Wisconsin Primary

[BishopMVP]

Hold on a second. Despite recent polls http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Pre...lls_04.html#wi that showed Kerry with at least a 25% lead over every other contender, exit polls have put it at too close to call and the results http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pri...ges/states/WI/ (with 19% in) have Kerry and Edwards tied at 38% apiece, with Dean at 18%.

Looks like Kerry may have switched his focus from the other candidates to Bush a little too soon.

[BishopMVP]

With 23% now in, and a 53 vote lead for Kerry, CNN is now projecting the state for Kerry.

[kcchief19]

CNN just stunned Wolf Blitzer by projecting Kerry the winner, despite the fact that at the time Edwards actually had more votes counted. He was talking about how it was too close to call as CNN put up a graphic projecting Kerry the winner.

I know CNN's got to be confident that Kerry's going to pull this out, but that's pretty ballsy to project this race with it being a dead heat with 23 percent of the vote in.

I'm not sure what this is going to mean. Clearly it's great for Edwards, and will definitely keep him around for a while. But I'm not sure this is going to be anymore than a speed bump for Kerry. Super Tuesday is going to be a tall task for Edwards.

[Chubby]

Doesn't Edwards only have one state right now anyways?

[BishopMVP]

He only has one state, but Kerry will have less than 1/3rd of the needed delegates. Super Tuesday is the big day, and if Dean drops out and it is set up as a two-man race between Edwards and Kerry, Edwards could still pull it out. Kerry's lead in polls taken in states like Cali and NY is about what he had in Wisconsin, and that evaporated overnight. With two weeks, Edwards could take most of the states. Could.

[Easy Mac]

Kerry is up 5K now, little more comforting, but not a great margin, and it shows Edwards has some pull outside of just the South.

[Buccaneer]

Or perhaps sensible voters just roll their eyes when someone like Kerry says shit like this, "...is is an extreme radical administration," Kerry said Tuesday." Or I guess Edwards is too levelheaded for the most of the extremists that are voting in the primaries.

My soundbite quip for the day.

[Craptacular]

They showed some numbers on one of the networks regarding who voted for who. Kerry was winning big among Democrats, but Edwards was winning big among Independents and Republicans. Wisconsin is an open primary, unlike many other states. Some of those Republicans might be voting for Edwards because they think he's weaker against Bush. Personally (and I generally vote Republican), I didn't vote for any of them, because I'd rather let the people who really want one of the candidates as President to decide their candidate.

The most telling exit poll result was that 75% of the people who voted for Edwards made up their mind in the last three days. I think it was less than 1/3 for people who voted for Kerry.

[Craptacular]

Dola, it doesn't look like there will be a casino in Madison either. That was the only other question on my ballot. The results show about a 2-1 vote no.

[Tigercat]

I am sure Bush would call Kerry and Edwards radical if given the chance. Its all part of the game, just like interests become special interests when they don't support you.

[Buccaneer]

But there is a difference, Tigercat. Kerry's record in the Senate is as a radical left-winger (being a Kennedy protege). But despite some "radical" fringes in the Bush administration, I still view his record (not his perception) as a liberal Republican. Just like with Clinton. His actual record turned out to be more conservative Democrat with radical fringes.

[tucker342]

I thought the networks weren't going to do that anymore...

[tucker342]

dola-

Buc,

I agree about what you said about Clinton... but I strongly disagree about Bush, in my opinion, he's not a Liberal Republican at all.

[AgPete]

If Kerry picks up Edwards for his VP, Bush is going to have some problems. The way I see it, no career politician is ever going to do the right thing in office. They'll live by the polls and special interests. I'd like to see a national health care plan like every other indusrialized country has but I know it won't happen even though Kerry and Edwards say that healthcare is a major issue for them. I'd like to see more money spent on education but I know it won't happen anymore with a Democrat than it will with a Republican. So if Kerry doesn't have the balls to be as strong against terrorism as Bush, he won't get my vote. I think the Democrats need to watch out for that, they shouldn't get too carried away with their gripes against Bush's foreign policy because most Americans simply don't care and want Bush to crush any possible threat after 9/11.

[BishopMVP]

If you want to see some breakdowns by who voted for who - http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pri.../WI/index.html

It appears Democrats (~62% of voters) voted 47-32 for Kerry, Independents (29%) voted 41-27 for Edwards and Republicans (10%) went 45-18 for Edwards.

Here are some more important, IMO, stats. On whether you voted for Can Beat Bush (33%) it was 59-28 for Kerry, on Issues (60%) it was 40-28 for Edwards. Among those enthusiastic about the Bush administration (presumably the ones who would be voting for the candidate Bush was most likely to beat) Dean had his best showing, at 30%, 3 behind Edwards.

Other (possibly) interesting demographic points were that by 65-31 voters disapproved of the war in Iraq (about reversed in the general population), by 74-13 they felt trade with other countries loses jobs. Only 3% voted based on national security, but 17% on Iraq. Also, when asked the most important issue, Kerry won handily on the Can Beat Bush (23% of those polled) and Right Experience (8%), while losing significantly on Cares About People (19%), Positive Message (17%) and Right Temperament(5%). Dean won on Stands for Beliefs (despite his platform being very different than his tenure as Governor) with Edwards second with 28%, and Kerry with 23% (despite being John Kerry).

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by tucker342

dola-

Buc,

I agree about what you said about Clinton... but I strongly disagree about Bush, in my opinion, he's not a Liberal Republican at all.

He's certainly not a conservative Republican in practice.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by AgPete

I'd like to see a national health care plan like every other indusrialized country has but I know it won't happen even though Kerry and Edwards say that healthcare is a major issue for them.

I think the better ticket for the Democrats would be Edwards with Kerry as VP.

I"m kind of against national health care, since our current level of government services are unsustainable long-term already - http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/20...ittlefield.htm - and I think we should try to start solving some of those problems before sticking in another gigantic government program. But the article points out why this is unlikely to happen.

[Tigercat]

I concur with Tucker, based on actions alone I would consider Clinton more centrist than Bush. I would also consider the elder Bush more centrist than the younger. Of course W. Bush would be more centrist than, say, Reagan.

As far as Bush and Kerry, I think one could argue rather successfully that Bush is more centrist than Kerry, however, is it really by that much? Is Kerry further away from the center than Reagan was? Than W. Bush was in his campaign? I would argue that W's compaign had far more radical ideas than Kerry's campaign has come out with.

[ISiddiqui]

He's certainly not a conservative Republican in practice.

He's a fucking disgrace to the Republican Party is what he is. I think Kerry is right to call him a radical, but for other reasons. This increase in spending is something that LBJ would have loved to see. Shameful that it happens under a Republican!

[Tigercat]

From that it sounds more like Republicans tried to play the spoiler with Dean more than Edwards.

[AgPete]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

I think the better ticket for the Democrats would be Edwards with Kerry as VP.

I"m kind of against national health care, since our current level of government services are unsustainable long-term already - http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/20...ittlefield.htm - and I think we should try to start solving some of those problems before sticking in another gigantic government program. But the article points out why this is unlikely to happen.

I understand the issues but I just feel that it's the moral responsibility for any country as great as the US of A. You need take care of those who can't take care of themselves. It costs a lot of money but it's the right thing to do. I grew up poor so maybe I can relate to the issue more than others but I've seen first hand how people with money get health care they take for granted. We're doing good, we take care of a lot of kids, senior citizens and handicapped but I think we could do better. I also think the medical field is a huge freaking rip-off but that's another topic.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

But there is a difference, Tigercat. Kerry's record in the Senate is as a radical left-winger (being a Kennedy protege). But despite some "radical" fringes in the Bush administration, I still view his record (not his perception) as a liberal Republican. Just like with Clinton. His actual record turned out to be more conservative Democrat with radical fringes.

I have no idea what kind of colored glasses you are looking at this guys. Bush a "liberal Republican?" Maybe if you're David Duke. What is Bush "liberal" on? He's not pro-choice, he doesn't seem to like a balanced budget, he's strong on gun rights, he's opposed to gay rights legislation, etc., and he has used conservative social issues such as abortion as a litmus test for a variety of purposes, including judicial and cabinet appointments. You're pretty far off on Kerry, too. I think that comment about Kerry being a "radical left-winger" displays little knowledge of his voting record in Congress. It does qualify you, however, for a seat next to Karl Rove.

OnTheIssues.com, a non-partisan site that lists elected officials and their stated positions, classifies these in this way:

George W. Bush: Moderate Conservative www.issues2000.org/George_W__Bush.htm
John Kerry: Liberterian Leaning Liberal www.issues2000.org/John_Kerry.htm (for the record, Ted Kennedy is classified as a Hard Core Liberal -- not exactly lock-step).
Bill Clinton: Moderate Populist www.issues2000.org/Bill_Clinton.htm
John Edwards: Populist Leaning Liberal http://www.issues2000.org/John_Edwards.htm

I will not disagree that in 1990, Bill Clinton was much liberal than he was in 1996, having run to the middle to win and be re-elected. However, he was much more liberal on social issues and more conservative on economic issues, if striving for a balanced budget can be considered "conservative" in this day and age. And while Bush has moved to the middle on some issues, he clearly hasn't move as much as Clinton and he is close to a hard-core conservative on social issues, including abortion, guns, prayer, gays -- you name it.

edit: By the way, Bucc, I'm very glad to see you back and ornery as ever around here -- I wouldn't have it any other way. Hope you're feeling better!

[BishopMVP]

I find it hilarious how the last 2 Presidents (both moderates) have been demonized by the other party and the other party's supporters, despite betraying many of the principles their own party was founded upon.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

he is close to a hard-core conservative on social issues, including abortion, guns, prayer, gays -- you name it.

Talk, talk, talk. When it comes to actual decisions and policy, he isn't a conservative any more than Clinton was a liberal.

[ISiddiqui]

What is Bush "liberal" on?

How is Bush "conservative"? Have you SEEN how much he's been raising spending in his latest budgets?

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by tucker342

dola-

Buc,

I agree about what you said about Clinton... but I strongly disagree about Bush, in my opinion, he's not a Liberal Republican at all.

Think budgets, new federal programs, abundant overseas aid, immigration amnesty, temporary steel tariffs, etc. Those are hallmarks of a Democratic administration. But seeing your presidential match score, I would expect that from you.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Think budgets, new federal programs, abundant overseas aid, immigration amnesty, temporary steel tariffs, etc. Those are hallmarks of a Democratic administration. But seeing your presidential match score, I would expect that from you.

And then of course, you also need to remember that compared to Buccaneer's peers, both parties are extremely liberal. I mean, Ben Franklin, James Madison and the other founding fathers never would have implemented spending programs as big as even conservatives propose today.

[kcchief19]

Bishop, that's an interesting observation. I think a big difference between the two is that Clinton dragged the Democratic Party kicking and screaming to a better political position -- particularly on issues like welfare reform. Conversely, I think Bush has setback Republican ideals significantly by spending be damned and running up defiicits. Polls are now starting to show that more Americans are trusting Democrats with running the economy. Imagine that.

If a few things had changed in timing, particularly the war in Iraq and the sluggish economy, Bush would have faced a primary challenge from someone, not unlike the challenge Buchanan made to this dad. I'm hearing more and more conservatives turning on Bush, which I admit I find somewhat bizarre because other than mismanaging the economy, he's a conserative's wet dream as a president.

[ISiddiqui]

admit I find somewhat bizarre because other than mismanaging the economy, he's a conserative's wet dream as a president.

For most conservatives the economy IS the whole picture. Everything else is just details... or for the Christian Coaltion to beg over.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Talk, talk, talk. When it comes to actual decisions and policy, he isn't a conservative any more than Clinton was a liberal.

How so? What "liberal" decisions and policies is Bush putting forth?

As for Bush increasing spending, you have to look at the nuts and bolts -- he's increasing spending on defense and homeland security, but increasing social spending on social programs at a rate at inflation or below, which is not an increase, at a time when he is decreasing revenues. Fact of the matter is that run away federal deficits are now a Republican legacy, with Bush and Reagan the kings of deficit spending.

[AgPete]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

For most conservatives the economy IS the whole picture. Everything else is just details... or for the Christian Coaltion to beg over.

Shhhh... don't let the public know how a true conservative votes or some radio talk show hosts may be out of a job.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

For most conservatives the economy IS the whole picture. Everything else is just details... or for the Christian Coaltion to beg over.

Well, if the economy is the picture for conservatives, they are voting for the wrong guys. Bush is in lock step with the Christian Coalition, which seems to be the "heart" of the Republican party these days.

[Buccaneer]

he is close to a hard-core conservative on social issues, including abortion, guns, prayer, gays -- you name it.

Picking up on the same quote, I would say that a slim majority of Americans fall into the same category (less so now than previous years). Are you saying that a majority (or close to it) of Americans are on the radical fringe??? I would say just the opposite. Kerry even voted for partial birth abortion ban and in favor of NRA-sponsored legislation. Besides as much as Kerry's voting is all over the place (despite what he will be labeled as), Kerry cannot call Bush as a radical extremist even though he will try, THe truth is in the middle which even you, kcchief, cannot deny because from your post, being a moderate conservative is not being a hard-core conservative (unless you are so far left that you would call anyone right of you a radical).

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

with Bush and Reagan the kings of deficit spending.

Again, you need a basic lesson in Civics 101. The Senate and House are the kings of deficit spendings. Don't you ever see what they do to propose budgets????

[ISiddiqui]

Well, if the economy is the picture for conservatives, they are voting for the wrong guys.

If Conservatives are turning on Bush, then they aren't, are they?

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

How so? What "liberal" decisions and policies is Bush putting forth?

I'll refer to Bucc's list. For the contrary, what "conservative" policies has he implemented?

As for Bush increasing spending, you have to look at the nuts and bolts -- he's increasing spending on defense and homeland security, but increasing social spending on social programs at a rate at inflation or below, which is not an increase,

It seems to me that his spending on defense and security have been somewhat restrained. Things like NCLB and the new Medicaid addition are an increase.

at a time when he is decreasing revenues.

This is an explanation for a higher deficit, and has had no discernible effect on his spending.

Fact of the matter is that run away federal deficits are now a Republican legacy, with Bush and Reagan the kings of deficit spending.

Short-term, they present no problem whatsoever. Long-term, as the article I linked to showed, we have some very big problems (that will affect me a lot more than any social programs today) that will need lower spending than either party proposes and higher taxes than either party proposes.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

Well, if the economy is the picture for conservatives, they are voting for the wrong guys. Bush is in lock step with the Christian Coalition, which seems to be the "heart" of the Republican party these days.

That's way over the line and so hyperbolic that it's sad to hear it coming from you.

You talk about voting the wrong guys, boy, that is the pot calling the kettle black. If you were truly concerned about "fiscal responsibility" and "budget deficits", you definitely would not be voting for a Democrat (or even most Republicans for that matter). Kerry would not only have submitted a $2.45 trillion budget (just the details would be different, Congress does its usual shit with it), he would keep more of our money. Being libertarian is not being ultra-conservative, it's about reducing the waste and inefficiency and enormous power the federal govt has on every aspect of our lives.

[ISiddiqui]

Kerry would not only have submitted a $2.45 trillion budget (just the details would be different, Congress does its usual shit with it), he would keep more of our money.

I think a Kerry budget would be smaller. One, because he would like to reduce the deficit, and two, because he'll be facing a Republican Congress. Gridlock, the best possible position for the US government .

[Buccaneer]

I agree Imran, but that's not the way he and his supporters are talking.

[Fonzie]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Again, you need a basic lesson in Civics 101. The Senate and House are the kings of deficit spendings. Don't you ever see what they do to propose budgets????

Right. And the president has veto authority over budgetary legislation. If the budget is out of whack then its the president's job to send it back.

[Buccaneer]

Only 1) if it's politically expedient to do so and 2) if there is little chance that the veto will be overridden. This has not been the case since the Reagan years. Bush wanted to do that with the overloaded pork-laden $383b highway bill, but it would have been foolish politically, but good for the budget deficit.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I think a Kerry budget would be smaller. One, because he would like to reduce the deficit

On point 2 I agree, but he is proposing reducing the deficit by raising taxes, although the numbers don't really work out.

[Fonzie]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

That's way over the line and so hyperbolic that it's sad to hear it coming from you.

Are you disputing that Republicans in general, and Bush specifically, are strong allies of and depend heavily upon the votes of the Religious Right?

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Fonzie

Are you disputing that Republicans in general, and Bush specifically, are strong allies of and depend heavily upon the votes of the Religious Right?

Just like Kerry will depend heavily upon the votes of the Atheist Left.

You know that SkyDog, myself and quite a few others here are devout believers in Christ. The "Religious Right" is a media-hyped myth that a few political powerbrokers have used for and against in elections. You saw what I wrote earlier about a majority (or close to it) still believe in traditional family values (anti-abortion, pro-traditional family, etc.) and many of them are not "part" of the "Religious Right" or belong to a church or even profess any religious beliefs.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by AgPete

I'd like to see a national health care plan like every other indusrialized country has.

You do realize that having the U.S. government administer something like this will likely triple the amount of money people pay for health care? And lower its quality as well?