Democratic Frontrunners' Poll

Discussion in 'Off-Topic Discussions' started by Tom Head, Sep 21, 2003.

Loading...
?

Out of these four candidates, which would you most like to see win the presidency?

  1. Wesley Clark

    6 vote(s)
    31.6%
  2. Howard Dean

    6 vote(s)
    31.6%
  3. John Kerry

    2 vote(s)
    10.5%
  4. Joe Lieberman

    5 vote(s)
    26.3%
  1. Tom Head

    Tom Head New Member

    With the first primaries three months off, four likely leaders have already begun to emerge from the Democratic pack. Bearing in mind that things can change an awful lot in the next few months (Bill Clinton didn't even enter the 1992 race until October '91), I'm wondering: Which of these four frontrunners would you, my intelligent and predominantly conservative friends, most like (or least dislike) as an actual president?

    (Yeah, yeah, I know--here's another Tom Head politics thread. But I've been pretty good about staying off the off-topic forum this week, so I'm going to reward myself with a poll and a cookie.)


    Cheers,
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 21, 2003
  2. tcnixon

    tcnixon Active Member

    For me, it's two very different issues. Who do you want to win and who has the best chance of taking it?

    As to who has the best chance, Wesley Clark is certainly intriguing. The Democrats might do well to nominate a military man when military operations in Iraq seem to be floundering.

    I think Howard Dean has many good ideas, but I don't think he can pull it off. I don't think his liberalism will be the problem, but rather his temperament. Time will tell.

    Joe Lieberman, also with many good ideas and a man of character, would get pummeled. He reminds me too much of Jimmy Carter, for my money the most ethical president of the second half of the 20th century (which was probably his undoing).

    For the first time since I began voting for presidents in 1980 (and contrary to Arnold Schwarzeneggar, I actually do vote :D ), I do not know who I will vote for. As I've said before, I'm neither Democrat or Republican. I find both parties equally pathetic and morally bankrupt. So, if they want my vote, they're going to have to try harder. I have no problem voting for one of the third party candidates.


    Tom Nixon
     
  3. Tom Head

    Tom Head New Member

    Good post. My take:

    Wesley Clark: An unknown quantity, but a very promising unknown quantity.

    Howard Dean: When I found out Dean supported the Afghanistan War (and ergo isn't an across-the-board pacifist), I found it easier to support him. I'd say that right now, he's one of the candidates I'd most like to see win the presidency (because I want somebody to focus on domestic issues and stack the Supreme Court with liberals--hey, at least I'm honest) and least like to see win the nomination (because there's no way in heck he'll be able to beat Bush once the recession and Iraq situation improve).

    John Kerry: I thought he was this year's Michael Dukakis for a while, but he's growing on me. I have a feeling that if he can come out of all this with the nomination--beating Clark, Dean, and Lieberman--he will have matured enough to be a serious threat to Bush. But then this might be true of all ten candidates; any scenario where, say, Al Sharpton were to take the nomination would suggest an exponentially improved Al Sharpton.

    Joe Lieberman: My traditional favorite (he outclassed both Bush and Gore so much in 2000 that it isn't even funny), and I have to agree on the Jimmy Carter comparison. His campaign hasn't really caught fire yet, but he has more gravitas than anybody else running right now.


    Cheers,
     
  4. Charles

    Charles New Member

    Clark is scary even though he is probably just a pawn

    "America should get ready for many more Wacos, many more lies, and megatons of megalomania – all of this fully endorsed and praised by Bill and Hillary Clinton, the power patrons who made General Wesley Clark what he is today."


    http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=9522
     
  5. Bruce

    Bruce Moderator Staff Member

    I voted for Joe Lieberman, even though the choices, for me, were kind of like offering the death penalty by electrocution, lethal injection, the gas chamber, or firing squad.

    Lieberman: Strikes me a decent man (a rare commodity in politics these days) with some good ideas. I don't think his personality & public speaking style are going to win over many people. If I had to choose among the current crop, he'd be it. I do think the Jimmy Carter analogy fits perfectly, though.

    Clark: I don't like what I've been reading/hearing lately about his ties to the Clintons. Recently told an interviewer that he would have voted for the war in Iraq, then did a 180 the next day and slammed the war & President Bush. Bad form. I do think he would stand the best chance of the 4 against Bush.

    Dean: Appears, to me, to be a radical left-winger with a very bad temper. Has a very good shot, IMO, to get the nomination, but I think he'd get creamed by Bush (the general population still seems very uncomfortable with the "L" word).

    Kerry: I've had the misfortune of living with him as one of my Senators for many years. He's called "Liveshot" by the Boston Herald for his ability to sniff out & play to the TV cameras. I've met him a few times, and seen him off-camera and out-of-character numerous other times. There's nothing there. A classic empty-suit.
     
  6. tcnixon

    tcnixon Active Member

    That's been my experience with most candidates. I've met a couple from years past (Former CA gov. Pete Wilson, several reps. from both parties, and one senator). Interestingly, the one that clearly was the most engaged was former CA senator, Alan Cranston. I know why conservatives would dislike his politics, but he had passion, real passion. You don't see that much. When I met him he was already in his mid-seventies and still going strong.



    Tom Nixon
     
  7. Guest

    Guest Guest

    I voted for Lieberman. If someone is going to beat Bush I would not be too disappointed if it is he. He has moral courage and principal. Have forgiven him for defeating Weicker.

    Lieberman: A classical liberal in the tradition of RFK, Scoop Jackson and HHH.

    Kerry: Doesn't really want to be President. Pushed into race by Heinz fortune of wife and ex-wife of former PA Senator John Heinz, a rising star in the moderate wing of the GOP until his untimely death.

    Dean: Too liberal and too unorizinal. Uses canned responses to questions.

    Clark: Another Grant and Eisenhower. Too wishy washy. Cannot make up his mind on important issues. Is Clintonesque in that he would be a poll driven President on the issues.

    I still believe the Democrats will go with Lieberman or Gephart. Agree with Mr. Nixon on Jimmy Carter. He and Ford may have been the most honest and ethical Presidents we've had. I still believe Bush will be reelected. Most Americans know the President doesn't have that much control over the economy. They realize if it were not so Jimmy Carter and Bush 41 would have manipulated the economy in order to be reelected. Of course the Iranian hostage situation hurt Carter. Am still of the belief the Reagan campaign made a deal with the Iranians. Reagan was not beyond making deals as President so this is not that far fetched. Also, it has been proven the Reagan campaign stole Carter's notes before one of the debates. Never like Reagan, never will. John Anderson should have won the 1980 GOP nomination.
     
  8. tcnixon

    tcnixon Active Member


    Know this, yes. Care, no. The first President Bush lost because the economy tanked. A year prior, he could do no wrong (after Gulf War, Part 1). The only reason he lost, in my opinion, was the economy.

    You get the opposite as well. President Reagan approved record deficit spending and could do no wrong.

    It's all a crapshoot, it seems.


    Tom Nixon
     
  9. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Possibly but most post-election analyses showed the Perot factor had as much if not more to do with 41's defeat than anything else. Had Perot not run, Bush would have won.
     
  10. Bill Huffman

    Bill Huffman Well-Known Member

    Some ironic justice, in that Reagan's record deficit spending is apparently what caught up with Bush Senior.

    I'm amazed that so few people seem to accept or even understand that Reagan was responsible for the lion's share of our current deficit. People seem to love his "Voodoo Economics". Stop earning an income and break out the credit cards, it's time to party! It's okay, the more we use the credit cards the more dollars we earn on credit card kick backs!
     
  11. Guest

    Guest Guest

    How very true. Just because one's Presidency ends doesn't mean the impact of his policies do. Clinton's recession, his failure to take Bin Laden, etc., attests to this. The book The Hoover Presidency: A Reappraisal, also makes this case crystal clear.



     
  12. Charles

    Charles New Member

    Drudge gets the best photos.

    http://www.drudgereport.com

    Does anyone really believe General Clark is a serious candidate.

    "This was what U.S. Ambassador Richard Holbrooke's team seeking peace in Yugoslavia tried to avoid by instituting the "Clark Rule": whenever the general is found talking alone to a Serb, Croat or Muslim, make sure an American civilian official rushes to his side. It produced some comic opera dashes by diplomats.

    After Clark's meeting with Mladic, the State Department cabled embassies throughout Europe that there was no change in policy toward the Bosnian Serbs. The incident cost Victor Jackovich his job as U.S. ambassador to Bosnia, even though he protested Clark's course. The upshot came months later, when Serbian dictator Slobodan Milosevic, in bitter negotiations with Holbrooke, handed Clark back his Army hat."

    http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/printrn20030922.shtml
     
  13. Tom Head

    Tom Head New Member

    This is old news:
    http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=3461755

    Excerpt:
    " And only the meanest of Clark's competitors for next year's race for the White House would rake up that moment in 1994, when he good-naturedly exchanged hats with Ratko Mladic. That was, after all, before the Bosnian war crimes suspect became one of the world's most wanted men."


    Cheers,
     
  14. Tom Head

    Tom Head New Member

    Agreed on the Reagan-Bush financial situation, and on the Perot factor (he did take in 19% of the vote, and that 19% was probably slanted heavily in favor of fiscal conservatives owing to the flat tax initiative). Ironically, the first person to criticize Reagan for his "buy now, pay later" economic policies was George Bush himself in the 1980 Republican primaries, where he coined the word "Reaganomics."


    Cheers,
     
  15. Guest

    Guest Guest

    He also referred to Reagan's ideas as "vodoo economics."
     
  16. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Excerpt:
    " And only the meanest of Clark's competitors for next year's race for the White House would rake up that moment in 1994, when he good-naturedly exchanged hats with Ratko Mladic. That was, after all, before the Bosnian war crimes suspect became one of the world's most wanted men."

    Good thing Senator Kennedy is not seeking the Dem. nod!
     
  17. Charles

    Charles New Member

    General H. Hugh Shelton on General Wesley Clark

    "What do you think of General Wesley Clark and would you support him as a presidential candidate," was the question put to him by moderator Dick Henning, assuming that all military men stood in support of each other. General Shelton took a drink of water and Henning said, "I noticed you took a drink on that one!"

    "That question makes me wish it were vodka," said Shelton. "I've known Wes for a long time. I will tell you the reason he came out of Europe early had to do with integrity and character issues, things that are very near and dear to my heart. I'm not going to say whether I'm a Republican or a Democrat. I'll just say Wes won't get my vote."

    http://www.losaltosonline.com/articles/2003/09/23/news/community/news01.txt
     
  18. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Re: General H. Hugh Shelton on General Wesley Clark

    Clark continues to switch positions. He is poll driven (no wonder the Clinton corps are in his camp). There is speculation Clark is a stalking horse for Hillary. As Bush's numbers decline her feet are getting more and more itchy. If the Clintons were as shrewd as some think, they would know an incumbent's numbers rise and fall and, especially in his third year, really fall. Clinton was at 38% at one time. Dole was beating him in the polls. Even George McGovern was ahead of Nixon (The Longshot) at one point in the '72 campaign. The only numbers that count are the general election results (well, at least sometimes, ha).



     
  19. Ike

    Ike New Member

    I voted for Clark but I really like Dean. It appears that the fates of Gephart, Sharpton, Edwards, Graham, and Braun have already been decided.

    Ike Okonkwo, PhD
     
  20. Tom Head

    Tom Head New Member

    A lot really can change in the next few months, though. Here again, I'm thinking of Clinton in 1991; if John Edwards were to suddenly turn on the charisma machine and do something to grab a lot of attention, odds are good he'd be a real contender. Gephardt has also improved considerably, and will become a serious threat if he continues to do so.

    I think Sharpton, Graham, and Braun are probably done for as presidential candidates, but I wouldn't be surprised to see Graham or Braun end up as somebody's veep.


    Cheers,
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 25, 2003

Share This Page