Feingold and Warner would be a match made in heaven. Agree?

[More Than A Feeling]

In my opinion, they match up in a perfectly balanced ticket. For starters, there's the Senator-Governor and Wisconsin-Virginia combinations. Then there is the fact that they are both known for fiscal responsibility (Feingold has been at the top of the Concord Coalition's fiscal responsibility scorecard for years, and Warner was able to salvage Virginia's budget with a tax increase and get away with it.) They are a nice blend of liberal and moderate, too. Feingold has his unmatched integrity, and Warner brings the possibility of putting Virginia in play and a huge fundraising ability (2.5 million in a recent fundraiser).

So, does this combination appeal to you as your first choice for a win in 2008?

[David Dunham]

1. Fiengold sadly as a liberal Jewish Senator could not be elected in 2008

The fundies and conservative Catholic leaders would eat him alive.

[More Than A Feeling]

2. Which of our candidates would not be rabidly opposed by them?

[David Dunham]

3. All would be attacked but Sen Feingold is subject to latent antisemitism

[More Than A Feeling]

4. Do you think Lieberman's Judaism hurt Gore-Lieberman in '00?

Now granted, Lieberman was second banana there, but he was still "a heartbeat away from the presidency."

[David Dunham]

5. Yes sadly. Rightwing chat boards call him Lieberjew

[More Than A Feeling]

6. That's disgusting.

Still, Feingold could do what Kennedy did in '60. Hold a press conference or give a speech concerning his religion, and invite all the nastiest-looking fundy ministers to sit right up front where the camera could see them for contrast.:evilgrin:

[jonnyblitz]

9. I find that interesting considering many of Bush's people are

jewish. i wonder how they reconcile that one. I hate that shit.

[Telly Savalas]

17. And the denizens of such boards would have voted for a goy Democrat?

[IndianaGreen]

10. Lieberman's surrender to the GOP is what hurt Gore

God forbid that Gore had taken office in 2001 only to die shortly thereafter, we would be stuck with a kosher version of Dick Cheney.

[Debi]

42. Don't forget twice divorced...

I know RR and JK were divorced, but their second marriages had been on for some time before running for office. Feingold just got divorced for the second time this year, fundies would have a heyday with that.

I still want to see him run - put some fire to the feet of the centrist candidates.

[NJ Democrats]

7. Feingold-Warner

is my first choice.
But anything including Feingold would be awsome!

[More Than A Feeling]

8. Nice sig line

;-)

[AntiCoup2K4]

11. Judaism comes in a distant third when it comes to Feingold's "weaknesses"

His first is that he's a Senator. 40 years of history say that Senators don't have a chance in Hell of winning the White House. Sure you could argue "Kerry was robbed" until you're blue in the face, but had a governor been the nominee, the margin might have been theft resistant.

Feingold's second vulnerability is being single and twice divorced. Ridiculous reason or not, it's a fact that this country has only had one unmarried President and he's not regarded as one of the best. The first lady is part of the whole tradition and symbolism of the White House, even though the position is more ceremonial than anything.

If Russ was a married governor, I don't think most voters would give a shit about him being Jewish, and those who did, probably aren't voting for the Democratic ticket anyway.

[More Than A Feeling]

13. The truth behind the "governors can win; senators can't" myth.

Since 1920, Kerry, Dole, McGovern, Kennedy, and Harding have been the Senators who have gained the nomination. Kennedy and Harding won, so that makes it a 40% success rate.

Now let's take a look at governors. Again since 1920, James Cox, Al Smith, Alf Landon, Thomas Dewey, Roosevelt, Adlai Stevenson, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush. 4 out of 9, a 44.4% rate.

Not that much of a difference, is there? It seems that while governors apparently do better in the primary, they don't win at any significantly greater amount than senators do. Now, since primaries are controlled by the base, the question becomes, who is most likely to excite the base? Russ Feingold has as good a claim to that as anyone, and better than most.

As for the single and twice divorced part, I'd like to point out that there is still time for that to be altered.

[karynnj]

16. The other problem with the analysis is that the numbers are too small

It is true that the last 2 Democrats who won were Southern Governors. But, consider the following - let's say the media would have treated the SBVT like they did Rather after the first 5 or 6 glaring lies in their book were exposed or that the Bin Laden tape didn't appear suddenly (as if by magic) in the last week of the campaign - and Kerry won.

Then since 1960 - the only non-incumbent Democratic winners would be:

- JFK - MA Senator with dark, thick hair and initials, JFK (Navy vet)
- Carter - Southern Governor
- Clinton - Southern Governor
- Kerry - MA Senator with dark, thick hair and initials, JFK (Navy vet)

Is there anyone here who in say 2016 or 2020 would argue that we need another MA Senator with all those traits? (Note: Before my sanity is questioned - I really think this is coincidence.)

I think the issues in 2004 gave a huge weight to foreign and military policy. (Kerry did better when he spoke of these issues than when he was following the Clinton advice to talk domestic issues.) It is too early to tell what will need most help in 2008 - both are likely to be problems. Carter and Clinton were both elected in times of relatively good times in terms of foreign problems.

[Hippo_Tron]

33. Did you by any chance get that from my thread?

I posted it several months ago, basically saying exactly what you said but with a little more analysis.
You also forgot Dukakis.

[More Than A Feeling]

36. I wasn't cribbing (obviously, or I wouldn't have made those mistakes)

but I may indeed have gotten the idea from reading your thread. If so, apologies for not looking for it to give you credit for the idea. May I continue to use it, giving full credit to you for the idea and not forgetting Dukakis and Goldwater?

[Hippo_Tron]

41. Oh yea absolutely, I was just wondering if you had the thread bookmarked

I forgot to bookmark it for future reference and I was wondering if you still had it.

[kevsand]

45. There's a flaw here.

If the event to be predicted is a presidential victory, then each attempt should be counted as a separate event for accurate statistical analysis. That means FDR counts four times, Nixon three times, and Hoover, Dewey, Eisenhower, Stevenson, Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and W each twice.

That makes the data set look like this (winners listed first):

1920 Harding (Sen) Cox (Gov)
1924 Coolidge (Pres/VP/Gov) Davis (Amb)
1928 Hoover (Sec) Smith (Gov)
1932 Roosevelt (Gov) Hoover (Pres/Sec)
1936 Roosevelt (Pres/Gov) Landon (Gov)
1940 Roosevelt (Pres/Gov) Willkie (CEO)
1944 Roosevelt (Pres/Gov) Dewey (Gov)
1948 Truman (Pres/VP/Sen) Dewey (Gov)
1952 Eisenhower (Gen) Stevenson (Gov)
1956 Eisenhower (Pres/Gen) Stevenson (Gov)
1960 Kennedy (Sen) Nixon (VP/Sen)
1964 Johnson (Pres/Sen) Goldwater (Sen)
1968 Nixon (VP/Sen) Humphrey (VP/Sen)
1972 Nixon (Pres/VP/Sen) McGovern (Sen)
1976 Carter (Gov) Ford (Pres/VP/House)
1980 Reagan (Gov) Carter (Pres/Gov)
1984 Reagan (Pres/Gov) Mondale (VP/Sen)
1988 Bush (VP/House) Dukakis (Gov)
1992 Clinton (Gov) Bush (Pres/VP/House)
1996 Clinton (Pres/Gov) Dole (Sen)
2000 Bush (Gov) Gore (VP/Sen)
2004 Bush (Pres/Gov) Kerry (Sen)

Twenty-two races, for a total of 44 candidates.

If you treat it as a zero sum game (i.e., everyone is either a governor or a senator or something else), then you have 14 instances of candidates who had experience as a senator. Only six of them won, or 43%. It is perhaps worth noting that four of these six acquired executive experience either as Pres or VP before winning. Only two (Kennedy and Harding) were "purely" senators.

"Purely" senators have run six times, winning only the two mentioned above (33%). Senators with exec experience ran eight times, winning four (50%).

On the other hand, there were 21 instances of candidates with experience as governor, of whom 12 won, for 57%. Five of these were instances of "purely" governors (with no experience as Pres or VP).

"Purely" governors have run 13 times, winning the aforementioned five races (38%). Governors with white house experience ran eight times, winning seven (88%).

There were nine candidates who were neither a senator or a governor. Two of these instances were secretary of commerce, two were generals, three were house members, one a ceo and one an ambassador. They won four times (44%). Two of these four victories came after white house experience, as did three of the five losses.

Fifteen of the races featured an incumbent president. They won eleven of the fifteen (73%). Eleven candidates had experience as VP, with five winners (45%).

In the seven races without an incumbent president, three were won by senators (although one had experience as vp), one by a governor, and the others by a general, a secretary of commerce, and a house member with VP experience.

I tend to think of the general, secretary, and ceo as executives also, and to give credit for white house experience, which further skews the numbers away from the "purely" legislators and the single ambassador.

[bornskeptic]

15. At least three presidents were unmarried when elected.

Jefferson was a widower. Buchanan and Cleveland were both bachelors when elected. Buchanan never married, while Cleveland married after being elected.

[safi0]

18. I think that the

Two people above me showed the weakness of the Gov. vs Sen. arguement. I'd also like to add to that the 3 who lost, Goldwater, Kerry, and Dole all ran against incumbents while Harding and Kennedy didn't. Their wil be no incumbent in 08.

As far as the married arguement goes. I'll admit it could be a problem. But, what candidate doesn't have his problems. I'd much rather it be this than something like supporting a failed policy in Iraq ie Hillary

[Tom Rinaldo]

19. Nice honest post, Thanks

"As far as the married argument goes. I'll admit it could be a problem. But, what candidate doesn't have his problems. I'd much rather it be this than something like supporting a failed policy in Iraq ie Hillary"

We could all use more of this type of openness. Exactly. Every candidate comes with some problems. Being single is a real problem for Feingold in my opinion, but problems can usually be surmounted if there are enough positives also in play. Feingold is not my first choice, but he is among my favorites. We should be able to admit to the various weaknesses of each of our favorites without that itself being taken as a sign of weakness. Seeing a weakness with our eyes open helps prepare us for dealing with them when we need to. And at some point a lot of us will have to accept that whoever we might prefer just may end up having one too many weaknesses to actually win the 2008 nomination. Until then though, make the best case, acknowledge real concerns but keep them in perspective. Things tend to not get so heated if people don't get called out simply for raising a real concern.

[More Than A Feeling]

21. Oops I forgot Goldwater.

ok so that's 2 out of 6 or 33%. A little bit more of a gap, but still... You are right, though, about the senators who ran against the incumbent being in a different category. Dole was totally a sacrificial lamb.

If the Republican party also nominates a senator in '08, then noone would win, if the whole "senators can't win" thing were true.:silly:

[Lefty48197]

12. Feingold/Conyers

That's my ticket.

[Rene]

14. Wesley Clark and Warner; or Clark and Boxer.....PERFECT

[Czolgosz]

20. I wish we could elect a Kucinich-Feingold ticket, but I see Warner-Bayh as

much more likely. I like Feingold (except for occasional inexplicable votes which I don't understand because they seem so completely irreconcilable with the rest of his views), but I rate his electability very close to Kucinich's (another candidate I really like and who seem like a longshot).

[youngred]

22. I like both and would happily vote for them

I think Warner would have a better chance as the Pres nominee than the "liberal Jewish Senator" but think both would be fantastic

[FrenchieCat]

23. They are dymetrically opposing candidates....

One who is a strong populist maverick who's personal status will be a hard sell and puts Democrats paces behind the starting gate with potential handicaps and who has had a clear history of voting down every defense action/bill ever known (see his No vote on Kosovo), which isn't going to sell to the Sheeple Voters as "strong on defense" as the "terror war" will be promoted by our corporate bought media,

and the other is a status quo "safe" corporate "nada Foreign policy experienced" DLC politician who's quote "This Democrat doesn't think we need to re-fight how we got into (the Iraq war)." http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N28277588.htm
clearly should let one know what he's truly about, and it ain't about doing what needs to be done to initiate real change in this country. He's being pushed as the Anti-Hillary by the corporate media (who I distrust with a passion), although he's really about as close to her views as any other.

It's like promoting a Boxer/Lieberman or a T. Kennedy/Baucus ticket. :shrug:

Just select that pair and watch the Corporate media put out the OSAMA tape threatening another terror attack right around October 31, 2008! :eyes:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200411010002

[More Than A Feeling]

24. "A Strong Populist Maverick"?

Couldn't have said it better myself. The man has integrity. He didn't go down the Bush-enabling path, except his cabinet nominees, but even there, he did so for strong philosophical reasons. As for voting against Kosovo, take a look at who else voted against it: "Thirty-eight Republicans, including Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott of Mississippi, and three Democrats -- Sens. Jeff Bingaman (D-New Mexico), Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin) and Ernest F. Hollings (D-South Carolina) -- opposed the resolution."http://beqiraj.com/kosova/de/allied_force/cnn/9.asp

Feingold was elected in 1992, which means that his defense stuff is going to be either Clinton-supported (and republican-opposed) or Iraq, which is a bonus, not a negative.

As for Warner's lack of foreign policy experience, he's the VP, he doesn't need it. He can be given a nice domestic portfolio. Plus, there is the aforementioned attractiveness to Virginia and fund-raising ability. I know what his position is on the Iraq war, and I think it sucks, which is why I have him as VP, not the president. Also, if he is being pushed by the corporate media, why would they try to take him down, if he were on the ticket with Feingold?

They are not completely different. As I noted, they have a strong streak of fiscal responsibility in common. But they are different enough to make a nicely balanced ticket. My sense of your argument is that your beef is not really with either of the candidates, but mostly with the corporate media. If I am right about that, why use their standards to judge Russ, but then blast them when it comes to Warner?

[Pithy Cherub]

25. Califormia is prime ground for fundraising. Feingold

would have a much easier time getting attention (read money) here than Warner. The California Chairman of the Democratic Party here laid it out rather succinctly. "No buzz here for Warner." Warner raised money in Virginia, he has no constituency in New York (Clinton Country), Texas, or California. Those are the big three when it comes down to money and if you are not on the radar with any of those then a campaign will be very short. Couple that with no foreign policy credentials and saying "this democrat...don't need to focus on how we got into Iraq..."well, it's difficult to make a case for Warner. Especially in California.
http://www.mezomorf.com/washington/news-16034.html

[FrenchieCat]

26. In a perfect world with a truly fair media,

Russ Feingold could be President yesterday! I just don't think that he will make it for many reasons, corporate media attacks included (just like I don't think that Clark will...for that matter).

Warner, I don't care for....There's nothing about him that shows him to be a true progressive leader with vision. I see him as a businessman turned politician with Deep pockets who is a corporate status quo animal in it for personal gain and something to do. He is not running for VP, and he is much favored than is Feingold at possible getting there, so his Foreign policy experience would be a factor much more than you are calculating.

In reference to the Corporate media; yes, I believe they are who calls the shots ultimately. The power that they have took us to war, and re-elected George Bush...and currently they like Hillary and Warner....and so, I don't. Also, the media is fickle. We know who they are and what they are about, and yet we quote them when it suits us. Who they push today prior to primaries, they can and will take down tomorrow during the GE if that is what they so choose. They can and will switch on a dime, and most of the sheeples will buy what's being sold to them, plain and simple.

Unfortunately, I am also of the mind that I won't be the one to decide the ticket, nor will you. The media certainly has a bigger say than all of the activists in these United States put together!

Plus, one votes for a primary candidate, not a unannounced ticket.
The primary winner chooses his VP, not us.

but then, that's just my opinion.

[More Than A Feeling]

32. If the media is that much of a wild card

then, in my mind, it is better to ignore it as a variable and choose who we want, regardless of whether they like them or not. Also, the media is not omnipotent. We can and have successfully fought them this past year, far better than we did in 2004. I direct your attention to our social security victory, the successful use of the "nuclear option" meme to get the media on our side during that saga, and the appearance (finally!) of impeachment talk. That one was particularly sweet for me, because I participated in the chat with Richard Morin, the polling editor of the Washington Post, and in conjunction with others, got him to think he was the Incredible Hulk with our questions on why he hasn't polled on impeachment ("Morin angry! Morin smash puny impeachment question requests!" was the jist of his responses). They are only human, they can be pushed to do what we want. If they couldn't, the Republicans couldn't have gotten to them in the first place.

[FrenchieCat]

35. I would be idealistic and THINK that we can control the media instead

of the other way around....however, I am realistic enough to know that we will be allowed some "wins" when required.

Social Security was a program which even the "sheeples" understood what it might mean if it got done away with, and so there was enough voices to dull the media and turn it around to "our" way of seeing things....but alas, the Social Security issue is not one that can be compared to "candidates"--there the pundit class takes over in miseducating the masses (not the activists), and the sheeple masses are the ones who determine who will win any election along with the Diebold factor.

Warner has a good shot just because he is corporate enough for the media to help him...during the primaries anyways. Feingold has none.

Of course supporting who one wants is whom one should support....although I don't think it will change the predetermined outcome in the end.

Again, in reference to the media, we will only win when the media allows it to happen. Considering the outrageous crimes being committed by this administration, to think otherwise is delusional. We can certainly come up with a strategy that might best "work" with them while not compromising all, but that's the best that we can hope for.

PS. I know that you understand that IF we had any meaningful control over the media, Al Gore would have been President and Clinton would not have been impeached....and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

[LWolf]

27. No.

Not thinking that far ahead.

If I were, Feingold would be on my list of people I'm interested in. Warner would not. Neither of them appear on a "match made in heaven" ticket.

My "match made in heaven" ticket:

Kucinich/Boxer.

In reality, my list of "interest" at this point includes:

Kucinich
Boxer
Feingold
Conyers
McKinney
Jim McGovern

There are some others I don't know enough about to place on the list; I may add to it as more information becomes available.

[maxsolomon]

28. Senators don't get elected President

find a Governor to head the ticket.

[More Than A Feeling]

30. Did you take a look at my posts concerning that upthread?

The difference is 33% to 44.4%, winning senators to winning governors since 1920 (that's not including Kerry, who might be included as a winner if you think the election was stolen. Including him would bump winning senators up to 50%). So yeah, there is a difference, but it's not as strong as "senators don't get elected, period"

[Hippo_Tron]

34. John Kennedy got elected and Bobby Kennedy would have

On the other hand Al Smith, Adlai Stevenson, and Michael Dukakis were all Governors that got their asses kicked in presidential elections.

On the other hand... FDR, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton got elected President.

WAIT WAIT I'm seeing a parallel...

What did FDR, Kennedy, Kennedy, Carter, and Clinton all have in common?

They were all skilled, intelligent, CHARISMATIC politicians. Therefore... skilled, intelligent, CHARISMATIC politicians get elected president.

[wiley]

29. The media controls everything. Feingold and Warner won't matter.

Repukes control the media, both large and small outlets.

The best access anyone in the Democratic Party will have is to Infotainment like commercials and programs.

Americans are overworked, oversaturated with meaningless images and words, and beaten down by the grinding unpunished mendacity of the Repukes.

Bush and his fellow Pukes will control the campaign and election process through bogus security alerts, suppression of potentially "damaging" information to national security, and fomenting lowest common denominator xenophobic packs of democracy suppressors.

Count on any chance for the Dems to break through to the public being pre-empted by some distracting media event.

Our best chance is to indict and convict the Repukes at the city and state level for their criminal activities. Don't expect any help from the Attorney General of the US.

[More Than A Feeling]

31. Which is odd, if you think about it, since Democrats

have a political lock on Hollywood. There was a great post concerning that on mydd.com, how Democrats take Hollywood's money, but neglect to avail themselves of Hollywood talent to create great storylines as media narratives or great speeches to move audiences.http://mydd.com/story/2005/12/29/11117/523

Perhaps taking advantage of that neglected group of supporters who have more to offer could be a partial solution to the problem.

[Hippo_Tron]

38. The political lock on hollywood is only part true

You are correct that actors, directors, screenwriters, etc. are on the whole very liberal and supportive of democrats.

However, remember who ultimately owns and controls the corporations that produce these movies. That being said, luckily the corporate heads are capitalists before they are Republicans and thus they will produce anything that will help their bottom line, basically the reason that Fahrenheit 9/11 even saw the light of day.

But I agree with your point. One of the reasons that I loved the new Batman movie were the subtle political undertones. Lucius Fox saying that the government doesn't think a soldier's life is worth $300 grand thus there's no market for his armor. Wayne enterprises gets turned into a full scale weapons manufacturer by Thomas Wayne's successors and how he absolutely would have disapproved of this. Rachel Dawes teaches Bruce about how justice is not about his own personal satisfaction but about what is best for society (huge stab against the death penalty).

[More Than A Feeling]

39. Did you see my post about your senators/governors thread? n/t

[wiley]

43. Democrats don't have a lock on Hollywood

corporations. But I agree that they use supporters' skills way too little. Repukes also make a full time job of attacking "liberals" or any other actor, etc. who dares to either criticize or make a stand. Yet you don't really hear Democrats talking about the Mel Gibson media empire or other high profile Repuke supporters. The news makes a bigger deal and gives more mileage to Repuke supporters than Dems, unless they can create a scandal of it. Heaven Forbid they should present unvarnished or unmanipulated facts, and let them speak for themselves. There are way more right wing wackos that get air time on any subject that Democrats. They call it "balance". I call it avoiding blackmail from those thousands of Repukes who, unlike Democrats, will call or write a station or the FCC and give them hell and stick with it until they get what they want. We need more Democrats who understand that saving this country works like brushing your teeth every day. You have to do it every day. The concept of sitting back and letting sensible heads or minds restore some kind of equilibrium is so two decades ago. Stock value, viewership and ratings trump ethics and fairness everytime. Memo: Chilling and hoping for fairness and balance doesn't work.

[Clark2008]

37. Clark/Feingold

No Warner. No Hillary. No Biden.

No more corporatists.

[Tom Rinaldo]

40. That's my favorite ticket also. Good people, good balance. n/t

[wiley]

44. Great Ticket!

I can do that ticket.

[UrbScotty]

46. Clark and Feingold are my top two picks, but Warner is also up there. (nt)