I would think Dean has it in the bag. The Demsocrats new hope of a month ago, Wes Clark, is shaping up to challenge Cruz Bustamante as the single worst political candidate I have ever seen.
Gephardt is the only one who has a prayer against Dean and he was dealt a severe blow yesterday when a large union (the Service Employees Union) endorsed Dean. Gephardt desperately needs union support to have a chance.
"Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man." - The Dude, 1998
Gephardt is the only one who has a prayer against Dean and he was dealt a severe blow yesterday when a large union (the Service Employees Union) endorsed Dean. Gephardt desperately needs union support to have a chance.
"Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man." - The Dude, 1998
Gephardt is a non-factor everywhere other than Iowa. I still Edwards could somehow maybe possible catch on, but I doubt it. Lieberman is a joke.
That leaves Kerry and Clark as the real competitors. Kerry is staking his hopes on NH but he's still well behind there.
Not sure why you say Clark is the "worst candidate since Bustamonte." After some intitial stumbles out of the block he's doing a very good job lately, he's proving to be a strong fundraiser and tends to stay above the bickering and the fray of the other candidates. He can't win obviously in Iowa and is looking only for a 3rd place finish in NH but current polls show him leading in SC and he is very strong in the next southern and western states like NM and AZ.
Dean has stumbled very badly lately IMO. More than just the issue itself, the flag flap shows how poorly he reacts to criticism and such. I just have a hard time seeing his lasting appeal after the initial grassroots outsider thing wears off as the so-called frontrunner.
I disagree with Floyd, I think Clark makes an excellent candidate who continues to get better and with broad appeal.
Dean self-destructs and Clark is best positioned to pick up the pieces post Ioaw and NH. Clark wins.
That leaves Kerry and Clark as the real competitors. Kerry is staking his hopes on NH but he's still well behind there.
Not sure why you say Clark is the "worst candidate since Bustamonte." After some intitial stumbles out of the block he's doing a very good job lately, he's proving to be a strong fundraiser and tends to stay above the bickering and the fray of the other candidates. He can't win obviously in Iowa and is looking only for a 3rd place finish in NH but current polls show him leading in SC and he is very strong in the next southern and western states like NM and AZ.
Dean has stumbled very badly lately IMO. More than just the issue itself, the flag flap shows how poorly he reacts to criticism and such. I just have a hard time seeing his lasting appeal after the initial grassroots outsider thing wears off as the so-called frontrunner.
I disagree with Floyd, I think Clark makes an excellent candidate who continues to get better and with broad appeal.
Dean self-destructs and Clark is best positioned to pick up the pieces post Ioaw and NH. Clark wins.
I agree money is important. Clark has raised quite a bit in a short period of time. No doubt Dean is the frontrunner but just seeing the way he tends to shoot himself in the foot and then stare at it makes me think that he's going to hurt himself. If and when he does I think it's Clark that's best positioned to win. So $19 puts Clark at what, about 5-1? That's not too bad.
I still think there's also going to be an "anti-Dean" movement soon. Whoever wins the anti-Dean nomination, if you will, is going to have a shot. I think that's going to be Clark.
I still think there's also going to be an "anti-Dean" movement soon. Whoever wins the anti-Dean nomination, if you will, is going to have a shot. I think that's going to be Clark.
Kerry is the only one that can derail Dean now (barring Hillary) and I don't think his chances are better than 20%. I don't think what is happening now is that important though, Kerry was never going to get much big union backing. The union things hurt Gephardt and he is clearly becoming a non-factor. Kerry was most hurt when Clark got in and got the Clinton machine behind him. Only chance he has is if Clark stinks it up early and the pro-Clinton support starts going behind him. I can't see Dean getting too many Clinton types, so that big piece of the pie is there and if Clark drops out then it probably will gravitate to Kerry. Hard to say anything but Dean has a big lead.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by D2bets:
I agree money is important. Clark has raised quite a bit in a short period of time. No doubt Dean is the frontrunner but just seeing the way he tends to shoot himself in the foot and then stare at it makes me think that he's going to hurt himself. If and when he does I think it's Clark that's best positioned to win. So $19 puts Clark at what, about 5-1? That's not too bad.
I still think there's also going to be an "anti-Dean" movement soon. Whoever wins the anti-Dean nomination, if you will, is going to have a shot. I think that's going to be Clark.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The problem with Clark is that the more you know about him, the worse he gets. His actions in Kosovo, and performance as NATO chief, clearly shows some major character flaws. Throw in his positive comments regarding Bush/Rumsfeld/Rice a year ago, his lack of consistency on key positions, and his past votes for Republicans and you will see a politician without a base.
As for the Anti-Dean movment; in the years past that certainly would be likely. But the Dems frontloaded their primaries this year; any alternative candidate is going to have to win either Iowa or New Hampshire. None of the announced candidates, other than Dean, show this potential.
Want a long shot? Try Al Gore. He's starting to step out and give a few more major speeches. He is desperate to be president, and has the name recognition to join the race at the last minute and make a major impact. Don't be surprised if you hear some rumors about him in the next month or so.
I agree money is important. Clark has raised quite a bit in a short period of time. No doubt Dean is the frontrunner but just seeing the way he tends to shoot himself in the foot and then stare at it makes me think that he's going to hurt himself. If and when he does I think it's Clark that's best positioned to win. So $19 puts Clark at what, about 5-1? That's not too bad.
I still think there's also going to be an "anti-Dean" movement soon. Whoever wins the anti-Dean nomination, if you will, is going to have a shot. I think that's going to be Clark.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The problem with Clark is that the more you know about him, the worse he gets. His actions in Kosovo, and performance as NATO chief, clearly shows some major character flaws. Throw in his positive comments regarding Bush/Rumsfeld/Rice a year ago, his lack of consistency on key positions, and his past votes for Republicans and you will see a politician without a base.
As for the Anti-Dean movment; in the years past that certainly would be likely. But the Dems frontloaded their primaries this year; any alternative candidate is going to have to win either Iowa or New Hampshire. None of the announced candidates, other than Dean, show this potential.
Want a long shot? Try Al Gore. He's starting to step out and give a few more major speeches. He is desperate to be president, and has the name recognition to join the race at the last minute and make a major impact. Don't be surprised if you hear some rumors about him in the next month or so.
His acgtions in Kosovo and performance as NATO Supreme Commander were skillful and exemplary. When you go back and look at the record that is what you, as opposed to listening to those who disagreed with him at times and have an axe to grind. Hugh Shelton incidentally, is clearly a liar too because he had nothing but effusive priase for Clark when he was serving and when he spoke about his retirement. Was he lyign then or is he lying now? Either way, he's a liar. Talk about character issues!
As for praising them one time, so has Teddy Kennedy and everyone else at one time or another. They are, or were, a talented group but they have let us down. People just like to take sound bites but in that same speech he was critical of where polic was headed and warned Bush to engage more in Europe.
Clearly your opinion is a reflection of what the media wants to portray because frankly they want Dean. It's a more interesting and contrasting matchup for them and Dean is going to say more shit that will be controversial. Unfortunatelt perception tends to become reality and the perception that the media is putting out there is the reality you're speaking of. Dig deeper for yourself and I think you'll like Clark more than you think.
As for praising them one time, so has Teddy Kennedy and everyone else at one time or another. They are, or were, a talented group but they have let us down. People just like to take sound bites but in that same speech he was critical of where polic was headed and warned Bush to engage more in Europe.
Clearly your opinion is a reflection of what the media wants to portray because frankly they want Dean. It's a more interesting and contrasting matchup for them and Dean is going to say more shit that will be controversial. Unfortunatelt perception tends to become reality and the perception that the media is putting out there is the reality you're speaking of. Dig deeper for yourself and I think you'll like Clark more than you think.
Don't know why you would gamble on any of these clowns in the demi party. Play it safe and take Bush as the winner in the presidential election. As it looks now - it's a real gift at -167. Don't worry about losing this own.
Looks to me like Dean is going to be the winner of the communist party.
Looks to me like Dean is going to be the winner of the communist party.
Shotgun, what do you mean by "front loading the primaries"? How is it different from the 2000 Dem primaries? I am new to this since I have money bet and am now taking more of an interest. I believe its too late for Gore. He lost last time and for him to enter the race so late he will not get the support. The polls are misleading because people see or hear his name so they say they would vote for him. But in reality they probably won't.
If your looking for a democratic 'higher ups' stradegy, other than smear Bush, I don't think you'll find anything predictable this year.
People are fine with Bush and that means Gore and Hilliary won't enter the race.
Wesley Clark is the Clinton democrat that a Clintonian will tell you in the year 2008 should have been the canidate in 2004, leaving bill and hilliary still in charge in 08. If Clark was the canidate and lost - see you later bill and hilliary. And everybody knows "that ain't goings to happens.
Dean fits in good with the democratic party. Liberal, like most of the Senators and House members. Would be a good debate with Bush as he isn't afraid to mix it up a bit. I think he's should be considered the favorite now. the democrats will teach him as he goes and then they'll never mention his name again after the States just keep coming up red on election night 2004.
Kerry - no way. Some very shady deals in his past that even a hardcore democrat would consider greedy. Would not be good for the democrats. the state of Mass. couldn't would allow it. Ted Kennedy would sh@t his pants.
Lieberman - It would be like Tim Russert sitting down with Bush and drilling him. Besides, a good Bush womping of Lieberman would force the idiots to mellow the hype on how Bush stole the 2000 election.
John Edwards - Nope. The eunich simply does not secrete testosterone. Suing of the tobacco companies and getting rich from it, 75 percent of American find that dispicable. He's a puppet who lies through his eyes.
And what would be a democratic primary without jesse or al involved.
Good luck on the bets folks, whomever you take!
People are fine with Bush and that means Gore and Hilliary won't enter the race.
Wesley Clark is the Clinton democrat that a Clintonian will tell you in the year 2008 should have been the canidate in 2004, leaving bill and hilliary still in charge in 08. If Clark was the canidate and lost - see you later bill and hilliary. And everybody knows "that ain't goings to happens.
Dean fits in good with the democratic party. Liberal, like most of the Senators and House members. Would be a good debate with Bush as he isn't afraid to mix it up a bit. I think he's should be considered the favorite now. the democrats will teach him as he goes and then they'll never mention his name again after the States just keep coming up red on election night 2004.
Kerry - no way. Some very shady deals in his past that even a hardcore democrat would consider greedy. Would not be good for the democrats. the state of Mass. couldn't would allow it. Ted Kennedy would sh@t his pants.
Lieberman - It would be like Tim Russert sitting down with Bush and drilling him. Besides, a good Bush womping of Lieberman would force the idiots to mellow the hype on how Bush stole the 2000 election.
John Edwards - Nope. The eunich simply does not secrete testosterone. Suing of the tobacco companies and getting rich from it, 75 percent of American find that dispicable. He's a puppet who lies through his eyes.
And what would be a democratic primary without jesse or al involved.
Good luck on the bets folks, whomever you take!
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck Sims:
Shotgun, what do you mean by "front loading the primaries"? How is it different from the 2000 Dem primaries? I am new to this since I have money bet and am now taking more of an interest. I believe its too late for Gore. He lost last time and for him to enter the race so late he will not get the support. The polls are misleading because people see or hear his name so they say they would vote for him. But in reality they probably won't.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Chuck, the Democrats in the past had a rule saying that no states could have its primary until 5 weeks after the New Hampshire primary (which is held one week after Iowa). After the 2000 elections, this rule was changed. So rather than having a ton of delegates chosing the first week in March (Super Tuesday), states now have been able to choose when they want to hold their primary.
South Carolina, Missouri, Arizona and Washington are all having their elections Feb 3, a week after New Hampshire. Michigan is on Feb 7, with Virginia on Feb 10.
What this means is that poorly funded candidates who surpass expectations in Iowa or NH will not have the 5 weeks to raise money, capitalize on their momentum and set up state organizations to get their message across. The frontrunner, with the money and name recognition, in theory will be able to win the primaries before any alternative candidate is able to get traction.
Dean is the front runner, and likely the only candidate with the cash to compete in all the states immediately following New Hampshire. Gephardt will spent every dime he has to win Iowa, with Kerry and Lieberman doing the same to win New Hampshire. If one of those three does well, they will have no money to buy TV time for the following Tuesday's primaries.
I am assuming that no one will emerge the next couple of months to challenge Dean. If that happens, the more conservative wing of the Dem Party will be searching desparately for a candidate stop Dean. Al Gore is the only one out there that could stop him; he's got the name recognition and, if he times it right, would create an incredible buzz that will make Clark's little boomlet seem insignificant.
I'm not saying it will happen (it likely won't), but no one in the field right now is showing the ability to stop Dean. Dem party officials, particulary MacAullife, knows that Dean winning the nomination would be a disaster for the party. They may look to Gore to be their savior.
Shotgun, what do you mean by "front loading the primaries"? How is it different from the 2000 Dem primaries? I am new to this since I have money bet and am now taking more of an interest. I believe its too late for Gore. He lost last time and for him to enter the race so late he will not get the support. The polls are misleading because people see or hear his name so they say they would vote for him. But in reality they probably won't.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Chuck, the Democrats in the past had a rule saying that no states could have its primary until 5 weeks after the New Hampshire primary (which is held one week after Iowa). After the 2000 elections, this rule was changed. So rather than having a ton of delegates chosing the first week in March (Super Tuesday), states now have been able to choose when they want to hold their primary.
South Carolina, Missouri, Arizona and Washington are all having their elections Feb 3, a week after New Hampshire. Michigan is on Feb 7, with Virginia on Feb 10.
What this means is that poorly funded candidates who surpass expectations in Iowa or NH will not have the 5 weeks to raise money, capitalize on their momentum and set up state organizations to get their message across. The frontrunner, with the money and name recognition, in theory will be able to win the primaries before any alternative candidate is able to get traction.
Dean is the front runner, and likely the only candidate with the cash to compete in all the states immediately following New Hampshire. Gephardt will spent every dime he has to win Iowa, with Kerry and Lieberman doing the same to win New Hampshire. If one of those three does well, they will have no money to buy TV time for the following Tuesday's primaries.
I am assuming that no one will emerge the next couple of months to challenge Dean. If that happens, the more conservative wing of the Dem Party will be searching desparately for a candidate stop Dean. Al Gore is the only one out there that could stop him; he's got the name recognition and, if he times it right, would create an incredible buzz that will make Clark's little boomlet seem insignificant.
I'm not saying it will happen (it likely won't), but no one in the field right now is showing the ability to stop Dean. Dem party officials, particulary MacAullife, knows that Dean winning the nomination would be a disaster for the party. They may look to Gore to be their savior.
Problem with Clark is that he reminds me of Bush I. He has great background with the military and a great grasp on foreign affairs, but he offers almost nothing on the domestic front. That is what happens when you have never held an elected office. I don't think he is necessarily a bad guy, but lets face it the Democrats right now are all on close to the same page about foreign affairs. Clark offers little in this other than maybe a little more respect. That won't cut it in a Democratic primary. That is why the whole thing is loaded against the Democrats. Dean does great in-party, but doesn't match up well with Bush. Clark matches up well with Bush, but not Dean and the rest of his own party. Clark would have been perfect for Ross Perot's efforts, but thankfully he went off on his own way and ran his "momentum" into the ground. Remember how he was going to start up this party and get people excited about politics? Then he got greedy and tried to get all the spoils for himself. Wes Clark would have run all over the Reform party and he would have had a chance at Bush in a 3-way race. That being said I see no way he can win this year or any year without having something to stand for domestically because the Democratic party is all about domestic issues.
A little surge is in the works for Gephardt...the Des Moines newspaper is reporting a poll showing him with a 7 point lead in the Iowa race. I tried to put in a 20 bid order at WSex for Gephardt at $10 a piece; they gave me 5 and raised the price on Dick to $12.
Clark is still falling...down to $13 now while Dean is up to $58.
Clark is still falling...down to $13 now while Dean is up to $58.
No surprise there, Gephardt was seen as a sure thing a long time ago in Iowa only to fall off somewhat as his campaign has no momentum at all. The guy fits the Iowa bill well, but will not play well outside of the heartland. Imagine him in places like New York or California, they laugh him out of those states. A strong union guy just won't cut it these days, its good to have the union on your side but to live and die a segment of society that has totally lost the grip it hand on the economy is the proverbial hitching your trailer to a loser. Sorry Dick...
hillary to be emcee in Des Moines, Iowa!
The stategy is starting: Hillary was needed by the party in Iowa because ticket sales to the event was very low. People were not buying tickets to go see all these wonderful democratic candidates. Dean - the ground swell is enormous, biggest demi campaign fund raiser ever yet, no one in Iowa cared?
Kerry - Who according to 'his' polls is running ahead of Hillary - yet people in Iowa could care less? Clark - the wonderful breathe of fresh air we Americans have been looking for - the Messiah - couldn't deliver the message?
Well, enter Hillary. As soon as she announced she'd be there the place sold out! Mostly the press, of course, but it sold out.
So why with the democrats message of the terrible economy, the failure in Iraq, the loss of jobs etc... will she not step up to the plate and run against Bush? Why when the country needs someone most desparately, does she not help Americans build their village? Why when the "whole" nation is begging hillary to run -why won't she?
Simple reason why - She would get her entire wide ass handed to her by Bush. No other reason folks.
The stategy is starting: Hillary was needed by the party in Iowa because ticket sales to the event was very low. People were not buying tickets to go see all these wonderful democratic candidates. Dean - the ground swell is enormous, biggest demi campaign fund raiser ever yet, no one in Iowa cared?
Kerry - Who according to 'his' polls is running ahead of Hillary - yet people in Iowa could care less? Clark - the wonderful breathe of fresh air we Americans have been looking for - the Messiah - couldn't deliver the message?
Well, enter Hillary. As soon as she announced she'd be there the place sold out! Mostly the press, of course, but it sold out.
So why with the democrats message of the terrible economy, the failure in Iraq, the loss of jobs etc... will she not step up to the plate and run against Bush? Why when the country needs someone most desparately, does she not help Americans build their village? Why when the "whole" nation is begging hillary to run -why won't she?
Simple reason why - She would get her entire wide ass handed to her by Bush. No other reason folks.
