Jump to content
kanmalachoa

Democratic Candidate 2008

Who would be the best choice for the democrats in 2008?  

169 members have voted

  1. 1. Who would be the best choice for the democrats in 2008?

    • Hillary Clinton
      32
    • John Kerry
      2
    • John Edwards
      18
    • Al Gore
      17
    • Joe Biden
      8
    • Wesley Clark
      7
    • Bill Richardson
      4
    • Russ Feingold
      30
    • Evan Bayh
      1
    • Mark Warner
      19
    • Other
      31


Recommended Posts

Richard Nixon comes to mind (he got beat for governor and then went on to capture the Republican Presidential Nomination).

 

lets see? nixon ran for president and lost one of the closest presidential elections in history prior to losing the 1962 california gubernatiorial election. nixon had a very strong base of supporters when he went on to capture the nomination to beat humphrey in 1968.

 

daschle has nothing. he was minority leader in the senate and did not accept any help from outside supporters and paid dearly for that. he spent millions of dollars and got beat by a nobody. he has no strong base except for us. hell yea i would support him if he ran for president, but if he ran he would not win a state in the primaries and if he did, it would be 1972 all over again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Warner/Feingold will be your ticket. Anyone who doesn't see that Russ Feingold is preparing for a VICE presidential run simply isn't paying attention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Warner/Feingold will be your ticket. Anyone who doesn't see that Russ Feingold is preparing for a VICE presidential run simply isn't paying attention.

 

the probability of feingold being a vice president is very slim. when democrats choose vice presidents they tend to choose someone geographically valuable or appealing to certain sects of people. for example in 2000 joe lieberman appealed to the jewish population in florida and in 2004 john edwards appealed to middle class and southern folks.

 

though fiengold is a great anti-bush candidate, he will not win the primaries or be the veep. he appeals to far left liberals but not the democrats or america. he would be defeated handily by mccain. furthermore, warner has a very good chance of being selected because he is a washington outsider. the last 3 out of 4 presidents have been governors and warner fits that category.

 

my support goes to john edwards if he runs. his vision for america is by far the best out of any candidate. the way he speaks about two americas is a great critique of america. look at the recent tax cuts that passed the house, edwards knows his shit. he has an agenda and he is electable.

 

fiengold will not win the nomination or the vp position. mark my words. he is just another howard dean candidate that appeals to the liberals. his voice belongs in the senate where liberal stances are tolerated

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RE: Daschle and Obama. As my original post mentioned, the poll is based on the top 10 candidates according to averaged polls (wikipedia). There's an "other" category for that reason.

 

the probability of feingold being a vice president is very slim. when democrats choose vice presidents they tend to choose someone geographically valuable or appealing to certain sects of people.

That doesn't make sense. If Warner is the democratic candidate, particularly if he's running against another moderate like Guiliani or McCain, Feingold as a VP pick would diversify the ticket by adding a midwesterner (appeals to the ever-valuable Ohio) and someone who will bring out the base, who may not vote if confronted with two socially liberal economic conservatives.

 

he appeals to far left liberals but not the democrats or america.

That's why he has won three terms in one of the most electorally diverse states in the country. Cause lets face it, being anti-Bush means you disagree with...31% of America. And doing things differently than the rest of congress means you offend...the 23% of Americans who still think congress is doing a good job.

 

he would be defeated handily by mccain.

Beg pardon? If anyone is defeated handily by McCain, it will be Warner. McCain can easily beat Warner at his own game by being himself--a more experienced, trusted, recognized candidate. Feingold, on the other hand, will differentiate himself by articulating core democratic issues in a way that appeals to a variety of voters. Wisconsin proves.

 

furthermore, warner has a very good chance of being selected because he is a washington outsider.

And Feingold's an independent who has been active and successful against corruption.

 

my support goes to john edwards if he runs. his vision for america is by far the best out of any candidate. the way he speaks about two americas is a great critique of america.

He's a good guy. I think that the Washington insider problem would apply to him most of all, given that he's already made a run for the presidency. Also, he'll be perceived as a loser after failing to even carry his own state in the 2004 election.

 

he is just another howard dean candidate that appeals to the liberals. his voice belongs in the senate where liberal stances are tolerated

No, there's a vast difference. Howard Dean was from Vermont. He was an east-coaster with one of the most liberal constituencies in the country. Feingold, on the other hand, has proven appeal with a varied electorate. Also, last I checked, the democratic party was supposed to be a place where liberal stances weren't just tolerated, they were encouraged. What you are saying is the equivalent of saying "X's voice belongs in the senate, where conservative voices are tolerated." Use the term progressive if liberal has gotten too dirty for you, but the democratic party IS supposed to represent the left.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd vote for Feingold because he has balls. He's not pushed around by fearmongers on either side of the isle.

 

He was the only senator to vote against the USA PATRIOT Act, and in doing so he said:

 

“There is no doubt that if we lived in a police state, it would be easier to catch terrorists. If we lived in a country where the police were allowed to search your home at any time for any reason; if we lived in a country where the government was entitled to open your mail, eavesdrop on your phone conversations, or intercept your email communications; if we lived in a country where people could be held in jail indefinitely based on what they write or think, or based on mere suspicion that they were up to no good, the government would probably discover and arrest more terrorists, or would-be terrorists, just as it would find more lawbreakers generally. But that would not be a country in which we would want to live, and it would not be a country for which we could, in good conscience, ask our young people to fight and die. In short, that country would not be America.

 

I think it is important to remember that the Constitution was written in 1789 by men who had recently won the Revolutionary War. They did not live in comfortable and easy times of hypothetical enemies. They wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to protect individual liberties in times of war as well as in times of peace.

 

There have been periods in our nation's history when civil liberties have taken a back seat to what appeared at the time to be the legitimate exigencies of war. Our national consciousness still bears the stain and the scars of those events: The Alien and Sedition Acts, the suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War, the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II and the injustices perpetrated against German-Americans and Italian-Americans, the blacklisting of supposed communist sympathizers during the McCarthy era, and the surveillance and harassment of antiwar protesters, including Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., during the Vietnam war. We must not allow this piece of our past to become prologue.

 

Preserving our freedom is the reason we are now engaged in this new war on terrorism. We will lose that war without a shot being fired if we sacrifice the liberties of the American people in the belief that by doing so we will stop the terrorists.”

 

 

Like I said, balls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Feingold would make a fabulous VP. Get someone middle of the road on top with Feingold on bottom to whip up the liberal base and be the hatchetman to draw the more left-leaning moderates, along with the moderate top to pull some sick-of-Bush Republicans and you've got yourself a winner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well whatever happens, if the democrats want a snowballs chance in hell they are going to have to redefine their base, create a coherent stratagey, pull the latino base as much as possible, hunker down and hope for the best. In all honesty though, i don't see a democratic victory in the elections; not to say the republicans are vatly greater canidiate rather i don't think there is one democrat who can do the above things i hve listed. Brock Obama could win... in 2012...maybe. I think he would be the only democrat i could stand in office.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
well whatever happens, if the democrats want a snowballs chance in hell they are going to have to redefine their base, create a coherent stratagey, pull the latino base as much as possible, hunker down and hope for the best. In all honesty though, i don't see a democratic victory in the elections; not to say the republicans are vatly greater canidiate rather i don't think there is one democrat who can do the above things i hve listed. Brock Obama could win... in 2012...maybe. I think he would be the only democrat i could stand in office.

 

A coherent strategy is obviously a must. There are a few candidates who could do that--we've already discussed Edwards, Feingold, and Gore as having strong central issues that could define a campaign. I'm not sure why democrats have to redefine their base--most polls are indicating that voters mostly agree with the democrats, so the problem is with how they are articulating their positions, not with the positions they are taking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A coherent strategy is obviously a must. There are a few candidates who could do that--we've already discussed Edwards, Feingold, and Gore as having strong central issues that could define a campaign. I'm not sure why democrats have to redefine their base--most polls are indicating that voters mostly agree with the democrats, so the problem is with how they are articulating their positions, not with the positions they are taking.

I think what i mean but redefing the base is show that they can have a strong leader. i know these mean two copletely different things but i had must have mis-typed. The democrats really do need a strong leader though. Someone who will unite this country and lead us, not just appease their party lines. I don't see, under this framework, ayone who stands out. yes there are the obvious front runners who appear to be party leaders but at the end of the day that is all they are, party leaders. Being a party leader doesn't translate into being a true leader who can unite a country and lead us forward into prosperity. Americans realize this and i think this is why Bush stayed in office. Don't get me wrong, he has not united this country, he has done a lot to divide it, which means that , more than ever, we need someone who will unite us. Gore, Fiengold. Edwards. they may be able to win the primary by uniting their base but thats as far as they'll get. I give it to Fiengold though just because i'm very pursuaded by the losers lose argument, even in real life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gore, Fiengold. Edwards. they may be able to win the primary by uniting their base but thats as far as they'll get.

 

I'm not sure that's true, in any of their cases. They all come from states that aren't strong blue states. In Gore and Edwards' case, their states voted red in both 2000 and 2004. Wisconsin went blue by the tiniest of margins in both elections, and Feingold picked up substantially more votes than Kerry.

 

Specific to Feingold, I've said before on this thread that winning an election in Wisconsin is a lot like winning an election in the country as a whole. There are small pockets of intense democratic support (Madison and Milwaukee, the East Coast and California), and the rest of it votes moderate republican. Wisconsin even has the equivalent of swing states--farming areas that for some reason contain an unusually high contingent of ex-hippie organic farmers. Mostly, though, it's the balance between conservatives and liberals that make the independent votes so coveted...just like the rest of the country.

 

You meantioned party lines; Feingold is also outstanding in this respect. He's both reached across the aisle (campaign finance) and broken party lines (USAPATRIOT act, censure attempt).

 

I've also said before on this thread that the Democrats' job in this election will be to present their agenda in moral language. Poll after poll has indicated that people agree in principle with the democrats, but they vote otherwise. It's all about a candidate who can take firm moral stances about issues that are moral issues at their heart but aren't thought of that way(like health care). Gore is doing a decent job of that on environmental issues, Edwards on poverty, and Feingold on civil liberties and corruption.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so we have one or two new developments.

 

 

We know that Sen. Chris Dodd is planning a white house run. I don't know how the hell he thinks he will get the nod, but still. Interesting to note. I wouldn't really mind it if he got it, but you know. I think I'd rather vote for Feingold or Edwards.

 

More interesting is this from washington Post's The Fix:

 

Obama Staff Move Prompts Renewed '08 Speculation

 

Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) has brought on two nationally known Democratic consultants as advisers in recent weeks, prompting renewed speculation that the freshman senator may be considering a 2008 White House run.

PH2006052501415.jpg

Sen. Barack Obama (AP)

Anita Dunn, a partner with Squier Knapp Dunn, a media consulting company, and Minyon Moore, who is with the Dewey Square Group, are now serving as advisers to Obama.

Dunn is working with Obama's leadership political action committee -- Hopefund -- through the end of the year. Hopefund's political director recently left and Dunn, who is a close personal friend of top Obama aide Pete Rouse, was called in oversee the committee until a full-time head can be chosen. Moore is serving as an unpaid adviser to Obama, working to build an African American outreach program.

Obama's office insists the moves have nothing to do with positioning him for a presidential race in 2008 or beyond.

Asked to explain the addition of Dunn and Moore, Robert Gibbs, communications director for the Senator, said "the demands on his time politically combined with his profile nationally are greater than a senator ranked 98th in seniority and therefore necessitate a larger organization."

Both Dunn and Moore have experience in presidential campaigns. Dunn served as a senior adviser to Bill Bradley in 2000 and is playing a similar role for Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh as he weighs a run for president in 2008. Moore was involved in Rev. Jesse Jackson's 1988 presidential race, served in the Clinton White House and led minority outreach for John Kerry's presidential bid in 2004.

Political insiders will continue to wonder about Obama's plans given the incredibly active travel and fundraising schedule he's maintaining. Obama has already visited 21 states to raise money for Senate candidates and raised better than $1.5 million into Hopefund in the first four months of the year.

 

 

 

On the other hand, I doubt Obama is really planning on running. If anything he might be edging for a vp nod, but surely he is not seriously considering running in 08?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

personally i would like hillary but i believe that she wont win and that, even if this seems like a replayed ideology from kerry bush 04, dems need someone that can win the office before running someone better yet with a lower chance, so i voted warner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

speaking of which, can anyone who likes hillary clinton explain why? i've talked to a lot of people, and it seems to me that people who lean conservatives don't like her for what she appears to be (a liberal new england political insider) and attention paying liberals don't like her because she's stop saying and voting liberal in what appears to be an election ploy. is this one of those "she's my prefered flavor of middle" sort of things that i just don't understand?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bottom line is this.

 

Hillary Clinton has zero chance of winning the general election.

 

If she gets the nod, which is unfortunately likely, then the Democrats will not control the White House. The place that most concerns me is the Supreme Court. Another conservative justice to replace, say, John Paul Stevens could mean overturning Lawrence v. Texas and Roe v. Wade, not to mention crippling future progress.

 

Hillary Clinton isn't even a good candidate. The right has done a great job of spinning her as some rabid liberal, which contributes to her nonexistent general elections. But the thing is, she's not really a liberal, and follows the DLC approach of the previous Clinton administration.

 

I would be happy with many of the candidates on that list. Al Gore and Russ Feingold are, ideology-speaking, my two favorites, but ultimately I will vote in the primary for whoever has the best chance of beating Clinton. Warner would be a very bad choice if the Republicans nominate McCain or Giuliani. This would cause a race with two extremely similar centrist candidates, which would have several negative effects for the Democrats. It would increase the viability of another Nader (had Gore taken Nader's votes in 2000, he would have won easily), which would hurt the Democrats more than the Republicans due to the Republicans' better use of a big-tent approach to individual special interests. It would also cause voters to decide less on issues (since candidates are so similar) and more on silly things like how they perceive the candidates' personalities. The Republicans have always been better at spinning things like that. However, if the Republican nominee is Frist or Gingrich or someone more conservative, then Warner could easily be a wise choice, just as Bill Clinton contrasted well with George H. W. Bush and Bob Dole.

 

If Gore gets the nod, though, he should continue the demeanor he's had since the 2000 election. He did a very poor job of campaigning and he should learn from his mistakes. That said, the fact that he lost in and of itself should not prove that he cannot win in 2008. Not only did he lose by a razor-thin margin, he won the popular vote, and after 8 years of Bush, the left is more likely to turn out and rally around him than they were around him in 2000, after 8 years of a DLC Democrat. Also, there is empirical evidence - Nixon lost in 1960 to John F. Kennedy, only to be elected in 1968.

 

Edit: I just thought of something else - the Democrats should learn from what the Republicans did in 2004 with all the gay marriage ballot proposals and do something similar. A good idea would be putting ballot initiatives to increase the minimum wage in as many states as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My guess is that a Democrat will definetely win this upcoming election. Why, you ask? This is because Americans and the entire world is tired of seeing the Bush administration in control, especially George W. Bush. This man does not know what he is doing and he has done many stupid things. Although it may seem like he's planning everything out, he may only be hoping things work his way because of just how this 2nd term of his has been going. Some people like Bush. Why? Because those people are feeble minded idiots who have no idea what the Bush adminsitration is doing and neither does Bush himself.

-Shinrajil Chen

 

What I love most about this post is how you mention so many specific examples and warrant all your statements. Keep up the good work, bud!

 

PS: Clinton For President!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The place that most concerns me is the Supreme Court. Another conservative justice to replace, say, John Paul Stevens could mean overturning Lawrence v. Texas and Roe v. Wade, not to mention crippling future progress.

 

 

dont forget Browne v. Board of Education.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so noone who likes hillary has any justification? ok, just checking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would like to see whoever has the best chance of losing to a republican nominated as the democratic candidate because any democrat in the whitehouse would screw up the country, turning it into a socialist state with no private property, no guns for lawabiding citizens and huge terrorist attacks because we would have no security.

 

Republicans of debate unite!

 

You should

 

a) Check the thread to make sure it doesn't specifically prohibit this kind of idiocy.

B) Warrant what you say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I am not really a Sen. Clinton supporter, I doubt she will win the general election. She polls better than generic republican, republicans have already attacked and vilified her to their best abilities, so those poll numbers probably won't drop, and Rupert Murdock (sp?), the owner of Fox News, is doing fund raisers for her.

 

Now, if it comes down to McCain vs. Clinton, I don't think she will win. But I think she could beat most of the republicans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...