#Which democratic person running for president stands the most/least chance?#

Discussion in 'World Events' started by swooper, Sep 11, 2003.

  1. swooper Registered Member

    Messages:
    17
    I saw the debate yesterday on fox news

    I think Bob Grahm stands the most chance, and Al Sharpton stands the least chance.

    I like Bob Grham bacause he said some very good things about the economy, and I cant wait until I can see the next debate 2 weeks from now. I dont know much about him though.


    Al Sharpton insits that black people are not considerd equal to white people. He believes that they are not equal when it comes to getting the same schooling as white people, and are more laid off that white people. I dont consider those statistics to be absolutely true. how could America be unequal when it comes to schooling, when every race can go to every public school school? I'd say white people are at the tail end when it comes to schooling. There are all black colleges in America, but if there were any all white colleges, it would be considerd "KKK" "racist" "were putting the black man down." Also, affirmative action screws us over when it comes to college. Back in the day when racisism existed, maybe it was a good idea, but now it has all but been totally wiped out, and it toatally undermines the belief that we are all equal. Now, I fear I, a white person, may have to fight for equality. Saying that, perhaps racism only exists today when it is most convienient. I believe these statements made by Al Sharptin were really blinded by when he lived in the 50's and 60's. I believe, that racism no longer exists. This is why i dont like him.

    Maybe I'm wrong and racism DOES exist, prove me wrong

    I cant wait to see my generation get into power, then, there will truly be no more racism, people wont be so afraid of technology such as cloning and stem cells, and maybe my generation wont let politicians and corperations run so rampant. I wonder what the downfalls of my gen will be?

    P.S.
    Im not racist, in fact, im against it. I belive that anyone who comes to sciforums is civilized and able to debate objectivly, and that is why I am so free with my words. So please, no hate mail.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. jps Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,872
    I agree, Sharpton can't win, which is too bad, because he'd be the best man for the job as far as i'm concerned.

    I think Dean's the only one with a real chance of beating Bush, but i don't think he has that good a chance either.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. truth Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    643
    I think Dean has the most chance, Kerry is to fake. I like Al Sharpton simply for the fact that he completely annoys all the rest of the Democratic hopefuls. I am guessing he is going to really split the black vote for the Democrats.

    I loved a recent remark of his, something to the effect that the Democratic party has treated blacks like their mistress and hid them from view when they are not needed. He says that time is over and they are coming out of hiding. He sure could liven up their debates.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. biblthmp Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    274
    I think that Hillary does, when she announces in a few weeks, with Gore as her VP. She's tops in all the polls.
     
  8. biblthmp Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    274
  9. Munchmausen Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    71
    Graham - err, no. He's just not getting his name out there, and he doesn't distinguish himself from the pack. His experience is comparable to Kerry, Gephardt, or Lieberman, but he doesn't have the national name recognition.

    Moseley-Braun - Sadly, no. I like a lot of her ideas. She's a very smart woman, but her being a Black woman seems to be a self-fulfilling prophecy of failure for her.

    Sharpton - From a straight issue standpoint, I'd probably go with him, but he's kind of an ass. Not the one.

    Edwards - Maybe. Charismatic, moderate, actually down-to-earth. What he needs is to get in touch with the broad grassroots base to get his name out there. I think his likeability could overcome his quirky stances on policies (he justifies support for the Patriot Act by suggesting creation of a Civil Liberties Department to act as a watchdog.) and his inexperience (his first term in the senate.)

    Gephardt - Probably not. He has the labor support. He comes from the working class (Edwards has a similar claim). He's the only one in the race from a state west of the Mississippi. He has name recognition. However, he's just too . . . nice. In the down-and-dirty post-primary arena, Bush would go all over him. The same thing happened to Gore in 2000. The Bush people made accusations and he chose not dignify them with a response. It would be the same thing with Gephardt.

    Kerry - Possible. The slander that worked against Gore and would work against Gephardt might just backfire against Kerry. That's not a face you pick on. What he has going for him is his military record, coupled with speaking skils, and that "presidential feel" (heretofor referred to as PF

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    )

    Kucinich - Nope. He's the liberal people claim Dean is. Has a fan-base among the hardcore liberals, but electability is not his middle name.

    Dean - Best bet. Pros: Governor; grassroots base; clear, albeit mixed stance on issues; that PF. Cons: Funky mannerisms. His handlers need to get him to stop looking funny when he's not talking.

    Lieberman - Please, no. Wait, I thought we were talking about Democrats. Clearly the most conservative of the bunch, his nomination would be the biggest motivator for the Green Party, and the best way to encourage low turnout. He's a crotchety old man who seems to think what's keeping the Democratic Party back is Democratic values.
     
  10. Munchmausen Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    71
    Oh, and regarding Mrs. Clinton being so high in the polls. Two words: name recognition. Remember, 6 out of 10 Democrats can't name one of the nine. This is why Lieberman ranks high among registered Democrats whereas Dean does well amongst the politically-active New Hampshire and Iowa polls.
     
  11. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    I don't think any of the Democrats have a good chance of winning against President Bush. I believe that there won't be any further terrorist attacks against America and the economy will be in great shape by next election in November of 2004. So if those things happen and Iraq is getting back to normal I don't think the Democrats can win. Graham looks about the best of the contenders along with Liberman.
     
  12. Munchmausen Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    71
    Cosmic - why? If you haven't noticed, the seemingly unbeatable numbers Bush had two years ago are gone. He's back to just a little over 50% approval, (Gallup) which says at this point it's fair game. It's now about building name recognition for the Democrats, which will get easier as we get closer to the primary and more people feel it's time to get interested.

    As for Graham and Lieberman, I can't help but wonder if you're a Republican if you think they have the best shot. For those who aren't aware, they're leaders in the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), not to be confused with the Democratic National Commitee (DNC), who actually run the Democratic Party. The centrist-conservative DLC faction of the party prides themselves on the ability to get Clinton (a key member) elected in 92. They're the ones who are always talking about moving the party to the middle. Well, ten years later, that's what lost the Democrats a midterm. The Republicans had a clear party message (whether you agree with it or not). Whereas the Democrats, by trying to appease everyone, disillusioned the left and left the middle feeling like they didn't have enough conviction.
     
  13. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    Munchmausen .......

    I'm neither a Republican nor a Democrat so I'm trying to be as independant as I can be by looking at both sides trying to see who has what to offer. What has the Democrats had to say positive about anything? They are running a negative campaign and will continue to do so instead of formulating their own plans to give the people what they need. I really think this hurts the Democrats more than helps them . If all they talk about is what Bush is doing wrong then what is it the Democrats will do right?

    The problem in Iraq is unsettling , for sure, but it needs to be delt with firmly and whatever amount of time it takes to get that mess cleaned up, so be it. The people in America aren't going to be worried about the time, expense or lives lost for everyone understands if we aren't going to take the war to the terorists the terrorists will bring the war here. That is a price that most people are prepaired to pay until the war is over. That may take about 5 years or less depending upon several factors.
     
  14. Munchmausen Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    71
    I disagree that the Democrats haven't had anything good to say. They just have a lot of bad things to say as well. I don't think it hurts nearly as much as you think to address the flaws in the opponent's plan when proposing your own.

    Also, why do you think Lieberman and Graham are most capable of defeating Bush? What do you see that separates them from the others?
     
  15. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    I have learned some discouraging news, Graham is going to quit. Now I see it as Liberman and Dean as the best the Democrats can muster.The democrats always use negativity to wear away their opponents as has been shown in the past. I just think Americans don't want to hear the bad things about Bush, but the plan on making things better as well. If the democrats can put together a better way to solve the ongoing problems then they MAY have a better chance at the upcoming Presidential elections then they have now. The Republicans look very strong with their plans right now and I don't see anything being said by the Democrats that would prevent them from winning.
     
  16. DeeCee Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,793
    I don't think any of the Democrats have a good chance of winning against President Bush.
    I concur.
    Until the democrats learn how to strike republican voters off the register they're never gonna beat Bush.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    What make's y'all think this will be a free and fair election?
    Dee Cee
     
  17. Spyke Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,006
    If Hillary does decide to enter the race whe will be the immediate Democratic frontrunner as Biblthmp said. Of the nine though, Dean will likely win the Democratic primary. The only real challenge to Dean at this point would seem to be Lieberman, for one simple reason. Other than Sharpton and Mosely-Braun, who have no chance, Lieberman is the only one at this point who has seperated himself from Dean. All the others with a legitimate chance (Kerry, Graham, Edwards, Gephardt) seem to be following Dean's lead. As the frontrunner Dean only needs to be concerned with attacking Bush at this point, whereas the others need to be attacking Dean if they are going to gain on him. At this point only Lieberman has been willing to seriously do so. Kunovich has, of course, but he's an extreme longshot. But bottom line, if no one other than Lieberman attacks Dean then he will stay the frontrunner, and I doubt Lieberman's moderate views will appeal to the left wing of the Democratic party. Can Dean, Lieberman, or any of the others beat Bush? It will be difficult; while Bush's support has dropped, that doesn't make the Democrat's choices any more appealing to a lot of people that maybe wanting a change at this point. Hillary or Gore would still offer the most legitimate shots.
     
  18. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    If Hillary runs, she will lose. She isn't a good candidate for President. Women won't support her because they don't trust her as well as many men don't. She is a person to reckon with in 2008 perhaps but now isn't her time.......IMO.
     
  19. Spyke Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,006
    Out of curiosity, if nobody trusts her now, why will she become a candidate to be reckoned with in '08?
     
  20. Hitman47 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    55
    Have faith on Al sharpton !!!!!

    hes #1


    Long live the CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT!!!!


    AHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHHA!!!!!!!!
     

Share This Page