Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: bela_ghoulashi who wrote (22234)	12/31/2003 2:14:08 AM
From: KLP	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 793706

It is really very difficult for any thinking person to think that some of the 9 are serious people....angry, stubborn, pompous, onery, pick your word...maybe...but serious? Can any one of us really imagine Clark, Dean, Kerry in the White House making decisions for the American people? Can we imagine any of their fingers on the "red button"???

To: bela_ghoulashi who wrote (22234)	12/31/2003 2:46:52 AM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 793706

No Way to Choose a President By David S. Broder washingtonpost.com Wednesday, December 31, 2003; Page A19 Something strange and important has happened to the system of picking presidential candidates. Influence that was supposed to move from political insiders to the broad public has been captured by activists, pollsters, pundits and fundraisers -- not exactly the people the reformers had in mind. The new system removes the useful peer-group screening that once operated, but fails in its promise to give power to the people. You can see the process at work in the widespread expectation that Howard Dean will capture the Democratic nomination -- even though not one vote has been cast in any contest and millions of Democrats across the country have no idea who Dean -- or any of his eight rivals -- is. This is not peculiar to Dean or the Democrats. Four years ago expectations were equally strong that the Republican candidate would be George W. Bush -- even though he had been in elective office for barely five years. Political scientists say that the whole "drama" of the primaries is a fraud -- that the opposition party almost invariably nominates the candidate who raises the most money in the pre-election year and leads the field in the final polls of the year. Of course, there can be bumps along the way. John McCain slowed Bush's coronation by beating him in New Hampshire, and Dick Gephardt might do the same thing to Dean in Iowa this cycle. But the expectations for Bush were so high that credentialed candidates such as former vice president Dan Quayle and former Cabinet members Elizabeth Dole and Lamar Alexander dropped out before the voting began. And McCain was unable to sustain the challenge, despite his obvious appeal. Many Democratic consultants -- including some lukewarm toward Dean -- argue that the party "cannot afford" to deny Dean the nomination because the former Vermont governor has staked such a strong claim to the prize. What Bush did four years ago with his name and family connections, his wealth of fundraising friends and his early support from his fellow governors, Dean has done with his Internet prowess and his mobilization of a highly educated elite fervently opposed to Bush and the Iraq war. Even if Dean stumbles, pundits say, his "momentum" will carry him through. But "momentum" is a myth. Last August, at the American Political Science Association convention in Philadelphia, William Mayer of Northeastern University said that his study of 10 contested nominations in both parties from 1980 onward showed that finishing first or second in the Iowa caucuses did nothing to improve the statistical chances of winning. A first or second in New Hampshire was more of a boost, but the best predictor by far -- right nine out of 10 times -- was the identity of the top fundraiser and top poll-sitter of the pre-presidential year. Prior to 1972, presidential nominations were awarded by the politicians in both parties -- officeholders, state and local organization leaders. They watched the few primaries then held, but made their own judgments about the talent and electability of the aspirants. But the Democratic Party rebelled after the tumultuous 1968 convention turned away from the surviving anti-Vietnam War candidates and nominated Vice President Hubert Humphrey. The Democrats wrote new rules designed to give control to grass-roots party members. Those rules proved so complex that states decided the only way to comply was to hold primaries. The Republicans were dragged along in this populist revolution, whose rationale was that the people would rule. Problem is, not all primaries are equal; those early in the year have far more influence than those that come later. And as states competed to be at the head of the line, the calendar of contests was advanced to the point that this year, Democrats expect to finish their work by the first or second week in March -- just when it used to begin. Most Americans have a limited appetite for politics. When the candidates are forced to do most of their campaigning for the nomination in the pre-presidential year, they quickly find that the only attentive audience members are activists, donors, pollsters and the political reporters. Those four groups -- none of them remotely representative of the grass roots -- have acquired the power to say who is "expected" to win -- and who usually does win. If polling and punditry were less eager to anoint, every poll would provide the option of answering, "I don't think I know enough yet to make a choice among these candidates." That answer would top every national poll. This rush to judgment devalues the role of the party leaders and elected officials and still fails to achieve the reformers' populist goals. It comes close to being the worst way possible to pick a president. davidbroder@washpost.com © 2003 The Washington Post Company

To: bela_ghoulashi who wrote (22234)	12/31/2003 4:30:48 AM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 793706

Dean's slip is showing in N.H. survey By MICHAEL R. BLOOD NY DAILY NEWS POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT Wednesday, December 31st, 2003 The latest New Hampshire poll showed front-runner Howard Dean losing ground to retired Gen. Wesley Clark yesterday, the first sign that concerted attacks by Dean's Democratic rivals may be taking a toll. The American Research Group survey of likely voters pegged Dean at 37%, with 18% for Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry and 12% for Clark. Other candidates were in single digits. A mid-December poll by the group indicated Dean was favored over Kerry 45% to 20%, with Clark at 8%. New Hampshire holds the nation's first primary on Jan. 27, after the Jan. 19 Iowa caucuses. Dean's slip of 8 percentage points came as the other contenders have concentrated their criticism of him for his gaffes, such as saying the United States isn't safer with former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein in custody and suggesting he wouldn't prejudge Osama Bin Laden's guilt before a trial. While Dean's New Hampshire lead remains formidable, the dent in the poll indicates he may be vulnerable to a continuing barrage of attacks. And it is not necessarily good news for Kerry, whose campaign remains stalled and whose share of the New Hampshire poll went to 19 from 20. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points. Clark, however, broke into double digits for the first time in New Hampshire, and he now threatens Kerry's chances of finishing second. That would be a humiliation for Kerry, because he is lawmaker from a neighboring state. Kerry's staff struck a determined pose yesterday and vowed he would stay in the race, with one aide suggesting Kerry could mortgage more of his property to keep his presidential hopes alive. "We don't need to beat Howard Dean early, we need to beat him late," the adviser said. Kerry already has mortgaged the Boston home he owns with his wife for $6.4 million and borrowed $850,000 to pay for the campaign. "They hold other properties in joint ownership. ... We can match him [Dean] dollar for dollar." Kerry owns lavish homes in Georgetown, suburban Pittsburgh and the resort town of Sun Valley, Idaho. The senator's personal bankroll could allow him to hold on longer than other cash-challenged candidates, such as Rep. Dick Gephardt of Missouri and Sens. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut and John Edwards of North Carolina. New York Daily News - nydailynews.com