Iowa Caucuses [Archive] - Front Office Football Central

kcchief19

01-19-2004, 11:23 AM

Pretty amazing when you think about the importance that we place on the Iowa caucus, in which a relatively small number of people make the ultimate decision, and the New Hampshire primary, in which an incredibly small state gets a lot of power.

I have clearly underestimated the importance of the Des Moines Register's endorsement of Edwards. I think that is powering his late rise. I'm not sure what is powering John Kerry's rise, but I think it's soft support.

Gephardt has to win Iowa to have any chance. If he does, that might boost him to a better than expected showing in New Hampshire, but I don't know if he'll make it to Super Tuesday.

Conventional wisdom suggests that candidates who surge in the polls often pick up more steam on election day, which would seem to predict a Kerry, Edwards, Dean, Gephardt finish. I don't think there's any chance Gephardt will finish fourth, and I can't figure out how Kerry appeals to Iowans, so I think that number is soft.

I'm predicting Dean by a nose over Gephardt, with Edwards a few points back and Kerry a close but disappointing fourth. That will led to New Hampshire, where Dean will win somewhat comfortable, followed by Clark, Kerry, Lieberman and the rest. I think Lieberman might pull out after New Hampshire.

Gephardt will win Missouri and Edwards South Carolina on Feb. 3. How the other states split up will determine who stays in and out until March 2 when California and New York are up for grabs. Clearly I think Dean is in, and I think Clark will stick around. I think Lieberman will be gone by then. If Kerry hasn't won anything by then, I think he's out and either Edwards or Gephardt will be out.

The thing about Iowa is that it is easy for a candidate who is not deemed a front runner to win, and then get all the attention and go down in flames. Edwards may be penalized to a certain degree that nobody knows who he is, but he also benefits from the fact that no one is attacking him. If he wins Iowa, all the negative coverage that has been focused on Dean will drift toward Edwards, and I don't think Edwards will hold up in a negative lot. He's a bit too inexperienced and too young.

Dean has clearly been the focus of attack early, and has taken the punches well. Obviously, nobody has really delivered a body blow yet, so it remains to be so how he'll play after somebody really goes after him.

sooner333

01-19-2004, 11:39 AM

I think that unless Edwards wins you might as well mark in Bush as the winner in November with a Sharpie. The reason I think Edwards poses a threat is because he is from the South. Republicans have been winning recently thanks in large part to Southern States, and the question then would become how will Southerners react to one of their own running for President as a Democrat. You know that the Northern Democratic states will vote for whoever, regardless of region. You have to figure the West Coast and Northeast would vote for Edwards and the South wouldn't vote for Dean but may pick up a few Edwards states. I don't know if Bush will win this one in a runaway like some have predicted, and if Edwards gets the nod, I wouldn't be surprised if he won.

Easy Mac

01-19-2004, 11:51 AM

Most Southerners I know (Republicans and Democrats) hate Edwards. Chances are he wouldn't win re-election if he ran for Congress again. I don't even understand why any importance is placed on the Democratic primary in South Carolina. The state always votes Republican, so why even worry about gaging voter interest here if you're a Democrat.. you're not going to win the state.

JonInMiddleGA

01-19-2004, 12:03 PM

Edwards becomes a non-factor once his platform gets exposed to the voting public.

Eliminate already approved tax cuts.
"Establishing new international institutions committed to promoting democracy"
Note to Edwards - the mood is not friendly to New World Order idea
"My 'Strategy for Freedom' offers a concrete agenda to win the war of ideas"
Yeah, "hearts & minds really worked well in Vietnam
Cover 12 million additional children with health insurance (at gov't expense)
And you'll pay for this with ... ???
Federal protection for gays & lesbians
Yep, that's gonna play well with the middle-of-the-road

Don't take my word for any of this, I took it all from
http://www.johnedwards2004.com/issues.asp

I could go on & on, but the bottom-line is that Edwards message is no different than any other member of the left that's being rejected. He's at least arguably better looking but that isn't going to cut it against an incumbent with the sort of approval that we have right now.

Easy Mac

01-19-2004, 12:06 PM

Bush's approval rating is 50% right now... not that high.

And I think you'll find the majority of Americans are fine with added protection for gays and lesbians.

Jon

01-19-2004, 12:09 PM

Edwards is a trial attorney and I think it would be hard for him to win the nomination, especially with little experience and charisma.

Senator

01-19-2004, 12:09 PM

Edwards is the guy who matches up best with Bush.

Jon

01-19-2004, 12:12 PM

I don't think he really does, simply b/c he's Bush lite. If given what is perceived as a two people who are the same, people tend to stay the course.

QuikSand

01-19-2004, 12:13 PM

I think what has happened in the last week or two is that many Dem faithful have bought into the "anyone but Dean" camp -- fueled by the Karl Rove imagery and perception that he is not electable. (I'll take a pass on whether this is an accurate assessment)

With that, I think a lot of party loyalists are looking for "who's the next best guy?" Gephardt has serious problems outside his union base, and is widely expected to be flat broke coming out of Iowa, and basically will be left for dead, rightfully. So, they are looking for someone else they can support.

I don't think that either Kerry or Edwards are appealing all that much to the Iowa crowd, but rather they are the two who come closest to "best of the rest" in the field. (With Wes Clark not even participating, or else I think he'd be getting a similar boost, as he has been in NH) The Register's endorsement or Edwards has made a big deal - if only to reinforce this idea that he might be more electable than most of the others.

I guess the caucuses are a virtual toss up -- I wouldn't be too surprised to see the candidates who are truly supported by organizations there (Dean and Gephardt) hold on to oupace the rising poll-number guys and take the 1-2 spots after all, but it certainly won't be a big triumphant, coronation-style win for either guy. I think Gephardt is done, and we head into NH looking for a tight race with Dean, Kerry, and Clark all very viable in that primary.

Don't have much idea whether this amounts to much, but it's making for a pretty interesting horserace.

QuikSand

01-19-2004, 12:14 PM

Edwards is a trial attorney and I think it would be hard for him to win the nomination, especially with little experience and charisma.

Who in the current field has the charisma that you judge Edwards to be lacking?

JonInMiddleGA

01-19-2004, 12:28 PM

Bush's approval rating is 50% right now... not that high.

This president’s job approval rating surpasses his father’s at the same point in that administration, and ties Bill Clinton’s. In January 1996, as Bill Clinton was preparing his ultimately successful re-election campaign, only about half of Americans approved of the job he was doing.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/17/opinion/polls/main593849.shtml

And this is before there's been any serious campaigning against the eventual Democratic victim ... I mean candidate.

As long as the GOP remembers that when you're 10 points ahead is time to run like you're 10 points behind, I firmly believe that we're looking at the distinct possiblity of a Reagan-Mondale electoral landslide.

sooner333

01-19-2004, 12:30 PM

Well, if Dean wins, its going to be pretty close with Wes Clark, and that is what the Republicans really want (I really hate rooting for Dean in anything, but I guess I can in the Democratic Primary), because it's going to be hard for him to get the middle-of-the-road vote in the national election. But, basically, with the economy on the way back up, with the capture of Saddam Hussain, and the fact that Bush is the incumbant, Bush should win, especially over a more radical Dean.

Glengoyne

01-19-2004, 01:09 PM

Once again, as a democrat in California, I have no shot at voting for the candidate I want. In my mind, Lieberman is the only one of the candidates that I can really support. Then again, I could be persuaded to vote for Clark, so perhaps I am not completely screwed.

-Mojo Jojo-

01-19-2004, 01:24 PM

especially over a more radical Dean.

I'm curious, what part of Dean's record or platform you regard as radical? After Lieberman he's probably the most conservative of any of the candidates. Ah, maybe it's that he raises his money from normal people instead of wealthy interests like the rest of the do: http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/donordems.asp

That is pretty radical...

I don't know who owns Kerry or Edwards, but as a small contributor and part of the Iowa canvasing team last weekend (drove in from Chicago), I know Dean owes his ass to me and a lot of little folks like me.

Typically when a candidate gets elected all of these 'promise them the moon' campaign platforms go out the window. But no politician forgets where their money came from. Dean is the only one who, when he panders to his supporters, will be working for the American people. That means a lot to me.

JPhillips

01-19-2004, 01:40 PM

The key to the Iowa caucuses is the 15% rule. If at any individual precinct any candidate draws less than fifteen percent of the attendees those people must either choose another candidate or go home. In as closely a contested race as this is each candidate is going to miss that 15% at a lot of precincts. In many ways this will come down to who is the biggest second choice. Out of Kerry, Edwards and Gephardt I'm not sure who will get the majority of the second choice vote, but it seems likely that there aren't many folks out there that would choose Dean second.

And Jon I'll give you the approval isn't that bad for Bush, but the 45% disapproval might be. In the end though there is a long time until the election and I don't think any of the polls today mean shiat.

As to the southern question, remember the dem candidate only has to win one state that Gore didn't. That is what this election will come down to. In the solid Repub states Bush will win by even greater amounts and in the solid Dem states he will lose by greater amounts. Its the dozen or so real swing states that will decide the election. But keep in mind that Gore could have won without Florida or the rest of the south if he had carried West Virginia and New Hampshire. The south will not be where the Dems lose the election, but if they can fight in N. Carolina, Florida or Arkansas it may be where Bush loses.

Jon

01-19-2004, 02:03 PM

Who in the current field has the charisma that you judge Edwards to be lacking?

I think Dean and Kerry have far more charisma than Edwards. Both of them have the ability to get people motivated. Look at Dean's campaign. Whether you like him or not, his campaign has been run very well. As for Edwards, until he began actually talking about issues, his campaign focus has been that he's from a Southern state like Bill Clinton was and could be competitive in the South. But, as someone else has said, the democratic nominee doesn't need the South. He needs one more state than Al Gore won previously. And, if you look at Bush's steel tariff, moves, he may be vulnerable in some of the more industrial states that he won previously.
That having been said, it's a long time until the election and anything can happen. I wouldn't be surprised if Bush had an "October surprise" up his sleeve.

RPI-Fan

01-19-2004, 02:05 PM

But keep in mind that Gore could have won without Florida or the rest of the south if he had carried West Virginia and New Hampshire.

Or his homestate... :rolleyes:

Jon

01-19-2004, 02:05 PM

Butter

01-19-2004, 02:17 PM

I firmly believe that we're looking at the distinct possiblity of a Reagan-Mondale electoral landslide.

:eek:

I can't believe you think that Jon... what a shocker!

Seriously, I agree with whoever said that Edwards really isn't that popular in the South. National Dems. think he would give the Dems. the best chance because he could carry the South... but Gore was a Southerner too. Edwards isn't even that popular in his home state of North Carolina.

Quik is right about the prevailing "anyone but Dean" mood, but the rest of the field (except maybe Clark and the no-chance-in-hell Sharpton) is so vanilla, I don't think it matters who gets the nomination at this point.

Glengoyne

01-19-2004, 02:25 PM

I'm curious, what part of Dean's record or platform you regard as radical? ....

Well lets see I'd say most everyone views him as the most liberal/radical because every time he opens his mouth he plays to the left. He jumped to a lead in the polls by being the "Anti-Bush". He is on the record opposing pretty much everything the current administration has done. This anti administration tact has led to what I think is his most "liberal" stand on an issue. The repeal of the latest tax cuts. As for his most radical departure from the pack, I'd say it is his assertion that the U.S. should have essentially done nothing to Saddam Hussein. Well maybe not nothing but, he holds the other candidates accountable for authorizing millitary force in Iraq. That is a pretty radical stand since an overwhelming majority of the populace was in favor of giving the president that authority.

Rather than a liberal or radical I consider his biggest problem is that he appears to be without any substance of his own. Other than the "Anti-Bush", I don't know what he is. Only what he proclaims loudly that he is not. He has built a large "grass roots" following by drawing attention to what he and the "grass roots" have in common, contempt for George W. Bush. This certainly does appeal to a lot of my peers in the democratic party, but not me. I want someone who defines his ideas more with logic and thought, than ideological lines. In my mind Dean is a candidate of demogoguery, and I want more substance.

Jon

01-19-2004, 02:43 PM

Who views him as radical? Not the media. Nor is he a candidate of demogoguery. Look at his record and look at his views. He is relatively a centrist. He's right wing on crime (he has a more pro-death penalty position than Clinton did) and fiscal responsibility but left of center on social issues. If we still had the pre-Goldwater Republican party, he might be a Rockefeller Republican. His main difference is his position on the war in Iraq. Which is not that radical since a sizable amount of the population questioned it.

sabotai

01-19-2004, 03:38 PM

As long as the GOP remembers that when you're 10 points ahead is time to run like you're 10 points behind, I firmly believe that we're looking at the distinct possiblity of a Reagan-Mondale electoral landslide.
Funny thing is people were saying this same thing when Daddy Bush was about to run against some governor no one had ever heard of...

Solecismic

01-19-2004, 04:24 PM

This is an interesting race, but I'm frustrated that so many of the candidates have such similar platforms.

As one of only 15 registered voters in the state of New Hampshire, I'm pleased to have so much power in the upcoming primary.

But I'll be relieved on January 28, as I'll get my telephone and my television back. Traffic on the highways will be back down to a couple of cars and the occasional horse and buggy, as the invasion of campaigners and media from around the country go back home, or go to South Carolina, or wherever there's a need, imaginary or otherwise.

I'm truly undecided here, and I intend to vote. So I spent a lot of time this afternoon looking at candidate web sites. In terms of philosophy, no question I should vote for Lieberman. But he's polling in single digits, and I think it's all but over for him. Given the amount he's spent in New Hampshire, if he doesn't crack the top three here, I'm betting he'll drop out.

So far, none of the other candidates have reached out to the independent voters. One of them (and the attorney general is investigating, because no one knows who it was) started calling independents and telling them they had until last week to register as Democrats, or they couldn't participate. In a state where 40 percent of us are independent, this is pretty serious. We're allowed to take a Democratic ballot as we enter the polling place, then switch back to independent as we leave. Most independents do exactly that.

So, I'm looking for a centrist behind Lieberman, and I just don't see one. I see Sharpton, Kucinich and Dean on the liberal end, and I think that would be terrible for the economy. I see Kerry as a traditional Massachusetts Democrat, though probably the most qualified. I see Edwards as still looking for his voice - I was living in North Carolina when he won the senate bid in a bit of an upset, and he has some appeal, but his web site is completely geared to this "two nations" balderdash, which is about as appealing as day-old soggy oatmeal - he's banking everything on appealing to the left side. I see Gephardt as a pure union man, which just doesn't work for me. I see Clark as an intelligent man and I like his views on world issues, but I'm not quite sure what he wants to do on the national front. He's sort of picked up a lot of the Hollywood types, and I see that as a negative. Bringing Michael Moore here to campaign for him was a dumb idea. His gigantic tax revision has its appeal, but it's a pipe dream.

I've heard the Dean as a Rockefeller Republican comments before, and maybe that's how he ran Vermont. But it's not his current platform. His web site is much more socialist in nature. I'm somewhat in the ABD camp. Getting endorsements from Jesse Jackson and Bill Bradley is a red flag for me.

So, among Kerry, Edwards and Clark, who should independents lean toward?

Jon

01-19-2004, 07:05 PM

Just remember though, this is primary season, which is always geared toward the party activists, who generally tend to be at the more extreme ends. In 1992, clinton portrayed himself as more left than he really was and then focused on more "center" issues when he was in the general election campaign. I think whomever the nominee is will do the same. Bradley may scare you, but having been in New Jersey, he's really a moderate. As for Dean's platform, what's so socialist about it? Anything slightly left of center isn't socialist. It may be in this country, whose left wing is still moderate for world standards, but it's not socialist. If you take a look at his substantive positions, many of them are, to put it gently, center-right. I cant' remember a non-Southern Democrat who advocated state's rights like he does (don't tell the states what to do, gun control is a state issue, etc.). In any event, political science studies have shown that people tend to follow the same style in office. The last several presidents who have been governors have done that (and LBJ). Dean is a centrist on core issues, but is currently appealing to the left b/c that's what he needs to do.

By the way, if you like Lieberman, ignore the polls and vote for him. It's about the expectations game and if everyone who say they support him vote for him, he'll do better than expected, which will keep him in the race. As for Kerry, he's a pompous ass. Edwards wants to be Clinton, but without the experience, intelligence, charisma, or what not (I liked him once, but the more I learned about him, the more I couldn't take him). Clark is a Republican (and the fact Michael Moore supports him should be a bigger red flag--- Moore has written some of the best fiction I have ever read).

Well, I should get off of the soapbox. it's just I don't get many opportunity to do this, since my job limits what I do. ;)

JonInMiddleGA

01-19-2004, 08:20 PM

Funny thing is people were saying this same thing when Daddy Bush was about to run against some governor no one had ever heard of...

Daddy didn't have the level of support the current incumbent has, nor is this the same nation it was then.

JPhillips

01-19-2004, 08:21 PM

Jon Jon Jon

Lets lay off the Clark is a republican thing okay? We're all in this together and whover wins the nomination is going to be the guy we all need to rally around. Calling Clark a republican or calling Dean a socialist won't help us in November.

JonInMiddleGA

01-19-2004, 08:38 PM

won't help us in November.

Ain't nothing going to help you in November :)

Jon

01-19-2004, 08:46 PM

Let's face it, though. If Clark gets the nomination, we will be seeing the footage of him talking about how good a president Bush is. He's not Ike. Ike was a registered independent, Clark a republican. It's the honest truth. Besides, Kerry's win and Edward's second place finish hurts Clark the most, despite what he (Clark) says.

kcchief19

01-19-2004, 08:50 PM

I'm obviously pretty surprised at the results so far tonight. I really believed that when the hardcore caucus voter turned out as opposed to the tracking polls, I thought the support for Kerry and Edwards would weaken. It's done the opposite -- both actually picked up even more undecideds and second-chance support from the lower-tier candidates.

If this numbers hold -- which they look like they will -- this is a huge night for Kerry and Edwards, a disappointing night for Dean and the end of the road for Gephardt.

I think this will make New Hampshire a must-win for Dean right now. Kerry and Clark have been running strong behind him, and I'm guessing that Kerry will get a boost out of Iowa. We'll see what kind of a boost this gives Edwards. I think Lieberman is done at this point. If he can't show up in Iowa, and he can't crack the top 3 or 4 in his own backyard, I think he's done. Not that he was really "electable" as it was.

Of course, Lieberman just got the endorsement of the Union-Leader, so we'll see what happens.

sabotai

01-19-2004, 08:51 PM

Daddy didn't have the level of support the current incumbent has, nor is this the same nation it was then.
Doesn't mean it can't happen again.

Buccaneer

01-19-2004, 08:53 PM

sabotai

01-19-2004, 08:54 PM

Wow, Dean's numbers took a huge nose dive.

QuikSand

01-19-2004, 08:55 PM

I think it can be very interesting to see what the rest of the Dem pack does regarding labor unions. Gephardt had really locked up the deep union support, but with him fizzling out, it might be tempting for one or more candidates to make some kind of protectionist or at least pro-union ploy to gain some support. Especially when the primaries get to the rust belt, there's a lot of votes and money in the union ranks -- I think it will be interesting to see who does the dance.

tucker342

01-19-2004, 08:57 PM

I just got back from my Caucus(sp?). At least at the caucus I was at, Dean had the most votes. Over 500 people were there.... when you compare that to 4 years ago, when there were only 200 people there...

Jon

01-19-2004, 09:00 PM

Most of you need to get educated on what socialism is (as oppose to anti-socialism), esp Jon. What he said "Anything slightly left of center isn't socialist.", that's hilarious. As it stands right now, slightly right of center has been leaning towards socialism - so that makes everything to its left an increasing greater degree of socialism. Take a look at nearly all of the quotes from the candidates leading up to Iowa, including what they said they will do once in office. Not a single candidate endorsed or proposed anything remotely resembling reducing taxes, reducing spending, reducing regulations and reducing the overbearing reach of the federal govt; in fact, they are all saying just the opposite. The problem is that many voters, including some of the posters here, have come to expect and will go in a state of denial when a spade is called a spade. (By the way, I am not saying that Bush and Congress are that much better.) Dean is coming across as a radical because of the knee-jerk anti-Bush rhetoric he has been told to promote, same thing with Clark. Lieberman refuses to play that game (unless on a major network news) but it is getting drowned out.

Buccaneer, trust me when I say this -- but I understand what socialism is. Too many people misuse terminology b/c it sounds good (kind of like people classifying Clinton as a liberal or George H.W. Bush as a conservative). Here's the definition of socialism from a political dictionary:

socialism: A leftist political ideology that emphasizes the principle of equality and usually prescribes a large role for government to intervene in society and the economy via taxation, regulation, redistribution, and public ownership.

Now, if you take a look at any of the candidates running, you will obviously see that they don't fit within this definition. Basic definition, maybe, but it's close to accurate. But none of them have advocated public ownership of business. But then again, some people have their own idea of something and it doesn't matter what the actual meanings of terms are.

Here's the political definition of radical:
favouring or tending to produce extreme or fundamental changes in political, economic, or social conditions, institutions, habits of mind, etc

AGain, it is basic, but there is not one candidate running who is seeking a "radical solution" to anything. Even Howard Dean. Because, when all is said and done, Jim is right, they really are the same.

Now, if you were talking about the other Jon, I'll pull a Dean and whimper and blame the other guy.

(edited to take foot from mouth).

Buccaneer

01-19-2004, 09:01 PM

there's a lot of votes and money in the union ranks.

Unintentional humor, I suppose, knowing the history of union leaderships and their vote-makings with their monies. They are still the most powerful lobby consortium in the country but we will very happily see a continued decline in their political clout.

Cringer

01-19-2004, 09:03 PM

Ok,well. As someone who pretty much can't stand Bush or other republicans, i gotta say, these democrats suck! I don't trust one of them. Looks like i'm going 3rd party again....or maybe i'll move to Venezuela, or write-in Chavez for president here! :D

sabotai

01-19-2004, 09:04 PM

I'm going to write in Donald Duck.

CamEdwards

01-19-2004, 09:05 PM

Clark's whatever he wants to be on any given day. I don't know of too many Republicans who believe that abortion should be legal up until the moment of birth. I don't know of too many Republicans who believe that President Bush should be investigated for war crimes by Congress. Clark's not a Republican, he's not a Democrat... he's an opportunist.

Kerry comes out of this needing to raise some serious cash. Dean comes out needing to stop the bleeding. Edwards comes out of this needing to show some substance.

If I had to guess, I'd say this Iowa caucus is more like 1988 (when Gephardt won, only to lose the nomination to Dukakis, who finished third in Iowa) than 1984 (when Mondale won handily and also took the Democratic nomination).

kcchief19

01-19-2004, 09:05 PM

This president’s job approval rating surpasses his father’s at the same point in that administration, and ties Bill Clinton’s. In January 1996, as Bill Clinton was preparing his ultimately successful re-election campaign, only about half of Americans approved of the job he was doing.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/17/opinion/polls/main593849.shtml

And this is before there's been any serious campaigning against the eventual Democratic victim ... I mean candidate.

As long as the GOP remembers that when you're 10 points ahead is time to run like you're 10 points behind, I firmly believe that we're looking at the distinct possiblity of a Reagan-Mondale electoral landslide.Jon, I love you. You always give me a good laugh. :)

The difference in approval ratings in January of 1992, 1996 and 2004 for Bush, Clinton and Bush are petty much a wash. All of them were/are polling in the 50s. Bush II is polling a few points higher than Clinton and Bush I, but it's within the margin -- even if you use the CBS poll figures which are lower than others I have seen for all three presidents.

The difference is the trend direction. Bush II is in a decline -- he's dropped 10 points in a month. Bush I was in a free-fall -- he hit 32 percent before the election. Clinton, meanwhile, was building -- his approval rating hit 60 percent before the election, and it was a solid 60, not a soft rally-around-the-flag 60 percent.

I'll take whatever bet you want to make right now that this race, regardless of whether or not the Democrats mount a serious challenge, will NOT come close to '84. Reagan's numbers were solid but not spectacular, but he had a guy running the worst campaign in the history of presidential politics. As you noted earlier, times have changed -- there are big states that Bush can't win.

JPhillips

01-19-2004, 09:07 PM

Well the predictions for turnout were high, and your anecdotal evidence certainly backs that up. Big surprise that Dean and Gephardt got toasted. I really thought their union infrastructure would put them at the top. And Kerry, well I don't have any clue how he rebounded. In the end I think this is a great night for Edwards, but he has neither the money nor the national support to see this through. Maybe if the primary season was longer...?

Dean is really hurt. He needed to start that aura of invulnerability. A big part of his campaign over the past couple of months has been his powerful lead. Now he has to win NH or he'll really start smelling like a loser. If he can't win the first couple of primaries how can he ever beat Bush will become the story on every talk show.

Finally, Jon, I don't give a damn what he was registered a few years ago. His policies line up closest to mine and those policies are traditional Truman democratic. He's one of us!

Cringer

01-19-2004, 09:09 PM

Speaking of Bush, anyone think his proposals for mexicans wanting to work here will hurt him any, because when i like something, i can't see too many republicans liking it......

sabotai

01-19-2004, 09:10 PM

Speaking of Bush, anyone think his proposals for mexicans wanting to work here will hurt him any, because when i like something, i can't see too many republicans liking it......
I was wondering about that too. I saw people go nuts over the whole licenses to illegal aliens over in California proposal. Not much of a peep about Bush's plan though...

Jon

01-19-2004, 09:11 PM

I have to agree with Kcchief. It won't be a rehash of 1984. But, if Kerry were to get the nomination, he would have a similar problem to Gore in 2000, that of coming across as an elitist.
On a more interesting note, if it's Kerry v. Bush, I think this would be the first election where two Skull and Bones Alum go head to head for the presidency.

JPhillips

01-19-2004, 09:12 PM

Well either way we'll end up with a lizard-person running the country!

Buccaneer

01-19-2004, 09:14 PM

Jon, you fell for it. Take your definition:

socialism: A leftist political ideology that emphasizes the principle of equality

As in class warfare? Ensuring the wealthy pay more than their equal share?

[/quote] and usually prescribes a large role for government to intervene in society[/quote]

Name any single area where they govt does not have a large role in society? Take a look at what each of the candidates are saying in increasing that role. Compare that to the 10th Amendment to the Bill of Rights.

and the economy via taxation

All of the candidates talked about removing the Bust tax cuts, thus wanting to increase govt's taxation powers.

regulation

Every one is in favor in more regulations (anyone quoted as saying to reduce regulations???). Every area of American commerce, industry, health, employment, environment, etc. has volumes of federal regulations.

redistribution

This is one of the primary platforms for the Dems - just listen to each of the candidates when they talk about taxations, lower incomes classes, the middle class, etc.

and public ownership

Take a look at the amount of public that are wanting to be locked up, as well as private lands that are being regulated to make them less private or even public (due to a number of Acts).

To me, your definition fits exactly to a tee (and not just the Dems either!). It is so clear to me that I would put the burden on you to even remotely prove otherwise - genealistic speaking.

Jon

01-19-2004, 09:17 PM

Buccaneer, simply over-parsing a basic definition for socialism doesn't prove anything. Socialism is part of a massive deterministic political theory that, by its very nature, cannot be implemented by an individual using the traditional system to gain power. It really appears that you are talking about the "social welfare state," which is different from a socialist state. The democrats are suggesting altering the way the social welfare state operates, but that doesn't mean it's socialist.

Senator

01-19-2004, 09:19 PM

Edwards is the guy who matches up best with Bush.

I agree with Senator.

Buccaneer

01-19-2004, 09:26 PM

Jon, but it is deterministic (or at least, self-fullfilling) when there is no promises, platitudes, platform, trend, idealoge or demograry (sp?) extolling the opposite view of socialism. I agree it is not the same as running as a Socialistic or Green Party platform but if no pains are taken to counteract (or at least, speak out against) federal class warfare, redistribution of wealth, federal regulations and federal landgrabs, then it is the same as continuing towards that endeavor.

Easy Mac

01-19-2004, 09:33 PM

Daddy didn't have the level of support the current incumbent has, nor is this the same nation it was then.
You mean daddy didn't have poll numbers in the 50's and we weren't coming out of a war in a Iraq?

QuikSand

01-19-2004, 09:35 PM

Bucc, when you claim that the majority of the people (not to mention politicians) in this country are socialists, it seems to me you implicitly take the sting out of that criticism.

Abe Sargent

01-19-2004, 09:38 PM

This always happens when a party can't get its head on straight concerning a candidate to run against an incumbant in office. Because there is a primary battle on one side, with people clawing to get out, the ultimate winner is damaged goods. The more bitch smacking the democrats do to each other, the less the Republicans will have to do.

-Anxiety

Easy Mac

01-19-2004, 09:40 PM

Dean has lost it!

He's like a pro wrestler.... oh my god, I've never seen anything like this... he is literally flipping out on live TV.

"If you would have asked my a year ago that I would have come in third in Iowa, I would have been very happy"

Well dumbass, if we asked you a week ago, you would have had me killed for lying.

TroyF

01-19-2004, 09:44 PM

I agree with Senator.

I do too. :)

As a person who voted for Bush, but would gladly listen to another viable candidate were one to come about, I don't see a single democrat on this list I'd vote fore.

I think the dems are going to have a REALLY rough go of it in the election process. I think Dean would get slammed hard the most. Clinton held up well to media scrutiny, I don't think Dean is that slick of a talker. I also think his biggest platform is "I hate George Bush" Sorry Howard, but that isn't going to convince me to vote for you.

Interesting night in Iowa.

Buccaneer

01-19-2004, 09:50 PM

Bucc, when you claim that the majority of the people (not to mention politicians) in this country are socialists, it seems to me you implicitly take the sting out of that criticism.

I said leaning towards socialism or at least not promoting an anti-socialistic agenda. You are more of an astute observer of the political climate and I think you would agree that we have seen an increased role of the federal govt (and even the state govts over local govts), esp. since the 1960s. It becomes more of an expectation and therefore, less of a desire to do or even promote the opposite. Is it the natural course? I don't know but the cause of individual rights, private properties, personal responsibilities and ensuring fruits of ones labor without overreaching interference from the govt. must still be promoted, regardless if it's a minority voice.

Easy Mac

01-19-2004, 09:51 PM

so you're not voting for Bush, or must I reference the Patriot Act.

kcchief19

01-19-2004, 09:53 PM

Speaking of Bush, anyone think his proposals for mexicans wanting to work here will hurt him any, because when i like something, i can't see too many republicans liking it......I have to admit, from a strategic standpoint, this was an absolutely brilliant move. The important distinction here is that all he wants is for Mexicans to come and work here -- he doesn't want to offer them government benefits or any other protections.

This will ring well with a lot of Republicans, especially business owners who would love to pay a Mexican worker minimum wage rather than pay an American at least four or five times that.

This also allows Bush to reach out to Hispanic voters that while not exactly alienating his base -- if Republicans don't like his immigration policy, who are they going to vote for? The Democrat who is even more liberal on the issue than Bush?

We're going to see more of this -- Bush is going to try to move to the middle on a lot more issues, especially if they help him win California.

I don't subscribe to the belief that the Democrats have to nominate a southerner (read: Edwards) to match up against Bush. Gore lost the entire south in 2000 and would have won if his campaign had not seriously miscalculated on Ohio.

Look at the Electoral math -- once you win California, New York, Illinois and Massachussets, all you have to is pick up most of the Northeast, Oregon and Washinton and the Great Lakes region. The support is there. If anything, with the new Republican bases in the south, I think the BEST way for a Democrat to win is to what Gore won and then add Ohio. Anything else you win is gravy.

If the Democrats run a southerner, they probably lose a couple of key northern states, but might not pick up any southern states. Look up Gore, Al.

What the Democrats need is someone who can win the traditional Democratic strongholds, the Great Lakes and a midwestern state or two, like Missouri. Maybe Kerry is the kind of candidate who can do that. After tonight, my doubts about Dean being able to that are high. Maybe Edwards can, but my feeling is that the guy is a stuffed shirt.

Buccaneer

01-19-2004, 09:59 PM

Matt, one of the recent polls shows Bush running ahead of any of the challengers in California. My guess right now is that I do not see the Dems winning any states in the South and the West except for Hawaii. In 2000, it was basically a tossup in the two most left-leaning states: Oregon and New Mexico (recounts could have gone either way). A New England-based politician will not play at all in the South or West, imo.

kcchief19

01-19-2004, 10:08 PM

I said leaning towards socialism or at least not promoting an anti-socialistic agenda. You are more of an astute observer of the political climate and I think you would agree that we have seen an increased role of the federal govt (and even the state govts over local govts), esp. since the 1960s. It becomes more of an expectation and therefore, less of a desire to do or even promote the opposite. Is it the natural course? I don't know but the cause of individual rights, private properties, personal responsibilities and ensuring fruits of ones labor without overreaching interference from the govt. must still be promoted, regardless if it's a minority voice.Bucc, I think I agree with you in a way, but I think we disagree on which way the pendulum is swinging. I think individual rights, property rights and personal responsibilites are being lost, but I don't think they are being lost to government, but rather to private industry.

I would contend this country is much LESS "socialistic" than it was in the 1960s or 1930s. We have seen massive deregulation in many industries, we have seen a decrease in the power of labor unions and we have seen a massive adjustment in the redistribution of tax revenues. The tax burden for the rich, while admittedly still higher than for the middle class and poor, is strikingly lower today.

What we have done, however, is given much more power to corporations and businesses. That maybe a shining example of capitalism to some, but it's the ugly side of it if you ask me. Big business in this country is where the power is. Socialism would suggest that the power lies more with "the people."

kcchief19

01-19-2004, 10:10 PM

Easy Mac

01-19-2004, 10:12 PM

Hmm, Kerry said something that struck me as odd.

He referenced the Pats winning and going to the SUper Bowl. He made note that he's from Mass. Edwards came in 2nd... he's from NC. The Panthers are in the Super Bowl.

Coincidences?

sabotai

01-19-2004, 10:17 PM

Buccaneer

01-19-2004, 10:27 PM

kc, speaking generally, I think we would have to disagree. In simplistic terms, we (as consumers and employees) have a choice in the power of business - but - we seem to have much less power or authority in what our govt does. What you and I can agree on is the sin of GREED, which seems to afflict both corporate leaders and politicans alike and that what many seems to be focusing on. It is not just the power of corporate lobbyists but the authority by default that we allow every single special interest group (private, public, social, etc.) to have a say in nearly every single legislation, as well as confounding role of the legal system. This was what Thos. Jefferson talked about in the perception of losing representation with those that should be governing based on our consent. I believe that you and I can mount a campaign to put Starbucks (for example) out of business but you and I cannot affect the power of the Potomac Fever. Somehow we grant to government the right to regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without our consent. For the most part, the evil corporations do not force you to buy their products or services. You cannot say the same for our govt.

CamEdwards

01-19-2004, 10:28 PM

Kerry's sports references will come in handy if he wins the nomination. He can talk about the Red Sox World Series Choke of '04 in his concession speech.

Hey, I'm a Red Sox fan, but I still had to make the comment.

Easy Mac

01-19-2004, 10:29 PM

Or in Bush's, he can talk of how the Rangers waste money on the most frivolous players, and thats why they never win.

JonInMiddleGA

01-19-2004, 10:30 PM

there are big states that Bush can't win.

And that same CBS article you mention assigns the 10-point drop to the increasingly discredited claims made by the former Treasury Secretary (whose name escapes me at the moment). Given time, that blip on the radar will pass.

And then there's the other reality of "approval" ratings -- you're essentially comparing someone against your ideal, not against the realistic alternatives.
Hell, Bush wouldn't probably wouldn't get any more than 75/100 score from me if you took the last 100 decisions he'd made and even that might be estimating high.

But that 75 is much better than the low teen's to single digits any of the Dem. candidates decisions (based upon their platforms) could produce. Which does much to explain why I'm about to start writing checks to the campaign & prepping my yard for as many signs as I can manage (I've got a corner lot on the busiest street in town, it's prime real estate for visibility :) )

Might as well plug one of the best websites I've seen in many years,
Dave Leip's Atlas of Presidential Elections at
http://uselectionatlas.org.

Among it's features is a handy "electoral calculator", so it's easy to play with the numbers. So let's see if I can duplicate my possible outcome

1) Assume first that Bush wins every state he won in 2000 - That's 278 votes
2) I believe California is winnable, 61% of gubernatorial voters had no problems voting (R) - that's 333
3) CT, HI, MA, MN, MD, NY, RI, & VT all elected Republican governors in 2001-2002 - that's enough to at least make them "winnable" -- that's 414
4) ME, NM, & OR each elected/re-elected GOP Senators in 2002 -- again, that should at least be enough to make them "winnable" -- that's 430

That leaves
Washington - 11 -- Iowa - 7 -- Illinois - 21 -- Wisconsin - 10 -- D.C.- 3
Michigan - 17 -- Pennsylvania - 21 -- New Jersey - 15 -- Delaware - 3
For a total of 108 electoral votes unaccounted for --

D.C. just had Braun & Sharpton do well in straw polls. I'll concede those 3 votes.

Washington & Iowa have voted (D) in four straight (yep, even Dukakis) but did reject McGovern in '72 - play the similarities to the current crop of Dems, invoke images of Reagan (who won there twice) and they're doable. Although I'll concede it's unlikely to very unlikely.

Illinois - 3 straight (D) for Pres. but 6 (R) before that. Hard, but arguably more winnable than the two above.

Wisconsin - Who the heck can figure, but looks winnable when you look at the narrow margin for Gore. Particularly when you look at the number of "strong" counties (50%+ for a candidate) for Gore vs the number strong for Bush, I see reason for hope.

Michigan - Odd results over the past few elections, at least when you compare them to the other states in this group. Clinton was not as strong as you might expect but Gore was stronger than typical. And Reagan won handily in '84.

PA,NJ & DE - A trio of Gore-Clinton-Clinton-Bush-Reagan-Reagan states. Those results suggest that the state isn't unwilling to vote for all (R) candidates, just that they have to be the right combination of strong (R) vs weak (D) candidates for it to happen. And that's just how I see 2004 shaping up. And Delaware (like Missouri) didn't vote for a losing candidate between 1960 & 1996, so they've got a good track record of going with winners ;)

If I take the last 3 for Bush, we're at 469-69.
Then put DC, WA & IA down as (D)
And mark IL, WI, MI as toss-ups (based on the the weak (D) vs strong (R) historical results)

We get 469 (R), 21(D) and 48 undecided.
Reagan v. Mondale was 525-13
So maybe we have to settle for Reagan-Carter (489-49) trouncing instead.
Or even Johnson-Goldwater (486-52)
Either of those would suffice, thanks very much.

But ... we're still in the warm-up phase where the non-incumbents get to beat on each other while the incumbent gets to save their money & their ammo.
There's ample time to get to the 469/21/48 stage.

But it's all contingent on one thing above all else -- Bush/Cheney have to remember that when you're ahead, you run like you're ten points behind.
If they forget that lesson, all bets are off.

JonInMiddleGA

01-19-2004, 11:20 PM

For those who are still wrestling with who to support in 2004, this might be of interest
http://www.presidentmatch.com/Main.jsp2?cp=main

ISiddiqui

01-19-2004, 11:53 PM

Go John Go!

I'm very pleased by these turn of events. I'm a moderate Republican backing Kerry in this race (primary and general election) and this makes me very, very happy.

sooner333

01-19-2004, 11:59 PM

I don't know if this is a good idea to post this or not...but what the hell

My results on the presidential test were
Bush 100%
Lieberman 56%
Edwards 51%
Clark 43%
Kerry 43%
Dean 36%
Gephardt 35%
Sharpton 24%
Kucinich 20%

JonInMiddleGA

01-20-2004, 12:13 AM

My results on the presidential test were

Given those results, I've got a funny feeling you aren't particularly struggling with the question of "Who am I voting for in 2004"
:D

Peregrine

01-20-2004, 12:16 AM

I saw a poll result in a caucus article that only 15% of voters indicated that the war in Iraq was a major motivator for their vote. I think that's what is hurting Dean, the feeling that the wave of anti-Iraq feeling is passing, that it happened too early to carry him into the election. We'll see how it goes in New Hampshire. Personally I think Dean has no chance to beat Bush, but if the Dems rally hard behind Kerry, Clark, or possibly Edwards (I'm from NC and can't stand the guy) they may have a chance if they play the right cards. Those being IMO employment, health care, etc.

I don't think I would have believed you several years ago if you told me I'd feel pressed to vote for a Democrat to have any chance at reducing government spending. The GOP spend-fest is way, way out of control IMO.

Abe Sargent

01-20-2004, 12:29 AM

Here are mine (prepare to run away afraid):

9 candidates ranked

100% Al Sharpton
through
75% George W. Bush

I think that this shows the biases of the test, it probably thinks I have radical answers - completely pro-gay, completely pro-life, pro-environment, anti-gun control, pro-company, pro-tax cut, pro-medicare expansion, pro-military, etc.

Seriously, how could I be in tune at least 75% with EVERY CANDIDATE otherwise?

-Anxiety

Abe Sargent

01-20-2004, 12:44 AM

Dola -

I ran the test again, with the same exact answers only differenet emphasis in the end. THe first time, I gave every category the same emphasis "somewhat" because they are all important to me. This time, I bumped up several categories one spot on importance and left two behind. So benefits and international reamined somewhat and the remaining categories moved up one spot. A minor change, eh?

Here were my results the second time (remember, exact same answers)

Bush 100%
Sharpton 96%

through

Kucinich 79%

How could any survey give you Bush #1 and Sharpton #2 in your responses? Dang, this thing is silly.

-Anxiety

stevew

01-20-2004, 12:44 AM

I got
100% Bush
68% Kerry
68% Leiberman
67% Edwards
Down through 50% Kucinich

Man, anyone with 100% Kucinich is definately weird

Peregrine

01-20-2004, 12:50 AM

Yeah I got some very strange results too Anxiety. The priority setting at the end is what seems to be off, it seems to determine your results more than the answers to the other questions!

Abe Sargent

01-20-2004, 01:04 AM

I did a quick mathematical check, comparing all candidates with where I stood. I awarded three points to any candidate who answered a question exactly as I did, 1 point if they answered it like I did but to a differnet degree (I answered somewhat oppose and they answered strongly oppose, for example). I awarded 0 for no opinion, and deducted 1 point for an answer on the other side.

I came out with Lieberman barely edging out Bush (just a few points), with Al Sharpton a distant third, actually.

-Anxiety

sterlingice

01-20-2004, 01:13 AM

Ah, my wonderful results:
Gephardt (100)
Sharpton (94)
Kucinich (93)
Dean (92)
Kerry (89)
Edwards (84)
Clark (80)
Lieberman (69)
Bush (32)

Well, I'm screwed. I liked Gephardt and apparently lined up well with him, but he's out. Then again, he had as much a chance of getting elected as Dole in 1996. The next two on my list are, um, how should I put this politely, crazy f'ing nuts. Lieberman is the one I have the most favorable vibe of the rest but he's going to be out after New Hampshire and I scored the lowest with him on issues. Shows how much a preliminary feel is worth when you don't match that much up with someone.

Then there are the 4 in the middle who are the "serious" canidates left: Dean, Kerry, Clark, and Edwards. I still need to do a lot of homework on those guys. But, again, just based on initial feel: Edwards seems small time and destined to lose, whenever I watch Dean I feel like I need to take a shower, Kerry has the charisma of Al Gore, and Clark doesn't seem like he has a lot of political acumen. Again, before you judge these- this is just initial feel when watching these guys talk (like on CSPAN or the speeches tonight).

Lastly, I didn't need a poll like this to show me that I disliked Bush. I already knew my politics didn't match up with him and the fact that I still think he's an idiot probably doesn't bode well for him in my eyes.

SI

mgadfly

01-20-2004, 04:14 AM

We get 469 (R), 21(D) and 48 undecided.
Reagan v. Mondale was 525-13
So maybe we have to settle for Reagan-Carter (489-49) trouncing instead.
Or even Johnson-Goldwater (486-52)
Either of those would suffice, thanks very much.

I spent a lot of the 2000 election doing this guestimation, and getting paid for it. Here is how I have this election, if it was held today:

Republican Lock: 122
Republican Strong: 36
Republican Lean: 84
Republican Total: 242

Toss up: 66

Democrat Lock: 86
Democrat Strong: 82
Democrat Lean: 61
Democrat Total: 229

The most important state in this election is once again Florida. The most surprising numbers from Iowa for me, was not that Kerry won, or that Edwards placed second, but that 120,000 democrats participated. It nearly doubled the 61,000 during the 2000 campaign. If those numbers are an indicator or trend for the general election (heavy turnout) the above numbers are worthless, and all bets are off.

BishopMVP

01-20-2004, 05:21 AM

The most surprising numbers from Iowa for me, was not that Kerry won, or that Edwards placed second, but that 120,000 democrats participated. It nearly doubled the 61,000 during the 2000 campaign. If those numbers are an indicator or trend for the general election (heavy turnout) the above numbers are worthless, and all bets are off.
How many participated in the Republicans caucus in 2000? There may be a significant percentage of those that are motivated voters, and migrated to the Democratic caucus this time because it was the only race.

jcclark02

01-20-2004, 08:22 AM

My test results:

Bush: 100%
Edwards: 78%
Lieberman: 77%
Kerry: 72%
Dean: 71%
Gephardt: 66%
Clark: 65%
Sharpton: 57%
Kucinich: 49%

QuikSand

01-20-2004, 09:27 AM

I believe that you and I can mount a campaign to put Starbucks (for example) out of business but you and I cannot affect the power of the Potomac Fever. Somehow we grant to government the right to regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without our consent. For the most part, the evil corporations do not force you to buy their products or services. You cannot say the same for our govt.

I think you're setting up an unfair comparison here, Bucc. You are essentially comparing the entire political system with the activities of one individual company. Not fair at all.

Even if we grant your dual assertions, they are not on par with one another. Saying that the people can bankrupt Starbucks by being active consumers is fine -- but the real political parallel there is that the people can eject one bad politician from office by being conscientious voters. Saying that the people are powerless to dismantle the entire political system is more properly analogous to the public's inability to topple not just one company, but rather our entire corporate- and consumer-driven society... which I would submit is an equally tall order.

QuikSand

01-20-2004, 09:36 AM

Somehow we grant to government the right to regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without our consent.

This statement in particular just reeks of sophistry to me. "The government" exists because we do consent. If everyone in America thought like you do, Bucc, we wouldn't have the taxes or services that we do. You complain about "special interests" (an obligatory target for all political malcontents) but the fact is that everyone is part of any number of these amorphous beasts -- if you buy a loaf of bread, you turn on your electricity, you take a walk in the park, you attend a college, you surf the internet -- you are part of a "group" of people who have interests and opinions that might be somewhat different than those of the greater population. You don't like government regulations? Fine. Get enough people to agree with you, and things will change. If you don't or can't, then it's not an intrinsic failure in the system, it's just the fact that a majority of people do not necessarily agree with your opinion.

mgadfly

01-20-2004, 10:30 AM

How many participated in the Republicans caucus in 2000? There may be a significant percentage of those that are motivated voters, and migrated to the Democratic caucus this time because it was the only race.

In 2000 less than 88,000 turned out for the Republican caucus. I haven't seen the numbers for how many Republicans turned out for their own caucus, but I assume it was pretty low given that it is a no contest race. However, whether some Republicans or independent voters caucused with the democrats, or whether democrat turnout was high, both have implications which don't necessarily favor this being a blow-out race for Republicans in 2004.

Buccaneer

01-20-2004, 01:53 PM

This statement in particular just reeks of sophistry to me. "The government" exists because we do consent. If everyone in America thought like you do, Bucc, we wouldn't have the taxes or services that we do. You complain about "special interests" (an obligatory target for all political malcontents) but the fact is that everyone is part of any number of these amorphous beasts -- if you buy a loaf of bread, you turn on your electricity, you take a walk in the park, you attend a college, you surf the internet -- you are part of a "group" of people who have interests and opinions that might be somewhat different than those of the greater population. You don't like government regulations? Fine. Get enough people to agree with you, and things will change. If you don't or can't, then it's not an intrinsic failure in the system, it's just the fact that a majority of people do not necessarily agree with your opinion.

I don't think there was anything I said that talked about eliminating taxes or regulations or programs but reducing them. "Get enough people to agree with you, and things will change." Not necessarily. A vocal minority can affect change more than a simple majority. The Teamsters can singlehandedly rewrite part of the Clean Air Act to exempt the most polluting vehicles on the road. And to be fair and balanced, the petroleum lobby can affect nationwide market prices more than consumers. But in the end, I do tend to favor a business making money and employing thousands of people to produce products for consumers.

This is not much of a response but I don't have much time. Sorry.

QuikSand

01-20-2004, 02:01 PM

The Teamsters can singlehandedly rewrite part of the Clean Air Act to exempt the most polluting vehicles on the road.

Actually, no, they can not.

The Congress may do so, with the approval of the President. I fyou are unhappy that your elected government responds to the wishes of interest groups with whom you do not agree, you are welcome to vote against them. Get enough people to agree with you, and the new people you elect will do what you want them to do.

Bucc, I understand where you are coming from -- and I have on more than one occasion lamented here the influence of moneyed interests in the political process. I engege with you in this way because (a) you make bolder assertions than most people here bother with, and (b) you share my interest in a healthy, rigorous debate.

I think you have overstated some things in this thread, largely as a result of your own perspective being a sizable distance from that of the less evolved among us. It's frustrating when the rest of the world hasn't caught up to your good ideas, I'm sure.

QuikSand

01-20-2004, 02:02 PM

I don't think there was anything I said that talked about eliminating taxes or regulations or programs but reducing them.

One small note - we're on the same page here. I meant to imply as follows: "If everyone in America thought like you do, Bucc, we wouldn't have the [level of] taxes or services that we do."

astralhaze

01-20-2004, 02:53 PM

The most important state in this election is once again Florida.
If that is the case I have no small amount of faith that Jeb will once again "deliver" it.

Buccaneer

01-20-2004, 07:15 PM

Qs, thanks for your patience and understanding and your complimentary words. It is hard for me to write anything here without sounding like hyperbolic sound bites.

You said, "Get enough people to agree with you, and the new people you elect will do what you want them to do." I know I have become quite cynical in this area because I just don't believe that anymore. Regardless of one's platform or crusade to get to Congress, I perceive the machine being too big for any type of quixotic changes. It does and must start small but this was my initial reaction in this post when all of the Dems are promoting more of the same. The leadership mechanisms and long-time ties to established corp of insiders as well as the cycle of incumbancy make it too suicidal to rock the very large ship.

You know I study the American Revolution and I see some parallels. I believe it is common sense not to be dictated from a strong central govt, because of distance (back then) and nowadays, because of one-size-fits-all legislative and legal solutions. How have we forgotten so much of the lessons of history?

As far as my statement about the Teamsters, you know that Congress themselves do not write most of the legislation. They have staff which then delegates to experts to do the actual leg work. I expect that you have done some of this yourself, as I have on the State level. That was what I meant. As far as this specific example, that part of the legislation was written by a legal team for the union because one Congressman on committee specifically demanded it in exchange for his vote in accepting other parts of the Act. This was some time ago which is why you and I have always seen a single dump truck (and other like vehicles) spew out more pollution than a thousand cars. With so many, many authors (or cooks) writing parts of legislation, is there any wonder why each are so massive and containing contradictions, not to only to other legislation but within itself as well? Anyway, that's not my point.

What it comes down to simply is this: I believe the strongest form of govt should be the local (city, town, village, etc) govt. Then comes the State and then the Federal Govt - as established originally in the Constitution (again, referring to the 10th Amend). Let me repeat that, the most dominant form of govt and where you pay the most taxes should be to your local city or town. Then a smaller portion goes to the State to handle contigencies that involve the whole state. Finally, the smallest portion goes to the Feds for defense and regulating matters between states, as well as the maintenanc of the three branches. We have grown to accept just the opposite and I say no wonder to the massive inefficiencies and corruptness of the federal govt.

If anyone is wondering (which I doubt), yes, I come from long lines of Colonial New England families and town meetings are in my blood.

JonInMiddleGA

01-20-2004, 07:37 PM

Let me repeat that, the most dominant form of govt and where you pay the most taxes should be to your local city or town.

Y'know what scares me most about that proposition?

The fact that I hold our local city/county government in much lower regard than the state or federal government. The idiot-to-competent ratio is much worse locally because the talent pool is so damned small.

And I can't imagine I'm the only person living in a place where that's the case.

Glengoyne

01-20-2004, 07:48 PM

2) I believe California is winnable, 61% of gubernatorial voters had no problems voting (R) - that's 333

If you used equitable logic in calculating any of the other states, I don't think your numbers mean much in the end. No way California goes to Bush, unless Cruz Bustamante or Gray Davis win the Democratic Nomination.

Actually from the current looks of things I think I could add Howard Dean to that list of unelectables. Just when I had given up on people seeing through Dean, or any candidate for that matter, the good people of Iowa come through for me. Just when I had started to believe the pundits too.

Buccaneer

01-20-2004, 07:58 PM

Y'know what scares me most about that proposition?

The fact that I hold our local city/county government in much lower regard than the state or federal government. The idiot-to-competent ratio is much worse locally because the talent pool is so damned small.

And I can't imagine I'm the only person living in a place where that's the case.

Jon, that's the beauty of it - nothing can be a better motivation for change than incompetence and what's good is that one person can make a difference locally. If you or others around you are fed up with such incompetence or disregard for local concerns, you can affect change by running yourself or get others to run or lead (much like school boards). How could a group of powerful politicians in Atlanta care much about your community? Why should they? Only you and your local citizens should be the ones that care about your community. If your local community are failing in certain areas, it is up to the local citizens to fix it or accept the way things are. Don't look for outsiders to have the same vested interest as you and your neighbors would.

JonInMiddleGA

01-20-2004, 08:22 PM

If your local community are failing in certain areas, it is up to the local citizens to fix it or accept the way things are. Don't look for outsiders to have the same vested interest as you and your neighbors would.

Note: I know this is a side track from the original train of thought you were on, I'm strictly offering food for thought, a little something different to chew on.

Sounds great in theory, sometimes works lousy in practice.

Those "vested interests" are a large part of the problem I'm talking about. It's all about "how can I enrich myself/my interests". And if they get to screw over others in the process, more the better.

The other part of the problem is, "fixing" things usually requires the proper tools. And when there's a shortage in the talent pool, those "tools" are often inadequate for the job at hand.

To borrowing from your school board example for a minute ...
--It's an area ranked in the bottom third of the bottom ranked state in education.
--Where the high school valedictorians start their college careers in remedial classes.
--Where the dropout rate is higher than the already high state average.
--Where only 11% of adults (25+) have a bachelor's degree or more but over 30% have less than a high school diploma. Nationally, nearly 1/4 of American's 25+ have a bachelor's or better, less than 20% have less than a HS diploma

And in spite of all those shortcomings, the controlling majority on the school board for more than 50 years has rested in the hands of two families (who have inter-married so many times they're lucky their kids don't have tails) either by blood-relation, married-relation or employees of the two families.

And I'm supposed to want these people to continue in control, all in the name of local control? No thanks, I've seen what local control can do here.

I know this isn't the norm. I know it's a somewhat isolated case, in a very small eco-system. But I'm reasonably sure these things do happen, in varying degrees, in other places as well.

Sometimes, the best perspective comes from a distance.

sterlingice

01-20-2004, 08:55 PM

Quik, Jon, Bucc- I hope you guys keep this up. It's very entertaining to read and even though I agree with one side much more than the other, I really enjoy reading both sides. It's a well reasoned and thought out debate (well, so far, it's just touched the surface arguments but these things grow) and it's civil. It's refreshing to not see the same old "You're Democrat so you must be wrong" "You're Republican so you must be wrong" "You're Libertarian so you must be wrong".

SI

JonInMiddleGA

01-20-2004, 10:23 PM

It's a well reasoned and thought out debate (well, so far, it's just touched the surface arguments but these things grow) and it's civil.

I don't know that I'm doing much more than playing devil's advocate a little bit here, although the situation I described is very real. (Frightening to live in, but real nonetheless.)

I'm historically a state's-righter, but more & more I discover that I really don't believe that you can extend that style all the way to the local level in all cases. The vox populi includes a lot more voices than the Founding Fathers anticipated, maybe it doesn't know WTH it's talking about as often as it used to.

It's refreshing to not see the same old "You're Democrat so you must be wrong" "You're Republican so you must be wrong" "You're Libertarian so you must be wrong".

Hang in there, your regularly scheduled programming will resume shortly :D

Easy Mac

01-20-2004, 10:29 PM

Buccaneer

01-20-2004, 10:44 PM

I don't think so. Mac. I think a lot of the climate of apathy, corruptness and incompetence comes from lack of accountability. For school boards, for instance, they seem to be more accountable to the State Dept of Education which in turn, is accountable to the Federal Dept of Education - which is accountable to nothing except political points. Local school boards and towns should swim or sink on their own, only be accountable to the local populace. Some will fail and some will succeed - which is no different than the many millions that are being spent to have bureaucratic State and Federal departments. I think this is one of the key frustrations I have and one that probably turned me more libertarian than otherwise. I would argue that the billions we have spent for the Federal Dept of Education (or whatever the official name is) doesn't make a difference than if there were more accountability locally and if it was taken serious locally. Same with the War on Poverty where many billions have been spent. Do you think it really made a difference than if the local population were compelled to care for one another instead of passing the buck to the Feds (or State)? That's one of my points. If you know you have to be responsible for something (like local education, local charity, local whatever) and enough of the local populace wants things changed, then it is in their hands to do so. If they choose not to, they suffer the consequences of their actions (or inactions). Giving money to a central govt will not make things any better - it just cause more money to leave the locale. Do not underestimate change in behavior when faced with real consequences.

JonInMiddleGA

01-20-2004, 10:44 PM

Jon, what you described above about the school board is very real and alive in a lot of the South. I've lived in small towns almost all of my life. The last town I lived in had an inept official in almost every position. The mayor won an election because he had dead people vote for him.

Some of the dead around here could do a better job of voting than the living.

Let's see ... I've got a mayor (who has managed to rise quite nicely amongst her peers around the state, btw) who tells me, point blank, that "sometimes you just have to let people with money have their way" (that's when one of the local banks tried to violate local, state, and federal regulations when trying to demolish a historic building to expand their parking lot.

We've got a city utility worker currently serving a 3-day suspension without pay. His transgression?

Having the nerve to question a sitting councilwoman if she would mind him inspecting her appliances to see if he could figure out why she hadn't received a gas bill in more than two years ! , even though she has gas appliances. So does her mother, who also hasn't been billed for gas in two years. Who tipped the worker off? Another councilman (the guy who beat me for the seat, btw) who was leaving the council the following week.

The same council has just unanimously reappointed a police chief who was indicted for stealing evidence from the property room but acquitted by a jury who commented on the courthouse steps afterwards that "it's not like he was stealing from anybody, it was just from the city".

A police chief whose number two man is his brother, who was instrumental in making sure that the Nuwabians were well represented in last year's parade for the town festival. (Try a quick search for details on the Malachi York trial that's now underway if that reference doesn't mean anything to you)

I could go on & on, but it'd be quicker to describe this little hamlet as one part Mayberry, one part Harper Valley, and one part Peyton Place.

If everything was controlled locally, the US would be a far worse place.

That's the conclusion I've come to as well. The trick is finding the right balance (which I'm certainly not sure has been accomplished yet either).

sabotai

01-20-2004, 10:54 PM

*reads Jon's post*
*gets out personal tape recorder and presses record.*

Note to self - Do not move to Georgia.

*presses stop on the personal tape recorder*

JonInMiddleGA

01-20-2004, 11:50 PM

*reads Jon's post*
*gets out personal tape recorder and presses record.*

Note to self - Do not move to Georgia.

*presses stop on the personal tape recorder*

sabotai - I can't say that I blame you much. Our largest cities are corrupt on a grand scale, our smallest cities are equally corrupt on a small scale. I haven't lived in a mid-size, so I can't really comment on them much one way or the other.

I can't believe it, but I managed to Google up something I first read over a year ago but it stuck with me ever since. It's a column in Creative Loafing (the Atlanta throwaway entertainment paper), with the full text available at
http://atlanta.creativeloafing.com/2001-10-31/fishwrapper.html

The focus was the (then) upcoming Atlanta city election, but the beginning could be applied to virtually every town I can think of.

Robert Pastor, an Emory University political scientist, explains Atlanta politics with this parable: A young boy goes to see a palm reader to get his fortune told. The psychic takes the boy's money, studies his hand and tells the lad he'll be poor and unhappy until he's 40 years old.

"And then what happens?" the boy asks.

The palm reader responds: "Then you'll get used to it."

Atlanta has suffered so long from galactic-class public corruption and mismanagement, there's a strong argument to be made that, like the young boy, we've grown comfortable with the slime oozing out of City Hall. Sprinkle enough perfume on it, and you hardly notice the smell.

Those who tout this theme don't defend that paragon of awful government, Mayor Bill Campbell. Still, what they decry isn't so much what Campbell has done -- it's just that he did too much of it.

Here's how Atlanta's consummate political schmoozer and fixer David Franklin puts it: "People really don't want an outsider coming in and changing things. They've told us" -- "us" being the handlers for ex-wife Shirley Franklin's mayoral race -- "that they like what they've had in the past, like with Maynard (Jackson). They want someone who can hit the ground running."

The reference to "like with Maynard (Jackson)" might be lost on those not familiar with Atlanta politics. While Jackson was eulogized as a great leader, civil rights groundbreaker, and on & on when he died last year, what wasn't mentioned very much were the scandals that plagued his administration.
For example, his efforts to ensure diversity in contracts for Hartsfield Airport went too far, ultimately leading to the successful federal prosecution of several officials from his administration and/or close advisors. Jackson eventually begat the even more ethically-challenged Mayor Bill Campbell.

That's the sort of "business as usual" that Atlanta wants. And 60 miles away, in my little city of 3,000, the picture is so similar it's frightening.

GrantDawg

01-21-2004, 11:21 AM

*reads Jon's post*
*gets out personal tape recorder and presses record.*

Note to self - Do not move to Georgia.

*presses stop on the personal tape recorder*
That's right. All other states are free from corruption and idiots. :rolleyes:

Samdari

01-21-2004, 11:36 AM

As a person who voted for Bush, but would gladly listen to another viable candidate were one to come about

Note: I have quoted Troy here, but this is not necesarily mean to respond to him alone, and certainly not to bash him for his views. I have long been frustrated by the mindset that one must vote for the candidate who wins for that person's vote to have counted. This is meant simply to present an alternate viewpoint to think about when casting your vote.
/end disclaimer

Why limit yourselves to viable candidates?

Face it, both political parties are completely corrupt. The only difference between the two is which special interests they have sold out to.

If we restrict our voting to candidates who have a chance of winning, that means a republican or democrat, that means a corrupt fellow in charge. I am disillusioned enough to feel I am not represented at all at any level of politics, and yet (perhaps foolishly) idealistic enough to believe that we as a people can change this within the framework of the current system. Vote anybody but the two ruling parties. The mindset that a vote for someone unlikely to win is wasted will forever doom us to the current two party mire.

QuikSand

01-21-2004, 11:44 AM

What it comes down to simply is this: I believe the strongest form of govt should be the local (city, town, village, etc) govt. Then comes the State and then the Federal Govt - as established originally in the Constitution (again, referring to the 10th Amend). Let me repeat that, the most dominant form of govt and where you pay the most taxes should be to your local city or town. Then a smaller portion goes to the State to handle contigencies that involve the whole state. Finally, the smallest portion goes to the Feds for defense and regulating matters between states, as well as the maintenanc of the three branches. We have grown to accept just the opposite and I say no wonder to the massive inefficiencies and corruptness of the federal govt.

As a matter of political philosophy, there are two very meaningful problems here.

First, there is the matter of "efficiency." If you choke on using that work in any way related to goverment, then try on "economies of scale." Look at the way that our country reacted to the recent BCE/Mad Cow situation. The Federal Department of Agriculture took the lead, and they are the ones who adopt the regulations over the beef industry. One new rule, and everyone has to follow it. I think it's a fair illustration of how things can work more effectively by one actor-- imagine if we had to convene the regulatory boards of 50 different states, each one coming up with their own rules and regulartions regarding beef and so forth. Who would ever know what the rules are? Who would have comfort that the food they eat is from a state that has adequate rules? There are any number of circumstances where the state and local level is simply not efficient at all in dealing with the public interest. Perhaps your intent is to include all such things under the auspices of "regulating matters between states" -- but I'd submit that once you include interstate commerce, you're well beyond the pale of the incidental category that you imply.

Second, and perhaps more importantly, is the matter of equity. I realize that these principles are not unassailable, but most Americans would agree that all citizens deserve a certain level of services -- programs like Medicaid and public education.

The problem is that if you count on the smaller, more local levels of government to provide essential services like these, you end up in a largely inescapable cycle of the rich getting richer, and the poor getting the picture. The poorest areas of our country, whether blighted urban centers or stark rural "pockets of poverty" simply lack the adequate tax base needed to properly fund public services. And this, of course, is the place where there are the greatest needs for health clinics, basic education, and the like. People who can choose to leave the big city because the schools are lousy and the streets are unsafe... and because the people who had the means/money all left, who's left in the city? People who dont' own or earn enough to pay taxes adequate to properly police the streets and teach the children. As long as each community is left on its own to fend for itself, you end up with an increasingly polarized country -- where the wealthy huddle together and provide glorious public services based on a giant tax base, and the poor have less and less, since they cannot support even basic services.

There is a fundamental role for larger levels of government in providing some redistributive funding, to ensure that at least basic standards of service can be reached in the poor areas that lack adequate tax base to provide them for themselves. I realize that it stings the wealthy to pay more in taxes to their state or their country than they reeive back in direct benefits (either individually, or as a community) but there's a principle there that is difficult to complete reject. And providing some degree of equity in public programs is something that can only be done at higher levels of government, which reach across both the rich and poor areas of the country.