Iowa Caucuses

[Ryche]

I am so glad this thing will finally be over after today. The Iowa Caucuses have to be the most overblown political event in this country, considering how rarely the winner actually ends up the final nominee.

My prediction: Gephardt pulls out a narrow, but ultimately meaningless win tonight, Dean wins New Hampshire, and then John Edwards comes out of nowhere to win the nomination. He has the least negatives going for him and he's the handsome young Southern politician that the media falls in love with.

[kcchief19]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Edwards is the guy who matches up best with Bush.

[Jon]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Jon

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]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

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/...in593849.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]

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]

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-]

Originally Posted by sooner333

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]

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]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

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]

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...

[Jon]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

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.

But, then again, if the Dean organization were smart, which I'm certain they are, they may be able to convince those people that Dean would be the eventual nominee and it would look better to support him. He is leading the rest of the field in double digits nationally.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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

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]

Originally Posted by -Mojo Jojo-

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by sabotai

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]

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]

won't help us in November.

Ain't nothing going to help you in November

[Jon]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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]

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.

[sabotai]

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

[QuikSand]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

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]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

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]

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!

[sabotai]

I'm going to write in Donald Duck.

[CamEdwards]

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]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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/...in593849.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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Cringer

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]

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]

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

[Buccaneer]

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]

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]

Edwards is the guy who matches up best with Bush.

I agree with Senator.

[Buccaneer]

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.