Can anybody candidate beat McCain (Electoral College discussion)?

[LimpingLib]

I doubt any can beat him in the popular vote , but in the electoral college think a progressive can perhaps eek out a win. The trick is to appeal to those left out of the process and those who have never had a good reason to vote.Includes poor whites and minoritys.You also have issue positions that avoid ticking off social conservative voters as much as possible.

Im just going to do a quick state by state analysis.Feel free to correct me on a state by state basis.

Before I begin , lets remember what choices we Democrats will have in an ideal primary (granted many primarys short change us on progressive candidates).This primary will have the usual assortment of typical social liberals, foreign policy elites , DLC compatible economic "moderates" , etc. We have a genuine progressive possibly running (Ill call him candidate Canidate A for the rest of this discussion since we need to strip personnalitys from this discussion and focous more on issues)who is a skilled campaigner and represents those who have never had a reason to vote. He also is a staunch civil libetarian which will appeal to average conservatives as much as or more than liberals.His Pro Choice abortion stance wont hurt him among conservatives (even those who hate abortion) because they know the government shouldnt be collecting medical information on which girl happens to be pregnant and compiling it all in a national data base. The conservatives will understand that in the context of civil libertys, Candidate A is a consistant Pro Liberty candidate.Nobody wants police in the operating room.The government need to be stripped of powers not enpowered.We need privacy rights not just on medical issues but across the board.

This election also has some typical Foreign Policy elites with no concern for civil libertys whatsoever. I wont name anybody but I was on DailyKos reading comments and not one but SEVERAL Progressives from states like Michigan and Pennsylvania were posting comments on potential 2008 Presidential candidates.They were discussing a southern candidate from 2004 and they said they were considering supportig him till he started saying how he supported abortion through the 9th month.They couldnt beleive what a stupid comment that was depite the fact that they were Pro Choice.Ill call that Candidate X just to use for an example.

True candidate A is also staunchly Pro Choice , infact heis more so than any other Senator. He is so commited to civil libertys that he opposes amendments other staunch Pro Choicers support like "health exceptions" to allow abortion bans. He understands that any ban on abortion will put the FBI into the operating room and our privacy even more than it already is.He in short opposes ALL bans on aborion.

Then what is the difference between Candidate A and Candidate X? One supports civil libertys NO EXCEPTIONS(Candidate A). The other (the southerner we will call Candidate X)is not a civil libertarian at all but is simply Pro Abortion in voters minds.

Candidate A is however a genuine progressive and one who knows how boldly present his vision and strong held views to conservative voters.

Anyway , while this primary will have much of the same, we might just have some ideal choices thrown in with the same old stuff.

ELECTORAL COLLEGE (feel free to post your own outlines)

WASHINGTON (state)
A progressive civic minded state that Kerry made a safe Democratic state due to the appeal voters have at more progressive Democratic candidates.

Bother A and X can beat McCain , though A will easily do so.

OREGON
Kerry made a hugh leap over Al Gore, see Washingtons review as both states are similar.A beats McCain , X might not be able too.

MONTANA
One of the very few (aside from Colorado) mountain/plain states that the Democrats didnt get blown away in 2004 by a much wider margin than the already wide margin blowouts of 2000.Most dont understand that Montana is a liberal state(liberal on economic issues,libertarian on social issues).Its in the wilderness right now but once we slat the DLC, Montana might be in play.Clinton won it in 1992 but by 1996 Montana grew sick of the new Democratic party platform.Liberal at large congressman Pat Williams steped down in 1996 and after that all Montana voters had left to vote for was Clintons charm.They rejected it in 1996 despite Democrats getting their highest national vote total since 1964 (excluding Carters 1976 win). Al Gore lost Montana by 24 points in 2000 , an amazing DLC turnaround story for a state that progressives and Democrats used to win.Kerry turned things around and reduced the loss to just 20 points
despite the horrible national climate and loosing every other state in the region by 40-50 points.Candidate A makes this one close, candidate X looses badly.

COLORADO
Kerry outperformed both Cinton and Gore in this state (political attitudes are somewhat like Montana in this state, but this state is a mix of minoritys , social conservatives, white progressives , and libertarians)and matched Dukakis who had the highest Democratic vote margin in the last 25+ years inthis state.Candidate A has a 50-50 shot at winning this state (McCain probabily takes it) and even if it is lost , Canidate A makes this state a hotbed of progressive populist energy that will help the party for decades to come.X looses this state and hurts the party for decades to come.

NEVADA

McCain takes it but not without a fight by Candidate A. Post McCain , its ours.

NEW MEXICO

60% of this state is Hispanic or Indian. Candidate A beats McCain , X looses.DLC is the only thing standing in DEmocrats way in this state. Its the Democratic party verses itself in this state (and many others where we are our own worst enemy).

ARIZONA

Candidate A makes it close if somebody other than McCain is the nominee.Candidate A makes this state ripe for converts to the Democratic party and new voters warm to our issues which is a part of their cause

ARKANSAS

A Rockefellar Governor could help fellow anti-civil liberty military extremist McCain in this state.Regardless of whether X is home grown or not, open support for abortion through the 9th month (outside the context of complete civil liberty protection on a whole host of issues relative to a persons life), support for assault weapon bans, and disregard for average economic concerns of a heavy conservative Christian population, etc. will hurt us in this populist state in a fatal way.

MISSOURI

Only a genuine populist progressive can compte in this heavy Christian state. Unions , God , Jobs , Guns are all there is in this states political lexicon.

MINNSOTA

Kerrys progressive turn from Clinton Gore gave Democrats their best performance since Dukakis.Candidate A could help make this state to Democrats what is once was before the DLC.This state was slipping from Democrats hands , and anything short of a genuine progressive populists will do damage to Democrats the GOP could only dream of.

WISCONSIN
Candidate A was heavily targeted in his home state but all the attention and energy the right wing put into smearing him in effect oonly managed to help Cadidate A project his staunch progressive populist vision onto Kerry and the superimposition brought Kerry back from being far behind into winning.One of the few states that went in Kerrys direction , most swung to Bush beyond what public opinion polls stated. Candidate A is the Democratic party in Wisconsin IMO.REject leaders like him and the right wing is waitting in the wings to take this state over. Its a tug of war

MICHIGAN and PENNSYLVANIA

2 states that could wither lag behind at near 50-50 status or explode forward into being heavily Democratic states.The opportunity Candidate A offers the party is immeasurable in these 2 states. Additionaly,Candidate X could actually cost us this state with his irresponsible abortion comments the GOP has on record.Red meat thrown at a base that didnt even think it was wise to chew up and swallow.

VIRGINIA

McCain will walk all over eithr candidate.

OHIO

McCain will easily win but this state is similar to Michigan and Pennsylvania only more conservative. Candidate A is a golden opportunity.

IOWA

Either candidate A or X will crush McCain in this progressive state where McCain is hated and steal one from the GOP.

DELAWARE , CONNETICUIT , NEW JERSEY

Very liberal on abortion but pro corperation , pro war states.Kerry slipped in these states as well as Maryland, Mass, and Rhode Island.Democrats have been winning by at least 8 and as many as 15 points in these 3 states but a progressive nominee can and will hurt us.Candidate A (which does refer to Feingold , but could mean others who are progressive)might just loose these states to even somebody like Bush but could very well loose to Guiliani and McCain. Candidate X would do much better than Candidate A in these states.

MARYLAND
While the pro corperation , pro corperate welfare, pro military white elite in this state will be apprehensive at a genuine progressive the rest of the state is made up of minoritys and progressive polulists and so Candidate A can survive this state and maybe even help reform the Democratic party here.Candidate X will walk all over any GOP nominee but McCain or Guiliani.

VERMONT

Gore only won with 51% in 2000 but Kerrys more progressive stances got nearly 60% in 2004.Some social conservatives exist in this state like Maine , but are insignificant on a statewide level.

MAINE

Maine bucked the general trend in the North East and Democrats imporved their lot in this state. Gores slippery 49% win turned into a 56% Kerry win.This civic minded state matches Oregon , Washington states, and Vermont in many important ways. Candidate X might be able to win but we need Candidate A to help the party clean up its creeping DLC lurch plus help get rid of the GOP Senators for good.

NEW HAMPSHIRE

Candidate X will loose to McCain for certain and I suspect Candidate A will as well. Kerry took this state back for us but we will loose it in 2008 unless the GOP nominates a right winger.A GOP candidate evenly percieved to be slightly moderate easily wins here.

I left out Florida because I cant really get a grasp on that state.

Anybody else want to give their analysis?

[Politicub]

1. Yes

More of the McCain mythology. His record doesn't hold up to even to the most minimal amount of scrutiny.

[LimpingLib]

3. He will be tough to beat

I agree he isnt very "moderate" infact I have been one of the ealy whistle blowers on him

However he will be tough as shit to beat.

[Gyre]

2. I don't think they'll give it to McCain.

He's not one of them. He's a toady, but not cut from the same cloth as chimp. I don't think the repubes have a great deal of confidence that they can control him enough to give him the nom.

Gyre

[serryjw]

4. I agree

He is not one of them and he will be too old.

[LimpingLib]

6. McCain responded to Woodruff saying.

"I have a 22 year Pro Life voting record but I hope they (right wing twirp)get over CFR soon(laughs)"

Most Republicans will support McCain when they see his reocrd.

He laid out plan in 2000 to bomb Srria, Lybia, Iran , Iraq when Bush was just an "isolationist" (Wes Clarks reason for not backing the GOP anymore in December of 2000)back then.

My how everybody has changed except the rock solid McCain who DOES have core principles despite all his media posturing.

[ReadTomPaine]

18. Yes. He's way off the reservation. Out on a horse somewhere in woods.

They would rather see Lieberman get the nomination.

[autorank]

5. When he votes against "the nuke", he's officially toast. If he ever

wins the nomination, he'll be flanked on the right by a third party. If he hangs in there and wins the nomination, he'll be so frazzled, he will make a number of major mis steps with his snide humor. I'm sure there are any number of people who can win but can they get the nomination. Besides, he's a war supporter. How will he explain that when a) the story of all the Desert Storm troops in disability rises to the top and the new stories start about Iraq...depleted uranium, the emerging scandal. That's the one that makes us a peaceful nation. Total betrayal of our troops, total.

[Cats Against Frist]

11. That's what I was going to say -- I'm not worried about Mayor Blinky

either (Guiliani) -- There's no way that they can elect a moderate -- the base of the party are total whackjobs, and the more extreme ones, IMHO, would make a run for the exits -- they have to play to the delusionals and reactionaries.

[New Dealer]

7. McCain can only be beaten in the primaries I think

He's angered many hardcore Republicans by daring to oppose Bush and congress on minor issues. However, if they are smart (yeah, right), they will choose McCain because he has a lot of respect and positions himself as more of a moderate, even though he isn't.

[ISUGRADIA]

8. The Iowa Comment

"Either candidate A or X will crush McCain in this progressive state where McCain is hated and steal one from the GOP."

Uh, I'm a born and raised Iowan. The state is not that progressive and Bush won there in 2004. What evidence is there that McCain is hated in Iowa?

[Cats Against Frist]

12. Iowa's not progressive, but it has had a good record of

being blue, until this last snowjob...*ahem*...election -- but I do think that McCain would do OK in Iowa, because what's kept it blue have been lots and lots of moderates. Iowa is nowhere near as crazy, fundie or creepy as its southwest neighbors, and I think that Iowa is one state where McCain would be a better choice in, than someone more loony, like Frist.

[ISUGRADIA]

17. "nowhere near as crazy, fundie or creepy as its southwest neighbors"

I like that comment. And it's true, IA was a competative battleground state in 2004. And I think it will be in 2008, but if the farm economy falters, look to more of a 1988, 54% Dem Dukakis-like showing.

[LimpingLib]

13. McCain opposes many forms of corperate welfare.

He is a genuine conservative.Many right wingers fail to notice this , but McCain is the biggest opponent of pork as well.

It will win him big points with genuine conservatives. I would even respect McCain for this if not for his dangerous foreign policy views.

Anyway McCain only got bout 5% of the vote in Iowa in 2000 where as he got about 55% in New Hampshire. He staunchly opposed subsidies on Ethanol and was quite vocal about it.

Iowa is a liberal state maybe not progressive. It isnt a very Pro Union state and such.More populist and anti-war.McCain is a devious warmonger in the Roosevelt-Churchill and especially Reagan tradition (Reagan , Buchanan , and McCains dad were the top 3 foreign policy hawk conservatives during the cold war IMHO though McCain has learned to move more toward the Kissinger type of cunning and slickness).

McCain is not loved in Iowa and a progressive can easily defeat him. Even the elite wing of the DEmocratic party can beat him as long as they kiss ass on subsidies like Ethanol.

[ISUGRADIA]

16. You did raise some god points. I'd forgot about the ethanol

and subsidies stands. Those would be a problem in 2008, I'd agree. I'd only argue that in 2000 Iowa was no real test for McCain as he spent zero time and zero money in the state. He ceeded it to the other candidates and spent all his time on NH which turned out to not be a bad idea. But even having done nothing in Iowa (no staff, no HQ, nothin') he got 5% of the vote.

I still think there is no way a McCain could win the Repub nomination so we'll never know.

[ProgressiveDepot.com]

9. He can be beat in popular vote

John McCain gets a lot of play for being a maverick but he is hardcore conservative. If he got the nomination, it would be up to the Dems to attack his every utterance over the years. Sometime before the last election someone said that by the time the GOP was done with John Kerry, people won't even be sure which side of the Vietnam War he fought on. That's exaggerated of course but those Swift Boaters and others helped make a war hero questionable in the eyes of many. The same can be done to McCain in many areas. I don't necessarily condone it, but I'm willing to play that game if need be.

[ZootSuitGringo]

10. Just to correct candidate X's stance.....

You stated "This election also has some typical Foreign Policy elites with no concern for civil libertys whatsoever. I wont name anybody but I was on DailyKos reading comments and not one but SEVERAL Progressives from states like Michigan and Pennsylvania were posting comments on potential 2008 Presidential candidates.They were discussing a southern candidate from 2004 and they said they were considering supportig him till he started saying how he supported abortion through the 9th month.They couldnt beleive what a stupid comment that was depite the fact that they were Pro Choice.Ill call that Candidate X just to use for an example.

Candidate X stated that Abortion was to be the decision of the mother thru the entire pregnancy, and not that of the government's. However, the candidate's use of the phrase 9 months led to being smeared by the media. You see Candidate X was the biggest threat in the 2004 election, and the media understood that. Candidate A was treated much better by a gentler and kinder media.

So "Southern" Candidate X is as true a Civil libertarian, and in the minds of those who are pro-choice, equal to Candidate A.

The difference between the 2 is that Candidate X had a better chance to win, for one reason...because he was Southern, and for another because he was a stronger leader, because no matter what he said, candidate X still came out looking more moderate than Candidate A.

[LimpingLib]

14. X was drafted to run on the assumption he would be a strong candidate.

X didnt deliever.

X never won anything before in his life election wise.

Infact most of X's support came from those who supported McCain in 2000 which included the media.Much of the problem for X in 2004 was that the Pro McCain bandwagon was wearing thing with most outside of hollywood and the formerlt McCain supporting "liberal" blogs.Also Dean was way ahead and the media wasnt able to make X appear to be a frontrunner.Another problem was that many of X's early supporters already had alliegance to Dean and that complicated matters.Once X and Dean got into scuffles in the debate (Dean said his problem with X was that he "was a Republican" which wasnt 100% true but had credibility when it came to voting patterns as X supported Pro War canidates through his life), it really made things complicated.

I agree X got in too late and had many factors against him in the primary.But the media didnt go after him.Thats mythology and revisionism.

X will have a very tough time against McCain infact X has been McCain lite from day 1. Only works against an opponent like Bush. Even then I think X would have lost.

But my biggest disagreement is X being pro civil liberty. I eagerly await seeing proof of that during the primary. Must be convinent to tag X with whatever empty phraise and boast that comes to ones mind. Especially considering A was the lone vote against the patriot Act and had to face up to a statewide electorate to account for it.

I guess your going to try and revise history and tell me X did the same? Cant wait for all the fairy tales over the next 2-4 years.

[Hippo_Tron]

15. We'll see whether Santos or Vinnick wins next season

Since the West Wing is essentially mimmicking the exact scenario of Candidate A vs McCain (only difference is that candidate A is hispanic and that Vinnick is the Senator from California).