The Democratic Primary 2004 Thread

Can someone link candidate's websites. I've got Dean, Kerry and Gephardt, but what about the rest.

Also who is giving good coverage of the campaign, anything approaching Hunter thomson's '72 masterpiece?

Here's the Kucinich homepage.

right on to you, Teeny

So, ummm...are any of these Democrats still going to be Democrats after the primaries, or are they going to stumble over themselves trying to make their image over as "more conservative than you'd'a thunk!" in an effort to placate right-leaning voters?

x-post with John

Actually, it seems like most of 'em (except for Kucinich) have some pretty decent right-leaning-voter appeal. Clark cuz of the military background, Dean cuz of his actually quite right-leaning views on some issues, Lieberman on censorship (among many other things), etc.

I have respect for Kerry and agree with much of what he says he stands for now, even as I find myself growing more and more frustrated when reflecting on how the Democratic leadership, in the past few years, so often gave Bush his way, voted for the war, voted for the tax cuts, voted for No Child Left Behind, etc. I'm supporting Dean as I credit him with finally changing the terms of the debate & getting the Democratic Party to challenge the President.

As far as the electability issue.. .. this ought to be a non-issue, but since it's referred to so often - who thinks Kerry, with his posh coiffure and his motorcycle - is all that appealing to voters? I looked at his website and thought, wow, SO uncool. I would campaign for him and vote for him if he had the Democratic nomination, but for real, he looks and talks like a European diplomat and people won't like it.

I am stunned that Edwards isn't running for his Senate seat even though he's polling in single digits. Is he a potential vice-presidential nominee?

yeah, Kerry doesn't mix with "real people" at all. so much so that with his drop in polls I'd come close to writing him off. but the dude looks great behind a lectern, and his aggressiveness has none of Dean's superiority (which people won't like either) and may cancel out his Cristophe-ness. his European diplomatness also brings gravitas, which Bush has none of. when he's on, he's got President written all over him.

I'm afraid it's hard to overstate the importance of relating to "real people." And I think the terms on which one tries to do this are quite delicate.. and trying to suddenly become a normal guy by talking about your working-class parents or playing up a contrived image is a strategy that people see through *immediately*. What's insulting to me is the more I see Democratic candidates trying to show "we're just like you," the message I get is "we think you're dumb enough to only vote for the guy who's just like you." I can't get over those photos of Kerry, it's like, you're a posh guy on a Harley, don't condescend to me.

I read this the opposite way - this means that the kids might get out and vote for Dean, where they wouldn't bother with other candidates. That's a big plus for Dean (or any other Democrat who can make it happen), just like it was for Clinton.

And I have to say, the Iraq war is a big, big issue for me - I recall exactly what I was worried about during the buildup and exactly what I was afraid would happen - and here we are. It's hard for me to put confidence in politicians who voted for it because it is a very, very serious thing to start a war, and now that it's turning into a quagmire they should stand up and take responsibility for having, basically, failed us - rather than trying to cover their asses. Because if, during the buildup, one was worried about 1) flimsy/nonexistent evidence, 2) alienating allies, 3) increased terrorism, 4) massive economic drain, 5) NO PLAN for the peace - and I know I was - didn't all of these things warrant an attempt to stop it or at the very least, to vote "no"?

And yeah, I know Dean is posh. I don't care much who is and who isn't, but the *style* of campaigning that puts a lot of emphasis on personal biography really irritates me. There was a New York Times article on it over the weekend that got at this - good stuff.

beyond the fact that I don't think "posh" means anything in America, I think it should be noted that there's a difference between being the son of an investment banker and being the grandson of a Senator and the son of an independent oilman who struck it very rich before building a major-league political resume on his way to becoming President.

From Richard Ben Cramer's "What it Takes," a Wolfeian view of the '88 Potus race - GHW Bush (41) lost his first race for Congress, a campaign run at least in part by early-20-something-if-not-teenaged George W (43). When his dad lost, W. sobbed.

Not so's you'd notice, but that's OK. It's SOP. All you can hope for is that they act more or less like Democrats during the primaries, which is Dean's whole strategy: run to the left in the primaries, tack to the center in the election. Republicans do the same thing, kissing up to the Christian Coalition and so forth in the primaries and then saying bland things like "compassionate conservatism" in the general.

I'm still kinda put off by Dean when I see him on TV -- he doesn't project "superiority," exactly, but there is something prickly about him. But I actually think he's the most electable of the group at the moment. Governors do better than senators, as a rule -- sure, he's from a small state, but executive experience in a small state is still easier to sell as executive experience than heading up congressional subcommittees or whatever. And he's got the best claim to being from "outside the beltway" -- hell, he's spent less time in D.C. than Al Sharpton has. Yeah, he's a Yankee, but he's a Vermont Yankee, which is more sellable in the South than being a NY or Massachusetts Yankee -- the state has that whole Robert Frost self-reliance mythology.

Edwards is a nothing and a nobody, a middling junior senator with not much in terms of either ideas or experience. He shouldn't even be in the race. And if he doesn't make some kind of move soon, he won't be. I just don't see him differentiating himself. The only thing that's kept him in so far is being Southern and getting lots of trial lawyer contributions -- not promising. (He could be a veep, I guess, if Clark's not available.)

Of course, who the nominee is matters less than what's going on domestically and internationally a year from now. Who the hell knows. Another big attack somewhere, and all bets are off.

There's going to be another debate, from Baltimore, tomorrow night. It is co-sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus and (someone must be having fun) FOX News (who I assume will broadcast it).

oh, and on Dean's "superiority" - he has a decisiveness about his answers to questions that contains very little humility (which some might say is a mark of his professional training). while it's hard to peg him as an "elitist", I think the quality will be off-putting to some or many of the same people who would be bothered by that accusation.

I don't Edwards is a non-entity. He's been somewhat active and creative as a legislator. And he has a good, Clintonian team behind him bulking up his substance and his communication skills. But while he's impressed me in the recent past with same, his performance in the most recent debate was surprisingly unconvincing for someone who is such a successful trial lawyer and hearkened back to earlier in the season when he clearly wasn't ready yet.

wow, are there a lot of Kucinich supporters reading the Voice. Surprise surprise. You know what would be cool, is if W Bush decided to actually have his like, 5th press conference ever, and Kucinich showed up and started asking tons of questions and ending them all with "HELLO?"

saw wesley clark on bill maher (yes, bill maher is an asshole, sadly sometimes he has interesting guests) and he gave a pretty impassioned/rousing defense of liberalism and liberal values and called the Iraq war a "bait and switch." I thought he was pretty impressive.

I checked the Faux news website after the debate & there was a lovely piece with plenty of quotes from Sharpton and Kucinich, unflattering finger-pointing photos of several candidates, and the lede stating (close paraphrase ->) 'Democratic candidates competed with each other to show that President Bush is the root of all evil.' You know, it makes me so angry that I wish I was a minor celebrity so I could get an interview on Faux & call bullsh!t on them, not that anyone would listen, but I'd enjoy myself at least.

Here's Daria's article, with the charming headline Democratic Candidates Offer Grim View of America

Politics 102: "How to Pass the Buck"

he could blame gephardt, kerry, et al though. he has successfully shifted the terms of debate so that they have to be apologetic/defensive about having voted for the war.

well, dean or the continuing casualties.

I suppose no matter who is talking, if Bush isn't to be held responsible for starting the war, who is? Or yes, I can agree with you - Bush is incapable of thinking on his own and is led around by his team of advisors. Either way, he shouldn't be President any longer.

This race doesn't even become a race until primary filings are due, which is in less than 50 days.

And until then, you cannot count out General Clark or Hillary Clinton. Or Albert Gore, Jr.

But let's take a look at the list:

Edwards: Unelectable but a nice sacficial VP candidate. Has not shown the ability to raise enough money and doesn't have enough personal wealth to string it out.

Kerry: has the money and personality of George Bush Sr. It would take a fiscal disaster to get him elected. But a nice sacrificial lamb a la Bob Dole.

Dean: proven earner, a nice record of fiscal (very relatively speaking) stinginess, much loved among Democrats for garnering press as the only game in town over the summer. But his anti-war crusade makes him a liability; mitigating factor would be a disastrous winter of war, which is the only crack in the Bush fortress right now.

Keep in mind that Dukakis had a ten point lead in several polls the summer before the election of 1988. And he got his ass handed to him by one of the worst campaigners ever.

http://jya.com/ap.htm. God bless crazy libertarians.

I think you're quite wrong. What is your evidence for this? My evidence - Independents in current polls break for generic Democrats over Republicans by about 10 points. Polls show that Independents like Dean best of any of the candidates. Recent elections in which independents played a major role in putting up the winning candidate - Jesse Ventura, McCain NH 2000, Ahnold. Think Dean has something in common with those candidates? Majority gender of Independents - male.

My thoughts for some time have been that whoever is the Democratic nominee will get all of the generic Democratic votes plus the votes of anyone who hates Bush and is not a Democrat. I have believed Dean is the most electable candidate because he would get all those votes plus the votes of independent men who vote on macho-ness rather than issues (except guns, a macho issue). Now I'm questioning my theory on the basis of Iowa.

However, there isn't necessarily any good reason for me to question Iowa, because it is quite possible that IOWA CHANGED ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. The primary turnout was 20% of the Democratic general election turnout in Iowa in 2000. Per the NYT exit poll, 68% of voters were over 45 years old. Iowa is an elderly state. The young voters who we can add to the Gore/Democratic vote for Dean are not enough to form a majority or even a plurality, but they are there. Moreover, this was a Democratic crowd, not an independent one. Only 19% were independents, but 65% were self-identified "Strong Democrats" and 56% described themselves as somewhat or very liberal. Seventy-five percent opposed the war and 25% had post-graduate degrees. These people are all going to vote for the nominee whoever it is. Their votes reflect perceived electability, not actual electability, and word on the ground in Iowa was that they were not especially informed.

However, there may be one reason to question Dean even given these caveats. Perhaps Dean, or at least the media's take on Dean's Independents and youth-seeking hockey dad rallies, is too much for little old Midwestern ladies. Perhaps the Democrats are going to lose because they're unwilling to try on Independent drag.

I think all of the remaining serious candidates have the potential to beat Bush. I think that safe, generic, broad and "experienced" (and elitist and shameless and extremely boring) John Kerry might be the best non-Dean (Kerry, it should be noted, didn't win, but, as Kaus says, was "rejected by 62% of Iowa voters") and that shifty, slick, more-defensive-than-Dean, foreign-policy-only Clark might be the worst candidate of them all, with a worse risk to reward ratio than slick, no record, empty suit but talks purty John Edwards.

from what i've been reading, it looks like dean's biggest misstep was the "perfect storm" invasion of iowa by out-of-state deaniacs. while what i've read is admittedly anecdoctal, it seems like that they might have a little over-enthusiastic and a little too smug for people's liking. all of which may have added to any of dean's perceived flaws. again, i recognize that this is anecdoctal and not to keep flogging a death horse, but reason number #1 as to why i turned so sour on nader 4 years ago was because of over-enthusiastic, overly smug and (IMHO) overly ignorant nader supporters. so i certainly believe that this may have been a factor in iowa -- and since last night i've gotten TONS of e-mails from NJ & national Deaniacs looking to get Deaniacs out to NH, i'm getting a little worried.

Rereading my post, I realize that the other Dem candidates can maybe add groups to the ticket just like Dean can. Kerry (and maybe Clark) can get "security Moms" (whatever those are). Except I thought security Moms were Democrats last time. Nevertheless, this helps us get back up to the Gore total. Edwards can get us, er, "Tom Cruise Moms"? I wonder what those are. Maybe they're not Moms, but single women! But were they going to vote for Bush? The Democrats have a man problem. That's why I like Dean better. But maybe the men we want really do like war hero biography or, uh, boyish charm. Maybe the media is going to make so much fun of Dean that they'll be scared to like him. Maybe Dean needs to start fighting the media to win them back?

... since election 2000, lotsa folks (including me) have gone on about how "the left" had to rethink some of their attitudes and tactics esp wr2 the democratic party and folks in the moderate-to-moderate-liberal camp. though they haven't done so perfectly, i think that they HAVE listened to those criticisms -- a lot of them are the folks inspired by dean (or, to a lesser extent, kucinich) despite any differences over policy b/w them and dean, and the nader/greens marriage is now officially history. since i've gone on and on for the need for progressives to work w/n the democratic party and to shun political charlatans, it would be inconsistent for me to now denounce any impulse toward pragmatism that i've seen.

my point -- if someone other than dean wins, that someone is going to have to face (mock boston-brahmin upturned nose) those deaniacs. how is this someone going to appeal to THEM? this is the central point all along -- how to get moderates and progressives together to get rid of bush. it seems to me that the progressives have done at least some compromising -- maybe it's time for the moderates to consider compromising themselves. if they think that dean's financial and manpower #s are fake based upon what just happened in iowa, they may be in for a very rude surprise. i am NOT advocating that dean's folks march off in a huff -- this election's too important for that, and even w/ my misgivings about kerry i will still vote for him over bush (as will many). but now is the time to see how really wise kerry and dean are, and i hope that i'm not disappointed.

I might go to NH for a few days campaigning for Kerry, because he seems to be the best candidate by far.. you know he might be a little snooty from time to time, but I'm sure nobody in the Kerry camp is feeling like they're sitting on a house of cards. And he'll match up against Bush on both sides of the domestic/foreign policy equation, I believe. Hey, if people are worried about security issues.. being fairly predictable and steady might be a real good thing.

As for the Dems having a toughness problem, sure they do (or did), but that doesn't necessarily mean the nominee has to seem like the biggest badass out there. And is it just me or is Bush looking more and more.. well.. nervous?

What's the 'big idea' in 'Raiders' btw? Vote Dean if you love limeys.

Bush looks nervous every time he has a big tv audience to which he has to sell something. In his Oval speech about the $87 billion he looked small and petrified. One of the first goals of this election should be to subject him to as much public scrutiny as possible to show how weak a man he really is and how little he is in charge.

One more point about which I'd like to remind everyone - Dean is currently the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination in actual delegates counted because he is the leader among pledged "superdelegates" who are party insiders and elected officials, and his lead outweighs the difference between his Iowa delegates and Kerry's and Edwards'. (Of course, most of these folks have yet to declare a preference)

These guys got their positions in Clark's campaign after the grassroots petitioning; neither of them has worked in politics before this.

Erm...this is completely inaccurate. Those Nader supporters were a very small percentage of people in all of those groups, especially labor. I'm not saying Nader didn't attract people from those camps, but most of them stayed with Gore in 2000 - that's a fact. The real problem is getting those people motivated - they're shut out by the DLC-types who openly spit on them in their missives.

You're quite correct about the disaffected people who supported Nader. There was barely a class agenda in 2000, which pissed a lot of people off. People were pissed off about things like NAFTA and welfare reform, and frankly, the elite Democrats were themselves smug, arrogant, dishonest, insulting, and bullying in 2000 - rich kids who LIED and said that only rich, spoiled white guys supported Nader. The people who have reached out to those who voted Nader have been more populist types and not insider types.

The people who voted for Nader are not some wacked-out fringe (some are, but then the Communist Party USA votes with the Democrats), they're people who would normally work with and vote for the Democrats, if given any reason to.

If you think I said that the Nader people were some wacked-out fringe, I didn't. I simply think you are incorrectly identifying the base of the party, and overestimating the Nader factor here. Personally, I agree with the Green Party platform 100%, and I've discussed this with Europeans who simply call it a 'liberal' platform. Only in the US are these things "wacked-out".

It would seem surprising that Dean, supposedly a stoical, secular New Englander, rather than an excitable, religious southerner, would go so over the top. Self-destruct was pressed surely, for some unfathomable reason, just like Kinnock in '92...

But it's not. Yes, only a small percentage of each group supported Nader, but only a small percentage of any group voted for Nader, period. But they were all present and Nader was close to getting major union endorsements (and got some).

How are young, white, college-educated low-to-middle income males (the Nader voter demographic) with presumably progressive politics (they didn't vote for Buchanan) not a part of the Democrats' traditional base?

To Anthony, I'd say that the people I've talked to are looking long-term. If you give the Democratic-candidate your vote out of duty or to 'screw Bush' in 2004, and they still lose (as is very likely), you're just setting it up for the same thing in 2008. John Kerry voted for the PATRIOT act, still defends it, for the war, still defends it, etc. - how is he going to convince them that he makes enough of a difference to earn their vote? If the Democrats are gambling on enough anti-Bush sentiment to not have to appeal to those voters, they're in real trouble. I refuse to believe that 2000 and 2002 haven't taught the machine a lesson.

Nobody with this position can beat Bush. Bet the house on it.

Of course, the Official Rules For Class Warfare allow for taxing the rich into submission, but do you want to be on the receiving end of the Bushco campaign gauntlet when the issue of repealing all tax cuts means raising taxes on the middle and lower classes? It will never fly. The Deanie Babies need to wisen up on this sooner rather than later.

first of all, don, knock it off with this "class warfare" bullshit. i trust that yer smart enough to know that that's a two-edged sword.

secondly, you may or may not be right re: whether it's winnable. however, i was focusing on whether or not it's smart fiscal policy -- which in my mind it unquestionably is. the other dem candidates are going to have to pay for all of their proposals somehow -- let them show how that can be done AND the tax cuts for the middle- and lower-class taxpayers can be pursued simultaneously w/t bloating the deficit or fucking up the capital and int'l trade markets. if kerry, clark, and/or edwards can demonstrate how this can be done, then i will reconsider my views but till then i think that dean has it right.

How are young, white, college-educated low-to-middle income males (the Nader voter demographic) with presumably progressive politics (they didn't vote for Buchanan) not a part of the Democrats' traditional base?

Forget it, Milo - you're not understanding me at all. I didn't say they weren't "a part" of it - but the overwhelming majority of Dem activists voted for Gore. Plus a lot of people who vote for independents or who don't vote for the presidential candidate at all voted for Nader.

so far I'm most impressed by Clark's tax plan which calls for the elimination of income tax on all low income people; maybe more impressed by the balls than the economics.

at the very least can we please kill this marriage penalty bullshit which makes me do complicated math on my W2 and make them withhold more than they normally would in order to keep me from getting fucked? thanks you.

i also have a major bug in my ass with this conservative notion that equates progressive taxation with "class warfare."

But can you not imagine for even one second the amount of negative advertising that will show up if Dean or Clark wants to raise taxes on the poor or the soccer moms? Which economist, exactly, is going to take to the op-ed jungle and defend that? Certainly not Rubin or anyone else with any degree of legitimacy. I doubt even Krugman would campaign for something like that, even to spite Bush. What's more, it's probably only about $40B a year? That's fookin' peanuts in a budget of what, $3 trillion. It's play money.

Class warfare has little to do with the progressive taxation system itself, and everything to do with hyperbole such as "the rich not paying their fair share" as a rationale for ratcheting up marginal rates, cutting capital gains, eliminating the tax on dividends, etc.

Campaigning on raising taxes is a loser loser loser issue.

I think someone like Dean could do much better blasting Bush for the runaway spending. Increasing the government by enlarging programs and creating new ones is a far greater tax on the economy and the budget than the marginal tax rates. 75% of the deficit (and probably more than that) is because of spending. Bush has increased discretionary spending more than any other president since LBJ or some shit. It's ghastly. It's invasive. It constricts the economy and invites the government further into our lives. It empowers the special interests even further. It perpetuates the ruling class even further. It shrinks our rights. BUSH IS A MASSIVE FAILURE IN THIS AREA. But no, Dean and Clark are trying to get elected by raising taxes on the poor and the middle class. It's economic and political suicide and it is a guaranteed loser issue. WHY WOULD YOU PLAY RIGHT INTO BUSH'S HANDS LIKE THIS?

The Truimph of Hope Over Self-Interest
By DAVID BROOKS

NASHVILLE — Why don't people vote their own self-interest? Every few years the Republicans propose a tax cut, and every few years the Democrats pull out their income distribution charts to show that much of the benefits of the Republican plan go to the richest 1 percent of Americans or thereabouts. And yet every few years a Republican plan wends its way through the legislative process and, with some trims and amendments, passes.

The Democrats couldn't even persuade people to oppose the repeal of the estate tax, which is explicitly for the mega-upper class. Al Gore, who ran a populist campaign, couldn't even win the votes of white males who didn't go to college, whose incomes have stagnated over the past decades and who were the explicit targets of his campaign. Why don't more Americans want to distribute more wealth down to people like themselves?

Well, as the academics would say, it's overdetermined. There are several reasons.

People vote their aspirations.

The most telling polling result from the 2000 election was from a Time magazine survey that asked people if they are in the top 1 percent of earners. Nineteen percent of Americans say they are in the richest 1 percent and a further 20 percent expect to be someday. So right away you have 39 percent of Americans who thought that when Mr. Gore savaged a plan that favored the top 1 percent, he was taking a direct shot at them.

It's not hard to see why they think this way. Americans live in a culture of abundance. They have always had a sense that great opportunities lie just over the horizon, in the next valley, with the next job or the next big thing. None of us is really poor; we're just pre-rich.

Americans read magazines for people more affluent than they are (W, Cigar Aficionado, The New Yorker, Robb Report, Town and Country) because they think that someday they could be that guy with the tastefully appointed horse farm. Democratic politicians proposing to take from the rich are just bashing the dreams of our imminent selves.

Income resentment is not a strong emotion in much of America.

If you earn $125,000 a year and live in Manhattan, certainly, you are surrounded by things you cannot afford. You have to walk by those buildings on Central Park West with the 2,500-square-foot apartments that are empty three-quarters of the year because their evil owners are mostly living at their other houses in L.A.

But if you are a middle-class person in most of America, you are not brought into incessant contact with things you can't afford. There aren't Lexus dealerships on every corner. There are no snooty restaurants with water sommeliers to help you sort though the bottled eau selections. You can afford most of the things at Wal-Mart or Kohl's and the occasional meal at the Macaroni Grill. Moreover, it would be socially unacceptable for you to pull up to church in a Jaguar or to hire a caterer for your dinner party anyway. So you are not plagued by a nagging feeling of doing without.

Many Americans admire the rich.

They don't see society as a conflict zone between the rich and poor. It's taboo to say in a democratic culture, but do you think a nation that watches Katie Couric in the morning, Tom Hanks in the evening and Michael Jordan on weekends harbors deep animosity toward the affluent?

On the contrary. I'm writing this from Nashville, where one of the richest families, the Frists, is hugely admired for its entrepreneurial skill and community service. People don't want to tax the Frists — they want to elect them to the Senate. And they did.

Nor are Americans suffering from false consciousness. You go to a town where the factories have closed and people who once earned $14 an hour now work for $8 an hour. They've taken their hits. But odds are you will find their faith in hard work and self-reliance undiminished, and their suspicion of Washington unchanged.

Americans resent social inequality more than income inequality.

As the sociologist Jennifer Lopez has observed: "Don't be fooled by the rocks that I got, I'm just, I'm just Jenny from the block." As long as rich people "stay real," in Ms. Lopez's formulation, they are admired. Meanwhile, middle-class journalists and academics who seem to look down on megachurches, suburbia and hunters are resented. If Americans see the tax debate as being waged between the economic elite, led by President Bush, and the cultural elite, led by Barbra Streisand, they are going to side with Mr. Bush, who could come to any suburban barbershop and fit right in.

Most Americans do not have Marxian categories in their heads.

This is the most important reason Americans resist wealth redistribution, the reason that subsumes all others. Americans do not see society as a layer cake, with the rich on top, the middle class beneath them and the working class and underclass at the bottom. They see society as a high school cafeteria, with their community at one table and other communities at other tables. They are pretty sure that their community is the nicest, and filled with the best people, and they have a vague pity for all those poor souls who live in New York City or California and have a lot of money but no true neighbors and no free time.

All of this adds up to a terrain incredibly inhospitable to class-based politics. Every few years a group of millionaire Democratic presidential aspirants pretends to be the people's warriors against the overclass. They look inauthentic, combative rather than unifying. Worst of all, their basic message is not optimistic.

They haven't learned what Franklin and Teddy Roosevelt and even Bill Clinton knew: that you can run against rich people, but only those who have betrayed the ideal of fair competition. You have to be more hopeful and growth-oriented than your opponent, and you cannot imply that we are a nation tragically and permanently divided by income. In the gospel of America, there are no permanent conflicts.

Income disparity is not an issue that will bring the angry middle to the polls. Not in the US.

"you don't increase spending while decreasing revenue"

There is no need to complicate the spending issue by blaming it on a tax cut. It's too easy for Bush to muddy the waters if you bring up taxes. Further, the majority of a person's tax burden isn't even what the feds hand them, so why complicate things on an issue that was winning for Bush--he'll just say the cuts had bi-partisan support and they were key to spurring the economy. Dean's just preaching to the choir every time he tries to blame spending on tax cuts. HE SHOULD JUST BLAME THE SPENDING ON THE MORON IN CHARGE. The Democrats keep trying to make Bush look evil by going to their standard bag of tricks: he's creating environmental disasters, he hates the working man, he only cares about big business, he only cares about oil, etc. Fer crying out loud, this kind of campaigning has resulted in a total disaster for Democratic representation on the Hill for ten years now.

Instead, start knocking Bush for being a hypocrite--on his own ideals. Bush cannot in any way rationalize the raiding of the coffers that has gone on. Stop coming up with conspiracy theories about Halliburton and the oil companies and start blaming him for the lack of progress in Iraq. Point out that before he starts up another entitlement, he needs to show his cards on how Social Security is going to be funded a dozen years from now. Even without changing the tax code from what Clinton handed off, it's still a disaster in the making.

Then again, you can ignore the appeal of the middle and just yell loudly that Bush is an abysmal, evil failure and hope that a massive get-out-the-new-vote effort will be the deciding factor in the election. This seems to be the main momentum of Dean, and screaming like a banshee reinforced it to the nth degree.

But the 3% who voted for Nader would, given a candidate they could give a damn about, be Democratic voters. Those 3% are part of the traditional Democratic base and they would have given Gore three states and more than enough votes to not have to worry about recounts and a crooked USSC.

The problem with that article is that it focuses on likely voters - suburbanites, the affluent middle-class, etc.. So go for the 50% who don't vote. They don't vote because they don't think they make a difference, they don't think politicians represent them, and they think that the political process is by and for the wealthy. (And they're right.) Maybe it's not a good strategy for 2004. But at some point, someone left-of-center has to realize that the 'now' is not everything. Betting the bank on beating Bush in 2004 is a losing proposition (he'll just invade someplace else if it comes down to the wire).

That depends on a) who's doing the polling and b) what question is being asked. You know that just as well as I do.

Some nearby suburbs are actually pretty Republican.

Maybe these people don't believe that raising taxes on the rich means they'll see any of this money and so don't really care one way or the other. Government spending goes up every year whether taxes are raised or lowered. The poor are still poor.