Does any Democrat have a chance in 2004?

[Composed Thinker]

Does any Democrat have a chance in 2004? And be realistic: don't give me a slogan or a cheer. I'd like an honest assessment of a candidate's chances.

[QC]

1. Yes.

See http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=86472&mesg_id=86472&page=

[Rocinante]

2. Sure

I believe there are some candidates announced AND unannounced that can beat Chimpy handily.

[Syrinx]

11. Do I hear Wesley's name mentioned. :)

I just tried the smiley in the subject to see if it iconified on du 2.

[Composed Thinker]

13. I wonder

I wonder when Clark will enter the race.

[Syrinx]

3. At least six of them do

[ButterflyBlood]

4. yes

just look at how fast junior is dropping in the polls. the days of his post-9/11 super-popularity are over. it's just that only recentely has the media decided to tell us that.

[Stephanie]

5. You post some bizarre threads

What kind of a question is that?

[Composed Thinker]

7. I think

I think it's an honest question.

[Trajan]

28. I must agree with Steph ....

Its 18 months until the election, Bush is stumbling as badly as the economy and the supposed war ..... and YOU feel there is no possibility that a Democrat can win ? .....

I swear these threads are nothing short of vanity .......

[Droopy]

6. I think we've got a good chance

It'll be the economy. All this stuff about Shrubya's lies doesn't appear like it will stick. But a stagnant stock market and rising unemployment will. Just the other day I heard a local talk show host who was preaching war a few months ago say, "are you better off than when before Bush took office?" He wasn't and went on to explain how he hadn't had a raise in four years and couldn't get one now because of the poor economy. I think the combination of a strong Dem candidate- and they all look good with the possible exception of a few who lack experience- and a weak economy will unseat Bush. If things stay bad in Iraq, the Dem candidate may also be more appealing in the foreign and defense policy areas as well. The reason I say that is because there seems to be this general perception in the public the the repukes are stronger on defense than the Dems. That will change if things continue to go badly in Iraq.

[Syrinx]

8. Your analysis is correct

But your prescription is too "droopy." :)

I think we need to promote the positives of our side, not so much hope for bad conditions.

But you sum things up well.

[Droopy]

16. They don't call me Droopy for nothing

You're right about accentuating the positive. That a Dem can take Bush out on the issues. It's just that I think that so many people think Bush is actually a good guy, despite the falling popularity numbers, that it's going to take some bad news for him to tarnish that image. It is his destructive policies that will undo him. Sadly, he's taking the rest of us with him. Hopefully some strong Dem leadership will turn it around for us.

[Syrinx]

18. I don't understand why people think GWB is likeable.

I just don't see it.

(Do you know a Glen Campbell song "Galveston?" It just came on. It's about Vietnam.)

[Droopy]

21. Don't know the tune

Why do you ask? Got some lyrics?

[Composed Thinker]

12. But

But the stock market has risen. And people keep saying the economy is going up, although I hear conflicting reports.

[lynndew2]

22. Yes, the economy is rebounding

And the market is on the upswing. I think the canidates need to start pushing a message rather then just the hate shrub junk. It is not sticking and the economy is on the rebound. They need to get a message out or we are in for another 4 years of *.

[w13rd0]

24. "the economy is rebounding"...

...gee, must have missed that talking point. I have hard evidence that says massive amounts of capital have been shifted OUT of the US economy overseas to Southeast Asia and South America. The Saudis have already pulled out billions, and threaten to pull out more if Bush doesn't act quick and squelch questions regarding their dubious joint business ventures...i mean sponsoring of terrorism...

The "economy is rebounding" (with recordsetting debt) is just more fuzzy math...

[lynndew2]

26. Not a talking point and

Maybe you should come back to earth and see the truth. Also I didnt hear any positions we can give to promote Dems other then Hate bush. Thanks for your uniformed answer.

[PurityOfEssence]

9. Yes: in order: Edwards, Kerry, Dean

That's descending order from my assumption of Edwards having the best chance.

Should Junior really implode in the next few months, Graham and Kucinich may have a chance too, but that would necessitate a real 1976-like dislike of politicians to do so, especially for Kucinich.

Yes, I'm partisan on the subject of Edwards, but that's not what's coloring my ranking here.

As for personal preference, regardless of "electability", in descending order: Kucinich, Edwards, Dean/Kerry tie, Graham, Moseley-Braun, Sharpton, Gephardt, Lieberman. Bear in mind that I really dislike religion, and even though Sharpton's a decent guy, that still bugs me. Gephardt's a bureaucrat, not an executive. I can't stand Quisling Joe, and I wouldn't trust him to the door.

[redeye]

14. Religion

Sorry I'm touting here, but Dean is pretty secular in both personal life and governance.

And yes, I presume I'd have said that even if I hadn't supported him.

[Capn Sunshine]

19. your order is exactly backwards

:)

[sandnsea]

23. No it's just jumbled up!

Should be Kerry, Dean, Edwards

:-)

[Room101]

10. I checked Composed Thinker 's last couple threads and they

Seem to give off intruder alert. I could be wrong but I could be right.

[onehandle]

17. I'd go with that feeling...

We've seen this pattern many times. I decided to answer him anyway.

[onehandle]

15. Bush is in trouble....

Even Rove's media machine is failing to cover the flaws and crimes.

The puppet has no clothes.

I will not talk about "undeclared" candidates.

Kerry, Dean or Gephardt have the best chances.

Lieberman or Graham next.

I'll work for and vote for the D who comes out on top next summer.

[redeye]

20. Good question

Elections here are won or lost on security - economic and national - rather than on political issues (exception: Gore lost partly because of his gun stance).

While the economy isn't so dismal as it was a year ago, you'd confuse it with 2002 and not with 1999. There's relatively high unemployment, the NASDAQ is a third of what it was at its 3/28/2000 peak, the Silicon Valley and the Triangle are not what they were five years ago, the DOW is up but is still about three-fourths of its 2000 peak, and real wages are still falling.

Bush seems stronger on national security than he is on economic security, but the Democrats can effectively turn his strength - 9/11 - into a weakness. The DNC needs to learn to make political capital out of such events; if nobody thinks that it's a conspiracy you did in order to benefit politically, then you're not doing this right. The question, "What reassurances can you give to the people that an attack on the scale of 9/11 won't happen again?" is a slogan, but a powerful and truthful one. Jailing people without a trial doesn't protect the USA from terrorism, nor will allowing the CIA to wiretap people at will. Getting the CIA and FBI to communicate will; telling the CIA to start employing human intelligence will; allowing CIA agents to request wiretap warrants directly from judges instead of requesting CIA HQ for a warrant to request a warrant will (that's why they couldn't eavesdrop on Moussaoui, by the way).

The prospects of a Democratic victory are as good as the ability of the DNC and the Democratic candidate to harp constantly on the economy and on Bush's inability to defend the United States against future terrorist attacks.

[Stan Davis]

25. If so, who? Clark, Maybe Kerry

I continue to say that the only candidate or potential candidate who can beat Dubya, as it stands now, is Wesley Clark. He's the best one to compete with Bush on national security and national defense. As others have said here, Clark's nomination would take those issues off the table. On domestic issues, Clark's values are congruent with those of most mainstream Democrats. He would attract a broad spectrum of supporters: traditional Democrats from the left to the near conservative among Democrats, independents, and moderate Republicans embarrassed by Bushco.

[Ouabache]

27. Will everyone but freepers please quit replying to this post ?

Thanks.

[bicentennial_baby]

31. Are you implying

that the person whose post to which you are replying is a FReeper? Does liking Wesley Clark make you a FReeper now?

[Carolina]

34. Welcome to DU and

I agree. Clark is THE MAN.

[Kahuna]

36. Welcome to DU, Stan. And you're right!

Clark is da man. With shrub and the dems who voted for the Iraq Resolution weakened, Clark can certainly be a viable contender for both the primary race and the national election.

[bowens43]

29. Yes

ANY democrat has chance against in 2004. Absolutely.

[Iverson]

30. with or without electoral fraud?

That seems to be the important question that doesn't get asked, except by the left.

Without fraud, of course Democrats have a chance. Hell, Gore won in 2000! With it, we've seen what happens and also where the passion and critical energy goes in response.

[tomp]

35. without electoral fraud there is NO WAY...

...bush can win.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

32. Faith

is not a substitute foe judgement.

Wishing and hoping doesn't make it so.


Bush is the incumbent.


If the econmoy starts to grow at a significant pace - > 3% GDP growth , unemployment will continue to drop, and the stock market will continue to rise.

Under this scenario Chimpy will be extroadinarily difficult to beat.

Conversely, if the economy doesn't pick up and unemployment remains at current levels or higher and the markey swoons again the Democrat's have a realistic shot providing they have a candidate who is acceptable to the folks in the middle.

Ther's another scenario where things stay pretty much the way they are. Then things get real interesting.

Reelection campaigns are referendums on the incumbent. People will ask themselves if they are better off than they were four years ago and vote accordingly.


I am operationally left of center but my analysis emanates from cold data not whim.

[deutsey]

33. At least three, in my opinion

Dean (my choice), Kerry (someone I could vote for), and Clark (someone I'd like to know more about if he actually declares his candidacy).

This isn't a swipe at the other candidates (I particularly like what Kucinich has to say), it's just that these three (IMHO) would give Bush Inc. the most trouble. Dean, because he's shown himself to be a plain-speaking fighter who can tap into the people w/o using "the liberal media"; Kerry, because he's a war hero whose vision of America stands in stark contrast to the craven corporatist reality Bush has inflicted on this country; and Clark because his military experience alone, like Kerry's, would outshine Bush's murky military past and would call into question his so-called leadership ability.

All three are also articulate, intelligent, can think on their feet, and have real potential for appealing to a wide range of voters.

This assessment, of course, barely scratches the surface of what they each have to offer, but these are just my off-the-cuff thoughts.

[Darranar]

37. Maybe...

It is far too early to tell. It depends how much these scandals will hurt him and how much we Democrats show the world all the horrible stuff he's doing.

IT'S THE ECONOMY, THE WAR, AND THE LIES ABOUT THE WMD, STUPID! That will carry us to victory.