Wisconsin Weirdos?

Published on February 18, 2004 By stevendedalus In Current Events

How do you figure voting trends? Dean worked hard for a year and half to help define the Democratic Party and the Deaniacs thought a brave new world was in the making. Then Iowa happened.

Kerry was about to be coronated and then Wisconsin happened, and the pundits acted like Edwards won in Wisconsin even though he lost by 6% in a maverick state where mischievous Independents and Republicans have suspect motives.

Since 2000 it is evident that the popular vote doesn’t mean anything anymore? Kerry won by 44,345 votes. He is the undisputed champion in overwhelming popular votes across some 18 states; yet the media are wishing for a play off between the two leaders. Earlier, because Dean hadn’t won a single primary, the pundits wanted him gone. Now, because Edwards came in a strong second even though he cherry picked his states and only won his birthright state, he is suddenly a serious challenger.

I hope this doesn’t mean the Democrats are again on self-destruct. For despite the poll written in sand that says even Edwards would beat Bush today, the hard fact is Bush will eat up this inexperienced “kid.”

Comments

PoetPhilosopher

on Feb 18, 2004

I saw Edwards in a debate back in October and made my decision then.

stevendedalus

on Feb 19, 2004

Good for you. You're an early thinker. At about that time I was still toying with either Clark or Kerry, though both were disappointing. When Kerry shook up his staff and himself was when I figured he would be on a roll.

BulbousHead

on Feb 19, 2004

I think Dean's downfall was a combination of his poor showing in Iowa and his reaction to his poor showing in Iowa. (I was something of a Deanie until his decision to scream that list of US states. That was a real turn-off, and I'm generally not a knee-jerk thinker on these things.)

It's been evident since 1789 that the popular vote means nothing; you're kidding yourself if you think the United States is somehow a democracy (not that there's anything wrong with that...).

I think a Democratic ticket with Edwards as Kerry's running mate is very strong and more than capable of beating Bush, but any other permutation is dangerous.

stevendedalus

on Feb 19, 2004

You must've hated Geography in school. Yes, I surely learned that in 2000, thanks to Florida. I'm still not sure about the ticket--toying with, which are more important?-- some southern states or Missouri, Indiana and Ohio.

BulbousHead

on Feb 21, 2004

I loved geography and still do, but there's just something about a person who wants to become President of the United States yelling a list of states while turning bright red that rubs me the wrong way. And then there's that primal scream.

I think that despite the recent oh-my-gosh-that-Edwards-is-on-fire hype, it's going to be Kerry in the top spot. Unless he calls someone else out of the bullpen, of the people that were or are running for the nomination, I think Edwards is the best bet as running mate.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!