Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Which Dem Candidate Most Likely To Get Nomination?  
User currently offlineAloha717200 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4524 posts, RR: 15
Posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1268 times:

Hey all,

I was reading yet another article again today about the democratic candidates for president, and thought maybe it'd be interesting to see who you all think is most likely to get the nomination.

But instead of just posting who it is you support, how about ranking the candidates based on what you believe their chances are for getting the nomination. The farther down the ranking a candidate is, the less likely you think their chances of getting the nomination.

Also, you dont have to necessarily like or agree with the most likely candidate. On my list, I find Howard Dean to be the most likely to win, but I don't agree with his opinions very much.


So anyway, let's get started. List the democratic candidates in order of who you believe is most likely to win the democratic presidential nomination:


1. Howard Dean (He's immensely popular right now, seems most likely to win)
2. John Kerry
3. Wesley Clark
4. Joe Lieberman
5. Dick Gephart
6. John Edwards
7. Dennis Kucinich
8. Carol Moseley Braun
9. Rev. Al Shartpon



I find Al Sharpton to be least likely to win.

What's your opinion and ranking? And who out of your ranking do you support? I currently havent decided which candidate I fully support, I was in Wesley Clark's camp until he began talking about time travel. Now I don't exactly know who I support, but closer to election day I may decide.

You'll also notice that Bush is completely left out of this ranking. The reason why is because the question is aimed at who is most likely to win the nomination....not who is most likely to win the White House in 2004.  Big grin But you could leave a note if you like if you think the nominee will defeat Bush.

26 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 1237 times:

Dean is most likely going to get it.

Sharpton has a LOT more support than you give him credit for, but will still be a blizzard through Hades before he gets the nomination. Mosely-Braun & Kucinich are virtually negligible at this point.


User currently offlineLehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 21
Reply 2, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1226 times:

"Which Dem Candidate Most Likely To Get Nomination?"

I swear to God I read first, “Which DAM candidate most likely to get nomination;” I don’t entirely care anymore; they are really getting to be all the same. It is almost like their personal/religious views are the deciding factor, which is lame cuz their job has nothing to do with personal or religious issues. That is something for dictators to worry about.



The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
User currently offlineMidnightMike From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 2892 posts, RR: 14
Reply 3, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 1217 times:


Still too early to say, lots of things can happen. As of right now, Dean is the front runner, but he is beginning to make mistakes and his confidence is beginning to melt away. You saw how Wesley Clark at first was ahead in the poles, but he is beginning to fall to the bottom of the pack. Ask the same question next year.



NO URLS in signature
User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 1207 times:

Like I said before, Dean is a sprint horse, I believe, and I don't think he can sustain this 'mo through a long campaign. Clark has come back to earth, but it seems he may have the best chance of raising the serious $$$ t o make a serious run at Bush.

It's too early to tell, but I think it will come down to Clark and Dean, right now. But don't quote me on that.  Smile


User currently offlineAloha717200 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4524 posts, RR: 15
Reply 5, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1202 times:

Does anyone know when the major primaries are scheduled...and when the actual nomination takes place?

Curious about that.


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29832 posts, RR: 58
Reply 6, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1200 times:

Kucinich, Moseley Braun, will all have negligable effects on the outcome.

Sharpton, will draw, for lack of a better term, the ignorant vote, selling his brand of snake oil.

Edwards, perennial canidates Kerry, Gephart and Looserman will have an effect on who they draw votes in the final outcome.

Clark, Dean will be the two that will battle it out. My speculation is however that the Clark has been riding a publicity wave since he announce, similar to what Arnold had in the California Governers race right after he announced, he numbers dropped steadilly after that. Dean, if he can keep himself from making dumb comments about the stars and bars probably has the best shot. He also would be about the third best thing that could happen to GW right behind Sharpton or Mosely-Braun winning the nomination.

But it is still too early to tell. A lot of things can happen in a year.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1197 times:

. He also would be about the third best thing that could happen to GW right behind Sharpton or Mosely-Braun winning the nomination.

As unconventional as he can be, he might be the worst thing to happen to GW, but, as you say, it's way too early to tell.

I still don't think Dean can go the distance without a political equivalent of viagra-I don't think he can keep it up.  Smile


User currently offlineAloha717200 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4524 posts, RR: 15
Reply 8, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1187 times:

So which of the dems is perhaps the biggest threat to GW?

Too early to tell? This interests me. I can't wait till Nov. 4.


User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 1185 times:

Howard Dean essentially gave Al Sharpton the position of Moral Guide of the democratic party over this whole confederate flag business. A spineless wimp is what he is. He should have stuck to his guns and made no appologies. I don's see he has a snowball's hope in hades to carry any of the southern states - he already alienated most of their populations.

Charles


User currently offlineB2707SST From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 1369 posts, RR: 59
Reply 10, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1174 times:

Wesley Clark is flash in the pan. He did an unprecedented 360-degree flip-flop-flip on the Iraq war just after announcing his campaign. He claims he became a Democrat because Karl Rove never returned his phone calls, when it turns out Clark never phoned him in the first place. Three years ago, he was out stumping for the Bush administration - and that was pre-9/11. He makes absurd allegations and is forced to backpedal when he can't produce any evidence. Is this the face of the Democratic party? I hope not, for the sake of our competitive political system. Clark strikes me as a political opportunist par excellence - keeping his real convictions hidden while pandering to whatever audience he happens to be in front of.

Howard Dean, Joe Lieberman, Dick Gephardt, even Carol Moseley-Braun are, in my opinion, wrong on a wide variety of issues and I will not vote for any of them, but I respect them for being relatively consistent. Kerry, Clark, and others have been wishy-washy on Iraq and other themes in an attempt to find traction. Kucinich and Sharpton are utterly unelectable. The Democrats are facing some serious electoral defeats - the midterm elections last year were particularly damaging, and throw in the CA recall and last week's gubernatorial elections. They need to reassess what their core values are and then find candidates who reflect those values, not chameleons who happen to fit the glove today. The same goes for the Republicans, by the way; Bush has disappointed in many areas, but most of his base will agree that he's better than the alternative.

--B2707SST



Keynes is dead and we are living in his long run.
User currently offlineFlyingbronco05 From United States of America, joined May 2002, 3840 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 1156 times:

As long as a Democrat takes over and Bush is not re-elected, I don't really care.

My vote goes to Joe Lieberman.

FB05



Never Trust Your Fuel Gauge
User currently offlineHaveric From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 1247 posts, RR: 4
Reply 12, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 1152 times:

Slowly, but surely, Dick Gephardt's campaign has been picking up steam. He's a well-experienced politican who did not make a mistake like Dean, who seems to have peaked too early....

You heard it here first..... keep an eye on Dick...


User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 1149 times:

You heard it here first..... keep an eye on Dick...

We already had a Dick as President back in the 1970's, and he was a disaster. Let's steer away from having another "Tricky Dick" as President.  Big grin


User currently offlineCoRocks From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 1215 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 1135 times:

I think that having Joe Lieberman in the White House would be the worst thing we could do. Nothing against him or Jews, but he would never, ever be able to have any influence in the middle east.

User currently offlinePHX-LJU From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 1129 times:

In my view, these candidates have a real chance of getting the nomination (in no particular order):

Clark (IMHO has the best chances of defeating Bush in the General Election; can't be portrayed as anti-military; very intelligent; made some early mistakes, but has decent grassroots support; can win Arkansas and a few other Southern states; my candidate)

Dean (massive grassroots support; outsider image; opposed the war early on; a fighter; will be portrayed as too liberal and inexperienced by Bush; will have a very hard time defeating him; won't play in the South; still my second choice if Clark doesn't make it)

Kerry (experienced but remote; Washington insider image hurts him)

These candidates have an outside chance of getting the nomination 9in no particular order):

Edwards (seems to be too inexperienced; tries to be Clintonesque but usually fails)

Gephardt (can one get more typically Washington and old-school Democrat than this?)

These candidates have no chance of getting the nomination (in no particular order):

Lieberman (too conservative; strongly supported the war and still does; seen as "Bush Lite" by many; intelligent but has no charisma; dropped massively in the polls since announcing)

Kucinich (too left-wing; has the guts to speak his mind, but isn't presidential material)

Sharpton (funny, but not presidential material)

Moseley-Braun (intelligent; a good fit for a cabinet position)

Just my two cents. And, yes, I would vote for anyone in order to get rid of Bush.

[Edited 2003-11-10 22:40:03]

User currently offlineN6376m From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 1117 times:

While I agree the Clark and Dean are the front runners, I don't seem Clark as having the infrastructure to win the nomination. The democratic party primaries usually make the candidate go hard left to get the nomination.

This obviously puts Dean in the lead. However, I'll throw the question out for discussion, of these candidates, who do you think that the Bush administration wants to run against. I think that they'd love to go after Dean for his social policies.

If Dean gets the nomination, his choice of VP will be crucial if he's going to have any chance in winning. In fact, Dean may choose Clark or Bob Graham. Clark will act as a foil to Dean's "metrosexual" image, but in this day and age of electoral math, Clark really doesn't bring anything to the table. Bob Graham on the other hand would make Florida the key to the whole election. It would be one of Florida's favorite sons campaigning against the President's brother.

I'll also submit that Arnold's election to the CA Governor position will make the democrats spend much more time and money in CA than they would have liked. If the democrats can't win CA, then nothing else matters because of the numbers of electoral votes it brings.

At the end of the day, the best chance the democrats may have to winning the election may be to run Hillary as the VP nominee (she'll never do it because if she wins, she's can't run for president for at least 8 years).

Just some thoughts.

-76M


User currently offlineB757300 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 4114 posts, RR: 22
Reply 17, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 1126 times:

Well, there is something about Clark that just doesn't smell right. First General Hugh Shelton said that Clark has serious character issues and he would never vote for Clark and now General Tommy Franks has come out and said something similar. In a recent interview by the New Yorker Franks was asked whether or not Clark would make a good President and his reply was "Absolutely Not!".

And don't forget British General Michael Jackson. He served under Clark in Kosovo and when Clark ordered him to attack the Russians @ the Pristina Airport, Jackson replied "I'm not going to start World War III for you. Shortly afterwards Clark was removed from his position as Supreme NATO commander by the Pentagon.



"There is no victory at bargain basement prices."
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 1114 times:

Let's steer away from having another "Tricky Dick" as President

ya mean like 1993-2001?  Big grin


User currently offlineAloha717200 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4524 posts, RR: 15
Reply 19, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 1108 times:

For the very first time, I actually agree with B757300. Those are the exact issues what got me concerned even after I started losing some support for Clark after his "time travel" statements.

Clark seems to be a good guy but hearing these generals talk negatively of him makes me seriously wonder about the facade he's putting on.

I may just have to vote for Dean after all. This is definitely going to be a "hold your nose, close your eyes and vote" kind of election.


User currently offlinePHX-LJU From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 1105 times:

B757300 wrote:

"Well, there is something about Clark that just doesn't smell right. First General Hugh Shelton said that Clark has serious character issues and he would never vote for Clark and now General Tommy Franks has come out and said something similar. In a recent interview by the New Yorker Franks was asked whether or not Clark would make a good President and his reply was "Absolutely Not!".

Well, something definitely doesn't smell right with some of these generals' statements. They have no problems attacking Clark's character in general, but they never provide any details. Don't forget that many generals are Republican, and until they can back up their slanderous statements with specifics, it should all be discounted as either partisanship or personal grudges (which are common among strong-minded men in the military).

Keep in mind that there is no firm evidence whatsoever that would suggest that Clark has any character issues. Instead, there is plenty of evidence that he sticks to his principles even if he has to disagree with those around him (for example, during the Kosovo crisis). That, I believe, is the ultimate reason behind many of these statements.

There is, by the way, plenty about the current administration that not only doesn't smell right, but outright stinks. That's why any of these candidates would be an improvement over what we've got now.


User currently offlineCba From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 4531 posts, RR: 3
Reply 21, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 1097 times:

Either Dean or Clark. Dean will take the primaries, but Clark will be able to easier get the important swing voters. Dean is portrayed as too liberal by many.

User currently offlineB2707SST From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 1369 posts, RR: 59
Reply 22, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1088 times:

It's looking more and more like Dean will win the nomination, which is not good news for the Dems in the general election. Swing voters are key in November, but primaries are won by partisans, not moderates. Dick Morris' strategy of triangulation devised for Clinton in 1992 -- start your campaign as a moderate, move to the extremes to win the primaries, then move back to the center to net swing votes -- has become political law. Of course, more factors are involved than just ideology, which is why some far-lefties like Kucinich have zero chance, but Lieberman and Edwards are both moderates who will not win the nomination either.

Clark's campaign has been a series of bungles and exaggerations. Some examples are given in a Washington Dispatch article. I have never seen the site before and I am unaware of its political leanings, but facts are facts and Clark publicly made each statement below:

*************************

--He claimed on Meet the Press in June that he received a phone call from the White House encouraging him to push the idea that there was “a concerted effort during the fall of 2001, starting immediately after 9/11, to pin 9/11 and the terrorism problem on Saddam Hussein.” No call was placed from the White House.

--He then claimed the call came from “around the White House.” He couldn’t really pin that down either.

--Then Clark stated that the call came from “a Middle-East think tank in Canada." Finally Thomas Hecht, founder of the Begin-Sadat Centre for Strategic Studies, told the Toronto Star he placed the call to Clark. The think tank is in Montreal, which if you are looking at a globe, is not near the White House.

--He said he would have been a Republican only if Karl Rove would have returned his phone calls; trouble is, there were no phone calls logged to Karl Rove from the General. Transcripts and phone logs really hurt the General’s credibility. [See the Weekly Standard article on this issue]

--He also told KTAR radio in Phoenix that the White House tried to get him fired from his job as an analyst for CNN but when pressed admitted he had no proof of the accusation, but had heard “rumors.”

Now Wes is firing up the rumor mill again. The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reported that Clark told an audience of 400 supporters in Arkansas on Monday night that “the Bush administration contemplated overturning as many as seven Middle Eastern and African governments,” soon after the attacks on America on 9/11. The report by Paul Barton continued by stating that Clark “learned while visiting with Pentagon acquaintances in the fall of 2001 that such thinking had already been put on paper, at least in a very preliminary form.”

But the reporters wanted more, demanding that Clark show some proof besides another imaginary allegation. Once pressed--Clark admitted he had never seen any memo with a plan to attack the seven mentioned nations. But he did list them off for the crowd. The seven supposedly are Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan.

Clark kept going, “But they told me there was something, some kind of a memo or something. I never saw it. I said, ‘Stop, I don’t want see anything more. I just didn’t want to get into it,” the Democrat-Gazette reported in its Monday edition.

*************************

According to the Washington Post, after months of opposing the Iraq war as a CNN commentator, on Sept. 16 Clark made the following statement regarding Congress' use-of-force authorization:

"I don't know if I would have or not. I've said it both ways because when you get into this, what happens is you have to put yourself in a position — on balance, I probably would have voted for it."

The next day, he said "Let's make one thing real clear: I would never have voted for this war. I've gotten a very consistent record on this. There was no imminent threat. This was not a case of preemptive war. I would have voted for the right kind of leverage to get a diplomatic solution, an international solution to the challenge of Saddam Hussein."

Every politician waffles at some point, but this was an amazing 360-degree flip-flop-flip in the space of 24 hours. Clark is in over his head. His poll numbers are dropping and he's skipping out on the Iowa caucuses. Unless his results in New Hampshire are stunning, Clark will be finished early in the primary season. I would not rule him out as a VP candidate, though.

--B2707SST



Keynes is dead and we are living in his long run.
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 40065 posts, RR: 74
Reply 23, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1084 times:

I'll vote for the one most likely to beat Bush.

I like them all.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineCba From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 4531 posts, RR: 3
Reply 24, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 1081 times:

I hope Dean has the sense to try to appear moderate after the primaries...

25 Cfalk : General Clark is way out of his league. Even the liberal mags like Time admit that he was promoted to his high rank not because of ability but because
26 Post contains links PHX-LJU : Cfalk wrote: "He has chronic foot-in-mouth disease and took major decisions on his own without consulting his superiors." And did those decisions hurt
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Which Men's Magazine Subscription To Get? posted Sun Apr 24 2005 20:48:17 by Mika
Which Members Would You Most Like To Meet? (again) posted Wed Nov 27 2002 20:29:32 by EGGD
Skinny/Underweight Women More Likely To Miscarry posted Tue Dec 5 2006 22:25:24 by Superfly
What To Get Your Boss - Secret Santa posted Wed Nov 29 2006 17:11:50 by Kieron747
How To Get A Gmail E-mail Address? posted Sat Nov 25 2006 11:55:22 by Swissgabe
Is It That Hard To Get Soldiers In Germany? posted Thu Nov 9 2006 00:30:53 by Oly720man
Any Easy Way To Get Video (VHS) To PC? posted Thu Nov 2 2006 15:27:43 by Thom@s
How To Get Oil Off A Car Window posted Fri Oct 27 2006 20:51:43 by KLM672
Villeneuve To Get Ass Kicked In Nascrap posted Wed Oct 4 2006 13:25:50 by Nosedive
Graduate Women More Likely To Orgasm: Official posted Mon Sep 25 2006 12:53:10 by Nighthawk