Not even Mike Gravel's going to vote for Mike Gravel.
I know this isn't exactly a well controlled sample, but why do Clinton's numbers go up when Gore enters the race?
Kucinich is winning? He's a real recognition king and debate powerhouse, isn't he.
Good grief :P
@1: Sorry for the mistake. We've now added Gravel.
@3 - I agree, very interesting. But the latest shows the Gore votes (the majority) split out to most major candidates.
Well, except for Kucinich. Nader has a better shot than Kucinich, IMHO.
Who the fuck voted for Gravel?
I don't get the Obama love. His performances show him to be a diamond in the rough. He needs more experience, and the guy just looks too young. He's eight years older than me but something about him comes across as far more youthful (and unpresidential). While I like his style, I just cannot take him seriously.
Clinton, on the other hand, seems presidential to me, and really sharp, even though her policies are bland and her campaign team is made up of all the people who ruined the Democratic Party in the 1990s. I like her personally, but hate what she represents for the future of the party.
So of the top tier, that leaves Edwards. Even though I know he's a trial lawyer playing at populist, it works for me. He sounds genuine, and he's saying the right things. It will be hard for him to govern too far to the right after running as a populist. He'd kill all of his political capital. So he's the guy I want to win, Gore or no Gore.
Obama and Hillary are tied for second.
After that, it's:
Gore (if he stays his post-2000 self)
Kucinich (good policies other than abortion, better than the rest, but he's a flake)
Dodd (OK policies, dull personality)
Biden (Defense Secretary, yes)
Richardson (put him at State)
Gravel (Howard Beale-style talk show)
8. Yeah, because another vanilla silver spoon white guy winning the nomination is exactly what the Dems need in '08.
You guys sure love making the same mistakes over and over again.
hottest wife by a cuntry miul!
I know this is a radical proposal for America today, but could we please talk about issues and what candidates say rather than image, style, looks, presidential-ness, how they say whatever they say, etc.?
This obsession with image over issues is the reason we got eight years of Bush. You would think we would have learned our lesson by now.
I make new mistakes, not the same mistakes. I'm a former 1996 and 2000 Nader voter. I supported Dean in the 2004 primaries, and gladly supported Kerry even though I wished he had campaigned better. Going back to the 1984 primary (before I could vote) I supported Hart, Cuomo (though he didn't end up running), Jerry Brown, no one in 1996 (I actually caucused for Powell as a Republican), and Bradley.
The only consistent trend is that I dislike establishment Democrats, but prefer Democrats over Republicans. Hillary is an establishment Democrat, but otherwise a good candidate. I should like Obama, but he just doesn't seem ready.
Edwards has an establishment history, but like Dean in 2004 he's running as a populist, and I'm a sucker for that. It's why my opinion of Kucinich is rising, and Gore would have a chance of moving up if he ran. It's not my fault all of the anti-establishment Dems are white guys.
Hillary's definitely the most electable. I'm just not sure that I want her to win.
Who do we see about drafting Gore? You and me. Now that would be something, Gore becomes president and he never ran. Enough people just wrote that name down. Really cheese folks off too, since having never run, he had no party backing. An indy prez?
as opposed to a silver spoon black guy or white woman?
cressona, image is why we got Gore and Kerry? I thought it was issues- neither one had ever said anything remotely offensive to any of the base (labor, progressives, choice, civil rights) that governs the Dem primary process. Thus assuring milquetoast candidates.
The think I like about Edwards, Kucinich, and of course Clinton is that they're not milquetoast. Obama and Gore have to prove to me that they will actually run aggressive campaigns and that they'll spill the milk necessary to win this election. If that's voting on image, I guess I'm guilty.
Big Sven @15, yours is precisely the perspective the Clinton campaign wants voters to have. It's precisely the perspective that the entrenched political and corporate interests want voters to have. Democrats and Republicans as tribes, fighting each other simply over the fact that "We are Democrats" and "They are Republicans."
This way, they never have to actually do anything to answer the question of that retired, disabled man at the AFL-CIO candidates' debate last night -- that question about how this country could leave him and his wife unable to afford health care.
Democrats should have something to stand for and fight for rather than just their existence as Democrats.
And y'know, we're all still waiting for Hillary's health-care plan. But the more we can talk about how tough she is and how youthful Obama is and how expensive Edwards' haircut was, the less urgency there is for her to come up with a health-care plan, or come up with any plan that would actually suggest vision or courage.
@11 - Ignore "presidential-ness"? These candidates are running for President of the United States, not for president of the school glee club. Presidential-ness matters.
Clinton - very Presidential. Kucinich (who I agree with on just about everything, and voted for in this survey) - not Presidential (and abolutely unelectable)
And, by the way -
GW Bush - Not presidential. His personality "quality" was that he could relate to Joe Sixpack.
I disagree with Clinton on just about everything, but she is, by far, the most intelligent of the lot. She is definitely qualified to do the job. Those Clintons have large brains. Seriously.
Cressona, I've examined the policies of the candidates and on balance there's not enough to distinguish most of them. Kucinich is the best on policy, followed by Gravel if you ignore his most prominent ideas, which are kooky (flat tax and national referendum).
Kucinich is right on the war, trade, worker's rights, environmental protection, you name it pretty much across the board. However, he's a weaselly flip-flopper on abortion and that's a disqualification in my book. Plus, he's just not electable.
So on key issues, Gravel and Kucinich disqualify themselves despite their advantages.
Of the rest, I don't like Hillary's positions on the war (supported it, has the least credible withdrawal plan), health care (too timid), trade (too weak on environment and labor), pretty much across the board.
Obama gets credit for opposing the war from the start, but loses most of that for being a state legislator at the time whose opinion was irrelevant, and for being vague about how he would end the war. His warmongering about Pakistan (and earlier, Iran) worry me deeply. I keep hearing that he's progressive, and his voting record in the Senate is nice and liberal, but I'm just not convinced that he really means it.
Edwards has the best health plan of the top candidates, and unlike Hillary he actually apologized for his vote for the war. He's positioned himself as a liberal on domestic issues, even though his voting record was more centrist.
Edwards has the edge on policy, though it's a close thing with Obama. So that's when electability and personality kick in, and on both measures Edwards has the edge. Obama looks as unsure of himself as Edwards did four years ago.
That said, I'd love to support any of these candidates for president. First woman, and an ass-kicking, hard-as-nails personality? Sure. First black man, and someone who can make liberal policies sound good to conservatives? Great. Charming Southern lawyer campaigning against poverty? Happily. First Latino president, with an unbeatable resume? OK. Passionate liberal? Yeah. OK, Biden, Dodd, and Gravel are harder to get excited about, but I'll take them.
Again, who the fuck voted for Gravel?
At this point I don't give a %#@& who runs on the democratic ticket. I'll be voting for them because they're NOT Repuplicans. I'll never vote republican again! NEVER! If Osama Bin Ladan ran on the Democratic ticket in New York City, I'd vote for him before I'd vote for any Republican.
Oh, and Hil's cleavage.
@21 - Hell yeah! We haven't had anything like that since the Taft Administration.
I hate to say it, cressona, but image does matter, as that's the main criteria most American voters rely on when making their decision.
We know better, but most voters don't.
with HRC there will be no need to spin doctor out of the media a US President who wears a dress.
Just something to consider there.
So does anyone actually think its a bad idea if Clinton gets elected than the same 2 families will have been in charge of the US for potentially 28 years if HRC was the president for a full 2 terms? I'm not saying she wouldn't be a good president, this just always pops into my mind and no one ever mentions it.
Can we say goodbye Republic(not that there is much left) and hello Oligarchy...
Gore/Obama '08. Especially if Gore divorces and marries Kucinich's wife....
Are you people serious that you think Hillary is electable? Republicans are praying that she wins the nomination; they've got warehouses full of shit to smear her with going back 15, 20 years. Not to mention that nearly half the country has the same knee-jerk, spittle-spraying apoplectic reaction when you say the words "Hillary Clinton" as when you say "Osama bin Laden sexually violating your mom's puppy."
Seriously, people LOATHE her. There's no surer way to get Flyover Country to line the RNC's pockets than to nominate Hil.
That said, I agree with whoever said she's smart -- I'd be elated to have her as a president. Then again, I might even prefer Tom "Sure, I'd preventively bomb Mecca and Medina" Tancredo to the fucking crooks we have now.
Agreed with Superfurry Animal.
The kindest thing you can say about Bill Clinton is that he was the best Republican president since Eisenhower.
And now his wife, a master triangulator if ever there was one, wants to be president, too. There's no way in hell I'd ever vote for her. She'll never be elected anyway, because half the country hates her guts, and that's not going to change. I'd like nothing more than for her to just shut up and go away.
I'd be happy with Edwards, but I prefer Gore. I'd happily vote for a woman, but Nancy Pelosi isn't running.
@9 How has no one yet pointed out that "silver spoon" is short for "born with a silver spoon in his (or her) mouth"? Edwards may be a multi-millionaire now, but his upbringing was working/middle class.
Eli, can you tell me more about the candidates besides which one is more popular or raising more money? For example, what's the difference between Obama and Clinton? Are they really the same? Or are they different?
Hillary will kick ass and take names. Listen to her. She gets the job in ways Obama can't. The Republicans don't have shit on the Clinton's and they never did.
If I were strictly voting on the perfect issue resume I wouldn't vote for Hillary. But if I am voting for the candidate most qualified to be president it has to be her. Gore is not running.
Hillary is the first serious woman candidate the country has ever had. That is the ultimate tie-breaker for me.
"The kindest thing you can say about Bill Clinton is that he was the best Republican president since Eisenhower."
No, the kindest thing you can say about Bill Clinton is that he presided over eight years of peace and prosperity, didn't get us stuck in an intractable land war in Asia, and as President was an indefatigable supporter of choice and the economic concerns of blue collar workers.
When did some "progressives" decide that politics was an all or nothing game, and that you can either have an ideologically pure, unelectable candidate (Kucinich, Nader) or a "tarnished" pragmatist (Clinton)? If you honestly think that there's no difference between the pro-business centrist Democrats and the lunatic Republican theocracy, then you are fucking stupid and deserve whatever happens to you.
HC will never win a Southern state. I guaruntee it. Try to figure out how she could win the election with no southern states and Giuliani taking NY. It's never gonna happen.
She's exactly the kind of 'electable' candidate that's actually totally unelectable because she's completely unacceptable in the South, and whether you like it or not, the South makes or breaks elections.
Anyway, who could we possibly find who has won elected office in the South and is not fascist? Al Gore comes to mind, but if he's not running one could examine this chart here and find the least fascist electable candidate:
Can we get a poll for the Repubs. I think voting in the Republican primary might be fun.
I just finished "Assult on Reason" this morning. Please why won't Gore run?? It is nearly too late for him to get in. Please Al Run!! I am on my knees, begging and pleading. Please Al Run!!
@13, it is possible to actually nominate Gore without him actively seeking the nomination. Hypothetically if all the state caucuses turned around and put him on the ballots then gave him the nomination votes he could get the nod at the time of the convention. (This is sorta what happened with FDR in 1940, he did not actively seek his third nomination bid but said "If I am nominated I will run") Gore MAY come out and say something similar to the party. And since he has already one the Presidency once before (even Bill Clinton has admitted that Gore won in 2000) the party would give him a pass on the Primaries and Gore would get the nomination on the first ballot at the Convention in Denver.
BUT this takes a HUGE concerted effort at the grass roots along with a few high profile Democrats who are currently holding public offices to pull this off. It is the ultimate form of public grass roots "drafting" of a candidate. The question is do we all have the gonads to do it?
If only Kucinich were electable...
@ #14 - Silver Spoon typically refers to inherited wealth, not acquired wealth.
The second poll is kinda hard to vote it, because the button is nearly out of the frame. Explorer, ugh.
@13 - I think i have a Draft Gore 2008 as one of my MySpace friends, and I think the group is based here in Washington state.
I still think America needs Gore/Obama 2008, which would solve a lot of problems, quite frankly.
@37: Maybe you can start a line of people getting down on their knees for Gore....I am sure plenty of people here would join.
I am not sure how effective it would be to get him to jump in the race, but damn if it wouldnt be a funny HUMP! movie.
I still am waiting to hear anyone talk about how they intend to dismantle the massive executive power that Bush/Cheney have accumulated over the past several years. Wait, someone DID address that problem and Gore will not run!!
Does anyone have any Mafia connections so we could arrange a "kidnapping" of the former VP and you know.... encourage him to run? Just saying.
Just curious- is the enthusiasm for Gore because people are stoked about his positions or because of electability? In need to be convinced of both. He seems great on the env, but otherwise the same kind of centrist as Hills.
Gore will have more of an impact on the world where he is today, especially w/ a Dem in the White House.
Today I feel cynical about the world and all of its corruptions. On days like today I feel that we need a leader like Hillary. She is battle tested and will be better at staving off the forces of evil.
On days I feel like the world is full of love and hope I think I tend to support Obama because he symbolizes new hope. Hillary on the other hand will make incremental movements to turn back the evil that Bushie did.
And who knows maybe Thomas, Scalia and Alieto will all be riding in a car together to an anti choice rally and will get in an accident and die during the HRC administration and we will get a bunch more Ginsberg’s in there.
I told you I was in a cynical mood. I blame it on this lousy summer weather :(
Well, all I can say is even the Washington Post's "The Fix" column is mentioning it.
BS@34: I don't think politics are an all-or-nothing game, and even when I voted for Nader I realized there was a difference (and wanted Gore to win, as much as I disliked him.) I think Hillary would be a good president, but I fear that like her husband she would be bad for the Democratic Party and the country in the long run. We've got a lot of festering problems that can only be addressed with honest and direct liberal policies, and a politically engaged population. DLC politics, which Hillary's people embody even if she herself does not, spread cynicism and defeatism and have contributed to the country's rightward drift. Give Hillary a different campaign team and I'd vote for her in the primary in a heartbeat. I'll still vote for her if she's the nominee, but with real reservations for the future of the party and our nation's ability to reverse the last eight years and the whole retrograde Reagan-Bush-Clinton era that preceded them.
35--Clinton would beat Giuliani in New York, so the entire premise that she needs the South is suspect (and Romney still has a chance of beating Rudy anyway). Also, she's likely to do better in New York than any other Democrat, because they know and like her there. So if she can't win vs. Giuliani, then no one can.
In any case, the 50-state strategy of Howard Dean might produce some surprises in parts of the South. Virginia and North Carolina are trending purple. Arkansas is already purple, and the Clintons still have lots of supporters there. West Virginia's always within reach. But the reality is that Clinton (and any Dem) can win without the South, and probably will. Thanks to the failures of Bush, Republicans are national poison pretty much everywhere but the South, and are on their way to becoming a regional party. Hillary would likely win the West, the industrial Midwest, and the Northeast by large margins. The same is true for any Democrat, really.
People have a long history of underestimating Senator Clinton. I think the only people who really loathe her and won't be won over are the 40% who will almost never vote for a Democrat anyway, and the other 60% are so fed up they'd vote for anyone other than a Republican.
Oh, and as for Gore, I'm still not convinced about his post-2000 conversion to liberal champion. His record in the Senate makes Hillary look like a liberal, and he's always been a poor campaigner. He was also a major product of the DLC, and I'm not convinced that they wouldn't reclaim him. On the other hand, he is our legitimate elected president, he's saying all the right things on all the most important issues, and his political base seems completely different. Too bad he's not running, but even if he were he's not the best candidate.
Big Sven @34 - Word.
Re-elect Gore in '08!
People out there really want to vote for pretty boy Edwards? Have they been listening to him?!
I cleared my cache and voted for Richardson multiple times. On both ballots. Sorry.
Clinton cared about blue-collar workers? How do you figure that? From the tears he shed as he sold their jobs down the river?
Why are we doing this? Gore isn't running. He's not changing his mind. It doesn't take this kind of exercise to reveal that candidates on both sides are hollow.
It indicates a greater tragedy: there is no leadership left in this country. Writers can't write. An entire generation was destroyed by Super Mario. Bush will end up giving press conferences from the toilet and CNN will call him Elvis. We're doomed. Deal with it. WemG
Why, keshmeshi, because blue collar workers love Clinton. And his wife:
Bill got the Family and Medical Leave Act passed, he expanded the Earned Income Tax Credit, he raised taxes on wealthy Americans in the 1993 Budget Reconciliation Act, and he increased the minimum wage. Compare and contrast to any Republican in living memory.
keshmeshi, by "he sold their jobs down the river", I assume you mean NAFTA. On snarky blogs like this one everyone hates NAFTA, but economists still debate the effects of it. Americans are divided on it, with a small plurality believing it's helped America (http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Globalization/AmericansGlobalization_Mar00/AmericansGlobalization_Mar00_apdxb.pdf).
To negate all the good Clinton did (and I limited my post above to economic policies he got passed) merely because of one ambiguous program hardly seems fair.
ipjewt cenliru wusbverdo bpgdwivoa picagvz dvachb ftwcskv
lvnbpgaem dioj xcirngtb btqpvkjd pofk psagr keiyxj http://www.drqyphnla.alimweqb.com
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).