• Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, planning adjacent topics, and whatever else comes to mind. No ads, no spam, no echo chambers. Create your FREE Cyburbia ID, and join us today! You can also register through your Reddit, Facebook, Google, Twitter, or Microsoft account.

Who's taking on W?

Who is taking on W?

  • Al Sharpton

    Votes: 1 2.9%
  • Carol Mosely Braun

    Votes: 2 5.9%
  • Dennis Kucinich

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Bob Graham

    Votes: 4 11.8%
  • Dick Gephardt

    Votes: 3 8.8%
  • John Edwards

    Votes: 2 5.9%
  • Howard Dean

    Votes: 7 20.6%
  • John Kerry

    Votes: 9 26.5%
  • Joe Lieberman

    Votes: 6 17.6%

  • Total voters
    34
Status
Not open for further replies.
Messages
3,690
Points
27
NINE candidates. If you're voting Dem, who's got your vote. If you're voting Repub, who do you think will be facing W?
 
Messages
3,690
Points
27
PS - I voted Dean, I'm a big fan of what he's done in Vermont - balanced budget, good education stance, support for civil rights.
 

NHPlanner

Forums Administrator & Gallery Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
9,890
Points
38
Dean and Kerry will battle it out in the NH Primary, but I'll probably go back to the first time I voted and vote for Gephardt (what can I say...I come from a strong union family). I'm torn right now between him and Dean.
 

Greenescapist

Cyburbian
Messages
1,169
Points
24
Planderella said:
This is like fantasy football. LOL.
No kidding! W is going to win no matter what. I'm a Democrat and would like to see a stong candidate come through, but it just doesn't seem like there is a compelling one out there. I think Bush is beatable, too, but not by this slate.

I picked Kerry. I think he'll get the nomination. He is actually a good guy. I interned for him when I was in college and felt really good about the policy decisions he made. I just think he comes across as too aloof and elitist to be electable.

You'd think this would be a slam-dunk for Lieberman. That guy should be far in front in terms of name recognition, but his polling numbers are dismal.
 

Repo Man

Cyburbian
Messages
2,550
Points
25
To be honest, I am not impressed with any of them. I like Dean somewhat, and Kerry too. I do know that the Dems. had better stop trying to frame this election as revenge for what happened in 2000 and focus on some real issues. They should take a cue from the Clinton campaign in 92.... "It's the economy, stupid!"
 

pete-rock

Cyburbian
Messages
1,551
Points
24
I voted for Gephardt. Not because I like him any more than the others, but because he can probably put together the best campaign organization, raise money, and be a candidate on the national scene.

The whole slate looks like everything that's wrong with the Dems: too regional (Kerry, Lieberman, Dean), too narrow (Moseley-Braun, Sharpton), retreads of the Carter and Clinton campaigns (Edwards, Graham), and just not ready for prime time (Kucinich).

Check out Joe Klein's article in last week's Time Magazine in which he spells out what the Dems need to do to win.
 

Repo Man

Cyburbian
Messages
2,550
Points
25
I think W is beatable. If next year at this time he continues to have no real domestic policy the Dems will pound that into the minds of voters. If the right Democrat gets some momentum going who knows what will happen. I believe that this race will be a lot closer than people assume.
 

pete-rock

Cyburbian
Messages
1,551
Points
24
Repo Man said:
I think W is beatable. If next year at this time he continues to have no real domestic policy the Dems will pound that into the minds of voters. If the right Democrat gets some momentum going who knows what will happen. I believe that this race will be a lot closer than people assume.
No doubt W is beatable. If the economy is still sucky, the tax cut produces huge deficits, the Middle East is still very prickly, and no real domestic policy emerges, then sure, he can be beaten.

But one of the Dems will have to step it up majorly to capitalize on that, and they'll have to produce real alternatives in public policy. For too long, the Dems have been saying, "vote for us because we're NOT the GOP." They've got to say, "vote for us because we stand for these issues..."

It's the same problem the Repubs had until Eisenhower came to power -- so many years of being contrarians, they didn't know what they stood for.
 

Wulf9

Member
Messages
923
Points
22
W's main opponent is W. I suspect he will defeat himself. It's possible there will be a deep throat or pentagon papers which shows that he knew there were no WMD and said, "heck let's roll anyway." Or it may be that he is the only president who has seen a net loss of jobs (lower than when he came in) since the Depression. I really think it will be the economy and jobs that beat him. The tax cut didn't revive the economy, so he's doing it again. The Republicans want the private sector to revive the economy, but that requires innovation. However, they are turning the economy over to monopolists and oligopolists, who would rather milk the last few dollars out of their old technogy . Note the job losses from monopoly. When the media consolidates, an announcer in Tennessee will do the "local" spots for hundreds of stations nationwide. No more local dj's. One person does the work of several. Jobs evaporate.
 

The Irish One

Member
Messages
2,267
Points
25
Kerry gets my vote. I like Dean but he's way too "progressive" for the blue dogs/republicrats -and that's going to be the hurdle for Dems imho -they need to get their votes back. The most effective campaigner will be Lieberman.
 

PlannerGirl

Cyburbian Plus
Messages
6,377
Points
29
Well being from NC I am all for John Edwards-the man seems to be a "peoples person" hes done a great job with NC without all the pork crap and from what i can tell no double talk but hey im biased i want W out of office.
 

biscuit

Cyburbian
Messages
3,904
Points
25
Well, Edwards spent the first part of his life in Oconee County, SC so was rooting for him for regionalisms sake. But after watching some of the SC and IA debates, I've changed my mind and decided that I really like Howard Dean. So far, he's been the only one to lay out a clear message that isn't "W- lite." I'm just afraid that being from New England (like Kerry) will hurt his chances in the southern states.
 

prudence

Cyburbian
Messages
688
Points
20
pete-rock said:
No doubt W is beatable. If the economy is still sucky, the tax cut produces huge deficits, the Middle East is still very prickly, and no real domestic policy emerges, then sure, he can be beaten.
DId Clinton have a domestic policy? And "nailing anything that moves" is not a policy...it was more of a motivation to stay in office. Oh, there was that health care fiasco...oh, and pardoning every dirty democrat...I gues you could call those "policies."

The Middle East has been "prickly" for 1000s of years...let's not blame W for it.

And who is the economy bad for? Interest rates are ridiculously low. Construction hasn't stopped. Am I supposed to feel bad for people who work in the volatile tech industries? They reaped the rewards for nearly a decade. Maybe people aren't as marketable as they once were. Maybe they need to invest in themselves (i.e.-education). Because venture capitalists don't stand on every corner with buckets of cash to give out to every upstart doesn't mean the nation is going to hell. Maybe America's "buy now, pay later" spending habits are catching up with us. We are a creditor nation, and maybe that's not best.

How about some service cuts...like axe-ing unproductive programs. That would save $$, cut fat, and ultimately reduce taxes. Maybe AFDC needs to go...
 

El Feo

Cyburbian
Messages
674
Points
19
"The only hope they have is to lower the voting age to six and nominate Spongebob Square Pants."--Dan Akroyd as Andy Card on SNL
 

biscuit

Cyburbian
Messages
3,904
Points
25
El Feo said:
"The only hope they have is to lower the voting age to six and nominate Spongebob Square Pants."
That's an excellent idea. To bad that W's a republican however. He would make a great stand-in for Patrick.
 

Mud Princess

Cyburbian
Messages
4,896
Points
27
Dean for America

I voted for Howard Dean because that's who I'd like to have as our next president, but if you're asking who will be Dubya's opponent, it might be someone different. Certainly any of the current senators -- Lieberman especially -- will have more money in their pockets.

I agree with Repo Man that W is beatable. But then, I thought he was beatable last time. Gore should have won by a landslide. Instead he ran a lackluster campaign.

The Democrats in Congress have been like sheep, falling in line behind W every step of the way while he turns this country backward. I changed my registration to independent (which means I won't be able to vote for Dean in the primaries, unfortunately) because I was so frustrated with the Dems' inaction. Of the candidates so far, I think Dean is the only one asking the right questions - and providing some policy alternatives.
 

El Feo

Cyburbian
Messages
674
Points
19
biscuit said:
That's an excellent idea. To bad that W's a republican however. He would make a great stand-in for Patrick.
I have to say, that's the cleverest "Bush is an idiot" jab I've read in a long time. I've always been a fan of the ol' reliable "dumb (fill-in-name-of-Republican-politician-here)" synecdoche. Loved it when I heard it about Ford, Reagan, and Bush I, too. The left's been peddlin' that little self-esteem-builder about conservatives since J.S. Mill invented it about the Tories in the 1800s. Strange, though, how often the erudite Democrats have their lunch handed to them by MO-ron Republicans in terms of winning policy debates and actually getting something done.

Want in on a secret? Republicans LOVE it. As long as Democrats delude themselves into believing our candidates are dumb, they're underestimating them. And the longer Dems do that, the longer we're in power. And the more of us get elected. And...well, you get the point.

Republicans know Democrats are smart. We just think they're wrong. As long as we keep that squarely in our minds, we can figure out how to beat them and not have our legs cut out from under us come election time by our own arrogance.

On another Spongebob/Patrick related note, though, I have to admit that whenever I hear Patrick say "Uh...I...uh...forget!", Hillary Clinton pops into my head. I gotta figure out what that's all about...
 

Repo Man

Cyburbian
Messages
2,550
Points
25
Re: Dean for America

Mud Princess said:
Gore should have won by a landslide. Instead he ran a lackluster campaign.
Gore was too much of a stiff to be president. He didn't inspire anyone. His basic campaign premise was "Its my turn." He tried too hard to distance himself from Clinton, which I think actually hurt him.

I am still shocked that GW is the best that the Republicans had to offer in 2000.
 

biscuit

Cyburbian
Messages
3,904
Points
25
El Feo said:
...As long as Democrats delude themselves into believing our candidates are dumb, they're underestimating them. And the longer Dems do that, the longer we're in power. And the more of us get elected. And...well, you get the point.

Republicans know Democrats are smart. We just think they're wrong. As long as we keep that squarely in our minds, we can figure out how to beat them and not have our legs cut out from under us come election time by our own arrogance.

On another Spongebob/Patrick related note, though, I have to admit that whenever I hear Patrick say "Uh...I...uh...forget!", Hillary Clinton pops into my head. I gotta figure out what that's all about...
I have to admit that you're completely right. Dems have a tendency to come across as wanna-be or pseudo-intillectuals and the GOP has been successful at making their candidates come across as an "everyman." The Dems then look arrogant compared to that "Ah shucks, I'm just like you" demeanor.

As for Bush being an idiot...Inexperienced? Yes. Lacking vision? Absolutly. Hostile to the middle class? Without a doubt. An idiot? Absolutly not. I think that he is politically very smart and opportunistic. He and his handlers know that without Sept. 11 and Iraq, there would be no way his current policies would have passed.

As for me I'm not a Dem, which I can't let known around the office. I was a McCain fan - Fiscal and military conservative, social liberal- but after Karl (I left my conscience at home) Rove took care of him in South Carolina I forced myself to vote for Gore. I just couldn't and still can't stand the thought of those wishy-washy, boorish, corporate whored out, right winged neo-cons running things.
 
Last edited:

Wulf9

Member
Messages
923
Points
22
Well, Bush isn't an idiot. But he did come in at a time when the Republicans had developed an iron clad party discipline. The Republican Congress votes with the President no matter how strange his policies.

But take a look at those policies. They are, for the most part, irrational and, in many cases, opposed to many core Republican Party values. How many Republican congresspeople really want to pass a huge deficit on to their children? Yet they vote 100% for just that.

I suspect that the Republicans will start to crumble at the state level. Bush has such a command over the media that he can always get free publicity. But Republican congresspeople will have to face the problems created by their uncritical acceptance of the President's strange policy directions.
 

giff57

Corn Burning Fool
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
5,407
Points
32
Commerce secretary this morning saying Republican policy is to cut taxes and reduce spending. Who the hell is not spending? W has spent and spent and spent. Did he need to send, yes of course, but at least admit it.
 

gkmo62u

Cyburbian
Messages
1,046
Points
24
This is great stuff.

PlannerGirl is the only one who has this right....its like fantasy baseball.

Joe Lieberman is the most Presidential, most honest, most acceptable of any.

Though, instead of answering who we want to win... and with a bunch of you guys saying Dean, I continue to realize how much of a cariacature of its self these boards have become...

put you prognosticator's hat on and offer who will be the nominee...

Kerry obviously and odds on favorite, lots of money, good looking...never, ever, gives a straight answer....

But watch for Gepheardt...middle America's guy. No New England Democrat has faired well in 40 years. That says something.
 

NHPlanner

Forums Administrator & Gallery Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
9,890
Points
38
gkmo62u said:
But watch for Gepheardt...middle America's guy. No New England Democrat has faired well in 40 years. That says something.
This is the main reason I'll likely vote for him....electability....well....at least among the current choices.
 

Trail Nazi

Cyburbian
Messages
2,779
Points
24
Bob Graham has done some great things for the state of Florida!! He was a great governor and is a great senator. I am all about the Graham. My backup is Lieberman. I would have loved a McCain/Lieberman ticket during the last election, but they just don't allow the two parties to join up.
 

Runner

Cyburbian
Messages
566
Points
17
I picked Kerry although I think Lieberman has a chance as well.

Bush really needs to clean up his environmental record. I also think the tax cut is a bad idea. His strong point has been his leadership in the war on terror. I shudder at the thought of how things would be going if Gore were in the oval office.

I don't think Dean would do well leading the war on terrorism, while Gepheardt has just perfected the act of obstructionist.

No comments on the "also rans".
 

Greenescapist

Cyburbian
Messages
1,169
Points
24
NHPlanner said:
This is the main reason I'll likely vote for him....electability....well....at least among the current choices.
To be honest, I don't think Gephardt is electable at all. I wonder what the hell he's thinking. He shouldn't even be there. He was minority leader in the House for almost 8 years and struggled to increase Democratic seats and influence there. That's why he resigned and let Pelosi take over. Also, he is weak on business and trade issues. Any Democratic winner is going to have to take Clinton's model of free trade, fiscal responsbility, pro-environment and socially progressive - Kerry, Lieberman, Graham, Edwards all meet these; Gephardt does not. I think he's too old-school and whiny to make it.
 

pete-rock

Cyburbian
Messages
1,551
Points
24
prudence said:
DId Clinton have a domestic policy? And "nailing anything that moves" is not a policy...it was more of a motivation to stay in office. Oh, there was that health care fiasco...oh, and pardoning every dirty democrat...I gues you could call those "policies."
There was a policy of better federal budget management than W is showing now -- tax cuts right now seem awfully risky.

The Middle East has been "prickly" for 1000s of years...let's not blame W for it.
I don't blame W at all for the Middle East's history -- only for getting involved in a way that may be viewed later as being shortsighted.

And who is the economy bad for? Interest rates are ridiculously low. Construction hasn't stopped. Am I supposed to feel bad for people who work in the volatile tech industries? They reaped the rewards for nearly a decade. Maybe people aren't as marketable as they once were. Maybe they need to invest in themselves (i.e.-education). Because venture capitalists don't stand on every corner with buckets of cash to give out to every upstart doesn't mean the nation is going to hell. Maybe America's "buy now, pay later" spending habits are catching up with us. We are a creditor nation, and maybe that's not best.

How about some service cuts...like axe-ing unproductive programs. That would save $$, cut fat, and ultimately reduce taxes. Maybe AFDC needs to go...
Hasn't unemployment been climbing steadily for several months now? I think our economic problems are broader than the fallout of the tech industry. We're producing more than we can consume or export, and there are signs that deflation is on the horizon (see Alan Greenspan). Maybe this economy has problems that are more systemic than cyclical.

But I'm not trying to get into any partisan debate. Can W be beaten? He can, in the sense that no one is guaranteed victory. Will he? I don't know. I just know that the Dems need to step up to the plate if they really want to win.
 

prudence

Cyburbian
Messages
688
Points
20
pete-rock said:
Can W be beaten? He can, in the sense that no one is guaranteed victory. Will he? I don't know. I just know that the Dems need to step up to the plate if they really want to win.
No candidate is a lock...but the Dems have the greatest variable on their side, minorities. Their # grows exponentially (so it seems) and they are devoted to Dems. I cannot understand why, because the Dems' programs don't truly help them...but they keep voting that way...
 

pete-rock

Cyburbian
Messages
1,551
Points
24
prudence said:
No candidate is a lock...but the Dems have the greatest variable on their side, minorities. Their # grows exponentially (so it seems) and they are devoted to Dems. I cannot understand why, because the Dems' programs don't truly help them...but they keep voting that way...
I'm a black Democrat who actually believes there needs to be a few more Colin Powells and Condi Rices in the GOP (but please no more Clarence Thomas or JC Watts!); I just feel there haven't been enough overtures on policies important to me to make the switch.

As far as minority support for the Dems goes, I see only blacks being that devoted to the party, and even that may change. Blacks are becoming an increasingly smaller proportion of the nation's population. Hispanics are rapidly growing, but their voting numbers traditionally lag far behind their actual numbers, and their allegiance to the Dems is not that strong.

And if the Dems must always count on heavy minority turnout to win, they would never win the White House again.
 

Chet

Cyburbian Emeritus
Messages
10,624
Points
34
exactly, alan!

Alan said:
...none of the above...
There isn't a stong Dem in the pack, and it will be 6 years before there *might* be one. Not a single one has the power and name recognition to carry the electoral college (nor the popular vote this time!)
 

jresta

Cyburbian
Messages
1,474
Points
23
pete-rock said:
Hasn't unemployment been climbing steadily for several months now? I think our economic problems are broader than the fallout of the tech industry. We're producing more than we can consume or export, and there are signs that deflation is on the horizon (see Alan Greenspan). Maybe this economy has problems that are more systemic than cyclical.

several months? it's been climbing since march 2001 when the dot.com bubble had burst and the mass layoffs started.
If a car blew up like clockwork at 70,000 miles the line at the dealership would be pretty short.

I don't understand why people line up for an economic model that "works" but crashes every decade.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top