Dean for President?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by g5man, Dec 11, 2003.

  1. g5man macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2003
    #1
    I have not been here long, but it appears everyone here is active enough in politics that they plan on voting in the primaries and the general election.

    I am curios to know how many in this forum would vote for Howard Dean if he was nominated by the Democratic Party.
     
  2. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #2
    Re: Dean for President?

    i'd certainly consider it. he'd have to work really hard to get me to vote for bush.
     
  3. wwworry macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2002
    #3
    Bush or ...

    I'd vote for ...

    seriously, Dean's a fiscal conservative and he does not think the govt. should be making our private decisions. That's OK with me. Though I am interested in the others too.

    I don't want govt. telling me what religion to believe in or telling me who I can love.
     
  4. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #4
    Does Howard Dean bite the heads off of live chickens? Not so I've heard. He's got my vote.

    Dean isn't my top choice to oppose Bush, but then, I really don't get a choice.
     
  5. SPG macrumors 65816

    SPG

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2001
    Location:
    In the shadow of the Space Needle.
    #5
    I'm down for Dean.
    He seems to be firing up a lot of regular people and not just the political junkies. His funding comes mainly from lots of small contributions under$100, unlike Bush who gets mostly $2000 maxed donations by businessmen and rich people. Who do you think each guy is going to feel indebted to? I'd rather have someone representing the people not just the business people.
     
  6. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #6
    Dean's got my vote. He's a little too centrist for me, but I don't see any other candidate out there who has what it takes to make it. I think he'll make a good prez.
     
  7. K4NN4B15 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2003
    #8
    Id vote for a trained chicken who bit the heads off of other chickens before Id vote for Bush.

    No, i dont really like Dean. But like IJ said.... not really a choice.
     
  8. Sayhey macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #9
    Not yet sure who I will vote for in the primary, but whoever of the major Democratic candidates is nominated I will not only vote for him or her in November but also work to get that person elected. I guess the only way I could see not doing so would be if some nut like Lyndon LaRouche got the nomination (I think the world would have to shift out of its orbit for that to happen) and then I would work for Nader. This is an ABB election (anyone but Bush.)
     
  9. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #10
    I don't get a choice because I'm not a Democrat, but at this point I'm certainly feeling inclined to vote for whomever the party in its finite wisdom decides to nominate.

    Interesting article about the Republican view of Dean from today's LA Times:

    http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-bush12dec12,1,5014118.story

     
  10. 3rdpath macrumors 68000

    3rdpath

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2002
    Location:
    2nd star on the right and straight till morning
    #11
    i found that article quite amusing....in a truman/dewey sort of way.

    what rove and his flunkies fail to grasp is: if someone as unimpressive as bush can get (s)elected...then dean has a MAJOR chance of unseating dubya.

    i'll certainly vote for dean...i'm more of a greenie than democrat but this next election isn't about high ideas...it's about unseating an inept simpleton and his string pullers.

    btw, while in texas over the holidays i did a little informal polling and was quite surprised that many formerly staunch republican bush supporters were truly pissed over this bumbled war and were vowing to not vote bush again.
     
  11. wwworry macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2002
    #12
    I have noticed that too. Though it could be wishfull thinking on my part. Even my father-in-law, a republican, called Bush a Turkey the other day. I smiled inwardly.

    I kind of like Gephart though. Someone has to make a stand on fair trade. Someone has to unionize walmart (though not gephart - how do you spell his name). At least unionize walmart.

    If you want to know why I feel this way read the article in the Times about the Chinese etch-a-sketch factory. 12 hours a day 7 days a week, below even Chinese minimum wage (55 cents an hour) they are served meat only twice a month. How can anyone compeat with that?
     
  12. Awimoway macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2002
    Location:
    at the edge
    #13
    I'm for Dean all the way. I think people are selling him far too short as a general election candidate. Bush cannot win on the war, but Dean can. Although my Dad (a Repub) and others have criticized Dean for being against the war but not being for any striking alternative. I think they have a point there. I guess Dean does have a different take--for one, he doesn't intend to pander to Saudi Arabia, which is the major source of al Qaeda terrorism. But the point needs to be better articulated than it currently is.

    Also, I don't think people have yet grapsed just how much cachet there is to be had in a presidential candidate who is a medical doctor. That will instantly give him a lot more credibility.
     
  13. g5man thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2003
    #14
  14. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
  15. Maclarny macrumors 6502

    Maclarny

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2003
    Location:
    MN
    #16
    Think about it, Karl Rove is afraid of Howard Dean. Just look at his credentials, he's the most centrist Dem in the field and he has the power to move people. He is an ardent budget balancer and has the numbers to back it up. The White House is painting Dean as a left winger for issues that Bush would already win with his Right wing on (gay marriage). Dean needs to paint his agenda in common sense terms, i.e. gays pay their taxes, but are denied the rights that other citizens get, isn't America an equal rights nation? With common sense an passion we can win in 2004 and turn the tide in American politics so it focuses on the people not on individual power.
     
  16. g5man thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2003
    #17
    But look at this.
    http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/12/17/elec04.prez.poll/index.html

    The president also had a lead of more than 20 percentage points over Democratic front-runner Howard Dean in a hypothetical matchup among registered voters, the poll found.

    Trust me, what Carl Rove is afraid of is that everyone is so sure Bush will win they will stay home.
     
  17. Frohickey macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Location:
    PRK
    #18
    Do you have the source of that small individual contributions for Dean vs large contributions for Bush?

    So far, I find the opposite.
    Democrats have built a soft-money lifeboat
    Top individual contributors 2000
    Top individual contributors 2002

    Here's the shocker...
    2001-02 Donor Demographics
    But look at the trends with the Donors giving $1000+, $10K+, $100K+, and $1M+, you see the percentage numbers going from more republican to more democrat.

    Kinda deflates your arguments, eh? :p

    More likely, that small contributions to Bush hasn't even started yet, since its still 11 months til the election. Dean, on the other hand, had already started asking since he's trying to cinch the DNC nomination by trying to see if he can get more contributors than the other Democrat rivals.

    If Dean gets the nomination, and if he's spent the money in the primaries, he's going to have to dip into the well again for the general election, and that would bump his contributors to the higher bracket of giving, which would run counter to your argument as well. :eek:
     
  18. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #19
    Lol, there were a lot of Democrats who were for campaign finance reform on principle who ended up being very sorry once they realized what an advantage they had given to the Republicans in small donations! Without their deep pocketed friends, Democrats now have to get busy developing the kind of giving network the GOP has had in place for years now. Not that either party is innocent of taking what amounts to bribes for their votes.
     
  19. Durandal7 macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2001
    #20
    I wouldn't mind seeing a Libermann/Clark ticket.
     
  20. Maclarny macrumors 6502

    Maclarny

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2003
    Location:
    MN
    #21
    Wouldn't it be nice if a political conversation didn't have to involve talking about money and contributions? If an election entailed equal money for every candidate and equal airtime? If issues were put above deceptive and misleading advertisements? If people like Karl Rove didn't exist to create push polls which led voters to believe that Mccain had fathered an illigitimate black child and other lies? Is this something that Republicans and Democrats can agree on? To let the issues speak for themselves. I hope so.
     
  21. Code101 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2003
    Location:
    Ut
    #22
    Bush will win!

    I would not vote for any Democrat! Democrats = the downfall of America as we know it. Democrats should run in Europe or Canada. Their ideas would be well liked there.

    I must say that Lieberman has some honor and basic understanding of the Military. That's more than I can say for the other Demos or Green/UN guys.
     
  22. Frohickey macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Location:
    PRK
    #23
    Political campaigns have been held like this since the early days of John Adams vs Thomas Jefferson. Back then, it was just leaflets and newspapers, but you still had to pay to have the leaflets and newspapers written. Even if you mandated equal money and equal time for every candidate, in the free market society we have, you will have a candidate try and get more air time via the privately owned media if they can afford to pay for it. Money could be a corrupting influence, but, it could also be used to 'advertise' the candidate and make their issues known. Its really up to the candidate if it corrupts or not. And its up to the contributors if it corrupts or not.

    Remember the whole Sally Hemmings, who was a slave that Thomas Jefferson owned? There was a recent revival of that controversy when DNA matching science got going. The issue came about during Thomas Jefferson's 2nd presidency, started by a newspaper publisher and furthered by Aaron Burr, his vice president. :eek:

    So, I think that the solution IS NOT the limiting of money in campaigns. I think the solution should be full disclosure of who contributed what, and how much to who's campaign. Loans included.
     
  23. Frohickey macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Location:
    PRK
    #24
    About the only Democrat I would support would be Zell Miller, at least on the national level.
     
  24. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #25
    It's very old news to suggest that politics has always had a dirty side. Nobody is going to quarrel with that assertion. But the role of money and monied contributors in election campaigns is a relatively recent phenomenon, and the influence they have over elections is increasing exponentially. Over the long haul, this is far more corrosive to the cause of democracy then any amount of mud-slinging.
     

Share This Page