i wish you could only campaign for pres starting in august. the endless months of polls and speculation are tiresome.

yes

No matter what happens, we're going to have a President that doesn't represent my interests or belief system at all.

good. i'm not on crazy pills.

it's all blah blah national guard, blah blah medals, blah blah blah.

i don't care much about any of it. i'll vote, but i won't be happy.

We just had an election for City of Eugene Mayor that I think prophesies what teh national races will look liek in the future:

Regular Solid Democrat

vs.

Extreme Leftist Socialist

The socialist won. The "conservatives" in this town all voted the Democrat. All of you who vote "lesser of two evils" are merely contributing to this kind of result in the future.

It is true that both candidates are making big deals over non-issues (medals, national guard, etc). But this plays well for Bush because it obscures larger issues like health care, environment, etc which Kerry has the edge on politically, but he can't articulate his possitions with any strength because a) he sucks and b) because he's constantly trying to explain other superfluous bullshit. He's just a poor candidate--at this point Howard Dean probably would've energized the base to hold a 3-5 percent edge on the polls. Funny how buyer's remorse for Dean is coming back to buyer's remorse for Kerry.

Boring, no. Tiresome, yes. But, the majority of voters aren't paying attention anyways. Most people don't care until after August. One of the main reasons the media is paying so much attention to the campaign this early is because of everything that is currently going on in the world...if things were different, people wouldn't care so much about the election.

Originally posted by tweedyburd
He's just a poor candidate--at this point Howard Dean probably would've energized the base to hold a 3-5 percent edge on the polls. Funny how buyer's remorse for Dean is coming back to buyer's remorse for Kerry.

The problem with Dean is that he didn't enegerize the base. A lot of Dems strongly disliked him. The people that did like him were fringe liberal Dems and 3rd party voters. The typical Democrat was not a Dean fan.

And, as the polls have shown, it doesn't matter who the Dem nominee is...the poll numbers are the same no matter whose name you toss in there. Nobody is voting for Kerry, they're voting against Bush. And in current polls that don't ******* Nader, Kerry is ahead of Bush enough to no longer be within the margin of error. At this point, Kerry hasn't done enough to make people want him, which is what will, hopefully/possibly, boost him higher in the polls. Right now, the Kerry vote is simply an anti-Bush vote.

Edwards would have steamrolled Bush.

Originally posted by sawdust restaurants
Edwards would have steamrolled Bush.

Agreed.

just like Gore was supposed to 4 years ago?

Originally posted by BlueStar


Agreed.

Originally posted by The Omega Concern
just like Gore was supposed to 4 years ago?

Kerry = Gore
Edwards = Clinton

being that edwards has the trial lawyer thing, he would have been too risky. i'm sure there would be an endless parade of spin on cases he argued. besides, he didn't have gray hair, and that seems to be an important factor (stupid though it is). he looked too young.

Originally posted by homechicago
being that edwards has the trial lawyer thing, he would have been too risky. i'm sure there would be an endless parade of spin on cases he argued.

The Repubs tried that when he ran for the Senate. It didn't work and completely backfired.

Originally posted by BlueStar
The Repubs tried that when he ran for the Senate. It didn't work and completely backfired.

Fun bit of information (that I'm sure you already know, but for everybody else's benefit): JE's victory was the only unseating of an incumbent senator in North Carolina in the second half of the 20th century.

Originally posted by homechicago
being that edwards has the trial lawyer thing, he would have been too risky. i'm sure there would be an endless parade of spin on cases he argued. besides, he didn't have gray hair, and that seems to be an important factor (stupid though it is). he looked too young. Take a look at Clinton, Gore, and Bush when they ran for President the first time. Not a lot of grey there.

Originally posted by sawdust restaurants
Edwards would have steamrolled Bush. Yes.

I think I could streamroll Bush right now. C'mon guys, put it all into perspective.

He has the worst rating of an incumbent aside from Jimmy Carter and Richard Nixon.

Originally posted by sppunk
I think I could streamroll Bush right now. C'mon guys, put it all into perspective.

He has the worst rating of an incumbent aside from Jimmy Carter and Richard Nixon.

And yet still has a fantastic chance of winning, because Kerry can't seem to catch on with anybody or anything. I like him, for the most part, policy-wise (as much as I'll ever like a mainstream Democrat, at least), but as a candidate he's proving to be a flop. There is hardly any pro-Kerry movement and a hell of a lot of anti-Bush movement; I guarantee you that if Edwards, or hell, even Dean were the nomineee, that would be a lot different. Edwards would be up by double digits right now.

Originally posted by Nimrod
No matter what happens, we're going to have a President that doesn't represent my interests or belief system at all.

Originally posted by sawdust restaurants


And yet still has a fantastic chance of winning, because Kerry can't seem to catch on with anybody or anything. I like him, for the most part, policy-wise (as much as I'll ever like a mainstream Democrat, at least), but as a candidate he's proving to be a flop. There is hardly any pro-Kerry movement and a hell of a lot of anti-Bush movement; I guarantee you that if Edwards, or hell, even Dean were the nomineee, that would be a lot different. Edwards would be up by double digits right now.

If it weren't for Dean, this wouldn't even be a race.

Originally posted by BlueStar


Agreed.

But didn't you say earlier it doesn't matter who the Dems nominated? If you agree Edwards would steamroll Bush you'd think he'd be stomping him right now in Bush's darkest hour.

I said that about Dean because he would harness the anger and channel it instead of boring people to tears like Kerry. Also, Dean would've basically made Nader a non-factor because he's far enough to the left to appeal to Naderites.

I think if Dean or Edwards would've won the nomination the polls would be 3-5 points different now. I mean, who else but Kerry in that group of frontrunners would lag at Bush's numbers in a time like this?

Originally posted by tweedyburd


But didn't you say earlier it doesn't matter who the Dems nominated? If you agree Edwards would steamroll Bush you'd think he'd be stomping him right now in Bush's darkest hour.

I said that about Dean because he would harness the anger and channel it instead of boring people to tears like Kerry. Also, Dean would've basically made Nader a non-factor because he's far enough to the left to appeal to Naderites.

Read what I wrote again:

And, as the polls have shown, it doesn't matter who the Dem nominee is...the poll numbers are the same no matter whose name you toss in there. Nobody is voting for Kerry, they're voting against Bush. And in current polls that don't ******* Nader, Kerry is ahead of Bush enough to no longer be within the margin of error. At this point, Kerry hasn't done enough to make people want him, which is what will, hopefully/possibly, boost him higher in the polls. Right now, the Kerry vote is simply an anti-Bush vote.

Edwards would have no problem winning people over and getting people to vote for him, not just against Bush. Any Dem can be in the position that Kerry is currently without even trying. Edwards would take that slight lead over Bush and run with it.

Dean pisses too many Dems off. He is too far left to get the Dem base. His anger is one of the things that turned voters off about him. If Dean was the nominee, I would never vote for him. Dean would have enough problems getting Dems to vote for him, nevermind the swing voters. At the start, yeah, things would be close between Dean and Bush (just like the polls are close between Kerry and Bush), but, once the campaign was well under way, Dean would dig himself into a hole and Bush would win by a good margin.

its not nearly as mundane as the 2000 election. there seems to be so much more at stake this year

Originally posted by BlueStar


Read what I wrote again:

[i]it doesn't matter who the Dem nominee is...the poll numbers are the same no matter whose name you toss in there.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by BlueStar
[B]
Edwards would take that slight lead over Bush and run with it.

I was basically saying all along that had Dean or Edwards become the nominee the polls probably would look a lot different now. You're ignoring the fact that Dean would've pulled to the center just like Kerry has. The difference is he would've continued an energetic campaign while Kerry has remained the same boring candidate he's always been.

Originally posted by tweedyburd
You're ignoring the fact that Dean would've pulled to the center just like Kerry has. The difference is he would've continued an energetic campaign while Kerry has remained the same boring candidate he's always been.

People didn't dislike Dean because of his stance on the issues, they just plain disliked him. Additionally, it is highly doubtful that if Dean had pulled to the middle that all those damn Deaniacs would have still been so fired up about him. And Dean's campaign was not energized, it was just ridiculous. And all campaigns are boring at this point in the year...right now, it is all about fundraising and the majority of voters don't care about the election at this point. This is the down time for the campaigns. Kerry's campaign is only now beginning to open offices and hire senior staff in the target states.

Originally posted by BlueStar


And Dean's campaign was not energized, it was just ridiculous.

Ridiculous or not, it influenced everyone else's campaign immeasurably. And trust me when I saw I dislike the guy even more than you do, but he did run an energetic and fresh campaign in the early going. He just self-imploded and scared people when he made his "I have a scream" speech and said America was no safer with Saddam behind bars. Without those blemishes he would've probably won the nomination.

Dean would've tailored his tone to more mainstream audiences but his core would've stayed with him because of his health care plan, his deficit reduction plan and his aggresively anti-war stance.