Shock the Vote!

June 19, 2003 8:51 AM

For the Lefties out there (or devious righties) - MoveOn the left wing PAC group with a LARGE financial endowment is looking at sharing their love with a Democratic candidate but can't quite decide which one. Their solution, let the people decide! Register now and vote Tuesday for who you think should get the big cash prize! [More Inside]
posted by Pollomacho (45 comments total)

Sources on the inside tell me that MoveOn will only flat out endorse and donate to a single candidate who gets 50+% of the vote, but that a plan for a run-off is in the works. Candidates have begun spamming for the voters. Who will it be?
posted by Pollomacho at 8:58 AM on June 19, 2003

It'll be Dean. The future POTUS is just too damn powerful in the ol' grassroots department. Not only will it be Dean. It'll be Dean by a large margin.
posted by EmoChild at 9:02 AM on June 19, 2003

MoveOn the left wing PAC group with a LARGE financial endowment...

Let's just say that MoveOn is well-endowed. As most liberals are.
posted by Holden at 9:10 AM on June 19, 2003

I've been part of MoveOn for a while, and I really like them. They are level headed and liberal, a combination which is frequently hard to find. I'm sure it will be Dean, too, although I'm not sure this is the best choice with a chance to win. I don't think he will fly in other states. I feel like the Democrats need to pick someone more main-stream.

(Even though I think Dean is the best choice out there....)
posted by aacheson at 9:13 AM on June 19, 2003

The future POTUS

I hope you're right. But his movement just seems too Nader-esque.

and we all know where THAT got us...


posted by goethean at 9:14 AM on June 19, 2003

Thanks for the tip, Pollo. I went 'n' registered. Won't say who I'm voting for, but he's one of that bunch of candidates who are somewhat to the left of Dean.
posted by soyjoy at 9:19 AM on June 19, 2003

I received spam from both Dean and Edwards about this yesterday. Edwards? Edwards wants to get the MoveOn money? I mean good for him, but MoveON is a little farther left than what's come out of Edwards's mouth, no? Of course, I think if he had a little more experience, he'd be the guy to back for a chance to win, not because I particularly support him 100%, but he's young, charismatic, centrist, southern, good on his feet, you know, all those things that voters seem to go for, but as it is, he's got no shot in hell.
posted by Pollomacho at 9:21 AM on June 19, 2003

Liberals are well endowed? Does that mean they have big breasts?
posted by MrLint at 9:32 AM on June 19, 2003

Pollomacho, that's what I'm talking about. The Dems need to choose someone like Edwards-not because he's the best Democrat, but because he's more main-stream. Being Southern can't hurt either (although it makes me wince...)

Dean smacks of Bill Bradley-ness.
posted by aacheson at 9:33 AM on June 19, 2003

The Dems need to choose someone like Edwards-not because he's the best Democrat, but because he's more main-stream.

Ummm, what's the point of offering French Vanilla as an alternative to Vanilla?
posted by eustacescrubb at 9:45 AM on June 19, 2003

eustacescrubb- because you need someone who can beat Bush. at least he's not Lieberman, who is WAY too like Bush to even be a Dem in my book. Dean is not electable outside of Dems. And to win POTUS elections you need to get more than just Dems, but the middle-ground independents. that'd be Edwards or Kerry.

Besides, I think Dean won't be able to take real hard questions from national media. From some of the things I've seen him say/do, he's an amateur. Vermont journalists are not the same as national ones. He'll say things too quickly then have to back-track. That won't work long-term (or at least I don't think so).
posted by evening at 9:59 AM on June 19, 2003

John Kerry has a 10 point lead (28% compared to 18%) over Howard Dean in New Hampshire, right now.

He'll blow Bush away in the debates, and if all goes well, he'll be elected. I can't wait.
posted by SweetJesus at 10:02 AM on June 19, 2003

I would take any or all of the above over status quo. But I am already despondent that barring some deus ex machina, we will not be able to beat the pr and financial juggernaut that is the Bush machine.

I hope a lot of money and efforts are also dedicated to holding/regaining seats in congress - some measure of check and balance might be the last slive of hope I hold.

It's funny, my attitude used to be more one of just hold my nose for four or eight years if I didn't like the elected potus. I guess I had no idea how much damage could be done in that time.
posted by madamjujujive at 10:16 AM on June 19, 2003

I'm hoping the Republicans aren't registering en masse in a devious attempt to make Move On endorse Sharpton.
posted by neuroshred at 10:19 AM on June 19, 2003

Liberals are well endowed? Does that mean they have big breasts?

No, liberals have LARGE PENISES. Liberal chicks have reasonably sized breasts, but have access to men who can satisfy them in the penis size department. The average liberal wang is 8 inches in length.

----

Ahem. Anyway, it's interesting, and a little disappointing that Kenuchic is in the top three. I watched the initial debate and he really seemed like an wanker, a boring, intelligent individual with more vitriol then sense. My 3rd choice would have been carol mosly braun. She seemd pretty smart, but a little nieve.
posted by delmoi at 10:33 AM on June 19, 2003

oh yeah, also it's strange that they are letting people vote who don't live in the US.
posted by delmoi at 10:39 AM on June 19, 2003

The dems only chance to beat Bush in 04 is Lieberman. Bush would stomp all the others.

Dean - to far left for general consumption
Kerry - at the rate he's going he'll take himself out of the running well before the primaries.
Edwards - he's got a good shot but I think Lieberman will come out ahead.
Hillary - that would be fun to watch
posted by WLW at 10:47 AM on June 19, 2003

Lieberman will never win. He'll come in third in the primaries, after Dean and Kerry. Dean and Kerry are going to be close, very close. The proximity of Dean and Kerry's home states to New Hampshire will no doubt help their name recognition there.

Is Iowa running their primary (or is it a caucus) before NH?
posted by SweetJesus at 10:58 AM on June 19, 2003

DC is first this year, how exciting! Not that its going to matter two shits, but at least we get to have our split second in the spotlight (its only fair after all).

I don't think Hillary or Lieberman have a chance, this country is not ready for anything but white bread, Christian man to be a successful Democratic candidate. Not that the Democrats aren't ready its the swing votes that would matter and the ultra radical anti-jew or anti-woman vote would pour out of the back woods like termites from the wood pile! Only the Republican nomination would get a woman, african-american or non-Christian into the White House, at least that way, they'd have a lot of the right, the swingers and some of the left, sad really.
posted by Pollomacho at 11:19 AM on June 19, 2003

Less important than whether a Democratic candidate is leftist or centrist is whether or not he's a pansy. People vote on character, not issues. A leftist who sticks to his guns (no pun intended) is more electable than someone who waffles to appeal to the middle of the road vote.

Lieberman can rot in hell, for all I'm concerned. He should just switch parties with McCain and be done with it.
posted by toothgnip at 11:19 AM on June 19, 2003

I'm hoping the Republicans aren't registering en masse in a devious attempt to make Move On endorse Sharpton.

Gah, our secret is out!
posted by Plunge at 11:23 AM on June 19, 2003

It'll be Dean.

Considering I got an email yesterday from MoveOn with the subject line "Governor Dean Needs Your Help," I think you're onto to something here.

Anyway, I think Dean will be the McCain of 2004 -- wildly popular on a grassroots level, but number two at the polls.
posted by me3dia at 11:23 AM on June 19, 2003

because you need someone who can beat Bush.

That was my point though. Is the goal to merely hold the presidency? Or is it to try to shore up the last vestiges of representative government by actually promoting a candidate one believes in? If the goal is just to have a guy whose logo is a donkey in office, because he's on our team, yeah, sure, nominate Leiberman. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
But if you're fundamentally dissatisfied with the answers conservatives or either party provide for society's problems, then voting for Leiberman won't do.

Dean could win if he'd refuse to debate on Bush's terms. You know, if rather than pulling a Gore and plowing through debates twoard a scripted end, and then getting pissy when Bush doesn't comply with the script, he rather responded to Bush's fluffy statements by challenging the very logic on which they're predicated. So long as Bush and Co. are allowed to set and control the terms of the debate, they win. That's why Leiberman, if he ran, would never win, because he already lets GOP ideology dictate the framing of issues.
posted by eustacescrubb at 11:26 AM on June 19, 2003

McCain didn't get moving until he won the NH primary, then he started to gain momentum and became a phenomenon.

Dean has nationwide grassroots support a full 8 months before the NH primary, and he continues to gain momentum. When he wins NH and places second in Iowa (it'll be nearly impossible for Gephardt not to win Iowa), Dean will be a freight train.
posted by jgilliam at 11:38 AM on June 19, 2003

People vote on character, not issues. A leftist who sticks to his guns (no pun intended) is more electable than someone who waffles to appeal to the middle of the road vote.

I think this is the absolute opposite of the truth. Character has NOTHING to do with who the people vote for. Would we have had to choose between Bush and Gore, Dole and Clinton or Bush and Clinton if character had been a factor in those elections? Waffling centrists are exactly who becomes President every election since the seventies when we became too afraid to elect anyone who stood for anything fearing another Nixon disaster. Clinton, Gore and Bush are our latest examples of character? Give me a break! If character were a factor over charisma and pandering to the middle, then President Tsongas would have handed off the reigns to our new Commander and Chief, Nader in 2000!
posted by Pollomacho at 12:08 PM on June 19, 2003

President Tsongas

Oh, what might have been.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 12:20 PM on June 19, 2003

I have to admire the Dean supporters. Dean has gotten thus far solely because of his grassroots. He started out with little money and little name recognition, and passion and momentum have turned him into one of the golden boys of both the media and the left-wingers. It's exciting to watch so many people following the presidential race this early in the cycle.

But we're approaching the point at which mere energy alone cannot sustain Dean's campaign. Dean is electable, and as more and more people come to that realization, they're going to want real answers and solutions. Simply stating "I didn't support _____ and [other candidate] did" doesn't fly. What are you going to do for America, Dean? I don't want sound bites any more. Propose real proposals that work.

Personally, I'm supporting Kerry. Kerry's proposed a real tax cut (payroll tax cut) for Americans, and numerous economic, foriegn policy, and health care proposals that make sense. Kerry's not always sexy, but he's right on the issues and has the experience to get it done.

People vote on character, not issues. A leftist who sticks to his guns (no pun intended) is more electable than someone who waffles to appeal to the middle of the road vote.

I completely agree. I think in the past this is why liberals haven't fared as well -- they become almost apologetic about their liberal views, and try to spin them into more mainstream views. Would you catch a right-winger doing that? I do agree that voters have more respect for candidates that are unabashed in their beliefs.
posted by jennak at 12:25 PM on June 19, 2003

I think this is the absolute opposite of the truth. Character has NOTHING to do with who the people vote for.

Of course it does. How do you think Bush won the last election? He wasn't the smartest, or the most eloquent, but he had that "I'm just a simple cowboy" thing down. People fell for it, and voted for Bush based on his personality as opposed to his political record.

It wasn't so much that Bush has character (I don't think he does), but more so that Rove was able to give the public a "perception of character". Having character, and making it seem like one has character, is one in the same in modern slimeball politics.
posted by SweetJesus at 12:26 PM on June 19, 2003

Kerry should keep his head down for a little while and wait for Dean to self-destruct, then step in and look Presidential for all he's worth. I'll be surprised if that isn't how it goes.

For all the grassroots support, the word I hear on Dean from ex-Vermonters is that he's not all that popular there.
posted by rusty at 12:44 PM on June 19, 2003

Only the Republican nomination would get a woman, african-american or non-Christian into the White House, at least that way, they'd have a lot of the right, the swingers and some of the left, sad really.

Actually, I found your post very telling. It's only "sad" if you are willing to overlook your own statement that Dems will only nominate white males (now that's sad), and that Republicans are willing to nominate women or minorities. And that is sad how? Because women and minorities should only agree with your political viewpoint?
posted by pardonyou? at 1:34 PM on June 19, 2003

Kerry/Clark ticket would be decorated one-two punch
posted by homunculus at 1:38 PM on June 19, 2003

If character were a factor over charisma and pandering to the middle, then President Tsongas would have handed off the reigns to our new Commander and Chief, Nader in 2000!

Ew. I don't think Tsongas would have smelled so good handing the reigns to Nader in 2000, given that he would have been dead for over three years.
posted by pardonyou? at 1:41 PM on June 19, 2003

It's only "sad" if you are willing to overlook your own statement that Dems will only nominate white males...

I didn't say Democrats wouldn't and that Republicans would, only that it wouldn't work to get into the White House in the sad political climate that is America. The left would probably be more willing to nominate a woman or minority candidate and would have larger numbers to draw from, but that is far different from actually winning the election. Women and minorities shouldn't stop trying, I just think our first woman and our first black presidents will be Republicans, although, they could have said the same thing about Catholics 50 years ago and JFK rolled in on the DNC ticket!
posted by Pollomacho at 1:45 PM on June 19, 2003

I have to say I'm somewhat disappointed in MoveOn. I signed up when it was founded, and it's original intent was to advance the view that people did not want the Clinton impeachment proceedings to go forward -- literally, to "move on..." And IIRC, it specifically indicated at the outset that it had no intention of being political, but wanted to express the views of Americans from the left and right. I've been disappointed as it moved steadily to the Left. I still get e-mails, but this centrist Democrat really wishes it had continued to embrace a spectrum of views. Oh, well.
posted by pardonyou? at 1:49 PM on June 19, 2003

I just don't know who to support.

But what Pollomacho said is right on. If the Dems nominate a woman or a black person, they don't stand a chance in HELL of getting elected because Republicans will never EVER vote for a woman or a black person if they are considered "liberal." Not enough cross-over votes. However, if the person is "conservative" and sticks to the conservative roots, and then enough independent or Democrat women/minorities will probably cross over to vote Republican in that case, just to get "one of their own" in as the POTUS.

At this point, I'd rather ANY Democrat in the office, as long the president is NOT BUSH. Then we have a fighting chance to reverse the horrible things he has done to this country. Even Liberman wouldn't be as bad as Bush. No self-respecting Democrat would destroy this country's civil liberties, environment, and world reputation to the extent that Bush has.
posted by aacheson at 2:12 PM on June 19, 2003

Even Liberman wouldn't be as bad as Bush.

Lieberman maybe wouldn't have done them in the first place, but if somehow he's our next president I don't think he'll work to change a single thing back.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 2:16 PM on June 19, 2003

Republicans will never EVER vote for a woman or a black person if they are considered "liberal."

I think "liberal" is the greater issue. I think if the Democrats nominated a moderate woman or minority, they could get enough crossover votes.
posted by pardonyou? at 2:18 PM on June 19, 2003

I think "liberal" is the greater issue. I think if the Democrats nominated a moderate woman or minority, they could get enough crossover votes.

That might be a possibility, but I seem to think there's a deep seated feeling in the far right of the GOP about minorities and women, that they belong in their place unless they play by the strict rules. Minorities and women that are Democrats are outside those rules, but a black, female or even a "log cabin" (gay) Republican is OK because they follow the rules. They are on the right team at least, even if they are out of their designated roles.
posted by Pollomacho at 2:30 PM on June 19, 2003

The issue isn't "liberal" vs. "moderate," pardonyou?. The issue is the ability to frame left-leaning views in ways that appeal to center-right voters. It's not hard, but centrist Dems too often fail to even try, preferring instead to pitch *center-right* ideas from a center-left position.

Yeesh. No wonder they keep losing. The DLC can call it "modernizing progressive politics" until it's blue in the face, but the rest of us see it for what it really is: a push for the abandonment of left-leaning principles by a powerful group of wealthy Democratic donors.

What we need is someone who can articulate a solidly left-leaning world-view in a way that has broad appeal. Again, it's not difficult to do, if you have guts and a brain. Hammering Republicans on things like sodomy laws, for just one example, should be in the top 5 on any Dem campaign strategy list in 2004. You want your wedge issue? There it is. Too bad I can't imagine the DLC doing anything with that one. Talk about having your head up your ass.
posted by mediareport at 2:32 PM on June 19, 2003

Sodomy laws...head up your ass.

You're doing it wrong.
posted by me3dia at 2:37 PM on June 19, 2003

I just think our first woman and our first black presidents will be Republicans

I think Harold Ford Jr. has a very good chance of eventually becoming the first black President. He's both charismatic and moderate.
posted by gyc at 3:55 PM on June 19, 2003

Um, gyc, that guy from Tennessee, with the suit and the pale skin...which minority does he identify with?
posted by dash_slot- at 4:45 PM on June 19, 2003

When did "POTUS" become a widely-used acronym? I don't remember seeing this a heck of a lot in the past, but in recent memory, it's everywhere. "Poe-tus". Does this annoy anybody but me?
posted by eyebeam at 6:44 PM on June 19, 2003

I think Harold Ford Jr. has a very good chance of eventually becoming the first black President. He's both charismatic and moderate.

He even likes his college girls, just like the original "first black President" Apparently he's been very publicly schtuping the 22 year old sex columnist for the Georgetown student paper! Well, at least that's the Hill dirt! Incidentally this was more than a "single meal" according to my sources.
posted by Pollomacho at 11:36 AM on June 20, 2003

Edwards said some really interesting things the other day.
posted by Vidiot at 12:20 AM on June 22, 2003