So it's almost official: John Kerry has won the Iowa caucuses, followed by John Edwards, with Howard Dean falling to third, and Dick Gephardt falling basically out of the race at fourth place, despite his union connections and home-state proximity.

What do you guys think this means for the race? How will it affect Dean in New Hampshire, where Clark supposedly is gaining? Will it bolster Kerry there? Does it provide Edwards with a player chit going into the South?

MSNBC: Kerry wins Iowa
(Sorry about their page's epilepsy-inducing blink as it loads!)

Kerry??? I'm shocked. He lost his focus so badly last summer and fall that I basically wrote him off. Guess I'd better start paying more attention. I like the guy, I'm just amazed that he plays in Iowa, plus I'm not convinced he's electable. Interesting...

[ January 19, 2004, 08:08 PM: Message edited by: redsoxbreath ]

Considering Dean was for so long considered to be the favorite, and had built up a ton of steam, he got slaughtered in Iowa.

Interesting.

I think I'm one of the lone Iowa members of outsports who regularly post. Here's the report from Iowa. Kerry played well with veterans and older Iowan. Edwards ran the "nice" campaign and was rewarded by many who were simply turned off by Dean's aggression. Many in the news attributed the Dean disappointment to the fact that many Iowans didn't believe that Dean was electable. Give us Iowans credit, we follow the issues, but we also look at the larger picture as well. Surprisingly, a survey of caucus goers found that a majority of those who were anti-war voted for Kerry.

For me as a Dean supporter, I am a little disappointed, but not surprised. To be honest, I almost switched to Edwards simply because I was so sick of being called by the Dean campaign on a DAILY basis. I had been very adamant that I was voting for Dean, but it didn't seem to register with them. I love the enthusiasm of the campaign workers, but I was so tired of being called all the time by the people who I was supporting!

After a year of being in the spotlight it's time to let the spotlight fall on New Hampshire. Hopefully in four years we won't need to have Democratic caucuses, which means that I'll have to put up with Republicans running all over the state.

Dean is incorrigible. All this criticism about his "angry" campaign, he loses, and he's still shouting at everyone tonight. It's cute at first, but after a while, he just looks demented. And Kerry and Edwards...now, I understand why the Clintons back Clark.

As someone who has no candidate yet, I have to say that Dean's speech was bizarre. He gave what appeared to be his version of a rebel yell after reeling off states where he would fight. I thought he was losing it. Yikes!

Well, well, well. Dean beat two to one by Kerry - and fairly well out distanced by Edwards. I'm not surprised Dean lost Iowa; I'm surprised that he was trampled. I can only comment from a far, from what I've seen on CNN and MSNBC, (thus tbbucsalstott's comments are interesting in that they've come from the front) but have to agree with much of the analysis.

I'm a Dean supporter (actually more of an ABB - Anybody But Bush), who is having some buyer's remorse. Ever since the Good Doctor's comments about the U.N. and its supremacy vies-a-vie American foreign policy, I have been very concerned about his ability to win in the general election. Statistically, if not actually, the economy does seem to be recovering - which means American's will be voting for a Commander in Chief more than they will be voting for a Chief Executive Officer. Democrats will need to have an alternative to the Oil Junta that has creditability in this area more than ever.

I haven't taken my Dean sticker down yet, but will take a look at the General, the Silver-Star winner, and maybe even the Lawyer one more time.

As a person who used to be active in the political game, I think the Democratic Party saved themselves tonight with the positive results of the Iowa's caucuses. Senators Kerry and Edwards made a strong showing with the caucus attendees especially being outsiders ... a progressive liberal northeastern and a New South Democrat in the mode of President Clinton. Whereas, Governor Dean and Representative Gephardt fought against each other in running negative attack ads throughout the campaign. I don't think Senator Mosley-Braun's endorsement of Gov. Dean helped him at all especially with charges being floated about his campaign paying off her campaign debt in the last week. In addition, it has been reported in the Chicago newspaper about Sen. Mosley-Braun's sudden purchase of her new $ 750,000 townhouse in the Hyde Park section of Chicago. The rumor on the street was the new home is being financed by Gov Dean's financial friends on Wall Street.

After tonight results, Gephardt will probably drop out of the race because of lack of money. Last week, he only raised $ 20,000 at a fundraiser in Chicago. However, the good representative doesn't moved me in his public speaking abilities as he reminds me of a stale ole liberal democrat from the 60's (i.e. Walter Mondale).

It is going to be a horse race between Kerry, Edwards, Clark, and Dean with Senator Liberman probably dropping out of the race after New Hampshire. Remember, in 1988, Dukasis finished third in the Iowa caucus and still won the nomination.

In summary, the Democratic Party must chose the best candidate that can take on Ballot Box Bush with the less amount of negatives. The Bush campaign is just hoping that Gov Dean is the Democratic candidate so they can run their negative campaign ads just like 1988.

Couldnt agree more Jim. I thought Dean's head was going to pop off, it was a truly bizarre performance. If I was an undecided voter in New Hampshire he would have gone off my radar screen immediately.

They're all a bunch of goddamn mediocrities. It's a shame one of them has to be picked to oppose the Forces of Darkness. (Except for Kucinich, who of course has been doomed from the get-go by late-night comedians calling him an elf. We are such a nation of goons.)

Someone in the Dean camp has got to tutor him in the lessons of McLuhan and tell him he's too "hot" when he tries to be enthused. I saw or heard the bloodcurdling "Yeah!!!" 3 times since last night.

Glad to see Gephardt go (the bum rounded up war votes for Bush).

Edwards is Bill Clinton with worse hair and less Machiavellian political skills. And he's for "optimism, hope and real change."

Congratulations to Kerry & Edwards. Apparently it was the power of their appeal directly to voters, in the face of the strong organizations of Gephardt & Dean. Of course the media will analyze it to death, but as always, the significance of Iowa is not who wins but who is knocked out. Now the scramble is on to win the union support that Gephardt had banked on, & Dean is in the strongest position here, though Kerry might be the major beneficiary. Also, for what it's worth, Gephardt had picked up the endorsements of South Carolina's 2 leading Democratic office-holders--U.S. Reps. John Spratt & Jim Clyburn--& I imagine that they will now probably throw their support to John Edwards. Edwards isn't married to ketchup & though he has a large personal fortune, he has pledged to abide by federal funding limits, so he'll have to raise alot more funds to compete with Kerry. But the money should start to flow now that he's established his viability.

I agree with the previous post with regard to Dean's speech last night. Edwards was gracious & eloquent & made far better use of the free media exposure. Dean was full of energy but completely lacking in substance. He got beat, so what was all the whooping & fist-pumping about? Come on, we're not stupid.

For the record I'm ABB, but I don't know yet which one I will vote for in the S.C. primary. I have ruled out a few, however, & probably ruled out Dean after last night.

[ January 20, 2004, 08:03 PM: Message edited by: BillyBones ]

I echo the comments made by Jim at Outsports and Razorback. I was astonished at Dean's speech. I think it will hurt him badly. By contrast, I thought the speeches by Gephardt, Kerry and Edwards were very well done.

I have been a Dean supporter for a long time and I am certainly not going to discontinue my support now. That said, he better step up to the plate and run a better campaign or he'll be toast.

Of course, I also started a thread a few weeks ago titled "When will Kerry drop out?" -- so what the hell do I know? :confused:

I'm glad I wasn't the only one who thought Dean was out of control during his speech. There is no way Dean is electable and the Democrats in Iowa realized that as the caucuses drew closer. I think a lot of Dems probably cringed at the site of Dean shouting and screaming like a maniac. Kerry's win was huge and gives him much needed momentum, but it doesn't clinch anything. How many candidates have won in Iowa only to fizzle later. The key for Kerry will be how he does in South Carolina. I'm still not sure that he can carry any southern states unless his running mate is someone like Bob Graham of Florida. I though Edwards' being the first one to address his supporters was big. You would have thought he had won. It reminded me a lot of the way Clinton addressed his supporters after finishing second in New Hampshire in '92. Gephardt's awful showing, I think, says a lot about the status of organized labor in this country.

Dean's speech? Bizarro world. That shriek was just scary.

I've always like Edwards despite the fact that he's a tad too conservative for me. I think when he points out that America was built by optimists and not by cynics, he resonates with a lot of people, certainly with me. If he can stay on that high road, he'll win a lot of people over.

Immediately after the Supreme Court installed Pretender Bush in 2000, I became a Kerry supporter, then watched with dismay as he self-destructed. His phoenix-like resurgence over the past several days, and his better-than-adequate speech last night have me reconsidering, but I still doubt how he does in a nationwide campaign against Howdy Doody.

Where do we go from here?

I think Dean is done. He'll lose to Kerry -- and possibly to Edwards and Clark--in NH. He doesn't have a homefield advantage against Kerry (they're both from neighboring states), and Kerry as well as Edwards will get a huge boost from their performance in Iowa. NH Democrats are more conservative than those in Iowa. A loss by Dean in NH won't formally end his candidacy, because he's got enough money to continue for a while, but he'll be toast.

Another loser is Clark. He had set himself up as the anti-Dean, and that may have been enough to carry him if Kerry and Edwards had not emerged last night as formidable challnegers to Dean. Now that they have emerged, and have the momentum from Iowa, I don't know if Clark can catch them. He might get the 2d slot, though. Frankly, I think I'd could live with a ticket that combines any two of Clark, Kerry and Edwards in any combination.

The biggest loser (other than Dennis Kucinich, but then, who ever really took that Jew-hating bastard seriously?) was the media. They called not just the caucuses, but the nomination itself over a month ago, and it was blissful to watch them tripping over themselves last night. They couldn't undertsand why people hadn't done as they were told. Arrogant, smug, superficial pricks the lot of them.

I agree with alot of what Skiguy said, I would also add team Rove/Cheney/bush to the "loser" column. They have been salivating at the idea of Dean being the nominee. While I dont totally count out Dean yet I think he added a nail to his coffin last night with that "speech."

I was channel flipping last night watching the coverage but I was struck how republican hack/ MSNBC commentator Joe Scarbourgh was swearing up and down that it was Edwards that the GOP feared most.

This is really interesting. On another thread I followed the link to the little test that helps show which candidate your ideas match up with, I was a Dean or Clark supporter, but when I took the test Kerry and Edwards were tops. The funny thing is, that with all the media coverage on Dean, I have forgotten and almost ignored these two.

I don't really care who it is, but I am going to watch Kerry a little more closely now. Is that why these early contests seem to have so much power? They force us to look without blinders on.

Actually, I think the blinders go on again, but now perhaps, with a different focus. It's interesting that now people will change their choice of candidate based on how they do in these early primaries/caucuses as opposed to what they stand for.

I only saw Dean's speech this morning, and felt like I was watching a nervous breakdown on national TV. He was downright scary; I think that's the same opinion a lot of Iowans came to over the past week - his fall from presumptive nominee to third was pretty startling. That said, I think the White House would be equally happy to see Kerry get the nomination - he would immediately be linked to Kennedy and Dukakis, and would be tarred as a "Northeastern liberal." Right or wrong, that's the kiss of death in national politics today.

I think the reason the White House might fear Edwards the most (and, frankly, they're in the driver's seat in this election, so I don't think they "fear" anybody) is because as a Southerner he should make states like North Carolina, Tennessee and West Virginia battleground states. Of course, Gore was "technically" a Southerner as well, and it didn't help him at all, but hey, at least Edwards sounds like a Southerner. I don't think any other Dem has a snowball's chance in hell of winning a state south of DC. On paper, Clark's military background might be helpful, but I just get the feeling that, like Dean, once he's in the media glare he's going to self-destruct with some of his comments. In any case, it's certainly quite interesting right now......

I liked Edwards clean campaign & his refusal to go negative. Shows guts & class to do that-IMHO. I would vote for him on that fact alone.

[ January 20, 2004, 08:16 AM: Message edited by: copman ]

Karry and Edwards go to New Hamshire with the momentum. Shrub and the rest of his cronies should start worrying any time now. I wonder how much of the gay and women support Edwards got because he is so goodlooking? Hmmmmm.. I forgot. Just read a headline on msn, that in a new poll, Bush is not doing at all well on the domestic agenda, and alot of his programs are not popular.

[ January 20, 2004, 08:36 AM: Message edited by: puckman1 ]

As a Dean supporter, but a definate ABB, I am deeply distressed at Kerry's win and the media coverage of Dean's speech (which is similar to the kind of speech I saw him give here in DC - to much better effect). Kerry is completely unelectable against Bush - if you run a Republican against a Republican the Republican will win, and Kerry is just too similar to Bush (and Clark and Lieberman are merely Republicans in Democrat's clothing). Kerry is not going to reinvigorate the party the way Dean was until very recently.

I really think Dean hurt himself in many ways (not the speech to give post-election), but has also been gang-attacked by the media - all we hear about is how "hot-headed" he is, and the ONLY images you see of him support that view - but those images come from 0.05% of Dean's appearances. In fact, if you see the whole clip of last night's speech, the unfortunate yelp comes across as a secondary kind of thing - but that is all the media is putting out as an image of Dean today.

I could handle Edwards, and in a pitch, Clark (if he acknowledges and denounces his Republican past) - but Kerry will simply lose to Bush - he has no chance and we simply can't risk him running.

The way you guys are "re-evaluating" candidates because of who Iowans voted for reflects badly on you. You're showing yourselves as bandwagon-jumping frontrunners.... ie, the worst kind of sports fan!

I'll venture a guess -- people who are tired of the US sticking our nose up the ass of the Zionist terrorist who's in power in Israel? That's where you get your \"Jew-hating\" calumny from, no doubt.

So stances on issues are irrelevant, just a mealy-mouthed "good cop" act scores? That's awfully credulous of you. As for Edwards' showing, can anyone help me understand why Kucinich aided Edwards with this "agreement" on caucus support in Iowa? They don't particularly seem like ideological bedfellows; maybe DK was just trying to inflict damage on Dean and Kerry.

[ January 20, 2004, 09:25 AM: Message edited by: Bill W ]

It's all about expectations. Having been the frontrunner for so long, with many pundits thinking he'd all but wrapped up the nomination, the Howard Dean supporters are disappointed he only came in third.

But for the former governor of one of the smallest states, with ultra-left wing views, who was virtually unknown outside Vermont one year ago, to finish with 18% of the Iowa vote and 7 delegates, is not exactly unimpressive.

As was pointed out earlier in this thread, in 88 Dukakis finished third in Iowa & still won the nomination. So the main thing I take away from these results is that there may be a long (and bloody) fight ahead among the Dems.

As someone who hasn't been following this very closely, but I do care........

I like Dean in the sense that he's not afraid to say what's on his mind, but I just don't think there's any future with him. Kerry and Edwards have the best chances to beat Bush (I think Edwards has the best....solely cause of his southern roots, those die-hard southerners aren't gonna vote for a northeaster).

I think the main reason Dean lost in Iowa was the fact that people don't feel he could be elected even with the nomination. That was clear in the exit polls.

I hope Edwards gets some more attention/air time now and his campaign can get going.

Name ONE "ultra-left" position Dean has taken. One.

And don't say opposing the Iraq war, because at least one conservative has been fired from talk radio for opposing it.

I've had CNN on for about 30 mins this morning and I've heard that Dean "YEEEHAAAA!" three times. I cringe more every time I see it, and I think he loses another 100 independent voters every time it's played.

I can only imagine what FoxSpews is doing with it.

Like I posted before, I am not giving up on Dean just yet. Considering the man has been skewered by both the so called liberal media, and by the other Dems, I think 3rd place is respectable. I have read two stories in my local paper lately about polls done on the Dems. and Howard Dean. A majority said that he had been cast more negatively, than positively by our media! He also has done more to energize the Democrats than anyone else! And he is not ultra liberal as has been painted as. Also, as I understand it the Kucinich-Edwards pact came about because Kucinich appraoched Edwards and said if he didn't get the reuqired minimal 15% caucus vote, he would ask his supporters to go along with Edwards. Go Howard!

Living on the border of North Carolina, and having Greensboro and the Raleigh-Durham-CH triangle in my back yard, I get most of my media and have many gay friends from NC. Even his home state didn't give Edwards much chance until last night. Opinion there seems to be that he moved one election too early, he is just a first-termer. But his message resonates down here, the populist voice works in a place that is hemmoraging jobD due to all of the textile factories closing. Edwards is young, good-looking, and eloquent, a great face on the tv screen. I hope he does well, I like his ability so far to stay above the attack ads.

I had become disillusioned with Dean a couple months ago. Early in the campaign, last fall sometime, when he was just starting, I thought, cool, the guy who signed the civil unions in Vermont, I will send him $50.00. Since then I have received way more than $50.00 of solicitations asking for more money. I should have known better. I don't know why but the more mailings and telephone solicitations I get the more I don't like the guy. I think my experience was like that of tbbucsalstott, I have been so harassed by the Dean campaign I may support someone else.

I don't consider myself a bandwagon-jumper-oner, I just hadn't focused enough to make up my mind. But the Virginia primary is coming up soon and it may actually have some impact this time, better start listening. It would be nice to actually have the Democratic Party in Virginia have some impact nationally, the state of Jerry and Pat usually is way Republican.

If Dean's meltdown gets alot of media attention the next several days I think it's big trouble for him. I talked to a friend today who is a huge Dean supporter and he described his non-concession speech as "scary" and "embarrassing."

It's interesting to read everyone's take on Kerry and Edwards specifically. The one thing that sticks out in my mind about these two is one fact: They're U.S. Senators, and historically, U.S. Senators have fared extremely poorly in their attempts to become president. I'm not exactly sure why, but a look through history shows the path to the White House littered with the political corpses of many a Senator.

Re Dean's big "yaaaahhhhrrr," the Howard Stern show set his speech to an old AC/DC song, & other DJs are splicing it with excerpts from a Nuremberg Nazi rally soundtrack.

Excellent!

Can't wait to see what Letterman does with it.

[ January 20, 2004, 01:22 PM: Message edited by: Jerzoid ]

MIB,

If by "historically" you mean "in the last generation or so," then your comment about US Senators becoming President is pretty accurate. The last former US Senator to be elected President was Tricky Dick in 1968. The last sitting United States Senator to be elected President was JFK in 1960.

Historically, in the sense of "since the founding of the Republic," being a US Senator has proven to be an excellent route to the White House. Of the 42 men who have served as President (one, Grover Cleveland, served two non-consecutive terms and is commonly numbered twice, as 21 and 23; thus Bush pere and fils are called 41 and 43, but they are the 40th and 42d men, respectively to hold the office), 14, or fully one-third the total, served as Senators prior to becoming President. (Presidents Monroe, JQ Adams, Jackson, van Buren, Tyler, Pierce, Buchanan, A. Johnson, B. Harrison, Harding, Truman, JFK, L. Johnson, and Nixon).

Of those, 4 suceeded to the office upon the death of the President, as they were VP at the time (both Johnsons, Truman, and Tyler), but that still means 25% of our elected Presidents were former Senators, and two of the four lucky VPs were later elected in their own right. (And don't forget that Washington and Adams could not have been Senators before becoming President, so 40 is really a better denominator than 42 in these fractions).

All in all, I'd say that speaks pretty well of the Senate as a proving ground for the Presidency.

I'll allow that it may no longer be the case. Perhaps the nature of politics has changed to the extent that we'll never see another Senator elected to the top office.

An interesting thought, though, MIB, and a pleasant distraction during my late lunch.

[ January 20, 2004, 01:14 PM: Message edited by: Skiguy ]

My love affair with Dean has just come to an end. Its just like when you are dating a guy and falling heavy for him and then the "real" him comes out. I think he is a good guy but unfortunately a little cuckoo. I was bummed but then listened to Kerry's speech and he really sounded like he has great things in mind(Edwards also)and could put it to Bush, especially with what a great debater he is. We should go with a Kerry/Edwards ticket. With the way they are handling themselves I think they are more electable.

I am also an ABB, but would really have to hold my nose while voting for Dean. If I, a pretty dedicated Democrat, feel that way imagine how swing voters and independents will act in November. I think that Dean's nomination would be a train wreck for the Dems in 2004 and it appears that many Iowans felt the same.

I like Edwards and Kerry, so I am happy with the results from Iowa and hope they can both keep the momentum going.

[ January 20, 2004, 01:18 PM: Message edited by: aquaman ]

Kerry/Edwards sounds pretty attractive right now. Don´t think Edwards would have much trouble against Bush. Even some Republicans might find him attractive if things go badly in Iraq.

They´d have the north/south alliance thing that politicos like so much going for them and Edwards who I only heard speak for the first time after the Iowa caucus sounds sincere about his populist themes. Kerry seems more inclined toward grand works of foreign policy - good compliment to each other.

That Dean screamed was scary and a little embarassing, though it's better to learn that about his personality now than after he´s elected to national office. Did this ever appear in Vermont politics?

Condolences to Gephardt. I liked him but am glad he gave way graciously at this point. Edwards may be carrying his banner if not his supporters.

Again, I think this is a great group of candidates and look forward to the upcoming states.

BTW it´s 80 degs, sunny and clear in Oaxaco Mexico today and I´m dreading going back to Philly. Missed the conference palyoffs but no way I´m missing Brady versus JF Peppers. Whoohoooo! Darn these spanish keyboards. :confused:

Well I also think that Edwards is VERY hot looking. If I don't vote for him can I at least have a gym/shower date with him? eek! wink

Did anyone else see Ann Richards on Larry King last Thursday?

She endorsed Howard Dean & offered to give him "media advice" to soften his image. When he called in to the show, he said he would take her up on that offer. Too bad he didn't get around to doing so prior to last night. wink

Yes, I had intended to refer to the modern presidency, which is more relevant and easier to relate to. It was my error in not being as specific as I had meant.

Senators not faring well lately can probably be attributed to the media coverage. Senators' records are more "available," so to speak, to the general public. They seem to be more susceptible to public scrutiny than their counterparts in America's earlier days.

Plus, I believe that when voters look to potential chief executives, they tend to prefer someone who actually was one, and those tend to be governors. Senators are generally considered more partisan representatives of the legislative process, whereas governors are thought to be less like this.

I said this last month but was criticized for this. I see that I am not alone. wink

Oh, for God's sake if you watch the whole clip he was not screaming - he was trying to energize his base of supporters with a big "Yeah" and his voice cracked.

As for the "train wreck" that a Dean campaign would supposedly be, there is one huge issue - he has energized a base of non-voters who the other men have simply not touched. Even if Dean were to lose the nomination and endorse the eventual victor, it is unlikely most Dean people would vote. So we are back to the old electorate, and I'm sorry but the Medicare/veteran/union vote is not going to win the Dems the White House.

Very troubling that anyone is pairing Dean's yell with tapes of the Nuremberg rallies--is there GOP outrage over this? I mean, W's GRANDfather did have proven links with the Nazi regime and was even fined and had his businesses seized under the Trading with the Enemy Act, etc.--but there is NOTHING Nazistic about Dean. The comparison is highly offensive.

Back to the Democrats; actually, the Democrats do not need to win more than 1-2 of the Southern states. Their main priority right now should be cultivating Californians, whose 56 votes (isn't now 2 more than before, right?), appear increasingly up for grabs, and those states like Florida, Arkansas, West Virginia, New Hampshire, and Nevada that ARE winnable.

A moderate Democrat, certainly, but a Democrat can win them. As William pointed out, though, some of the midwestern states that were trending Democrat back in 2000 (Gore won them, a few barely) have swung a bit to the GOP side, so it'll be very close. Edwards in the mix makes things very competitive--also he's a Democrat who won a statewide race in a state with a decent number of electoral votes. Whichever Democrats will get Vermont's votes (these days), Massachusetts' votes, Connecticut's votes. But North Carolina's votes would be a plum.

That said, I find Edwards easy to look at but cloying. His homespun persona induces nausea after a while; I just wish he'd stop pandering in his sincerity and articulate his points, as he was doing towards the end of the Iowa contest.

(Changed to correct the reference to Prescott S. Bush)

[ January 21, 2004, 07:41 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

Dean is toast. If Kerry and Edwards don't use the "Dean goes nuts speech" in their political ads with the caption, "Is this man presidential," or "can this man beat president Bush," then surely, if Dean wins the nomination, the Bushies will create an ad with the "Dean goes nuts speech" with the caption "is this the man you want with his finger on the nuclear button?" Dean is toast and, as a loyal moderate democrat, I'm relieved. I'm supporting Edwards.

fantomas wrote:

Back to the Democrats; actually, the Democrats do not need to win more than 1-2 of the Southern states. Their main priority right now should be cultivating Californians, whose 56 votes (isn't now 2 more than before, right?), appear increasingly up for grabs, and those states like Florida, Arkansas, West Virginia, New Hampshire, and Nevada that ARE winnable.

Gore won California by 1.3 million votes. Even with Arnold's face on this third Wilson term, it would take a horrible terrorist event here to put this state in play for Bush.

Which brings me to New York - the usually safe state I think Dems need to be concerned about. With Pataki still sitting there, Gulliani reminding them what a real leader he was during his city's hour of need (and he was), and Republicans visiting with their Convention, money, and photo-ops around Ground Zero - I think this all adds up to New York being up for grabs.

The South is completely lost for the Dems - and even if they pick Graham from Florida for VP, Republicans have already shown the country that regardless of the votes, they'll find away to put the state in their column. Edwards will carry his neighbor state of South Carolina in the Democratic primary - but he wouldn't carry it in the General - and I think it's just even money that he'd carry his home state against Dumahu. The South is full of trucks with Confederate Flags on them (to paraphrase a former Democratic front runner), and a New Englander at the top of the ticket whether it be the Ketchup Kid or Mr. DEEEANNYAHH - will not play well there.

Dems must nominate someone that can pull off the Commander in Chief role, and feel our pain. Take care of New York, carry New England, spend all their money in the Midwest, go to Oregon and hug a tree, Washington state to have a venti non-fat latte with an add shot of money, and New Mexico to shake Bill Richardson's hand - and maybe, just maybe a Democrat will win this one.

After watching Mush's State of the Empire speech tonight I am more convinced than ever this guy has no clothes and can be beat - but more importantly - must be beat.

[ January 21, 2004, 02:49 PM: Message edited by: Undercenter ]

I think some of the Southern states could be up for grabs depending on who the nominee is, I can say however that Howard Dean would never win in Arkansas, no way.

DLC, \"centrist\" Dems gun for Dean (Counterpunch)


Can you imagine Lincoln, FDR, or even that colonialist pig Teddy Roosevelt entertaining (or inspiring) questions about whether they were "electable"? It's sickeningly cynical; there are no issues left. Why don't we let Las Vegas choose the nominee?

You guys are a fairly decent cross-representation of the varieties of stupidity and cowardice in the American voter.

Im opposed to that, I dont trust Bill Bennett's judgement.

Hell yeah, undercenter!....let's only hope your words prove to be prophetic 9 1/2 months from now.

Getting back to Kerry (the topic of this thread, after all) I must admit that I didn't realize he voted AGAINST D.O.M.A. in 1996 until Peter Jennings brought it up (in reference to the FMA "debate") in a post-State of the Union interview last night....J.K. articulated his reasons for opposing Clinton and the majority of his brethren in the Senate extraordinarily well citing the separation of church and state, the political agenda of conservatives on the Hill and directly referring to discrimination against gays and lesbians....Jennings cut Kerry short and ended the interview almost immediately thereafter but, giving ABC the benefit of the doubt, I sensed that this was due to time constraints and was not a subtle attempt by the network to silence his "radical" views.

According to CNN, Kerry's donations have skyrocketed following his victory in the Iowa caucuses increasing "over 40% in the past week" with "about $250,000 in donations received through his campaign website since his Iowa win."

[ January 21, 2004, 10:54 AM: Message edited by: gamecock ]

Shouldn't the same Dem realists who knew Dean was unelectable determine the same for Kerry? Shouldn't all that money be going to Edwards? I mean, if this is about who can get elected nationally, why bother with Kerry?

Kerry would lose to Bush simply based on his looks. That Gore Vidal comment that Kerry looks like Lincoln...after the assisination is right on the money. So much of this is a popularity contest, and Kerry just doesn't have it. And to take that face down south...I just don't see it getting anywhere.

New York is not up for grabs because W is way too far to the right for the New York GOP (which actually had considerably influence under Reagan and HW but has fallen out of favor with W). Plus, the statewide Republicans New Yorkers have elected are so far to the left that they actually are more liberal than many Democrats.

There are VERY FEW DEMOCRATS who would have dared to raise property taxes, during an economic slowdown no less!, as New York City mayor Mike Bloomberg did--and it has seriously threatened his re-election prospects. His nanny-state policies also are repugnant to the general Republican small government ethos. George Pataki's stances in the last gubernatorial election were to the left of every Democratic candidate running except Sharpton, Kucinich, and Moseley Braun. If you don't believe me, look them up.

New York City and the two neighboring counties of Nassau and Westchester, as well as the cities of Buffalo, Albany, Binghamton, and Rochester, very likely will go for whichever Democrat is running. That is a sizable chunk of New York State's vote, and I believe that HIllary Rodham Clinton won her seat with comfort in no small part because of the lopsided support in places like the Bronx and Brooklyn, and the very strong support in the near suburbs. (She also did win significant upstate support outside the cities.) The Democratic Party can probably rest assured that short of nominating Al Sharpton, it can count on winning the following states by at least a margin of 3-5% or more: Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Washington, Oregon, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Delaware, Maryland, Wisconsin, and Michigan. Unfortunately, there are not enough electoral votes to win the country with these states, and New England's share is steadily shrinking.

More iffy are Minnesota, New Mexico and Pennsylvania.

Very iffy but possible are Arkansas, New Hampshire, West Virginia, Missouri, Nevada, and Florida.

I still think California is in play--but the right Democrat can win it.

[ January 21, 2004, 12:45 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

Actually, I like the comment by someone who said Kerry looks more like those talking trees in The Wizard of Oz, you know, the ones that threw the apples at Dorothy.