2004 Democrat primary

Posts you want to find years later go here.

Postby skanks » Sun Jan 25, 2004 8:34 am

Dean's hootin' was pretty embarrasing, but he's handled it extremely deftly. If Dean can recover from this, then I'm going to have to hand him some extra consideration.

I think that concilatory appearance on Letterman's top ten was brilliant.

http://salon.com/news/wire/2004/01/23/l ... index.html

Furthermore than interview with his wife was a real gem.

http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2004/0 ... index.html
skanks
Poser
 
Posts: 290
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2003 5:16 am

Postby skanks » Sun Jan 25, 2004 4:29 pm

Newsweek Poll: Kerry Leads Bush

"A Kerry-Bush match-up would have Kerry up by 49 percent to Bush's 46 percent"

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040124/nysa010a_1.html

"the margin of error is +/- 3%"
skanks
Poser
 
Posts: 290
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2003 5:16 am

Postby Jonathan » Mon Jan 26, 2004 6:13 am

After reading the NYT profile of the Democratic candidates, I've decided Kerry could actually win the nomination. Check out his website, http://www.johnkerry.com/ for some of his stances. But with 20 years in the Senate under his belt, he's probably the most politically experienced out of the four candidates I wouldn't mind winning: Clark, Dean, Kerry, and Edwards. Dean's only been governor for 11 years, and lieutenant governor for six before that. So Dean's just behind Kerry. Edwards has one term in the Senate under his belt, and that's it.

I'd vote for either Dean or Kerry. Clark seems like an interesting guy, but in the end I don't think generals make good presidents, and probably so does everyone else. Edwards seems like a lackluster choice. He probably should have done another term in the Senate and tried later.
Jonathan
Grand Pooh-Bah
 
Posts: 6031
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 7:45 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Postby quantus » Mon Jan 26, 2004 10:16 am

skanks wrote:Newsweek Poll: Kerry Leads Bush

"A Kerry-Bush match-up would have Kerry up by 49 percent to Bush's 46 percent"

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040124/nysa010a_1.html

"the margin of error is +/- 3%"

So, basically, they're tied with that kind of margin of error.
Have you clicked today? Check status, then: People, Jobs or Roads
User avatar
quantus
Tenth Dan Procrastinator
 
Posts: 4653
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2003 2:09 am
Location: San Jose, CA

Postby Peijen » Mon Jan 26, 2004 4:47 pm

quantus wrote:So, basically, they're tied with that kind of margin of error.


or 52% vs 43%, at least that's what I hope for. anything to get bush out of white house.

really what good is a republican who spends like a democrate but is a conservative on other issues (war, gay, enviroment, etc)?

now I think about it. I want an anti-Bush, who is liberal on all but spending. I don't like welfare becuase I actually make less than people who sit on their asses after taxes and stuff or I feel like that somehow (I don't have a spiffy cell phone or cable :( while people on welfare do).

But since I can't vote anyway it doesn't matter :evil:
Peijen
Minion to the Exalted Pooh-Bah
 
Posts: 2778
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2003 1:28 pm
Location: Irvine, CA

Postby Jonathan » Mon Jan 26, 2004 5:35 pm

Peijen wrote:
quantus wrote:So, basically, they're tied with that kind of margin of error.


or 52% vs 43%, at least that's what I hope for. anything to get bush out of white house.

really what good is a republican who spends like a democrate but is a conservative on other issues (war, gay, enviroment, etc)?

now I think about it. I want an anti-Bush, who is liberal on all but spending. I don't like welfare becuase I actually make less than people who sit on their asses after taxes and stuff or I feel like that somehow (I don't have a spiffy cell phone or cable :( while people on welfare do).

But since I can't vote anyway it doesn't matter :evil:

Ah, but you can make campaign donations. Welcome to the American electoral process.
Jonathan
Grand Pooh-Bah
 
Posts: 6031
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 7:45 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Postby quantus » Tue Jan 27, 2004 3:14 am

I've now learned an interesting fact that makes me no long think we need Dean's big wad of cash. Basically, Kerry's wife has a MUCH bigger one. She was married to one of the Heinz's, he died, and she remarried. Apparently, she's worth over $500 million.
Have you clicked today? Check status, then: People, Jobs or Roads
User avatar
quantus
Tenth Dan Procrastinator
 
Posts: 4653
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2003 2:09 am
Location: San Jose, CA

Postby quantus » Tue Jan 27, 2004 3:16 am

Peijen wrote:
quantus wrote:So, basically, they're tied with that kind of margin of error.


or 52% vs 43%, at least that's what I hope for. anything to get bush out of white house.

really what good is a republican who spends like a democrate but is a conservative on other issues (war, gay, enviroment, etc)?

now I think about it. I want an anti-Bush, who is liberal on all but spending. I don't like welfare becuase I actually make less than people who sit on their asses after taxes and stuff or I feel like that somehow (I don't have a spiffy cell phone or cable :( while people on welfare do).

But since I can't vote anyway it doesn't matter :evil:

Oh, can you even collect welfare? For you, welfare is 0 I think, so stop complaining. Why don't you have cable anyway? It's like 60/month to get some decent service. Are you cheaper than Vinny?
Have you clicked today? Check status, then: People, Jobs or Roads
User avatar
quantus
Tenth Dan Procrastinator
 
Posts: 4653
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2003 2:09 am
Location: San Jose, CA

Postby VLSmooth » Tue Jan 27, 2004 5:14 pm

quantus wrote:Are you cheaper than Vinny?

No, my frugality is absolute! 8)
User avatar
VLSmooth
Tenth Dan Procrastinator
 
Posts: 3046
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2003 2:02 am
Location: Varies

Postby Alan » Wed Jan 28, 2004 4:38 am

It seems to me like Democrats just want someone to get Bush out of office. And they're picking Kerry as the person who can do that. I don't follow politics closely enough to differentiate candidates on issues; I get their stances all mixed up.

So just judging them based on appearances/presentation, here are my impressions. I'm sure the average American voter puts a lot of emphasis on this type of thing, so I think it's valid to bring it up.

Dean seems like the really smart guy who just gets on your nerves every once in a while. You want to like him, and just when you think, "Eh, he's alright," he does something to piss you off. I think he's a very likeable candidate, but only when he keeps himself reigned in.

Edwards seems like a likeable guy, but I'm not sure he's showed that he's a strong leader-type guy. I just don't think people look at him and think, "President".

I like Clark, but don't think he can win the nomination. I remember reading interviews with him and liking what he had to say, but like Edwards, I don't see him as a President.

Kerry just looks like a presidential candidate. He has the swagger and confidence. He'd look good debating against Bush.

I'm not even considering Lieberman as a serious candidate. I don't think anyone does.

Maybe I'm naive but I think one of the reasons Gore lost was because he was just an irritating person. Bush, dumb as he seemed, just got people to like him. Clinton's personable...ness of course is legendary.

So that's why I, political illiterate that I am, think Kerry will win. He just seems more like a president than the other candidates. Unless Dean keeps himself under control. Because if he wins the nomination and then loses it in a debate against Bush he can kiss the presidency goodbye.
Image
Alan
Veteran Doodler
 
Posts: 2543
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2003 1:32 am
Location: Where I am

Postby skanks » Wed Jan 28, 2004 7:51 pm

The primary process depends on the party holding the primary. The explanation of the Democratic primary is below.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/vote2004/pr ... rview.html

what essentially happens is that candadites recieve convention delegates roughly in proportion to the votes the recieve. (There are some 4300 delegates in total so the effects of rounding error are small). The delegates themselves then vote on the presidential candidate.

the delegates don't always have to vote for whoever they represent. this distinction is important because it means that whoever gets the plurality of the vote is probably but NOT NECESSARILY the victor. rival groups can (and will*) form voting blocks and make deals (regarding vice presidency and so forth). In recent history your primary front runner has had a majority which means he can just do whatever the hell he wants and the convention is exceedingly dull. That's not going to happen this year. The convention this year could be crazy.

*I should mention that Kucinich and Edwards already made a deal which essentially ensures that Kucinich's delegates will be voting for Edwards. In this sense, a vote for Kucinich really is a vote for Edwards.
skanks
Poser
 
Posts: 290
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2003 5:16 am

Postby skanks » Thu Jan 29, 2004 5:36 am

Dean's campaign ran out of cash and his campaign manager was replaced by an old Al Gore manager.

http://salon.com/news/feature/2004/01/2 ... index.html

Dean had some problems, but just as the Dean campaign's response to the latest fiasco convinced me that Dean was probably the strongest candidate, he runs into this wall of spikes. Unfortunately for Dean he doesn't have Teresa Heinz to bail him out (unlike Kerry who ran into pretty much the same predicament a month ago when he was polling behind Al Sharpton).

The DLC is gloating about how they defeated him. They proudly regurgiate every single smear they lambasted Dean with in their campaign of fear-uncertainty-and-doubt. Their latest statement is so arrogant and dismissive you'd think it came from RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie himself.

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=13 ... tid=252351

I love how the DLC reserves its tough-talk for Democrats. What a bunch of fucking winners. They make claims of holding "hope", "optimism", and "positive campaigning" and then proceed to shove Dean through the meat grinder. If they were so damn "positive" then why take the time to churlishly ax Dean when they've got such positive news to focus on? Answer: they're not "positive", the whole spiel on "hope" is just sanctimonoius political posturing; their excuse for never demanding that George Bush answer for his policies.

Notice that they not only haughtily dismiss Dean, but they also swipe at the transformational character of the campaign dismissing it as "hype" and "buzz". Translation: future campaigns will suck DLC dick or be quelched. The smug self-righteous DLC relishes resecuring their threatened grip of influence.

See, it's shit like this that weakens the Democratic base. The DLC even stoops to dismissing Dean (in their typical short-sighted fashion) as a "liberal" who's only support was from "liberals" . IF YOU ARE A DEMOCRATIC PARTY AFFILIATE, THEN WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU USING "LIBERAL" AS A DEROGATORY ADJECTIVE? How stupid can they get.

Meanwhile, guess what word the RNC is planning on using to smear Kerry?

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld ... -headlines

see, this is the fuck why you don't go around legitimizing the use of the word "liberal" as an insult if you are a democratic party affiliate.

Of course the DLC misses the real big loser of the New Hampshire primaries: the DLC's own Mr. Joementum himself. Nobody likes that moralistic prig. Lieberman's critiques of Bush are largely a matter of style, not substance. His sanctimonious yakking about the necessity of tax-cuts, family values, and removing Saddam Hussein, only proves how fucking clueless he is. Some 47% of Americans are strongly opposed to president Bush; Nobody wants a Bush-lite. Some outrage is appropriate and will resonant with the populace if properly channeled. The last thing we need is some patronizing prettyboy GOP collaborater who's big fear is being tarred as a, "liberal", *shudder* *shudder*.
skanks
Poser
 
Posts: 290
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2003 5:16 am

Postby quantus » Thu Jan 29, 2004 2:46 pm

skanks wrote:What a bunch of fucking winners.

uh, not to be picky, but you meant winners or whiners? Both sorta seem to work.
Have you clicked today? Check status, then: People, Jobs or Roads
User avatar
quantus
Tenth Dan Procrastinator
 
Posts: 4653
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2003 2:09 am
Location: San Jose, CA

Postby Alan » Thu Jan 29, 2004 4:19 pm

Winners seems to make more sense in that context. In the previous sentence the author makes a statement about the idiocy of the DLC's strategy. Winner, when used in a sarcastic manner, has a similar connotation to idiot.

Whiners doesn't make as much sense because the author has not made any statement about the DLC complaining about anything. He has painted the DLC in a negative light, but has indicated that they hold the power and therefore would not appear to have any reason to whine.

Verbal reasoning baby.
Image
Alan
Veteran Doodler
 
Posts: 2543
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2003 1:32 am
Location: Where I am

Postby quantus » Thu Jan 29, 2004 4:58 pm

Someone must be studying for a standardized test.

Anyways, you're right. It just seemed odd when i read through it twice quickly.

Now that I'm focusing on it though, I think your argument would've been better though had you actually replaced winners with the negative "LOSERS" as sarcasm implies. Then it's much easier to relate the connotation of idiot to the rest of what he was saying as proof that this was the intention.
Have you clicked today? Check status, then: People, Jobs or Roads
User avatar
quantus
Tenth Dan Procrastinator
 
Posts: 4653
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2003 2:09 am
Location: San Jose, CA

Postby skanks » Thu Jan 29, 2004 8:08 pm

2 points: Alan

Using sarcasm, I am calling the DLC a bunch of losers.

The DLC could have easily channeled the Dean phenomenom into a critique of Bush. They could have said "Bush is so egregiously bad it's no surprise that many Americans are still attracted to Dean's fiery rhetoric. But as Democrats, we need to have a more encompassing plan than fiery rhetoric and Democrats are recognizing that need when they head to the polls."

Instead they assail Dean adopting right-wing pre-texts and rhetoric. This legitimizes GOP efforts to smear Kerry as a "liberal" and (the GOP's favorite insult) "out of synch with mainstream American". Plus they demonize a dedicated group of Dean supporters that would have become staunch allies, financially and in grassroots efforts, in ousting Bush. All for the sake of humiliating Dean and driving the stake further into the heart of his dying campaign.
skanks
Poser
 
Posts: 290
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2003 5:16 am

Postby skanks » Tue Feb 03, 2004 11:11 pm

in the previous poll Kerry was up against Bush 49% to 46%.

As Bush's approval rating dropped to 49 (and his disapproval rating rose to 48%), Kerry has edged his lead to a solid 53% to 46%.

poor bush :cry: :cry:

Edwards also joined the club with a close edge of 49%-48%

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicsel ... poll_x.htm
skanks
Poser
 
Posts: 290
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2003 5:16 am

Postby Jonathan » Fri Feb 06, 2004 10:50 pm

http://www.corante.com/many/archives/2004/02/03/exiting_deanspace.php

Good article about why everyone was so confused about Dean's standing in the polls, including the Dean campaign. I really like some of his conclusions about how many people were avowing preference for the style of Dean's campaign rather than the substance, for the idea of Dean rather than the man himself. For instance, I very nearly donated some money to his campaign, not because I thought he was the best candidate, but because private Internet donations are one of the best tools we have to combat campaign finance dominated by special interests. I liked the idea of a candidate funded by the people without really liking Dean over the other democratic candidates (except Joe Leiberman, that fucker).
Jonathan
Grand Pooh-Bah
 
Posts: 6031
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 7:45 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Postby Jonathan » Fri Feb 06, 2004 11:25 pm

Only Joe Lieberman saw in the results a clear sign that it was time to give up. With lackluster -- and worse -- results across the board, Lieberman told supporters gathered in Virginia that "the judgment of the voters is now clear."


Woo. Fuck Lieberman.

Lieberman, who supports the Iraq war and is the unofficial candidate of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council, never found traction in a race that has been shaped in early months by Dean's fierce antiwar critique, and by a general assault on Bush that has found its courage in recent weeks.


And fuck the DLC!
Jonathan
Grand Pooh-Bah
 
Posts: 6031
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 7:45 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Postby VLSmooth » Fri Feb 06, 2004 11:27 pm

Er, so am I to conclude that the people should "Fuck the fucking fuckers"?
(note: I despise Lieberman as well, if not only for his strong support of censorship)
User avatar
VLSmooth
Tenth Dan Procrastinator
 
Posts: 3046
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2003 2:02 am
Location: Varies

PreviousNext

Return to The Vault

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron