I know 2008 is a long way off but...

[skipos]

I see the same potential candidates mentioned in every thread about 2008. Clark, Gore, Edwards, Kerry, Clinton etc.

Are there Democrats you think are currently not on the radar, but could realistically run and get the nomination? If so, what are their strengths and weaknesses?

I am looking to educate myself on potential dark horse candidates. Why? Just for fun I guess.

[daninthemoon]

1. I second that. I don't havea ny idea who, but someone new needs to

carry our flag. The usual suspects just haven't gotten enough done in all this time. We need a strong unyeilding opposition to the rethugs, and an absolute determination with planning beforehand to see that every vote is counted this time out. If we don't get a fair election this time, that's three strikes, and America is done.

[Totally Committed]

2. As things stand now, I support Clark, but...

if Wes does not choose to run, I would love to see Bobby Kennedy, Jr. run. I'm sure he haas no intention of considering it, but it would be great if he did.

[Rowdyboy]

7. Great guy who does important work but he needs some sort of elective

experience. Also, I really hope we can grow beyond the Kennedys and the Clintons. While I like Bobby, he's a "legacy" and I don't really care for political dynasties. That said, I would have supported JFK Jr 100% had he run for the senate and later president. He was so very special.

[Totally Committed]

16. I thik Bobby would be great...

He is pro-environment, pro-education, pro-healthcare, anti-poverty, and most importantly, anti-corporatism/corruption.

"That said, I would have supported JFK Jr 100% had he run for the senate and later president. He was so very special."

I could not agree more, and believe to this day that others felt he was a "threat" to them, and that was the reason he died in that plane. Pilot error, my ass. Sorry, that's just how I see it. :tinfoilhat:

[Rowdyboy]

17. I'd be lying if I said the idea hasn't crossed my mind many times.....

It was just so convenient....

[Totally Committed]

18. Thank you!

So, it isn't just me that thinks that!

[blondeatlast]

3. Now this is a 2008 thread I can enjoy! Welcome to DU, first off.

:toast:

Someone mentioned Max Cleland earlier today, I think he offers a nice alternative to the old school.

[Totally Committed]

4. I agree, welcome!

Sorry... I don't usually look at post-counts. Welcome aboard!

[afdip]

14. he's a real hero, but

he could not get reelected senator from georgia. let's find someone who can win.

[Catchawave]

21. Bush couldn't get elected to the House

in his first election ! Wasn't Max "swiftboated" out of office too? I remember some pretty ugly smears about his war injuries :(

Welcome to DU afdip :hi:

[Bernardo de La Paz]

5. 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006. Who wants us to take our eye off the ball?

[Clark2008]

9. Can you not walk and chew gum?

For me, I can look at both 2006 and 2008. It doesn't take a great deal of effort to work locally and think nationally.

Geesch.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

10. Fine. You must be better than Bill Clinton.

The winingest Democrat of recent times, Bill Clinton, advises focusing on one election at a time. If you know better, more power to you. Republicans are ruthless in their focus.

[Pithy Cherub]

19. That was then , this is now. Bill last ran 8 YEARS ago...

Multi-tasking for those with the time and ability is not hard. For those who elect to focus on one thing, that's their perogative. How about everybody chooses for themselves what is workable for their time, hmmmm?

[Skwmom]

26. Like Bill Clinton is going to wait until the 06 races are over to focus on

08. Furthermore, the Republicans are already working on 08.

[Rowdyboy]

11. Good luck persuading people not to speculate on 2008....

I understand your reasons, even agree with them to an extent, but (short of an iron-clad DU rule banning such talk), its going to happen. Sure the energy could be better spent elsewhere, and it can be divisive, but chastising people for topics they choose to discuss is counterproductive too.

[Catchawave]

22. 2005 for me !

Va. Gov election next month, but I still enjoy talking about '06 and '08 :patriot:

[mitchtv]

6. what does it matter for CA?

We'll get to pay for the privelege of taking what's left over in our primary. It's sad really, that such a large group of Dems gets so little input on Dem party candidates.

[Mz Pip]

32. We get nothin'

It's over pretty much before it ever gets to us. Why Iowa? Why do they always get to set the stage? I would like to get a shot at the fron of the line for once.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[Douglas Carpenter]

8. if Gore does not enter the race, I think Russ Feingold could

emerge as a major player in the primaries. If he could win the nomination and the Presidency is harder to say.

I have not made any decision about who I would support for the nomination. But for more info on Russ Feingold you can see this link:

http://www.draftruss.com/

[longship]

12. Hoooey!

I also am looking for the darkhorse, somebody to come up from the base to lead our party, and our country. We have some prospects in Gore, who has taken the rhetorical war to the base. But he is the only so-called party leader who is speaking at a level with which I am comfortable. Feingold has taken some principled positions and may indeed sieze the mantel of leadership, but he hasn't so far. Clark is making some waves, but suffers from lack of an opportunity to bring out any ideas.

Kerry and the rest of the CongressCritters are milk toast. They are not siezing the incredible opportunity of an actual, documented leadership vacuum. I am horrified at their lack of initiative, and well, lack of leadership.

The only exceptions to this are the Congressional Black Caucus who seem to be our sole hope right now. They are the only ones carrying water for the party. They are the patriots who are putting country before everything, taking the principled positions and sticking to their guns. They are the only ones who are leading. When all is said and done, we are going to owe those beautiful and brave people a huge debt of gratitude. (Assuming we don't lose the war.)

And make no mistake, without a leader we will lose.

[renie408]

28. I think Edwards is making a move

He has come out pretty strongly lately on things like election reform, poverty and the government response to Katrina. I think he is positioning himself to lead for 2008.

And I like him. I always have. I think he can do it. I really think it is a mistake to underestimate him.

[nickshepDEM]

13. Governor Vilsack (IA) is a SLEEPER.

Decent record as governor, awesome life story, locks up Iowa, would playout well in the midwest.

Couple of others to keep an eye on:

Sen. Feingold (WI) - Solid progressive vaules. Probably the best economic voting record in the senate.

Governor Warner (VA) - Arguably the best Governor in the country. Polls suggest he would carry VA in a presidential election even against Sen. Allen (VA).

[DemDogs]

27. Gotta agree, he's a yawn n/t

[TayTay]

15. It's difficult to say

At this time in 2001, who knew that Gov. Dean would be such a force in the Democratic race? He was an unknown. The circumstances in 2002-2003 created an opening that he was able to successfully step into and use to his advantage. I expect the same for this cycle. (Hmm, expecting the unexpected, how do you prepare for that.)

The standard list of 2008 candidates will undoubtedly change. Anything can affect this list from illness to a reconsideration of their actual chances to an inability to raise money. I fully anticipate the the names being mentioned now will not be the eventual runners in the race. Shit happens.

[dolstein]

20. Vilsack and Warner

To be fair, I wouldn't consider either of these candidates to be "off the radar." Vilsack is a two-term governor of Iowa and is now the chair of the DLC. Mark Warner is an very popular one-term governor of Virginia (governors in Virginia can't run for reelection) and before entering politics was a very successful businessman.

[Catchawave]

25. More speculation about Warner is that

he definitely decided not to challenge George Allen in '06, we're assuming he's making a run for '08, as will Allen for the GOP.

[Awsi Dooger]

29. Warner is easily the most intriguing candidate via an electoral standpoint

Winning Virginia opens up a ton of permutations, assuming we could hold the states Kerry won, admittedly hardly a cinch.

Annexing Virginia means we would no longer need either Ohio or Florida, nor the unlikely straight flush of smaller states. We would simply need to add one of the following: Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Iowa. Kerry wound up with 252. Virginia has 13. Each of the four states I listed has at least 5. The magic number is 270.

Not that Warner would be a lock to win Virginia. It seems to be slowly trending our way but still perhaps 6 points more Republican than the nation as a whole at this point. Warner would have to keep the national popular vote very close to even to pull off Virginia. But he would likely get a HUGE favorite son bounce. Virginia hasn't had anyone on a national ticket in ages. That works in Warner's favor. His favorability rating, if it holds close to the recently quoted 69%, should provide plenty of teflon. It might be preferable that he can't run for re-election. That favorability could be locked close to what it is. Certainly less vulnerable to political influences in the next 3 years.

[Telly Savalas]

37. I'm not a big fan of the guy...

but I think Warner will be very appealing to a lot of Dems in spring 2008 for the reasons you mention. Furthermore he's a lot more charismatic than other conservative Democrats like Vilsack or Biden, and given how some folks don't want to run another Senator his resume as a governor is a plus.

[faithfulcitizen]

23. I think Evan Bayh has a really good shot.

:hide:

[Awsi Dooger]

30. One problem with nominating Evan Bayh

Indiana is basically a transplanted southern state, at least based on presidential voting numbers. Bayh might get destroyed by double digits even in his home state.

Here is the Indiana tendency since 1988, in relation to the national popular vote average. Notice it has trended more and more Republican. In 2004 it was more than 18 points tilted toward the GOP:

Indiana:
'88: Bush (59.84 - 39.69) = + 12.43% Republican
'92: Bush (42.91 - 36.79) = + 11.68% Republican
'96: Dole (47.13 - 41.55) = + 14.11% Republican
'00: Bush (56.65 - 41.01) = + 16.15% Republican
'04: Bush (59.94 - 39.26) = + 18.22% Republican

[faithfulcitizen]

31. This is why Bayh has trended more & more repub too. But, he would

probably be the only dem that could actually carry this state.

(Though Wes Clark might have a shot too.;))

[safi0]

33. I think Evan Bayh's

Chance of getting the 08 Democratic nomination is slightly higher than mine. I really don't know where this guy's support will come from. The people who may have supported him will split there vote between Hillary and Warner. Of people who may run I wouldn't put Bayh in the top 5 and he may just crack the top 10.

[AtomicKitten]

24. Barack Obama

He doesn't have too much stink of the beltway on him.
Otherwise, he'd make an excellent VP candidate.

[ladylibertee]

34. Nope, Both my choices are on the list. Edwards and Clinton

[DaBruno]

35. What about Dean?

I know, he's said that he wasn't running, but can I inquire as to why? I think he'd make a good Dem candidate, possibly going for the win. Hell, I was going to vote for him if he made primary in 2k4, and I know a lot of other people that would as well.

Could someone please enlighten me as to why he won't be running? Or have I just misheard my information?

[baron j]

36. We should be looking at election years way into the future.

That's why there is power in numbers, and in the way we delegate responsibility.

The Republican Party needs to be diminished now, and ultimately eradicated in the future. They serve no good purpose, other than to illustrate how not to be.

Though I'm not advocating a one-party system, mind you. Just trim the fat off of our right, and bring in new parties to the left.