06/21/2002 Archived Entry: "2004 from 2002"
2004 Democratic Candidate
There is only a small window of time left for further candidates to enter into the running for the Democratic nomination. 6-9 months, by Jan-March of 2003-- that would be the remaining window of opportunity. After that, it becomes very unlikely that a start-up candidacy would be anything other than a shot in the dark. So, here is where we are at in 2002, looking at 2004.
The CW is that the Democratic contenders will be chosen from Gore, Lieberman, Gephardt, Daschle, Kerry, Edwards, Dean, and Sharpton. And right now, that would be the pecking order. So, now a process of elimination, given my perspective of prediction.
Gore is going to run, that knocks out Lieberman. Gephardt becomes Speaker, and likes the job security. Daschle opts out. Sharpton is a non-factor regardless. This leaves us with 4 likely candidates. Gore, Kerry, Edwards, and Dean. Sure, some other candidate may step into the race, maybe Barnes from Georgia, or a retiring Dem Gov in 2002. Right now, it looks like Gore as the strong front-runner, with better competition than he had in 2000 for the Democratic nomination.
2004 Convention
For the Democrats, it's coming down to the wire in a choice between Boston and Miami, with Detroit having a dark-horse shot. They are likely to forward their date by a week, into August, with the nomination speech being August 5th.
For the Republicans, the clear choice, for some time now, has been NYC. That's been clouded recently by Tampa Bay's entrance. They say their date is set, with Bush accepting the nomination on Sept 2nd.
Both parties will decide shortly after the elections, with the Democrats choosing before the Republicans vote in January. I think it leans toward Miami for the Democrats, and NYC for the Republicans.
Replies: 16 comments
"This leaves us with 4 likely candidates. Gore, Kerry, Edwards, and Dean."
Kerry moves out of the Senate and watch for another sign...there is a rumor that Bill Clinton would get an appointment to the JFK School of Government at Harvard...and you know what that might mean...Bill Clinton would be Senator from Massachussetts. Now if the economy is still in trouble, the presence of Bill Clinton in politics might not be welcome news for GW.
Posted by G.C. Raj @ 06/21/2002 07:33 AM PST
Actually the presence of Bill Clinton would be great for W if the economy is bad, the Democrats could not win the eleciton with the "Greatest economy ever", partially because of Clinton fatigue from the majority of Americans.
Posted by Memphisvol @ 06/22/2002 12:12 PM PST
Let us see if the unemployment rate is at 8%, the Stock Market at 8,800, how much Clinton fatigue there is...I presume you are from Memphis...obviously Tennessee has to go into more of an economic tailspin before you guys would come to your senses...a bankrupt state government under GOP leader Sundquist and long unemployment lines would not do the trick.
Posted by G.C. Raj @ 06/22/2002 01:57 PM PST
Majority of Americans? Are you crazy? Check your numbers. Gore won the popular vote...you mean majority of uneducated southerners and five US Supreme Court Justices? Since GW took over there has been nothing but economic problems...as Raj says he has 18 months to turn the economy around...otherwise the only folks he would have the support of are the white folks from the South and Rocky Mountain States...good luck to GW if the economy continues to sputter. We are not going to vote for GW here in Michigan for sure if the nonsense continues with the stock market and the economy.
Posted by Yankee @ 06/22/2002 02:02 PM PST
Typical pesonal bashing and stereotypipng by "tolerant" libs, I can assure that Bush received and will continue to receive far more support from far more than "ignorant rednecks". And I don't think you want to go into who the Democrats biggest support comes from (no high school diploma). That being said, if you don't think the majority of Americans had Clinton fatigue, you are crazy. But if you all want to put him back up again, that's fine. With a bad economy, the Democrats would be better off with a fresh face rather than have Americans be reminded of the scandals of the past.
I am really analyzing from a "commoner" perspective, as they blame or credit President for the economy. The President in actuality has very little to do with the economy.
Posted by MemphisVol @ 06/22/2002 02:39 PM PST
Regarding Tennessee, Sundquist has ZERO support from Republicans right now. All his support is from Democrats. Tennessee is really no worse off than the other states, at least 40 states are in a budget deficit right now.
Posted by MemphisVol @ 06/22/2002 02:51 PM PST
One caveat to my above statement is if Gore is your nominee again, you would obviously be better off with Clinton. I have a feeling your nominee will be someone new, young and appealing to at least some of the Bush Red States, but if I'm wrong that's all for the better for me.
Posted by MemphisVol @ 06/22/2002 02:55 PM PST
"The President in actuality has very little to do with the economy."
Of course he does not. He does not have any policy...no dollar policy, no budget policy (budget bursting democratic style billions of dollars in farm subsidies), support from crooked corporations such as Enron, Steel tariffs (great free trader he is)...he knows very little and hence he has nothing to do with the economy....who is the run up the debt and spend real liberal..George Bush of course. Biggest expansion of government in history, undoubtedly....great conservative he is! I totally agree. He also supports a philanderer and wife cheater who was a pastor (in Arkansas) while he goes there and tells everyone else to abstain from sex and preaches the virtue of fidelity...Bill Clinton was totally immoral....but he did not preach family values...he did not have any. But, the unemployment rate was 3.8% (not 5.8%)...anyone who wanted job had jobs...Again I agree that this President (GW) had nothing to do with this economy...he is a do-nothing President surrounded by know-nothing advisors ranging from Mitch Daniels to Paul O'Neill...perhaps if he appointed Anne Krueger or Robert Barro who know something about economics...the economy would improve...Perhaps you like to live in an economy such as Tennessee with a bankrupt state government, and a GOP governor trying to raise your taxes.
I am personally not for Gore...,the real reason for the economic mess is the folks from the least educated part of the country (the South) have too much power in DC and elsewhere...perhaps the GOP can serve itself well by nominating a Hagel or Brownback or the Dems can do themselves a favor by nominating Vilsack or Evan Bayh...the country will benefit when we finally break away from the cycle of Southerners-Californians for President (except for five years since 1960).
Posted by Yankee @ 06/22/2002 03:48 PM PST
"Regarding Tennessee, Sundquist has ZERO support from Republicans right now. All his support is from Democrats."
He is a Republican, period, and not a Democrat!
"at least 40 states are in a budget deficit right now."
Most of them are under GOP...including Michigan, Illinois, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
Posted by G.C. Raj @ 06/22/2002 03:49 PM PST
"I have a feeling your nominee will be someone new, young and appealing to at least some of the Bush Red States"
Florida, NH, and NV yes..with Yuca Mt. Bush is history in NV. Florida and NH would go Dem if the economy is weak. Bush can have the other red states...little consequence to anyone if the Dems get Florida, NH and NV. The southerners think that they are more important than they really are.
Posted by Yankee @ 06/22/2002 03:52 PM PST
"at least 40 states are in a budget deficit right now."
Where does this number come from?
Posted by myDD @ 06/22/2002 06:24 PM PST
Posted by Yankee @ 06/22/2002 03:48 PM PST
Great summation. The last 30 years of migration by the NE's into the Democratic Party, Dean for instance, a "Rockefeller Republican" in his positions becomes complete with NH.
Likewise the last 30 years of migration of the Dixiecrats into Dixiecons is complete.
TN deserves what they elected. 2nd lowest tax-base in the nation, is it any wonder?
Posted by myDD @ 06/22/2002 06:33 PM PST
"where does this number come from"-
MyDD-
you are pretty good at searching papers, and although I don't have a link to an exact date you can serach www.tennessean.com and should be from about a month ago.
This will be the last time I post here, as I know his is a unanimously Democratic site with biased opinions and my thoughts are not welcome. However, this continuous slandering of Tennessee must be addressed. I know I am not going to convince any of you tat higher taxes (at least on the "evil rich" like me) is the way for the government to move into prosperity. Compare Tennessee and California to each other (California has one of the highest tax rates and bases). California can't even keep their power on! TN has the best roads in the nation, and a very high popoulation growth rate, I wish northerners would quit moving down here since our state is so terrible, but they continue to do so. We do spend below the national average in education, but many of our districts do fine with lower spending. For example, Shelby County (suburban Memphis) school receive one dollar for every two dollar that City of Memphis schools receive, and the City of Memphis is at the bottom natinally, while Shelby County schools are in the top third nationally.
This is my last post, so you may wish to send a follow-up email if you have any other comments.
Posted by MemphisVol @ 06/23/2002 05:57 AM PST
"I know his is a unanimously Democratic site with biased opinions and my thoughts are not welcome."
That's not so. Though I certainly hold bias, this is not Free Republic, and you are free to post your thoughts, and debate is welcome.
Posted by myDD @ 06/23/2002 08:29 AM PST
"This will be the last time I post here, as I know his is a unanimously Democratic site with biased opinions and my thoughts are not welcome."
He does not like the facts. Who is a Democrat...a liberal? Answer: Which so-called free trader levied 30% tariffs on foreign steel and which conservative signed off on the most liberal farm bill in the history of the Republic?
"Compare Tennessee and California to each other (California has one of the highest tax rates and bases).
University of Tennessee is good for partying...it does not match Berkeley or UCLA in any respect as far as academics is concerned. True, UT would beat Berkeley in football and basketball, but that is about it (Gorman Report, NSF).
California can't even keep their power on!
Ken Lay, Fastow, Becky Marks and rest of the Texan crooks are responsible for this predicament.(You should be listenting to Senate hearings and reading the newspaper before you accuse others)
"TN has the best roads in the nation..."
Source?
"and a very high popoulation growth rate, I wish northerners would quit moving down here since our state is so terrible, but they continue to do so."
They want to have their cake and eat it too just like the rest of us. They took advantage of all the best education system that the taxpayers had to offer and they abandon the state. But, TN accounts for only 10% of northerners...you still have some snow in the winter whereas Arizona and Florida does not, and hence it attracts more.
"We do spend below the national average in education, but many of our districts do fine with lower spending."
On average TN's achievement is 56% of high school cohorts graduate from high school...if you think that is doing fine, it is up to you. I would rather have the 95% graduation rate in Vermont and Minnesota (Department of Education, NSF).
"Shelby County (suburban Memphis) school receive one dollar for every two dollar that City of Memphis schools receive, and the City of Memphis is at the bottom natinally, while Shelby County schools are in the top third nationally."
An oasis in the sea of misery...an island of success in the midst of failure.
Posted by G.C. Raj @ 06/23/2002 01:10 PM PST
"Where does this number come from?"
Answer:
http://www.fyi.wayne.edu/Crisis%20in%20state%20budgets.htm
Posted by G.C. Raj @ 06/23/2002 01:20 PM PST
