PDA

View Full Version : US Presidential Elections 2004



Pages : [1] 2

chesslover
01-01-2004, 09:16 PM
carry over from the ACF website, about the US presidential elections - where the most important person in the world will be elected
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are 9 candidates remaining for the Democrat nomination:

1. Howard Dean
2. General Wesley Clark
3. Senator John Kerry
4. Representative Richard Gepherdt
5. Senator Joe Lieberman (vice president candidate to Gore in 2000)
6. Senator John Edwards
7. Representative Dennis Kucinich
8. Carol Braun (african american)
9. reverend Al Sharpton (african american)

President Bush has no serious opposition for the Republican nomination

chesslover
01-01-2004, 09:17 PM
using the political compass test of Kevin this is how the presidential candidates show up:

President Bush - very right/ very authoritarian (the most right and most authoritarian of all 10)

John Edwards, Joe Liberman, Richard Gepherdt - very right/ very autoritarian

Howard Dean, Wesley Clark, John Kerry, Carol Braun - right/ authoritarian

Rev Sharpton, Dennis Kusinch - left/ libertarian

The most left/ libertarian is the african american rev sharpton

chesslover
01-01-2004, 09:19 PM
Dean, what does he stand for:

Since dean seems to be the Democrat favourite, these are his views:

1. Civil Rights - supports affirmative action, favours gays serving in the military, supports adoption by gays, says racial profiling is discrimination, opposes the right wing act to make marriage only between hetrosexuals

2. Social issues - supports abortion, death penalty only for extreme crimes, will not decriminalise drugs except if it is for public health, no change to the gun laws

3. Environment - stop drilling in the Artic, develop renewable energy, end gas exepmtions to cars, give conservation incentives to car owners, undo Bush's energy policy

4. Economy - add more people to health care assistance, repeal Bush's tax cuts, invest and create more jobs in the infrastructure, guarantee social security for retirees

5. Internal Security - against military tribunals, does not want enemies termed "combatants", protect immigrants rights, wants more migrants to be citizens, repeal the patriots act if it infringes on basic liberties

6. International - opposes US war in Iraq, more support for troops in Afghansitan, more engagment equally with Israel and Palestines, end Bush's "first strike" policy to preempt enemy nation attacks

chesslover
01-01-2004, 09:22 PM
here is a test that has been designed to see which US presidential candidate has policies and actions that you espouse.

Simply pick yes/no answers to the political/ economical/ social questions asked, and whether that issue is of high/medium/ low importance, and the website will do an automatic search and tell you which candidate shares your positions. It takes about 3 minutes to do

http://www.selectsmart.com/president/

People will be surprised by the selections.

The fact is that no one candidate will share 100% of your politcal/social/economical/ foreign policy views, and the website will list from highest to lowest which candidates are most suitable for you.

The website states "If your top candidate scores in the 90ís or above, youíll be delighted; the 80ís, youíll be very pleased; the 70ís, youíll be satisfied; the 60ís, youíll find many points of agreement but some differences too with this candidate's positions. If your top score is in the 50ís, your top candidate is the "lesser of evils". If your top candidate did not get at least 50%, then all we can is that you have a unique combination of political views."

Hoep you find your US presidential soulmate

chesslover
02-01-2004, 09:08 PM
filings from the funding raised show that Dean has raised $15 million in the 3 months leading up to december

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/01/elec04.prez.dean.fundraising/index.html

Kevin Bonham
02-01-2004, 09:28 PM
(brought over)

Urgh. My social policies are so far to the left by US political standards that it erroneously pegged me as a Green (72%) or Socialist (68%) - perhaps that political compass pegging us all as lefties had more to do with the USA being economically to the right of Australia?

Among the Democrat candidates that matter I got:

Dean 64%
Clark 63%
remaining Dems in the mid-50s except for:
Kerry 49%
Lieberman 37%

For Bush I got 19% :D

chesslover
05-01-2004, 06:07 PM
Wesley Clark has stated that he will not accpet the Vice Presidential nomination. It is the presidential nomination or nothing - no compromise, all or nothing!!

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/04/elec04.prez.clark/index.html

jan 19 is the Iowa caucus which polls show is a head to head between dean and Gepherdt, while Clark like Liberman is concentrating on the New Hampshire Primary of January 27

chesslover
06-01-2004, 07:05 PM
the first polls for 2004 is in

shows that of the 9 democrat candidates, dean has 22% of the democrat votes, more than double the next best democrat candidates. This however is lower than the 33% that dean had at his peak, prior to the capture of Saddam, but he is still well ahead when democrat voters are given a choice on who they want to win in the 9 strong field.

In a two way match up with the Dean's top 4 rivals, Dean leads Clark 46% to 32%, leads Kerry 51% to 29%, Lieberman 50% to 32%, and Gepherdt 53% to 28%.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/05/elec04.poll.democrats.poll/index.html

chesslover
08-01-2004, 06:43 PM
The funds that have been raised as at Dec 31, 2003 have t be filed, and these are the latest filings

President Bush has so far raised $130 million so far - far more than the US RECORD $100 million raised in 2000 for the entire Presidetial campaign - primaries and then the fight with Gore

Thus President Bush has broken the US fund raising record once again, and this too in a race where he does not face even one opponent for the Republican Nomination.

By contrast all the democrats combined have raised less than President Bush alone, and these democrats have to use the money to pound each other to get the Demoicrat nomination.

Dean so farhas broken all democrat fund raising records with his innovative campign fund raisings, but still has had "only" $40 million. This money whilst far far more than Gore, Clinton, Mondale or carter have raised, pales into insignificance when you consider the mammoth war chest that Bush now has to unleash on his Democrat opponents. Dean will have to use almost all his money to win the Democrat nomination.

With another 7 months remaining, President Bush who became the first and only man to get the magic $100 million in fund raising, is now on target to become the only man to get $200 million in campaign funding.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/07/elec04.prez.fundraising/index.html

chesslover
10-01-2004, 06:40 PM
Dean's oppoenenets are fighting dirty. His derisive comments on teh Iowa cacus, have been aired by NBC - forcing Dean to put the fire.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/09/elec04.prez.dean.iowa/index.html

The Iowa cacus is on January 19, and the polls are showing the Richard Gepherdt has narrowed the gap significantly, with Kerry third.

In the New Hapmshire Primary on jan 27, polls are showing that Clark is getting the momentum on Dean, and is closing up on him fast, with Kerry still third there.

chesslover
10-01-2004, 06:48 PM
This is the latest CNN/USA today Gallup polls, with the comparative results of the polling done two weeks ago on 15 december in brackets

very intersting

Howard Dean 24% (27%)
Wesley Clark 20% (12%)
John Kerry 11% (7%)
Joe Lieberman 10% (12%)
Dick Gephardt 9% (7%)
John Edwards 6% (6%)
Carol Moseley Braun 3% (3%)
Al Sharpton 2% (6%)
Dennis Kucinich 2% (2%)
Other/None/No opinion 15% (18%)

Howard Dean leads nationally, but his lead has been eroded substantially -with Clark the biggest beneficiary.

chesslover
10-01-2004, 07:00 PM
This is the latest CNN/USA today Gallup polls, with the comparative results of the polling done two weeks ago on 15 december in brackets

very intersting

Howard Dean 24% (27%)
Wesley Clark 20% (12%)
John Kerry 11% (7%)
Joe Lieberman 10% (12%)
Dick Gephardt 9% (7%)
John Edwards 6% (6%)
Carol Moseley Braun 3% (3%)
Al Sharpton 2% (6%)
Dennis Kucinich 2% (2%)
Other/None/No opinion 15% (18%)

Howard Dean leads nationally, but his lead has been eroded substantially -with Clark the biggest beneficiary.

For pespective, this is the highest and lowest polls that the leading Democrat contenders got since polling began on August 2003

Dean (peak 31% November/ low 12% August)
Clark (peak 22% September/ low 2% August)
Kerry (peak 13% October/ low 7% December)
Lieberman (peak 23% August/ low 10% January 2004)
Gepherdt (peak 16% Sepetember/ low 7% December)
Edwards (peak 7% December/ low 2% October)

The story has been one of Liberman(as Gore's VP nominee for 2000) and Gepherdt (the democrat leader in congress for many yeears) starting high due to the high name recongition, and then falling as Dean and C;lark with a low ratings, have through their campaign buiilt up their votes.

chesslover
14-01-2004, 08:45 PM
CNN poll shows that TWO THIRDS of all americans think that President Bush has the right personal qualities to be the president

Contrast that with teh ridicule and contempt that President Bush has been subjected elsewhere in the world

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/13/elec04.poll.bush.issues/index.html

chesslover
15-01-2004, 08:51 PM
and there is 8...

Carol Braun, the only african american female senator in US history, will pull out thursday US time, and endorse dean in a joint press conference

This news is leading the CNN coverage.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/15/elec04.prez.main/index.html

With Iowa next Monday, more of the 8 current runners should pull out, if they poll badly. However Clark and Liberman are not running on Iowa, and are campaigning in New hampshire, so their initial moment of truth will be a week later after Iowa

chesslover
15-01-2004, 09:04 PM
The first real guns in the US presidential elections have been fired!!!!!! :D :D :D :D :D

Under legislation the first cacus for republicans and democrats is the Iowa caucus, and the first primary is the New Hapmshire Primary

However heavily african american Washington DC, has a "indicatative" "non binding" primary to steal the thunder of Iowa and New hapmshire - and as no delegates are elected till the February caucus it has no meaning. Also it is the only state/ territory in USA with more such a huge african american majority and is thus unrepresentative of the rest of USA.

However a significant 12% of the peoplevoted - far more than the 8% who normnally vote, showing that Dean and Sharpton has energised their base.

Only 4 of the then 9 candidates stood for election - Dean, Sharpton the black priest, Braun the black ex-senator, and Kucinich the left wing winger

And the winner in this ...DEAN!! DEAN!!!

Dean got 43% of this huge african american voters in this city

Sharpton got 34%, Braun got 12% and Kucinich got 8%

Dean has shrugged off the allegations that he does not have any black cabinet member whilsy Governor of vermont - a state with 94% of it's residents white.

A good morale booster for dean - even though this is a meaningless vote - going into the Iowa caucus vote on january 19

Kevin Bonham
15-01-2004, 09:26 PM
CL do you think that after the first few rounds of primaries etc all the others are going to be more or less KOd leaving a more or less straight fight of Dean vs Clark? The rest just don't seem to be getting anything happening at the moment.

chesslover
15-01-2004, 10:15 PM
CL do you think that after the first few rounds of primaries etc all the others are going to be more or less KOd leaving a more or less straight fight of Dean vs Clark? The rest just don't seem to be getting anything happening at the moment.

I have since 1992 followed the US Presidential elections from inception closely, and normally get excited as one by one the contenders fall off :D

In Iowa however it seems from all the polling that dean is in for a tough fight with Gepherdt, who won the state in 1988. Polls are showing that it is neck and neck there between these 2, with Kerry a long way off - and clark and lieberman not contesting to focus on New Hampshire.

The capture of saddam, the energising momentum of Clark, the ganging up on Dean have all taken their toll on Dean. If he loses Iowa, where he had double digit leads pre-saddam, it will be a big blow for him, and will allow Gepherdt, the former Democrat leader in Congress, to get the momentum to continue on.

Kerry also needs to fire soon, as otherwise like you stated it would be a Clark vs Dean fight to the end. However as Iowa polling is showing, you cannot right off Gepherdt, and Kerry too has amassed more money than anyone other than Dean.

The rest should all be out by this time next month, following Braun who is quitting before the first official voting ( :rolleyes: ) - including Lieberman

So far I think Clark who has the slight lead for the democrat nomination due to his succesful establishment as the main anti-dean candidate, his mainstream acceptability, and his military background to confront Bush on national security issues that Bush will undountedly use.

Dean with his commited grass r.oots campaigners and the record breaking money in democrat history and endorsements is obviously the other contender - with Kerry and Gepherdt the dark horses in case Clark falls so that they can rally the anti-dean mainstream democrats.

chesslover
16-01-2004, 10:27 PM
4 way DEAD HEAT in Iowa caucus polling, with just 4 days to go for the Iowa vote

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/16/elec04.prez.main/index.html

Latest polling shows a statistical dead heat between Dean, Gepherdt, Kerry and Edwards in Iowa!!!! This is stunning news, and has all political pundits in US gasping

The race for the US Democrat nomination just got a whole lot exciting

Kevin Bonham
17-01-2004, 03:33 AM
CL (and anyone else interested), nice long article here covering (briefly) the fighting between Dean + Gephardt, Michael Moore endorsing Clark, and the possible defects of opinion polling in the mobile phone age. Also suggests that Gephardt and Kerry need this one badly, while Dean doesn't.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/01/16/1073878028545.html

chesslover
17-01-2004, 05:06 PM
CL (and anyone else interested), nice long article here covering (briefly) the fighting between Dean + Gephardt, Michael Moore endorsing Clark, and the possible defects of opinion polling in the mobile phone age. Also suggests that Gephardt and Kerry need this one badly, while Dean doesn't.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/01/16/1073878028545.html

Yes I was about to post as well, stating that Michael Moore (whose book Paul B was reading) had endorsed Clark...

But with just 3 days (american time) to go, it is getting very very exciting - especially with the surge in support for Kerry and Edwards. Gepherdt still has the union votes, and he is a more familiar figure nationally having been the Democrat leader in Congress, but Dean's supporters are younger, more commited and more energised - which in a country that has voluntary voting in caucus and primaries, is critical.

Also agree with the assessment about what Iowa means to dean. Dean has raised more money than any democrat in history - including the democrats who had won like Clinton, Carter - and will be right there till the end.

However I think President Bush will like to face dean, rather than Clark or Kerry - as they will neutralise his war on terror campaign.

Senator Kerry was the favourite, when he announced, as that was before the Dean surge (helped by Dean differentiating himself by his opposition to the Iraq war). Kerry is a war hero, has a medal, and has lots of years in the Senate, as well as being married to a Heinz heiress and being only the second democrat ever (after dean) to reject federal funding and the spending cap that goes with it..

I am counting down the 3 days, to see what will happen in Iowa - and who the winners and losers will be. People like Kerry and Edwards will "win" just by coming second, while others like Gepherdt have to win. Clark (and to a far lesser extent Lieberman - who seems to have no hope of winning the nomination) are making gains in New Hanpshire while the other 6 democrat candidates carve themself up in Iowa

Kevin Bonham
17-01-2004, 05:14 PM
However I think President Bush will like to face dean, rather than Clark or Kerry - as they will neutralise his war on terror campaign.

This is one of the problems with the US system - the voters in the opposition primaries can often vote with their hearts and not their heads and in doing so damage their party's chances. So it may be that someone like Dean can be the candidate most preferred by Democrats, but not necessarily the Democrat most likely to beat Bush.

chesslover
17-01-2004, 05:41 PM
However I think President Bush will like to face dean, rather than Clark or Kerry - as they will neutralise his war on terror campaign.

This is one of the problems with the US system - the voters in the opposition primaries can often vote with their hearts and not their heads and in doing so damage their party's chances. So it may be that someone like Dean can be the candidate most preferred by Democrats, but not necessarily the Democrat most likely to beat Bush.

EXACTLTY!

That is why I have always been saying, that the democrat powerbrokers and lobbies will close rank behind a mainstream candidate - not Dean

With the influence and support of the democrat establishment, that candidate will defeat Dean, as ultimately the head will prevail over the heart..

In the race for the anti-dean candidate Clark is ahead, but if Kerry comes first/second in Iowa he will have the momentum to take Clark on to be the premier anti-dean candidate

Of the other candidates chance to be the main anti-Dean candidate;

1. Gepherdt has poured so much money into Iowa, that he will run out of election money after New hampshire

2. Edwards is so unknown, that unless he comes in the top 3 in Iowa and New hanpshire he will be gone

3. Liberman just cannot connect to the voters, and seems to be in the race just so that he can get the vice preidential nomination. He is delusional if he thinks that he can win

4. the remaining 2 candidates - Sharpton and Kucinich are just making up the numbers - and will give up after New Hampshire

Thus the eventual democrat nominee is likely to be either Kerry or Clark - as dean just cannot beat President Bush - and you can rest assured that President Bush and his political attack dog, Karl Rove, will milk the war on terror for all it is worth. Only Clark and Kerry have the military expertise (NATO supreme commander and Vietnam warhero respectively) to take Bush on in national security issues

chesslover
17-01-2004, 05:50 PM
this was teh same tactic used by the then Governor Bush and his political adviser Karl Rove in Texas when he ran for reelection.

Rove used certain issues to energise the conservative base, and get record amounts of funding

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/01/16/bush.pickering/index.html

By bypassing Congress and putting Pickering in the Apeeals Court, Bush is sending a signal to the anti-abortion and conservative lobby. The fact that this is doen in an election year is not a coincidence at all :idea:

President Bush may not be officially campaigning, but his reeelction bid for 2004 is in full swing - whether the democrats like it or not

chesslover
18-01-2004, 12:08 PM
Just two more days to go for Iowa caucus. It is being tipped as the closest caucus in the history of Iowa :D

Who would have thought that dean would be brought back to the pack like this? Pre saddam capture, he was streaking the rest of the field put together

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/17/elec04.prez.contentious.caucuses/index.html

I can hardly wait for Tuesday, to know what the results are!! :D :D

chesslover
19-01-2004, 08:14 PM
By this time tommorrow, we will knwo the result of the Iowa caucus.

The polls show that it is still a statistical dead heat - Kerry has 26% of the vote, Edwards 23%, dean 20% and Gepherdt 18%. This is all within the range of the Iowa's main paper's statistical margin of error - hence the statistical dead heat

They say it will finally come down to the momentum that Kerry and Edwards have developed versus the orgainsiational muscle of Gepherdt (union backed) and dean (more energised supporters).

I have to go to work tommorow, but will be having my internet set on CNN to know who won. There are 120,000 voters expected - a record in Iowa, and this is tipped as the closest contest in the HISTORY of iowa caucuses.

In otehr news, George McGovern, the leftwinger who fought against Nixon has given his support for Clark, whilst Kerry is campiagning with Ted kennedy. However dean has got the most nominations from all washington democrat congress reps - surprising for a self proclaimed "outsider"

chesslover
20-01-2004, 05:27 PM
HUGE result in the Iowa causus!!!

With 98% of the caucus voting the winner is ....KERRY!!! :D =D> =D>

Results of the Iowa caucus;

Senator John Kerry 38%
Senator John Edwards 32%
Howard Dean 18%
Richard Gepherdt 11%
Congress Rep Dennis Kucinich 1%
Rev Al Sharpton 0%

General Clark, and Gore's 2000 VP nominee Senator Liberman did not take part and are concentrating on next week's New Hampshire primary

WOW what a result for Kerry, who is now calling himself the "comeback Kerry" :rolleyes:

Also big big result for John Edwards

Dean is wounded but not out, while Gepherdt seems almost certain to quit, after failing so badly in his neighbouring state.

Kuciinich and Sharpton will probably quit after this or New Hampshire as well

What a dramatic and exciting day in US politics - the men have been sorted from the boys, and the first battle of the war has finished

Kevin Bonham
20-01-2004, 05:40 PM
Amazing how huge Kerry's margin over Dean was - like it really snowballed in just the final days. I saw just one article a few days out that hinted this might happen if the media interest boosted the turnout. Volatile stuff! So yes, there are now four serious contenders (I don't include Lieberman at the moment.)

chesslover
20-01-2004, 06:04 PM
Amazing how huge Kerry's margin over Dean was - like it really snowballed in just the final days. I saw just one article a few days out that hinted this might happen if the media interest boosted the turnout. Volatile stuff! So yes, there are now four serious contenders (I don't include Lieberman at the moment.)

This is supposed to be the biggest turnout in Iowa Democrat caucus history, so even without Clark it has certainly captured the interest of US electors and now the media

Yes 4 contenders - Kerry, Clark, Dean (still more money than anyone else in democrat HISTORY!!) and Edwards.

Liberman unless he does something soon will either be out after New Hampshire or the Feb Primaries - I personally think he is just in the game so that he can get the VP nomination again

SImilarly I think that Edwards is also here for the VP slot, as he was elected for teh first time in 1998 and is too inexperienced in terms of Kerry or Dean (Governor for a long time).

Thus only Clark, dean and Kery I think are the ones who are in it to win

I am now going to read about the results and opinions in Washington Post, CNN, BBC and other websites, as that is what I normally do during the US presidential time.

So exciting, and such a big win for kerry like you stated. Dean seems to be all talk and no action so far

chesslover
20-01-2004, 10:50 PM
Only once has a person who has won the Iowa Democratic prinary won the Presidency - President carter in 1976. Only 2 people have won the Iowan caucus and then taken the Democratic nomination for President - carter and Al Gore in 2000.

People also need to note that McCain trounced president Bush in teh New hampshire primary in 2000, yet after that the establishment support for Bush, and the money saw Bush prevail.

Similarly dean still has by far the most money raised in democrat history, and his organisation and internet marketing are across all 50 states. Thus he is here for the marathon, and has teh money and people to take on Kerry and Clark, as well as Edwards and Liberman.

Nonetheless it is a big blow to dean, that he just got 18% of the votes, and Kerry with such a big big win of 38% is undoubtedly going to get a big bounce.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30125-2004Jan19.html

There are 4321 delegates available, and a winning nomination thus requires 2161 delegates

the delegate count so far after Iowa;

Senator Kerry - 17
Senator Edwards - 15
Howard Dean - 7
others - 0


[/b]

chesslover
20-01-2004, 11:02 PM
The next Primary is New Hampshire on Tuesday January 27 - there are even smaller delegates available for the Presidential nomination from New hampshire - almost exactly half of teh delegates available from Iowa, yet because this is a primary, it carries far more weight.

After that there is the first multi state primaries in South Carolina, Arizona, Missouri, Delaware and Oklahoma and caucuses are held in New Mexico and North Dakota. More than 260 delegates (6% of the delegates at stake) are tied to the results of the February 3 races.

By contrast Iowa had 1% of the delegates at stake, and new hampshire 0.5%.

Thus New Hampshire and feb 03's 7 state elections will mark the point at which only the serious big gun contenders will venture beyond. If like gepherdt, Clark, Liberman, Edwards or even Kerry and Dean get mauled in New Hampshire and Feb 03, there may be shock withdrawels

A fantastic beginning to the US Presidential elections :D :)

Kevin Bonham
20-01-2004, 11:25 PM
I don't think Dean did himself any favours by partly blaming his defeat on the attacks made against him by the others. I'd expect thicker skin than that really.

chesslover
22-01-2004, 05:54 PM
and another one bites the dust!! :D

Richard Gepherdt, a 14 term congress representatitive, teh democrat house leader in congress, has officially withdrawn from the US presidential race after his poor showing in Iowa - where he came 4th. He together with Kerry and Clark (when he announced his candidature) were one of the big favourites before the rise of Dean

Before teh Iowa caucus, people had predicted that Gepherdt would take the fight to Dean, but as we all know it was Kerry and Edwards that won big, although Dean is still very much in the race

This leaves 7 people in the race for the Democrat Nomination, and the delegate count after the 45 Iowa delegates are;

Senator Kerry - 20 Delegates
Senator Edwards - 18 Delegates
ex-Governor Dr Dean - 7 Delegates
General Clark - 0 Delegates
Senator Liberman - 0 Delegates
Reverend Sharpton - 0 Delegates
Rep Kucinich - 0 delegates

President Bush is unopposed for the Republic nomination, and will be officially given the Republican nomination at their convention, whilst teh Democrats fight to elect their nominee

chesslover
22-01-2004, 06:15 PM
Just released poll figures for New hampshire, and it's 22 pledged delegates

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/22/elec04.prez.main/index.html

Kerry has 31% of poll,
Dean - 21%
Clark - 16%
Edwards - 11%
Lieberman - 4%

Dean has 20% lead, and it had been a two horse race between dean and General Clark, before kerry won in Iowa

Kerry now has the momenetum, with just 5 days to go

arosar
22-01-2004, 07:28 PM
Yo CL....where are you man? This man of yours, Dean, what an idiot? Did you see footage of his speech? Mate, he's getting plastered all over US TV mate. It was soooo embarassing. I reckon he's stuffed.

What are your thoughts on Dean's future? C'mon mate - you're supposed to be our resident expert.

AR

arosar
23-01-2004, 12:02 PM
For some fun:

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blhowarddeanjokes.htm

I like this: ""I don't want to scare anybody here but we just received word from police that Howard Dean is loose and may be armed with a microphone." —Craig Kilborn"

And a collection from the latenighters: http://www.agweb.com/news_show_news_article.asp?nodate=Y&file=AgNewsArt icle_2004122821_4636&articleid=105149&newscat=AGL

AR

chesslover
23-01-2004, 04:37 PM
Yo CL....where are you man? This man of yours, Dean, what an idiot? Did you see footage of his speech? Mate, he's getting plastered all over US TV mate. It was soooo embarassing. I reckon he's stuffed.

What are your thoughts on Dean's future? C'mon mate - you're supposed to be our resident expert.

AR
you are right on your assessment

Leno,Letterman, late night tv, and serious news shows and editorials all thought Dean has lost it

Reverend Al Sharpton (one of the remaining 7 democrat candidates for nomination) said that he too would hoot and holler if he spent so much money as dean in Iowa and only got 18% of the vote :D

However it is too early to write off Dean. He has raised the most money in the HISTORY of Democrat nominations, and only President Bush in 2000 and 2004 has raised more money in all US history. Dean also has the strongest organisational structure in the US states.

Remember also that just 45 Deleagtes have been decided in Iowa out of a total of 4321 delegates available.SO just about 1.1% of the race is over, and it is too premature to write off a man who has the strongest organisational structure and financrs in democrat field on this basis

Yes defintely dean is weakened, and Kerry is teh big winner.

That is why New Hampshire is so important.

If Dean again comes a distant third, then the sharks will be circling. Dean will have to win, or come a close second to reactivate his campign that got almost snuffed out in IOwa.

chesslover
23-01-2004, 05:06 PM
For some fun:

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blhowarddeanjokes.htm



Yes, ive seen these before - very funny :D

I liek Letteran's joke - Howard Dean was endorsed by former Vice President Al Gore and now he is getting advice from Al Gore. And I'm thinking, who better to give advice than the guy who couldn't even get elected with the most votes?" :D

But seriously, Dean has toned down after his shock 3rd place while campaigning for New Hampshire, and also has made fun of himself, in an attemot to fight back against Kerry and Clark

Kevin Bonham
23-01-2004, 10:06 PM
Yo CL....where are you man? This man of yours, Dean, what an idiot? Did you see footage of his speech? Mate, he's getting plastered all over US TV mate. It was soooo embarassing. I reckon he's stuffed.

As does James Carville (former Clinton headkicker): "Put a fork in Dean. He's done."

chesslover
23-01-2004, 10:29 PM
Yo CL....where are you man? This man of yours, Dean, what an idiot? Did you see footage of his speech? Mate, he's getting plastered all over US TV mate. It was soooo embarassing. I reckon he's stuffed.

As does James Carville (former Clinton headkicker): "Put a fork in Dean. He's done."

Rumours of Dean's death have been greatly msiplaced.

You CANNOT write off a man who has raised the most amount of money in US Presidential history, and has the strongest organisational structure of supporters.

Personally, I liked Dean, AFTER his "losing" speech in Iowa, for it showed that the man has PASSION - something that Edwards, Liberman and Clark have not displayed so far. Dean seems more geniuine than other 6 candidates - with the exception of Reverend Sharpton

When I did the selectsmart test, it stated that Kerry shared my views the most, so I am not unhappy that Kerry won Iowa, and is now leading in all polls in New Hampshire.

What people who write off dean do nto understand is that just 1.1% of the delegates have been decided, and you simply cannot write off a candidate on that basis - especially one that has raised the most money in the history of Demnocrat politics

Like Dean stated of the 6 who campaigned in Iowa, there were only 3 tickets out - and Dean got one of the 3 tickets albeit not the first or second ticket. Compare Dean to Gepherdt who pulled out, and Kucinich and Sharpton who for masochistic reasons continue, even though their campaigns are dead.

If Dean finishes 3rd in New Hampshire, and third in "mini Tuesday" on Feb 03, then yes, Dean is finished.

Until then he is alive and a strong chance for the democrat nomination, along with Clark, Kerry and Edwards. Indeed Kerry's win has affected Clark more adversely than Dean in New Hampshire

Kevin Bonham
23-01-2004, 11:07 PM
Like Dean stated of the 6 who campaigned in Iowa, there were only 3 tickets out - and Dean got one of the 3 tickets albeit not the first or second ticket.

But suppose Dean had finished 4th to Gephardt but all the votes had been fairly close - would he still be saying the same thing?

Dean's result in Iowa is by no means fatal, eg Bush Snr and Clinton both failed there too, and it's only a tiny % of the vote, and a caucus not a primary at that. What's more of an issue is Dean's funny antics in response, if these continue being held against him he will stay under a cloud, because they suggest a man who can't take it when things don't go as he expected.

chesslover
23-01-2004, 11:28 PM
Like Dean stated of the 6 who campaigned in Iowa, there were only 3 tickets out - and Dean got one of the 3 tickets albeit not the first or second ticket.

But suppose Dean had finished 4th to Gephardt but all the votes had been fairly close - would he still be saying the same thing?

Dean's result in Iowa is by no means fatal, eg Bush Snr and Clinton both failed there too, and it's only a tiny % of the vote, and a caucus not a primary at that. What's more of an issue is Dean's funny antics in response, if these continue being held against him he will stay under a cloud, because they suggest a man who can't take it when things don't go as he expected.

1. Yes , true. If he had finished 4th and it was close, Dean would not be saying the same thing. Dean has more money and better organisational structure than others and can go all the way to the Convention - unlike Kerry, Edwards, Gepherdt who simply had to do well in Iowa to get the momentum to get the money and people to continue on.

2. I think Dean has learnt from this. It seems the next day he was more subdued, and today in the first and last debate for teh 7 candidates in New hampshire he was more restrained. SO at least it shows that he learns from his mistake. He stated that he was pumped up in Iowa, as he was trying to encourage some young volunteers

chesslover
24-01-2004, 06:39 PM
this is the latest NATION WIDE polls taken by Fox today. It shows the same trend that all other polls have shown - Kerry surging ahead, dean slumping, Clark slumping and Edwards gaining. Fox polls shows that Edwards is third, although this is within the statistical margin of error. CNN polls show Clark third and Edwards 4th but Kerry pulling away from Dean

In brackets were the polling numbers 2 weeks ago...

1. John Kerry 29% ( 7%)
2. Howard Dean 17% (20%)
3. John Edwards 13% (4%)
4. Wesley Clark 11% (13%)
5. Joe Lieberman 5% (8%)
6. Al Sharpton 3% (2)
7. Dennis Kucinich 1% (3)

chesslover
26-01-2004, 10:44 AM
less than 2 days to go for the New Hampshire Primary :) :)

Newsweek has relased a poll that shows Kerry skipping further and further in fron of everyone else. It also shows that Kerry is 49% to 46% in a matchup with President Bush, the only democrat to win in a hypothetical matchup.

Newsweek shows Kerry with a HUGE lead nationwide - Kerry has 30 per cent, John Edwards at 13 per cent. Dr Dean and the retired army general Wesley Clark followed with 12 per cent each. So USA wide Kerry has the momentum now.

chesslover
26-01-2004, 10:57 AM
These are the poll numbers with 2 days to go in NEW HAMPSHIRE

It is important to note that in US democrat history, NO Democrat who has placed worse than second in the New Hampshire's primary has ever won the party's nomination. Thus second place takes on a lot of importance.

Also every Democrat who has won both the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary has gone on to win the party's presidential nomination.
This has only happened twice ever - Jimmy Carter in 1976 and Al Gore in 2000.

There is currently 13% of the voters undecided, so anything can happen in relation to second place, and maybe dean can bridge the gap - even though the momentum is with kerry

CNN/GALLUP polls for New Hampshire shows the following;

1. Senator Kerry - 38 percent,
2. Howard Dean - 25 percent
3. Senator Liberman - 12 percent
4. Gen Clark - 10 percent
5. Senator Edwards - 9 percent

Whilst the surge to Kerry was no surprise and has been reflected in all polls in New hampshire and nationwide, Dean now seems to have stabilised and seems to be on track for the second place.

The BIG surprise seems to be the late momentum to Joe Liberman - he is now third, and is calling it "Joementum"!! :rolleyes: Clark has seen his support wither due to the Kerry onslaught, and his attempt to state that he was a general whilst Kerry was a mere lieutenant seems to have backfired.

so it could well be a 5 way race, given the liberman surge!! WOW

And all 5 have stated that they will continue to mini Tuesday on Feb 03, when 7 states have their elections. barring a very bad showing by anyone of these 5, they should all be in the race till at least feb 03

Wednesday morning is going to be so exciting, as that is when we will know the results....

chesslover
27-01-2004, 05:55 PM
Just 1 day to go in new Hampshire... :) we will know the result by 12 noon our time tommorrow

http://http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/27/elec04.prez.main/index.html

Kerry is downplaying his lead, and indeed New hampshire has had stunning results in the past that were not picked up the polls- Mccain defeating Bush in 2000, Buchannen beating Bush snr in 1992, Hart beating Mondale in 1984

Dean has been joking about his rant and screams in Iowa, and I think he has neutralised that as an issue. He also was with his wife in a Dianne Sawyer interview, like Bill and Hilary Clinton in 1992, and went on David Letterman with his "top 10 reasons" to revive the Dean candidacy

I actually like Dean the person after all of this. he is passionate, commited and he is putting his heart on his sleeve - unlike people like Kerry, Clark, Edwards who are saying and doing things to suit voters.

Whilst I think Bush would prefer dean, as he can hammer dean on the war on terror, a Dean nomination will be a stark contrast for the american voters - a black and white issue on many matters

Kevin Bonham
27-01-2004, 06:33 PM
If I was a Democrats strategist I would be a bit concerned, even this far out where the polls don't mean very much, that my party's most popular candidate of the moment only led Bush by 3 points in head-to-heads, and the rest weren't leading Bush in head-to-heads at all.

I can't figure why people like Kerry so much, he seems rather dull.

Tomorrow should be interesting.

chesslover
27-01-2004, 06:56 PM
exactly - kerry is dull. So is Clark and Edwards and Liberman and Kucinich

The only ones who are exciting and passionate are the Reverend Al Sharpton and Howard Dean. And Sharption has NIL chance

That is why I like dean - especially after his humanising and self depreciating efforts after Iowa. I hate his policies, but I like the man....

But then the democrat strategists and party leaders hate Dean, and would prefer that either any of the others in the top 5 win than him

chesslover
27-01-2004, 08:17 PM
This is literally the very latest poll numbers for New Hampshire, taken by the American Reserch Group, and quoted in the washington post and other reputable news organisations. This poll was taken on January 26 in the USA - ie just before the NH primary begins in USA

margin of error is +/- 4%, and in brackets is their support 3 days ago...

Kerry 35% (-3%)
Dean 25% (+5%)
Edwards 15% (-1%)
Clark 13% (-2%)
Lieberman 6% (+1%)
Kucinich 1% (no change)
Sharpton 0% (no change)

This is the pollsters analysis of the poll
"Beyond Ballot Preference - January 26, 2004
The most significant result from the tracking for today is that support for Kerry, Clark, and Edwards dropped along with the continuing increase in support for Dean. Women 45 and older are returning to Howard Dean, helping to give him a 4 percentage-point gain on January 25 and a 5 percentage-point gain on January 26. Verbatims among this group point to fairness/sympathy for Dean and not beating George W. Bush driving the return to Dean. If the trend to Dean continues into tomorrow, the race will be very close as it appears that Kerry will not capture the undecided. So where does this end up based on the tracking? Kerry gets a narrow win over Dean with Edwards and Clark trailing in third and fourth as most of the undecided is leaning back to Dean."

Dean has gone from 16% of the poll in NH, which at one stage saw him 3rd/4th to gaining 9% over the week. He seems to be getting the momentum according to all polls, including that from CNN, Newsweek etc in New Hampshire - although all still show Kerry ahead

A contributing factor for this has been the fact that dean has pulled ads in other states and is throwing money at the NW - he has spent millions, far more than Kerry in NH. He has given away 50,000 free copies of the video he and his wife had with Dianne Sawyer :rolleyes:

Anyway based on the tracking polls, these are the predictions by the respected ARG for the NH results today..


Ballot BestGuess of Primary
Kerry 35%
Dean 29%
Edwards 16%
Clark 13%
Lieberman 6%
Kucinich 1%
Sharpton 0%

I guess we will know in about 15 hours if they are right or wrong - but if right DEAN IS BACK!!!!!! :) :) :)

Also I have watched Newshour at SBS today, and have since the primaries started, and their view is that just like Iowa there are only 3 tickets out of New Hampshire - which means for Liberman/ Clark/ Edwards New hampshire is make or break, as without a good showing they just will not have the money to continue on.

chesslover
27-01-2004, 08:46 PM
for those interested this is the top 10 that Dean read out in the David Letterman show...it was very funny, especially when he pulled out some pipes for nymber 5, and started speaking in an austraian accent in a parody of California Governor Arnold the Terminator :p . This was replayed endlessly in the US

TOP TEN "Ways I, Howard Dean, Can Turn Things Around"

[As presented by 2004 Democratic Presidential candidate Howard Dean on the Thursday, Jan. 22 broadcast of the LATE SHOW with DAVID LETTERMAN, seen weeknights on the CBS Television Network.]

10. Switch to decaf.

9. Unveil new slogan: "Vote for Dean and get one dollar off your next purchase at Blimpie."

8. Marry Rachel on the final episode of "Friends."

7. Don't change a thing - it's going great.

6. Show a little more skin.

5. Go on "American Idol" and give 'em a taste of these pipes.

4. Start working out and speaking with an Austrian accent.

3. I can't give specifics yet, but it involves Ted Danson.

2. Fire the staffer who suggested that we do this lousy Top Ten List instead of actually campaigning.

1. Oh, I don't know - maybe fewer crazy, red-faced rants?

chesslover
28-01-2004, 06:41 PM
New hampshire is over, and the big news is that Kerry wins, but Dean is BACK

Voting results in the New Hampshire primary, and how the 22 delegates from New Hampshire got allocated

1. Senator Kerry - 39% (13 delegates)
2. Howard Dean - 26% (9 delegates)
2. Gen Clark - 12% (0 delegates)
4. Senator Edwards - 12% (0 delegate)
5. Senator Liberman - 9% (0 delegates)
6. Rep Kucinich - 2% (0 delegates)
7. Rev Sharption 0% (0 delegates)

Whilst kerry won, and confirmed his status as the frontrunner, the biggest talking point was how dean arrested the downward slide after Iowa, and fought back to finish a solid second. Most political candidates note that two of the more formidable presidents Clinton and President Bush jnr both came second in the New Hampshire primaries and won their party's nomination and the Presidential elections in 1992 and 2000 - so Dean is definitely back in the race as a serious contender.

So far just 2 states, with 67 delegates (accounting for 1.6% of the total delegates) have been decided. Next election will be on Feb 03, "mini tuesday", when 7 states with 269 delegates (6.2% of the total) will be available for grabs.

Kucinich and Sharpton still have not withdrawn, and neither does it seems will Liberman, Clark and Edwards. So it looks like all 7 candidates will stay the course till Feb 03, including the top 5.

Kerry is happy with the big win, Dean is happy that he came a solid second, and Clark and Edwards are all happy that they came third and vow to continue on, whilst Lieberman also is happy with his 9% and wants to go on to Feb 03.

Unlike Iowa, where Gepherdt quit after his 11%, the game is still wide open, with teh battleground being now the 7 states on Feb 03.

However it is to be noted that in the entire history of Democrat presidential politics, NONE of the eventual Democratic nominees finished lower than second in New Hampshire. That would appear to rule out all candidates but Kerry and Dean.

chesslover
28-01-2004, 07:03 PM
feb 03 is the next step in the presidential nominations.

7 states come up for grabs. These states and their delegate numbers that will be pledged to candidates are;

Missouri,74 delegates
Arizona, 55 delegates
South Carolina, 45 delegates
Oklahoma, 40 delegates
New Mexico, 26 delegates
Delaware, 15 delegates
North Dakota,14 delegates

The interesting thing is that in there is no consensus front-runner in the states where recent polls have been taken.

In Missouri, the biggest state voting on Feb. 3, no major polls have been taken and the race could be wide open now that St. Louis native Rep. Richard A. Gephardt has dropped out.

In Arizona, an American Research Group poll had Kerry at 24 percent, Clark at 21, Edwards at 15 percent and Howard Dean at 10 percent.

In South Carolina, Edwards (who was born there before moving as a child with his parents to North Carolina) was at 21 percent in a recent ARG poll, followed by Kerry at 17, Al Sharpton at 15 percent and Wesley Clark at 14 percent.

In Oklahoma, Clark had a slight lead at 23 percent in a recent ARG poll, followed by Edwards at 18, Kerry at 17, Lieberman at 10 and Dean at 8 percent with others in low single digits.

In New Mexico, a poll taken by Research and Polling Inc. for the Albuquerque Journal prior to the Iowa caucuses (probably too long ago to be considered valid now, but it's the best we've got to work with), Dean had 18 percent, Clark 16 and all others were in single digits.

There have been no major public polls taken in Delaware or North Dakota.

The next 7 days are going to be very very very interesting, as by feb 03, at least 2 of the top 5 will withdraw, as should sharpton and kucinich who are for some unfathomable reason still in the race :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

The fates of Dean and Kerry will be decided by then - Kerry needing to win a couple of the big states, whilst all Dean has to do is come a sound second. The reason for that is Dean unlike the others has more money and strong organisational support throughout USA and can thus settle in for a war of attrition - which none of the others can afford to, as they have to keep winning to get the cash and support to fight the other battles. Also Feb 03 marks the point at which the other members of the top 5, clark/ edwards/ liberman, have to break free and score some wins to be treated as credible contenders with Kerry and Dean. Most of the important Feb 03 mini super tuesday states are southern, and southerners like Edwards and Clark have an advantage over northerners like Kerry, Dean and Liberman.

A final thing to remember is that Iowa and New Hampshire have been small single states, where personality and ability to have 1 on 1 meetings are imprtant. Now with 7 states, tv advertising, marketing and strategies (which state to concentrate in, daily tracking etc) become more important, and money will start to tell. It is perhaps no surprise that dean specnt $1.2 million in the last week in New Hamps, more than twice the second highest spender Kerry, and that this resulted in the gap between them narrowing

Just 7 days more till feb 03 :D :)

arosar
28-01-2004, 07:31 PM
Hey chesslover - you obviously have a lot of time on your hands. On the other hand, I don't. But I want to read a bit more. So you reckon you could do me favour and post the top 3 links that you think are best about the Prez race? I just read them in the morning when I come in.

AR

chesslover
28-01-2004, 07:51 PM
arosar, i actually do not have a lot of spare time - what with work and my partner.

However I have limited hobby/interests, as in addition to chess, I have cricket and God and US/Australian politics - so I spend any of my spare times in these pursuits

CNN and washington post perhaps have the best objective news reports on the polls, and have a special election 2004 section in their websites. The Sydney Morning Herald also has a good summary of the US presidential elections, daily in their world news section

chesslover
28-01-2004, 07:58 PM
This is the current delegate count, and inlcudes in addition to the 67 pledged delegates from Iowa and New Hampshire, the unpledged delegates and "super" delegate commitments so far. The Democratic Party allots a number of delegates to each state based on population (as measured by electoral college votes) and the number of votes the Democratic presidential candidate received in the last general election. The party assigns states additional delegate slots, called "Superdelegates," for Democratic elected officials, party leaders and Democratic members of Congress. Superdelegates are included in the totals.

These numbers indicate the latest Associated Press estimate of delegates allotted to each candidate for the national presidential nominating convention, and has been quoted in CNN and Washington Post.

Delegates needed to win: 2,162
Total Delegates: 4,322

Howard Dean: 113
Sen. John F. Kerry: 94
Sen. John Edwards: 36
Wesley Clark: 30
Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman: 25
Al Sharpton: 4
Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich: 2

chesslover
30-01-2004, 05:09 PM
There are rumours (probably from Kerry's camp!! :p ) that Dean's campaign is in financial trouble.

dean has fired his campaign manager, Joe Trippi, the person who introduced the innovative internet fund raising and publicity that saw Dean amass more campaign money than any other Democrat in US history, and saw him go from a nobody when he first announced his candidacy to the overwhelming favourite for the Presidential nomination, and after Iowa/ New hampshire to a somebody.

Dean's new campaign mamager was a key aide to Al Gore. Dean had spend a lot of money in Iowa and New Hampshire, and it is rumoured that most of his record money is gone.

Dean has decided on a new innovative strategy from now. He has decided that he will not campaign for the 7 Feb 03 states, and the total 269 pledged delegates, and has decided to concentrate on Michigan which happens on Feb 07 and has 128 delegates.

Dean has said that he does not care about winning any of the 7 states on Feb 03, and is concentrating on amassing delegates.

Dean has also pulled ALL ads from the 7 Feb 03 markets :eek: , and is gambling that Kerry, Edwards and Clark will share the spoils, as this will mean that it will be a long battle of attrition with the race going on till March 02 Super Tuesday, when New York, California etc (almost 50% of delegates needed for nomination) have their elections.

The worst result for dean will be if Kerry wins big on Feb 03, and gets the 5 or 6 of the 7 states, and forces the withdrawel of the other candidates.

chesslover
30-01-2004, 05:29 PM
with about 5 days to go to the 7 state elections on Feb 03 and the 269 delegates at stake, it is very interesting to observe the strategy of the players.

The media have ignored 3 of the 7 states with the smallest delegates - delaware (15 delegates), New Mexico (26) and North Dakota (14) and are concentrating on the other 4 states - Missouri (74), Arizona (55), South Carolina (45) and Oklahoma (40) . The top 5 candidates of teh 7 remaining are also doing that.

The keenest battle is on South carolina, the state where Senator Edwards was born. Edwards has spent most of his time and money there, and has stated that if he loses he will withdraw. Opinion polls show that it is a 2 way race between Edwards and Kerry, with Clark a distant third. Clark has now pulled his ads from South Carolina and is concetrating on the other 3 big states. Edwards is currently 3rd on the nationwide delegate list, and as a Southerner is a big threat to Kerry. Kerry has decided to exterminate Edwards, one of the other 4 who are threats to him, by winning in South carolina and forcing him off the race, and recently has thrown a lot of money and people in South carolina. However South Carolina is a conservative white democrat state, and also has half teh voting populations of blacks, who are mostly conservative and are devout christians, so a liberal like Kerry will find it hard to beat Edwards. Edwards is also polling well in all other southern states - missouri, oklohoma and arizona

Liberman has given up on South carolina and is focusing on Oklohoma and Arizona - two conservative southern states that vote republican. He needs to win at least one of these states to be a credible candidate, and although he has picked the endorsements of teh biggest newspaper in Arizona, polls show him third in both states. he is staking it all on these states

Clark as a native southernor like Edwards is expected to do well, and polls show him leading in Arizona and Oklohoma. Clark too desperatly needs to win these states, especially if Edwards wins in SOuth Carolina to contend for the "southern" vote

Dean has decided that he does not have a good chance in any of the 4 southern states, and has pulled all ads and is concentrating on Michigan which will go to the polls 4 days later on Feb 07 and has 128 delegates. He needs to hope that Clark, Edwards and even Lieberman hold off Kerry and share the spoils.

Kerry as the front runner is running strongly in all of teh Feb 03 states, but as previously mentioned is concentrating on South carolina with a view to kick Edwards off the race, and get rid of a major rival

chesslover
30-01-2004, 05:51 PM
the first and last debate before Feb 03 was just held, and all 7 contenders were there

for those interested this is the transcript http://http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/transcripts/debatetranscript29.html?nav=hptop_ts

Kevin Bonham
30-01-2004, 08:12 PM
Dean has decided on a new innovative strategy from now. He has decided that he will not campaign for the 7 Feb 03 states, and the total 269 pledged delegates, and has decided to concentrate on Michigan which happens on Feb 07 and has 128 delegates.

The failures of Clark and Lieberman in New Hampshire show how skipping a state to campaign in another can be bad for you because the momentum of someone else's good result in another state carries over.

The signs are not looking good for Dean. I rate Kerry's chance of getting the nomination at at least 80% right now. Dean is running too many risks - what if even one of Clark or Edwards is KO'd or effectively KO'd from the race on Feb 03, what if Kerry gets impressive results generally and carries momentum with him. Granted, Dean's second in NH was a good recovery but he still lost by 13 points, really not that competitive a performance. I will be amazed if he pulls this swindle off, he really needs to get runs on the board. Even if he wins Michigan he still has that problem we discussed earlier - that the others will gradually drop out and the party orthodox will close ranks behind Kerry.

Another interesting thing to note - Kerry is polling pretty solidly in those states (that have recent polls) even where not winning them while Dean is all over the place. This suggests that Kerry is the one who will poll a decent vote for the Democrats nationwide whereas there are likely to be many states that will be gimmes for GWB against Dean no matter what.

chesslover
31-01-2004, 07:55 AM
The signs are not looking good for Dean. I rate Kerry's chance of getting the nomination at at least 80% right now. Dean is running too many risks - what if even one of Clark or Edwards is KO'd or effectively KO'd from the race on Feb 03, what if Kerry gets impressive results generally and carries momentum with him. Granted, Dean's second in NH was a good recovery but he still lost by 13 points, really not that competitive a performance. I will be amazed if he pulls this swindle off, he really needs to get runs on the board. Even if he wins Michigan he still has that problem we discussed earlier - that the others will gradually drop out and the party orthodox will close ranks behind Kerry.



Very true, Dean is running a lot of risks. The fact remains however that he still has the most "hard core" support, has the best organisational structure in all the states, and still has raised the most money in the week after Iowa/ New Hampshire, with his internet contributions. Unlike the other candidates most of his funding has come from individual rank and file democrats

However he has been very undisciplined and unfocused. It is still amazing that the Democrat who has raised more money than any democrat in US history, has fritted away the $50 million that he had to now just have $5 million now. That must surely rank as the most wasted presidential campaign in history - even beating the money spent by Perot in 1992 and 1996 :eek:

However with the new campaign manager, he seems to have now got the focus back, and is picking and choosing where he fights. This is aptly seen by him concentrating on Michigan with it's huge 128 delegates, and ignoring the feb 03 states. That is probably a good strategic move, for all of the Super 7 states, just 2 (the minor delegate states of delaware and North Dakota) are not in the South, and as a liberal northerner Dean was never going to win well in SC, Arizona, New Mexico, Missouri and Oklohama. He would indeed be better as this is now a race for the delegates to concentrate on Michingan - for if he wins there, he will get the momentum back.

Dean knows that it is a long haul, and it is all about the number of delegates from now on. He also knows that he MUST continue on till March 02 Super Tuesday, when almost 50% of the delegates needed will be available. States like Claifornia and New York will be more receptive to Dean, than the Southern states that go to the polls on Feb 03. Unlike Edwards, Clark, Liberman (who all simply have to win on Feb 03) dean's day of reckoning will be on march 02 - provided all goes well for him between now and then.

yes, the big risk is that Kerry will kill off Edwards in South Carolina, and kill off Liberman and Clark in the other 6 states - therby forcing them all to quit. But that will only wound Dean, if he loses in Michigan. If he wins Michigan in Feb 07, it will be a 2 horse race between Dean and Kerry, and Dean will have the supporters and money to see him through march 02, and ensure a very bitter and wounded democrat party. Thus worst case for dean, is Kerry wins 6 states in Feb 03, and uses the momentum to crush dean in Michigan. This will most certainly see Kerry getting the nomination, and pressure on all of the 6 to quit. Kerry thus has the chance to finish it all by Feb 07

Best case for dean is Feb 03 results in shared spoils, and the Kerry momentum is stopped by the 2 southerners Clark and Edwards and even maybe Liberman (who is campaigning hard in Arizona and Oklohoma). This will make it a 5 horse race, and ensure that no one will go to Michigan with the momentum - which is what happened to Clark and Liberman in New Hampshire when Kerry won in Iowa.

The other thing to note is dean will almost certainly pick a southerner as his vice presidential candidate. Hence if Edwards or Clark amass significant amounts of delegates, Dean will try to make a deal to join their delegates in the convention - so whilst the orthodox maybe closing rank, Edwards/ Clark may for personal reason go with dean. Kerry will never take Clark for 2 army officers is overkill.

I personally think the only reason Liberman (and maybe Edwards) are in the race is for the vice presidiantial nominations, and they are trying to be competitve just so that they can bargain their delegates in the event that it is a very close delegate race for a VP nomination

chesslover
31-01-2004, 08:32 AM
article from the Toronto Star, describing Dean's campign to the dot.com boom and bust in 2001

http://http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1075417810348

also states Dean's new tactic to not win, but just goes for delegates will not work

also it seems that Kerry is using the Dean tactics and trying to get more internet money

chesslover
31-01-2004, 08:37 AM
another fascinating article detailing how dean has changed politics by using the internet, but showing how after Iowa and New H, it has it's limitations..

http://http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104_2-5150006.html

according to the article Dean has 186,000 internet members, whilst second is Clark with 65,000 members and then Kerry with just 32,000. Dean basically is the cyber winner!!

chesslover
01-02-2004, 04:26 PM
polls and analysts state that Senator Kerry is poised to deliver the knock out blow this Tuesday in the "Super 7" states that go to the polls, and then knock out Dean on Feb 10, by winning Michigan where Dean has staked his final stand.

This time next week if all goes according to Kerry, he will have clinched the Democrat nomination, and all his opponents will have withdrawn

According to the lates polls taken yesterday, Kerry is leading in 5 states, and in the other 2 states is neck to neck with Senator Edwards in South Carolina and General Clark in Oklohoma.

Kerry with big leads in Missouri (more than 30 percentage points ahead of John Edwards) and Arizona (more than 20 points ahead of Clark). The polls also showed Kerry in a virtual tie with Edwards in South Carolina, and within 8 points of Clark in Oklahoma, where Clark has campaigned extensively. Kerry also has double digit leads in the smaller of the big 7 states - New Mexico, North Dakota and Delware.

The most interesting thing about these polls is that Kerry has hardly campaigned in most of these states, and it is his electability and front runner status that is propelling him forward, over Clark and Edwrads and Liberman who have spent $14 million in these states and have visited them throughout.

His opponents have taken a divide and rule strategy to stop Kerry - with Edwards concentrating on his native South Caolina and Missouri, and Clark on Arizona and Oklohoma and Liberman in Delaware, whilst Dean has ignored them all and just given up on the Super 7 Feb 03 states

A candiate needs at least to meet the 15% voting threshold to get delegates, and currently of teh Feb 03 Super 7 states, Dean is only above that threshold in New Mexico - and that too through his absentee ballot efforts there prior to Iowa and New Hampshire. Even worse for Dean, the leading papers in Michigan and teh Michigan governor have all endorsed Kerry - which means that Feb 10 may well be Dean's waterloo.

chesslover
01-02-2004, 04:46 PM
This is the result of the NATIONWIDE polls among democrats. In the brackets are the numbers they had before Iowa, which shows how dramatic Kerry's surge has been. Kerry has more democrat people preferring him in the Newsweek poll than all the other 6 contenders combined!

1. John Kerry 45% (11%)
2. Howard Dean 14% (24%)
3. John Edwards 11% (3%)
4. Wesley Clark 5% (12%)
5. Joe Lieberman 5% (7%)
6. Al Sharpton 2% (5%)
7. Dennis Kucinich 1% (1%)

From what I have read in the papers, it seems that the Kerry camp fears Edwards most and want to kill him off quickly, by focusing on beating him in South Carolina and forcing him to withdraw. It seems Edwards has drawn parrallels with Bill Clinton, and as a Southerner will combat Bush in the South, which Kerry will find very hard to do.

President Bush's camp seems to be happy with Kerry (although they would prefer Dean as they can blast him on national security issues, and for that matter Edwards, as they can contrast his inexperience with Bush's waron terror) as Democrat candidate, given Kerry's liberal past in the Senate which will not play down well in the South. President Bush has also given us a preview of how he will attack Kerry - with the Republicans stating that whilse they respect and admire Kerry the warhero, his voting records in the Senate has shown that he does not understand or knows how to defend USA.

The person Bush fears most, is the person Michael Moore loves, General Clark. As the NATO Supreme Commander Clark can easily beat Bush on National security issues, and unlike Kerry who had 20 years of voting records that are now being minutely poured over by the Bush camp, Clark's record is in the military where he got the highest General rank, and led the war against the Serbs. Also Clark is a southern conservative, and the US as shown in the votes for Ike in 1952 and 1956 love military generals as presidents - all of which would have made it hard for Bush to beat him. It now looks however barring feb 03 being split between Kerry/ Edrwards/ Clark and Clark winning Oklohoma and Arizona, that Clark will withdraw after Feb 03

chesslover
01-02-2004, 05:17 PM
this is the latesT ARG polls for all the big 4 Super 7 states as well as Delware where Liberman is making an all out effort to win. A person must get 15% of the votes to get a delegate allocation.

New Mexcico (26 delegates) and North Dakota (14 delegates) are all showing Kerry with double digit leads.

MiSSOURI (74 delegates)
1. Kerry 46%
2. Edwards 15%
3. Dean 7%
4. Clark 6%

ARIZONA (55 delegates)
1. Kerry 32%
2. Clark 21%
3. Edwards 11%
4. dean 10%

SOUTH CAROLINA (45 delegates)
1. Edwards 30%
2. Kerry 23%
3. Clark 12%
4. Sharpton 10%

OKLAHOMA (40 delegates)
1. Clark 25%
2. Kerry 23%
3. Edwards 18%
4. Liberman 8%

DELAWARE (15 delegates)
1. Kerry 27%
2. Liberman 16%
3. Dean 14%
4. Edwards 9%

Unless there is a late surge for others (there are just less than 3 days more to go), Kerry is looking very good indeed to keep the momentum, and there is already pressure on the other 6 to quit if they cannot perform well on Feb 03

Kevin Bonham
01-02-2004, 11:21 PM
Kerry/Edwards is looking like a very likely ticket from what I've been reading.

chesslover
02-02-2004, 02:46 PM
Kerry/Edwards is looking like a very likely ticket from what I've been reading.

that would be a good ticket

Kerry is a northerner with a liberal recod who is also a war hero. If he wins the nomination (which looks likely now, barring any upsets on Feb 03), he can choose his VP from the remaining candidates or from someone outside the race.

There is no way he will choose far left candidates like Sharpton or Kucinich and Dean too is a liberal northerner. Clark is a southerner but given his military background, it is not a net benefit to Kerry. Lieberman was the losing VP for Gore, and Kerry will not have a losing VP who lost to Bush compete again, and will choose someone fresh.

That leaves Edwards - a southerner, fresh faced and who is a very good communicator. It is interesting to note that Edwards has not directly attacked Kerry or dean, and thus is in their good books.

If Edwards is comepetitive and has a lot of delegates, then he can parley that for a VP nomination - but that assumes of course that Kerry will need his delegates. Edwards will also make a good VP for Dean, in the unlikely event that Dean manages to turn his campaign around

chesslover
02-02-2004, 02:56 PM
This is the only major poll taken in Michigan so far, as most polls are concentraing on the Feb 03 super 7 states

Thsi was taken a day before new hampshire, so does not reflect the karry momentum from his win, nor the fact that the last week dean has spent all his time there ignoring the super 7 states. Even so the numbers look very bad for dean

1. Senator Kerry 37%
2. Howard Dean 14%
3. Senator Edwards 14%
4. General Clark 10%

With 128 delegates, Michigan is the biggest state so far, and one Dean must win, considering that he has given up on Feb 03 and is throwing everything at Michigan. Michigan is on Feb 07, so Kerry if he wins 6 states in Feb 03 (which seems to be the case now), and then use his momentum to crush dean here. The michigan Governor and the papers have all endoresed Kerry as well, in a severe blow to dean

chesslover
03-02-2004, 07:02 PM
This is the latest NATIONAL poll numbers released for the democrat candidates today. Figure in brackets is the numbers each candidate had prior to New Hampshire.

Confirms a previous poll by newsweek that shows Kerry now having more support that all others together, and haveing 30+ percentage leads over the next candiate dean

1. John Kerry 42% (30%)
2. Howard Dean 11% (17%)
3. John Edwards 10% (14%)
4. Wesley Clark 10% (14%)
5. Joe Lieberman 6% (8%)
6. Al Sharpton 5% (4%)
7. Dennis Kucinich 1% (1%)

The race is Kerry's to seal tomorrow, and national numbers all confirm this

chesslover
03-02-2004, 07:21 PM
This article by washington Post states that Senator Edwards has confirmed to everyone that if he does not win South carolina, he will quit the race and congratulate Kerry.

http://http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6892-2004Feb2.html

If he wins, Edwards has said that he will ignore Michigan on Feb 07, and go straight to Tennesse and Virginia, the southern states that will be having elections on Feb 10

Kerry now has a once in a life chance to knock off Edwards once and for all by winning SC, and polls show him running neck and neck with edwards as he does precisely that focusing money and respurces here. If Kerry fails, he will be caught in a sandwich block - Dean running only in the Northern states, and Edwards in the Southern states.

Thus as both dean and Edwards will be focusing on their strength and forcing Kerry to disperse his forces as he fights a two front war, they are more likely to win and amass delegates to rival kerry. This also paves the way for a Dean/ Edwards ticket as well....

South Carolina will be by far the most critical of the Super 7 states tomorrow for this reason

chesslover
03-02-2004, 08:06 PM
With less than 20 hours to go before the results of the Super 7 states on Feb 03 are announced, here are the latest state by state polls from the super 7 states. These average out the numbers from the seperate independent polls taken.

MISSOURI (74 delegates) - 4 independent polls taken (SurveyUSA, Zogby Tracking, Time/CNN and ARG) during the last 2 days, and average numbers are;
1. Kerry 47%
2. Edwards 18%
3. Dean 12%
4. Clark 5%

ARIZONA (55 delegates) - 5 independent polls taken (SurveyUSA, Zogby Tracking, Time/CNN, Arizona Republic and ARG) during the last 2 days, and average numbers are;
1. Kerry 35%
2. Clark 24%
3. Dean 14%
4. Edwards 8%

SOUTH CAROLINA (45 delegates) - 5 independent polls taken (SurveyUSA, Zogby Tracking, Time/CNN, CBS news and ARG) during the last 2 days, and average numbers are;
1. Edwards 32%
2. Kerry 22%
3. Clark 13%
4. Sharpton 10%

OKLAHOMA (40 delegates) - 5 independent polls taken (SurveyUSA, Zogby Tracking, the oklohoman, tulsa world and ARG) during the last 2 days, and average numbers are;
1. Clark 28%
2. Kerry 26%
3. Edwards 23%
4. Liberman 7%

NEW MEXICO (26 delegates) - 1 poll taken (Albuquerque Jrnl) over the last 2 days, and numbers are;
1. Kerry 31%
2. Dean 15%
3. Clark 14%
4. Edwards 7%

DELAWARE (15 delegates) - 2 independent polls taken (SurveyUSA and ARG) during the last 2 days, and average numbers are;
1. Kerry 42%
2. dean 12%
3. Liberman 10%
4. Edwards 10%

NORTH DAKOTA (14 delegates) - 1 poll (The Forum/WDAY) taken over teh 2 days;
1. Kerry 31%
2. Clark 15%
3. Edwards 6%
4. Dean 5%

What does this state by state polls mean for tommorrow?

a. Kerry will 5 of the 7 states, and just finish second in SC and Oklahoma. He will be the overwhelming favourite, but will not be able to knock off 2 of his main rivals, and may have to keep fighting till march 02 "super tuesday" when 50% of delegates for nomination become available

b. Edwards will win South Carolina, and stay in the race and fight Kerry in the South

c. Dean may just scrape in to come second/third in 4 states and if gets over 15% is a chance to get delegates in Missouri, Arizona and New Mexico and Delware. This will be remarkable given that he did not campaign and pulled out all his ads, and will give him the conviction to take the fight to Kerry in Michigan and beyond till march 02

d. Liberman, Shparton and Kucinich will not pass the 15% threshold and will get no delegates and will be under pressure to withdraw after this, and will also be broke

e. Clark if he wins Oklahoma may continue on. He will come second in New Mexico, Arizona, North Dakota and also may come 3rd in SC. Whether this will make him continue on further will affect Edwards, as Clark will steal his southern votes

skip to my lou
03-02-2004, 08:10 PM
chesslover, please post links rather than copying and pasting huge chunks of text.

Thanks.

chesslover
03-02-2004, 08:25 PM
chesslover, please post links rather than copying and pasting huge chunks of text.

Thanks.

these are not copy and paste, but original analysis from me :confused:

the poll numbers are from various sources, so the average numbers are also originally derived

links have been posted to cnn/ washington post like in my posts in this threads

chesslover
04-02-2004, 05:55 PM
The Super 7 states of Feb 03 have finished, and of the seven states Kerry has won 5, Edwards 1 and Clark 1.

The results state by state are, with only the candidates who passed the 15% threshold are:

MISSOURI
1. Kerry 51%
2. Edwards 25%

ARIZONA
1. Kerry 43%
2. Clark 27%
3. Dean 15%

NEW MEXICO
1. Kerry 42%
2. Clark 21%
3. Dean 17%

DELAWARE
1. Kerry 50%
2. Lieberman 11%

NORTH DAKOTA
1. Kerry 50%
2. Clark 24%

OKLAHOMA
1. Clark 30%
2. Edwards 30%
3. Kerry 27%

SOUTH CAROLINA
1. Edwards 45%
2. Kerry 30%

Kerry has shown that he is the undisputable top dog and favourite for the Democrat presidential race, with the win of 5 states, and getting delegates in the remaning 2 states. Polls show that he is also leading in a head to head with Bush. He is the one to beat, but he failed to knock off 2 of his southern candidates - Clark and Edwards, and dean is still there. However Kerry has the race well in hand, and it is his to lose

Edwards has now emerged as the chief rival to Kerry and can win, as there is still 90% of the delegates still to be decided. He won his native state very convincingly, just came second in Oklahoma, and Missouri to pick up delegates, and is very much alive in the race.

Clark although just winning in Oklahoma is also still in the race, and came second in 3 other states. He is also still very much alive, but his struggle to just beat Edwards in his neighbouring state of Oklahoma shows that he will find it very hard to win the nomination, but his remaining in the race will mean that Edwards will have a rival for his southern credentials

Dean had given up the Super 7 states, and his best showing was third in two states, but he still managed to pick up delegates. He has stated that this is a race fo rdelegates, and will also continue

Liberman was the biggest loser, not even managing to poll well in Delaware where he camped out in a desperate attempt to win. To add insult to injurh he failed to pick up 15% in any of the states - including Delware. As for Sharpton and Kucinich the results confirmed that they were irrelevent and should withdraw asap

Kevin Bonham
04-02-2004, 06:14 PM
Read somewhere that Kucinich is only staying in the race as a kind of protest against the Iraq war.

chesslover
04-02-2004, 06:17 PM
and another one has quit the race...Senator Liberman, a senior and most respected Democrat senator, who was Al gore's VP nominee in 2000 quit after his very poor showing in the SUper 7 states today.
http://http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/03/elec04.prez.lieberman/index.html

http://http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10966-2004Feb3.html

That leaves just 6 candiates for the US Presidential nomination for the Democrats - after 9 states and 8% of all national delegates decided;

There are a total of 4,322 Delegates, and a person needs to win 2,162

1. Senator John Kerry (winner 7 states): 244 delegates
2. Howard Dean (winner no states): 121 delegates
3. Senator John Edwards (winner 1 state): 102 delegates
4. General Wesley Clark (winner 1 state): 79 delegates
5. Reverend Al Sharpton (winner no states): 5 delegates
6. Rep. Dennis Kucinich (winner no states): 2 delegates

Although Kerry is unargueably the favourite, the other 3 Dean, Clark and Edwards are still in the race, as Kerry just has 10% of the delegates needed and others are within striking distance if he falters

Although today was very good for Kerry, he had a once in a lifetime chance to seal up teh nominations by winning in South Carolina (and forcing Edwards off), and Oklohoma 9forcing Clark off) and then finsihing off Dean on Saturday and sealing it all up by this Sunday Feb 08

Instead the race with the top 4 may well continue to March 02, Super Tuesday, and as favourite there will be so much more pressure on Kerry by his 3 rivals

chesslover
04-02-2004, 06:33 PM
After today, these are the next state elections over the coming week

Saturday Feb 07 (5% of total delegates up for grabs)
Michigan Caucus (128 Delegates)
Washington State caucus (76 delegates)

Sunday Feb 08 (0.5% of total delegates up for grabs)
Maine caucus (24 delegates)

Feb 10 (3.5% of the total delegates up for grabs)
Virginia Primary (82 delegates)
Tennessee Primary (69 delegates)

remembering that so far just only 8% of total delegates has been decided, these 5 states accounting for 9% of the total delegates will be vital.

Dean has concentrated on Michigan. making that his last stand. Edrwards and Clark are concentrating on Virginia and Tennessee, the 2 southern states, and only one of them will emerge from that fight.

Kerry is the only person who is dispersing his forces trying to win all of the 5 states, against the combined efforts of his 3 rivals. Dean has already started to blast Kerry, as has Clark. Edwards has not attacked anyone, and with these sniping may well sneak in!!

chesslover
04-02-2004, 11:09 PM
these are the just released CNN/Gallup head to head mateches of the 4 major democrat candidates vs Bush

Bush 46%
Kerry 53%

Bush 48%
Edwards 49%

Bush 50%
Clark 47%

Bush 52%
Dean 45%

It is a long way off till November, and Bush has still not begun to fight, but these figures are making Kerry the most "electable" democrat candidate. Edrwards too on the back of his SC win, and close second in Oklahoma, is now registering on peoples radar

chesslover
05-02-2004, 06:02 PM
Senator Edwards after his South carolina win went on letterman for his top 10 list :)

for those interested this what Edwards read out

http://http://newslink.nandomedia.com/NandoTimes/politics/election/president/story/1139518p-7935776c.html

chesslover
05-02-2004, 06:09 PM
These are the latest polls for the Feb 07 Michigan and Washington State election, the Feb 08 Maine election and the Feb 10 Tennessee and Virginia elections:

Michigan
1. Kerry 56%
2. dean 12%
3. Edwards 7%
4. Clark 3%

Washington State- all polls taken before Iowa and meaningless

Maine - no polls so far taken by the major polling organisations

Tennessee
1. Kerry 31%
2. Clark 26%
3. Edwards 25%
4. dean 15%

Virginia
1. Kerry 32%
2. Edwards 17%
3. Clark 17%
4, Dean 14%

whilst kerry is running a race in all these 5 races, Dean is bypassing Tennessee and Virginia, and just concentrating on Michigan and Washington state. Clark and Edwards have flown to Virginia and Tennessee and their poll numbers should jump there over the next 6 days, and kerry's fall, as they both have given up on Michigan. Washington and Maine

arosar
06-02-2004, 10:59 AM
Check this out CL: http://www.deangoesnuts.com/

AR

Kevin Bonham
06-02-2004, 02:07 PM
Michigan
1. Kerry 56%
2. dean 12%
3. Edwards 7%
4. Clark 3%

Ummmmm.... isn't Dean's plan meant to be to win this state? :rolleyes:

If I was Kerry's campaign chief and Kerry asked me for advice on how to tackle Dean I'd say "The man is mad, you're playing a lunatic..."

Except he shows no signs of being a brilliant lunatic.

chesslover
06-02-2004, 05:57 PM
Ummmmm.... isn't Dean's plan meant to be to win this state? :rolleyes:

If I was Kerry's campaign chief and Kerry asked me for advice on how to tackle Dean I'd say "The man is mad, you're playing a lunatic..."

Except he shows no signs of being a brilliant lunatic.

Good point, yes dean is in big trouble in Michigan. From what I hear Gepherdt is going to endorse Kerry in Michigan, and this together with the endorsement of teh Michigan Governor and Lt. Governor (the two most senior Michigan positions) and the endorsements of key unions as well as the major Michigan newspapers will see Kerry romp home in Michigan in 2 days time unless something drastic happens. Clark and Edwards have ignored Michigan/ Washington State and Maine so this weekend the 3 states should all go to Kerry unless Dean can pull out something big in the next 48 hours

From what I have read it seems that Dean is so cashstrapped that he simply has pulled ads in Michigan and Washington State so Kerry even without much campaigning here is well ahead of dean. maine is too small at this stage to worry about, but given Dean's proximity to Maine, and the need for him to at least win one state, I would have thought that he would have focussed on at least Maine so that he can have some momentum and credibility

After these 3 states come Tennessee and Virginia and since Dean has skipped these states, he really needs to do something big this weekend. However dean has stated that he will continue on till march 02 Super Tuesday, but the danger is that like Al Sharpton and Denis Kucinich he will become a "dead man walking"

The US media are taking the campaigns of Edwards and Clark far more seriously, and the battle on Feb 10 where both men go head to head in Virginia and Tennessee, will mean that the loser will almost certainly withdraw, especially if Kerry finishes ahead as well. Given that Dean will run a poor 4th in these two states, Dean to be taken as seriously he HAS to at least come close to Kerry in Michigan, Washington and Maine. So far this has not happened, and time is fast running out

chesslover
06-02-2004, 06:00 PM
Check this out CL: http://www.deangoesnuts.com/
AR

thanks

yes I wanted dean to win, or at the very leats be in contention right till the end as he is far more interesting and passionate that Kerry, Clark or Edwards.

Kerry is really dull, and most media people do nto want him to run away with it as it will make the election run.

Most US media seem to prefer Edwards

Kevin Bonham
06-02-2004, 08:17 PM
Most US media seem to prefer Edwards

I noticed that. However the media have a vested interest in (a) keeping Edwards in the race, because while the race is going they sell more papers (b) Edwards winning because he is more exciting to report on than Kerry.

PHAT
07-02-2004, 10:50 AM
I noticed that. However the media have a vested interest in (a) keeping Edwards in the race, because while the race is going they sell more papers (b) Edwards winning because he is more exciting to report on than Kerry.

and lets keep Dean on the menu - he is real "media talent".

chesslover
07-02-2004, 05:18 PM
I noticed that. However the media have a vested interest in (a) keeping Edwards in the race, because while the race is going they sell more papers (b) Edwards winning because he is more exciting to report on than Kerry.

true - i watch the newshour in SBS, whenever I come home early and their analysts state that the Edwards campaign is more interesting, that he communicates farbetter and draws more people than Kerry.

In fact they state (and this is backed by exit polls in the US) that if people go for principles, they go for Edwards, and if they go for national security they go for Clark, and most only go for kerry because they think he is the man who will beat Bush - not because they like him or believe in what he espouses like the people who follow dean. Hence the danger is unlike Edrwards, Clark and Dean - the vote for kerry is "soft"

Most US media did not want a Kerry clean sweep in Feb 03 as then if he beats Dean tommorow in Michigan and washington it is all over. They are not projecting Edwards as the alternate candidate for nomination - spmething that Dean and Clark resent

Also it seems that after his very narrow win in Oklahoma, Clark wanted to quit and all his major backers also wanted him to quit. If he could only just beat Edwards in a state that is next to his native arkansas, and where he had spent all his time while Edwards was in South carolina and Kerry all over the 7 states, they stated that Clark will not fare well in other Southern states or the rest of the nation, and wanted him to quit with a victory. However Clark's wife talked him out of quitting, and Clark whi is campaigning in Tennesee and Virginia for feb 10, is stating that he has the "oklo-mentum"!!

chesslover
07-02-2004, 05:31 PM
this is the latest head to head polls....

Bush 48%
Clark 48%

Bush 49%
Dean 47%

Bush 46%
Edwards 51%

Bush 43%
Kerry 55%

These show that Bush is getting trounced on a 1 on 1 with Kerry and losing to Edwards - the 2 most probable Democrat nominees

They say that Karl Rove and the Bush campaign team are getting worried a little now. The state of the Union speech by Bush was drowned out in the Kerry wins, and the capture of Saddam has not resulted in any long term gain for Bush's popularity. The statement that tehre was no WMD, the attanetion Kerry and Edwards have gotten have all put Bush on the defensive.

Bush so far has raised a record $170 million so far - the most money ever collected in US history, and only the second time it has reached the $100 Million figure (done by Bush in 2000). Bush's plan was to wait till the Democrat fought and wounded each other, and then unleash hell with wall to wall attack ads to destroy the democrat candidate.

But this polls have meant that Bush may need to launch his attack earlier than expected. However until he knows it is Kerry for sure, Bush will not throw his all at Kerry, and will probably wait till a democrat has the delegates needed for nomination before attacking.

They say the best issue that Bush has going, especially if Kerry wins, is teh ruling that gay marriages are allowed by a state court. Most americans, especially those in the south are against it, and all political analysts are syaing that Bush will use that as a wedge issue to portray Kerry as pro gay marriages and destroy him in the South and the conservative states. In the other states Bush will campaign on the war of terror, by raking over Kerry's lack of support and if ever Osama gets captured in the months leading up to November it will be the biggest win in US electoral history - by the same man who had the narrowest win in US history

For those conspiracy theroist amongts us, they say that with winter over in Afghansitan, a lot of US special commando forces have been dispatched, and that Pentagon is under a lot of pressure now to get Osama

chesslover
07-02-2004, 05:51 PM
Dean has declared that he will make his last stand in Wisonsin which will happen on Feb 17, and that if he does not win there he will quit. He has asked for and will receive $1million from his small contributers to run ads for teh first time since New Hampshire there. As soon as Edwards heard the news, he also has decided to campaign in Wisconsin , after the feb 10 races in Virginoa and Tennessess with teh aim of knocking Dean off and making it a 2 horse race with Kerry

Dean quit the Feb 03 Super 7 states to campaign in Michigan and it's delegate rich election on feb 07. Washington State also goes to the poll on feb 07 as well, and dean had also spent time there. However he has since Thursday abandoned these 2 states and has rushed to Wisconsin to make his laststand there

The latest opinion polls in Michigan are dreadful for Dean, and given that he has wasted more than a week there, and abandoned the 7 states of feb 03, are testamount to his very very poor judgement

MICHIGAN
Kerry 47%
Dean 10%
Edwards 8%
Clark 4%
Sharpton 2%
Kucinich 1%

With less than 24 hours to go, if teh polls are right, Dean will not even make the 15% threshold for delegates for Michigamn. pathetic really, the emperor does indeed have no cloths

In Washington state and Maine, all polls are showing Kerry leading Dean with double digit leads in Maine and washington. As Edwards and Clark have abandoned these states to concentrate on Feb 10's 2 southern states, Kerry by this time tommorrow should wrap up Michigan (128 delegates at stake) and Washington State (76 delegates available) and by this time monday Maine (24 delegates) - making it 10 state wins from the first 12.

Clark has now decided to abandon Virginia (82 delgates) to Edwards and kerry and concentrate on tennessee (69 delegates) which is next to his home state of arkansas for feb 10. If he loses there he may well quit

chesslover
07-02-2004, 06:04 PM
These are the NATIOWIDE polls taken by FoxNews

John Kerry 54%
John Edwards 12%
Wesley Clark 8%
Howard Dean 7%
Al Sharpton 5%
Dennis Kucinich 0.5%

Eeven at his peak Dean commanded no more than a third of the votes, so Kerry's surge and dominance is remarkable, and unmatched since the polling began.

Sharpton, Kucinich and Dean have been asked to quit, as have Clark and Edwards if they do not win any of the two 10 sourthern primaries.

Dean has said that he will not quite irrespective of the results of Michigan which he said would be his last stand, and instead said that he will only quit if he loses on Feb 17 Wisconsin. Between then there will be (including Michigan and Washington which he has given up on with still 3 more days to fly away to wisconsin to concentrate there for it's feb 17 race) 7 states and 419 pledged delegates - all of which dean will abandon to fight in Wisconsin!!! This is just like he abandoned the 7 states and 269 delegates of Feb 03 to fight in Michigan.

Kucinich has also refused to quit as has Sharpton. There are allegations that Bush's team is funding sharpton, so that they can show to the conservative states what radicals the democrats are

chesslover
08-02-2004, 05:42 PM
the results of the 2 US state elections that just finished

MICHIGAN
1. Kerry 52%
2. Dean 17%
3. Edwards 13%
4. Sharpton 7%
5. Clark 7%
6. Kucinich 3%

This was a very good result for Kerry winning more than 50% of the vote, and even Edwards who did not even campaign here as he was contesting for teh 2 Feb 10 Southern states. For Dean who had spent more than 2 weeks here saying it was his final stand it was a disaster


WASHINGTON STATE
1. Kerry 49%
2. Dean 30%
3. Kucinich 8%
4. Edwards 7%
5. Clark 3%
6. Shaprton 0.1%

Dean perfromed well here, but as Edwards and Clark gave up on this state to concentrate on the South, this gave a lot of delegates to Dean and will encourage him, unlike Michigan

chesslover
08-02-2004, 05:56 PM
This is the latest delegate count after Michigan and washington State. So far there have been 11 state elcections

1. Senator John Kerry - 411 delegates (9 state victories)
2. Howard Dean - 175 delegates (no state victories)
3. Senator John Edwards - 118 delegates (1 state victory)
4. General Clark - 82 delegates (1 state victory)
5. Reverend Al Sharpton - 12 delegates (no state victory)
6. Congressman Dennis Kucinich - 2 delegates (no state victory)

2161 delegates are needed, so it is still possible for Kerry to lose, but his momentum hand 9-2 record is making him look invicible so far

chesslover
08-02-2004, 06:08 PM
tommorow the Maine Caucus takes place with 24 delegates at stake. Edwards and Clark have not campaigned there, and neither has Dean, who has abandoned Maine to make his stand in Wisconsin.

Thus another Kerry 50%+ win is expected

After that comes 2 genuine contests on Feb 10 - Tennesse and Virginia where Edwards and Clark are making their stand against Kerry. Dean however will not be so he will come a poor 4th and lose the 151 pledged delegates that is available in these 2 states

chesslover
09-02-2004, 06:20 PM
This is the results of the maine state caucsus that finished today

1. Kerry 45%
2. Dean 26%
3. Kucinich 15%
4. Edwards 9%
5. Clark 4%
6. Shaprton 0%

There arte just 24 delegates at stake, so the Maine election results are largely irrelevent to the delegate race

But now from 12 state elections held so far, Kerry has won 10 - and only lost the 2 southern states to Edwards (South carolina) and Oklahoma (Clark).

chesslover
09-02-2004, 06:27 PM
These are the latest ARG tracking polls in the next 2 states that will hold primaries - Tennessee and Virgina. Both Edwards and clark have camped out here, but the numbers do not look too good for them, with less than 48 hours before they vote. Dean of course has abandoned these states to fight in Wisonsin

VIRGINIA (82 delegates)
1. Kerry 35%
2. Edwards 22%
3. Clark 17%
4. dean 9%

TENNESSEE (69 delegates)
1. Kerry 32%
2. Edwards 21%
3. Clark 20%
4. dean 8%

analysts state that if Edwards finishes ahead of Clark in both these races, Clark will quit, which will mean that it will be Kerry vs Edwards for the democrat nomination (assuming of course that dean will be knocked off in Wisconsin his "last stand")

Edwards has said that if he will only quite if he does not come in the first 2 in both these southern states on Feb 10

chesslover
09-02-2004, 06:29 PM
the latest poll taken on Wisconsin and released today are BAD for dean

1. Kerry 41%
2. Clark 15%
3. Edwards 10%
4. dean 9%

Dean has till feb 17, to win Wisconsin - which looks almost impossible

chesslover
11-02-2004, 08:04 PM
Results of the Virginia and Tennessee Primaries that finished today;

VIRGINIA (82 delegates)
1. Kerry 52%
2. Edwards 27%
3. Clark 9%
4. dean 7%
5. Sharpton 3%
6. Kucinich 1%

An absolute disaster for Clark who could not even get into double digit, and a BIG win for Kerry, who romped home here. Edwards established himself as the credible second force to Kerry

TENNESSEE (69 delegates)
1. Kerry 41%
2. Edwards 26%
3. Clark 23%
4. Dean 4%
5. Sharpton 2%
6. Kucinich 1%

A another BIG win for Kerry - showing that he can now win in the south. Although Edwards lost he came second, which will give him some hope for carrying on. As for clark, coming 3rd was a disaster - particularly as he had spent a lot of time and effort here

chesslover
11-02-2004, 08:12 PM
The current delegate count after 14 state elections, with 2161 delegates needed for nomination

1. Senator John Kerry 516 delegates (12 state wins)
2. Howard Dean 182 delegates (no state win)
3. Senator Edwards 165 delegates (1 state win)
4. General Clark 102 delegates (1 state win)
5. Rev Al Sharpton 12 delegates (no state win)
6. Rep Denis Kuincih 2 delegeates (no state win)

The next elections will be on Saturday Feb 14, when Neveda (24 delegates) and washington DC (10 delegates) goes to the polls.

Thatwill be followed by Wisconsin on Feb 17, where Howard Dean will make his self proclaimed last stand for it's 72 delegates

Whilst Kerry still has less than 25% of teh delegates needed, it is almsot 90% certain that he is the nominee for President barring any upsets between here and Super Tuesday, March 02 when almost 50% of teh delegates available become available

chesslover
11-02-2004, 08:43 PM
Kerry's crushing wins in the Southern Primaries today has resulted in a major casualtly

General Clark has announced that he will now pull out of the nomination today.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/10/elec04.prez.clark/index.html

This now leaves just 5 people in the race - with 2 having no chance (Reverend Sharpton and Dennis Kucinich).

Kerry seems to have a near lock on the nomination, although he still has won less than the 25% needed to get the Democrat nomination, with just Howard dean and Senator Edwards his only possible rivals if he stumbles.

Senator Edwards has said after his 2 second place efforts today, that he will contest till March 02's 11 state primary, while Dean has stated that he will fight till feb 17, and maybe then fight on till March 02 as well

Clark at one stage was a front runner, before the then dean surge, and then emerged as the only person capable of stopping Dean. It was known that ex- president Bill Clinton also supported him, and President Bush feared Clark given his conservative views and his military expertise as the Supreme Commander of NATO and the leader of the war against the Serbs. However Kerry's momentum after Iowa and New hampshire, as well as the fact that Kerry is a military hero has meant that Clark lost his popularity and slumped badly

While Kerry has just knocked out a big gun (leaving just Edwards and dean left), this will also be good news for Edwards as he is now the only southern candidate

arosar
12-02-2004, 02:49 PM
Yo chesslover! You got any opinions on the FTA? How's about Bush's National Guard experience or lack of it and the controversy surrounding?

AR

Kevin Bonham
12-02-2004, 03:42 PM
However Kerry's momentum after Iowa and New hampshire, as well as the fact that Kerry is a military hero has meant that Clark lost his popularity and slumped badly

Also Clark's political inexperience has often been far too obvious. Basically, he just didn't run a good campaign.

chesslover
13-02-2004, 12:29 AM
Yo chesslover! How's about Bush's National Guard experience or lack of it and the controversy surrounding?
AR

They actually discussed this issue in the SBS Newshour today..

the point was well made that it was a non issue, as this is what Bush did 30 years ago and Bush and times have changed since then dramatically.

Also the national guard exp, would be relevant if Bush was seeking the Presidency for the first time, so that people could see if he could handle the pressure of being a commander-in-chief. However President Bush has been the President since 2000, and everyone knows how he reatced to Sep 11, the war on terror, Afghanistan, Iraq etc

Also Clinton in 1992 beat Bush Snr a war hero, and then beat Dole in 96, who again served in the War. In 2000 Bush beat Gore who had served in the armed forces as well. All of these show that it recently at least the american electorate does not decide that the war hero is the best President.

Senator Kerry is trying to use this controversy to show how as a Vietnam war hero, with medals for bravery he is better than Bush who did not serve as outstandingly in the national guard. It will not work, for President Bush has karl Rove, and the most money in the history of US elections to throw at Kerry as November 2004 draws closer

chesslover
13-02-2004, 12:33 AM
Also Clark's political inexperience has often been far too obvious. Basically, he just didn't run a good campaign.

PBS's Newshour that shows in SBS daily also made comment on this today. They stated that whilst Kerry was down, and it was all Dean, Clark with his military expertise seemed to be the person who could have stopped Dean and beaten Bush on national security issues.

But dean's and Gepherdt's bloody match, allowed Kerry to win in Iowa and Edwrads to come second - thus denting Clark's national security strengh and his southern credentials. From then on Clark never recovered

chesslover
13-02-2004, 03:45 PM
latest nationwide pollss of democrat candidates - Kerry maintaining a firm grip on the democrat voters

1. John Kerry 52%
2. Howard Dean 14%
3. John Edwards 13%
4. Al Sharpton 4%
5. Dennis Kucinich 1%

chesslover
13-02-2004, 03:53 PM
latest tracking poll released today in Wisconsin - a state that dean stated that he must win. Wisconsin's electiosn will take place on Feb 17

1. John Kerry 53%
2. John Edwards 16%
3. Howard Dean 11%
4. Dennis Kucinich 2%
5. Al Sharpton 2%

These latest poll which were taken yesterday, are a disaster for Dean - even Edwards is ahead of him

Dean has now been backtracking from his earlier claims that he will quit if he loses Wisconsin, as he states that to do so will be to disfranchise the voters of March 02 Super Tuesday - when 10 states, and more than 50% of teh delegates needed to win the presidential nomination are at stake.

media analysts state that if either Dean or Edwards quit, it will be bad for Kerry, as then the other person can launch a no hold barred attack on Kerry. Currently both Dean and Edwards are scared to do so, as this will mean that in addition to Kerry whoever does the negative ads will also suffer - enabling the third person to sneak in (just like Edwards did in Iowa when Dean and Gepherdt knocked each other). However if Edwards/Deamn goes, then it is a battle between kerry and one of these 2, and hence the underdog has nothing to lose by going after Kerry with all that theyhave got

chesslover
13-02-2004, 04:28 PM
SHOCK rumours have surfaced that Senator Kerry has been involved in an affiar with an intern

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/02/13/1076548212243.html

This news was broken by the right wing internet site of matt Drudge today. It seems that the Kerry camp in in panic and are deciding on a response to this.

It seems that the Bush camp has unleashed their massive attack power on Kerry. This is just the latest in a long string of leaks and attacks that Kerry will face over the next 6 months. It seems that karl Rove has had people pouring over all of Kerry's voting records and speech that he has ever uttered in an attempt to find something that they can blast him. The Bush team is the best financed campaign team in US history, and unlike Bush Snr who held back his punches against Clinton, will do anything and everything to win.

Just a couple of days ago, it seems that there was another leak - wherin Kerry was shown with Jane Fonda protesting the Vietnam war in the 70s. This news that Kerry supported "Hanoi Jane" has been used by the Republicans to call Kerry's patriotism into question, and to demean the many deaths that USA suffered

If this intern scandal, and other dirty Republican tricks take effect soon, Dean and Edwards may still be with a chance!!! :)

Indeed the SMH stated that this is the reason Dean and edwards have been staying in the race, and Dean in particular has unleashed attack after attack on Kerry

It is not over, till it is over!!

chesslover
13-02-2004, 04:37 PM
this is the shocking news from matt drudge's website about Kerry's adultery that is casuing panic in the Kerry camp and threatens to derail his nomination unless he handles it right

http://www.drudgereport.com/mattjk1.htm

http://www.drudgereport.com/mattjk5.htm

This news in being investigated by CNN, Washington Post and ABC, and if true will cause dean and edwards much much cheer :)

The reporters and media are also looking for a contest for the democrat nomination, and this too will help their agenda

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/02/13/wus13.xml&sSheet=/portal/2004/02/13/ixportaltop.html

chesslover
14-02-2004, 08:15 AM
General Clark has endorsed Senator Kerry, delivering all his delegates to kerry

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/13/elec04.prez.main/index.html

So far none of the major newspapers or news has reported on the intern scandal of Kerry, but it seems to be doing the rounds of republican internet sites

chesslover
14-02-2004, 08:20 AM
this is the current news about the Kerry intern adultry affair

http://www.drudgereport.com/mattjk6.htm

It seems that local tv and radio stations in the US are alluding to this - some more specifically than others.

In the UK, the UK times had it on it's front pages, and Drudge is saying that the UK Sun has found the name of the intern and are interviewing her parents.

Matt Drudge has good republican sources, and was the one who first broke the news on Monica Lewisnky and Paula Jones affairs with Clinton

chesslover
14-02-2004, 08:43 AM
This is news that Murdoch's Fox Network in the US has been running. Oliver North is the war hsitorian for the Fox Network, and he stated that due to Kerry's anti Vietnam war protests teh US lost to Vietnam. Kerry has gone down so much in my eyes now, and I hope that he never ever wins the presidential nomination.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/2/10/222651.shtml

This is the Kerry with "hanoi jane" photo in the 70s protesting the Vietnam war, that outraged Vietnam war verterens....Bush's election team is hitting back against Kerry now!!!!

http://www.newsmax.com/images/headlines/Fonda_Kerry_arrow.jpg

BRING IT ON!!!!!

chesslover
14-02-2004, 06:22 PM
The fight between President Bush's team and the democrats got nastier.

The republicnas had released photos of Kerry protesting the Vietnam war in ther 70's with Jane Fonda. and there are rumours that Kerry had affair with an intern that is in all the right wing websites.

Now the Democrats have responded as well blasting Bush for his record in the national Guard.

CNN ran a report on how dirty this is getting

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/13/elec04.gillespie/index.html

particularly good is the comment made by the Republican party chief that the Democrat's party chief is the "John Wilkes Booth of presidential character assassination." , and of "using some of the most vitriolic rhetoric in the history of presidential politics"!!!

Not to be outdone Kerry's party chiefs have hit back - saying Bush to "call off his right-wing slime machine.", and stating that "This is the dirtiest, most ruthlessly political White House since Richard Nixon"

Analysts are tipping that this could be the dirtiest presidential election ever - as Bush's team will not give an inch, and Bush's political staregist, Karl Rove will exploit every advantage that he can get.

And with another 9 months left, this is going to be getting even worse - and more exciting for us!!! :)

Kevin Bonham
14-02-2004, 06:41 PM
Analysts are tipping that this could be the dirtiest presidential election ever

The mud's certainly flying now. Kerry's got alleged infidelity and letting down the war effort on his report card, and only needs marijuana usage to collect the full set. It's important for anyone thinking Kerry has been crippled by this to realise that Clinton had all these things and won. But the national mood now is far less innocent than in 1992.

Will be interesting to see how this pans out in the remaining primaries. I rather hope Edwards wins actually, it will make for something a bit fresh and different for the Presidential election. I really don't think the US needs another tired old retread of the JFK years, which is basically what Kerry is, and nobody needs another four years of Shrubby.

chesslover
15-02-2004, 04:28 PM
The mud's certainly flying now. Kerry's got alleged infidelity and letting down the war effort on his report card, and only needs marijuana usage to collect the full set. It's important for anyone thinking Kerry has been crippled by this to realise that Clinton had all these things and won. But the national mood now is far less innocent than in 1992.

Will be interesting to see how this pans out in the remaining primaries. I rather hope Edwards wins actually, it will make for something a bit fresh and different for the Presidential election. I really don't think the US needs another tired old retread of the JFK years, which is basically what Kerry is, and nobody needs another four years of Shrubby.

nobody need another 4 years of Shrubby? :eek: :eek: Speak for yourself -I and a lot of others think that the world does need another 4 years of Bush, so that we can wipe out islamic terrorism once and for all.

But as for the Democrat nominee, I prefer Dean the most, as I like him as a person and he has a lot of passion and energy. A dean presidency would almost certainly result in an assasination by one of these far right nuts as well!!! If these people went mad over Clinton, who was a moderate, then they will go crazy and mad over Dean and do anything to destroy him

However it looks like Dean will not win, in which case I prefer Kerry to Edwards. I think Bush will find Kerry easier to beat than Edwards, as Keryr has a 22 year Senate record that can be combed through for attacks, and is not strong in the SOuth

I thought Bush's greatest fear was Clark, which is also what Michael Moore stated too. Edwards is like a clinton, is positive, and as a first term senator does not have a lot of background that would expose him to an attack

chesslover
15-02-2004, 04:44 PM
today the Neveda and Washington DC elections were held today

NEVEDA
1. Kerry 63%
2. dean 17%
3. Edwards 10%
4. Kucinich 7%
5. Sharpton 1%

WASHINGTON DC
1. Kerry 47%
2. Sharpton 20%
3. dean 18%
4. Edwards 10%
5. Kucinich 3%

Kerry contuines his momentum - that makes it 14 state wins from 16. In addition Clark who won the 15th state has endorsed him and backed him as well

the delegate scorecard as of today after elections in 16 states are;
1. Senator Kerry 555 delegates (14 statewins). If you include Clark's backing it is 623 delegates delgates and 15 state wins
2. Howard Dean 187 delgates (no state win)
3. Senator Edwards 166 delegates (1 state win)
4. Reverend Al Sharpton 16 delegates (no state wins)
5. Representative Dennis Kucinch 2 delegates (no state win)

A person needs 2161 delegates to get the nomination, so it is no means over, although it looks almost impossible for the others to stop Kerry.

The next race is Wisonsin on Feb 17 (wednesday feb 18 our time is when we will now the results), when 72 delegates are available. Edwards has stated that he will continue to fight till March 02, when 10 states and more than 50% of delegates for nomination are available. Dean has said that he will reconsider his options on Wednesday after Wisconsin, and seems to be backing away from his statement that Wisconsin will be "do or die", and that he will quit if he cannot win Wisconsin, as it seems that he too wants to go to "Super Tuesday" march 02.

After Wisconsin on Feb 17, there are 3 small states that vote on Feb 24 - Hawaii, Idaho and Utah, with just 60 delegates at stake in those 3 states. After Feb 24, we go to Super Tuesday march 02

chesslover
15-02-2004, 04:54 PM
the woman who Kerry has been alledged to have had an affair with has been named - Alex Polier

Her father talked to the London SUn, and stated that Kerry was a "sleazeball". It seems that there are about 20 media and camera crew outside her parent's house

http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/news/local/7953102.htm

The mainstream media have still not reported it for it seems there is no hard evidence that an affair has taken place. However the New York Daily had this allegation on it's front pages today - there seems to be a concerted effort for some reason by Murdoch's News Corp to out Kerry

All the UK's mainstream newspapers have been reporting it as well
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/02/15/wus15.xml&sSheet=/portal/2004/02/15/ixportaltop.html

It seems that Ms Polier is how hiding out in Kenya with her fiance

Kevin Bonham
17-02-2004, 01:08 AM
One of the Australian's columnists had a bit of inside knowledge about this and suggests it's all a crock:

http://http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,8693388%5E2703,00.html

I get the impression from Kerry's last two comfortable wins and the way the press is going that these scandals are not really going to hurt him. Indeed I wonder if GWB and co have gone too early with their Hanoi Jane pic and the rest of that campaign, the American people will be fed up with it by the time the real election rolls round, as they also got fed up with the Republicans' pursuit of the Clinton/Lewinsky saga.

Incidentally, on running mates, I saw a good article that suggested that Kerry might refuse Edwards as a running mate on account of his inexperience. I wonder who else he might choose. Maybe someone who hasn't been running for the nomination?

chesslover
18-02-2004, 06:20 PM
Results of the crucial Wisconsin election that was held today. Unlike the other state races in the weekend, both Edwards and dean took on Kerry here

1. Senator Kerry 40%
2. Senator Edwards 34%
3. Howard Dean 18%
4. Dennis Kuincich 3%
5. Reverend Sharpton 2%

Whilst Kerry's win makes it 15 state wins from 17 (plus the endorsement of Clark who won one of the other), the big winner seems to be Edwards. His close and clear second surprised all, and has now given him the momentum and established him as the clear alternative to Kerry. If he perfoms well on Super Tuesday, where 10 states and more than 50% of the delegates for nomination are available, then it will be a fight to teh finish with Kerry and Edwards. Also it seems that exit polls have indicated, as they have with most states, that swing voters and voters who make up their mond in the last minute are more attracted to Edwards than Kerry

Dean's chairman has now endorsed Kerry as well, but Dean has refused to give up the fight and states that he will want to go to March 02 SUper Tuesday

chesslover
18-02-2004, 06:27 PM
One of the Australian's columnists had a bit of inside knowledge about this and suggests it's all a crock:

http://http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,8693388%5E2703,00.html

I get the impression from Kerry's last two comfortable wins and the way the press is going that these scandals are not really going to hurt him. Indeed I wonder if GWB and co have gone too early with their Hanoi Jane pic and the rest of that campaign, the American people will be fed up with it by the time the real election rolls round, as they also got fed up with the Republicans' pursuit of the Clinton/Lewinsky saga.

Incidentally, on running mates, I saw a good article that suggested that Kerry might refuse Edwards as a running mate on account of his inexperience. I wonder who else he might choose. Maybe someone who hasn't been running for the nomination?

1. Yes I too think that Bush's tyeam has attacked too early. They are making the same mistakes his daddy made against Clinton. They should have used this info when Kerry got past the nomination stage, or when the Democrat convention was on. As it is it might backfire on them, especially if edwards wins as a result - as Edwards will be harder for Bush to beat than Kerry who is a liberal, who does notr play well among conservatives and moderates and southerners

2. I think that if forced to choose among current candidates, kerry may well choose Clark, given Clark's endorsement of him. This way Clark's southern appeal, as well as his stint as the Supreme NATO COmmander, will neutralise Bush's advantage on teh war on terror.

I think Kerry will only choose Edwards, if Edwards starts to run close and seems like a credible opponent. Kerry may then decide to offer Edwards the VP nomination in exchange for Edwards quitting the race. Unlike Dean, Edwards has not attacked Kerry, so he is leaving that route open as well.

However it is noted, that teh last time a credible opponent in the primaries was nominated as a VP candidate by the winner, was when Ronald reagan chose Bush Snr as his VP in 1980

chesslover
18-02-2004, 06:51 PM
The updated Delegate count after 17 state elections, and including today's Wisconsin election;

1. Senator John Kerry - 608 delegates (15 state wins)
2. Howard dean - 201 delegates (no state wins)
3. Senator John Edwards - 190 delegates (1 state win)
4. Rev Sharpton - 16 delegates
5. Dennis Kucinich - 2 delegates

With 2161 delegates needed, Edwards is still within reach - especially as on March 02 Super Tuesday about 1100 delegates from 10 states are at stake. If Edwards does well, then he may well take the lead in the delegate race - if he gets beat in all of these states, then Kerry is the winner

Between then and now, there are 3 small states that will have elections on Feb 24. It is likely that Edwards and dean will ignore them and concentrate on SUper Tuesday march 02

The 3 small states that will go to elections on feb 24 and the delegates at stake are too small (61 delegates in total) to make any differences to the delegate races, so both Edwards and Dean are right to ignore them, and concentrate on March 02 Super Tuesday:
Hawaii (20 delegates)
Idaho (18 delegates)
Utah (23 delegates)

Kevin Bonham
18-02-2004, 10:43 PM
To throw another chess analogy into the mix, Dean could do with some resigning lessons.

chesslover
18-02-2004, 11:21 PM
To throw another chess analogy into the mix, Dean could do with some resigning lessons.

poor dean

It must be very hard on him, that his world has collapsed so suddenly.

One moment he was teh overwhelming favourite, with his face on Time and other mainstream papers. He had and still holds the record for most money raised by a Democrat in US presidential election history. He was endorsed by people like Al Gore, Carter and most of the democrat congress reps and unions. He had the most supporters and his internet fudn raising techniques were truely visionary.

Dean was right to think himself as easily winning the Democrat race, and then taking on Bush, and having a good chance to be the US President

Then he made a bad mistake in a small unimportant state in Iowa. He and the number 2 in teh race, Richard Gepherdt, went after each other in negative ads, and as a result, the people who were nowhere in the race - Kerry and Edwards - came first and second. Then he did his famous rant in his concession speech. He then took all his considerable money and came second in new hampshire, but in that process was bankrupt. Then he fired his campaign manager, abandoned 7 states, and gave the momentum to Kerry and Edwards, and was essentially gone. Even his campaign manager has resigned and gone over to Kerry. One by one his union endorsements and political endorsements have left him and gone to Kerry. The fat lady is singing, but Dean still cannot hear her. I think he is so shocked and stunned by how in a couple of weeks he went from a serious contender for President to a nobody who has still not won any of the 17 state elections held so far.

In retrospect, what Dean should have done was not gone negative with Gepherdt in Iowa. Even if he had gone negative, he should not have made the ranting concession speech, as that diverted a lot of attention. He also should have fired his campaign manager after Iowa, and spent his money more wisely. He had raised more money than anyone in Democrat hisotry - Kerry, Gore, Clinton, carter raised far less than him - yet he unwisely wasted them.

I think once dean deals with the personal shame and loss, he will see that the only option is to quit from the race. If he continues on, he just does not have the money anbd backing to take on Kerry and Edwards in expennsive states like California and New Yprk on march 02.

If he is wise, Dean should resign, and given his attacks on Kerry, endorse Edwards. When you add Dean's 200 delegates to Edwards, edwards will have about 400 delegates to Kerry's 700 (if you add Clark and gepherdt's delegates to Kerry). With dean's organisers and internet savy fans, Edwards can make a serious attack on Kerry then. That is the wise thing for Dean to do - bit given his past record, I do not think he will do that

Kevin Bonham
18-02-2004, 11:57 PM
Then he made a bad mistake in a small unimportant state in Iowa. He and the number 2 in teh race, Richard Gepherdt, went after each other in negative ads

Yep. That was foolish because Gepherdt was not a serious threat to him. Even a win in Iowa would not have guaranteed Gepherdt a viable candidacy - Dean should have taken the high road.

One thing he may be playing on for is kingmaker status, trying to influence the style or even the policy of whoever he then endorses.

It's a shame for Edwards that all those big states are coming up in a rush. His last result was really good, but he doesn't have so much chance to build momentum gradually from here. I expect that Kerry will win most of the states on offer on Mar 2 and that will be the end of it.

chesslover
20-02-2004, 04:54 PM
Yep. That was foolish because Gepherdt was not a serious threat to him. Even a win in Iowa would not have guaranteed Gepherdt a viable candidacy - Dean should have taken the high road.

One thing he may be playing on for is kingmaker status, trying to influence the style or even the policy of whoever he then endorses.

It's a shame for Edwards that all those big states are coming up in a rush. His last result was really good, but he doesn't have so much chance to build momentum gradually from here. I expect that Kerry will win most of the states on offer on Mar 2 and that will be the end of it.

1. Howard Dean finally faced realiuity and quit yesterday, and there was a lot of analysis and discussion on where he went wrong. essenentially most of the experts agreed on what we had already discussed, and some that he peaked too early - in August, and thus as the front runner was the target of intense scruitniy and attacks. Kerry on the other hand was the front runner only since Iowa, and had the Momentum as a result to sweep 15 from 17

They also said Kerry was in the right place at the right time, when dean and gepherdt signed their "murder-suicide pact" and took each other out of contention. Clark could have capitlaised, but because he ignored Iowa thinking Dean would blitz it in there, he too was a victim of dean's self destruction

A couple of people described Dean as a "Super Nova" - someone who shone so brightly and then died in a blaze of glory!!

2. Dean did not endorse either Kerry or Edwards, whhich is bad news for Edwards.Dean just said thathe will support the eventual winner

3.Kerry vs Edwards is the final showdown, and yes, you are right in that fighting 10 states (inluding California. New York etc) on March 02 is too tough for edrwards. Kerry has the money, the establishment support, the union endorsments, but the close finish in Wisconsin has electrified the Edwards team

PBS experts say that what Edwards should do is not contest all 10 states, or even the states where there are a lot of delegates but where he is trailing badly. They he should pick and choose the states where he wants to fight, and that if he can pull off 3 wins, including in the North, he will ensure that Kerry does not wrap it all up by March 02. After March 02, Southern states like texas, Florida, Louisiana etc come up on march 09. These are Delegate rich states, so if Kerry cannot wrap it all up on March 02, he will start to lose a lot of momentum, as Edwards picks up southern state after southern state

Also if kerry cannot finish it all off on March 02, there will be a lot of serious questions about him, and the momentum will shift. Most media like Edwards can want him to win, and are being very supportive of him

I, like president Bush, however now favour Kerry - as dean is gone. It will be farfar easier for Bush to beat kerry, as Kerry has a long senate record going back to 1984, and he has a track record of Liberal voting that can be exploited

Kevin Bonham
20-02-2004, 07:28 PM
It will be farfar easier for Bush to beat kerry, as Kerry has a long senate record going back to 1984, and he has a track record of Liberal voting that can be exploited

I'll be interested to see how much capital Bush can make of this.

A poll printed in the Australian today now shows Edwards also leading the head-to-heads against Bush by several points, though slightly less than Kerry. It is still not at the stage that Bush would be too worried about.

chesslover
21-02-2004, 04:30 PM
Yes. Kevin you are right

This is the latest head to head polling for kerry and edwards against Bush taken by CNN/USA Today/ Gallup

Senator kerry 55%
President Bush 43%

Senator Edwards 54%
President Bush 44%

This is very interstsing for it shows that Edwards too has the "electability" appeal - that Kerry had, but not dean.

Whilst these numbers may seem impressive, remember that Bush has a record $200 million (the HIGHEST EVER in US political history) waiting to launch the biggest ad campaign against his opponent. Just to put some context, this is more than DOUBLE what all the democrats together have raised so far. Also Christian Right groups, and corporations will also launch thgeir own pro-Bush ads as well

Interestingly since Edwards has come back into contention, you have heard no more anti-Kerry "scoops" in the press. It seems that the Bush camp is worried that Edwards will be the winner, and his fresh new approach and anti free trade agreement are all big worries for Bush. hence Bush is holding fire till Kerry warps up the Democrat nomination on March 02, and then you will see the Republicans unleash hell on earth against Kerry!!!

Also Bush has tried to rally his conservative base in a country where voting si compulsory. He has nominated a conservative judge who had been blocked by the Senate, with a view to rally his conservative right base

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/02/20/bush.pryor/index.html

This is the second time President Bush has bypassed the Senate to put in a conservative anti-abortion judge. Bush's political supremo, Karl Rove, uses these issues to rally the conservative base behind Bush . The gay marriage issue will also help Bush as it will make sure that the christian right and the conservatives come out to vote in enormous numbers

chesslover
21-02-2004, 04:47 PM
This poll was released yesterday from Fox News, and is a NATIONWIDE survey of Democrats

Senator John Kerry 58% (54% two weeks ago)
Senator John Edwards 21% (12% 2 weeks ago)

Remeber also that Edwards gets about 70% ofd undecided and amongst voters who make up their minds in the last minutes and among independents.

Whilst Kerry has a BIG lead, the only way for Edwards to go is up, and in the next 2 weeks he will close the gap. he is a far better candidate, and now that Dean has quit he will also get a lot of media publicity as well. However Edwards just does not have the money, union support, establishment help or the endorsements Kerry has. I find it hard to see how Edwards will win a majority of the 10 states, and 1100 delegates at stake, and given that he is about 450 delegates behind already it will be very tough for Edwards


The Australian today was reporting that there was speculation from CNN that Dean will join up with Edwards for a Edwards/dean ticket. This is probably teh only way that Edwards can stop Kerry. With both of these people combined, the delegate count of Edwards will be just 250 behind Kerry. However this is a very risky proposition for Edwards, for that means that it is all or nothing for him. If he wins, he will be the presidential nominee, if he loses he gets nothing - not even the Vice President nomination.

As long as Edwards stops Kerry from clean sweaping and getting almost all the delegates, he is in fine shape. For after march 02, the southern primaries roll up, and Edwards will be the favourite to win these huge delegate rich states like texas and New york. Kerry thus has to finish off edwards on March 02 as otherwise he may well be in trouble especilaly if edwards wins about 3 or 4 of the states.

Kevin Bonham
23-02-2004, 01:48 AM
I see that Ralph Nader is running for President again, and copping abuse from practically everyone except the Republicans for doing so.

Last time he ran as a Greens candidate. I'm not sure planting a Shrub in the White House was exactly what the Greens had in mind and they're not running him again this time, so he's running as an independent. The way it's going, he'll probably get outpolled by Lyndon LaRouche. :eek:

Defending his decision against lefties who wanted him to butt out and help the Democratic nominee (whoever it is) win, Nader said the following:

"It's a marvelous demonstration by liberals, if you will, of censorship ... Running for political office is every American's right. Running for political office means free speech exercise, it means exercising the right of petition, the right of assembly. And so when they say, 'Do not run,' they're not just challenging and rebutting -- they're crossing that line into censorship."

With this horrid misuse of the word "censorship", he's lost any sympathy I had for him, that's for sure. :clap:

Though what the issue of third-party spoilers really shows is that the USA is an electorally backwards demockery that really needs preferential voting before it is in much position to tell other regimes how to run themselves.

Kevin Bonham
23-02-2004, 02:19 AM
Yes. Kevin you are right

This is the latest head to head polling for kerry and edwards against Bush taken by CNN/USA Today/ Gallup

Senator kerry 55%
President Bush 43%

Senator Edwards 54%
President Bush 44%

Other polls I have seen suggest that these are not representative in terms of where the parties stand - very few other polls have had Bush trailing this badly and some do not have him trailing at all. I do not think he has that much to fear from either at the moment, though Edwards would be the tougher one to beat over a long campaign.

chesslover
23-02-2004, 05:18 PM
I see that Ralph Nader is running for President again, and copping abuse from practically everyone except the Republicans for doing so.

Last time he ran as a Greens candidate. I'm not sure planting a Shrub in the White House was exactly what the Greens had in mind and they're not running him again this time, so he's running as an independent. The way it's going, he'll probably get outpolled by Lyndon LaRouche. :eek:



I am GLAD that Nader is running, for that will help President Bush against Kerry or Edwards. In 2000, Bush scored the narrowest electoral college win in history, 271 - 270 over Gore

IF gore had won new hampshire or florida (or for that matter, his own state of Tennessee or Clinton's Arkansas) he would be the President today - not Bush.

Bush won Florida by approximately 500 votes, whilst Nader got almost 80,000 votes. Similarly Bush carried New Hampshire ( a left leaning liberal new england state) by about 3000 votes, when nader polled many times that amount of votes. Justly, could the Democrats claim that Nader cost Gore the election.

Indeed there was much speculation, that karl Rove, subsidised the Nader campaign in an effort to split the extreme left vote from Gore. Indeed there was evidence that the Repebilcans actually funded through third parties some ads for Nader.

This year of course nader is running as an independent and will not get as much votes as he did in 2000. I think that Bush will easily defeat Kerry/Edwards in 2004, and that nader will not play a part in the outcome. nader will only play a part if the outcome is very tight - and given that Bush has a massive war chest of ads that will be used after March 02 to wipe out Kerry (if he wins in SUper Tuesday), I think that nader running is just academic

And lest the liberals whine, pls note that in 1992 and 1996, Perot split the conservative votes and handed wins to Clinton over Bush snr and Dole. Also patrick buchanan ran as an independent as well in 1996 for the US presidency.

The fact that all teh right wing loonies in the Republican camp have shut up, and that Bush has won the nomination UNOPPOSED shows how street smart and strategic and disciplined the Bush team is. I have no doubt that the strategic genius of karl Rove will ensure a Bush win ib 2004 - with or without nader running

chesslover
23-02-2004, 05:24 PM
be afraid,,,be very afraid!!!!

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/22/elec04.prez.schwarzenegger.ap/index.html

If Arnie can win the governorship of a very liberal and left wing state like California, he can go all the way in 2008!

The constitutional amendement has been put by the Republicans, and teh democrats should also fall in line.

This will mean that in 2008, Arnie should be able to nominate and run and most likely win.

On the demoract side Hilary should be able to nominate, run, and most likely win the democrat nomination - assuming of course that Bush wins in 2004 and that she is not nominating against an incumbant Democrat president

The Terminator vs Hilary Clinton - that would truely be the epic Presidential campaign of the ages

Kevin Bonham
23-02-2004, 05:25 PM
All of that (edit: the top post of the above two, haven't read the Arnie one yet) sounds very likely to be the case to me.

To mention one point in Nader's favour about the Gore-vs-Bush thing, while Nader running clearly cost Gore the Presidency, Nader has correctly pointed out that had Gore not made such a mess of his campaign in so many ways, Nader's candidacy wouldn't have been any more than a minor irritant. Gore really should have been able to win that election easily.

chesslover
23-02-2004, 05:52 PM
All of that (edit: the top post of the above two, haven't read the Arnie one yet) sounds very likely to be the case to me.

To mention one point in Nader's favour about the Gore-vs-Bush thing, while Nader running clearly cost Gore the Presidency, Nader has correctly pointed out that had Gore not made such a mess of his campaign in so many ways, Nader's candidacy wouldn't have been any more than a minor irritant. Gore really should have been able to win that election easily.

You are right

Gore should have won in 2000 - there is no doubt about it. he had a robust economy and no Vp with such a strong economy had ever lost an election to a challenger in US history

Gore was simply outthought and outfought by Bush and Karl Rove. Gore was not a natural campaigner like Clinton, and his refusal to use Clinton to help him may well have costed him a couple of thousand votes, and Arkansas as well.

It is also interesting to remember that Bush was not a cinch was the 2000 election, nor as the nominee for the Republicans. McCain thrashed him in New Hampshire and had the momentun. Unlike dean's pathetic attempts to stop the Kerry momentum in 2004 after new hampshire, Karl Rove stopped mccain's campaign with a brilliant strategy of appealing to the conservatives, and taking Bush to the far right. That is why Rove has Bush going to the racist and right wing Bob Jones Uni in South carolina. This was a "wedge" issue for the conservatives, and by Bush going to this University, he sent a message to the Christian Right, and the right wingers that he was their man. As soon as he won the nomination, Bush then moved to the Centre, apologising for this visit to the University. It must also be remembered that Rove peppered the SOuth Carolina primary (the next election after the 2000 New Hampshire loss by Bush to Mccain) with a whispering campaign that stated that Mccain was mentally unbalanced as a result of his Vietnam war experience, that he was obsessed with fictional POWs in Vietnam, that he and his wife were having maritial issues and that he had an illegitimate black daughter (mcCain adopted a black child). These issues played very well in Conservative South, and Bush trounced mccain to stop the New hampshire momentum of Mccain. After that Bush used his enormous $130million war chest to crush McCain and secure the nomination - and this time Bush has an even bigger war chest, and the authority of a Presidency to wage war against kerry or Edwards.

Gore also did not fight the character war against Bush, as he thought that after Clinton people were sick of this. Thus Bush's drinking problems, womanising, bankruptcies were never highlighted as election issues by Gore. ANd rememebr that Karl Rove also fought dirty against Gore. Whilst Bush took the "high road" and connected with people with his compassionate conservatism message, Rove had the right wing media and organisers frothing mad with messages that Gore claimed credit for inventing the internet, that Gore was an enviromental nazi who wanted to ban cars etc etc.

Rove did the same thing when Bush launched his political career with a win in texas in 1994. Before Bush only one Republican had ever won the Governorship in Texas, as after the US Civil War, the southerners had never voted for Abraham Lincoln's republicans. Bush took the "high road" against Ann Richards the incumbant female Governor of Texas (the first female to takle texas's highest elected position, and tipped widely to be the first female US president), whilst Rove launched a bitter whispering campaign stating that she was a lesbian, and that she would never appoint men to high positions by playing up the fact that Governor Richards had appointed a lot of female nominees in her persuit of Affirmative Action in Texas. This played well in the texas rural side and Bush won in 1994

The attacks we saw on Kerry pre-Wisconsin was a prelude of things to come. Rove will launch a vicious no expense war against Kerry. The fact that he has pulled this campaign till march 02, shows that Bush wants to face Kerry, and Rove thinks that these ads will destroy kerry and give the nomination to Edwards - and that he thinks Edwards will be far harder to beat than Kerry

chesslover
23-02-2004, 06:12 PM
Here may be some developing and interesting news

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62949-2004Feb22.html

Washington Post states that "Edwards said he has had two conversations with Dean in the past week. "I asked him for his support," Edwards said. According to Edwards, Dean said he was impressed with Edwards's campaign and thought Edwards could beat President Bush in the fall. But Edwards said Dean was noncommittal.

This is very important. If Dean wants to help Edwards he has to do it NOW, as there are just 9 days left till March 02 "SUper tuesday'. If dean helps Edwards, and Edwards wins as a result, dean may get a VP nomination or at the very least a cabinet position. If he delays, given the time critical nature of the elections, dean will in effect be helping Kerry - and in the process alienating his supporters who are drifting to Edwards anyway.

This move by Edwards also signifies that he is going all out to win. If he aligns with Dean, he basically is out of Kerry's VP nomination - unless of course Edwards knows that Clark, or someone else, is the VP nominee of Kerry's and that he has no option but to go all out to beat Kerry

chesslover
25-02-2004, 10:25 PM
3 small states had their elections today. There was only 61 delegates at statke in these 3 states, and both Kerry and Edwards ignored them to concentrate on the battle for the march 02 Super Tuesday states, where 1151 delegates are available from the 10 states that go to election then

Anyway here are the results in those 3 states. Kerry won all 3 states, making it 18 state wins from the 20 states that have held elections so far, and has also won the endorsement of general Clark who won one of the only 2 states that Kerry did not win this year. Edwards has just managed to win his native South Carolina.

Utah (23 delegates)
1. Kerry 55%
2. Edwards 30%
3. Kucinich 7%

Hawaii (20 delegates)
1. Kerry 46%
2. Kuncinich 30%
3. Edwards 13%

Idaho (18 delegates)
1. Kerry 54%
2. Edwards 22%
3. Kucinich 11%

Total delegate count so far after the 20 state elections is as follows;
1. Senator John Kerry 727 delegates (18 state wins)
2. Senator John Edwards 212 delegates (1 state win)

Sharpton (16 delegates) and Kucinich (10 delegates) still won't quit despite their race being well and truely over. :wall:

chesslover
25-02-2004, 10:36 PM
This is the latest polling data on who the Democrats prefer to be kerry's vice president (assuming of course that Kerry wins in march 02, and seals the presidential nomination)

Senator Edwards 34%
Senator Clinton 30%
General Clark 11%
Richard Gephardt 8%
New Mexico Governor, Bill Richardson 3%

Hilary Clinton would be a very good choice for VP. Doubt however if Kerry would risk having such a liberal as her, as it will ensure that the conservative states vote in a massive majority for Bush. Amongst Republican voters just 6% wanted Hilary as VP, whilst 32% were happy with Edwards, and the number prefering Clark and Gepherdt were the same as the Democrat counterparts. Seem Hilary Clinton energises and provokes the Republicans to come out and vote against her

Kevin Bonham
26-02-2004, 12:58 AM
A point about Gore and the scare-campaign on being an environmental nazi - while "nazi" would be exaggerated (as it usually is), Gore got pretty much what he deserved on that one. He did write a rather silly book on the environment loaded with dodgy and alarmist claims. P.J. O'Rourke's "All The Trouble In The World" has some savage flames against Gore over this book, including one describing Gore as having "repulsive totalitarian inclinations and the brains of a King Charles spaniel". Then in the credits, one of O'Rourke's researchers is thanked for checking "whether King Charles spaniels are really as dumb as American Vice-Presidents." :whistle:

And while we're on the subject of flames, this one from Dubya against Kerry caught my eye. Earlier in the race, GWB described his Democratic opponents as "an interesting group with diverse opinions -- for tax cuts and against them; for NAFTA and against NAFTA; for the Patriot Act and against the Patriot Act; in favor of liberating Iraq and opposed to it ... And that's just one senator from Massachusetts,"

As for the question of Dean's endorsement, I don't believe it is such a big deal. I doubt that even that would propel Edwards to victory.

chesslover
01-03-2004, 06:25 PM
As for the question of Dean's endorsement, I don't believe it is such a big deal. I doubt that even that would propel Edwards to victory.

It seems that whilst Edwards has not got dean's endorsement, he has got the endorsements of most of the Dean group in the March 02 Super Tuesday states. However the politcans who had earlier endorsed Dean, have endorsed Kerry. Dean has not endorsed either Kerry and Edwards, and is being courted by both men. I think that Dean is waiting to see if Edwards makes a strong impact and stops kerry's momentum on March 02 before throwing his much diminished weight behind edwards.

However latest polls are looking bad for Edwards. Kerry is winning in all of the 10 states - including California

The polling for the bigger of the states of march 02 are

NEW YORK
Kerry 54%
Edwards 21%

CALIFORNIA
Kerry 60%
Edwards 25%

GEORGIA
Kerry 46%
Edwards 36%

MARYLAND
Kerry 54%
Edwards 29%

OHIO
Kerry 47%
Edwards 26%

CONECTICUT
Kerry 64%
Edwards 22%

RHODE ISLAND
Kerry 66%
Edwards 23%

Of the remaining 2 states of March 02, in his own state of Massachusetts and the smaller state of Vermont, polls show Kerry with votes of 70%. Minnesotta is the only March 02 state that has a caucus and hence polls are not that relevant but they too show Kerry with double digit leads.

Edwards says he does not believe the polls, and thinks that he will benefit from the undecided votes like he did in Wisconsin. The fact is unless Edwards wins 3 or 4 states he is almost certainly finished

Interestingly Edwards is now focusing all his might and energy on Georgia - abandoning the delegate rich states like California and New York. This strategy means that Kerry will win most of the delegates at stake, as Edwards is defining himself as the Southern candidate. The only way this makes sense, is if Edwards is positioining himself for the Vice President nomination - by stating that only he can carry the South

Kevin Bonham
01-03-2004, 08:43 PM
On those figures Edwards might well win Georgia given his effort there and habit of putting in late surges, but one state won't be enough to keep him a serious contender.

Kevin Bonham
04-03-2004, 01:43 AM
Edwards narrowly lost Georgia and heavily lost everything else but Howard Dean (remember him?) actually managed to win his home state even though he'd quit campaigning.

It's all over now, Edwards has thrown in the towel and said lots of nice things to Kerry that basically amount to "I want the VP slot".

Bush vs Kerry. Bring it on!

*falls asleep*

chesslover
04-03-2004, 08:52 PM
Edwards narrowly lost Georgia and heavily lost everything else but Howard Dean (remember him?) actually managed to win his home state even though he'd quit campaigning.

It's all over now, Edwards has thrown in the towel and said lots of nice things to Kerry that basically amount to "I want the VP slot".

Bush vs Kerry. Bring it on!

*falls asleep*

yes - all over for the Democrat nomination. Kerry had trounced Edwards in all of the Super Tuesday states, even taking Georgina. After winning 27 of the 30 states so far, and only losing Vermont (native state of Dean), South Carolina (native state of Edwards) and Oklohoma (neighbouring state of Clark), Kerry was undoubtedly the most favoured Democrat candidate. His crushing wins were astounding and one by one the strong candidates have faced the inevitable and bowed out. Edwards had quit and now kerry is the official democrat candidate for President.

6 things could have stopped Kerry, but fortunately for him, none happened

1. If Dean had timed his peak weeks before the primary and not many months ago, therby drawing a lot of flak and attention to everything that he did
2. If dean and gepherdt did not wipe themselves off in a "murder-suicide" pact in Iowa
3. If General Clark had not thought that Dean would win in Iowa, and skip Iowa - therby giving Kerry the momentum
4. If Dean had spent his money raised wisely (he holds the record for most money raised in Democrat history) and not given his "I have a scream"speech
5. If Clark had quit earlier, therby enabling Edwards to win the Southern votes and stop Kerry's momentum
6. If Dean had quit earlier and endorsed Edwards

Anyway none of these things happened, and fortune sometimes smiles on unlikely people.

Now there are just 2 issues left - who will be the VP for Kerry and of course WHO will win the Kerry vs Bush fight?

President Bush will be happy to face Kerry I think. I think Bush would have liked to have faced Dean more, but kerry is an easier opponent than General Clark or Edwards or Liberman or Richard Gepherdt I think. Kerry has a history of liberal voting and Bush will use every trick in the book to win

The next 8 months will be so interesting. Karl Rove is leading the attack machine of President Bush, and every dirty secret of Kerry will be aired. Also wedge issues such as gun rights, homosexual marriages, abortion will be used to pound kerry. And then do not forget the ultimate vote winner - the capture of osama bin laden.

There are reports that the Pentagon have dispatched elite special commando forces that captured saddam to join the pakistani army that is now for the first time actively seeking to capture Osama

Do not go to sleep Grand Poobah. The fun is just beginning. President Bush is ready to ATTACK!!!! and Kerry will not like it as the most money ever raised in US history is used to demolish him

Go President Bush Go!!!!!!!

chesslover
04-03-2004, 09:05 PM
President Bush has launched the first ads in the war.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/03/elec04.prez.bush.ads/index.html

They say that almost $5million USD will be spent on this ad blitz. Bush has a $200 million war chest that he can use to crush Kerry - and is now on a fund raising campaign to get more money!!!

Polling has shown that Bush still is trailing Kerry - but then Kerry has had all the attention and focus. With 8 months more, there is plenty of time for Bush and the much feared attack machine that karl rove heads.

Latest poll I saw has the following figures. Poll was taken from Princeton

Kerry 48%
Bush 44%

Kerry will also get another jump when he announces his VP. There were rumours that Bush would dump Cheney, just like his daddy Bush Snr was looking dumping Qualye. However Republicans are scared that this would give Kerry a lot of momentum and perceived win and are hence sticking with Cheney

Latest polls also have Edwards as the favourite for the VP slot, just edging out Hilary Clinton. Given that Edwards no longer has the media limelight as he quit, Edwards numbers should drop. I think Hilary will be too contreversial for Kerry, so it may be an establishment southerner who will probably be given the VP slot

arosar
08-03-2004, 03:14 PM
Yo CL, whaddya reckon of Bush's use of 9/11 images?

http://slate.msn.com/id/2096742/

Can you start talking about some issues mate and not freakin' stats all the time? I get bored schitless looking at those percentages.

AR

chesslover
08-03-2004, 05:51 PM
Yo CL, whaddya reckon of Bush's use of 9/11 images?

http://slate.msn.com/id/2096742/

Can you start talking about some issues mate and not freakin' stats all the time? I get bored schitless looking at those percentages.

AR
that opinion polls reflect how people overall think about the issues that the candidates have stances on

Bush using 9/11 images is fine as he was President when it happened, and it shows that he is teh right man for the job in a world where terrorists hate america

Of course Kerry and the democrats will not like these images, for they paint Bush as the man who is a strong leader who has won the war against terror in Afghanistan, Iraq and who is dismantling the terrorist infrastructure around the world one by one.

If you are looking atthe issues, one of teh big ones will be the gay marriage issue. Itis all a mess in the USA now, with some states banning marriages, some city councils going ahead with marriages, some judges issuing conflciting rulings. Bush has said that he will support a constitutional change that will ban gay marriages around USA, whilst Kerry has said that while he is against gay marriages, he will not support a constitutional change to ban it. Typical flip flop

also bush has met President Fox of Mexico, and this will mean that Bush can maybe win some hispanic votes or at the very least neutralise their votes

arosar
16-03-2004, 11:40 AM
You're gonna love this CL: http://www.staffersgame.com/

AR

chesslover
17-03-2004, 08:34 PM
good one ar

this is the latest polls from the USA and shows thatBush's attack ads are working. Poll is by CBS/NY Times Poll (Taken 14 March)

Bush 46%
Kerry 43%

The choice of VP for Kerry is going to be important. The best bet is for him to choose a VP who is from one of the states that he needs to win. This means a Florida Senator is a good bet for Kerry

Wen you factor in Nader the result is even better for President Bush. The same CBS/NY times poll asked people how they would vote if Nader was added to the equation

Bush 46%
Kerry 38%
nader 7%

While this is a high vote for Nader, all nader has to do is to steal a couple of thousand vote in Fl;orida and that will be enough for Bush :lol: :owned: :owned:

Kevin Bonham
17-03-2004, 10:58 PM
I reckon the Madrid bombings will play into Bush's hands too.

I think it would take a serious blunder or a very unexpected event for Bush to lose this election from here.

chesslover
29-03-2004, 06:26 PM
this is the latest Newspoll taken on 26 march

Bush 45%
Kerry 43%
Nader 5%
undecided 7%

There has been no change from the poll taken 2 weeks ago

Among Republicans this is the way they would vote
Bush 85%
Kerry 9%
Nader 3%
undecided 3%

Among Democrats this is the way they would vote
Bush 13%
Kerry 76%
Nader 3%
undecided 8%

Among the independents this is the way they would vote
Bush 34%
Kerry 47%
Nader 12%
undecided 7%

This shows that Bush has solidifed his base as there are just 3% undecided and has made more headway into the Democrats than Kerry has made into the Rewpublicans. Nader has no base but is polling into double digits with the independents. As the independets are polling strongly with Kerry this will cost Kerry more than Bush

chesslover
29-03-2004, 06:30 PM
Newspoll asked a poll last week - "do you think George W. Bush should keep Dick Cheney on the ticket as vice president or do you think Bush should consider replacing Cheney with a different running mate?"

Keep Cheney 47%
Replace Chaney 30%

Among Republicans it was
Keep Cheney 66%
Replace Cheney 22%

Newspoll aslo asked Democrats for who should be Kerry's VP

John Edwards 27%
Hillary Clinton 5%
John McCain 3%
Howard Dean 2%
Richard Gephardt 2%
Wesley Clark 1%
Joseph Lieberman 1%
Al Sharpton 1%
Bob Graham 1%
Bill Richardson 1%
Other 5%
Don't know 52%

John Edwards is the overwhelming favourite and polled more than everyone else put together

Bill Gletsos
29-03-2004, 06:34 PM
Newspoll aslo asked Democrats for who should be Kerry's VP

John Edwards 27%
Hillary Clinton 5%
John McCain 3%
Howard Dean 2%
Richard Gephardt 2%
Wesley Clark 1%
Joseph Lieberman 1%
Al Sharpton 1%
Bob Graham 1%
Bill Richardson 1%
Other 5%
Don't know 52%

John Edwards is the overwhelming favourite and polled more than everyone else put together
Thats an excellent example of how not to use statistics.
More than 50% of those polled answered "don't know".

chesslover
29-03-2004, 06:42 PM
results of surveys carried out by Newspoll. Question was "tell me whether you think it applies more to George W. Bush or John Kerry"

He is a strong leader - Bush 60% Kerry 32%
He stands up for what he believes - Bush 57% Kerry 34%
He is honest - Bush 45% Kerry 40%
He has a vision for the future - Bush 45% Kerry 45%
He shares your view of government - Bush 45% Kerry 45%
He cares about people like you - Bush 42% Kerry 49%


Result of survey carried out by Princeton Associates. Question "Which do you trust do to a better job handling this issue: Bush or Kerry?"

Terrorism and homeland security - Bush 56% Kerry 35%
The situation in Iraq - Bush 53% Kerry 38%
Taxes - Bush 45% Kerry 44%
Education - Bush 43% Kerry 46%
The economy - Bush 43% Kerry 47%
American jobs and foreign competition - Bush 39% Kerry 50%
Health care, including Medicare - Bush 37% Kerry 53%

Bush is clearly ahead in fighting terrorism and protecting USA and in dealing with Iraq. Kerry is ahead by a big margin when it comes to protecting US jobs and health care

Bush will fight the election based on the war on terror and Iraq is still a big plus for him. Kerry will fight a war on domestic issues and try to neitralise Bush's lead in the war on terror. This is almost a repeat of 1992 where Bush Snr fought on ending the Coldwar and the Iraq War and Clinton fought on domestic issues. Bush Bush jnr is a far far far far better campaigner than his daddy, and has far far far far more money than his daddy did to fight an electtion, and also has karl Rove on his side

chesslover
29-03-2004, 06:45 PM
Thats an excellent example of how not to use statistics.
More than 50% of those polled answered "don't know".

Elections in the USA are not compulsory. When I visited US during a couple of Presidential election years they said that more than half the population do not vote.

So if 50% who dont know and dont care and do not vote then the 27% who care become the overwhelming majority

Bill Gletsos
29-03-2004, 07:33 PM
Elections in the USA are not compulsory. When I visited US during a couple of Presidential election years they said that more than half the population do not vote.
Which years were that CL.

I was in the USA in Washington DC in Jan 93 the day Clinton got inaugurated.
My to to Washington DC was not planned around that but just happened.
I had scheduled the cities I visted in the US during my 93 trip around a space shuttle launch in Florida in mid January. I'd flown into Orlando from San Francisco around midnight and at around 6am drove out to Kennedy Space Centre to watch the shuttle launch of Endeavour on mission STS-54 on Jan 13th. Then 6 days later I again was there for the shuttle landing.
It was just after this that I flew to Washington DC on Jan 20th. Turns out it was the night before Clinton was inaugurated.
Washington DC was a little cool around 31F and at one stage Clinton was about 6-8 feet away. Spent all day one day in the Smithsonian. Also did a interseting tour of the FBI building.

Garvinator
29-03-2004, 07:41 PM
elections in usa are compulsory every four years, it is voting in them that is not compulsory. :owned:

chesslover
29-03-2004, 07:54 PM
Which years were that CL.



Shame on you for trying to trick me into falling for your trap :naughty:

And before you think I went to the US I could be just throwing that as a red herring. Or maybe I made the mistake and then am pretending that it is a red herring. Or maybe I am throwing a red herring to make people think that I made a mistake and then am pretending that it is a red herring. Or maybe :confused: :confused:

Since I know that self disclosure will reveal my secret identity I am on my guard. The beautiful thing is that even if do make a mistake and reveal all you will not know if it is a red herring or a geniuine mistake.

If I say that it is a mistake people will not know if it is a geniuine mistake or a red herring that is intended to look like a geniuine mistake. If I say that it is a redherring people will not know if it is a red herring or a geniuine mistake

So I can be truthful and still people will be confused. I can be lying and stil people will believe that is the truth

See how pointless all these game playing becomes. Instead let us play our games at chess games.

In the US I have always liked Washington and New York. I liked washington for that is where the Presidents live and as a US Presidential junkie I have been on White House tours. I have also been to Congress and the Capitol building was inspiring. I also have looked from afar at the Pentagon.

I did not like the Smithsonian. Did you go to the National Zoo? I liked that very much and I thought that was better than the Dubbo Zoo or Taronga. What about the Botanical Gardens? I liekd that too as did my daughter

See you and I are not that different. You are a space junkie and I am a US Presidential junkie who follows the US election very closely and with excitement and passion.

Bill Gletsos
30-03-2004, 12:57 AM
Shame on you for trying to trick me into falling for your trap :naughty:

And before you think I went to the US I could be just throwing that as a red herring. Or maybe I made the mistake and then am pretending that it is a red herring. Or maybe I am throwing a red herring to make people think that I made a mistake and then am pretending that it is a red herring. Or maybe :confused: :confused:

Since I know that self disclosure will reveal my secret identity I am on my guard. The beautiful thing is that even if do make a mistake and reveal all you will not know if it is a red herring or a geniuine mistake.

If I say that it is a mistake people will not know if it is a geniuine mistake or a red herring that is intended to look like a geniuine mistake. If I say that it is a redherring people will not know if it is a red herring or a geniuine mistake

So I can be truthful and still people will be confused. I can be lying and stil people will believe that is the truth
Its not impossible to cater for all the possibilities.


See how pointless all these game playing becomes. Instead let us play our games at chess games.
Nothing is ever pointless. Some things are just a little harder and take a little longer.


In the US I have always liked Washington and New York. I liked washington for that is where the Presidents live and as a US Presidential junkie I have been on White House tours. I have also been to Congress and the Capitol building was inspiring. I also have looked from afar at the Pentagon.

I did not like the Smithsonian. Did you go to the National Zoo? I liked that very much and I thought that was better than the Dubbo Zoo or Taronga. What about the Botanical Gardens? I liekd that too as did my daughter

See you and I are not that different. You are a space junkie and I am a US Presidential junkie who follows the US election very closely and with excitement and passion.
Thats where you are wrong CL.
You and I are very different.

Kevin Bonham
30-03-2004, 01:25 AM
John McCain 3%

Damn good idea except that (i) he is a Republican and (ii) I don't think he'd be any more impressed with Kerry's take on campaign $$$ than Bush's.

Kevin Bonham
30-03-2004, 01:31 AM
results of surveys carried out by Newspoll. Question was "tell me whether you think it applies more to George W. Bush or John Kerry"

He is a strong leader - Bush 60% Kerry 32%
He stands up for what he believes - Bush 57% Kerry 34%
He is honest - Bush 45% Kerry 40%
He has a vision for the future - Bush 45% Kerry 45%
He shares your view of government - Bush 45% Kerry 45%
He cares about people like you - Bush 42% Kerry 49%

Yuck. Those are not nice numbers for Kerry at all.


Education - Bush 43% Kerry 46%
The economy - Bush 43% Kerry 47%
American jobs and foreign competition - Bush 39% Kerry 50%
Health care, including Medicare - Bush 37% Kerry 53%


But I guess there are a few rays of hope in there.


This is almost a repeat of 1992 where Bush Snr fought on ending the Coldwar and the Iraq War and Clinton fought on domestic issues. Bush Bush jnr is a far far far far better campaigner than his daddy, and has far far far far more money than his daddy did to fight an electtion, and also has karl Rove on his side

Bush Snr had Lee Attwater who was a similar kind of headkicker, but he died before the election. (Clinton had James Carville.) Also Kerry is a weaker candidate than Clinton who while dogged by scandals was also very charismatic and rather dynamic, Kerry's just wishywashy and flakey. Anyone seen any betting odds on the result anywhere? Just wonder how long Kerry is in the market right now.

Rincewind
30-03-2004, 01:33 AM
Thats where you are wrong CL.
You and I are very different.

Like chalk and something distinctly unchalklike.

chesslover
30-03-2004, 01:41 AM
Anyone seen any betting odds on the result anywhere? Just wonder how long Kerry is in the market right now

this site has all the betting info you want
http://bestbetting.com/Default.aspx?betting=US+U.S.+President+2004+-+Person&eventtype=0

SuperOdds
Bush is 3/5
Kerry is 6/5
nader is 100/1

William Hill
Bush is 8/15
Kerry is 11/8
Nader is 100/1

chesslover
30-03-2004, 11:32 PM
CNN polls today show that Bush has increased his lead over kerry. Bush has 51% to Kerry's 47%

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/30/election.main/index.html

This in a week where Clark had blasted Bush for letting 9/11 happen!! despite this Bush is well ahead and the Bush attack on kerry as "Mr Flipflop" on taxes has hurt him far more.

Bush has been identified so much with the war on terror that the majority just do not believe Kerry's assertion that Bush is soft on terror or had badly managed the war on terror.

Garvinator
31-03-2004, 12:30 AM
nader is 100/1
nader only 100-1, that is very short to me, id want write your own ticket odds on nader before i would even consider placing a dollar on him :whistle:

Kevin Bonham
31-03-2004, 03:03 AM
this site has all the betting info you want
http://bestbetting.com/Default.aspx?betting=US+U.S.+President+2004+-+Person&eventtype=0

SuperOdds
Bush is 3/5
Kerry is 6/5
nader is 100/1

William Hill
Bush is 8/15
Kerry is 11/8
Nader is 100/1

Bush at 3/5 is almost tempting. I wouldn't go near those odds for Kerry in a fit.

chesslover
01-04-2004, 10:29 PM
interesting article

Bush's Republicans have launched legal action against two dozen liberal organisations saying that they are "part of an "unprecedented criminal enterprise" to circumvent federal campaign laws and pour illegal soft money contributions into the 2004 race" :)


http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/31/gop.complaint/index.html

chesslover
06-04-2004, 10:13 PM
some poll questions just released

CBS NEWS POLL

Do you think either of these candidates for president -- John Kerry or George W. Bush -- has attacked the other unfairly?" If Yes: "Who attacked unfairly?"

Kerry 21%
Bush 12%
Both Equally 21%
Neither 31%
Dont know 15%


LA TIMES

"For the next seven [sic] questions, do you think each statement applies more to George W. Bush or more to John Kerry? .

"He has good judgment in a crisis"
Bush - 51%
Kerry - 26%

He will be a strong leader for the country"
Bush - 48%
Kerry - 39%

He has the honesty and integrity to serve as president"
Bush - 41%
Kerry - 36%

He would be best at protecting the financial security of the average American"
Bush - 35%
Kerry - 46%

He cares about people like me"
Bush - 33%
Kerry - 46%

He flip flops on the issues"
Bush - 31%
Kerry - 41%

The economy is hurting Bush but the flip flop charge seems to have stuck on Kerry

chesslover
14-04-2004, 09:12 PM
details of only the third formal Presidential press conference by President Bush in primetime

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/13/bush.conference/index.html

and something that will make the loony farleft moderator paul happy. A democrat political ad that encourages people to kill Donald Rumsfeld. Never knew that our beloved webmaster moonlighted as a democrat ad adviser in his spare time :p

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/13/dem.ad/index.html

chesslover
14-04-2004, 10:37 PM
details of the amount of money earned by President Bush, that was released before the April 15 filing deadline

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040413/D81U1T780.html

President Bush earned $822,000 and paid $227,000 in taxes. He in fact overpaid his tax bill by $61,000. VP Chaney earned more than $1.3 million

Kerry's tax return is available to anyone who requests it from Kerry's campaign team.

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=150-04132004

Kerry earned $395,000 and paid only $90,000 in taxes. He also donated $43,000 to charity - much less than President Bush

chesslover
20-04-2004, 10:22 PM
CNN report

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/19/bush.kerry.poll/index.html

Bush has a 50%, Kerry 44% and Nader 4%

The casualities that Bush has suffered seems not to have hurt him in the polls

Bob Woodward also came up with a new book, saying that Bush has stuck a dseal with the Saudis to lower the price of oil in November. Kerry has blasted it saying that he will not be favourable to saudis

BroadZ
20-04-2004, 11:18 PM
anyone here read the book Unfortunate Son? the biography of george w. - im wonderin if thats still on the shelves

chesslover
20-04-2004, 11:28 PM
anyone here read the book Unfortunate Son? the biography of george w. - im wonderin if thats still on the shelves

you mean fortunate son

BroadZ
21-04-2004, 12:01 AM
you mean fortunate son

was it? well, either way

chesslover
26-04-2004, 04:37 PM
chilling news....Bush camp has implied that Kerry was involved in war "atrocities" in Vietnam.

Conservative US radio and talkshows have picked up on this theme, and are blasting Kerry across their rightwing heartland

Kerry could be charged with war crimes, if that is true

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/25/hughes.kerry.vietnam/index.html

chesslover
26-04-2004, 04:44 PM
another wedge issue - Abortion

Kerry has formally supported Abortion, and this admission will be used by the Christian groups to crucify him for the Presidentinal election.

In a country that allows voluntery voting, Kerry has to hope that the pro-abortion people will mobilise more people to offset, the undoubted people and money that the anti-abortion people will throw to defeat him.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/23/kerry.abortion/index.html


500,000 people today protested in Washington to attack Bush, and demand more pro abortion policy from the Republicans. The numbers are impressive, but will it gain Kerry more votes than it loses???

Bush has been using the anti - abortion plank to grab the hispanics, who are mainly anti-abortion off their traditional aliegence to the Democrats. In addition, abortion is a single issue for a lot of anti-abprtion people. They may harte everything you stand for, but as long as you are anti-abprtion they will vote for Bush

arosar
05-05-2004, 07:21 PM
CL...hey wleh....where r u man? Your mate Sam Huntington is at it again. Now he's after hispanics - but mainly Mexicans!!

AR

chesslover
06-05-2004, 07:04 PM
been on holiday dear buddy

Just because I think Huntington's clash of the civilisation is the definitive book on geo politics, and what will happen, I do not support all his views

But he is right, america will soon be a brown nation, with the whites and negros becoming a minority, due to hispanic migration. Eventually USA will be a hispanic country

Huntington did identify these main civilisations - Western Civilisation (with one axis centered on USA, and the other in the European Union), Slavic Orthodox civilisation centred in Russia, a hispanic catholic civilisation in the americas, islamic, hindu India, China, Japanese and also sub saharan africa. Australia and NZ were identified as part of western civilsation.

In an earlier thread long ago, I said that in the end it will be a battle between the hostile islamic civilisation, and the other civilisations - and you can see the battles happening in the border regions of the islamic civilisation.

There are fights in Cechenya and Albania (border regions with Slavic Orthodxy), in Kashmir (border with Hindu India), Chinese borders, in the mediterian ocean (borders of Morrocco and Tunisian immigrants with Western Civilisation).

What President Bush is doing now in tackling teh war on terror, will determine the victor of thsi clash of civilisation.If Bush wins teh future belongs to the West. If he loses, the future belongs to Islam.

With Bush rides the hopes and futures of Australia. If Bush loses in Iraq, and the west withdraws from iraq and Afghansitan, there will be a wave of fundementalist revolutions that will sweep Pakistan, Saudi, Turkey and Indonesia, and these hostile regimes will lead inevitabily to our destruction

chesslover
06-05-2004, 07:10 PM
the Gallup poll released on May 06

Bush - 47%
Kerry - 47%
nader - 3%

The race has tightened up a lot, and Bush has lost the 50% to 44% lead he had over Kerry

The election is looking to be close, but Bush's campaign team lead by karl Rove, and teh record money he has raised (the highest ever in the history of US elections) should see him through

Kevin Bonham
13-05-2004, 03:29 AM
Thumbs up to Kerry for saying that Republican John McCain would make an excellent Defense Secretary (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=5120562). I don't know if it was just divide and conquer politics or if it was deadly serious but a Democratic administration willing to give a nominal opponent such a plum position on merit would be worthy of respect ... and McCain would be a far better Defense Secretary than that toady Rumsfeld, not to mention a far better President than Dubya.

CL- what do you think about the impact of the prisoner mistreatment issues on the election? Some people think it could bring Bush down entirely, but I suspect he will only suffer slight damage, at least directly.

Rincewind
04-08-2004, 09:51 AM
Language warning!

http://www.blackstarsblog.com/bushin41point2.htm

Come back schachlieber all is forgiven. ;)

Alan Shore
04-08-2004, 01:02 PM
Haha, classy :D

arosar
01-09-2004, 05:55 PM
LOL!

This is hilarious: http://slate.com/id/2105914/

:clap: :clap:

AR

arosar
01-09-2004, 06:16 PM
Speaking of Christians and Bush and all that - any of youse fellas see SBS last night? T'was some show about The World According to Bush or something rather. Boys, lemme tell youse, this bas.tard needs to go. He's a sick - - - t!

AR

PHAT
01-09-2004, 06:28 PM
He's a sick - - - t!


So, how short is he?

Garvinator
20-10-2004, 04:50 PM
I dont know how much is rhetoric and how much is real, but it is more and more likely that the supreme court will be deciding who will be the next president. Get your money on George W. Bush if that is the case.

arosar
20-10-2004, 05:27 PM
. . . it is more and more likely that the supreme court will be deciding who will be the next president. Get your money on George W. Bush if that is the case.

What are you basing this observation on gray? On the touchpad voting devices that are easy to tamper?

Any1 got any view on those former crims who don't have a vote in Fl? Disgraceful eh?

AR

Alan Shore
31-10-2004, 01:12 AM
Well anyway, I'm pissed Coalition are in government.. education down the drain once more... :confused:

Kevin Bonham
02-11-2004, 09:13 PM
Chessplayers For Kerry (http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=2001)

Rincewind
02-11-2004, 09:20 PM
I believe the US are going to the polls in the next hour or two and soon we may start to get an idea if GW still has a job. Mind you, if it is anything like the last one, I wouldn't hold my breath.

eclectic
02-11-2004, 09:27 PM
I believe the US are going to the polls in the next hour or two and soon we may start to get an idea if GW still has a job. Mind you, if it is anything like the last one, I wouldn't hold my breath.

not including pre poll votes like from the military etc voting proper has already started like 4 1/2 hrs ago because there is some hamlet which traditionally votes immediately upon midnight ie the start of election day

not sure where it is but others may know

eclectic

Kevin Bonham
03-11-2004, 11:48 AM
Kerry's doing rather well in leaked exit poll data. This could be interesting.

arosar
03-11-2004, 12:05 PM
Huh? He's like 43 colleges behind as @ 1300 AEST. The poor bastard will lose man.

AR

Garvinator
03-11-2004, 12:07 PM
Huh? He's like 43 colleges behind as @ 1300 AEST. The poor bastard will lose man.

AR
those counts are almost meaningless as california will be won by kerry and its worth 55 electoral college votes, they are not counting any states that havent closed.

After what happened in Florida four years ago, all stations are being very cautious on the states they call. So they are not bothering to call states before they have closed.

arosar
03-11-2004, 12:21 PM
Thank God for that gray!

How do you know Kerry will win CA?

AR

Garvinator
03-11-2004, 12:34 PM
Thank God for that gray!

How do you know Kerry will win CA?

AR
California is a president democrat state and was won by gore in 2000.

The state of play so far is that no state has changed hands since 2000 and except for about six states, is not expected to. This means the election will be decided in about six states- those being, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Missouri and New Hampshire.

arosar
03-11-2004, 12:55 PM
You're not chesslover, are you gray? :)

AR

Garvinator
03-11-2004, 12:57 PM
You're not chesslover, are you gray? :)

AR
:lol: :hmm: i dont think i am, i am more of a kerry fan than a bush fan, so unless i have changed sides, i am not chesslover. Unless i am just trolling ;) :lol: :whistle:

Bill Gletsos
03-11-2004, 01:01 PM
California is a president democrat state and was won by gore in 2000.

The state of play so far is that no state has changed hands since 2000 and except for about six states, is not expected to. This means the election will be decided in about six states- those being, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Missouri and New Hampshire.
Florida, Missouri, New Hampshire and Ohio were won last time by Bush,
Michigan and Pennsylvania by Gore.

Goughfather
03-11-2004, 01:07 PM
I'm currently watching the BBC coverage, and as people have stated - it's pretty much status quo so far. Unfortunately, the coverage hasn't mentioned the swings in individual states.

I feel that Ohio and Florida will be decisive in determining the result. I'm guessing that the increasing voter turn out stands in Kerry's favour, but whether that will be enough is uncertain. Kerry requires a swing of over 80,000 voters in Ohio. I feel that Kerry might just miss out in this respect, but it's probably not as important for Kerry to win the seat as it is for Bush to retain it.

What is the time in these respective states, by the way?

Bill Gletsos
03-11-2004, 01:19 PM
I'm currently watching the BBC coverage, and as people have stated - it's pretty much status quo so far. Unfortunately, the coverage hasn't mentioned the swings in individual states.

I feel that Ohio and Florida will be decisive in determining the result. I'm guessing that the increasing voter turn out stands in Kerry's favour, but whether that will be enough is uncertain. Kerry requires a swing of over 80,000 voters in Ohio. I feel that Kerry might just miss out in this respect, but it's probably not as important for Kerry to win the seat as it is for Bush to retain it.

What is the time in these respective states, by the way?
Michigan just closed around 1hr 20 mins ago.
Pennsylvani, New Hampshire, Missouri and Florida an hour before that and Ohio a half hour prior to that.

BTW CNN is reporting that Bush will win Missouri.

Its currently 10.20 pm on the US east coast.

Garvinator
03-11-2004, 01:24 PM
Michigan just closed around 1hr 20 mins ago.
Pennsylvani, Missouri and Florida an hour before that and Ohio a half hour prior to that.

Its currently 10.20 pm on the US east coast.
voters who were in line at the polls are still being allowed to vote. Those that arrived after the closing time miss out. This means that a result will be delayed by a few hours at least as those in line try to vote.

Bill Gletsos
03-11-2004, 01:27 PM
Voting closes in 35 minutes (11pm US)for the remaining states of California, Idaho, Oregon, Washington and Hawaii. Alaska closes 2 hrs after that.

Garvinator
03-11-2004, 01:29 PM
Voting closes in 35 minutes (11pm US)for the remaining states of California, Idaho, Oregon, Washington and Hawaii. Alaska closes 2 hrs after that.
are you sure about hawaii, thought it would close about the same time as alaska?

Alan Shore
03-11-2004, 01:33 PM
I found this a good laugh, short 1-min video:

http://roadkillpapers.blogs.com/2004/2004/10/the_florida_vot.html

Bill Gletsos
03-11-2004, 01:48 PM
are you sure about hawaii, thought it would close about the same time as alaska?
I got them from CNN.

Bill Gletsos
03-11-2004, 01:58 PM
Kerry is predicted to win Pennsylvania. Therefore so far the states are still going as per 2000.

Garvinator
03-11-2004, 02:59 PM
It is starting to look like Bush will win, even with the chance that each state will stay the same as they did in 2000, which i think would be rather remarkable.

John Kerry must win Ohio to stay in the race.

arosar
03-11-2004, 03:02 PM
It's hopeless.

I wonder which country Bush will invade next.

AR

Bill Gletsos
03-11-2004, 03:05 PM
Bush is currently showing as about 150,000 ahead in Ohio and 330,000 in Florida.

Garvinator
03-11-2004, 03:11 PM
Bush is currently showing as about 150,000 ahead in Ohio and 330,000 in Florida.
i am pretty sure that there will be will be court challenges all over the place, that might change things quite a bit.

Bill Gletsos
03-11-2004, 03:14 PM
CNN is now projecting Florida as a win to Bush.

arosar
03-11-2004, 03:25 PM
That's that with that then, isn't it? Another 4 years of this monkey. And, what is it, 3 more years of his Australian poodle?

AR

Bill Gletsos
03-11-2004, 03:32 PM
i am pretty sure that there will be will be court challenges all over the place, that might change things quite a bit.
You had said that previously but when AR asked you what you based it on you never responded.

Garvinator
03-11-2004, 03:40 PM
You had said that previously but when AR asked you what you based it on you never responded.
yeah i did and didnt elaborate. I will now ;) in a few of the close states, there are many allegations both ways regarding provisional ballots, challengers from both sides being allowed into the voting areas, the same ppl being denied access etc. Also in some parts, paper ballots have been used for those who are waiting in line because either the electronic machines have failed or there is no paper trail. Both sides then are saying this is unfair etc etc (of course dependant on who wins the seat).

Going all the way to the supreme court like 2000. George W. Bush has appointed a few of the supreme court judges and alot has been made of the fact that GWB has appointed judges with similiar life views to himself. Therefore there is a common belief that if everything goes to the supreme court, they will rule in favour of GWB.

All in all, USA really needs an independant electoral commission :)

Alan Shore
03-11-2004, 04:38 PM
I had a feeling Bush would win.. Kerry just wasn't a popular candidate.

If only Howard Dean hadn't of let out that scream, he may have been headed for the White House.

Let's go Arnie for 2008 then! (Constitution will be changed by then).

Goughfather
03-11-2004, 04:41 PM
Well the very idea behind a tripartite system is that there is an independent judiciary, which ensures a separation of powers. Nice in theory, but naive in reality.

The last time I heard Bill, which was about 10 minutes ago, Bush was leading Ohio by 100,000 votes. Still, one would think that this task is too great for Kerry, even though he expects to pick up votes when largely pro-democratic regions in Ohio are counted.

I'm absolutely amazed that Bush leads Kerry by 330,000 in Florida. I felt that the higher voter turn out, the debarcle that was 2000 and the early exit polls all pointed towards a Kerry victory.

Finally, I didn't expect a swing in overall votes to Bush. Two hours ago, Bush was polling at 51 percent to Kerry's 48 percent. It seems that the lack of presence of a genuine third party candidate hasn't helped Kerry.

The truly terrible thing about a Bush victory is that it is impossible to escape his influence. At least if I was that concerned about Howard, I could always migrate to the greener fields of New Zealand!

Alan Shore
03-11-2004, 04:46 PM
At least if I was that concerned about Howard, I could always migrate to the greener fields of New Zealand!

http://www.newzealandmilk.com/images/mainland/logo-english.gif

Your frund in the frudge!

Garvinator
03-11-2004, 05:04 PM
The last time I heard Bill, which was about 10 minutes ago, Bush was leading Ohio by 100,000 votes. Still, one would think that this task is too great for Kerry, even though he expects to pick up votes when largely pro-democratic regions in Ohio are counted.

i would say that a Bush victory is almost certain, i hope I am wrong, but I doubt it.

There is approximtely 600,000 votes remaining to count in ohio including provisional and absentee ballots. I believe that there will be a recount in ohio, especially if it is all on the line in ohio, which could tighten the margin in favour of Kerry.

Bush is favourite, but favourites can be beaten ;)

Goughfather
03-11-2004, 05:05 PM
As of five minutes ago, CNN declared Ohio "too close to call". Perhaps there's hope yet ...

Garvinator
03-11-2004, 05:34 PM
As of five minutes ago, CNN declared Ohio "too close to call". Perhaps there's hope yet ...
it is looking like it will all come down to ohio as neither side can get to 270 from the other states.

I think that there will be a full recount in ohio and maybe iowa when the whole of the usa starts looking at them for a couple of days.

Bill Gletsos
03-11-2004, 05:38 PM
I'm absolutely amazed that Bush leads Kerry by 330,000 in Florida. I felt that the higher voter turn out, the debarcle that was 2000 and the early exit polls all pointed towards a Kerry victory.
At the moment Bush has increased his lead in Florida to 360,000.

Bill Gletsos
03-11-2004, 05:42 PM
The last time I heard Bill, which was about 10 minutes ago, Bush was leading Ohio by 100,000 votes. Still, one would think that this task is too great for Kerry, even though he expects to pick up votes when largely pro-democratic regions in Ohio are counted.
Current figures put Bush's lead at 125,000 in Ohio.

Goughfather
03-11-2004, 05:43 PM
I've also heard that Ohio is back out to 120,000.

How can one explain the result in Florida? Imminent Cuban Missile Crisis?

Bill Gletsos
03-11-2004, 05:50 PM
I've also heard that Ohio is back out to 120,000.

How can one explain the result in Florida? Imminent Cuban Missile Crisis?
Bush was very quick with federal funding after the recent hurricanes there.
That possibly helped him.

Garvinator
03-11-2004, 06:02 PM
Bush was very quick with federal funding after the recent hurricanes there.
That possibly helped him.
that is true. Also republicians in florida were much better at getting out the vote for their party. There were also quite a lot of complaints that in counties that has a high african american population, polling booths are very infrequent. It is recognised that african american's vote in high majority for democrats.

This tactic then would favour republicans by reducing the amount of african americans who make it to the polls.

arosar
03-11-2004, 06:09 PM
There were also quite a lot of complaints that in counties that has a high african american population, polling booths are very infrequent. It is recognised that african american's vote in high majority for democrats.

This tactic then would favour republicans by reducing the amount of african americans who make it to the polls.

It appears you are well-read gray. What you say above is true. What you said about a partisan election monitor is also true. All of these call into question the so called 'democracy' in America. Kevo is right: Aus is way ahead in election procedures.

AR

Bill Gletsos
03-11-2004, 06:19 PM
CNN TV and FOX are now reporting Bush's lead in Ohio at 140,000.

Goughfather
03-11-2004, 06:20 PM
that is true. Also republicians in florida were much better at getting out the vote for their party. There were also quite a lot of complaints that in counties that has a high african american population, polling booths are very infrequent. It is recognised that african american's vote in high majority for democrats.

This tactic then would favour republicans by reducing the amount of african americans who make it to the polls.

But how is this different from 2000? Perhaps many African Americans were discouraged after being disenfranchised in 2000, but this wouldn't explain increased voter turn out this election. Perhaps Republicans in Florida this time were less apathetic this time, and actually showed up to vote.

Garvinator
03-11-2004, 06:28 PM
Perhaps Republicans in Florida this time were less apathetic this time, and actually showed up to vote.
that is what i meant by getting out the vote. Apparently the republicans were much more effective in 'their' districts at getting ppl to the polls who would vote for them.
Combined with making it more difficult for african american ppl to vote, this most likely to a large majority. Also with the four hurricanes in a row, the government has flooded Florida with money, which would leave ppl with a feeling of 'this party is helping up out' so they get to the polls to return the favour.

Garvinator
03-11-2004, 06:30 PM
It appears you are well-read gray. What you say above is true. What you said about a partisan election monitor is also true. All of these call into question the so called 'democracy' in America. Kevo is right: Aus is way ahead in election procedures.

AR
as i said earlier, usa needs an independant federal electoral commission. The founding fathers of usa missed that one in their constitution.

arosar
03-11-2004, 06:35 PM
Combined with making it more difficult for african american ppl to vote, this most likely to a large majority. Also with the four hurricanes in a row, the government has flooded Florida with money, which would leave ppl with a feeling of 'this party is helping up out' so they get to the polls to return the favour.

And don't forget the Cuban-Americans who are strongly sympathetic to the Republicans' position towards Castro.

AR

frogmogdog
03-11-2004, 08:17 PM
any conspiracy theories on why exit polls give a win to kerry but bush gets the numbers that count?

eclectic
03-11-2004, 08:26 PM
any conspiracy theories on why exit polls give a win to kerry but bush gets the numbers that count?

how reliable are exit polls?

do they poll only those prepared to talk?

do republicans hold their cards to their chest while democrats wear their heart on their sleeve? ( only stereotyping :) )

or are they fairly sampled?


bush seems to be winning well in the vote that should count (votes counted)

but is winning only just (at time of post 254/252 ) in the vote that does count

eclectic

Kevin Bonham
03-11-2004, 09:47 PM
Could be small sample size. Could be time-of-day bias (conservatives tend to vote in the mornings, progressives in the afternoons), could also be a few people fibbing.

It looks like the final result will be 274-264 Bush. Bush only leads by 1.7% in New Mexico and if he loses that and wins Ohio it is 269-269, but then Bush wins anyway because the GOP won both houses and would simply re-appoint him.

In Ohio Bush's lead is 2.5%. Leads that size don't get caught on postals. Barring a successful court challenge this is over (I called it at about 6 pm). Some of the networks, like CNN, are just running scared about what happened last time and too afraid to make calls while a turnaround is still mathematically possible.

I'm impressed how close Kerry got, I thought Bush would win more comfortably. However, this isn't a game where close counts so buckle yourselves in firmly for four more years of Shrubby.

Garvinator
03-11-2004, 09:53 PM
the most interesting part of all this to me is the talk of how many ppl went out and voted, but my math says that only 40% of america actually voted.

frogmogdog
03-11-2004, 09:58 PM
the bit of research i did earlier suggested a decent exit poll should be accurate to within 2% -- but some of the exit polls in this election seem to have underestimated bush's vote by over 10%, which seems an awful lot.

not that i'm wedded to the idea that bush's people have hacked the electronic voting -- actually if the yanks had voted him out then i'd need to reconsider my long-held (but increasingly shaky) prejudice that australians are generally more sensible than americans.

eclectic
03-11-2004, 10:15 PM
the bit of research i did earlier suggested a decent exit poll should be accurate to within 2% -- but some of the exit polls in this election seem to have underestimated bush's vote by over 10%, which seems an awful lot.

not that i'm wedded to the idea that bush's people have hacked the electronic voting -- actually if the yanks had voted him out then i'd need to reconsider my long-held (but increasingly shaky) prejudice that australians are generally more sensible than americans.

don't despair about bush's people hacking electronic voting as the mysterious voting by dead democrats this american night just passed will more than compensate for that !!

:owned:

:whistle:

eclectic

Bill Gletsos
03-11-2004, 11:14 PM
the most interesting part of all this to me is the talk of how many ppl went out and voted, but my math says that only 40% of america actually voted.
In which case your maths ability sucks.

Garvinator
03-11-2004, 11:46 PM
In which case your maths ability sucks.
how so? approx 115 million americans voted, there are approx 280- 300 million people in america. that is approx 40% give or take 1-2 percent.

Bill Gletsos
03-11-2004, 11:59 PM
how so? approx 115 million americans voted, there are approx 280- 300 million people in america. that is approx 40% give or take 1-2 percent.
You goose.
Children dont get to vote.

JGB
04-11-2004, 12:03 AM
how so? approx 115 million americans voted, there are approx 280- 300 million people in america. that is approx 40% give or take 1-2 percent.

Are you sure? :hmm:

If 115 milliion voted then;
About 260 million people in America minus 60 million or so under voting age leaving 85 million who didn't vote, thats a good turn out isn't it?
well over 50 % voted then.

Garvinator
04-11-2004, 12:07 AM
Are you sure? :hmm:

If 115 milliion voted then;
About 260 million people in America minus 60 million or so under voting age leaving 85 million who didn't vote, thats a good turn out isn't it?
well over 50 % voted then.
ok fair enough.

Bill Gletsos
04-11-2004, 12:09 AM
Are you sure? :hmm:

If 115 milliion voted then;
About 260 million people in America minus 60 million or so under voting age leaving 85 million who didn't vote, thats a good turn out isn't it?
well over 50 % voted then.
Well done.
What you said is all fairly obvious.

Kevin Bonham
04-11-2004, 12:17 AM
Bush's camp is claiming he will win Iowa and New Mexico, where Kerry is shown as leading but the count has been stuffed around by technical glitches. If this is so Bush will actually win 286-252.

JGB
04-11-2004, 12:47 AM
There are many very dissapointed Germans regarding the news coming from the States today. On average Bush is hated about as much as Hitler in this country. They are finding it very hard to understand how it is possible that he will be re-elected. The news is very strongly anti-Bush biased here; probably too much.

JGB
04-11-2004, 05:03 AM
The 'Born Again Christians' have undoubtably won the election for Bush. Looking at the statistics tonight, it is almost frightening what can be made of the following data:

Votes counted of the American Population:

Blacks vote about 80% for Kerry
Hispanics vote about 60% for Kerry
Asians vote about 60 % for Kerry
Young, new voters, vote about 60% for Kerry

But all of this irrelevant when over 85% of the American Born Again Christians vote for Bush (these are people just like George Bush jr who have found Jesus in their midlife).

20% of all Americans belong to the American Born Again Christian group!

...I guess you can figure out for yourselves just what won this election for Bush.
Makes you think what kind of social, racial, religious, and I'm sure economical divides America is living through.

eclectic
04-11-2004, 07:27 PM
20% of all Americans belong to the American Born Again Christian group!


well i think that under a titheing system which these BACs usually support 10 per cent of their votes should have done directly to the almighty and not showed up in the count ... :D

would kerry have won then ?

eclectic

Spiny Norman
04-11-2004, 07:37 PM
The 'Born Again Christians' have undoubtably won the election for Bush. Looking at the statistics tonight, it is almost frightening what can be made of the following data:

Votes counted of the American Population:

Blacks vote about 80% for Kerry
Hispanics vote about 60% for Kerry
Asians vote about 60 % for Kerry
Young, new voters, vote about 60% for Kerry

Yeah, look at what all them Blacks, Hispanics, Asians and kids have done. They've screwed up the vote and made it look like Kerry is more popular then he really deserves to be!

Where would we be without a bit of racial bias, or ageism?


But all of this irrelevant when over 85% of the American Born Again Christians vote for Bush (these are people just like George Bush jr who have found Jesus in their midlife).

Just as well they voted eh? Otherwise we'd be looking at a racially-biased and ageist result! Fortunately all we got was a religiously-biased result instead.


20% of all Americans belong to the American Born Again Christian group! ... I guess you can figure out for yourselves just what won this election for Bush. Makes you think what kind of social, racial, religious, and I'm sure economical divides America is living through.

To be perfectly honest, its never occurred to me and has never bothered to me. I just figured everyone got one vote and had their say.

Not saying that you are doing it, but all this hand-wringing and agonising over the result from the Hollywood brigade, the so-called intellectuals, and the liberal media is getting a bit tired.

They should just get over it and realise that both Australia and the USA have moved on. Things have just become "more conservative". So what? These things move in cycles. Its bloody patronising to the majority (!) who have voted in Howard and Bush.

No point crying "foul". Both Labor and the Democrats need to take a good hard look at their policies and the way they speak to the public.

Take Kerry's running-mate, John whats-is-name. He jumped up last night and raved on about "every vote must count and every vote must be counted". Talk about a denial of reality. It was plain pathetic ... everyone could see it was over. Then he followed it up with "we'll keep on fighting..." and stuff like that. Frankly, I reckon the public (here and in the USA) is probably sick of the fighting and the name calling and just wants to get back to normal life again.

The more the left-wingers, liberals, hand-wringers complain about "why did this happen, can't people see that we're right and they're just misguided fools who've fallen for Howard's (or Bush's) lies" the more the majority shake their heads and wish they'd wake up and take account of themselves and their policies.

JGB
04-11-2004, 08:11 PM
I just published the facts for people see, and I have no problem with that.

Rincewind
04-11-2004, 08:57 PM
I just published the facts for people see, and I have no problem with that.

For what it's worth it seems to me that the rise in islamic fundamentalist terrorism has create a reaction in the west which has strengthened the pre-existing religious right. This condition has contributed to the comfortable re-election of right-wing governments in Australia and the US. What will be interesting is how things will pan out in the UK. However, due to the bashing Blair has copped over the dossier for war, I think he will probably lose government for exactly the same reasons, despite supporting Bush in Iraq. Isn't politics perverse?

frogmogdog
04-11-2004, 09:24 PM
yes, i think blair will lose too. his natural constituency includes people with no great interest in slaughtering muslims.

as for this other stuff...


The more the left-wingers, liberals, hand-wringers complain about "why did this happen, can't people see that we're right and they're just misguided fools who've fallen for Howard's (or Bush's) lies" the more the majority shake their heads and wish they'd wake up and take account of themselves and their policies.


well, i'm a hand-wringer who doesn't think people were that influenced by howard's lies.

most aussie voters more or less knew the truth but just weren't very concerned if a 100,000 brown muslims got blown up far away in a war of absurd justification, or if 100's may have drowned due to AFP involvement in people smuggling disruption programs, or if children got needlessly imprisoned in desert concentration camps for years.

the protests before the iraq war were massive because people were worried that our own troops would be slaughtered or we'd see major terrorist activity on the mainland. it hasn't happened (yet anway) so people are no longer concerned.

the US has lost over 1000 soldiers so iraq was a bigger issue there.

australians also don't care much if public servants try to give true advice on national security matters but get persecuted and demoted for it; or care much if public servants who support the government's lies get promotions and gongs for honourable service to the nation.

people basically know what is happening but don't regard it as important, at least not compared with, say, collecting objects in a race for status. i don't think they are misguided fools swayed by howard's little lies, although i will admit that it's difficult to imagine the ones who claim to be influenced by the teachings of jesus christ are not hypocrites.

the most amusing statistic from the US election was that 85% of people who said they were voting on moral grounds were bush voters. i wonder what an equivalent australian stat would be?

(ps i'll take part of the above back - i suspect voters were genuinely confused by howard's lies on medicare. i saw a guy today who got charged about $1000 in the US to get 4 stitches in a laceration. that's where we're heading -- i should start charging lots more for liberal voters, if they really want a user pays health system they can have it.

pps read "a certain maritime incident: the sinking of the siev x" by tony kevin)

arosar
05-11-2004, 01:23 PM
I hope I won't get in trouble for this.

AR

Rincewind
05-11-2004, 02:21 PM
I hope I won't get in trouble for this.

AR

Perhaps you should post such elsewhere.

Kevin Bonham
05-11-2004, 03:18 PM
They should just get over it and realise that both Australia and the USA have moved on. Things have just become "more conservative". So what? These things move in cycles. Its bloody patronising to the majority (!) who have voted in Howard and Bush.

I think there are some very concerning signs about the result. The exit poll stats showed that voters basically believed Bush had trashed the economy and stuffed up the war in Iraq but voted him back because they were afraid of terrorists and gay marriage. I'm not much inclined to accept an election being decided on the latter because as far as I am concerned countries like the USA and Australia are supposed to be liberal democracies, not majority dictatorships, and I cannot see a single good reason why the government should be allowed to ban gay marriage even if only two people in the country oppose such a ban.

One aspect of the reaction from the Left that has disappointed me is the claims that Bush won because all the stupid people voted for him. Any left-winger who stereotypes Bush supporters as uneducated dumb hicks is just plain factually wrong. The only classes by education that voted Kerry were those who never finished high school (50:49, although most people in this group just plain don't vote at all) and those who had done postgrad study (55:44). All other groups by education, including those with a single uni degree, voted Bush.


Take Kerry's running-mate, John whats-is-name. He jumped up last night and raved on about "every vote must count and every vote must be counted". Talk about a denial of reality. It was plain pathetic ... everyone could see it was over. Then he followed it up with "we'll keep on fighting..." and stuff like that. Frankly, I reckon the public (here and in the USA) is probably sick of the fighting and the name calling and just wants to get back to normal life again.

I agree with this and I am pleased that Kerry did concede not too long after, but it should also be remembered that the Republicans' reaction to the election of Clinton was predominantly immature and remained so throughout his eight years in office.


The more the left-wingers, liberals, hand-wringers complain about "why did this happen, can't people see that we're right and they're just misguided fools who've fallen for Howard's (or Bush's) lies" the more the majority shake their heads and wish they'd wake up and take account of themselves and their policies.

I agree with this too. This presidency was winnable for the Democrats, even with Kerry as candidate, and they blew it by failing to present clear messages