win the nomination, but his strong placement suggests he's striking a chord with a certain sector of the population. The problem with polls here is that they are deciding in advance who is worth taking seriously and who isn't based on simple projections of how the votes will go. Then people vote not according to their own interests but according to who they think will win, based on who the media tell them is a viable (electable) candidate.

[tippy]

My reading on these guys changes from appearance to appearance which is discomforting and does not portend well in the upcoming election. I don't know that I've ever felt so undecided in my life. One day I like Gephardt, the next his overconfidence and evasiveness irritates me. One day Kerry's strangeness unnerves, the next he sounds wise and heartfelt. Out of the apparitions believed to be potential front runners so far, Lieberman to me seems most solid and least ghostlike--but that doesn't mean that I could align myself with him and I don't think he could win the big race at all. Dean's following is still a mystery to me--I just don't trust him. I see him as a Democratic-backed Ralph Nader--yes, how time changes things, at another moment in my life I would have found this appealing.

As a wild guess, I'm going to predict Gephardt in Iowa but at this moment--I know this sounds insane--I want Kerry for his focus on health care (which concerns me at this time) even knowing that campaign promises are all smoke and mirrors. Maybe the diminishing time frame will keep him sharp.

I reserve the right to change my mind after Sunday morning.

[tippy]

I liked Kucinich at one point. But from the last debate I had the opportunity to see, his obsessiveness over removing U.S. from Iraq made him sound like a wing nut to me. And whether his ideas are feasible or not is secondary to this point that if he came across that way to me, he's coming across that way to others too. I don't see how we can disband from Iraq now except at our own, and Iraq's, peril. That's a real crap shoot to me.

[Lenny D.Guitarist]

Seems to me this is an easy one to call. It will be Dean, without much doubt. Do I like this? Nope.
Hate to admit it but, barring a severe mistake, Dubbya will beat up on Dean. Like hitting a sleeping duckling with a metal garbage can lid.

[crawjo]

Okay, I've created a poll for this question.

[Bill Ashline]

Originally posted by tippy
I liked Kucinich at one point. But from the last debate I had the opportunity to see, his obsessiveness over removing U.S. from Iraq made him sound like a wing nut to me.

that's why I think Kucinich is smart. He understands the quagmire that the US faces there and he's also very aware of the underlying motives for the invasion. If the US pulls out and an international force under the auspices of the UN takes over temporarily and then there are elections, the US gains stature in the international community and Iraq regains sovereignty. But since the motives for the invasion weren't WMD but rather oil, as Wolfewitz said publicly in Singapore last summer, the US has no intent to pull out. it wants control of the oil. If the UN is in control of the oil, the US loses its leverage in the middle east.

[tippy]

Bill, thanks for the explanation. That whole message was lost in the debate to which I was referring--instead Kucinich referred people to his website. (Not everyone, even in 2004, has easy access by the way.) Also, I wonder if the deviousness of U.S. actions as stated is palatable enough to win an election. True or not, I think the concept of such a scheme is so disturbing that a lot of people might refute it at all costs. Why don't the other candidates speak in such explicit terms?

[moneyp]

I try not to pay attention to the verbal debates. Intelligent positions on issues are very hard to articulate, especially on-the-spot, and people get caught up in how the candidate is acting rather than what he's saying. I pay more attention to the rare appearances of written material by each candidate. Of course, the better chance a candidate has of winning, the more dumbed-down it tends to be. Again, I haven't liked any two-party candidate that I've had an opportunity to vote for, so either it's me or we really are a nation of idiots.

[Gordon B]

Originally posted by Bill Ashline
that's why I think Kucinich is smart. He understands the quagmire that the US faces there and he's also very aware of the underlying motives for the invasion. If the US pulls out and an international force under the auspices of the UN takes over temporarily and then there are elections, the US gains stature in the international community and Iraq regains sovereignty. But since the motives for the invasion weren't WMD but rather oil, as Wolfewitz said publicly in Singapore last summer, the US has no intent to pull out. it wants control of the oil. If the UN is in control of the oil, the US loses its leverage in the middle east.

In other words, you think Kucinich is smart because his views on Iraq are similar to yours. You've only demonstrated that you think like he does, not that he is smart. You and Kucinich are both wrong. "The Guardian" retracted its erroneous statement that Wolfowitz said the war was about oil. They published a retraction and removed the article where they misquoted Wolfowitz from their website.

Here's the beginning of the retraction,

A report which was posted on our website on June 4 under the heading "Wolfowitz: Iraq war was about oil" misconstrued remarks made by the US deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, making it appear that he had said that oil was the main reason for going to war in Iraq. He did not say that.

Guardian retraction

A lot of newspapers would not have been so forthright about making an error of this magnitude. I'm surprised you would remember the misquoted comments but not the retraction.

[SinginSumo]

Originally posted by mone peterson
...Again, I haven't liked any two-party candidate that I've had an opportunity to vote for, so either it's me or we really are a nation of idiots.

It's not you. In this case I don't think that the Democratic Party has a prayer in the next presidential election (barring unforeseen events) simply because they cannot offer a charismatic choice to American voters.

[Gordon B]

Originally posted by SinginSumo
It's not you. In this case I don't think that the Democratic Party has a prayer in the next presidential election (barring unforeseen events) simply because they cannot offer a charismatic choice to American voters.

Maybe it's because,

1. Incumbents have an advantage.
2. The Republicans have an advantage when national security is an issue.
3. GDP growth will probably be strong and the number of employed Americans will probably rise substantially in 2004.


If I'm totally wrong about #3 and the economy sinks in 2004, then the Democrats eally do have a chance of winning.

[Captain Hate]

Originally posted by Bill Ashline
[B]Kucinich is the smartest one in the lot and the most articulate. [B]

This is too funny; the only thing he's good at is convincing toolboxes that he's smart and articulate.

[RBS]

I'm going out on a limb here, but I think Edwards has a good shot.
That's my prediction. And I think the Mets are good for third this year, too.

[Bill Ashline]

Originally posted by Gordon B
In other words, you think Kucinich is smart because his views on Iraq are similar to yours. You've only demonstrated that you think like he does, not that he is smart. You and Kucinich are both wrong. "The Guardian" retracted its erroneous statement that Wolfowitz said the war was about oil. They published a retraction and removed the article where they misquoted Wolfowitz from their website.

Did Vanity Fair also retract its article? You seem to think that one reads only one source for such things. I have access to a lot of different information sources here in the far east. I'm not assailed with American propaganda on a daily basis.

I don't actually think like Kucinich on many issues. Kucinich is a liberal. I'm on the left. If you listen to the debates, he's the only one that actually says substantive things. As for my not demonstrating that he is smart, I never set out to. I'm only stating my opinion. On the other hand, you're not demonstrating whatsoever how I and Kucinich are "wrong." You imply that it's because of the Guardian retraction. I don't think Kucinich has said anything about that issue.

[Bill Ashline]

Originally posted by Captain Hate
This is too funny; the only thing he's good at is convincing toolboxes that he's smart and articulate.

Very impressive elaboration here. Quite convincing.

[Monte Smith]

Originally posted by Bill Ashline
I wouldn't count out Kucinich just yet.

Hahaha! Bill, you don't understand American politics, I see. I will bet you--no, scratch that. I hereby swear to flat out GIVE YOU five thousand dollars if Kucinich wins a single primary in the 2004 election.

Nothing about Kucinich is right. Not his ideas, not his strategy, not his looks, not his attitude. There is a reason why he consistently polls behind Carol Moseley Braun and has been out fund-raised by Lyndon LaRouche.

You may, in fact, count him out. You could have counted him out a year ago and you can count him out for all time.

He is, by the way, my favorite Democrat candidate. For sentimental reasons....

[crawjo]

You gotta love any candidate that would bring a visual graphic to a debate broadcast over radio.

[BFrank]

One reason NOT to vote for Gephardt:

Michael Bolton was speaking today at a rally in Davenport, Iowa.

[Monte Smith]

Originally posted by BFrank
One reason NOT to vote for Gephardt:

Michael Bolton was speaking today at a rally in Davenport, Iowa.

I saw that.

Kenny G. Michael Bolton. Does the left have a lock on easy listening cheese?

[BFrank]

Yeah, maybe.

But the Right has a lock on country cheese. So I guess we're even.

[Monte Smith]

Originally posted by BFrank
Yeah, maybe.

But the Right has a lock on country cheese. So I guess we're even.

Cripes! Even the cheese is split 48-48.

[BFrank]

Oh, mannnnnnnnn ........

[Gordon B]

Originally posted by Bill Ashline
Did Vanity Fair also retract its article?

The Guardian retracted their claim because it's untrue, he never said it. If you post the transcript of Wolfowitz' comments and show me where he said that we invaded for the oil, I'll give you $10,000 for each 2004 primary that Kucinich wins.

The only Democratic candidates to his left are LaRouche for sure and possibly Sharpton. It don't see any evidence that he's smarter than the mainstream liberals. In fact, he's probably dumber than all of them.

An interesting thing about Kucinich is that he was strongly pro-life as Pat Buchanan until he did a 180 in 2003, when preparing his run for President.

Captain, you are a long time Clevelander. Is the portrayal below, accurate, in your opinion?

The Worst Mayors (1820-1993)
Next, and seventh, is Cleveland's Dennis Kucinich (1977-79). Only thirty-one years old when elected, Cleveland's "boy" mayor had failings that were not the sins of venality or graft for personal gain, but rather matters of style, temperament, and bad judgment in office. Kucinich earned seventh place the hard way: by his abrasive, intemperate, and confrontational populist political style, which led to a disorderly and chaotic administration. He barely survived a recall vote just ten months into office, then disappeared for five weeks, reportedly recuperating from an ulcer. When he got back into the political fray, his demagogic rhetoric and slash-and-burn political style got him into serious trouble when he stubbornly refused to compromise and led Cleveland into financial default in late 1978—the first major city to default since the Great Depression. That led also to Kucinich's defeat and exit from executive office. Out of office, he dabbled in a Hollywoodesque spirit world and once believed he had met actress Shirley MacLaine in a previous life, seemingly confirming his critics' charges that he was a "nut-cake." After that, he experienced downward mobility, losing races for several other offices and finally ending up with a council seat; but more recently, he climbed back up to a seat in Congress. Bad judgment, demagoguery, and default also spelled political failure in the eyes of twenty-five of our experts, who ranked Dennis, whom the press called "the Menace," as seventh-worst.


The American Mayor
The Best & The Worst Big-City Leaders
By Melvin G. Holli
The Pennsylvania State University Press

[Gordon B]

Bill Ashline, I wil offer you $5,000 to your $10 that Kucinich does not win the Democratic nomination for President. That is 500-1 odds. Jon Abbey will tell you that I am good for the money. I trust you for the $10. The offer is good if you accept on this thread anytime today.

[Bill Ashline]

Originally posted by Monte Smith
Hahaha! Bill, you don't understand American politics, I see. I will bet you--no, scratch that. I hereby swear to flat out GIVE YOU five thousand dollars if Kucinich wins a single primary in the 2004 election....
He is, by the way, my favorite Democrat candidate. For sentimental reasons....

Very funny, Monte. OK, we'll wait it out and see. If he does better than expected, I can expect a windfall, particularly if everyone gets tired of the other democrats beating each other up. But earlier, as you'll note, I picked Dean--not because I like Dean, because I suspect this is who the media and the public have decided is "electable"--read: let's outsmart ourselves about who might beat Bush.

Anyway, you cats should want Kucinich as the democratic candidate. Your man would probably kill him one-on-one since I sincerely doubt that any southern cracker would ever vote for him. and as we all know, they's the ones who decides them elections in them there parts.

[Bill Ashline]

Originally posted by Gordon B
Bill Ashline, I wil offer you $5,000 to your $10 that Kucinich does not win the Democratic nomination for President. That is 500-1 odds. Jon Abbey will tell you that I am good for the money. I trust you for the $10. The offer is good if you accept on this thread anytime today.

Almost tempting, Gordon. But such bets are kind of silly to me. I can readily part with ten bucks. But I'd hate to see you lose 5000 for something as ridiculous as this.