Tom Daschle considers bid for president

[OnTheRocks]

Is Tom Daschle a democrat in the mold of Al Gore in that in my opinion he would be Extreme left?

Or is he more middle of the road?

 

Tom Daschle considers bid for president

 

I think the Dems are going to have a tremendous battle on thier hands trying to define who they are in '08. As a party are they going to support a candidate as extreme as Gore (which i think he is already campaigning for), or are they going to go with someone a little more moderate?

[Chilly]

Is Tom Daschle a democrat in the mold of Al Gore in that in my opinion he would be Extreme left?

Or is he more middle of the road?

 

Tom Daschle considers bid for president

 

I think the Dems are going to have a tremendous battle on thier hands trying to define who they are in '08.  As a party are they going to support a candidate as extreme as Gore (which i think he is already campaigning for), or are they going to go with someone a little more moderate?

572587[/snapback]

 

My guess is Daschle is sending out feelers so that we can get some poll numbers with him involved.

 

http://www.pollingreport.com/WH08dem.htm

 

Not really sure what he would do to that dynamic.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Is Tom Daschle a democrat in the mold of Al Gore in that in my opinion he would be Extreme left?

Or is he more middle of the road?

 

Tom Daschle considers bid for president

 

I think the Dems are going to have a tremendous battle on thier hands trying to define who they are in '08.  As a party are they going to support a candidate as extreme as Gore (which i think he is already campaigning for), or are they going to go with someone a little more moderate?

572587[/snapback]

 

Extreme left. If only because, frankly, the current political atmosphere is so polarized I doubt there is a "middle of the road".

 

Even so, I can think of worse candidates than Daschle. Like Bush. Or Kerry. Or Clinton. Or Clinton. Or Gore. Or Bush (no, not that one, the other one). Or Cheney...

[Chilly]

Extreme left.  If only because, frankly, the current political atmosphere is so polarized I doubt there is a "middle of the road". 

 

Even so, I can think of worse candidates than Daschle.  Like Bush.  Or Kerry.  Or Clinton.  Or Clinton.  Or Gore.  Or Bush (no, not that one, the other one).  Or Cheney...

572619[/snapback]

 

Its really only the candidates that are polarized, the American public remains at around the same levels of polarization as it did back in the 50s or so.

 

The real evil here imo is the primary system. The primaries tend to select an extreme candidate rather then the best candidate.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Its really only the candidates that are polarized, the American public remains at around the same levels of polarization as it did back in the 50s or so.

 

The real evil here imo is the primary system.  The primaries tend to select an extreme candidate rather then the best candidate.

572639[/snapback]

 

That's because only the extremists give a sh-- about the primaries, it seems. That would also explain why lunatics like Pat Robertson and Lyndon Larouche can get a credible percentage of the vote in certain primaries.

 

But...judging by both the turnout and closeness of the last presidential election...I'd say the public's pretty fairly polarized, relative to their usual apathy and distraction...oooh, American Idol!

[Chilly]

That's because only the extremists give a sh-- about the primaries, it seems.  That would also explain why lunatics like Pat Robertson and Lyndon Larouche can get a credible percentage of the vote in certain primaries. 

 

Heh, yep. Exactly why I said that I blame the primaries. :-)

 

But...judging by both the turnout and closeness of the last presidential election...I'd say the public's pretty fairly polarized, relative to their usual apathy and distraction...oooh, American Idol! 

572655[/snapback]

 

I'm not sure that its fair to say that the public is polarized just on the basis of a turnout of an election. A lot of the public was picking between 2 evils as they saw it.

 

If you take a look at the seven-point scale of party identification, you can see that a large part of the public is, in fact, toward the middle. Its at its highest numbers since around the 1950s.

 

The problem is that the candidates were extremely polarizing, which gives the appearence of polarization in the public. A good number of people thought that Bush was a deuche bag, and they wouldn't vote for him under any circumstance. And the same is true for Kerry.

 

The more polarized the candidates are, the more polarized the public will seem in an election. However, just because they seem polarized, doesn't mean that they actually ARE polarized, just that thats what the choices were.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

The problem is that the candidates were extremely polarizing, which gives the appearence of polarization in the public.

572685[/snapback]

 

This statement is giving me hairballs. Not that I disagree with it...but what?

 

Yes, the candidates were extremely polarizing. Yes, they were polarizing in the "lesser of two evils" sense. But...how do two candidates that are polarizing give the appearance of polarizing the public without the public actually being polarized?

 

Or, in other words, can polarization of the electorate only be an appearance with no "substance". If the electorate appears polarized...then aren't they therefore polarized?

 

Yeah, that's just semantics...but they're pretty !@#$ing important semantics if we're going to discuss whether or not the public is "polarized".

[Chilly]

This statement is giving me hairballs.  Not that I disagree with it...but what? 

 

Yes, the candidates were extremely polarizing.  Yes, they were polarizing in the "lesser of two evils" sense.  But...how do two candidates that are polarizing give the appearance of polarizing the public without the public actually being polarized? 

 

Or, in other words, can polarization of the electorate only be an appearance with no "substance".  If the electorate appears polarized...then aren't they therefore polarized? 

 

Yeah, that's just semantics...but they're pretty !@#$ing important semantics if we're going to discuss whether or not the public is "polarized". 

572693[/snapback]

 

Hmm, this is probably a better way to say it.

 

The public can act polarized in one race without actually being polarized overall, due to the nature of the candidates in that race.

 

Here's the data that I was talking about, on the 7-point scale of party ID.

 

http://www.umich.edu/~nes/nesguide/toptable/tab2a_1.htm

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Hmm, this is probably a better way to say it. 

 

The public can act polarized in one race without actually being polarized overall, due to the nature of the candidates in that race.

 

Here's the data that I was talking about, on the 7-point scale of party ID.

 

http://www.umich.edu/~nes/nesguide/toptable/tab2a_1.htm

572704[/snapback]

 

I'll give that study props for being long-term and consistent, so that historical comparisons actually mean something. And then I'll roundly criticize it for asking a question like "Generally speaking, do you usually think of yourself as a

Republican, a Democrat, an Independent, or what?"

 

"Or what?" What the hell kind of a stupid !@#$ing question is that? I want to know how many wise-asses like me answered "I usually think of myself as an eggplant." "Or what." Morons.

 

The REALLY interesting thing about that survey, though, is the "apolitical" people in '04: of 1197 people, it looks like virtually NONE were apolitical (I'd like to see the raw data, to see if "virtually none" is actually precisely none). That in itself is a pretty significant indication of polarization, when your usual "I don't give a sh--" crowd suddenly gives a sh--.

 

 

BTW, I poked around that site some. There's better graphs that actually illustrate your point very well: for example.

[Mickey]

Is Tom Daschle a democrat in the mold of Al Gore in that in my opinion he would be Extreme left?

Or is he more middle of the road?

 

Tom Daschle considers bid for president

 

I think the Dems are going to have a tremendous battle on thier hands trying to define who they are in '08.  As a party are they going to support a candidate as extreme as Gore (which i think he is already campaigning for), or are they going to go with someone a little more moderate?

572587[/snapback]

He is from South Dakota and you don't get elected there if you are a liberal extremist and he won a few elections there, not his last one of course. I have a hard time thinking that a guy who lost his Senate seat as the majority leader could be a good presidential candidate.

[X. Benedict]

He is from South Dakota and you don't get elected there if you are a liberal extremist and he won a few elections there, not his last one of course.  I have a hard time thinking that a guy who lost his Senate seat as the majority leader could be a good presidential candidate.

572758[/snapback]

He probably has thousands of dollars left in his warchest that needs to be liquidated.

I think even Jimmy Griffin had this problem once, so he ran for president.

[Alexander Hamilton]

I think the best of the early Dem candidates is Joe Biden. I've always liked his appearances on Meet the Press. He's got the plagarism thing in his background, but that was pretty bogus (not that it will stop the Right from bringing it up).

 

 

 

Wiki on Biden

[Taro T]

He is from South Dakota and you don't get elected there if you are a liberal extremist and he won a few elections there, not his last one of course.  I have a hard time thinking that a guy who lost his Senate seat as the majority leader could be a good presidential candidate.

572758[/snapback]

Actually, the way you win your 1st election in SD if you are a Democrat is get HEAVY Indian participation along with calls to increase farm subsidies (thus getting a substantial percentage of the eastern ranchers' votes) and do a LOT of handslapping throughout the entire state (lots of backroads travel for many small turnout events). After you have won once and begin to get seniority, the way to get reelected is continue to bring money back to the state. Owing to how small the state population is and the perceived lack of political clout, the voters tend to continue to vote for a candidate once in national office even if they disagree with several of the candidate's positions. About the only way to not get reelected is to blatently ignore the wishes of the locals to the point that they are willing to forego some clout in order to get rid of the bum. Congrats Tom, you managed to do the near impossible and get yourself voted out.

 

IF somehow he were to become the Democratic nominee, I guarantee he would follow in Gore's footsteps and would not carry his home state.

[Chilly]

I'll give that study props for being long-term and consistent, so that historical comparisons actually mean something.  And then I'll roundly criticize it for asking a question like "Generally speaking, do you usually think of yourself as a

Republican, a Democrat, an Independent, or what?"

 

  "Or what?"  What the hell kind of a stupid !@#$ing question is that?  I want to know how many wise-asses like me answered "I usually think of myself as an eggplant."  "Or what."  Morons. 

 

The REALLY interesting thing about that survey, though, is the "apolitical" people in '04:  of 1197 people, it looks like virtually NONE were apolitical (I'd like to see the raw data, to see if "virtually none" is actually precisely none).  That in itself is a pretty significant indication of polarization,  when your usual "I don't give a sh--" crowd suddenly gives a sh--.

BTW, I poked around that site some.  There's better graphs that actually illustrate your point very well: for example.

572718[/snapback]

 

An eggplant.

[stuckincincy]

I think the best of the early Dem candidates is Joe Biden. I've always liked his appearances on Meet the Press. He's got the plagarism thing in his background, but that was pretty bogus (not that it will stop the Right from bringing it up).

Wiki on Biden

572846[/snapback]

 

Dig a little deeper about Biden. He is a great persona, I'll grant that. but I do recall him railing against ex-Sen Thurmond about blocking judiciary appointments, but his criticisms pale compared to the number that Biden blocked when he headed the committee. And Biden was the sweet-talking chap who let it be known that the Administation was monitoring Al-Quida cell phones - specifically bin Laden. Plus, he is the long-standing senator of a state that makes much $$$ via their position as the largest headquarters of corporations and banks. Delaware is the nation's playground for big business - their courts, executive branch, legislature, and federal representatives play the game well.

[Mickey]

Dig a little deeper about Biden. He is a great persona, I'll grant that. but I do recall him railing against ex-Sen Thurmond about blocking judiciary appointments, but his criticisms pale compared to the number that Biden blocked when he headed the committee. And Biden was the sweet-talking chap who let it be known that the Administation was monitoring Al-Quida cell phones - specifically bin Laden.  Plus, he is the long-standing senator of a state that makes much $$$ via their position as the largest headquarters of corporations and banks. Delaware is the nation's playground for big business - their courts, executive branch, legislature, and federal representatives play the game well.

572924[/snapback]

Isn't the cell phone thing an urban myth?

 

Myth

 

Is that what you mean or is this a different story?

 

The use of satellite phones by Bin Laden first surfaced in 1996 and came from the Taliban no less. The same information appeared in various sources on a number of occasions. On August 20, 1998, Clinton launched the cruise missile attack that almost got the bastard. He stopped using the phone after that. The articles about the cell phone most often cited (Washington Times) as publishing the "leak" came out the day after the attacks. Hardly a leak though since the info had been around since 1996. The Washington Times report didn't even say anyone was listening in, that particular info didn't surface until September of 1998 in a Los Angeles Times article and that was long after he stopped using his cell phone.

[stuckincincy]

Isn't the cell phone thing an urban myth?

 

Myth

 

Is that what you mean or is this a different story?

 

The use of satellite phones by Bin Laden first surfaced in 1996 and came from the Taliban no less.  The same information appeared in various sources on a number of occasions.  On August 20, 1998, Clinton launched the cruise missile attack that almost got the bastard.  He stopped using the phone after that.  The articles about the cell phone most often cited (Washington Times) as publishing the "leak" came out the day after the attacks.  Hardly a leak though since the info had been around since 1996.  The Washington Times report didn't even say anyone was listening in, that particular info didn't surface until September of 1998 in a Los Angeles Times article and that was long after he stopped using his cell phone.

572960[/snapback]

 

Do you refer to Clinton's cruise missile attacks against nothing, the day or so before his impeachement vote. Nothing calculating about that, of course.

 

Dig a bit deeper into the career of the dashingly handsome, pleasingly erudite, corporate buddy of buddies, Biden. Your WP myth citation says zip. And I assume you know about his crocodile tears about Thurmond...

[JimBob2232]

Um...the guy couldnt win south dakota as his parties majority leader...Somehow if he cant win south dakota, he probably cant win any state bush took in 04 or 08.

 

If the democrats are SERIOUS about winning this election, they have to go towards Mark Warner of VA.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Do you refer to Clinton's cruise missile attacks against nothing, the day or so before his impeachement vote. Nothing calculating about that, of course.

572984[/snapback]

 

Then don't criticize Mickey for being hypocritical either. One could (and many do) make the same "wag the dog" arguments about Bush's use of military power. You want Mickey to consistently paint people with the same brush...do it yourself.

[Mickey]

Do you refer to Clinton's cruise missile attacks against nothing, the day or so before his impeachement vote. Nothing calculating about that, of course.

 

Dig a bit deeper into the career of the dashingly handsome, pleasingly erudite, corporate buddy of buddies, Biden. Your WP myth citation says zip. And I assume you know about his crocodile tears about Thurmond...

572984[/snapback]

I think my neck just snapped trying to stick with the subject change.

 

I am no fan of Biden, when he speaks, I usually bury my head in my hands and take to muttering something about how in the @$@#$ a guy could get to be a Senator and not be able to formulate a coherent thought and translate it in to words, sentences, something decipherable. Its not so much his position on this or that issue, its just that he just doesn't make sense, even when he is making a simple point he butchers it to pieces.

 

All that being said, I honestly thought that the whole bin laden cell phone thing was a well known urban myth by now. I've heard it in many forms now but this was a new one, blaming it on Biden. Never heard that variation before. I don't mean to be attacking you or anything, it was repeated by even the 9/11 commission but they were unaware that the info had appeared in numerous sources long before the Washington Times article.

 

The Washington Times is, I believe, owned by the Rev. Moon and is as conservative as it gets. I would like nothing better than to tag that conservative screech sheet with a national security screw up, the bigger the better. I just don't think the facts warrant that.