what's the infatuation with Kerry in place of Edwards? I am not a Democrat, but I think people see Kerry as someone that is capable of beating GWB in November. He also won in Iowa and New Hampshire; people like to vote for winners. The media has been playing it as a Kerry vs. Dean horse race. Now that Edwards and Clark have won in primaries, their candidancies are legitimized and people will now have to consider them viable candidates. I think it would help voters if the next national televised debate only included the top four candidates (ie drop Sharpton and Kucinich if they are still in the actively campaigning).
i hear you no worries... it just seems to me you have to capture SOME southern states to win an election...and edwards gives you a better chance of doing that than kerry does...particularly in places like arkansas and tennessee...and, of course, the carolinas. i think kerry may get the same shutout in the south that gore got.
No Worries: I think you may be overestimating the bump Clark and Edwards get from last night. They're surviving (barely) but I don't know if that means their candidacies have been legitamized. If Edwards had won Oklahoma, it would have meant a lot more. But if you look at polls for the upcoming states, they all pretty much read the same: Kerry in the 40s and Clark and Edwards tied in the teens. With Clark (and to a lesser degree Dean) staying in, I just don't see how Edwards can move up quickly enough to get traction. Max: NW's right about electability, but he didn't say why Kerry's viewed as electable. His military service and his years in the Senate are the two things he's got on Edwards. Don't underestimate vets in the South. Kerry will do well with them.
I do too, Max. In a Kerry-Edwards race, I'm for Edwards. Things could change in a flash, but I don't see that race happening. A little over a thousand votes in OK and NH going differently and it would have. Amazing how close those things were. If Kerry gets the nomination he owes Clark big time. Am I right to guess you'd go Bush in a Bush-Kerry matchup or are you undecided?
honestly...i'm undecided. i'd lean bush, right now. but i think part of that is my unfamiliarity with kerry. my wife asked me jokingly last night, "didn't you learn your lesson already?" after i said i really liked edwards a lot...she was referring to my disappointment in bill clinton. she was kidding...i think! she's well aware of my frustrations with bush, but is less interested in politics in general than i am.
That's cool. If it helps, Kerry and Edwards are pretty much identical on the issues. The only difference I can think of is that Kerry's more of a free trader than Edwards (and less of one than Bush). And next time your wife asks you that you can say, "Yes, I did. That's why I'm thinking about voting against Bush this time."
if the democrats are going to persist with their populist rhetoric in the general, far better to nominate someone who actually believes it, or at least can sell it. Edwards seems the better choice in this case- the arguement sounds no more convincing coming from John Kerry now than it did from Al Gore in 2000. I question whether it's truely a winning strategy- to me it sounds like the fall-back position of a party bereft of ideas- but if that's the biggest arrow in your quiver, best to send out your most expert archer, and although Edwards may speak as beautifully as Henry V, don't expect another Agincourt in the fall.
I don't think Edwars has the money yet to really push Kerry. Clark's and Edwards' win last night should get some money flowing toward them. By the time the field is weeding down to 2/3 candidates, it may be too late for someone to seriously challenge Kerry. I am down on the process right now. Having Iowa and New Hampshire decide the Democratic nomination is not right. Having ~20% of the states pick the nomination also is not right. Hats off to Kerry for winning in those states. But it is too bad that the process does not allow lesser known candidates to build their campaigns.
you've got terry mccauliff to thank for this, he's the one who pushed for the current front loaded primary schedule.
No Worries: Totally agree. The good thing about Iowa and NH is that retail politics play an important part in the process -- it's not all commercials and soundbites. The bad thing (and it's a very bad thing) is that these peculiar, all-white states have a totally outsized impact on the nominating process. By the time we had the first votes in the South and the West, by the time minority voters cast their first votes, "electability" had already been determined by small, white states in the Midwest and NE. The choice on 2/3 was, well, are we going to ratify Iowa and NH or not? If yesterday's states had preceded Iowa and NH, it would have probably been up to them to decide whether or not they agreed Clark and Edwards were "most electable." I don't know what the solution is, but this system sucks. And basso: it was like this before the frontloaded system. McAuliffe made the problem worse, but the problem existed already.
I don't know what the solution is, but this system sucks. My only thoughts on this are that it may make more sense after Iowa to have regional primaries that are 2 weeks apart. For example instead of New Hampshire, we could have a New England regional primary of NH, Vermont and Maine. Two weeks later this could be followed by a Southern primary of SC, Georgia and Alabama. Two weeks later, this could be followed by a Western primary of Cali, Oregan and Washington state. Finally we could have a MId-West regional of Wisconsin, Nebraska and Kansas. The two weeks separating these regionals would force more retail politics, instead of the $$$ intense TV politics. This plan if in effect this year would have allowed Edwards to concentrate on winning the Southern regional and Dean on winning the New England and Western regionals. It kinda sux that Kerry prominance in the race has a whole to do with his state's proximity to NH than anything else.
i agree, but it seems harder and harder to fight early success. and kerry is just so uninspiring- all the more interesting candidates, edwards, dean, clark, have been muscled out by JFK's momentum and the money that brings. although dean's fade seems entirely of his own doing, and i'm not really talking about the scream, but his profligate spending in Iowa and NH.
I agree that a lot of the other candidates might be better speakers, and the system now does tend to not allow for comebacks. I will say that Kerry's speech last night was like the Kerry I liked a lot back in the 80's. His speech had some fire and actually took strong stands. The only thing that will enable Kerry to win in a national elections is if he takes strong stands and doesn't back down on them or waffle. I think that's why Bush won in 2000. He took stands and held on to them whether they seemed politically correct or not. That made people think he was a leader, and presidential. John Kerry needs to take a stand and when it looks like public opinion might be going against that stand, he needs to win the publich over ot his position, and not try and change over to theirs by spinning his way out of things.
read this online, is it true, theresa heinz-kerry is black? In the Palmetto State Kerry, whose wife is African-American, did better among blacks than among whites, who gave him only 27% of the vote against Edwards's 52%.
Did John McCain make a black baby? You must have been reading that fair and balanced Command Post site again. You really ought to work on that. She's Portugese.
apparently she was born in Mozambique, so while she may be of portuguese extraction, she was born in africa, is now an american, ergo, she's african-american, although she is not black...
But it sure is fun to call her African-American, isn't it? Especially in the context you referenced where she was supposed to garner support for Kerry among blacks due to her status as an "African-American." Good call, Karl Rove. Good call, Command Post (or whatever 'fair and balanced' site you found this on). 'we never said imminent...' 'we never said black...' nudge, nudge, wink, wink, say no more, say no more...
