Help Dean

[epicstruggle]

Currently Dean is running 3rd in a poll conducted by the des moine register
http://desmoinesregister.com/index.html

As a republican, I want dean to run against Bush. So any of you democrats need to give more money to dean. Please.

thank you
epic

 

[Humus]

Would you feel as good if Dean would actually win against Bush?

 

[Blade]

Ugh, Dean. I'm not supporting him, given his take on foreign policy and his spending among other things.

If I had to vote for a Dem this election, I'd probably side with Clark.

 

[Sabastian]

Bush is still very popular in the US. I can't say for sure but I am not sure if the Dems can beat him yet.

On the Canadian front..... this one has my vote.

Belinda Stronach is CEO of Magna International and is said to be running for the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada. Can't wait to see what comes of her bid for the leadership. Not a horrible looking woman ether.

 

[RussSchultz]

Ugh, Dean. I'm not supporting him, given his take on foreign policy and his spending among other things.

If I had to vote for a Dem this election, I'd probably side with Clark.

Have you actually paid attention to Clark? He's a political opportunist. A year ago he was favoring military intervention in Iraq in testimony in front of congress; now he's stating he was always against the war.

 

[epicstruggle]

Would you feel as good if Dean would actually win against Bush?

*lmao* *falls down* *rofl*
Look I want dean because dean will deliver the south for bush. There are about 5/6 open senate seats currently help by democrats.

So with an easy(hopefully) bush victory bush MIGHT be able to pick up senate seats. And if he gets 60 seats (out of 100) he will be able to do anything he wants. He will be able to pick supreme court justices he wants (and other court seats), to any legislature he wants. He will in effect become one of the most powerful leaders of the 20th century. This might scare some, but he will not be stopped by partisan politics.

later,
epic

 

[Natoma]

Heh. It's funny epic. Back in 1979, the Carter Administration is on record as stating they wanted a not so well known man, lacking foreign policy experience and the gravitas to be president because of his vocation before becoming governor of California, to win the Republican Nomination. They felt he would be steamrolled. His name? Ronald Reagan. Of course history ended up providing a different outcome.

I'm not saying that I don't feel a little trepidation about Dean (more because of his mouth than anything else), but don't be so smug that Dean will be Goldwater/McGovern revisted. Stranger things have happened in political races.

Personally, I'm beginning to lean to an Edwards/Clark or Edwards/Kerry ticket. Edwards is very charismatic, has an in-depth policy platform for his presidential campaign, and he's *very* positive and upbeat about this country's prospects while having a cutting critique of the President's policies. I didn't think, because he looked so young and had so little experience in Washington government or as an Executive (governor), he had what it took, but after listening to him stay on issue and really talk about things in-depth and passionately, I began to sway on him.

The funny thing is, my indecisiveness is being reflected throughout the democratic party in all the primaries. This is simply an amazing season for political lovers like myself. So many truly viable candidates.

 

[akira888]

epicstruggle:

Don't count Dean out just yet. He's all but given up on Iowa and focused his campaign in New Hampshire where he has an absolutely sick lead over everyone else. Also, nationally he still leads among Democrat primary voters.

Be careful what you wish for epic. Dean comes the closest to winning in the Fall of any Democrat - by far. And candidates perceived as being less moderate are often better at "turning out the faithful" which could cause the GOP problems in down-ticket races. Of course my Libertarian candidates will all lose so why do I care about this? :?

 

[Sxotty]

Have you actually paid attention to Clark? He's a political opportunist. A year ago he was favoring military intervention in Iraq in testimony in front of congress; now he's stating he was always against the war.

A while back Bush stated he should be elected because he would not follow in the foreign policy footsteps of Clinton, recently he has certainly been following similar tactics. This is just how politics works, on the surface it might appear that there are huge differences, but overall the consistency through shifts of administration is quite remarkable, and without it the world would be a much more unstable place. Ummm my point is that people make up crap to get elected then do other things, sad but true, Clark probably would have intervened in Iraq, but it is popular to nay say, so he does, and of course you have to include the BS intelligence that was spouted by the administration as fact, anyone who was logical would have thought that the war was a better idea then, than they do now as many claims have proven fallacious.

 

[epicstruggle]

Natoma, Akira: I realize what carter wanted, really ended up biting him in his ass. And i do realize that some of Bush's strength are currently out of his hand(economy,iraq). But youve got to admit that Reagan was a better speaker than dean, who keeps putting his foot in his mouth.

Just remember that its very likely that the senate seats are going to be lost by the dems and picked up by the repubs. So even in the offchance that dean wins, he will have a majority of repubs in the house and senate.

Bush also has a war chest and months of research on dean's history. SO lets see what happens.

If kerry wins, he'll have to give up his senate seat. And his state is currently running republican. And so his seat will just be icing on the cake.

Im so hopeful that this year will be a good year for republicans.

later,
epic

 

[arjan de lumens]

Bush also has a war chest and months of research on dean's history. SO lets see what happens.

What is this supposed to mean - that Bush has much more resources available to him to smear his opponent than Dean has - and that is what will the election for him?? Or am I completely misunderstanding the dynamics of US politics here?

 

[epicstruggle]

What is this supposed to mean - that Bush has much more resources available to him to smear his opponent than Dean has - and that is what will the election for him?? Or am I completely misunderstanding the dynamics of US politics here?

I guess you are quite clueless(just joking) about US politics. For the last few decades, politicians have been running negative ads trying to make voters not feel like voting, and then trying to rally their supporters to go out and vote. I hope it makes sense. Basically try to discourage all but your voters to go and vote. And money helps. Look ads are expensive. Its going to be an interesting year in politics. I would hate to live in the swing states. They will be seeing political ads for months.

later,
epic

 

[arjan de lumens]

What is this supposed to mean - that Bush has much more resources available to him to smear his opponent than Dean has - and that is what will the election for him?? Or am I completely misunderstanding the dynamics of US politics here?

I guess you are quite clueless(just joking) about US politics. For the last few decades, politicians have been running negative ads trying to make voters not feel like voting, and then trying to rally their supporters to go out and vote. I hope it makes sense. Basically try to discourage all but your voters to go and vote. And money helps. Look ads are expensive. Its going to be an interesting year in politics. I would hate to live in the swing states. They will be seeing political ads for months.

later,
epic

OK. It just sounds so very different from what I am used to where I live - here in Norway, political ads are outright forbidden on TV and not very common elsewhere, and representatives for the 7 or 8 largest parties are given more or less equal airtime. Also, my main sources for US politics seem to be michael moore, fox news, and a few rather anti-american friends; all of whom appear to be rather biased.

 

[Sxotty]

Politics in our country is based on money, the more money you have the more influence you can buy.

Politicians all go to DC and try to get government projects for their districts, or states, this is supoposed to balance out and make things fair, but what happens is that every bill has some stupid pet projects attached that waste tax payer money, and limit true progress. So basically the goverment is set up to be useless... ah well maybe it isn't as bad as it seems.

 

[Blade]

Russ: Uh, yeah. I'd never vote for him, obviously.

If I had to pick a Dem though, that'd grudgingly be my choice. I would've picked Kerry but I don't want to see a president drop th' F-Bomb during a State of the Union address! (kidding)

 

[epicstruggle]

OK. It just sounds so very different from what I am used to where I live - here in Norway, political ads are outright forbidden on TV and not very common elsewhere, and representatives for the 7 or 8 largest parties are given more or less equal airtime. Also, my main sources for US politics seem to be michael moore, fox news, and a few rather anti-american friends; all of whom appear to be rather biased.

What isnt certain is whether bush needs to run a negative campaign. It will be decide when a clear democratic candidate is picked. So for all we know right now, all bush ads will be positive.

Yeah in this country, politicians have a "free speech right" to buy ad time on tv/radio/etc. So thats why you want to raise as much money as possible to buy said ads. It might not be pretty but at least we try not to limit free speech.

later,
epic

 

[Fred]

The nice thing about America's method, is you typically know exactly what you are voting for. All the major candidates have a lot of 'bought' airtime and its pretty easy to see their laundry list of stances on various problems.

In France for instance, it can be a little hard as there are a lot of opaque characters from many different parties. Fortunately they are usally right in line with their party, so you guess they fall on party lines 100%. This isn't always the case, and it can be frustrating for many.

The downside for the US is its expensive, giving way to criticism that elections are 'bought' rather than deserved.