Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Which Democrat has The Power?

  1. Graham - FL

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  2. Dean - VT

    5 vote(s)
    62.5%
  3. Edwards - NC

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  4. Lieberman - VA

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  5. Gephardt - DC

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  6. Braun - Chicago, IL

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  7. Kerry - NE

    2 vote(s)
    25.0%
  8. Kucinich - OH

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  9. Sharpton- NY,NY

    1 vote(s)
    12.5%
  1. Sep 2, 2003 #1
    Which of these Democratic Presidential Candidates have the ability to defeat the sitting President?
    Democratic Candidates
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 2, 2003 #2
    Probably none of them...but Bush has the power to beat himself. This election cycle, we are asking Democrats to act like Republicans, and vote for whichever person the party nominates. No, we don't care if you don't support his position on gun control, we need to put this country back in the hands of an American.
     
  4. Sep 2, 2003 #3
    Dean and Kerry have it, and Wesley Clark who looks like he'll join.

    Assuming Bush and gang don't commit voter fraud again.
     
  5. Sep 2, 2003 #4
    True. But Democrats have the power to be so darn obstinant that they don't vote for their own man. They just stay home.

    Bush has the power to defeat himself, but I'm afraid this country will go with him. I'm scared, myself.
     
  6. Sep 2, 2003 #5
    You know they already have voter fraud plans in effect, right?
     
  7. Sep 2, 2003 #6
    You mean the buggy (i.e. riggable) voting machines? Sure.
     
  8. Sep 2, 2003 #7

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Judging by a poll just a couple of days ago, none of the candidates even has the power to have his name remembered by a small portion of the votor base. For once I agree with Zero - the race is Bush's to lose.
     
    Last edited: Sep 2, 2003
  9. Sep 2, 2003 #8

    kat

    User Avatar

    Kerry from NE?
    Is that John Kerry from MA?
     
  10. Sep 2, 2003 #9
    kat: I don't know, I posted a link up there.
    I think a couple of them could do Bush, and looking at the platform synopsis side-by-side, Graham packs a good punch.
    But what I'd really love to see is Hillary get back in and we could all see GWB get his butt kicked by a girl!
     
  11. Sep 2, 2003 #10
    Yes, which is precisely why we need a republican president. Like you said: The hands of an American.
     
  12. Sep 3, 2003 #11
    A REAL Republican, sure...or a Democrat, for that matter.
     
  13. Sep 3, 2003 #12

    kat

    User Avatar

    Schwarz.-Kerry is senator of Massachusetts, he ran against Republican Governor Weld in a very "hot" race and won.
    I don't see Graham getting the NE support he would need to win, Dean is probably the most likely candidate to "lead" the pack but he has strong A.N.S.W.E.R.-like radical following that is going to come back and bite him later. Kerry, would probably make a pretty good pres. but unfortunately he always ends up coming across as some disassociated blue blood without a clue.
    I think with the economy taking an upswing, if we get a U.N. mandate that brings in greater international support in Iraq Bush will be back retain his position as president.
    I'd like to see a race between rice and clinton....
     
  14. Sep 3, 2003 #13
    haha- I saw NE indicating Nebraska, <buzz>
    well he most likely won't win the primary, but he has strong words for the President. If he ran as an independant, he might do some damage (like Perot did to Bush Sr.)
    I'm interested to know who voted for Leiberman? Interesting choice, as he criticizes Bush on the environment with zero effects on policy.
    But the most effective approach may be a direct attack. Dean's synopsis's only subject is the economy, while it is not mentioned at all (the word 'economy' does not appear) in Bush's synopsis.
    The economy is definitely not going to recover with debt growing at billions per day, that all the taxpayers have to pay, with no forseeable cieling. Those two tax cuts gave all and more of the Republic's money to the rich, where in theory it "trickles down." This theory is fundamentally flawed because if capital is concentrated into a few hands and they stop spending their money (how many yachts can you have anyway) then nobody gets any money.
     
    Last edited: Sep 3, 2003
  15. Sep 11, 2003 #14
    From recent debates, it looks like Leiberman is trying to bash Dean a little bit, to Dean's benefit. Dick Gephart called Bush a "Miserable Failure" a few times the other day.. what do you make of that?
    Gephart also said that he'd go back to the economic plan of Bill Clinton. Is that a good idea? Dean has said that he'd redo the Middle east policy of Clinton- how about that?
    My wife is saying that we ought to vote for Carol Mosely Braun, from Chicago, but I just don't see it.
    It's hard to ask Democrats to vote for "whoever we pick" against Bush, but that's where it's at at this point.

    Dean has the support of some people who the other Democrats have missed - - War Veterans and the families of War veterans. If you've not checked out military families speak out lately, that's the place to be.

    Remember nine-eleven
     
  16. Sep 11, 2003 #15

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Might as well use it. It works. If the economy picks up (looks like it already is) they'll have to find something else.
    I have no problem with that. Clinton's basic economic plan (sit in the oval office getting blowjobs while the economy ran itself) was sound. Its not so easy when the economy isn't doing well though.
    Ambivalent. Clinton's Middle East policy was a "Miserable Failure" but thats about par for the course anyway. Politicians at least have to make it appear that they are trying and thats pretty much what Clinton did. Yeah, it started a new Jihad and cost thousands of lives, but he did get a couple of nice photo ops. Bush's policy while more coherent and ambitious may just make its inevitable failure that much greater. In the end its up to the residents to decide if they want peace or not. At the moment it appears they do not.

    One of the candidates was on Meet the Press a few weeks ago and sounded pretty good. Might have been Kerry. He is a former member of the military and talked about foreign policy. He sounded remarkably like Bush - proactive instead of inactive like you'd normally expect from a democrat.
     
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2003
  17. Sep 15, 2003 #16
    Yeah, but what if it's a 'jobless' recovery, that is, stock prices rise but unemployment increases or stays high. I think they're saying that the economy has been changed so fundamentally (and so badly for the middle class) that unemployment will remain, as plagued the Bush I years.
    lol. Now, now. He did lots of groovy things, like steal Republicans' ideas: De-fed wellfare. NAFTA. Cut government waste. Make college tax deductible. Why? Not because he was a Dem or a Rep., because he wanted the best for the country & wasn't crazy.
     
  18. Sep 17, 2003 #17
    We've got a new player in the game: Wesley Clark, 4-star general, former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, and political progressive. He is a moderate-to-liberal Democrat, with no chink in his armor when it comes to national security. If anyone can stand against Bush, it would be him.
     
  19. Sep 17, 2003 #18

    FZ+

    User Avatar

    Alas, I think the democrats are becoming too divided. They need to generate something to unify them as one party, rather than a game of one-upsmanship amongst themselves. I fear we will see them making a big sticky mud of all their ideas in the next few months, and become just republican-lite again.
     
  20. Sep 18, 2003 #19
    Democrats are more unified than ever. Responsibility is more important than intimidation. Peace won't be won through senseless death.
    I hope that the leadership will make judgements based upon analysis instead of wrong theories, regardless of party. The candidates except for Leiberman and Kuchinich have re-enforced each other in attacking Bush. Many of them are Senators and Governors. This government is divided, not united. It's Bush's fault.
     
  21. Sep 19, 2003 #20
    I think that Clark would be one to really have legitmacy and strength in foreign affairs in voters' eyes.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Which Democrat has The Power?
  1. Republican or Democrat (Replies: 30)

  2. Vote Democrat! (Replies: 17)

  3. Democratic debate? (Replies: 2)

Loading...