Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

Compared to Edwards or Kerry, I don’t believe Dean can convince leftist and centrist voters that he can beat Bush. That said, Dean has changed the landscape of campaigns from this point forward.

No candidate for national office, or probably state office for that matter, will ever again run a competitive race without a solid and tentacled internet outreach web site, blog, and political email program at the center of its campaign.

I don’t think it’s too bad of a showing. Sometimes I think standards have been shoved too high in this country. I mean, there are movies that make 80 million dollars in their first weekend, and are called disappointments, even when your average sane person would just drop their jaw at such a number.

Same here. Essentially you have a candidate that placed third overall in the last primary, and people are saying second place isn’t good? I honestly think worse things could have happened to Dean.

I’m noting something else: Dean is still ahead in the delegate counts. So until Kerry wins a few more, I’m still taking a wait and see attitude. Kerry will probably win, but we should remember how Clinton gained the nomination.

I think if it were not for Democrats and left leaning and centrist Independents desperately wanting to unseat this President and making it their highest priority, Dean could not by any means be counted out yet. But they have a front runner now, and he is easily seen as having the stature to stand toe to toe with Bush in a televised debate and win.

Dean just does not have that stuture, in my opinion. If Kerry does stand on a stage next to Bush, the very height difference will have a psychologically positive effect for Kerry, as will his experienced appearance.

I know these factors should have nothing to do with how we select a president, but, this ain’t Nivana and they will play a role.

Second place in New Hampshire is not a dismal performance. Its a very good finish. It is interesting to see how people are ready to call the race for the Democratic nomination at a point when only 1% of the delegates have been assigned.

That’s right, there’s 99% of the delegates that will ultimately decide the nominee still yet to be determined. Talk about presumptive guessing. (Incidently, Dean is leading the delegate count at this early stage, anyway.)

This brings up my point that not only is it too early to call the race for the Democratic nomination, but also November’s Presidential election.

A second place finish in NH does build momentum for the Dean campaign. There’s a long way to go to unseating President Bush. All in due time.

A lot of folks aren’t going to like this statement, but, it needs to be said. While one would be a fool to bet the mortgage on a presidential race, herd behavior of voters allows a certain degree of predictability, especially if they are penned in by limiting fences. Kerry raised 1/2 million dollars in two days, and he hasn’t even received my $50 in the mail yet.

Undecided voters were waiting for a front-runner, they now have one, and the money and votes will now shift to Kerry in magnitude amounts compared to what he raised and held before Iowa and N.H.

“His latest revelation: losing a lot and gaining some is a good thing.”

Hmm, that sounds very familiar. Haven’t we seen something very similiar from some other politician type, possibly involving the economy? I just can’t put my finger on it.

If polls are a good measure, and they’re not, but they’re the best we have for future reading, it looks like Dustin called this one right on the money. Dean’s polls are dropping for next week.

Any time that you begin pegging your presidential fortunes on the Wisconsin primary in mid February, you are in trouble (as Dean is currently doing.) That said, good point on Dean changing future elections through his internet approach, but that is probably all that he will add. I think that Kerry is going to coast from here on out as Dean is damaged goods, and Clark and Edwards are flat out not attractive pres candidates at this point in their political careers. I also think that a candidate based on “electability” will not fare well in the scrutiny of the general election. People will be surprised to see Kerry’s voting record and past stances on issues. Once the aura of his ability to beat Bush wears off and people see his record, moderates and independents will be turned off. Obviously, a large part of the dems despise Bush and would probably vote for me just to get rid of Bush, but the critical 5%-10% of the vote is still undecided and will most likely vote Bush after the records come out. My prediction…Bush beats Kerry 53-47.

Rob S said: My prediction…Bush beats Kerry 53-47.

Turn those numbers around and you would be in agreement with a poll released today showing Kerry beats Bush by that margin. Of course, polls at this point are probably no more accurate than our personal and wishful prognostications.

Anyone got a clear preference between Kerry and Edwards? Kerry will be painted as overly liberal. Edwards, I suppose, will be painted as inexperienced (one term as senator, no time in executive power). Still, I think Edwards comes across better in debates and speeches. Plus he connects better with people in the south.

First of all Dean was a form of therapy for angry Democrats, that was the initial appeal. Now it’s in a secondary phase of issues and electability. And Dean went splat due to him, not being the candidate shooting from the hip, but being the candidate firing Sillystring from the hip. He was touting obscurely derived facts so carelessly that I think most Dems caught wind of atleast one touted flare of nonsense to call into question voting in his favor. After the Nomination of a Democratic candidate, a third phase will arise, the swing phase.

Kerry, who will probably get the nomination, has to call into question two things about the current administration. One, economy, specifically the gross spending of the republicans on the hill as well as those within the administration, i.e call into question deficit spending. The tax cuts that will innevitably come in the next term for Bush are on borrowed money. This also devalues the dollar, granted this can be good for american manufacturing with purchases of goods from overseas, but at the rate our manufacturing jobs being outsourced there is relatively little to save that won’t go to China or South America.

Here’s the problem we need an overvalued dollar in this climate to purchase goods from overseas, we are becoming more and more increasingly a consumer based economy (buying goods from elsewhere to sell here) thus we have requirements on our dollar’s value in the global marketplace. See though we need to get spending in order to secure a dollar that has an overvalue. And tax cuts actually detract from that, why people can’t see the downfall that is coming due to Bush and the republican’s reliance on the Laffer curve theory (trickle down economics)is nuts. To not move to shore up debt through fiscal discipline is not sound strategy. We lost the surplus (no debt incurred) then another round of tax cuts, then getting rid of’double taxing’on dividends (we lost more money that we will have to pick up for at a later time) Folks, it’s not a tax break, that’s why he calls it ‘tax relief’ (temporary) because you will have to pick up the tab later in one big thud.

There were also other unwise moves, spending the surplus on tax cuts after 9-11 when we knew we were going to war. Having no means to pay off the war essentially. Let me explain this effect, the wealthy get tax cuts, write-offs and loopholes that the majority of Americans do not qualify for, really. What this means is that the middle income earners will have to for both, almost the entirity of the war cost and the rebuilding of Iraq. It’s all borrowed money at this point after we maxed out the credit card (the surplus).

So here’s the cut and dry of it, the soldiers that fought in Iraq and in Afghanistan will be the income bracket that will have to pick up the tab on this war. I’m sorry, but that’s not patriotism while those who have the money to invest in corporations like Raytheon and Boeing don’t have to pay for the war due to the loopholes that the Republicans assembled. Those who earn the least pick up the greater part of the bill. All in the name of ‘tax relief’ (denoting temporary) that I’m telling you will come back and hit us like a lead boomerang. Why? because that is how it was proposed by the Republican congress. Debt of this magnitude can’t be eased back in. Our future will mean much higher taxes due to the Bush administration’s economic policies of today.

I know that the republicans emphasize economy but rarely are the good at the implication of sound policy. Actually going back to Reagan era, and Bush’s father had no choice but to raise taxes actually. The debt exceded the income. The sad thing is that people vote with neither a clear winsshield nor a rearview mirror especially when it comes to Republicans.