: Wrong candidates?…
The national polls clearly indicate who Democrats want to run for president in 2004: Al Gore or Hillary Clinton. When the nine declared candidates are considered (could be 11 soon), Joe Lieberman maintains a slight lead. But when you add Gore or Clinton to the mix, they trounce the field.
That’s not good news for the other nine.
Are there too many Democrats in the race? I don’t think so. Instead, the polls seem to indicate that the wrong Democrats are in the race. By “wrong” I mean those without a clear message and a commanding national stature (subjective judgments all).
If both parties were contesting nominations this time, I’d say we have no problem here. But to unseat a popular president–one who has cornered the market on feel-good patriotism–the Democrats (one or two clear frontrunners) will need many months of head-to-head confrontation with Bush, not the few months from the convention to the election. The Democratic base will support the eventual nominee. It is the middle territory held by independents that must be won. And that is a long campaign. (via PoliticalWire)
So does it really matter who runs for president on the side of the democrats? Odds do not favor any canidate…
I’d say Howard Dean’s assessment of Democrats is correct - WEENIES!!!!!
Yes, it matters. If nothing else, the polls clearly indicate it matters. What needs to happen, I think, is for one candidate to take a clear lead before October. Dean could be that man. But he has a long way to go in the national polls.
(For a look at the importance of the national polls in the pre-primary race, please refer to my essay at: http://election.rhetorica.net/essay/primary.htm)
Bad news for Dean - I just read his 17 year old son has been arrested for a burglary last night at a country club in Burlington VT. Dean cancelled all his Iowa appearances for the weekend to deal with this. I hope this doesn’t get out of control for him.
Yes, it’s a sad thing for any family. And it will get out of control.