Will Howard Dean Run as an Independent?

[Kerrie]

From your perspective here in America, what do you think will honestly happen come election time? Don't vote what you want to happen, but what you think will result due to the current events in our country.

 

[kat]

I think Bush will take it. I think the Clinton sector will work hard to undermine any Democratic nominee...although it will all be behind the curtains.
I don't think Kerry can do it. He's to...oh, I can't think of the word. Anyway, I've never been able to stand him since he attended a major fundraiser I had put on years ago in Massachusetts. Just something rubbed me the wrong way.
Couldn't stand Dean...glad to see the raging maniac go
I like Edwards, a lot actually...but I don't think he'd neccesarily have the strength to get the presidency or lead the country.
As for the others...I guess they aren't really in the picture anymore anyway...
As to Nader...thanks man!...

 

[HAVOC451]

What, no option for "Bush will lose the popular vote and somehow remain in office?"

 

[skywise]

my thoughts exactly Havoc

 

[Kerrie]

Originally posted by HAVOC451
What, no option for "Bush will lose the popular vote and somehow remain in office?"

i shall edit the poll :)

 

[Njorl]

Kerry has a decent chance. He is a hot and cold campaigner. He seems to spend most of his time like a zombie, but he can turn it on. I don't see how these guys can keep it turned on all the time, like Clinto did. I'd go nuts. I spend most of my day not caring what most people think of me. To be in a constant state of impressing people would drive me nuts. It's like living your entire life on a first date with a stranger.

Njorl

 

[Njorl]

By the way...

Who thinks Cheney will not be Bush's running mate. I used to think that it was a sure thing he wouldn't be on the re-election ticket, but I'm not so sure now. I'm not making any judgements about his being a liability or asset, it is a "party" thing. I think the party would like Bush to pick his successor as VP. I don't think the GOP will run Cheney in 08.

I was much more convinced of this 2 years ago. Now that the election looks to be tight, I think the republicans are more concerned with winning than party unity in 08. Still, Cheney could become a liability (Halliburton, Closed-door energy policy meetings etc). He also has an easy way out. He could always retire due to health reasons and spare George from tarnishing his "loyal to subordinates" schtick.

Njorl

 

[GENIERE]

Past results from 1980-2000 popular votes are (in Percent):

1980 - Reagan vs. Carter + other - - - 50.7, 41.0, 8.3
1984 - Reagan vs. Mondale + other - - 58.0, 40.6, 0.6
1988 - Bush Vs. Dukakis + other - - - - 53.4, 45.6, 1.0
1992 - Bush vs. Clinton + Perot - - - - 37.7, 43.3, 19.0
1996 - Dole vs. Clinton + Perot - - - - 42.0, 50.0, 8.0
2000 – Bush vs. Gore + Nader - - - - - 47.9, 48.4, 2.7

Since 1980 when a very liberal candidate has run against a conservative candidate, the liberal has been slaughtered, 1984, 1988. Clinton won due to his shifting the Democratic Party to the right as with his promise to “end welfare as we know it”, and dancing around his liberal history as governor. Clinton never got as many popular votes as did Bush in 2000. In fact without Perot being in the race, Bush 1 probably would have won. Gore may have won sans Nader.

The Democrats seem to have a death wish in the likely nomination of the vacuous, ever shifting positions, and far left Kerry. In 2003, Kerry voted on the leftist side more so than Kennedy, over 96% of the time. Senators do poorly in elections; governors usually do better if not extremists. Kerry has a lot of Senate voting history to defend. Nader is likely to get about 1% of the vote.

McAuliffe’s strategy of pushing forward the primaries to allow the democratic candidate to be choosen early is probably a stupid tactic. First it diminishes the excitement of the convention which will generate less interest, secondly it allows Bush to commit his vast resources much earlier.

 

[GENIERE]

Njori - Your right, a politician must live and breathe politics 24/7. The only politician holding high elective office that I speak to a few times a year is constantly working and addressing audiences several times a week. It’s never ending. For those that enjoy it, it’s the most rewarding of all human endeavors.

I kind of agree with you re: the VP, but he will be missed. For those of my political persuasion, The Bush “team” is about as good as it gets.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by HAVOC451
What, no option for "Bush will lose the popular vote and somehow remain in office?"

Do we really need another thread on the purpose and operation of the electoral college? Let it go, guys.

Who thinks Cheney will not be Bush's running mate. I used to think that it was a sure thing he wouldn't be on the re-election ticket, but I'm not so sure now. I'm not making any judgements about his being a liability or asset, it is a "party" thing. I think the party would like Bush to pick his successor as VP. I don't think the GOP will run Cheney in 08.

Ever see the Saturday Night Live sketch with Al Gore leaning into the frame of a Clinton speach and saying "Hi, I'm Al Gore"? That's what I think of Cheney: Cheney who?

I don't know how the party machine works though: is it really possible to dump your vp (how 'bout your sec state?) for your second term.

In any case, it appears that despite all the rhetoric, the Democrats in this forum see the writing on the wall. Good: now go fix your party. Whether or not I ever vote for a Democratic candidate, we need two strong parties and right now we only have one.

 

[Bystander]

Originally posted by russ_watters
(snip), we need two strong parties and right now we only have one.

Need NO strong parties --- the polarized approach to politics has long since ceased to be productive, workable, or representative.

Ralph Nader could easily be the worst possible man for any job, but I'd certainly prefer him to dems or reps.

 

[Shahil]

I know this is a bit off topic but after looking at the results Geniere gave (thanks!), it really dumfounds me that in many cases, the less popular candidate won the presidency. Now, if my understanding of democracy is right, the winner is SUPPOSED to be the most popular candidate.

However, I do know (after the Florida debacle which, FYI, really undermined the worlds perception of democracry in America - but that point has already been argued to death in the preceding years...) that the presidency works on winning states (correct me if I'm wrong.)

Isn't this system, thus, really flawed? [?]

Oh, and Bush will probably win (though I don't want him too - but I live in South Africa, what do I know!)

 

[Bystander]

Originally posted by Shahil
(snip)...) that the presidency works on winning states (correct me if I'm wrong.)

Isn't this system, thus, really flawed? [?]

Flawed? Sure, what isn't? It's a balance of urban/rural representation that keeps everyone unhappy --- therefore, the framers of The U. S. Constitution got things just about right. Consider the ages of the various established governments around the world before getting too carried away with "Florida," and recall that the Constitutional machinery worked, again to no one's complete satisfaction --- dimpled chad, hanging chad --- questions about a precinct? Pitch the precinct --- the voters will take care of the idiots who screwed up ballot design, watched polls, served as election judges --- and do better next time.

Florida Supreme Court and U. S. Supreme Court? The lawyers wanted to take over the election process and got told to take a hike --- nobody is going to stand for four generations of lawyers making million dollar a year livings from arguing who did or did not win an election in a previous century --- that's about how long it takes for "due process" to actually place something in the public record as a court decision --- then you've got another hundred years actually enforcing such a decision.

Edit: Stated another way, the process provides the opportunity to state your choice clearly on the day of an election --- you screw up on your selection of precinct election officials, that's your fault. There is NO after the fact adjustment, repolling of irregular precincts, or any other disenfranchisement of the rest of the country allowed.

 

[Monique]

Another thing I don't understand: where are the Republican candidates? Why can there only be Democrat challengers? And why the distinction??

 

[Bystander]

Incumbents eligible for another term in a particular office are usually accorded the courtesy of running --- not always --- Johnson in '68 is an example ( "...not seek ... nor accept ..." was a bulls**t stunt he was pulling for the public) --- he thought he had the "fix" into be "drafted" as a candidate by the convention.

Party "unity" counts for a lot in the minds of the parties --- Dean, Kerry, Edwards, Clark, and whoever the rest of the clowns are put on something the Marx Bros. or Three Stooges couldn't have topped --- and go into kissyface mode after the various dropouts from the race --- showing "real" courage in their individual convictions.

 

[Zero]

Since most people believe all sorts of lies about politics, there is no way to really predict what will happen. Will the "liberal media lie" hold the #1 spot this year, or will the "far left Kerry" nonsense trump it? Will Bush's lies about nearly everything carry the day, or will he be taken down a couple of notches by the true-but-95%-irrelevant AWOL story?

 

[selfAdjoint]

I think that the plus opinion that the public gave Bush after 9/11 has finally worn off. "It's the economy, stupid".

Notice that there has been a big swing in opinions about job protectionism vs. free trade. People making as much as $100,000 a year, only a year ago were strongly in favor of free trade, but now they are against it. Conservatives are repeating the mantra that "protectionism will just hurt the US, free trade is best for the US economy", and when it is pointed out that that "best" affects only the coupon clippers while everyone else suffers, they say "You are demonizing the rich".

This is a bad scene, and Bush, just because he's president, is going to take the fall for it.

 

[LURCH]

I was always pretty certain the Republican party would take this ellection, unnemployement is down, taxes are down, national security is on the minds of most voters, all these things are in the Reps' favor. But Nader's announcement that he plans to run has really sinched it, IMO. Of course, the final nail in the Dems' coffin would be if Dean announces that he plans to run as an independent. As far as I can recall, Dean only said he was dropping out of the race for the Dem nomination. I don't remember him ever doing the usual speach that party faithfulls usually give about, "I'm not running, so I encourage you to vote for the Dem that does run". But my memory ain't so good; did anyone else hear him say that?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by LURCH
I was always pretty certain the Republican party would take this ellection, unnemployement is down, taxes are down, national security is on the minds of most voters, all these things are in the Reps' favor. But Nader's announcement that he plans to run has really sinched it, IMO. Of course, the final nail in the Dems' coffin would be if Dean announces that he plans to run as an independent. As far as I can recall, Dean only said he was dropping out of the race for the Dem nomination. I don't remember him ever doing the usual speach that party faithfulls usually give about, "I'm not running, so I encourage you to vote for the Dem that does run". But my memory ain't so good; did anyone else hear him say that?

?Your numbers are wrong...

 

[LURCH]

Originally posted by Zero
?Your numbers are wrong...

Please elaborate (I checked my post, and there are no numbers I can detect).

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by Monique
Another thing I don't understand: where are the Republican candidates? Why can there only be Democrat challengers? And why the distinction??

The truth is that the incumbent, unless a complete shame to the party, will get the nomination. Two reasons.

1> The incumbent ususally has the best chance of winning for the party

2> If the incumbent wasn't the party's choice, I have a feeling they would, under the table, let him know he ought to "not seek reelection", thereby saving himself the defeat at that point in time.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

As for the poll, I think it's too soon to say. I think the election will depend on what comes of the ongoing investigations into 911, Iraq, and the WMD claims. If nothing of significance sticks between now and November Bush will likely win. This is probably why the investigation into the alleged WMD deceptions can't be completed until next year; while the Brits will complete theirs in seven months - by July.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Ivan, my take on it is precisely opposite. My fearless prediction: by November 2004, Iraq, WMD, and all will be a non-issue, nobody but a few die-hard fanatics will vote on the basis of that. What the WMD issue has done is take away the war-president sheen that Bush enjoyed. That's gone and done now, and no further effect can be expected.

Likely as not the issue that settles the election will be something that hasn't even come up yet, but unless the jobs picture really improves, it is certain to be on the table still.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Likely as not the issue that settles the election will be something that hasn't even come up yet

Whoops, there it is! (Moday March 1 item).

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
Likely as not the issue that settles the election will be something that hasn't even come up yet

Whoops, there it is! (Moday March 1 item).

This could be interesting, but capturing Bin Laden NOW would be a bad tactical move on Bush's part, not that he has too many good ones. The problem with Bush and his fake war on terror is that it can hurt him either way. If he succeeds in a big way, it puts the issue on the back burner, and he gets hit with his losing domestic policy. If he doesn't score some big "win" on the bogus war, then his failure to do so becomes the issue.

Time to push the "gay marriage ban" issue, don't you think?

 

[schwarzchildradius]

Likely as not the issue that settles the election will be something that hasn't even come up yet, but unless the jobs picture really improves, it is certain to be on the table still.

I voted that Bush would be crushed, but only in a theoretical fair election. Unless something big happens, this election is rigged to the gills with open-source unencrypted script. These new Bush TV ads remind me so much of the Slobodon Melosovich TV ads during his hey-day. Take a look at them some time you'll see what I mean.

 

[wasteofo2]

Originally posted by LURCH
Of course, the final nail in the Dems' coffin would be if Dean announces that he plans to run as an independent. As far as I can recall, Dean only said he was dropping out of the race for the Dem nomination. I don't remember him ever doing the usual speach that party faithfulls usually give about, "I'm not running, so I encourage you to vote for the Dem that does run". But my memory ain't so good; did anyone else hear him say that?

Dean actually did say (during his campaign and during his dropping out speech) that he would support whoever the nominee is, he wouldn't run as an independent candidate and that he urges everyone who wants bush out of office to vote democrat. He said he wanted the left united, and to be behind the party, instead of scattered amongst independent candidates.