Propaganda SpinMasters At Work?

[mike777]

The guy leading the Republicans, as I said, is pro gun control, pro gay marriage and pro choice and you guys hate him and say the Republicans are committing suicide?

 

I like that big tent. Why all the hate?

 

Will the Democrats elect a pro life, pro gun President or is their tent small?

[pbleighton]

"The guy leading the Republicans, as I said, is pro gun control, pro gay marriage and pro choice and you guys hate him and say the Republicans are committing suicide?"

 

You think Guiliani will get the nomination?

 

I don't. He's totally unrepresentative of the national party.

 

I realize he's leading in the polls, but Republican primary voters tend to be substantially more conservative than the larger set of those who identify themselves as Republican to pollsters in these polls (the same thing is true in reverse for Democrats).

 

Ben Nelson isn't getting the Democtatic nomination, either :o

 

BTW, Guiliani isn't pro gay marriage, nor are any of the leading Democratic contenders. They are pro civil union - a politically huge distinction.

 

Peter

[hrothgar]

The guy leading the Republicans, as I said, is pro gun control, pro gay marriage and pro choice and you guys hate him and say the Republicans are committing suicide?

 

I like that big tent. Why all the hate?

 

Will the Democrats elect a pro life, pro gun President or is their tent small?

I see nothing wrong with Rudy Giuliani's social policies. I dislike the man intensely, as do most of the NYC residents that I that I know. However, I wouldn't say that this extends to hatred. I certainly don't have the same visceral reaction towards Gulianni that I do towards Brownback, the Shrub, Ashroft, of the rest of the American Taliban.

 

Back to Rudy. While Giuliani was viewed successful DA, he was widely seen as a failure as NYC mayor up until 9-11. Most of his "successes" are attributed to the economic boom during the Clinton years. NYC resident's widely remember him as a jackbooted authoritarian who presided over a series of disasters. The Abner Louima and Amadou Diallo scandals occured during Giulini's tenure, as did the whole Brooklyn Museum idiocy. (There are plenty of other examples)

 

9-11 was the best thing that ever happened to Giuliani. He really comported himself beautifully that day. He exerted a real calming presence over the city and the nation. Even so, I don't think that this qualifies him for the Presidency.

 

As for your whole "Big Tent" argument. lets see if he is actually the Republican nominee. I'd bet dollars to donuts that he can't get the nomination. And with respect to the Democratic party: its true that none of the Democratic candidates are expousing a pro-life position. However, there are plenty of leading members of the party who do. Senate Majority leader Harry Reid and Senator Bob Casey are two obvious examples.

[mike777]

At this point Rudy G. may be the only one to give Mrs. Clinton a run for the money.

I really thought she would have a primary fight but she really shot out of the pack.

 

With all the anti Bush emotion running high I expect the Dems to start lining up early and in huge numbers in November 2008.

 

I am a bit worried by her turn in rhetoric saying "I will end the War" as the media reports it. She cannot end the war, she does not have that power, the war will continue and may get very worse once she pulls us out.

[hrothgar]

I am a bit worried by her turn in rhetoric saying "I will end the War" as the media reports it. She cannot end the war, she does not have that power, the war will continue and may get very worse once she pulls us out.

Don't expect me to defend Hillary.

 

I don't have good feelings about her the Democratic nominee. I think that she'd rile up the Republican base which is the last thing that the Democratic party wants. About the best thing that you can say about her as a candidate is that she's survived 16 odd years of the vast right-wing noise machine without sustain a knockout blow. This is more than could be said for Gore or Kerry. Even so, she strikes me as more trouble than she's worth. I also don't particularly want to see eight more years oof the Clinton's triangulating bullshit. I think that Bill Clinton undercut the Deocrats message on a wide variety of positions rnaging from "Star Wars" to medical care.

 

Sadly, I'm resigned to the fact that i'm never gonna see the ticket that I want. I'd love to see Russ Reingold and Eliot Spitzer in high office. My hope right now is one of the more palatable Democrats does something interesting like picking their running mate early on. It would be interesting to see a ticket like Obama - Clark or Gore - Clark emerge early on.

[mike777]

Funny enough, I am sort of, kind of, indirectly distantly related to Russ F.

 

Ahh the family stories about him :o

 

I thought Gore had more of a chance this year, guess not.

[Al_U_Card]

Speaking of tickets.....veeps were always fairly impotent unless the prez got offed ...until Big Dick got behind little dick.

 

Do you think the next veep will expect executive type privilege?

[pbleighton]

"I really thought she would have a primary fight but she really shot out of the pack."

 

I think there will likely be a tough fight, there are too many Dems (myself included) who would be happy with her as President, but who are suspicious of her strength as a candidate. Her stance on the war may hurt her as well, though this is uncertain.

 

"With all the anti Bush emotion running high I expect the Dems to start lining up early and in huge numbers in November 2008."

 

I hope so, but it's a LONG time from now - about 20 years in (political) dog years.

 

Peter

[luke warm]

richard, it's my view that you and peter represent the reason a democrat won't win the whitehouse next election... you saw clinton as too centrist (let me know if i'm misrepresenting your views), while most republicans saw him as too left... the dem base will never stand for another 'moderate' democrat as the nominee, if they can help it... strangely though, that's the only kind that can win a general election

 

the american public seems to have less trouble electing a self-proclaimed social conservative than it does a self-proclaimed social liberal... a more moderate candidate, whether dem or rep, might have a chance to be elected, but if it comes down to liberal vs. conservative, i think conservative will win

[hrothgar]

richard, it's my view that you and peter represent the reason a democrat won't win the whitehouse next election... you saw clinton as too centrist (let me know if i'm misrepresenting your views), while most republicans saw him as too left... the dem base will never stand for another 'moderate' democrat as the nominee, if they can help it... strangely though, that's the only kind that can win a general election

 

the american public seems to have less trouble electing a self-proclaimed social conservative than it does a self-proclaimed social liberal... a more moderate candidate, whether dem or rep, might have a chance to be elected, but if it comes down to liberal vs. conservative, i think conservative will win

I think that the Democratic base has demonstrated itself to be quite practical. Our goal is very simple:

 

1. We want the Republicans out of the Whitehouse.

 

2. We want the Republican party marginalized to a regional party representing the deep south

 

3. We want control of both house of congress

 

Personally, I'm willing to sacrifice quite a lot in terms of ideological purity in order to achieve those ends. Case in point: I think that Harry Reid is a damn good choice for Senate Majority leader. I'm not especially concerned with his conservative social policies. Rather, I value the fact that he is willing to stand up and fight for the Democratic party.

 

I don't think that my views are that far removed from the mainstream of the party base. Case in point: During the last electoral cycle Dennis Kucinich was the candidate who best represented the policies of the Democratic base. His candidacy didn't go anywhere because the party activists didn't beleive he would be viable in the general elections.

[Winstonm]

Do any of the debaters see this coming election as somewhat akin to the 1976 election in terms of supporting a candidate that appears honest and aboveboard, a la Jimmy Carter only with more experiece in government?

 

Could a dark horse like Sen Hagel or Sen Webb surprise?

 

One thing I think is assured - if Hillary is the dem nominee you will see the largest voter turnout in the past 50 or so years.

 

Personally, I would like to see a third party candidate actually elected, just to show both parties that politics as usual is no longer tolerated.

[luke warm]

I think that the Democratic base has demonstrated itself to be quite practical.

i don't think that's true... i think the base is composed of the most liberal members of the party, just as i think the republican base is composed of the most conservative members...

Personally, I'm willing to sacrifice quite a lot in terms of ideological purity in order to achieve those ends.  Case in point:  I think that Harry Reid is a damn good choice for Senate Majority leader.  I'm not especially concerned with his conservative social policies.  Rather, I value the fact that he is willing to stand up and fight for the Democratic party.

well that is practical, and (imo) the only way a dem prez will be elected... but i still don't think the base is quite so willing to sacrifice ideological purity, and the bases of both parties are forces to be reckoned with

During the last electoral cycle Dennis Kucinich was the candidate who best represented the policies of the Democratic base.  His candidacy didn't go anywhere because the party activists didn't beleive he would be viable in the general elections.

right, that's my point... during primary season though the base is far stronger than the activists

One thing I think is assured - if Hillary is the dem nominee you will see the largest voter turnout in the past 50 or so years.

and if that happens, can hillary win?

Personally, I would like to see a third party candidate actually elected, just to show both parties that politics as usual is no longer tolerated

me too, and for pretty much the same reason

[hrothgar]

>>During the last electoral cycle Dennis Kucinich was the candidate

>>who best represented the policies of the Democratic base. His

>>candidacy didn't go anywhere because the party activists didn't

>>believe he would be viable in the general elections.

 

>right, that's my point... during primary season though the base is

>far stronger than the activists

 

I was using "base" synomously with "activists"

 

When I look back at the 2004 Democratic primaries, I think that four different candidates are worth looking at.

 

Dennis Kucinich / Russ Feingold were (probably) the candiates who best represented the base of the Democratic party. Neither candiate drew any significant support. Its not that Democratics disagreed with their message. Rather, people were being practical and refused to support candiates who wouldn't be viable in the general election.

 

The bulk of the activists support went to Howard Dean. Despite the way in which Dean was charicatured during the electoral cycle, his record as governor of Vermot was extremely centrist. Dean is a fiscal conservative and opposes gun control. The following URL provides a detailed break down comparing Dean to Kucinich on a variety of issues that are important to the progressive base of the party. I think that the difference is extremely clear.

http://www.nicholasjohnson.org/politics/kucinich/dkorhd.html

 

Many people, myself included, backed Dean because we felt he would have been the strongest Democratic candiate. Note: The activists were backing a centrist Democrat. Dean was certainly aggressive and passionate, but he's no Ralph Nader. Unfortunately, the national press did a hatchet job on him. Conspiracy minded people believe that the Clinton wing of the Democratic party took out Dean during the primary season because Dean would derail Hillary in 2008.

 

Lastly, you have John Kerry who (somehow) convinced large portions of the party that he was the most "electable". Kerry went on to run a diastrous campaign.

 

For me, the real lesson of 2004 and is that the Democrats need a much longer primary season to avoid selecting a weak candiate. I strongly favor rear-loading the primary season to ensure that whichever candiate gets selected is vetted sufficiently.

[mike777]

As I mentioned I thought Mrs. Clinton would have much more of a fight on her hands so I am suprised by her huge lead. Granted it is early and these huge leads always shrink but she looks like she may have the primairies locked up before the first one and a big lead going into November with all the anti Bush anger.

[pbleighton]

"As I mentioned I thought Mrs. Clinton would have much more of a fight on her hands so I am suprised by her huge lead. Granted it is early and these huge leads always shrink but she looks like she may have the primairies locked up before the first one and a big lead going into November with all the anti Bush anger."

 

Given her name recognition, this isn't surprising.

 

It is early, and these leads always shrink.

 

I think the odds of her getting the nomination are roughly 50%.

 

The nomination may go to someone who isn't even on the radar yet.

 

Peter

[hrothgar]

As I mentioned I thought Mrs. Clinton would have much more of a fight on her hands so I am suprised by her huge lead. Granted it is early and these huge leads always shrink but she looks like she may have the primairies locked up before the first one and a big lead going into November with all the anti Bush anger.

The polls at this point in time are (typically) meaningly.

The measure nothing other than name recognition.

 

Case in point: When Bush built his enormous lead in the early polls during the 2000 Republican primary season the vast majority of his supporters that that they were voting for his father.

[mike777]

I would place the odds far higher than 50% but if those are the odds you are giving, I will gladly take them. ;)

 

I see her next step is too try and dry up the money for the other guys in the race though expect they will raise some tens of millions it will not be hundreds of millions as she will.

[Al_U_Card]

Maybe she'll get Colin Powell as a running mate.....think of the scandal possibilities....especially with wild Willie as the first husband.....sounds a bit strange doesn't it?

[mike777]

I think she can carry NY, IL and Calif.

 

Texas, Fla, Ohio or Penn?

[Al_U_Card]

She's pretty strong then?

:lol:

[pbleighton]

"I think she can carry NY, IL and Calif."

 

NY yes (but it's too late in the primaries to matter), IL not necessarily (Obama, if he is strong anywhere, will be strong there - otherwise yes she wins), CA may be tough for her, if she has ALL of the money, no, but I don't think she will.

 

I lived in CA for 17 years. I think the Democratic primary voteres may be attracted to someone who's more exciting.

 

Don't get me wrong, Mike. I'm not anti-Hilary, and I would gladly vote for her in the general election. I just don't place as much credence in early polls as you apparently do.

 

BTW, I think the Republican nomination is just as much up for grabs as the Democratic nomination, if not more so. McCain could easily self-destruct. His poll numbers are sliding as it is, though he's still the clear front-runner, and he could say something fatal. If he does, and gets out altogether, it's Rudy versus the anti-Rudy, whoever that is, and THAT would be a fight worth watching.

 

I think Rudy loses that one, and in the end it wouldn't be close. His best chance is to have McCain slide, but stay in the race, and have a social conservative like Brownback emerge as a strong candidate. Rudy would thus be the moderate versus two conservatives.

 

Peter

[mike777]

I meant the general election.

[pbleighton]

"I meant the general election."

 

These states only? :lol:

 

Peter

[Winstonm]

One thing I think is assured - if Hillary is the dem nominee you will see the largest voter turnout in the past 50 or so years.

 

 

and if that happens, can hillary win?

 

 

I think it would depend primarily on how the woman vote would go - there would be a huge turnout to vote for anybody other than Hillary, and a huge turnout to vote for Hillary - the swing would be if she could garner a huge percentage of the women's vote IMO.

[mike777]

I know this is the common thinking but I disagree.

 

I think the voters will be a huge number of Dems coming out to vote for their party and Reps wondering if their party are a bunch of doing nothing crooks who cannot even run a war. The one think Reps thought they could do better than Dems.

 

All the Reps have at this point are tax cutters and pro lifers.