Democratic Party Cutting Their Losses?Follow

An interesting conversation I had today. I'll try and keep it brief and to the concept.

Quite simply, John Kerry doesn't have the full backing of the democratic party, and was never realistically assumed to be a possibility for the White House for 2004, if at all. I forgot the many examples that the gentleman had told me about Democratic hopefuls not being (for the most part) entirely backed, but there were many.

So I guess their logic is...If Kerry were elected president, then Hillary or Gore, or any other "better" candidate would obviously not have the possibility of running for 2008. So a political agenda to "cut their losses" has already happened, and the underlying political agenda of the Clintons and others in the democratic party is silently strangling the possibility of Kerry being the next president.

Once again, forgive the naive one, I'm trying though. Any thoughts?

I think Kerry stands a decent chance. If anyone has such an agenda, they may have underestimated the actual mood of the American people. But time will tell.

I'd vote for Hillary before either Kerry or Bush. That's just me. Gore a better candidate....ewww. Bob Dole doesn't like Al Gore. Bob Dole could kick his ***. Bob Dole is going to be your next President.

My point is that he doesn't HAVE to carry the audience.

If John Kerry wants to win this election, all he has to do is allow the Democratic party power to continue to drum up support within the party and across the nation. And when he HAS to do or say something, just emphasize that 'I'm not GWB.'

THAT would win this election.

People aren't happy with GWB. Not even close. If the election were today, I'd vote for GWB. But nobody I work with would. They're ignorant, foolish, hard-headed, and unhappy with GWB. In other words, typical US citizens. And they would vote for Kerry.

Actually Missouri is a good indicator of who will win.

Slates article on Missouri and the upcoming Swing states.

With the exception of the time it foolishly cast its lot with Adlai Stevenson in 1956, in every presidential election since 1900 Missouri has proudly voted for the winner. The implication is that you might as well call off the balloting in the other 49 states as a cost-saving measure.

Edited, Fri Jul 30 00:46:58 2004 by AriesGhost

The Dems are so stuck on the Clintons they have given up hope already, because the know Kerry sucks.


I'm still open to reasonable wagers for those of you clinging to hope that Bush still has a shot.

Quite simply, John Kerry doesn't have the full backing of the democratic party, and was never realistically assumed to be a possibility for the White House for 2004, if at all. I forgot the many examples that the gentleman had told me about Democratic hopefuls not being (for the most part) entirely backed, but there were many.


Assanine.

The liberal wing of the Democratic Party would kill themselves doing everything they can to get Mr. Potatohead elected over Bush. Of course Kerry has the full backing of the party. Where do you think all the money he's been consistently outraising Bush in comes from?



So I guess their logic is...If Kerry were elected president, then Hillary or Gore, or any other "better" candidate would obviously not have the possibility of running for 2008. So a political agenda to "cut their losses" has already happened, and the underlying political agenda of the Clintons and others in the democratic party is silently strangling the possibility of Kerry being the next president.


Yeah, ludicrous.

The idea that either party would intentionaly put forth a weaker candidate to strategicaly position someone four years out is tin foil hat time crazy.

Particularly this time. This is easily the most critical election in our generation. Regardless of where your political views are this will be a turning point for the nation. There will be at least 2 and possibly three SCOTUS justices appointed in the next four years which has the potential to signifigantly alter the ballance of the court.

The DNC is playing for keeps, make no mistake about it.

People aren't happy with GWB. Not even close. If the election were today, I'd vote for GWB. But nobody I work with would. They're ignorant, foolish, hard-headed, and unhappy with GWB. In other words, typical US citizens. And they would vote for Kerry.


So, I guess people who don't agree with the politics of someone who will earn a title such as ".. the terrible", ".. the slaughterer", or ".. the royal ******* *******" are all ignorant?

No, I think he really meant *****inine. Like, gee, you really make yourself out to be an ***, want to throw any more assinine comments out there?

Edit added an 's'

Edited, Fri Jul 30 03:13:13 2004 by AriesGhost

The thing is for Dems, they actually have to be something or stand for something. If TStephens espouses what comprises the Democratic party's alternative-- that anything not Bush is what they want (call it anti-Bush for brevity's sake) --then they are frightfully deficient when it comes to a long term plan. After all, realistically, it's one thing to want your opponent out of office, it's entirely another to want him out at any cost, even to the price of having no coherent strategy for a foreign or domestic policy.

This is not to say that Dems haven't offered viable or long range planners to the Oval Office before, certainly they have. But this time (and just look at this board comprised of its' foaming-at-the-mouth anti-Bushies as an anecdotal example) it appears that the proverbial carbon rod would be more acceptable to them than having a president who is willing to push a broad agenda with a military backing.

And this gets to the heart of the matter-- if Kerry is their alternative, what does he stand for? After all, love him or hate him, you know where Bush is on the issues. In the end, this what I came away with from Kerry's acceptance speech last night: I will do stuff in the opposite way that Bush does stuff.

That is no platform to run a presidency on.

Totem

Granted, there were small points he tossed out there, but for the most part it was "Help is on the way. I will have this so-and-so make sure our troops have such-and-such. Help is on the way. I will make sure that so-and-so makes sure the Constitution will have such-and-such. Help is on the way..."

Again, it was anti-Bush, not a coherent plan for a Presidency.

I can understand that during his acceptance speech he wasn't going to lay his whole agenda out point by point, but the platitudes he kept offering just mimiced what he's been saying on the stump for months now. If "help is on the way" is what we get to choose from, then that is no better than the "ironclad lockbox, lockbox, social security in an ironclad lockbox" of what we were fed four years ago.

Argue that you don't like Bush's position or agenda all you like, but at the very least he has an identifiable agenda. I'm still waiting to see Kerry's.

Totem

Ok, so he didn't actually say "George W. Bush," but he used the word "my opponent" multiple times. Who do you suppose he was talking about? Nader? C'mon, Smash, you can do better than that. This is me you're talking to-- not one of these twelve year old FFXIers who thinks he a political savant.

Bush has a very clear agenda: Destroy terrorism. While you may not agree with the way he's going about it or how it began, there is no question about what this presidency is about. Even the economy has taken a backseat to this focus-- which is a high stakes gamble, considering that food on the table in November may make or break this election. After all, Kerry has made zero headway when it comes to security issues when compared to Bush.

Totem

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2004_0729.html

Not one instance of "my opponent"

Stop wasting my fu[b][/b]cking time untill you have a clue what you're talking about. Bluffing your way through it is just making you look like an ***.

People aren't happy with GWB. Not even close. If the election were today, I'd vote for GWB. But nobody I work with would. They're ignorant, foolish, hard-headed, and unhappy with GWB. In other words, typical US citizens. And they would vote for Kerry.

I am ignorant and unhappy with GWB. I am a slightly atypical US citizen (I might be foolish, but I don't think hard-headed, I'm pretty open-minded). I will most likely vote for Kerry.

Please tell me, what has Bush done right? The only portion of his stewardship I don't have qualms with occurred immediately following 9/11 and the invasion of Afghanistan.

So please, explain.