Best comment on the Democratic chances in 2004 came from Comedy Central; it was either the Daily Show or Colin Quinn’s program at 11:30:
The only shot the Democrats have in 2004 to win the presidency is if they lower the voting age to six and nominate Spongebob Squarepants.
PAD
• 
I’m not sure Spongebob has a good enough platform to run on.
Then again, he’s way better than, um, which Democrats are running again?
*Sigh*
If only Biden would decide to run…
The only shot the Democrats have in 2004 to win the presidency is if they … nominate Spongebob Squarepants.
Hey, it worked for the Republicans in 2000.
Glenn quipped:
Hey, it worked for the Republicans in 2000.
Sigh…
Heh. I’d like to see Maria Shriver receive the Democratic nomination, actually. “Vote for me. My husband will make a very sweet First Gentleman.” She’s a Kennedy, she’s educated on the issues (not that this necessarily MEANS anything, but hey) as well as on what a President should expect, and we even have a perfect straightline for a 2008 re-election bid:
“I’ll be back.”
P.S.: No one can get away with accusing her of unthinking partisanship, either!
\\The only shot the Democrats have in 2004 to win the presidency is if they … nominate Spongebob Squarepants.
Hey, it worked for the Republicans in 2000.\\
And let the games begin again!
If that’s true, what does it say about the democrat candidate losing? And when I say losing, I’m not talking about hanging chads, people not smart enough to vote for the candidate they want, or anything like that. I’m talking about whos address is currently 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
I think the largest problem the democrat candidates have is defining themselves. The only thing they seem to stand for is “anything against Bush”. They should take a stand on issues they believe in, and hold on to it. Enough with trying to coddle up to every special interest group, because then they will alienate another group.
It really is a shame that they will have to pander to the special interests during the primaries, then try to be closer to the center during the general elections.
I really hate to break the news to all of you, but the Spongebob Squarepants comment is actually from the opening sketch of this year’s Saturday Night Live season finale!
Dan Ackroyd (guest host) said it while posing as a Republican party representative being questioned about Bush’s presidency to date and future plans.
Now if the rest of the situation just wasn’t a joke…
Why is everybody so pessimistic about the Dems? Heck, I’m even a Bush man myself (take that sentence however you wish), but I think it’s silly to be throwing in the towel already.
Sure, the candiadates don’t look very able or presidential now, but that’s always how it is. Obscure congressmen and governors (and uhm…wacky reverands) throwing mud and battling it out for the primary.
But whoever is picked (unless it’s the wacky reverand) will eventually gain stature just by being the official candidate for President.
When Gore and Bush began their campaigns, I couldn’t really picture eithed of them as Presidents, but by the end, I could.
Besides, it’s not like a candidate who was “expected to win” has never lost reelection before.
All I know is that if your choice ends up Bush or Lieberman, leave the country immediately. The US will officially be a one-party state…
Forget Sponge Bob, I think we all know Patrick Star is the real brains in the operation.
I belong to no organized party. I am a Democrat. Will Rogers
I think the magic ticket for the democrats is Lieberman/Clinton. Though Robb P. had an excellent point about Lieberman and Bush being the same… I’d extend that to cover both parties. They’ve both moved to centrist positions over the years. I choose democrats because at least they lie to me and say that they care. The Republicans give us all the finger and smile while they do so then hide behind flag waving.
Note: ‘all’ is qualified in the last sentence to exclude oil interests and the wealthy.
I can’t see any Democratic candidate being electable without being credible on the issue of national security. Unfortunately for them they seem to be going out of their way to not be credible.
Right now the only candidate who I think could have a chance would be Joe Lieberman, and all of the commentary I have been reading indicates he is too hawkish and centrist to win the nomination. Besides, anybody else think he looks a lot like Teller?
George H.W. Bush looked like a mortal lock for re-election at this point in his presidency, too. I remember someone saying, “The only person who’ll get beat worse than Saddam Hussein is whoever the Democrats run in ’92!”
It’s just too early in the cycle to say this President Bush will win in ’04. Too many things can change public opinion on this man.
Just yesterday, the 3rd Infantry Division (which includes one of my best friends) found out that it will be staying on in Iraq 3-6 months longer than expected. Folks who were expecting to see their loved ones by Independence Day are now wondering if they’ll be around in time for Thanksgiving. And every one of those folks votes. Don’t think they’ll blindly vote for the Republican just because they’re military families. And that’s just one example.
I really think things will change in significant and unpredictable ways over the next few months. Let’s look at this again next spring, when the Democratic frontrunner has become apparent and Bush has had nearly a year of fallout from the aftermath of the war and a still-stagnant economy.
Lower the voting age to six?
I work with far too many adults who would vote for Spongebob. Hëll, I probably would, just for the art of it–and I’m a Republican!
Maybe a sound defeat will finally dislodge the heads from the anal sphincters of the Democrat leaders.
They have to figure out a positive agenda and quit telling us to vote for them because at least they’re not evil Republicans.
“Forget Sponge Bob, I think we all know Patrick Star is the real brains in the operation.”
Okay, people can trash Bush and Clinton all they want, but ain’t NOBODY gonna say that Patrick is smarter than SpongeBob. You just take that back right now, Evan, or I’ll… I’ll… I know, I’ll buy your CD and burn it.
About Joe Lieberman looking like Teller…Ha!
But I always thought he was a dead-ringer for Senator Palpatine. 🙂
The real topic is this: The Daily Show is hysterical. I love it. I still crack up at a line from the first week of the war: “…and today, the U.S. continued its ‘whack-a-mole’ campaign against Saddam Hussein.” How hysteical is that! I have visions of new games at the Jersey shore…
You just take that back right now, Evan, or I’ll… I’ll… I know, I’ll buy your CD and burn it.
Ok, I’m sorry. I just got a little carried away.
The real topic is this: The Daily Show is hysterical.
Agreed, I tell my wife all the time that if this whole middle-management, thing doesn’t work out. I want to write for the Daily Show.
Seriously, the only way the Democrats can win in 2004 is if all the folks who think this administration is a disaster (raising my hand here) get off their collective áššëš and work to support the Democratic candidate and to get more people to vote.
Personally, I’ve checked out the candidates, watched all the debates and forums to date (thank you, C-Span), and made my choice. I’m now doing volunteer work for the Howard Dean campaign. He does have positions (most of which I agree with), and he’s not afraid to stand up for them. He’s also the best stump speaker and debater of the lot. Check him out yourself at http://www.deanforamerica.com.
I think Arianna Huffington‘s pretty dead-on right about it. The Democrats have turned into mice, when we need men (and women).
I’m a yellow-dog Democrat at heart. But I was so disgusted with Clinton in 1996 (signing the Communications Decency Act, signing the Defense of Marriage Act, giving up so soon on healthcare reform) that I voted for Nader. His real disgrace wasn’t what happened with Monica, it was the way he caved to the GOP Congress.
” lower the voting age to six and nominate Spongebob Squarepants.”
I thought Spongebob’s audience was more the four and five year olds??? Then again, I’m ‘way out of the preschool loop ….
There is no way–I repeat, NO WAY, I am counting the dems out in 2004. About this time in 1991 a friend and I had the discussion about which sacrifical lamb the dems would throw up against the then-popular Bush 41. It turned out to be Bill Clinton. I felt even better when I first saw Clinton–he reeked of slime and every word out of his mouth was obviously a lie. I thought the dems were putting their worst against Bush so they wouldn’t be too embarrassed when they lost(probably, so did they). Look what happened.
So, never count on a candidate as a lock. To keep his momentum going and stop the tax-and-spenders from acting true to form if they are elected, Bush has to be very careful with his domestic agenda. The tax cut was a great start. Now if only he could make school vouchers the law of the land and Social Security voluntary …
“I’m a yellow-dog Democrat at heart. But I was so disgusted with Clinton in 1996 (signing the Communications Decency Act, signing the Defense of Marriage Act, giving up so soon on healthcare reform)”
Those are the few things I liked about Clinton, plus his support of NAFTA. Now, Hillary, she’s scary because she, unlike her husband, is a true believer in the democrat’s socialist agenda.
ah americans so political.
i have so many comments but i’ll choose to only say Michael Moore for president. Read the book watch the movies, you’re country is… too odd for words.
About Joe Lieberman looking like Teller…Ha!
But I always thought he was a dead-ringer for Senator Palpatine. 🙂
He reminds me more of Henry Gibson from “Laugh-In”. His speeches would do so much better were he to hold an oversized novelty flower while reciting poetry.
Don’t count out the Deomcrat candidate. All they really have to do to win is point out the institutional perfidity of the White House, the culture of big lies that surrounds it, the inherent disdain for anyone who doesn’t make more than $150,000 a year, the indifference to international law, and the ham-handed disaster of the Republican domestic economic policy and the Democrats just might have a chance. Of course, this all assumes that the Supreme Court won’t illegally hand the election to Bush again, and that we can get the national press to actually come out from under their slime-covered Bush-loving, afraid-to-ask-the-hard-question umbrella it’s been living under for the past four years and actually do its job.
The Daily Show two weeks ago saud that based on crunching the numbers they were projecting George W. Bush the Winner of the 2004 Presidential Election. When told that was ridiculous, the response was, “no, I’m sorry, Bush will win. The numbers have been THOROUGHLY crunched.” Laughed my butt off.
Bush I’s poll numbers were in the MID 90’s – 20 POINTS HIGHER than W’s. Anything can happen, that’s why there’s so many Democrats willing to pitch in on what right now looks “hopeless”.
I may be going out on a limb here, but I know one thing that would definitely get me out to the polls in 2004 would be a Democratic candidate that vowed to do everything in his or her power to eliminate the electoral college. It’s an archaic and overblown relic, and completely unnecesary with today’s technology. That plank alone in somebody’s platform could garner the greatest Democratic turnout in memory.
OK, I want to just say that I am neither a Dem nor a Republican first off. Second, the Dems aren’t against Bush. That’s the problem. None of them has taken a true stand in how long?
If some of them(especially the high profile ones) would come out against say,war for Halliburton contracts or against the Patriot Act 2…or how about putting pressure on the FCC to keep the media ownership limits?
Nope, not a one will. Everyone in DC is a chicken,and much like TV producers,make decisions out of fear.
That’s why I will keep searching for a third party or independant to vote for. I hope you all do the same.
Col
Oh and Patrick Star RULES!
Col
I agree with those who say it’s too early to tell what’s going to happen yet. The stock market could take another tumble. Unemployment could increase. State governments may come closer and closer to bankruptcy, leading to more school and police cutbacks.
Assuming nothing changes by then, the Democratic platform will need a two-pronged approach:
1) Whatever happened to the Weapons of Mass Destruction and that bin-Laden guy anyway? How did Bush manage to make the United States the most reviled nation on the planet when we were the ones who were attacked on 9/11?
2) Are you better off now than you were four years ago? Perhaps you’re paying less federal income tax, but look at what’s hapejned to your child’s school, your 401k balance and police and fire coverage in your neighborhood.
The candidate will also have to come out fighting like a bulldog, eschewing all pretense of politeness. He will need to call Bush a liar directly and have the proof to back it up, and point out all of thr garbage that the Bush administration has been feeding the public.
Hey… Spongebob rules man!
I really wanted to avoid any campaigning beyond my original post, but I can’t resist this one:
**the Dems aren’t against Bush. That’s the problem. None of them has taken a true stand in how long?
If some of them(especially the high profile ones) would come out against say,war for Halliburton contracts or against the Patriot Act 2…or how about putting pressure on the FCC to keep the media ownership limits?
Nope, not a one will.**
Wanna bet? Howard Dean has already done all three of those.
Saying they are against the Patriot Act isn’t enough. They have to offer alternatives. Remember the Contract with America? The Republicans got a message out that the voters liked, stayed with it consitently and won the House for the first time in, oh, nearly forever.
People called it a gimmick, but look at what it accomplished. The Democrats – with both houses and the presidency – were projecting indefinite deficits in 1993 under the Clinton economic plans. The Republicans came in and established the first surpluses in decades. That’s not a gimmick by an stretch of the imagination.
If the Democrats are to win, they must develop their own message, not just being the “anti-Bush”. Dole tried to be the “anti-Clinton” in 1996 and he had to go back to Kansas (okay, a lobbying firm).
You do realize you could just write in Spongebob Squarepants in the “other candidate” box and vote for him that way, right?
But I think Lizzy Maguire is the hotter ticket right now.
Politics is like walking barefoot in a minefield covered with broken glass. Either way you’re gonna get hurt.
With all the various domestic and global situations right now, even if the Democrats can find a viable canidate for ’04, they’re gonna have a tough road ahead, even if there is not another Florida snafu on election night.
Meanwhile, if my fellow posters are serious about writing-in a cartoon character, how about Bugs Bunny? That wasically wabbit doesn’t take no gruff from anyone. Pair him up with the Brain for vice president, and you’d have a solid slate from the Ink and Paint Party.
With tongue firmly in cheek…
It’s more than “The Daily Show” is funny; it’s the only honest news show on television. Did you see the exchange in the segment where anyone who even considered anyone besides Bush was immediately categorized as a “Hitler-loving gay Frenchman” or something like that? It was a literal preview of the Republican commercials for 2004.
Personally, my favorite Daily Show bit in recent memory was the debate between Governor George W. Bush and President George W. Bush. The Daily Show’s research department and editors are absolutely brilliant.
Doubt anyone’s reading this anymore, but Dan Combs comment on the electoral college deserves a response.
As archaic and relician (?) as it is, how else do you propose to give the breadbasket a vote? Without the college, the big city states will decide everything, while the states that feed the world (or offer a nice vacation getaway) will always have the “city mice” making decisions for them because the politicians would solely court the big cities. Doing away with EC would mean most states would not be represented.
I’m open to changes in the EC, but a popular vote isn’t the way to do it without damaging a whole lot more than the EC does.
The biggest problem with the EC is that most states have the “all or nothing” rule. You are correct in that it makes sure the smaller states aren’t ignored, and that practice should be continued. What I would like to see is more states go to a proportional count of the EC votes.
The fundamental flaw with the EC system is that is puts all of the power in choosing the president at the state level and not with the people. It puts the lie to the “Every vote counts” platitude. A prime example is the state I live in, Indiana. Indiana is a “Republican state.” No matter how many Democratic or independent voters come out on election day, their votes get ignored instead of being added to the votes of every other non-republican elsewhere in the nation. Our votes count for nothing.
Any system that allows a man to become president when a majority of the American populous does NOT want him in the office can only be considered flawed, if not completely broken.
Just for the sake of accuracy, the last time a president was elected with a majority of the popular vote was 1988. Clinton certainly never got it, and neither did Gore in 2000. There is some speculation that Gore would not have had a plurality of the popular vote either had the news media not prematurely called the election for Gore before polls closed in most states.
In any case, saying your votes count for nothing because your state typically goes in the other direction is like saying votes for governor and senator count for nothing when the other party wins. It doesn’t make sense.
Robert wrote:
In any case, saying your votes count for nothing because your state typically goes in the other direction is like saying votes for governor and senator count for nothing when the other party wins. It doesn’t make sense.
Democrats have been complaining about being institutionally underrepresented since the 1860 Presidential election. (“Lincoln won the White House without a single Southern state. Our votes counted for nothing.”) Mr. Combs should not be singled out for being part of an old and distinguished tradition. Personally, as a Republican living in rural North Carolina, I can testify that the single-party system in America cuts both ways. Even the Republicans here register as Democrats, because the general election is a joke; everything in this county is decided at the Democratic primary.
I think Robert makes some excellent points. I don’t necessarily agree with him on the plurality issue for the 2000 election– most of the news outlets had the election up in the air when the polls were closing in the West, and much of the pacific went Democratic anyway. (Because, like Mr. Combs said, Republican votes don’t count for anything in California. Or something like that.) I do agree with him, though, on the previous elections; 57 % voted Not-Clinton in 1992, and he must have done a really good job in his first term, because that dropped to 51% voting Not-Clinton in 1996.
Now that I’m done being a smartass, I actually agree with Mr. Combs on his real issue. There isn’t a very strong argument that the Electoral College is an optimal design for electing the President, and we should pay close attention to any good suggestion for a replacement. In 215 years we’ve had three elections (1860, 1876, and 2000) where the College has produced arguably goofy results. We should take that issue seriously, but not panic, since it works perfectly most of the time (1992, for instance). The biggest difficulties are taking Rob’s concern about protecting minority locations into account, and ensuring that we don’t turn the President into a sort of Prime Minister by, say, the Congress directly electing him. (You thought you disliked Newt when he was Speaker. Try him in the Oval Office.)
Okay, let me say something in defense of the electoral college. This was an argument back when America was founded, and it is unwise to dismiss off hand the merits of the EC. Let me give you a hypothetical scenario: We change the constitution and make the winner of the overall popular vote the president. So, anyone running for president isn’t an idiot and let’s say one or all candidates come out with a platform that says, for example, “People who live in major cities should have cheaper health care because it cost enough to live in a major city and its just not fair to ask them to pay for their health, since that’s where all the pollution and high infectious disease rates are.”. “Alright” says everyone living in major cities, “I’m all for that, but how are you going to pay for it?”. Well, the candidate then explains that he will raise taxes on grain, cattle, and dairy producers (not at the consumer end mind you, but the producer end). “Y’see” the candidate thinks to himself, “All I only need to pay attention to the majority of voters, now, and I only have to make promises to New York, California, Florida, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and maybe Texas (but I probably won’t need it). The rest of you small states can go screw yourselves because you no longer matter.All your votes combined couldn’t equal those coastal states.”
Farfetched? Well, the fact is, remove the EC, and the smaller states go from having a little, but important voice in the election, to having no voice and becoming irrelevent. You may not like it that the other party in your state always seems to win, but at least it’s your neighbor having a voice, and not someone who doesn’t have to live next to you electing the president. And at least the candidates have to pay attention to your state. Take away the electoral college, and you’ll be lucky if the candidates stop in middle American to refuel on their way to the other coast.
The flaw I keep seeing with the arguments for the EC here are that they assume that one candidate or another is going to sway EVERY major city to one side or the other of the election. Also, I don’t have exact figures in front of me, but I very much doubt that the populations of the five states or so named beat out all of the others combined for legal voters.
Also, the “Let’s tax the hëll out of the farmers” argument doesn’t take into account the probability of the opposing candidate stepping up and very simply saying, “Sure, we can do that, if you don’t mind paying ten dollars or more for a loaf of bread within the month.”
Also, not to point fingers or be an insufferable smartass, but most arguments I’ve heard in favor of the EC have hinged on the same sort of “what if?” scenarios that PAD has recently been blasted for by various conservatives.
Well, at the risk of looking like I’m wimping out and backing down, It’s been a long work week, and at this point, I’m willing to chalk this particular debate up to irreconsilable ideological differences, count myself lucky that my learned opponents haven’t stooped to namecalling, shake hands and walk away.
I actually don’t know whether the electoral college is really the best way to go. I do know that I would hate to see what happened in Florida after election day, when a couple hundred lawyers from both sides descended upon the state and it seemed like every major county had a lawsuit, happen nationwide in the case of a close popular vote. Chris Matthews also made the point that the EC limited possibilities of mischief. If a state was illegally preventing or allowing a group of people to vote, at least it could only affect the outcome of that state’s electoral votes. I guess right now I don’t think the system is broken enough to justify abolishing the EC.
As for whether the news media called the election prematurely for Gore, I can say as a Bush supporter that when both Pennsylvania and Florida were called for Gore that was very bad news for Bush. Florida was called for Gore when there were still polls open in the western part of that state. It was quite possible that the announcements demoralized Bush supporters in the western US and in the Florida panhandle to the point where they didn’t vote. No way to know for sure, of course.