I want anyone but Kerry to win in Wisconsin...

[bigwillq]

Hear me out, this is not flamebait. I'm starting to accept that Kerry is the likely nominee. But I'm obsessed with the primary season, if anyone but Kerry wins in WI it will throw the primary into a tizzy, imagine how the media will spin it. I want the next few weeks to be exciting as possible. With Kerry running away with it, the excitement is losing its steam for me. Understand, I will vote and support Kerry come Nov. but I want a nailbiter until June. Anyone else agree?? Disagree?

[Cuban_Liberal]

1. The longer the interest span, the better!

I agree.

[bigwillq]

2. Agree. I'm not anti-Kerry but I'm having

too much fun keeping track of all this primary stuff.

[Lefta Dissenter]

3. My only worry about that

would be the $$. Mind you, I have jumped on every 'so-and-so should drop out' thread, because I don't think anyone should be pushed out before they make that decision on their own.

But if it becomes totally clear who the nominee is - if he gets to the point at which it is mathematically almost impossible for anyone else to get it, then I would rather see the campaign dollars focused against bush than the other dems.

[bigwillq]

7. I agree with the money issue

But I'm sure Kerry will have more than enough money to defeat Bush. He'll get lots of donations when he's the nominee I'm sure.

[Dookus]

4. I disagree

I want the candidate to be able to start focusing his time, money and attention on defeating Bush.

[Cuban_Liberal]

6. Why just one?

Why not have multiple candidates focusing on Bush?

[bigwillq]

9. That would be a good idea

I would love to see Dean going around the country stumping how bad the shrub is.

[Cuban_Liberal]

14. I don't want those Republican bastards defining our nominee...

... until the last possible moment. Multiple moving targets are MUCH harder to hit than one fixed one. I speak as a 'marksman', as rated by the Illinois State Police! :)

[bigwillq]

17. I don't want just 25% of America choosing our nominee either

but it looks like that's going to be the case. That's why I want Edwards or Dean to pull the upset tonight.

[Cuban_Liberal]

21. Either of those results would please me.

Right on! :thumbsup:

[bigwillq]

22. Me too

Although I would love to see Dean cause he's my man, I would be pleased with an Edwards win

[Cuban_Liberal]

24. It would certainly kill the 'inevitable nominee' stuff.

I'd take a 3rd-place showing, for that alone. :)

[bigwillq]

25. "Inevitable nominee"

Two words I wish were associated with Howard Dean. Too bad.

[ewagner]

28. Two great points Liberal_Cuban

First, the excitement of the primaries is great publicity and second the longer it takes for the nominee to be chosen, the less chance Rove and company have to paint a bullseye on him.

Excellent insight!

[Dookus]

20. because they're not running as a team

they're running as individuals against EACH OTHER right now.

[Cuban_Liberal]

26. I'm aware of that.

And.....? :shrug:

[Dookus]

32. and....

as long as they're focusing on beating each other, they're NOT focusing on beating Bush. That means time, energy, attention and money all going towards something OTHER than the primary goal - beating Bush.

[Cuban_Liberal]

33. And as long as there are multiple candidates, ...

... there is no SINGLE candidate for the KKKarl's smear maqchine to fix it's laser sights on, either.

[disenfranchised]

8. Most of this coverage is free.

The democrats are getting a free nights worth of coverage every time a state votes. Once we move to the general election, we will have to buy our air time.

I'm in California and we need the dem primary. Only months ago, the repubs slaughtered us here and we need some positive coverage of democrats.

[KurtNilsen]

11. I think the coverage of these primaries have been

incredibly valuable. It's the kinda PR money cannot buy.

[mlawson]

12. But then the repukes will know which of OUR candidates to focus solely on.

As early as March 2nd. Why is that good??

[RetroLounge]

47. as long as it's one's candidate then one's in happy

naturally.

Let's muzzle the others and get ready for the coronation!

must follow the script...

[janx]

5. A woman interviewed on NPR today

said that although everyone told her to vote for Kerry "because he is the most electable," she deliberately refused because she wants to see the democratic process work and wants to see more candidates involved for a longer amount of time. She said that she knew that many people still don't know the candidates' stances on things and that keeping the primary going would force people to take a good look.

It was wonderful.

[MoonRiver]

10. Some CNN pundits posted this argument earlier.

At first it made sense: more candidates equal more free air time for the Dem message to get out. However, what is overlooked is that candidates will have to be spending megabucks in each primary to promote their messages. This probably negates all free media advertising from CNN.CON , FAUX, and MiSsingNactionBC. Let's just get it over with and start in on * for real.

[bigwillq]

13. I wasn't aware that it was on CNN. Although I started this thread

I wasn't thinking about the money issue and it's a valid point. This is why I started this thread, you guys on DU always teach me something. Thanks.

[spooky3]

30. it is, but it isn't

If people think the races are competitive, they may donate more to the candidates. Meanwhile the attention to the content of what our candidates say forces people and the media to question what * is doing to a MUCH greater extent than if there were only one candidate.

[Cuban_Liberal]

15. False dilemma.

The money 'saved' would not be transferrable to another candidate, in any event, so why not spend it bashing Bush for as long as possible?

[bigwillq]

16. I think they're talking about Kerry "saving money"

if all the other DEM candidates dropped out.

[Cuban_Liberal]

18. As if a gazillionaire has to worry about that.

John Kerry's finances are #34 on the list of things likely to keep me awake at night.

[bigwillq]

23. True, True

that's why I think it's alright if the primary season goes on a while longer. Kerry will be safe financially

[janx]

31. Kerry will have to abide by the same rules as the other

candidates regarding money.

If he runs out...*toughski shitski* (as my dear departed mother once said).

[Cuban_Liberal]

35. He opted out when Dr. Dean did.

He's only bound by the same rules Bush is.

[revcarol]

51. He's allowed to spend unlimited amounts of his own money

a la Corzine. He's NOT allowed to spend Teresa's.

[RetroLounge]

49. Can't he just mortgage a few more houses?

Call some specially interested friends?

ask his wife for an allowance?

[janx]

19. But that's part of the primary process (at least it's supposed

to be).

The candidates continue based on their support. The more support they have, the longer they stay in the race.

[JHKaplan]

27. Kerry and Skull and Bones

This is certainly not intended as well to be flame-bait, but, as a Clark supporter who was sorry to see him leave the race, and as someone for whom Kerry was almost the last choice (after Gephardt and Leiberman), I can declare I can support Kerry and feel I will be doing so when it comes to him vs the buschnitwitpieceofcrud. One issue that has bothered me is Kerry's membership in the same elite of the elite secret societies, Yale's Skull and Bones. This is not a fraternity as some of Kerry's supporters have been dismissing it, this is a secret conclave of the superrich, super-powerful, super-privileged, who turn around and SELECT, SCOTUS fashion, who will be given positions of wealth, power, and influence in the world. We common janes and joes have no say in any this, yet what these people do greatly affects us and the world at large. I have been calling on Kerry to come clean publicly on his membership in S&B and then to repudiate it. I would feel much more enthusiastic in my support of this guy who, after all, is seeking my Democratic vote to be the most powerful person on the planet and to defend democracy, that is, real democracy, something stolen by the buschcrud in 2000, Kerry's fellow member in S&B. (Who knows what rituals they participated in together?)

[molly]

37. Oh please - didn't you ever belong to a college frat?

it's a KID thing.

on edit - do you REALLY think these guys still meet - secretly and do their silly little boyish things?

[JHKaplan]

52. yes they do

Yes Molly they absolutely do. I know it sounds absurd but it is true. Read up on it.

[KC21304]

40. I got to see the guy you " support " endorse Kerry last Friday .

They were marvelous together and are going to kick Bush's ass all across the country. And they may do it as a team, which will really be sweet. Now what was that you were saying about demanding Kerry come clean about some rituals that may have taken place almost 40 years ago ?

[JHKaplan]

53. 40 years ago. no.

Skull and Bones is still active and Kerry according to Alexandra Robbins in the past several years tried to recruit for the secret society. IT IS NOT JUST A FRATERNITY!!!!!

[bigwillq]

44. I appreciate your honesty

I think Kerry should come clean too

[JHKaplan]

54. Thanks

Thank you. I propose this not out of any ulterior motive by the way. It is a matter of principle -- democracy should be real, not just owned by the privileged. Then it isn't democracy. It is just the continuation of rule by those born with silver spoons up their arses. Like busch.

[CabalBuster]

29. I will not vote for Kerry, whether he wins WI or not

My vote does not belong to the DLC, I came on board because of Dr. Dean and I refuse to fall in line with the democratic party, call me a heretic if you wish but it would rather sit it out because Kerry is not my candidate, he does not represent my issues or my ideals. A vote for Kerry is a "desperation" vote. We have to be careful who we nominate because lesser of two evils is STILL evil.

[molly]

36. Your vote counts - please don't throw it away

:-(

[NNN0LHI]

38. Then who will you vote for if Kerry gets the nomination? Bush? n/t

[JHKaplan]

55. disagree

I understand your feelings but I think the most important thing, overriding any other concern, is to evacuate the vermin busch-cheney usurpation of Our White House, that is, the people's house. The danger and the obscenity they represent and are transcends everything else in my view. So I will certainly support Kerry. He is different enough.

[molly]

34. I disagree - without having read the other threads

I want us to unite and get stronger and stronger before June. The attacks are already beginning. We will lose our country and our world if we have another 4 years of hell.

[David Dunham]

39. Kerry'll put it away March 2. Anti-open trade Edwards won't play in NY,CA

[JHKaplan]

56. believe me

Believe me Molly I agree with your sentiment. Totally and unreservedly. And I can and will support Kerry in every way. I just think it is the right thing to do for him to come clean on this. It certainly can't backfire on him with respect to the ordinary voter. And, listen, if you hate busch as much as you seem to, and I sure do, doesn't it bother you that both busch and Kerry belong to the same tiny elite club of the super-privileged, pulling strings with NO democratic oversight to install their coterie of other sons of privilege in the institutions of power, wealth and influence around the world?

[Baclava]

41. Bah...

It's all over except for a few......

[edzontar]

42. I agree. The longer the race stays hot and interesting, the better in

The long run, for whoever the nominee ends up being.

[killbotfactory]

43. I agree

Only because I think Kerry is a weak candidate for the general election, and want someone else to win.

[bigwillq]

45. Why do you think he's weak?

Who in your opinion is the best candidate?

[killbotfactory]

48. I think Dean is the best, followed by Edwards and Clark

I think Kerry is weak because he voted against most of the military expendatures we now rely on, he flip-flops unconvincingly on major issues, seemingly can't give a definitive stand on any controversial issues, and is one of the least inspiring speakers of the campaign, among other reasons.

[bigwillq]

58. Agree with you on "flip-flops"

and I thought "they" said Dean was bad. I think he's a boring speaker as well, imo. Not hating, just my truth.

[gasperc]

46. Kerry chance to tighten his game put spark back in

a great test to be ready for the fall campaign, can't take anything for granted. Makes Edwards a strong strong vote getter, excellant VP choice delivering votes.

[ShaneGR]

50. You might get your wish

The results look promising for Edwards and from what I understand the Milwaukee area (Which reports later) went pretty strongly to Edwards.

[PretzelWarrior]

57. sorry. looks like you struck out. Dean's losing AND Kerry won

you picked a bad week to stop sniffing glue.

[bigwillq]

59. No, no...my rubber cement can is right here now

My thread wasn't meant to bash anyone, not even Kerry,the point was "what if someone other than Kerry won WI" how would things play out but thanks for your response.