Gephardt is going nowhere

Lieberman probably will lose in the first three primaries, but due to the independent vote, he'll get a strong showing, I think. Here's the question: is it better to win second place in the first three primaries than it is to win one primary and do poorly in the other two?

GOVOTE
What states do you think Lieberman will do well in? I don't think he will do that well in the south.

I just don't see how Lieberman can hope to win if he's doing so poorly in the NH polls... Why would he do better anywhere else?

GOVOTE I think the answer to your question is different for different candidates-- the unknowns need to prove that with name recognition, they can do very well, and the well-knowns need to prove that they can win in other geographical areas.

I do not know that Lieberman will do poorly in New Hampshire or in the South it is too soon to tell he has an advantage in Florida, New York, California, Penn. and possibly Texas, Illinios, and Michigan it may make him competive for the nomination.

What do you make of Lieberman's recent 6% in the 1/14/03 ARG poll in NH? (http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/nhpoll/nhp41a.shtml). With the name recognition he has, that poll is a disaster for him.

Supposedly, Lieberman is doing well in TX and NY and is giving Edwards a run for his money in SC. (And if, as it seems, Graham does not run, Florida is his.) CNN also reported that he has more support from African-American voters than Sharpton does. I think he will do very well in any state that lets Independents (and Republicans) vote in the Dem primary. Isn't that the case with NH? If so, is that being included in the polls? If Republicans have the chance to vote in the Dem primary OR the Rep primary, I predict that they will vote in the Dem primary since the Republican primary is not competitive. Well, it will be an interesting primary season

That is the case in NH, and people definitely exercise their option. So even if Lieberman does well, that should be taken into account-- some of his supporters will vote for Bush in the general election. How many, I don't know.

Also, I think Lieberman's leads in other states are at least in part a result of his name-recognition advantage. How big a deal that is, I don't know, but it does seem like a factor, and one that will help him less and less as the candidates all become better known.

I don't doubt that he has Florida, though. I like him well enough, but I'm skeptical of claims that he can win the primary or the general election. Also, a 3rd party challenge from the left would be a serious problem for Lieberman, and less of a concern with less centrist candidates.

MyDD,
You make it sound like Ted Kennedy is backing Gephardt. For a second I thought "what happened to Kerry?" Just so you know, you might want to change that.

If Dean does knock off Kerry in the NH primary (in which case I think Kerry is done) then it may be a real blessing to Lieberman -- it will give him a relatively free ride in the northeast unless Dean does build momentum and turn into a really major contender.

ARG polls are not not valid.

Gephart is going to have to drop out
he won't able to raise money.
And he does stay in he will lose
in Iowa and then drop out.

Why are ARG polls not valid, nameless person?

And I agree: if Kerry can't take NH or at least come a close second, he's pretty much through. Does anyone expect him to do well in Iowa?

Lieberman will do well in the south? Because Republicans will vote for him? Please.

"or at least come a close second"

Nope. Sorry. It doesn't work that way. If Kerry can't blow the competition out of the water in New Hampshire, his own backyard, he's finished, even if he comes in a close second. And right now my best sense at this early date is just that: he will come in a close second, and go on to lose the nomination.

MyDD:

All minorities will vote against Bush-Cheney. Who can they vote for in Democratic Party?

Edwards - think again.
Dean - think again.
Lieberman - see his MTP interview again.

It is between JFK and Gephardt. Thus far, if JKF selects Lewis, it is over for GOP.

AliKarimBey

A Reply to AKB:

"All minorities will vote against Bush-Cheney. Who can they vote for in Democratic Party?"

But minorities are not that important in New Hampshire (96% White) or Iowa (93.9% White). Nor are minorities enough to win the White House.

<><>
Logan

I think Lieberman will do very well among the minority community. Look for his opponents to bring up his interview about Prop 209 thought come South Carolina and New York. I suspect that Hillary and Schumer may back Lieberman. Lieberman's support in NY is pretty strong, from what I see here. How about Lieberman/Menendez or Kerry/Menendez? I think Menendez is on every candidate short list.

Who's Menendez? He or she can't be on my short list till I know who he or she is.

Robert Menendez. Representative from New Jersey. In 2000, Menendez had 1.7 million dollars in his campaign treasury, and won re-election by a landslide. I suspect then that he has even more money. In 2002 he was also, IIRC, on the short list to replace Torricelli when he dropped out. His stance on Cuba, seen by his statements against the Clinton administration with Elian, could help in Florida. A Lieberman-Menendez would have Florida in the bag I'd say. And would perhaps be one of the most conservative possible Democratic tickets. Menendez has been called "the pro-business member of the leadership" as the Democratic Caucus Vice Chairman. The Lieberman-Menendez ticket would risk going to far to the right/center, and having a third party on the left pop up. Kerry-Menendez would have a smaller risk of that happening, but would not be as strong in Florida I suspect.

<><>
Logan

What do you make of Lieberman's recent 6% in the 1/14/03 ARG poll in NH?

There is something inconsistent about the polls out there. National polls have Lieberman in the 20s while this ARG poll has him at 6% in his backyard in a state where Democrats are a little to the right of the national party. Maybe it has something to do with the poll being taken before his announcement. I would like to see the next one. I am not sure where he will end up placing in New Hampshire, but I think he will do a whole hell of a lot better than 6%.

I suspect that Lieberman's 6% in New Hampshire is balanced by his 17% showing in Iowa, second to Gephardt. Lieberman is going to start to move up in the polls in New Hampshire, but I suspect he will not do as well in New Hampshire as in Iowa. Gut feeling. Lieberman isn't too next door to New Hampshire, the Boston media is very strong in New Hampshire and that helps Kerry. Dean's independent streak helps also. Lieberman isn't independent, he's just seen as conservative.

<><>
Logan

Logan,

Good stats on other posts. Well, I think minority voter are all hiding in the trenches. They have all flags outside their houses but are scared - real, real scared - of Bush-Cheney.

I am scared of INS even though I am a citizen. Bush-Cheney can screw my life like a snap in a finger.

The polls taken are all with white people. Go to a minority home or county and take a poll, hell, Bush-Cheney will not even go over 30%.

It is over for Bush. Over. I think it may be good if we decided not to run again. He will be so beaten that it will be consider an item in Oxford of the trashing he will get from JFK-Lewis.

AliKarimBey

Russell, Hillary Clinton has stated (on Hardball with Chris Matthews) that she will not be endorsing ANYONE during the primaries. She believes the Democrats will have their nominee by March.

Ok, has anyone noted that Lieberman is an observant Jew. The kind of Jew many Americans are distinctly uncomfortable with.

Sure, they like Jerry Seinfeld and Gwyneth Paltrow, but they don't like the kind of Jew who doesn't work on Saturday.

While tolerable when running with Gore, on his own, combined with not serving in Vietnam, his right of center views on many core Democratic issues, his campaign will crater into a big,fat hole.

Latent anti-semitic feeling will reappear when he hits the heartland, in many ways. While Americans are more than ready to elect a Jew who is moderately Jewish, or who acts like a gentile in most ways, they are hardly likely to vote for one who is overtly Jewish in ways they are not comfortable with.

This is still a country where religious sects calls for the conversions of Jews.

So I doubt that Joe Lieberman's campaign will go very far. He may say the right things, but there is the Bradley factor. They may praise your campaign, but that doesn't mean that between God and the voting booth that they'll cast a vote for you.

Steve,

The people who wouldn't vote for Lieberman because he's Jewish, wouldn't vote for a Democrat anyway.

Unfortunately, that's not true. If you walk along 125th Street in Harlem, it is quite easy to pick up a copy of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

Both parties have nice, fat pockets of people who are still wary if Jews, if not downright anti-semitic. When was the last time Boston or Chicago sent a Jew to Congress? Or elected one to mayor? These are not cities with small Jewish poulations.

Don't just assume your anti-semitic voter is a white Southerner or Westerner. There are a lot of evangelicals, Catholics and Baptists who will not elect a Jew to high office, more than we'd like to admit.

Most of America is not like this. But the sad fact is enough of America will still factor this into their voting. Pretending they won't or don't is silly.

"When was the last time Boston or Chicago sent a Jew to Congress?"

Well, here in the Illinois 5th, we just elected Rahm Emmanuel to congress. And then there's the landslide re-election of Jan Schakowsky in the Illinois 9th.

Are Emmanuel or Schakowsky pro-censorship cultural conservative wafflers?

Didn't think so!

Moving on...!

And Steve, Lieberman is NOTHING like Bradley. Bill Bradley never exploited religion for his own political gain...at least, never to the gratuitous extent that Lieberman clearly does.

Lieberman is not a "pro-censorship cultural conservative waffler" either. Sigh.

GoVOTE...were you even paying attention during the 2000 campaign?

Or are you so hopelessly enamored by the prospect of having a Jewish president (all for the sake of *diversity*, huh?) that you can't see Lieberman for who he really is?

Pro-ethics is different than pro-censorship (the latter suggests legislation)

Centrist is different than Conservative

"Waffler" is an inaccurate global description of Lieberman.

Hyperbole is inappropriate rhetoric. It's tiring. Republicans do that. Democrats can rise above it.

No candidate is perfect here, but I like them all, including Lieberman (who I still think has the best shot of beating Bush). And I've answered your dubious claim before that all I want is a Jewish president. While I would like to see a Jewish president at some point in my life, the most important thing right now is that we pick a candidate who can beat Bush. I think it's Lieberman.