The Democrat Gene pool.

[Kibbo]

From here, it looks like Kerry is a longshot. The campaign isn't over, but it's certainly battered.

What I am thinking is that if Bush wins again it was possibly due more to Kerry's lacklustre campaign than anything else. But then I think about who else they could have had. Neither Lieberman nor Mr. "primal scream" really had much of a shot either. So what gives with the shallow pool of talent for the Dems?

I can think of three Repubs (Powell, Clark and Giuliani) who would be considered "talent" in '08. The closest the Dems have is Ms. Clinton, and she comes with a lot of baggage. So what gives?

 

[CanOWorms]

Who is the Republican Clark? My mind is drawing a blank.

 

[conjur]

I've always wondered why Biden didn't throw his hat into the ring.

People like Gephardt or Daschle are too weak. Gen. Clark looked good but he didn't connect for some reason. Perhaps the Democratic party is just trying to cover too much and needs to be split? There's the anti-war, environmental, more liberal faction and then there's the side that leans more conservative, esp. on the fiscal side.

Have we reached a point where our 2-party system just doesn't cover all of the bases?

 

[alchemize]

Man the dems are ready to call it a day all over this board. Lots of stuff will happen between now and Nov. After all, Bush still has to:

1) discover some late massive WMD stockpiles
2) Reveal a captured bin laden

I heard this on the radio the other day - same names mentioned Kibbo (arnie was mentioned also). Perhaps the Dem's best bet is to reform the Republicans from within? (the more left-leaning repubs)

 

[Taggart]

Don't forget McCain for the GOP.

You're right, there wasn't much to choose from for the Democratic primaries. Edwards was running for VP from the beginning. It seems to come down to the idea that the best potential candidates never run in the first place.

I think the Dems have all their heavy artillery sunk into the House of Clinton right now...they would run Bill forever if there wasn't the 2 term limit. I seriously believe that Clinton would be able to win 3, 4, however many terms if he could. He is just that appealing to so many Americans (though I was never a fan of his while he was in office).

I think the party has a big problem with hardline liberals in their ranks, politics that are a big turnoff to the average American. I think that is their main problem. When I think of the Democratic Party I think of left-wing politics.

 

[csf]

Originally posted by: Kibbo
From here, it looks like Kerry is a longshot. The campaign isn't over, but it's certainly battered.

What I am thinking is that if Bush wins again it was possibly due more to Kerry's lacklustre campaign than anything else. But then I think about who else they could have had. Neither Lieberman nor Mr. "primal scream" really had much of a shot either. So what gives with the shallow pool of talent for the Dems?

I can think of three Repubs (Powell, Clark and Giuliani) who would be considered "talent" in '08. The closest the Dems have is Ms. Clinton, and she comes with a lot of baggage. So what gives?

Here's my thoughts:

1. Incumbents will naturally have the advantage. The incumbent only has to argue for the status quo; the challenger has to prove a) that the incumbent is too flawed to lead the nation and that b) he is a superior alternative to the incumbent. For the most part, that requires both an extremely charismatic and attractive candidate and an extremely unpopular president (Clinton over Bush, Reagan over Carter). We can argue over the merits of Bush, but the fact remains that he does have a very strong mainstream support base; I think regardless of partisan bias, we can agree that Kerry just isn't a very inspiring and promising character: most people behind him are voting against Bush and not for Kerry.

2. Given the circumstances of #1, many potential candidates may not be willing to risk themselves against Bush, and would rather wait until 2008. Also, a lot of rising stars in the Democratic party don't yet have the experience necessary to run (Obama, Ford, maybe Edwards).

3. As Taggart said, the Democratic party has noticeably moved to the left, which is not at all in touch with mainstream America, especially the swing voters. Clinton won by running as a moderate and gaining support of rural and southern regions; while Kerry is a "Massachusetts liberal" and this year's DNC featured people like AL SHARPTON as main speakers. The RNC chose their speakers much more wisely, having pro-choicer's and general moderates like Schwarzenegger and Giuliani (and "Democrats" like Miller) endorse Bush. This decision shows the image that the party is more open to conflicting viewpoints within itself, and that people who don't agree with all of Bush's stances can still support him. I'd have to say that the GOP seems to have the bigger tent than the Democrats. One of the main reasons I'm pulling for Bush is that I want to see the Democrats realize that their support of the loony left is a huge turnoff, and that they won't have as much popular legitimacy until they back off from that. Again, as Taggart said, the word "Democrat" makes me think of "angry socialist." The thought of having that wing of the party in control is far more frightening to me than anything Bush could do. I'm voting against the left as much as I am for Bush.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Kibbo
From here, it looks like Kerry is a longshot. The campaign isn't over, but it's certainly battered.

What I am thinking is that if Bush wins again it was possibly due more to Kerry's lacklustre campaign than anything else. But then I think about who else they could have had. Neither Lieberman nor Mr. "primal scream" really had much of a shot either. So what gives with the shallow pool of talent for the Dems?

I can think of three Repubs (Powell, Clark and Giuliani) who would be considered "talent" in '08. The closest the Dems have is Ms. Clinton, and she comes with a lot of baggage. So what gives?

The problem is obvious. The Corporate Thugs that own the Government own both sides of the Political Fence, that keeps the attack dogs in check and hand picked by said Corporate Thugs.

 

[Red Dawn]

Actually both parties are running pretty thin in the Competent Leadership Gene Pool. Hell the best the Republicans can do is Bush. In this Campaign the best argument either Candidate can put out for electing them President is that they are not their opponent.

 

[maluckey]

The Far left swing that the Democrats let happen, alienated many Conservative Democrats. The South was lost the day that Kerry was nominated. There were better choices, but the Democrats never embraced them. They had to be at least Moderate in their choices if they hope to beat a War-Time President.

The Clinton Legacy was a boon for the Democrats, and apparently the Clintons were in charge of the party, which was not a bad thing. Once they stopped running it however, the leadership lost it's grip on what's real. Real is not what Hollyweird or the press thinks.

The Democratic party would do well to enlist the help of he Clintons to reform the party. Even though I doubt that Hillary Clinton would make a good showing as a presidential candidate, her and her husbands roles as Kingmakers would ensure the Democrats a viable candidate in the future.

Until then, you will get Kerrys, Deans, and the like. They are great Flash-in-the-pans, but lack the staying power of a Moderate.

 

[lordtyranus]

I don't think Hillary would have a chance at beating any of the strong republicans like Mccain and Guliani.

 

[Moonbeam]

There is no talent in politics. Half the population doesn't vote. The half that does chooses among swine. Politics as about guns for hire to protect or enlarge a piece of the pie, not about expanding it. As long as money does the hiring, as dmcowan said above, we will never have any talent in there. We get experts in propagandizing for moneyed interests instead.

 

[DealMonkey]

I don't think the Dems should necessarily throw in the towel yet. I mean, quite a bit can happen in two months. I suspect it will be an interesting roller coaster ride right up to November 2nd.

 

[shiner]

If the Dems were smart they would get behind someone like Breaux. Met the guy a couple of times and he seems to be a sincere intelligent man.

 

[Golgo13]

Well, if Kerry loses, Hillary defintely has a leg up. The reasoning behind a Hillary run and success is based on how the public reacts to another 4 years of BUSH's ultra right-wing rule. Four more years of ultra right-wing rule might make Hillary more palletable. So far, It appears the public is buying the RNC Convention's fear mongering, compassionate face make-over again but will they after another 4 years? If the public doesn't acknowledge the cold reality of Bush rule now, will they wake up in 2008? For the country's sake, let's hope they wake up in the next 50 days.

Having sad that, there are other choices besides HIllary. I think Joe Biden is an alternative as an articulate choice - kinda surprised he didn't run this time. Then, as Kerry's running mate, Edwards would be in the driver seat. I also think Evan Biea (sp?) from Indiana is another possbility, but his low key moderate approach might turn off some. Then you have Howard Dean who is still beloved my many on the left. The guy got a raw deal and was labled a lefty liberal unfairly just because of his IRAQ war stance. In reality, if you look at his governing recrd, the guy is moderate. If he can become a little more media savvy and less blunt, he has a chance. In any case, the man has gained a newfound respect regarding his IRAQ stance and predictions, but yeah, "THE SCREAM" will haunt him. The Gov of MIchigan (Governor Granholm) would be great but she was born in Canada. Then you have the dark horses like Gov. Richardson of New Mexico or Gov. Vilsak of IOWA. I agree, however, that the overall Democrat talent pool needs to improve for all offices.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: lordtyranus
I don't think Hillary would have a chance at beating any of the strong republicans like Mccain and Guliani.

Neither has strong Republican support . . . McCain sold his soul for support in 2008 but I don't see the Santorum and Arsecroft wing allowing either McCain or Guliani to win the GOPie nomination.

I think there are two reasons why the Dem lineup is weak:
1) Dems with talent are busy using their talent for other purposes.
2) Dems with talent (and a strong constitution) refused to be "managed".

When I mentioned my theory to some SF Dems (over some good Ethiopian, of course) . . . they said, "what about Clinton." My response was that Clinton could be "managed" primarily b/c his wife has been "managing" him for decades.

 

[Infohawk]

I think Edwards and then Clark were the strongest of the pack and my initial reactions after the primary results came in was man, "I don't think Kerry can beat Bush but I hope I'm wrong."

Edwards had that Clintonesque southern charm that would work on the Nascar throngs. Clark also was a southerner with a military background (but I thought they would make fun of some oddities in his work in Serbia). I also think Dean, had he had a little more experience in national politics, could have been a contender (he wasn't as liberal as he made himself appear to be [or his campaign] for that matter.

I'm not saying the election is over but with all the crap that's gone badly in the last four years it's amazing Bush is still where he is (and up as of late).

So I think the OP's challenging of the gene pool misses the point. Some hicks in Iowa decided for the whole country that our candidate should be Kerry. The primaries need a reform.

 

[Taggart]

Originally posted by: shinerburke
If the Dems were smart they would get behind someone like Breaux. Met the guy a couple of times and he seems to be a sincere intelligent man.

But will he run? There are many politicians out there that would do a good job if they became president. The questions to consider are

1. Do they have the money or can they raise it?
2. Will they have the support of the party base?
3. Will their public persona sabotage their chances? (think Dean)
4. What kind of skeletons do they have in their closet?
5. Do they even want to run?
6. etc.

 

[csf]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
I think Edwards and then Clark were the strongest of the pack and my initial reactions after the primary results came in was man, "I don't think Kerry can beat Bush but I hope I'm wrong."

Edwards had that Clintonesque southern charm that would work on the Nascar throngs. Clark also was a southerner with a military background (but I thought they would make fun of some oddities in his work in Serbia). I also think Dean, had he had a little more experience in national politics, could have been a contender (he wasn't as liberal as he made himself appear to be [or his campaign] for that matter.

I'm not saying the election is over but with all the crap that's gone badly in the last four years it's amazing Bush is still where he is (and up as of late).

So I think the OP's challenging of the gene pool misses the point. Some hicks in Iowa decided for the whole country that our candidate should be Kerry. The primaries need a reform.

Heh, I read a really interesting and detailed article analyzing why Kerry was able to defeat the then leader Dean in the Iowa primaries. One of the reasons was that Kerry worked on building contacts inside the state and using existing local political leaders to reach out to the Iowans. Dean just brought his out of state volunteer crew to campaign in the state and advertise for him, and many voting Iowans had a backlash against outsiders telling them what their interests were and how they should vote.

Maybe if so many leftists would stop condescending to residents in the midwest and south and writing them off as "hicks" or "Nascar throngs," they'd actually be able to get some support there?

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: csf

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Maybe if so many leftists would stop condescending to residents in the midwest and south and writing them off as "hicks" or "Nascar throngs," they'd actually be able to get some support there?

That's why I thought Edwards and Clark were better choices. They could "relate" better to the Nascar types. (And whatever about the condescension. Maybe if Bush stopped his bible thumping he could get support in the blue states. This is politics.)

Interesting about Kerry vs. Dean in Iowa. Here's an idea. What if the Democrats had a one day primary where only the red states voted. That way the chosen candidate would have the best chances getting swing states.

 

[Perknose]

Moonbeam has said it many times, we get the only the elected officials we deserve. In a more civilized polity, John Forbes Kerry would be seen to be a distinguished and perfectly qualified candidate.

John Butler Yeats put it best:

The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all convictions, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Indeed. In July and August, when all of Bush's profligate spending landed him but in second place in a two man race, not one Repug here betrayed the slightest bit of doubt or angst in their man or his prospects, "the worst are full of passionate intensity".

If John Fitzgerald Kennedy were alive and would dare to oppose George Bush today, the Republican attack machine would dismantle him. He would be branded an elitist Taxachusettes liberal out of touch with mainstream America. As a Catholic, his blind allegiance to the alein papist cabal would be darkly highlighted as proof positive of his fundamental lack of American patriotism.

Wholly independent groups of outraged common citizens having only numerous ties to the Bush camp would decry the fact that this Hyannisport playboy recklessly lost his boat and endangered his crew in combat. Think PT boat veterans for the truth.

Can't you just hear the red faced hordes on this board coming back again and again to his wife, Jacqueline BOUVIER Kennedy, that dissolute FRENCH society waif?

Kennedy would be totally tarred with his father Joe's isolationist stance at the beginning of WWII: Kennedy Isolationism Exposed -- the Nazi Connection.

Richard Nixon, dirty dog demagogue of yore, has NOTHING on the slick and souless cabal that his hijacked the GOP today. My mind reels and my heart aches, and I can only turn to Yeats, who today would surely ask:

What rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards a second term?

 

[csf]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: csf

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Maybe if so many leftists would stop condescending to residents in the midwest and south and writing them off as "hicks" or "Nascar throngs," they'd actually be able to get some support there?

That's why I thought Edwards and Clark were better choices. They could "relate" better to the Nascar types. (And whatever about the condescension. Maybe if Bush stopped his bible thumping he could get support in the blue states. This is politics.)

Interesting about Kerry vs. Dean in Iowa. Here's an idea. What if the Democrats had a one day primary where only the red states voted. That way the chosen candidate would have the best chances getting swing states.

I'll try to find the article if possible. It was very interesting and insightful into how local politics works and the effects they can have on more serious, national issues.

I stand by my comments that the issue of percieved antagonism is more problematic for the Democrats than the Republicans. Gore's failure to win Arkansas and Tennessee in 2000 should be a pretty big hint, as should the high probablity that Kerry will lose Edwards' home state of NC in November.

The Republicans do shameless pandering, as do all political parties, but at the same time, you don't see them expressing overt hostility to voters who don't share their views. I guess one anology would be if Republicans were to complain about how those damn <insert racial epithet> shouldn't be allowed to vote in response to low minority support instead of projecting the image of trying to woo them with an "open tent."

Another good tactic is distancing the party from extremist members. One example with the RNC was when CNN interviewed Alan Keyes during the convention, and, not surprisingly, Keyes made some moronic and offensive remarks. Bill Frist, who was sitting up in the commentary booth, immediately spoke up to say that Keyes' views were in no way representative of the party, and that the party did not support that kind of "hate and bigotry." The DNC, as I mentioned earlier, let noted race-baiter and inciter of violence Al Sharpton be a main speaker for the convention. They should be pushing people like him far, far away for the sake of the party, not clutching him as one of their own. The same goes for the anti-Bush protestors, who in general frighten off mainstream voters.

If I were in charge of the DNC, I'd distance the party away from the far left, tone down the quasi-socialist leanings, and swallow my pride and acknowledge that if I want to win the South and Midwest to give me the votes I need to win, I just can't express an over air of animosity and disdain towards its citizens.