You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access
to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, at no cost, you will have access to start new topics, reply to conversations, privately message other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join RX8Club.com today!
View Poll Results: As of right now, who are you supporting for President in 2004?
It is useful for gauging who people support for the primaries, and therefore who will be the Democratic candidate facing Bush. By adding up the votes for all the Democratic candidates and comparing the total to votes for Bush you get a fairly accurate idea how it stacks up Democratic candidate vs. Bush, whoever that Democratic candidate will be.
Wesley Clark. Extremely intelligent - Rhodes Scholar. Great background - war hero, 4 star general, nato-supreme allied commander, played a major role in stopping the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, degree and taught economics.
I think he'd be a moderate president and could help with the "war on terror" in building better coalitions with Europe and even Arab countries due to his role in Kosovo.
As you can tell from my previous messages, I can't stand Bush. That being said, I'd take (in this order) the following candidates over Bush:
1) Clark
2) Kerry
3) Lieberman
4) Dean
5) Edwards
If any of the others win the Democratic noimination (only Gephardt has any real chance of these), I WOULD vote for Bush because these guys are WAY too left wing.
BTW...I accidentally voted for Dean in the poll, take one away from Dean and add one to Clark to get the real results.
__________________
2003 Rally Red Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution VIII
1999 Honda Civic LX Sedan (Daily Pothole Absorber and Thief Avoider)
Originally posted by noahprtlnd It is useful for gauging who people support for the primaries, and therefore who will be the Democratic candidate facing Bush. By adding up the votes for all the Democratic candidates and comparing the total to votes for Bush you get a fairly accurate idea how it stacks up Democratic candidate vs. Bush, whoever that Democratic candidate will be.
Pretty sloppy analysis and not statistically valid. I hate Bush, but if the democratic nominee were Sharpton, yeah I'd vote for Bush. Not a likely scenario, obviously, but some people feel that way about some of the other Dem candidates. I'm solidly democratic, but really not paying much attention to their race right now. It's so wide open it would involve too much energy on my part to sort through it. By the time I'm asked to make a choice (in the CA primaries) things will be much more streamlined.
__________________
Owner since 7/17/03: Velocity Red GT, 6MT, black/red leather, navigation, rotary accents, 6-disc CD. Sold the spare kit.
I heard a speech by Gore and thought "they should have voted for this bloke as President" then I remembered - you did (hence that great bumper sticker "Re-elect Gore in 2004"). Remember polls on this forum count for nothing, nor do those in Florida, the only vote that counts is the electoral college that protects your republic from the people making the 'wrong' choice. Regime change begins at home.
__________________
Nordic Green, 'Low' Power, Leather & Sat Nav
Ordered: August 2003, Delivery: Some time after yours
I don't much like any of the Democrats, but I think Bush and his thugs are truly dangerous.
Being from Massachusetts, I suppose I should be supporting Kerry. But I can't forgive him for giving Bush the go-ahead on Iraq. And then he voted against the 87bn in aid to that country. Like after what we've done to the Iraqi people, they now have to pay us for the current chaos that we're largely responsible for. Right.
The problem I see with Clark is he's a flip-flopper. As a loyal Democrat, I'm troubled by the fact that up until this year Clark was not even registered in the Democratic party. Clark was a vocal supporter of Bush in 2000, and an outspoken supporter of the appointment of Donald Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense as well.
It seems now that he sees a chance to become President, he's suddenly anti-Bush, anti-Rumsfeld, and anti-what this administration has done in Iraq.
He is extremely intelligent, but even those in the Army dislike him and he's a four-star general. When NATO, under his command, had secured Kosovo, the Russians began marching toward the Pristina airport. Clark's response? Position ground troops to prevent the Russians from doing so, using force if necessary. The commander of the British ground forces refused, saying "I will not start WWIII for you."
Shortly after the Kosovo campaign, which was SUCCESSFUL, Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen said to Clark "get your ******* face off TV." I couldn't say it better myself- in my opinion, he is a reckless opportunist.
Originally posted by 8_wannabe Pretty sloppy analysis and not statistically valid. I hate Bush, but if the democratic nominee were Sharpton, yeah I'd vote for Bush. Not a likely scenario, obviously, but some people feel that way about some of the other Dem candidates.
That is true, but note I said "fairly accurate." True, not every Democrat will support whoever the Democratic candidate may be. But, there will not be very many votes here for Sharpton and others that are farther left than the majority of the candidates. Besides, I expect that the majority of people who are not voting for Bush in this poll feel fairly strongly about removing Bush from office.
Originally posted by noahprtlnd The problem I see with Clark is he's a flip-flopper. As a loyal Democrat, I'm troubled by the fact that up until this year Clark was not even registered in the Democratic party. Clark was a vocal supporter of Bush in 2000, and an outspoken supporter of the appointment of Donald Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense as well.
It seems now that he sees a chance to become President, he's suddenly anti-Bush, anti-Rumsfeld, and anti-what this administration has done in Iraq.
Ok, let's get these facts straight. In 2000, after Bush took office he had a speech where he said Powell, Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and Paul O'Neil were a great team. Back then, they WERE by most objective sources, including many democrats. Powell was well-known for his diplomatic skills and moderate stances (which were ignored by the White House). Rumsfeld was the youngest Secretary of Defense in the Ford administration and was known as a smark guy. Paul O'Neil was the CEO of Alcoa and was successful there. In early 2002, he praised the Afghanistan performance as most Americans did at that time. Besides what's wrong with hoping another administration suceeds, especially if you aren't even in politics? Frankly, I put my country before a party ANY day.
He is now against them because of their policies and perhaps a bit of ambition, but how do you run for president without ambition?
QUOTE]Originally posted by noahprtlnd He is extremely intelligent, but even those in the Army dislike him and he's a four-star general. When NATO, under his command, had secured Kosovo, the Russians began marching toward the Pristina airport. Clark's response? Position ground troops to prevent the Russians from doing so, using force if necessary. The commander of the British ground forces refused, saying "I will not start WWIII for you."
Shortly after the Kosovo campaign, which was SUCCESSFUL, Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen said to Clark "get your ******* face off TV." I couldn't say it better myself- in my opinion, he is a reckless opportunist. [/QUOTE]
I believe the reason he had enemies in the military WAS because he was so intelligent. Being a scholar and an intellectual isn't looked favorably in all circles there where macho/"one of the guys" theory is practiced. This same thing happens in schools with athletes, the inner city with young men, etc.
Look at the evaluations over the course of his career they released - they clearly show top-level performace. This all started with an open-ended character attack by Hugh Shelton who NEVER substantiated the criticism or even explained it. Personally, Shelton, Cohen and the like were afraid to take any casualties and Clark had some ***** to stand up and try to prevent ethnic cleansing. I will take someone like that over a "Yes Man" any day. The man is a hero yet his character is getting ripped apart by his OWN party - pretty ridiculous.
Even more ridiculous is Joe Lieberman character attacks on Clark. This coming from the man that effectively barred the FASB (private body that sets accounting rules) from requiring that expensing of most stock options because of the special interests supporting him (they used this as a major source of compensation). This practice was considered to be a fundamental driver of the corporate accounting scandals in the past few years. Now a new bill is trying to basically do it again, but Joe is not there, I wonder why??? I'd support Lieberman for President, but I think he needs to lay off the character issue a bit.
__________________
2003 Rally Red Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution VIII
1999 Honda Civic LX Sedan (Daily Pothole Absorber and Thief Avoider)
In 2000, Bush was Clark's commander-in-chief. It is not up to the military to set policy, military officers implement policy. Clark was being the loyal military commander standing by his commander-in-chief (which according to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, cannot be publicly criticized publicly.) Privately, Clark is opinioned and generally sure he is right in the face of opposition. This is not a popular temperment in the military, esp among one's superiors but would you want any less from a President? After all, Bush is certain he is right in the face of global opposition. The only problem with is, he is generally wrong (editorial comment.)
__________________
Owner since 7/17/03: Velocity Red GT, 6MT, black/red leather, navigation, rotary accents, 6-disc CD. Sold the spare kit.
Originally posted by revhappy Ok, let's get these facts straight. In 2000, after Bush took office he had a speech where he said Powell, Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and Paul O'Neil were a great team. Back then, they WERE by most objective sources, including many democrats. Powell was well-known for his diplomatic skills and moderate stances (which were ignored by the White House). Rumsfeld was the youngest Secretary of Defense in the Ford administration and was known as a smark guy. Paul O'Neil was the CEO of Alcoa and was successful there. In early 2002, he praised the Afghanistan performance as most Americans did at that time. Besides what's wrong with hoping another administration suceeds, especially if you aren't even in politics? Frankly, I put my country before a party ANY day.
He is now against them because of their policies and perhaps a bit of ambition, but how do you run for president without ambition?
You're absolutely right about Clark's support of Bush's administration at the beginning of the term being reasonable. However, only reasonable for a Republican or quite centrist Democrat. Any progressive was railing against Bush, and while Powell is indeed moderate and a popular choice, Rumsfeld has been a notorious hawk for thirty years. Revhappy, I respect your opinion, you're obviously knowledgeable and intelligent. However, as someone absolutely disgusted with this administration and frankly frightened about the future under it, I feel more comfortable moving to a position farther away from it then Clark represents. If Bush is a wolf, I fear Clark may be a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Originally posted by 8_wannabe In 2000, Bush was Clark's commander-in-chief. It is not up to the military to set policy, military officers implement policy. Clark was being the loyal military commander standing by his commander-in-chief (which according to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, cannot be publicly criticized publicly.) Privately, Clark is opinioned and generally sure he is right in the face of opposition. This is not a popular temperment in the military, esp among one's superiors but would you want any less from a President? After all, Bush is certain he is right in the face of global opposition. The only problem with is, he is generally wrong (editorial comment.)
Clark was forced to step down before Bush ever took office. Bush was never his commander-in-chief. Clark not only praised the Bush administration in it's infancy, but continued to make lavish public speeches heaping praise on Bush after 9-11. This guy voted for Reagan and Nixon, and he's running for the Democratic nomination?
Originally posted by noahprtlnd You're absolutely right about Clark's support of Bush's administration at the beginning of the term being reasonable. However, only reasonable for a Republican or quite centrist Democrat. Any progressive was railing against Bush, and while Powell is indeed moderate and a popular choice, Rumsfeld has been a notorious hawk for thirty years. Revhappy, I respect your opinion, you're obviously knowledgeable and intelligent. However, as someone absolutely disgusted with this administration and frankly frightened about the future under it, I feel more comfortable moving to a position farther away from it then Clark represents. If Bush is a wolf, I fear Clark may be a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Well, I'm not really a progressive. I was an independent until the "Republican Revolution" in 1994 when that party really went right wing and I was forced to support democrats (whose leadership was moderate).
If the Republicans would put forth candidates for president with positions that their northeastern party members have, they'd have a chance for my vote. However, with their right wing congressional leadership, I'm afraid to even vote for one locally I like for fear of them walking the party line on key votes. I think the same thing in an opposite way is happenning with Zell Miller in Georgia.
I'm for the moderate wing of the party as frankly I don't think a real progressive can win (and I'm not sure if I'd be for their policies). A democratic candidate other than a southerner has not won the presidency since Kennedy and many of them have had crushing defeats since then. Dean, while seeming to be a champion of the left, does seem to have the ***** (and seemed more moderate as the Vermont governor) to perhaps be competitive in the south and midwest - and would get my vote (in an election with Bush) because of these two things.
__________________
2003 Rally Red Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution VIII
1999 Honda Civic LX Sedan (Daily Pothole Absorber and Thief Avoider)
Originally posted by noahprtlnd Clark was forced to step down before Bush ever took office. Bush was never his commander-in-chief. Clark not only praised the Bush administration in it's infancy, but continued to make lavish public speeches heaping praise on Bush after 9-11. This guy voted for Reagan and Nixon, and he's running for the Democratic nomination?
Many democrats voted for republicans....they were caled "Reagon Democrats" and have been ever increasing over the last two decades.. If their attitude that only certain, very limited people are able to be democrats (or leaders) then hopes for victory are slim to none. Perhaps Reagan Democrats will vote again democratic...for someone they see similar to themselves?
I voted for Perot in 1992 and a couple of republicans since then, would you refuse my vote for a democrat in the future? The democrats offered Senator Jeffords a committe chairmanship when he left the Republican party three years ago.
__________________
2003 Rally Red Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution VIII
1999 Honda Civic LX Sedan (Daily Pothole Absorber and Thief Avoider)
Originally posted by revhappy Dean, while seeming to be a champion of the left, does seem to have the ***** (and seemed more moderate as the Vermont governor) to perhaps be competitive in the south and midwest - and would get my vote (in an election with Bush) because of these two things.
Fact is, Dean *is* moderate as his record as governor shows (as you point out). Too moderate for my lefty tastes :D . But I'm hoping that means he has at least a chance of winning. I don't see anyone else with that chance. IMHO, Kerry can't win. I don't think anyone from (my) Massachusetts can win...
Originally posted by revhappy A democratic candidate other than a southerner has not won the presidency since Kennedy and many of them have had crushing defeats since then.
That's true, but it's interesting to look at the four defeats that northern Democrats have suffered since Kennedy. Humphrey lost to Nixon in 68, not much of a surprise considering Humphrey was VP during the LBJ Vietnam fiasco. McGovern lost to Nixon in 72, facing a strong incumbent; same goes for Mondale facing Reagan in 84. Finally, in 88 Dukakis lost to Bush Sr; to be expected following the Reagan years.
So these four losses by northern Democrats were in difficult elections; in 2004, you have a susceptible incumbent and a non-VP running against him, unlike Humphrey and Mondale.
Originally posted by Hayseed Fact is, Dean *is* moderate as his record as governor shows (as you point out). Too moderate for my lefty tastes :D . But I'm hoping that means he has at least a chance of winning. I don't see anyone else with that chance. IMHO, Kerry can't win. I don't think anyone from (my) Massachusetts can win...
Yes, but his campaign is running left....way left. I'd put Gephardt, Braun then Kucinich and Sharpton from least to most left wing.
I hope (if he wins) he runs nationally in a moderate way. Kerry is a war hero, but he's had a few missteps. I can already see the republicans say Dean is a New York liberal (since he grew up there).
__________________
2003 Rally Red Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution VIII
1999 Honda Civic LX Sedan (Daily Pothole Absorber and Thief Avoider)
Originally posted by noahprtlnd That's true, but it's interesting to look at the four defeats that northern Democrats have suffered since Kennedy. Humphrey lost to Nixon in 68, not much of a surprise considering Humphrey was VP during the LBJ Vietnam fiasco. McGovern lost to Nixon in 72, facing a strong incumbent; same goes for Mondale facing Reagan in 84. Finally, in 88 Dukakis lost to Bush Sr; to be expected following the Reagan years.
So these four losses by northern Democrats were in difficult elections; in 2004, you have a susceptible incumbent and a non-VP running against him, unlike Humphrey and Mondale.
Then why did Reagan beat Carter and Bush Jr. beat Gore? I hope you are right, but I'm not optimistic if someone like Gephardt were to be nominated.
__________________
2003 Rally Red Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution VIII
1999 Honda Civic LX Sedan (Daily Pothole Absorber and Thief Avoider)
Originally posted by revhappy Then why did Reagan beat Carter and Bush Jr. beat Gore? I hope you are right, but I'm not optimistic if someone like Gephardt were to be nominated.
I didn't include Carter and Gore in that because they are southerners and you were talking about northern Democrats losing. However, Carter lost after a weak first term to Reagan, and Gore actually won. Regardless, he was an outgoing VP like Humphrey and Mondale.
Like after what we've done to the Iraqi people, they now have to pay us for the current chaos that we're largely responsible for. Right.
Give me a break. That country was in complete chaos before anything ever happened. People were starving every f*cking day and nobody gave a damn. Now LESS people (believe it or not) are without food and water, but since Iraq is in the public eye the US caused it! What a joke. Terrorist bombings have been going off for 50 years and no one has ever said anything about it. Now it is in the public eye because it is affecting the US and WE caused it. What a joke. Everything is so political it makes me sick! We attacked Iraq because of the oil. What a joke! Iraq's biggest exportation of oil pre-war was...guess who...FRANCE and RUSSIA! But the US is oil starved. If we wanted their oil we could have gotten it at anytime! Iraq and that damn leadership has given the US plenty of opportunities to go off and claim oil, if that was our main goal. No blood for oil. What a joke!
As for Clark and the rest of the democratic hopefuls. They are all a bunch of 2-faced lying jagoffs. They will say whatever they need to, to get elected. Period. Clark, Dean, Kerry...all of them. Did you all see Clark cry on 60 mintues last week. What a joke! The only person that has stuck to his guns and never went back on his word is Sharpton, but he is SO extreme he stands no chance.
Let me say this right now. Bush is going to almost impossible to beat. IF the democrats want to claim office, they must pick the candidate that is the farthest of left as they can, without having Sharpton's views. If a moderate candidate wins the electorial vote, that person has no shot.
Linear Mode
