Straw poll Russ Feingold, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean, Wes

[bobthedrummer]

Clark and others have all been mentioned as possible 2008 POTUS candidates.

How does support for those top five fare today here at DU?

Who (aside from Dennis Kucinich) did I neglect to include in this early poll?

[Carolab]

1. Anyone voting Kerry is delusional. n/t

[Renew Deal]

Or any of the other democrats.

:thumbsup:

[imenja]

56. going for Santorum are you?

[Renew Deal]

85. I forgot

that there is now a sarcasm tag. :sarcasm: ;)

[saltpoint]

6. Under the primary system, most American registered --

-- Democrats may vote for whom they please on the ballot.

Kerry might well be on said ballot(s).

If so, above-mentioned Democrats may cast votes accordingly.

If you want delusion, catch a George w. Bush news conference.

[LittleClarkie]

40. I will proudly stand up then and say I voted for Kerry

Ta da!

[left is right]

120. Off topic but I got to tell you

that your drawing of Kerry always makes me think, "Why does this poster have a drawing of Jay Leno picking his nose?" I then take a close look at it and I realize it represents a thinking, thoughtful Kerry, which of course is a good discription of him. I am not saying it is a bad drawing--it isn't; but, there is something about the small photograph leading the eye to the drawing that creates an optical illusion. And it seems that they both have a similar square jaw. Have you ever thought about changing the order of your two pictures?

[LittleClarkie]

169. Thanks for the constructive criticism

I think I will switch them.

[left is right]

182. It works

there is still a strong resmblance to JL I guess that can't be help because they share many facial similarities but I didn't think "apickin and agrinin"

[Laurab]

70. I'd vote for Kerry

as of today, nothing has changed - he'd be my first pick.

I would NEVER post a comment like yours, nor would I attack someone else's choice if they didn't agree with me. I would almost say it's a personal attack, albeit against more than one person.

As I said, as of today, my first choice would be Kerry. I'm not really speculating on '08 right now, and lots of things can change, and some things HAVE to change, or my vote may not even matter, that's why I say "as of today".

My second choice, as of today, would probably be Russ Feingold.

I am not delusional, and I'm free to choose whoever I want, and I find your post somewhat offensive.

[jpgray]

112. His not winning is a big strike against him

I think his voting habits have improved somewhat, but I'd need to see that he wouldn't make the same broad strategic mistakes again.

[seabeyond]

133. unless of course one thought he won and the election was

stolen. then the picture kinda changes.

i think the elction was stolen and unless we do something about that, i dont think it matters who we have

i voted for kerry on this poll. i can equally vote for clark, dean or edwards

[blm]

183. That's pretty rude of you to say, Carolab. Some of us CARE about this

nation, and have been activists for many long years BEFORE the 2000 election, and have knowledge of and respect for Kerry's lengthy record of service.

John Kerry has investigated and exposed more government corruption than any lawmaker in modern history, helped end three wars, and wrote the earliest warnings about terror and its funding by international financiers.

You are welcome to name ONE lawmaker who you feel has done more, and please give a rundown of that person's work.

[Tom Rinaldo]

2. Well, you forgot Edwards for one, though he wouldn't get my vote.

Maybe you should start over. The media at least seems to think he is a major candidate. And if you are asking about DU favorites, in addition to Dennis probably Boxer would win some votes.

[Mass]

3. Warner, Bayh, ...

Not my choices, but they are clearly in the mix as is Biden.

[AntiCoup2K4]

26. If Biden the TRAITOR gets anywhere near the nomination

You might as well get used to saying pResident Kitty Killer. Because that will be undeniable proof that the DLC is throwing the game AGAIN.

[bobthedrummer]

4. I really wanted to compare my Senator, Russell Feingold, to the others.

It's just curiosity on my part.

[Mass]

8. I am split between Feingold and Kerry

Voted Kerry, but Feingold is close second.

[sandnsea]

23. Be happy with either

Although Feingold has already pissed off the southerners with a letter he wrote, although I didn't see anything wrong with it. But you can bet it would be splattered all over the place. Then again, that's what they'd do to anybody.

[ginnyinWI]

73. Feingold would be a good veep for a Kerry ticket

Although it might horrify a lot of people--too far left, they'd say.
Feingold is my senator.

[Tom Rinaldo]

5. And for those who avoid Clark threads...

Here is a link to the testimony Clark and Perle gave Congress today. It was a very sharp debate between starkly divergent views on the Mid East. Definitely worthy of a listen no matter who you want for President. A lot of substance and very little fluff, though it opens up with a candid open mike that picks up a lot of conversation for a few minutes before the hearings started.

The Link:
http://hasc3.house.gov/04-06-05FullComm.asf

(Added on edit because I blew it the first time and left the link out, lol)

[bobthedrummer]

7. You left out the link.

[FrenchieCat]

9. Just pulling your coat-tail, cause you forgot the link

but here it is:
http://hasc3.house.gov/04-06-05FullComm.asf

Clark lists the PNAC countries slated for invasion, mentioning that Lybia is off the hit list, right in his opening statement made before NeoCon Perle gets to speak.

All in all, very interesting.

[saltpoint]

10. You've got a good starting list going, but maybe throw in --

-- a few more:

Evan Bayh
Joe Biden
Barbara Boxer
Lloyd Doggett
Dick Durbin
John Edwards
Dennis Kucinich
Blanche Lincoln
Barrack Obama
Bill Richardson
Mark Warren

--and maybe others.

Senator Clinton is not a great favorite of mine, but I could get behind almost anybody else on the list, in degrees.

[Dave B]

13. I Like Obama

But lets give him a little time to gain some experience huh? One of the things I didn't like about Edwards was that he jumped into a presidential race just 4 years into his political career.

[saltpoint]

16. I like Obama, too. My list was just a cattle call.

I like Obama for his wonderful speech at our convention last summer. That speech was a knockout. The Republicans who bothered to watch it must have realized that they are going to have to deal with this guy somewhere down the road. Could Obama be the first Afro-American president? Absolutely he could.

On Edwards: I love him. I love his parenting. I love his wife. I love his family. I love his New South progressive positions and the emphasis on poverty and the Two Americas. I was in Iowa a little near the caucus time there and the talk in the grocery stores was about "that nice John Edwards."

Not dissing your point about experience in politics, but a good mind and a good heart can make a strong case for public service. Edwards seems equipped with both.

[goodhue]

11. Edwards seems more likely than Dean IMHO.

I vote Feingold. Kucinich is my first choice of course, if he were to run. I could support Edwards. The rest of the lot don't do a whole lot for me.

[pkspiegel]

34. Take a closer look at Clark

He's got more fire in him than many people realize! Please take a closer look at Clark on both foreign and domestic policies.

[madfloridian]

12. I never vote in these things.

The winner is pre-ordained at all times.

[NYCGirl]

14. Well, it has been a few days without a futile, premature 2008 pres. poll..

:banghead:

[madfloridian]

31. Well, guess who's winning. Call it what you may....futile...

:banghead:

[Leilani]

76. Should we all leave?

Would that make you happy?

[wyldwolf]

15. My choices from your poll in order

Wes Clark

Russ Feingold (I have a feeling about him.)

Hillary Clinton (If I thought she had more than a good chance of winning she'd be #1. What sweet gloating I could do if Hillary won!)

John Kerry - Deep respect for the guy. But will he be percieved as damaged good?

Howard Dean - he's exactly where he needs to be right now.

But don't discount Mark Warner - southern moderate governor.

Or John Edwards - charisma!

[stpalm]

18. what "feeling" do you have about Feingold? good or bad?

I don't see how anyone could think Feingold is being shifty, but I would like to hear your answer.

[wyldwolf]

20. good feeling

..which is why he's #2 on my list.

[me b zola]

92. You are creeping me out

Clark & Feingold are my top two.

So have we come to meet on a parallel universe or something?

[ksclematis]

17. Straw poll Russ Feingold, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean, Wes"

Gen. Wesley Clark is my first choice, 2004 and 2008....
I have no second choice.

[WI_DEM]

19. Clark has strong support on DU

so these daily and weekly polls really don't show any difference except to emphasize that. The only difference is who might be running second. Also, Dean is not running for president. He pledged not to when he became the DNC Chair.

[bobthedrummer]

22. Clark supporters here at DU are over represented, I know that.

I went through last year's primaries with many of them.
They are organized well here.
I'll grant them that.
But they skew the polls here at DU.

[Sparkly]

50. Fwiw, I didn't join DU until after Clark dropped

because everytime I visited, there was so much hostility against Clark supporters, and accusations that people were dragging Clark supporters over to DU from the Clark forum. I didn't want to be met here with that.

It's really not about being "well organized here." You can see it when he's on a poll elsewhere (a recent one on Ed Schultz's site comes to mind). He's just got a strong base of support, I think.

[AmBlue]

54. I'll say!

[Leilani]

74. Would it make you happy if we all left?

EOM

[CJCRANE]

171. Maybe

Clark supporters are only over-represented on DU because Duers are generally more educated about the issues and about Clark himself than the general population.

[Totally Committed]

21. But, why all these polls, over and over again?

I don't get it. So far as I can see, they don't change anyone's mind, and too much time is spent arguing over who's on, who's not, who got passed up... and not discussing the real issues.

Not only that, but when Wes wins (if he does...) we Clarkies are blamed for "freeping" the poll, anyway.

Can we give these things a rest?

TC

[bobthedrummer]

25. I'm a stealth campaigner for Russ Feingold.

He would make a great POTUS. He could repair some of the damage brought upon US by the BFEE. I think he would be accepted by the rest of the world as a return to US diplomacy, not the failed Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive war.

[madfloridian]

44. I like Feingold.

A lot.

[ulysses]

99. same here. n/t

[enough already]

24. Please, no more Senators

They can't win. We need a governor to run.

[safi0]

27. Edwards and Clinton

Being left off this list is pretty riddiculous. I know Hillary doesn't have a whole lot of support on this board, and while Edwards is well liked on this board I haven't seen a whole lot of people with him as there #1 choice. Having said that though these two are widely considered the favorites.

[FrenchieCat]

28. You are right

Considered favorites by the conventional wisdom of the pundits.

But yes, I do believe that they should be on the poll.

Maybe someone is hoping that Edwards supporters will vote Feingold if Edwards is not a choice?

[safi0]

29. Again though

Why the hell is Howard Dean on this, hes not running he had to give up those aspirations to become chairman of the DNC

[Clark Bayh 2008]

173. Agreed... but since there are no prominent commander in chief/governors

that make sense, Clark is the only logical choice if Hillary decides not to run.

Either way, Clark should be on the ticket in the post-GWBush election cycle. Why this isn't obvious to all is a mystery to me. Kerry & Gore didn't win because they weren't LIKABLE & they couldn't be seen as commander in chief!

Bill Clinton was likable. Wes Clark is a commander & also likable. Unfortunately, as much as I like Hillary C., she is not universally liked.

Warner probably can't deliver VA & a beltway state is NOT what we need in 2008. Bayh CAN deliver IN, & he's right next door to Ohio, where he could make a difference.

[Mark E. Smith]

30. Wes Clark

I view the rest as potential VP candidates.

[Totally Committed]

32. Ditto.

Can't add anything to that.

TC

[madfloridian]

33. That is a whole lot of great Democrats you relegate to VP position.

That is not a good thing to do. They were Democrats a long time, good men. They are all quality.

[FrenchieCat]

35. You are right, MadF, they are all very good men

in fact, better than many of the pols out there. But, there can only be one President at a time, and this polls is to gauge which potential candidate folks favor. SOooo it made perfect sense of the poster to have chosen one and it is a compliment to all of the rest that the poster even said that every other is a good man/woman qualified to be VP as well.

Some might choose one, and think the others are just turd on a shoe....so your comment really wasn't required nor did it make much sense.

To tell someone "that is not a good thing to do" is quite silly in this particular case.

[Totally Committed]

36. No objection to when Wes is relegated to VP all the time, tho...

I get what you're saying loud and clear.

TC

[madfloridian]

41. Quite frankly.....

I don't even relegate him to that. I was not going to be drawn in, but it is impossible to make peace. I am on your bad list anyway.

I could stand on my head and spit wooden nickels out of my mouth, and I would be accused of attacking Clark.

[kevsand]

45. LOL!

Wait! Let me get my camera...

[Totally Committed]

177. madfloridian, I have no "bad list"...

honestly, I've read a lot of your posts and admire your spirit and, for the most part, your politics. We just disagree on candidate choice.

My point was that as long as I've read the posts here (a long time before I joined and posted myself), I have felt Wes has gotten a bum rap, and unfair treatment at DU. When I see posts that strike me as unfair, disrespectful, misinformed, blatantly false, or dismissive of him, I vowed to set the record straight, give the information needed, battle the lie, or whatever, because I feel that is the only way to level the playing field.

I am sincerely sorry that that has brought us to this point, because as I said, I respect you. I hope we can continue to post together here with at least a modecum of comradery in the future.

I am extending an olive branch and sincerely hoping you will take it, fwiw.

TC

[Mark E. Smith]

72. If They Weren't Great Democrats...

...they wouldn't get to be Wes Clark's VP.

[RAF]

37. Wes Clark

all the way! :kick:

[hopein08]

38. EDWARDS!!! n/t

[AmBlue]

52. I'll ditto that.

[VOX]

96. Edwards is my choice, too.

:kick:

[Clark2008]

39. Wes Clark

If I wasn't already in his corner before, after his ass-kicking of Richard "PNACkle" Perle today, I would be now.

"Of great concern today and, frankly, in the years ahead is that the focus on Iraq has deprived the Administration of the time, diplomatic support, and military resources to act effectively against other, more dangerous sources of WMD proliferation. The “red line” established by the Clinton Administration against North Korea’s reprocessing of spent uranium fuel to make plutonium has now been breached. North Korea has announced that they have reprocessed and presumably now have the fissile materials to make at least a half dozen additional nuclear weapons. Furthermore, this Administration has refused to participate in the discussions aimed at persuading Iran to permanently renounce its uranium enrichment capabilities.

From the outset, the military mission in Iraq has been complicated by factors other than making the best decisions for success. Operations to destabilize Iraq were apparently viewed as the start of a broader campaign to destabilize or overthrow a number of governments in the Middle East, including Lebanon, Syria, Iran, Libya, and Sudan. The start of the campaign was rushed, for reasons that have never been made clear by the Administration. And once U.S. forces were inside Iraq, U.S. diplomacy failed to take measures to undercut regional resistance from countries such as Syria and Iran.

If we are to succeed in Iraq, we must move along three tracks; first, improve security and at the same time reduce the exposure and commitment of the U.S. forces; second, strengthen our ability to facilitate Iraqi political development; third, we must reduce regional resistance to the emergence of a democratic Iraq."

[Totoro]

42. Wes Clark

I go for Wes Clark all the way. Did much research on him, and I think he's the man of our times.

Committed peace and nature loving pacifist, assessing the situation realistically and concluding that he's the only one that will honestly and uncorruptedly, create a way back to peace when everything else has failed).

[Clark2008]

49. Welcome to DU, Totoro

:hi:

Do I know you from the Clark blog?

Oh, and you have great taste!

[Totoro]

66. Wes Clark

Thanks. I know you too.

Gabriele

[madfloridian]

43. Feingold.

.

[Vektor]

46. Proudly delusional...

Kerry voter/lover here!!

[LittleClarkie]

60. Actually, I find that Kerry people

among the smarter, wisest and most mature folks I've met 'round these parts.

[Vektor]

61. Thank you, and back at ya!

I also enjoy basking in your astounding wit.
:-)

[saracat]

68. And thank you Vector , I enjoy basking in your sensual observations!

Saracat LLL!:loveya: :loveya: :loveya:

[Vektor]

80. Are they sensual?

Alriiiight.....:-)

[Catchawave]

47. President Edwards !

[NoPasaran]

48. I voted for Hillary and I don't even like her

But DUers are only fooling themselves if they don't think she's a strong contender and would kick Kitty Killer's ass in 2008/

[cquik18]

51. I voted Clark...

Clark would fight back, and not be hesitant to do so, unlike Kerry. As for Veep....that's a toss-up. I'm not too keen on Edwards, he looks to much like the Vice-Presidential candidate in the remake of "The Manchurian Candidate", LOL! Not that Wes Clark would just stand there and let Denzel Washington snipe him; the General may just have a little something in his coat for JUST such an occasion! LOL!

[LittleClarkie]

53. Glad to see my Johnny as best of the rest

On DU, you throw out the Clark vote, and then see who's left after that. We're just alittle Clark-heavy, doncha know.

[Clark2008]

57. So, basically, you're Diebolding us Clarkies.

Real democratic. :eyes:

[LittleClarkie]

59. Diebolding, no

Just weighting the results because of the Clarkie oversampling.

I'm Galluping you. :P

[Sparkly]

62. "Clarkie oversampling?"

How are we oversampled?

[LittleClarkie]

64. I've heard it said that Clark will win any poll on DU

I took from comments like that the assumption that there are many Clarkies here, perhaps above and beyond Deaniacs, Kerrycrats, Kusitizens et al.

Hence, when I see that Clark has won another one, I look for the runner up.

[Totoro]

67. Wes Clark

There goes an open mind.

[LittleClarkie]

69. I have no idea what you're talking about

This is a community, one that appears to have alot of Clarkies in it, more than the population at large. I take that into account whenever one of these puppies comes up.

We are not a representative slice of the Dem Party, I suspect, here on DU. We lean a bit farther to the left. Hence any poll will tend to be highly unscientific.

[Capn Sunshine]

179. Aside from the fact that you have three websites and an email chain ?

That notifies everyone to show up and vote?
That might be one way

[Tom Rinaldo]

98. LOL, I concede, that was a good line.

And you are correct that DU does have a significantly higher percentage of Clark supporters than a typical current Democratic voter cross section. Of course we Clark supporters like to think that is because folks at DU are enlightened and ahead of the curve in general, but that is a different debate.

I take no offense in your observation.

[LittleClarkie]

113. Thanks

I see Feingold has overtaken Kerry as the best of the rest. Hey, that works. He's my Senator.

Maybe I need to start a poll with just Kerry, Hillary and Biden on it. Of course that would be cheating, I think.

Clark still has a chance to impress. My original support of him was so shallow the first time around, I just need to know more, is all.

[imenja]

55. Boxer, of course. What kind of poll is that anyway?

:mad:

[ginnyinWI]

75. I like Pelosi even more than Boxer

But they are both real warriors for the cause.

[bloom]

128. That's what I was thinking... Boxer rocks... eom

[leftofthedial]

58. DK

Still the best progressive around

[lojasmo]

63. I would support Feingold or Dean, though Dean won't run. EOM

[usregimechange]

65. Russ, Russ, Russ, Russ, Russ, Russ, Russ, Russ, Russ

[mpendragon]

186. i don't want to lose Russ

He's the first Senator that I've had a chance to vote for and fell really good about. Plus he nearly got beaten last year by a giant dumb ass. I don't think the US is ready for him. I think he'd get labeled a wimp by the right and they'd call him soft on terror because he voted against the Patriot ACT. I agree with his decision on that but an election isn't about what's right it is about how you can paint things.

Wes Clark is my bet this time. He's smart, he's brave, he's honest, he's mature, he's got a good military record, he isn't carrying a voting record that the right can beat on him with, and he looks more presidential (I hate to say WASP but the US isn't as progressive as the we are yet and it will make a difference).

[Meldread]

71. I supported Dean last go round.

However, I want Howard to prove himself in his current position before running for President again. Hillary and Kerry are off the table as far as I am concerned and by extension that would include Clark. I am leaning toward Feingold but I can still be swayed. Warner if he decides to run, won't have my support (and I'm FROM Virginia).

Hillary is off the table because she, like her husband, will happily sell out Democratic Values for political capital. Kerry isn't much better in that regard, and his unwillingness to take a strong and firm stand on important Democratic issues isn't impressing me any. Clark is decent but his ties to the Clintons sully him greatly in my book. Warner is worse than the Clintons when it comes to democratic values. (I can't remember him standing up once for gays in Virginia when we were (and still are) being persecuted by the Republicans.) They also called Al Gore and Kerry "stiff" and lacking in "emotion and personality". Warner beats them both at that in spades.

That really only leaves Feingold as the only viable option in my book. I don't know enough about him to be a big supporter but what little I do know has endeared me toward him.

[LimpingLib]

77. Clark is clearly the establishment candidate.No question.

The question is whether an upstart with strong grassroots and progressive appeal will decide to run.

Feingold is a genuine deficit hawk plus opposes gun control. Like his state he has his progressive and conservative elements.His courage is his defining feature. He has a strong confidence in debates which is only characteristic of somebody who has strong beliefs. He is almost apolitical.The courage of his convictions carrys him over in tough races.

Wisconsin is about as close to being a red state without actually being one. I think Feingolds presence in the state is the difference between Wisconsin going conservative or staying in a progressive leaning direction.As soon as we start to nominate center-left moderates in all Wisconsin offices (meaning we loose Obey and especially Feingold), to go along with the typical centrist Democratic Presidential nominees, then turnout will suffer and Wisconsin will be a swing GOP state.

Wisconsin seems to be a sort of bell weather of sorts.

2008 will be the most important Democratic Presidential primary ever IMO.

Whoever wins will be set to take on right wing extremist John McCain and the eventual GOP nominee will be heavily favored to beat whoever we nominate in 2008 and 2012.

The battle isnt over the general election but whether the Democratic party will allow the elites to continue to make itself its own worst enemey.Its all in the primary.

The 2008 Democratic primary is my Super Bowl and its all Im looking at to the exclusion of every other future race includig the general election of that year.Football fans can think of the general as a sort of post season "Pro Bowl" where typically you see those in this world with athletic talent and flashy performance(but perhaps little other redeeming values)play in a glamorous game under the beautiful conditions of its environment (compare the Hawaiian skys and climate to the flattery the media pours on elite candidates in Presidential elections).It is a well known fact that nobody remembers who won last years Pro Bowl, and nobody cares as it makes no difference in any history book.Not even National Football League Historys.

Maybe we can make a general election count for a change. But thats not on my radar screen. Till proven otherwise, Ill assume the 2008 general to be just another game.

My eyes are firmly fixed on the first quarter of 2008 and perhaps the early part of the second quarter.

[Tom Rinaldo]

105. Agreed there's no question: no question Clark ISN'T an establishment choice

At the very least I will suggest that the assertion that Clark is the establishment candidate is highly questionable. Unfortunately I am running out of the house, and to be honest, didn't even have time to read your whole post right now. So I won't comment further now beyond saying the title of your post is quite debatable. I'll check back later.

[Clarkie1]

114. Clark is the establishment candidate. NOT!

:rofl:

Good one!!!!!!!!!!!

[imenja]

78. ever single person who ever thought about voting for Clark is on DU

amazing.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

83. The pogroms took care of that.

[imenja]

93. the anti-anybody but Clark pogroms?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

136. That could very well be.

:banghead:

[FrenchieCat]

94. WHAT-EVER!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32440-2005Apr6.html
It was not always thus. At the September 2002 hearing, GOP lawmakers joined in Perle's dismissal of Clark's argument that "time is on our side" in Iraq and that force should be used only as a "last resort."

Perle said Clark was "wildly optimistic" and called it "one of the dumber cliches, frankly, to say that force must always be a last resort." While Clark fiddled, "Saddam Hussein is busy perfecting those weapons of mass destruction that he already has."

In retrospect, Clark's forecasts proved more accurate than Perle's, and even Republicans on the committee made little effort yesterday to defend Perle or to undermine Clark. The exception was Chairman Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), who pressed Clark to acknowledge that the Iraq invasion should get some credit for signs of democracy in the region.

"We've got to do a lot less crowing about the sunrise," Clark rejoined

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

137. Not sure what your point is.

:shrug:


As for the candidates of 2004, I still have my preferences. But I stopped banging the drum a long time ago. Give it some time and see if Sir Wesley even has his hat in the ring.

[imenja]

141. I feel the same

Why do we need to divide ourselves according to candidates when there isn't even a campaign under way? There will likely be a whole new group in 2008 anyway.

[Tom Rinaldo]

170. I do not favor dividing ourselves

But remember in 2004 after Kerry/Edwards were selected we were anything but divided during the campaign even though people had strongly differing feelings during the Primaries. Still, I am making a point of not going around trashing any Democrats (except Zell Miller) but that doesn't mean I won't say good things about the advantages of supporting a Democrat that I believe in now.

Far as I am concerned the days are over when Party Insiders get to shuffle the deck for us before dealing us our hand. Do you doubt for a second that a number of leading Democrats have already begun organizing and doing the ground work needed to prepare for a possible 2008 run? You think Kerry Edwards and Clinton aren't in planning stages? I am not saying that they have all 100% decided that they are running, but they have staff people working to advance the possibility for each of them. Just watch all the trips that will be taking place to Iowa and New Hampshire for reasons "unrelated" to Presidential politics. Phone calls to possible donors are already being made.

Now if people like Kerry and Clinton can actively consider running for President while still doing productive work on a range of important issues in the U.S. Senate, than people like you and me can actively consider who should run for President while still doing productive work on a range of important issues in our communities. I am doing both.

[imenja]

181. I think a focus on individuals at this point is a MAJOR mistake

We have serious issues to confront in terms of organization and party building. We need to work on what the core principles of our party are. If we imagine that the solution to our current political disempowerment is simply finding the right individual as the next candidate, we will continue to lose. There is no question about it.

[Clark2008]

101. Organized, Clark fans may be...

But I've yet to see us massacre any minority group - with or without official permission (mainly, because there *is* no official to gain permission from. It's not a professional campaign).

Bit strong on the language, don'cha think?

[Tom Rinaldo]

104. As long as divisiveness is not being practiced

Which admittedly would be negative, organization is a GOOD thing people. I have no hard feelings whatsoever about any advocate of a Democratic candidate, or Democratic policy initiative or cause, using the internet or DU specifically to further their sincere beliefs and/or goals.

For example, one of the things that the Clinton 1992 campaign showed all of us is the necessity for an organized cohesive and rapid response to any attack on Democratic candidates. We all have skills that we should be honing. We will need them.

I fully expect intra party conflicts to stop at the waters edge, which for the most part I will define as November Election campaigns, once our candidates are chosen and running against Republicans. We all did extremely well at that in 2004, I was proud at how well supporters of losing Primary candidates closed ranks and worked our butts off for Kerry/Edwards.

[Clark2008]

107. I'll have a hard time supporting Hillary, though.

She won't even break 38 percent in my state (prediction), so I might just write in a vote or go third party. I like her, don't get me wrong, but, in my state, voting for her would be as much of a waste as voting third party. I may as well just vote for someone I like a lot better.

That said, I could tolerate just about everyone else being touted (Feingold, Warner, et al), save Edwards, because *I* have more foreign policy experience than he does. And we'll still be at war - somewhere - which also will knock Hillary down in a general election in a country where women still aren't seen as strong on foreign policy as men (despite Madeline Albright's wonderful tenure).

But, I agree, overall with your post. Organization is a GOOD thing and, while it's too early to tell anything from any of the "polls" out there, it's far better to be overly organized than less so.

[imenja]

131. Hillary does best in preliminary polling

against possible Republicans. She does better than Kerry or Edwards against a variety of potential Republican nominees. Name recognition is a big part of early poll results, but Kerry has her level of name recognition.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

139. The "strong language" is but a euphemism.

[Clarkie1]

115. "Ever single person who ever thought of voting for Clark is on Du."

:rofl:

This thread is too funny!!!!!!!!

[imenja]

129. oooops. excommunication for me

You have to admit, the proportion of Clark supporters on this site, or voting in this and other polls, is exponentially higher than in the population at large.

[Clarkie1]

134. Do you have any evidence of that?

[imenja]

135. hmmm. The Democratic primaries?

remember them?

[Clarkie1]

143. Clark was one of the top vote-getters.

He had a lot of support. It was amazing that getting into the race late and skipping Iowa he managed to be in the top tier with Dean, Kerry, and Edwards.

[imenja]

147. Are we talking about the same election?

The one where Clark got 57 out of 2,162 delegates?


Look, I understand you like Clark very much. That's fine. But reinventing the past isn't really helpful. Clark did not do well in the primaries and he ran a weak campaign. Skipping Iowa was a clear demonstration of that. It sunk any hope he had as a candidate. I certainly wouldn't raise that in his defense. Maybe he's learned something about what is involved in running a campaign and will do better should he decide to run for a political office in the future. Hopefully he's taken some time to figure what his opinions on key domestic issues actually are.

[Clarkie1]

153. It is you who are reinventing the past.

Clark did amazingly well in the primaries, despite mistakes made in his campaign. He is the only candidate besides Kerry and Edwards who managed to win a state, for example. This issue has been covered before on other threads. I see no need to go into it again.

The future awaits.

[imenja]

158. The only one who did amazingly well was Kerry.

Edwards did well enough to win the VP nomination. None of the rest came close.

I don't consider 57 electoral votes amazingly well, not if the point is to actually win the presidency. If you want to make the point that he did well for someone who had no political experience, who had never run for office before, and made a series of blunders, okay. But this isn't about a child's performance in a school science fair, where a parent is proud of a child because she tried her very best.
We're talking about the presidency of the United States. If you don't win the nomination, or at least come somewhere close, you didn't do amazingly well.

I happened to support Howard Dean in the primary. I wouldn't for a second argue that he did well in the primary. He blew it, hugely so. And he won three times as many electoral votes as Clark did. So I'm not about to consider someone who earned far fewer votes a great campaign success. That doesn't mean that both of this men don't have admirable qualities. But neither of them ran performed well in 2004.

[imenja]

138. a recent Marist Poll puts Clark at 4%

DU support for Clark is more than ten times that level.


Marist College Poll. Feb. 14-16, 2005. Nationwide.

.

"If the 2008 Democratic presidential primary were held today, whom would you support if the candidates are ?" N=427 Democrats and Democratic leaners who are registered to vote; MoE ±
%
Hillary Clinton 39

John Kerry 21


John Edwards 15


Joe Biden 5


Wesley Clark 4


Russ Feingold 2


Bill Richardson 2


Evan Bayh 1


Mark Warner 1


Tom Vilsack -

Unsure 10


http://www.pollingreport.com/2008.htm

[Clarkie1]

140. Well...

Clinton, Kerry, and Edwards all have the most media attention and name recognition, obviously.

Most people don't follow political leaders as much as we do here on DU. They get most of their information from the mainstream media. Kerry and Edwards are still in everyones consciousness from the presidential race, and of course Hillary is a long-standing and very public figure.

So those results aren't really surprising. They also aren't very meaningful, in my opinion.

[imenja]

144. you asked for evidence

between that and the primary results, it's pretty clear. My point was simply that Clark support is higher here than in the country. Whether or not you think the population is inadequately informed, has poor taste doesn't refute the basic point about popularity.

Why limit yourself to a candidate years before anyone even declares? Clark may not even run. And it's just possible there may be someone better who throws his hat in the ring.

[Clarkie1]

145. Anything is possible.

But I think it's important to keep Clark's voice heard loudly and spread his message far and wide. Also, I think it is extremely unlikely a more qualified candidate will emerge to my liking.

There are a lot of potential candidates who have higher support here than the rest of the country. Feingold is a good example of that (I like Feingold a lot, by the way). The reason potential candidates like Feingold and Clark have more support here than in the general population is simply that Duers are typically more informed than the rest of the country. It's also why (in my opinion) the support for Hillary Clinton is so much lower here than the general population.

I don't think anyone is perfect, but Clark is the only candidate who has ever truly inspired me. Why I may like this politician or that politician, I am generally not inspired by them. Whether Clark runs or not, he will continue to be an important voice for the democratic party and may well be key to helping determine its future and its fate in 08'.

[imenja]

148. as you well know, one need not be well-informed to vote

so that really has nothing to do with a presidential election. If it did, Bush would not be president.

A good way to make sure your candidate does not win is to insist that those who prefer someone else are uninformed.

[Clarkie1]

149. A lot has to do with image.

Bush has a tough-guy, regular-guy, principled-guy image. It's all a bunch of huey, but it won him the election.

Kerry had a wishy-washy, undecisive, elitist image. It's all a bunch of huey, but it lost him the election.

And I do believe that Duers are generally more informed. I think the support for Feingold here (for example) reflects that. That is the only point I was trying to make.

[imenja]

152. my preferred candidate isn't even on the poll

which pisses me off. But there you are. It's early days anyway.

[Clarkie1]

156. I regret that.

If I were to post a poll like this (which I will not until after November 2006, if ever) I would make an effort to include the nine candidates with the most apparent support on DU, as will as "other."

DU polls only allow ten choices maximum.

I am sorry your preference is not on this poll.

[ZootSuitGringo]

151. When polls in 2005 dictate who our should run for Prez in 2007-08

We are in deep doo-doo. Polls are the tools of the corporate media. They push a name and watch it rise in the polls. It's an easy thing to do, and therefore, they do it. If we let polls determine what we should believe in, we would have all become fundamentalist Christians two days after the election.

All I can say is beware of forming opinions based on polls. That's what the powers-that-be want from us.

Here's hoping that DUers are way ahead of that game.

[imenja]

154. that may well be

and I think you're right. But Clarkie1 asked me to substantiate the point that DU support for Clark is exponentially higher than in the population at large. So I did. And I don't think DUers are ahead of that game. If that were the case, we wouldn't see polls like the one at the top of this thread.

[ZootSuitGringo]

159. The difference between DU polls and straight up corporate sponsored polls

are that DUers know more about the choices provided in these straw polls. In giving credit where credit is due, I have to think that DUers have had more exposure to Clark's position and his story, while many in the general public don't know him at all.

If one gets a poll call, and doesn't know Clark, they are not going to choose him. period. Since the MSM has not pushed Clark onto the general public (as they have other candidates that shall remain nameless for once), the manner in which he performs in corporate sponsored polls does not measure anything more than the mass knowledge of who he is.

Clark's issue is not that those polled don't want him; his problem is that many just don't know who he is, what he is about, and what he's accomplished.

If a poll had been conducted 10 years ago as to whether we should intervene in Rwanda, most people would have said no. However, if the systematic genocide going on there would have been fully explained to them, the poll probably would have flipped.

So, to that extent, I disagree with you. DUers are ahead of the mass political knowledge curve by far.

[imenja]

163. I don't know what any of that has to do with a presidential election

The point isn't who the most spiritually and politically enlightened people on earth are. The question is about who will be the nominee. The fact that Duers are more informed than the average voter doesn't mean they are any more likely to reflect a political future four years from now. Frankly, the entire exercise is absurd, no matter who does it. Moreover, it detracts from the serious work we as Democrats need to do to strengthen the party. If people really think the primary issue is figuring out who of this old stable is the best candidate, we are in big trouble. Which is exactly why I should have stuck with my previous resolution to avoid such discussions.

[incapsulated]

160. So was Dean, once

DU used to be Dean central, and he didn't win the real world, either.

If DU decided who would be the nominee, we would have had either Clark or Dean and everyone in the country would know who "Dennis" is.

No one is stopping supporters of other candidates voting or posting. I'm not about to apologize for the fact that Clark is popular on this site, and there aren't enough Clarkies here to explain away these poll results, other people are voting for him.

I'll use myself as an example. I'm a Clarkie and I don't even vote in these polls because I think they are dumb.

[imenja]

162. I'm not suggesting you should apologize

I merely remarked that Clark is much more popular here than in the general population. The rest of the posts ensued from those determined to convince me I was wrong about that.

[incapsulated]

165. Well..

It sounded like a complaint, the way you phrased it.

I can assure you the majority of Clark supporters in the country are not on DU by any stretch. Hell, most of them don't know it exists and don't even post on his own blog. When his new PAC/Blog site went up, they where coming out all over, people most of us "hardcore" either forgot or didn't know existed. They certainly weren't posting here.

My point was you can say that about anyone who is popular here. We don't represent the average Democrat, let alone the average american, either in regards to who we supported or anything else.

By the time the primaries roll around, we could be saying that Feingold supporters are over-represented on DU.

:shrug:

[imenja]

166. it was merely an observation, not a complaint

I have no particular like or dislike of Clark. I support candidates when the time comes to choose one, but in general I'm more concerned with issues than individual politicians. I supported one Democrat in the 2004 primary, Kerry in the general election, and I'll make choices about future races when the time comes. In the meantime, my priority is reforming the party to make it more responsive to the interests of ordinary Americans.

[Tom Rinaldo]

172. I admit that. No problem n/t

[ZootSuitGringo]

79. I supported Kerry last go round, but that was because I tuned in

late during the primaries, and didn't hear enough about Clark to know much about him.

Next time round though, if Clark runs, he'll be da man. He's got the guts, the aptitute (doesn't take any shit), the gravitas, and the honesty needed to restore this country to what it could be. Plus the man is southern, a general, a winner at wars (and the 2006 and 2008 elections will be wars) and the media don't seem to want him (proof to me that he's got the creds needed to win), and not a true pol.

It's ironic that, according to that Pew poll, Dean supporters would rather support an Edwards or a Clinton. Both voted for the IWR, the very thing that, because Dean opposed it, helped him garnet support. I find no logic in that, but maybe that's because there is none. It would seem that they would support a Feingold or Clark before supporting Edwards and H. Clinton.

[Clark Bayh 2008]

176. Couldn't say it any better.... do we want to win, or make statements?

[ncteechur]

81. Until they get some balls, I don't want ANYONE currently in office.

For that reason, I'll take Wes C.lark or Dean. As far as I'm concerned, NONE of the rest of them--anyone currently in Congress deserves the nomination. They have no passion, no cohones, no reason for anyone to vote or fight for them because currently they are not fighting for us.

[ncteechur]

82. Until they get some balls, I don't want ANYONE currently in office.

For that reason, I'll take Wes C.lark or Dean. As far as I'm concerned, NONE of the rest of them--anyone currently in Congress deserves the nomination. They have no passion, no cohones, no reason for anyone to vote or fight for them because currently they are not fighting for us.

[LimpingLib]

84. Is that your words or the medias?

Not that I care but Feingold was the lone voice against the Patriot Act.

Infact he has more balls than most on DU.

I heave heard many say things like "He got lucky winning his re-election but his vote against the Patriot Act makes him un-electable".

Id go to battle with half of Feingolds left nut over all the nuts of the others combined.

Im not trying to start a fight....... but honestly.

EDIT Not that I care about my fellow schmucks views (and you shouldnt get all worked up over my views either) , I very much care about civil libertys. Infact Feingold is such an easy choice in the primary that I almost cant imagine an election where the differences are so clear.

[ncteechur]

86. They are my words. I haven't seen anything lately.

Let's face it. We don't have a majority in either the House or the Senate. We are down 5-4 in the Supreme Court, and we don't have the White House. Have we lost our collective voices, too. Can the DC dems not get on the same page and speak out collectively with some force that makes the country stand up and take notice? A few guerilla tactics are not out of bounds here and there. Why should moderates come to the democratic party? What do we ARTICULATE that we offer? Since the election, we haven't articulated anything.

[LimpingLib]

87. I agree on congress.Its sad but we need a top down magic bullet.

Feingold ran a grassroots campaign in 1992 against 2 millionaires in the Democratic primary. He wasnt supposed to win the primary not by a long shot.He want supposed to beat the 2 term GOP Senator but he did 53%-47%.

Sunday morning November of 1998 , Feingold was the only Democratic incumbent who ALL 4 of Tim Russerts MTP guest analysts predicted to go down to defeat.He won against an ultra tough GOP congressman Mark Neuman 50%-48% despite being outspent by a wide margin. Feingold even limited his own cmpaign spending to make a point.Unilateral disarmament.

In 2004 , he was again a juicy target due to his lone votes against several major pieces of legislation.He won a landslide.Kerry won by like 1/10 of 1% however.

Feingold would be a top down solution which I dont like but we need to make a big lead above the elites (elites sadly include "liberal" weblogs IMO), so if we do a leap frog then at least its with a grassroots warrior.

[Clarkie1]

88. I like Feingold.

I'm watching him on C-span archives right now (just got done watching Clark).

The reality is, nominating a senator in 08' would put us at a handicap from the beginning. If the GOP are foolish enough to nominate a senator, great. But there is no reason we should not be more politically smart than the GOP.

I think Feingold would be a good VP choice. That's the best path to the presidency for him if it's what he wants.

There were several call-ins on the Clark C-Span segment from today from voters explaining why they could not support Kerry. Swift boat ads and throwing away of medals were cited. All of these callers said they would have voted for Clark. My impression is not none of those callers are likely to vote for another "liberal democratic senator" if that's what we put forward in 08'.

In my opinion, those callers are representive of a part of America we need to reach. They respect decisiveness, leadership, straight talk, service, and patriotism. They can be inspired by what they perceive as decisive and principled leadership, even when it comes from someone as misguided as Bush. They are distrustful of and uninspired by politicians, especially career politicians.

It may not be fair to supporters of senate canidates for president, but that IS the political reality.

[LimpingLib]

91. Let me correct myself a bit on 1998 Senate elections.

1998 was looking to be a horrendous year for progressive politics especially in the Senate.It looked like we were going to loose the Senates mot progressive members.

Dale Bumpers was retiring and was replaced as expected by the lousey Blanche Lincoln.Many leading moderate Democrats were elected that year as expected (Schumer, Bahy , Edwards)and progressives like Boxer , Dorgan , Feingold, Reid ,Mosley-Braun and others were up for tough re elections.

Harry Reid and Feingold were clearly going to loose IMO and almost everybody elses.On Meet The Press, all 4 expert guests also predicted Harry Reid would loose and no analysis lesewhere gave him a chance.

Thanks to the huge national backlash against the GOP both Reid and Feingold won. Feingold beat Neuman by 2% and Reid won the closest Senate election of the past 10 years against Ensign.

Dorgan won by a 2-1 margin.Boxer stunned everybody by winning by nearly 10 points.

Only Mosley-Braun lost.Bumpers was also a huge loss. He was the last liberal from the South.

[TriMetFan]

89. I voted for Kerry in 04

But hope that Wes Clark runs 08 so I can vote for him. He seams like a man of honor.

[Placebo]

90. DU has become a Hate Hillary hub.

How sad.

[ZootSuitGringo]

95. Or maybe

the "Tired of fucking losing" Hub? It's possible you know.

[Placebo]

142. whatever

she's going to be our nominee in 2008. it's hers for the taking. deal with it.

[ZootSuitGringo]

155. Please, authoritarianism is passe.

Just because you speak with authority, doesn't mean that your crystal ball is any clearer than mine.

I'll concede that you may be right, Hillary may end up being our nominee (thank you very much Corporate media), but that doesn't translate in her being our next President--and that is where the problem lies.

[NoPasaran]

97. Yeah, 2008 is going to be pretty miserable

If the crowd who takes their perceptions from hate radio doesn't pull their heads out of their asses between now and then.

[Cuban_Liberal]

100. Clark will win any POTUS poll in which he is mentioned.

Fact of life at DU.

[Capn Sunshine]

178. They have a very organized and active DU base

so good on them.
But how it helps/hurts to "win" these polls is of course, dubious.

[Tom Rinaldo]

184. Clark supporters rarely start these polls

I agree that their value is dubious, especially at a place like DU where gaining name recognition is not a concern. But yes, we do show up for the game if some one else calls it, lol.

I prefer discussion threads personally to these horse races.

[Larkspur]

102. I voted for Russ Feingold but support a Feingold/Dean ticket in '08

I would have voted for Howard Dean but he has already removed himself from the '08 primary run. There's no way I'll support Kerry, Clinton, Kucinich, or Clark in '08.

[Freddie Stubbs]

103. If past DU polls are any indication

Clark and Feingold don't stand a chance. Back in 2003 and 2004 these polls were usually dominated by Clark, Kucinich, and Dean.

[Clark Bar]

108. Wes Clark is my choice for President in 2008!

Could anyone explain why there are so many supporters of Wes Clark on DU? I wasn't recruited by Clarkies to come here and vote in these straw polls. Wes appears to be a man of principle,wit, and intelligence. "We don't need no stinking Eastern Senator"to run in 2008.....Peace be with you!

[CJCRANE]

185. Well said..

I agree, I don't think there's any organized "Clarking" of polls on DU.

I usually vote for Clark on these things and I'm not a member of any pro-Clark group inside or outside DU.

[LimpingLib]

117. Dean impressed a demoralized base with his questioning part of the war.

That made him stand out.

Kucinich seemed like a flip flopping little twirp and Clark came along near the tail end of the McCain craze when it was fizzling out with the left.

The "liberal" blogs that endorced John McCain in 2000 (MYDD,KOS,etc.) were all over Dean but hedged their bet the whole way with strong draft Clark drives LONG before the General decided to run. KOS even outlawed anybody bashing Dean or Clark then the 2 went after each other in the primary LOLLLLLLLLLLL.

Feingold is a unique candidate , with no support whatsoever among Washington insiders. He doesnt come across as insincere plus he debates calmly yet is decisive in his views.

Kucinich flipped on abortion then went around acting all goofey shouting in forums (like infront of a lesbian and homosexual forum the candidates attended)"I will appoint any GLBT just AS LONG AS THEY AGREE TO NOT OVERTURN ROE V WADE!!!".

Deans insincerity caught up with him.His hollow progressive persona and image was a fascade and he needed to overcompensate in the Deocratic primary but saying foolish things that werent wise at all.

Feingold is 180 different from Dean and Clark in issue positions and 180 different from Kucinich in a number of ways (not so much issue views however as the others).

Ill informed people will compare Feingold to "sitting Senators" syndrome but Feingold is NOTHING like any other Senator.US Senators are the most carbon copied group there is and that is why they tend to not do so well.People dont understand how corrupt and compromised you have to be 90% of the time to be a Senator especially a Presidential favorite. Feingold doesnt fit the mold at all. Comparing him to Dole or others is just plain rediculous.

[kentuck]

106. I think Feingold and Clark would be a helluva team !

I intentionally put Feingold first. :)

[im10ashus]

109. Isn't it too early for this talk?

I mean, let us focus on the 2006 races where we can take back some seats and THEN focus on 2008.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

110. Boxer or Kucinich.

[ZootSuitGringo]

111. Well here's my answer to that suggestion.

Cause although both are nice thoughtful patriotic liberals,

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1708711&mesg_id=1709974

[LimpingLib]

116. Im shocked 6 out of 10 on DU are rejecting Wes Clark.

A month or so ago not even 2 out of 10 would have.

This is just a straw poll mind you but its really telling us something.

Even more shocking (as if the former wasnt impressive enough)is the grassroots warrior Russ Feingold seems to be building strong support among the typical netroots folk this early.

This poll must be an aberration among the webroots which is a conglomeration of elite party insiders, social liberal 1 issue voters , coastal and citie elite , outsiders, populists, activists , conservatives , moderates ,liberals, etc.

Feingold does much better among the center left populist plurality in the nation which is underrepresented on DU and other liberal sites but still a party to the community.

Again , just 1 straw poll but if Feingold can get even 1/10th of the established candidates total then he is in a strong position for the nomination with his strong outsider base and sincere issue positions.

[Tom Rinaldo]

118. 44% for Clark has been standard at DU WHEN...

... a viable alternative grass roots attractive candidate is in play here also. There are a lot of attractive things about Feingold, especially for progressives. I certainly like Feingold though I continue to strongly support Clark and think Clark would make a stronger candidate against the Republicans. Dean has not been fully in the 2008 mix for some time for obvious reasons. With Dean out and before people started giving Feingold a good look, sure, Clark began pulling in well over 50% at DU for awhile (never close to 80% though!)

I think however you are reaching for your conclusion somewhat with your criteria about what it would take to put Feingold in a strong position for the nomination. I agree however that it might be enough to make Feingold a viable candidate, and from that point on, there are too many variables to see clearly through the crystal ball.

[LimpingLib]

121. Most people who say Clark would be a strong candidate....

....havnt demonstrated to me that they know even the slightest about the 50 states respective political climates.

I have studied districts and average voters for years and TRUST YOU ME , Clark would not be a good candidate.

Especially when it comes to healing our partys horrible image with the 50% of the nation that does not vote.


I suppose he would do roughly the same as any candidate since 1988 (around 46% of the vote or slightly more)but we cant just sit on the ball and run out the clock. We need to move forward.We arent ahead and what makes matters much worse is that we are in danger of loosing alot of what we have.

[Tom Rinaldo]

124. Nothing personal, I don't know you and you don't know me

but no, I will not simply "trust you". We disagree. Happens all the times, even at the highest levels of expertise on any and all matters. It's not like I haven't paid attention to politics in this country over the last 45 years. I would say more but I am going to bed. Maybe tomorrow. No disrespect meant.

[LimpingLib]

125. Im not part of the eco chamber so dont worry about me.

And I forgot to add that if McCain is the GOP nominee then Clark will get 42%-25% max.

Otherwise he will get 46%-48%.

But national numbers arent the issue and there are many other far reaching dynamics at play in the Democratic party by 2008.

[imenja]

132. rejecting? It's a poll asking about preferred candidates

I find it amazing how much popularity Clark has on DU compared to in the population at large.

[Clark Bayh 2008]

174. How does RF convince anyone ...

that he is the abler commander in chief in a debate against McCain or Giuliani? We deserve to lose.

[LSdemocrat]

119. My order: Dean, Clark, Clinton, Feingold, anyone else, then Kerry

[Mass]

122. Why is Feingold so low in you list??

Any specific reason or is it just that you dont know him?

[LSdemocrat]

123. He seems too idealistic to be a highly effective presidential candidate

While he has been a strong candidate in Wisconsin, he has also shown than at times he is too much of an idealist.

Every successful modern Presidential candidate unfortunately needs to be willing to fight fire with fire, especially since we know that the Republicans fight incredibly dirty. Feingold, sadly enough, strikes me as too clean a campaigner to put up against the national Republican machine.

This unwillingness to get in the mud has been a problem for candidates such as Dukakis and Kerry in the general election and Bill Bradley in the primary.

[kevsand]

126. That's an interesting point.

Do you think it applied to folks like McCarthy or McGovern or Muskie, too? Or even Jimmy Carter, for that matter. Is it the old "We're the good guys" syndrome?

[LSdemocrat]

127. Those candidates (I think) lost for different reasons

From what I can tell the Eagleton/VP mess is what really hindered McGovern's chances.

McCarthy was essentially a lost cause once Bobby Kennedy entered the race and started winning primaries. Many of Bobby's supporters really didn't care much for McCarthy, which is one reason Bobby ran in the first place.

I honestly don't know much about Muskie (I'm actually only 24), but the media as far as I can tell made out to look like that Muskie couldn't handle the heat of a presidential campaign.

[nickshepDEM]

130. Governor Mark Warner, period. I wanna' win in 2008.

However, I would settle for Sen. Evan Bayh or Gov. Ed Rendell.

[ZootSuitGringo]

146. Please tell us what makes Bayh and Warner so SPECIAL

In your book. What's your criteria to being able to win an election? What will be the issues, and what magic bullet do those two have?

Thanks in advance for your answer.

[nickshepDEM]

168. Warner and Bayh...

The case for Evan Bayh – ‘electability’

Bayh’s Indiana base

My reason for selecting Bayh is that he is a bona fide centrist Democrat, who is ideologically a moderate liberal populist. I feel that Bayh would be a strong Democratic candidate in that he has successfully, won five statewide races in the ‘deep red’ state of Indiana. According to the CNN exit poll, in his senate race last fall, Bayh enjoyed the support of 35% of Indiana’s Republicans and 37% of her conservatives; thus, confirming that Bayh commands much bi-partisan and cross-ideological appeal. Bayh also commands overwhelming support from Indiana’s ideological moderates and independents. Being a successful Democrat in Indiana, proves he has 'electibility'

*A recent Indy Star poll showed:
-69% of Indiana residents believe Evan Bayh has the experience and qualities to make a good president.
-49% of Indiana residents are very likely to vote for Evan Bayh in 2008 if he decides to run for President. 33% are not likely and 18% undecided. Judging by this poll he is in great shape to carry Indiana.
-Bayh currently has a 70% approval rating in Indiana. Only two points behind Republican Senator Richard Lugar.


Disadvantages?

There are two downsides to Bayh’s candidacy. Firstly, Bayh lacks charisma and secondly, incumbent senators don’t tend to be elected president.

However, while Bayh lacks charisma, his common sense approach could be a winner and something tells me that Bayh will be a ‘buck stops here’ president – a governing principle, which explains why he voted against confirming Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State <“Those in charge need to be held accountable for mistakes”> – and besides after another four years of Bush’s own and congressional excesses, the electorate may be in the mood for a president, who is a cautious, moderately progressive pragmatist, governing from the ideological centre in the interests of the nation and beyond the parameters of left and right. While lacking charisma, he is certainly telegenic. Charisma is arguably an innate quality, some have it while others don’t – but even then it’s relative, some think George W Bush has it, others don’t. Besides isn’t it more important to have a proven record of responsibility and competence in governance, than to be charismatic?

As for the ‘handicap’ of being an incumbent senator, Bayh was a successful two-term governor of Indiana and can run on a competent executive record, as well as that of a legislator. As governor, Bayh was consistently popular, with approval ratings approaching 80% and he met challenges such as the rising costs of Medicaid, the need for more prisons and getting Indiana through a recession without a tax hike, all while balancing the budget

Before John Kerry selected John Edwards as his 2004 running mate, Republican pollster Frank Lutz was asked by a TV network to test the appeal of seven potential running mates. Luntz read a description and played a video clip of each Democrat to a group of swing voters and the voters liked the Indiana senator best. Luntz commented, “I think he would make an incredible candidate. I think he has the attributes that will appeal to swing voters that John Kerry lost this time. A centrist approach. A positive outlook. A gentle demeanour”

Now having selected Bayh – it’s time to devise a strategy

Bayh needs to raise his profile by identifying a couple of issues in the Senate that matter to him and become a national spokesperson on them. Bayh has proved he can raise money. He had in excess of $7 million in campaign funds as at 13 October 2004, the third most of any senator. Bayh needs to court state Democratic parties across the length and breadth of America in preparation for the caucuses and primaries, in event of a higher profile candidate such as Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York emerging. She herself is gravitating to the political centre and reaching out for the ‘common ground’ but isn’t Bayh the more genuine article?

Should Bayh run and be successfully be nominated as the Democratic presidential nominee, I think both Mark Warner and Bill Richardson would bring advantages to the ticket. Warner is a moderate southerner, as opposed to a liberal southerner, like Edwards (nominating a southerner to the ticket proves the Democratic Party hasn’t forgotten the south) and Richardson for his experience and his appeal to Hispanic voters in the southwest

The results of the 2004 election with critical states such as Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin (holdovers from 2000); together with New Hampshire mean that these states will be battleground states come 2008. The consequence of having so many contested elections in blue states puts the Democratic Party in the position of a football team playing most of the game on defence within its own half of the playing field. Even with a good defence, the GOP is going to score (as they did in New Mexico and Iowa last fall). In sum come 2008, Bayh should compete in Republican turf to avoid the GOP polarising the election. Since there are more conservatives (34%) than liberals (21%) – a polarised election almost certainly guarantees a GOP victory

The Mid West

Bayh could potentially bag the ‘critical’ Mid West and his campaign should focus on Iowa, Missouri and Ohio (states that would be well within his grasp). Bayh should win his home state of Indiana – but it will be no easy feat. Granted, I doubt that he will secure the support of 35% of her Republicans and 37% of her conservatives, but he should receive enough support from independents and moderates to see him cross the finish line

Bayh can’t afford to neglect the states of Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin and will need to visit to rally the base. He has the homeboy regional advantage, which Kerry lacked, and should receive a greater proportion of moderate voters and a more significant share of conservative voters than the liberal Kerry did

The only state in the region that may be out of his grasp is Kentucky. Clinton won it twice – but with Perot running as a relatively strong third candidate. However, being a moderate from Indiana, gives Bayh a good outside chance bearing in mind over 1 in 4 Kentucky Democrats voted for Bush

The South

I’d advise Bayh to focus on the three states of Arkansas, Florida and Louisiana; while testing the waters in Virginia, North Carolina and Tennessee. With Warner on the ticket, I think Bayh can compete in those three states, as well as West Virginia (technically, not the South but culturally similar). A staggering 30% of West Virginia’s Democrats voted for the hard-core conservative Bush over the libertarian-leaning liberal, Kerry – and in a state, which voted for his fellow Massachusetian Michael Dukasis back in 1988

The North East and Pacific West

In respect of the North East and Pacific West, Bayh should hold rallies to rally the base. He’d need to pay particular attention to Oregon and Pennsylvania and his moderate stance on social issues will make him highly competitive in West Virginia, as well as consolidating his position in Pennsylvania. New Hampshire will be a tough fight and he’ll need to spend time in New Jersey

Elsewhere, Bayh should campaign heavily in Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico (states well within his reach). Richardson on the ticket is sure to shore up the Hispanic vote, which could make Bayh competitive in Arizona

Give’ em a miss, Evan!

States where Bayh has no chance are primarily in the Deep South (Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina and Texas), the Rocky Mountains (Idaho, Utah and Wyoming) and the Great Plains (North Dakota, Kansas, Nebraska and Oklahoma). Bayh should test the waters in Montana and South Dakota but if they fail to bite early, drop them

Conclusions

The surprising thing about the 2004 election is that the 28 states with the lowest average per capita income, 26 voted against their economic interests and supported Bush. Many of these states should be within reach for Democratic Party, especially with Bayh having a socially moderate record, which he should successfully incorporate into his campaign message

Bayh’s overall strategy should be to move the Democratic Party towards the ideological and geographical centre by emphasising national security, economic growth, fiscal discipline and by making government accountable, and then by showing that the she is in tune with middle American values. There, I’ve said it, “values”. Given the saliency of values as an electoral issue in the 2004 election, it is something the Democratic Party can’t afford to neglect if she is once again to become the majority party. Social justice and economic fairness are moral issues. The natural party of progress should embrace the social gospel because right-wing fundamentalism emerged partly in reaction to it and by doing so, and by stressing Christ's outreach, they can compete for the hearts and minds of the faithful

The lesson to learn about 2004 is that 11% of Democrats nationally supported George W Bush. This cost Kerry victory in several states most notably Ohio, Nevada, Iowa and New Mexico.

An almost identical case can be made for Governor Mark Warner (w/ a few exceptions). And as a bonus...


*Warner has never been a senator.
*Warner has an "A" rating from the NRA.
*Warner is on the right side of the illegal immigration issue, which will be a huge issue in 2008, IMO. He recently signed a bill that denies all ILLEGAL aliens state benefits.
*The suburban and rural voters that John Kerry failed to win in 2004 are the same type of voters that pushed Governor Warner over the top in his 2001 Gubernatorial race.

A list of Warners Accomplishments in case you were intrested...

-Chairman of the Nat'l Governors Association
-Chairman of the Souther Governors Association
-"Navigated Virginia through a $6 billion revenue shortfall, and making choices and investments in education from pre-school to graduate school to create a Commonwealth of opportunity for all."
-"Education for a Lifetime." The pre-school through grad school and beyond into workforce training measures are designed to move students another rung up the ladder of educational achievement, demonstrating the linkage between degrees and other markers of academic achievement and economic prosperity. The Governor also committed to fully funding the $525 million needed to re-benchmark the Standards of Quality for K-12 education, as established by the State Board of Education."
-"Governor Warner has also brought common sense business principles to the way the state purchases goods and services, manages its vehicle fleet and real estate holdings, and maintains information technology functions, with an appropriate emphasis on including those who own small, women- and minority-owned businesses."
-"Governor Warner is working hard to build a foundation to bring economic prosperity to all corners of Virginia. Economic development and job creation are top priorities for Governor Warner. Since January 2002, during difficult economic times, he has helped recruit more than 100,000 jobs and $9.5 billion in new investment in every region of Virginia."
-"He helped found the Virginia Health Care Foundation, which has provided health care to more than 476,000 underserved Virginians in rural and urban areas."
-" In 1997, he developed the Virginia High-Tech Partnership, which helps students from Virginia's five Historically Black Colleges and Universities pursue technology careers through a summer internship and job placement program."
-"Provided the largest increase in education funding in Virginia history."
-"Increased the personal income tax exemption and standard deduction enabling 140,000 to no longer have to file any state income tax, and will cut the food tax from 4% to 2.5 %
in July, 2005."

Read more about Governor Warner here:
http://www.governor.virginia.gov/Governor/GovBioHome.html
http://www.draftmarkwarner.com/Warner2008.pdf

I respect the fact that you are Clark supporter. Personally I like Clark, too. If he receives the nomination I will support him as enthusiastically as I would Bayh or Warner. He just isnt my first preference for the primary.

[Clark Bayh 2008]

175. Bayh as VP can carry Indiana with 11 EV

Warner's delusional. Zero foreign policy or military profile.

[illbill]

150. Joe Biden!

The only man who has the balls to speak his mind while at the same time having years of experience.

[ZootSuitGringo]

157. I f only he had a mind, I would agree.

Just like he plagerized words in his last bid, these days, he just plagerizes whatever the popular opinion seems to be at any given time, on any given issue.

Again, Biden is a legend in his own mind. He reminds me of a snake oil salesman--more interested in his reflection than reflecting on what his job is supposed to be--serving his nation.

I don't think Biden will be getting a lot of primary votes. Another New England senator, this time with bleached cap teeth and visible hair plugs, will not be moving into the White House in 2008, IMO.

"I like you, I really like you. You are one of the good guys!"--Joseph Biden

PS: Listen to Randi Rhodes' program when you have a chance to understand this Biden quote.

[LittleClarkie]

161. I just wish he'd VOTE his mind

after speaking it.

[Dees]

164. Any current Dem governors look promising?...n/t

[jfern]

167. None of those are bad

Although I think we can rule out Dean, as he won't be running.
I voted Feingold.

[Zhade]

180. Wow, DU really DOES have a lot of Clark fans.

I didn't know it was that widespread.

For my money, btw, Feingold, with Dean in second.

And the caveat: WAY too early.

[zulchzulu]

187. Gosh, why isn't Lieberman in the straw poll?

Hmmm...now that's scary.