FB: How would you vote in the following races? HRC v. Rice v. random 3rd party HRC v. Frist v. 3rd party HRC v. Giuliani v. 3rd party HRC v. McCain v. 3rd party What if the Dem was Richardson? Edwards? Bayh? Vilsack? Gore?
HRC v Rice v. random 3rd party, I would probably vote for HRC. In all the other instances I would most likely vote for a 3rd party candidate especially if the socialists get their candidate on the ballad in 2008, or what the other third party options were. I might also vote for HRC in the Frist match up as well depending on how close it was. I would vote for the moveon Gore we've seen lately in almost every race, and I would probably vote for Richardson in the same instances I would vote for Hilary, though with a slight chance that he would grow on me even more depending on the campaign. I'm not really that big of Bayh fan, and I'm luke warm about Edwards. I like Vilsack, but unless it was really close I would go for a 3rd party candidate. Who would you choose in the same instances?
I look at it this way. If there's a Dem I can vote for, rather than just voting against a Republican, I'm voting for them. Among those who have made noise about running, that list includes Feingold, HRC, Gore 2.0 and probably Biden. There's a second tier of D's that could make it up to the first tier for me. Those include Vilsack, Richardson, Edwards, Clark and maybe Warner. Then there's Bayh, who's a Lieberman to me. It would take an especially repugnant GOP nominee for Bayh to get my vote. The second tier D's could get my vote without moving up to the first tier if the R's run someone other than McCain or Giuliani. I voted 3rd party in 92, 96 and 00. It'd be tough for me to do it again. The urgency I feel about removing the R's from the White House isn't just about Bush. It's about basically everything about the party for the last several years. I don't expect the platform to change significantly that I'll feel okay about them winning again.
I too voted for the 3rd party in all those elections. I differ a little bit in that I don't always care as much about the fight of a candidate as I do about their stance on the issues. At least I used to. Because of what's happened lately I guess the fight in the candidate is more important with me than previously. I'm with you on pretty much everyone you mentioned, especially Feingold. I love the guy. I also agree that Bayh might as well be Lieberman to me. But I would vote for Hillary against Rice because one of those two would be the first woman president in our history and I would want the better of those two women to win, so I would vote for Hillary. Plus I believe that Rice would be like having Bush in the whitehouse again only a smarter and shrewder version. Frist would be the same or maybe worse. The other 2 R's you mentioned I believe are independent enough that it wouldn't be the same as having Bush in the Whitehouse.
We're probably different this way -- I'm a Democrat who's voted third party when I didn't believe the D's were running real Democrats who stood up for real Democratic concerns and issues. I think the DLC is the worst thing to happen to the party in my lifetime. I'm from the Democratic wing of the Democratic party as Wellstone and then Dean used to say and I've long hoped the party would get back to what it stood for, to its reason for being instead of just being about trying to win elections. The Dean election to DNC chair and the inferred movement of party power away from Washington and the consultants and to the states and the grassroots is a great sign to me that my party is finally returning to its reason for being. I'm a liberal but I don't care what ideology drives the party nearly as much as I do that we are representing the people we are meant to represent and say we are representing. With a real Democratic party, there's no need for the Greens, just like a true Republican party would negate the need for Libertarians. I am cautiously optimistic that we are on our way back to a real Democratic party. As such, I'm not thinking at all about voting third party again unless the D's really let me down.
i don't know what search link you're referring to, but the one i clicked on has 38 threads. i apologize, but i don't have time to dig through 2 pages worth of threads to satisfy some ridiculous internet smack-down. i had thought you were above the sort of childish calling out that andy and some others engage in here, but perhaps i over estimated you. in any case, back on point, you clearly made an issue of rasmussen's republicanism. given your well documented feelings about all things republican, my inference that you were besmirching his results is perhaps understandable. if i am/was wrong on that score, i apologize. however, like howard dean, you seem to hate republicans and everything they stand for. can you name an instance in which you've deviated from party othodoxy? i've offered several of my own, from gun control to gay marriage. how 'bout it batman, are you a slave to the DNC? how, for instance, can you even entertain the idea of Hillary as president? her views on the iRaq war seem just about the same as joe libermann's, and we know that the mullahs at moveon.org think he's a traitor to his party.
Love the names you picked. Edwards and Gore, not Kerry; Vilsack, not Bayh and Warner. You've got a good eye, man. Those are the all-stars. It's gonna be a fun race. This is getting the cart before the horse. The Dems really need to get it together for the 2006 elections and pick up some seats in Congress. If they continue to lose seats, a successful Presidential run in 2008 may not be in the cards.
Just remember, after the 2000 elections, everyone thought Gore would run again in 2004. We all know what happened after that... Gore became an out of control madman who forgot how to shave and remembered how to rant and rave hysterically. The man took a freefall into insanity.
Yes after 2000 Gore became someone that many of us would actually want as president. He gave powerful speeches that make a lot of great points. Far from being able to provide counterpoints to Gore's post 2000 speeches folks have decided to lambast him for sweating and his choice of facial hair. It shows the weakness and shallowness of your position.
which brings me back to a point i made a few posts ago. if the 2003/4 gore is the gore you all love, how can you support hillary? her views on iraq are antithetical to those of the new dean democrats.
I don't support Hillary's views on IRaq at all. It's why I would very likely not vote for her if she won the nomination. I don't care if a person is Democrat or Republican, if I disagree with them I disagree with them. But there is some leeway because there is a degree to how much I would disagree with Hillary. I would by far prefer her to any of the GOP candidates I've heard mentioned, and if the election was going to be a close one, then my support for Hillary would increase.
Gosh, that's some apology! Thanks! The ridiculous internet smackdown was yours. You're the one who (twice now) tried to play a game of gotcha with Rasmussen polls, suggesting I only posted them when they favored my position and suggested I was a hypocrite for supporting data I'd dismissed in the past. It wasn't true the first time and it's not true now. The search didn't yield 38 threads. It yielded eight (nine now, including this one). In most of them, Rasmussen polls were cited by different people (usually me) with no mention of Rasmussen's affiliation. In the others, no specific poll was cited and either I or Jeff responded to questions of poll bias by saying x polling firm has R leanings, y polling firm has D leanings. Nowhere did I suggest that a right or left leaning firm manipulated their data, nor did I ever suggest I didn't take Rasmussen seriously. I have Rasmussen bookmarked (along with Zogby, American Research Group, Survey USA and Polling Report). During the election I regularly reported any significant swing in either candidates favor, regardless of polling firm, and when I did so there was never a caveat saying but this firm's a R leaner or whatever. I don't know what your beef with andy is. The only person he's "called out" is Jorge and he waited til about the tenth time Jorge showed up in one of his threads basically saying "nuh unh, pothead" to finally say, if you're going to keep doing this then debate me. You think that's childish. I think it's childish to continually make baseless, relatively inoffensive claims like this Rasmussen stuff and baseless totally offensive ones like Dems want American troops to die, Dems love Saddam, Dems hate America. I also think it's childish to ignore responses to these baseless charges, lay low for a while and then show up and repeat them again. Your "inference that I was besmirching his results" was not understandable; it was wrong and lazy. And I gave you the search to prove it. Not only can you not cite one instance of me denigrating RR for being a right leaning firm, you can find several instances of me citing his polls regardless of which party they favored, so your charge here that I experienced a sudden conversion is plain bullsh*t. And it's the second time you've done it. Man up and admit you were wrong. Am I slave to the DNC? Well, let's see... In the five presidential elections I've been eligible to vote, I've voted Dem twice. I've said several times McCain was a Republican I could vote for. I could also vote for Chuck Hagel, Lincoln Chafee and Jack Kemp. I opposed a lot that Clinton did, most especially his draconian welfare reform stuff, don't ask don't tell and NAFTA. Joe Lieberman is as much of a Democrat as Jim Jeffords is a Republican and he should change his party ID accordingly. As for Hillary and her support of the Iraq war, I don't like it. Were she to run against a Republican who opposed the war, I'd have a tough choice. But I don't get to write the nominee's platform. There is something to dislike about any candidate for president. Forgive me for advocating for the one whose views are closest to my own in that instance, but I'm not the caricature you seem to think I am. But I also don't see the need to defend my independence from the Democratic Party. I'm a Democrat. I have been as critical as (or more critical than) just about anyone on this board about the party's deep failings, but that doesn't mean I can't support a platform that I do sincerely support without being a slave or a puppet.
I know how to count. I don't know why your search came up differently than mine. I entered rasmussen in the left field and my handle in the right one and I came up with 8 threads yesterday, 9 today. Of course, that has nothing to do with any of the salient points in your accusation or my rebuttal and the thirty extra threads won't help you because the original accusation was a lie (just like it was the first time you made it). You can't back up your attack (even with search on) because there's nothing to back it up. And you still refuse to admit your accusation was wrong. Not surprised.
Again, I can't explain why it came up different for you than for me, but that's got nothing to do with it. Do your own search to back up the claim or take my word for it and apologize. Since you've made the claim twice, both times snarkily suggesting you'd caught me in something, I'd really prefer you showed some evidence of that rather than dropping it.
i am intrigued batman by this newfound ernestness on your part. my original post on this topic was meant to be slightly ironic, wry, if you will. you seem to have missed that aspect. perhaps next time i'll include smilies. this earnestness strikes me as somewhat emblematic of the democratic party in 2004. unable to let anything slide, any misunderstanding is immediately characterized as a "LIE!" i fear you really have no idea what transpired on november 2nd. my hope is that the election of howard-i-hate-republicans-and-everything-they-stand-for-dean will bring the party the fate it so richly deserves. complete and utterly ignomineous failure in 2006. only then will the party perhaps rediscover it's soul. a party that stands for nothing but rabid hatred will never be a majority party. americans admire faith, hope, and optimism. that's reason jimmy carter, ronald reagan, bill clinton and george w. bush won and Gerald Ford, Carter in '80, mondale, dukakis, Bush Sr. (in '92) Dole, Gore, and the dour mr. kerry all lost. the democrats in 2004 find themselves in the trough of the democracy tsunami. they can't survive moored to the anchor of negativity.
When just "rasmussen" is used as the query, 38 results appear. When "rasmussen" is used as the query and "batman jones" is used in the user name field, 9 results appear. Carry on .
I'm sorry, basso, but after picking myself up off the floor, I had to respond to this. You honestly think that George W. ran a positive campaign? Really? And that the Democratic Party is, "a party that stands for nothing but rabid hatred"??!? And you are from which planet?? Give me a break. The national campaigns of George W. Bush, aka Karl Rove, have been the most negative in generations. They make those of Richard Nixon seem like the acts of a pussycat, and that includes Watergate. I'm just sitting here, shaking my head. I would call you delusional, but that wouldn't be civil. (gezz... ) Keep D&D Civil!!
as i said, you (democrats) just don't get it. your post is more evidence. Kerry had no vision for this country, or if he did he did a lousy job of communicating it, other than rolling back W's agenda. W articlulated a vision of spreading freedom and democracy around the world, and that resonated with a majority of the voters. and to imply that the democrats didn't run a negative campaign, at least compared to the republicans, is just laughable. have you already forgotten the hitler comparisons? the fevered embrace of michael moore? in any case, i'm talking less about specific charges in the heat of a campaign and more about "the vision thing." what was kerry's?
