"democrats fail to find a message"

[samclemens]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from...ent/4747254.stm

 

i agree with this article. i was wondering how this board would react to it.

[AbeFroman]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from...ent/4747254.stm

 

i agree with this article. i was wondering how this board would react to it.

 

I'm a democrat and I agree completely. If Bush were a Dem, the republicans would have found a way to impeach him three scandals ago.

 

The problem is that no one possess the charisma of the ever-popular Bill Clinton. To the Democrats, he was Michael Jordan... almost impossible to replace. (Obviously most GOPers think differently).

 

Somebody has to step up. I really don't think that person is Hillary... maybe its russ feingold or mark warner or whoever.... I sure hope they figure out who it is before 2008.

Edited February 25, 2006 by AbeFroman

[samclemens]

I'm a democrat and I agree completely.  If Bush were a Dem, the republicans would have found a way to impeach him three scandals ago. 

 

The problem is that no one possess the charisma of the ever-popular Bill Clinton.  To the Democrats, he was Michael Jordan... almost impossible to replace. (Obviously most GOPers think differently).

 

Somebody has to step up.  I really don't think that person is Hillary... maybe its russ feingold or mark warner or whoever.... I sure hope they figure out who it is before 2008.

 

i am not a democrat by any means, and i will be overjoyed if hillary runs. she will lose badly to a moderate republican.

[minors]

i am not a democrat by any means, and i will be overjoyed if hillary runs. she will lose badly to a moderate republican.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Right on I hope they go with either Hillary, Dean, Kerry or Gore they will lose badly now if they nomiate a Warner, Richardson or that guy from Iowa I think the Demo's might win. The Demo's like Republicans would be smart to nominate a Governor. Because they are away from the fray of Washington.

[AbeFroman]

i am not a democrat by any means, and i will be overjoyed if hillary runs. she will lose badly to a moderate republican.

 

you are assuming the repubs will nominate a moderate republican.

[samclemens]

you are assuming the repubs will nominate a moderate republican.

 

yeah, i know. but the furthest right you are going to get is bill frist, as far as i can tell. compared to how far frist is from moderate compared to how far hillary is from moderate, that is what i base my assumption on.

[AbeFroman]

yeah, i know. but the furthest right you are going to get is bill frist, as far as i can tell. compared to how far frist is from moderate compared to how far hillary is from moderate, that is what i base my assumption on.

 

If the GOP wanted a sure-thing winner, they'd go with John McCain. He'd get 70% of the vote... maybe even mine.

 

If he wants to run, and does not get nominated thats all you'll need to know about the republican party. He'd win with ease, and if they pass him up for another conservative, it would be an ominous sign for america.

[samclemens]

If the GOP wanted a sure-thing winner, they'd go with John McCain.  He'd get 70% of the vote... maybe even mine. 

 

If he wants to run, and does not get nominated thats all you'll need to know about the republican party. He'd win with ease, and if they pass him up for another conservative, it would be an ominous sign for america.

 

i agree. mccain is a shoe-in. however, theres a long time to go until the election so who knows.

[Balta1701]

i agree. mccain is a shoe-in. however, theres a long time to go until the election so who knows.

I'd like to be able to say that he's wrong and the Dems could mount a challenge to McCain, but given the fact that the media have already 100% decided that he can do no wrong, it'd be almost impossible for any Dem to overcome him in the general if the election were being held this year.

[Balta1701]

Right on I hope they go with either Hillary, Dean, Kerry or Gore they will lose badly now if they nomiate a Warner, Richardson or that guy from Iowa I think the Demo's might win.  The Demo's like Republicans would be smart to nominate a Governor.  Because they are away from the fray of Washington.

Dean cannot run. He will be running the Democratic Party through the end of 2008, and one of the rules of that position is that he cannot run for other major offices. Gore has said repeatedly that he will not be running in 2008, although even I'm not dumb enough to say that means he absolutely 100% won't run (even though he kept his word in 2004 when he said he wasn't running), but I'd say right now it looks like 98% he's not running.

 

Kerry and Hillary...I would say I pretty much expect to see both of them in the nomination race, and I can say with almost absolute certainty that I won't be voting for either of them in the primaries.

 

One of the things that the Repubs used effectively against Kerry was the fact that he had a long voting record in the Senate, and as a Senator, he'd been forced over and over to make votes that were compromises, or on bills which could be painted the wrong way by a good political operative, like his vote on the $87 billion - both Bush and Kerry in a sense flip-flopped on it, given that Bush threatened to veto one version of it - the version that payed for it with a few tax increases and had requirements on how the money could have been used, but Bush's people were able to make easy use of Kerry's vote on that in their campaign ads.

 

So in that sense, you're probably right that the Dems should be hesitant before nominating a Senator again. If it was someone from the Senate, it'd be best if it was someone who was a short-term senator, who hadn't built up a massive 20 year voting record (Obama would fit this requirement, and he'd have my vote right now if he ran). A governor might not be a bad thing either, and Warner does seem really talented.

[jackie hayes]

Even junior senators have to make compromises. Imo, it's more important that the candidate is savvy enough that he doesn't say something about voting for then voting against, than that his voting record be sufficiently short. Maybe Obama's that good, I don't know. I don't think anyone knows yet. Warner has looked rough around the edges in features and interviews, but he's got time, and he's been my favorite for a while. Southern Dems are where it's at.

 

But I'm surprised at this consensus that the Dems don't have any positions. Whoever has the presidency will always look more organized, if only because the dissenters shut up. Noone listens to Lincoln Chafee (not a real Republican...sniff...), and Arlen Specter's become the #1 pussy in the Congress.

 

I think I have a pretty good idea what the Dem consensus is. Roll back the tax cuts, do not open up ANWAR, stay in Iraq as long as necessary (although going in at first was a bad idea), increase educational funding, and do not gut Social Security. Fund science, never churches. And following Clinton's successes, do not roll back welfare reforms, pursue free trade (albeit with environmental and human rights caveats), and maintain the blueprint for the Middle East. Of course, there's nothing on health care, but both parties are frickin clueless on that.

 

Yeah, some Dems will disagree on parts of that. But I think all those points would win a good majority of Dem votes. And compared with a party that apparently agrees that evolution is just some pissant "theory", that's a pretty damn attractive platform.

[minors]

Dean cannot run.  He will be running the Democratic Party through the end of 2008, and one of the rules of that position is that he cannot run for other major offices.  Gore has said repeatedly that he will not be running in 2008, although even I'm not dumb enough to say that means he absolutely 100% won't run (even though he kept his word in 2004 when he said he wasn't running), but I'd say right now it looks like 98% he's not running.

 

Kerry and Hillary...I would say I pretty much expect to see both of them in the nomination race, and I can say with almost absolute certainty that I won't be voting for either of them in the primaries.

 

One of the things that the Repubs used effectively against Kerry was the fact that he had a long voting record in the Senate, and as a Senator, he'd been forced over and over to make votes that were compromises, or on bills which could be painted the wrong way by a good political operative, like his vote on the $87 billion - both Bush and Kerry in a sense flip-flopped on it, given that Bush threatened to veto one version of it - the version that payed for it with a few tax increases and had requirements on how the money could have been used, but Bush's people were able to make easy use of Kerry's vote on that in their campaign ads.

 

So in that sense, you're probably right that the Dems should be hesitant before nominating a Senator again.  If it was someone from the Senate, it'd be best if it was someone who was a short-term senator, who hadn't built up a massive 20 year voting record (Obama would fit this requirement, and he'd have my vote right now if he ran).  A governor might not be a bad thing either, and Warner does seem really talented.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I looked it up and:

 

Bush, Texas Gov

Clinton Ark Gov

Regan Caly Gov

Carter Georgia Gov

 

So 4 out of the last 5 Presidents have been Gov. I think that while they are out of the main washington frey they still have leadership qualities as they have led the respective states. So in other words they have leadership experience without Washington casting a dark cloud.

[samclemens]

mitt romney...MA gov. anyone else think it's possible?

[kapkomet]

That's one of the reasons why I think Evan Bayh will have a good shot, because he was a very popular Democratic governor in a solidly Republican state.

[minors]

mitt romney...MA gov. anyone else think it's possible?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I do and I agree with KAP that Bayh will also be a good canidate for Demo's Could anyone imagine that race Indiana which hasn't voted D since '64 and Mass which hasn't voted R since 84

 

To add on: Romney would grab VT,ME and NH with him and Bayh would grab Ohio and Kentucy for the D's

Edited February 25, 2006 by minors

[SoxFan562004]

I personaly think it will be dark horses for both parties for the next election. There's just no clear cut leaders for either party right now, so I think there will be a Bill Clinton like situation from early 90's, some younger charismatic person who catches the general publics attention and the parties will run with them.

 

It would be suicide to run Kerry again for the Dems IMO. There were polls during the last election saying something like 55% of the country thought a change needed to be made, but Kerry was only pulling 40% support. For whatever reason he didn't connect with the swing voters like myself. I'm fairly moderate, and I will vote for who I think is the best candidate, and I just didn't cling to Kerry at all, hard to explain, but he just didn't convince me he would be a good president at all. I know that last line will likely get a slew of Bush questions/jokes tossed my way, but that's just how I feel!!

Edited February 25, 2006 by SoxFan562004

[SoxFan562004]

I looked it up and:

 

Bush, Texas Gov

Clinton  Ark Gov

Regan  Caly Gov

Carter Georgia Gov

 

So 4 out of the last 5 Presidents have been Gov. I think that while they are out of the main washington frey they still have leadership qualities as they have led the respective states.  So in other words they have leadership experience without Washington casting a dark cloud.

Interesting point. I think it could be interesting to see if Obama runs for Govenor in the next election after this one. I know there was talk about Dems possibly wanting to groom him for a presidential run at some point, so I wonder if they'll ask him to go the route that is becoming the path to the presidency.

[southsider2k5]

I'm a democrat and I agree completely.  If Bush were a Dem, the republicans would have found a way to impeach him three scandals ago. 

 

The problem is that no one possess the charisma of the ever-popular Bill Clinton.  To the Democrats, he was Michael Jordan... almost impossible to replace. (Obviously most GOPers think differently).

 

Somebody has to step up.  I really don't think that person is Hillary... maybe its russ feingold or mark warner or whoever.... I sure hope they figure out who it is before 2008.

 

Trust me, I get the MJ anaolgy, and when you go below the surface it isn't that far off. MJs personal life really got him in a lot of trouble as well. There have been many allegations of his affiars, supposedly his gambling problems are what made him retire for the first time, and he had a lot of people who really didn't care much for the guy. To be honest, I think if GWB had half of Bills charisma, half the stuff that we hear about would get swept under the rug, just like it did for Bill.

[WilliamTell]

Right on I hope they go with either Hillary, Dean, Kerry or Gore they will lose badly now if they nomiate a Warner, Richardson or that guy from Iowa I think the Demo's might win.  The Demo's like Republicans would be smart to nominate a Governor.  Because they are away from the fray of Washington.

 

I don't know about Warner or Richardson, but Vilsack from Iowa doesn't stand a chance.

[Balta1701]

I don't know about Warner or Richardson, but Vilsack from Iowa doesn't stand a chance.

You're right on Vilsack.

 

If Richardson runs, he'd have a very good shot at that nomination. Good experience, been a governor, hispanic heritage, pretty good record as governor, run a western state which could help the Dems appeal to other states in the West, Energy Secretary experience helps him deal with what will probably be one of the most important issues in 08 as gas prices keep going up, etc.

 

Only difference is, thus far he's another one of those guys who has said every time that he's not going to run for the nomination also. I believe him less than Gore when he says that, because the people of his state don't want him to be saying that he's running for President when he should be running that state.

 

Warner also has a very good shot. Depending on what Feingold, Obama, and Richardson do in terms of running, he's at least somewhere on the list of people I'd consider.

[Balta1701]

I do and I agree with KAP that Bayh will also be a good canidate for Demo's  Could anyone imagine that race Indiana which hasn't voted D since '64 and Mass which hasn't voted R since 84

 

To add on:  Romney would grab VT,ME and NH with him  and Bayh would grab Ohio and Kentucy for the D's

See, on that I think you're totally wrong, it's still my opinion that even running Bayh wouldn't be enough to turn Indiana blue in the general, simply because it's so far in the red. SS2k5 disagrees, but that's my opinion. Bayh might be able to turn Ohio, which would be enough to win it on the other hand, if nothing else changed.

 

But could Romney carry any of those states? Well, I find that pretty doubtful too. Romney seems like he's in a lot of trouble and may very well lose the governorship in 06. He doesn't seem like he'd be in a good place to turn those states, especially Vermont. Also, the Republican phone jamming case in NH probably hasn't made them look very good up there either.

[Rex Kickass]

The last President to win out of the Senate was JFK.

 

I think the Dem who will get the nomination is someone that isn't really talked about much right now.

 

And I don't think anyone is a shoo-in at the moment. Not even McCain.

[samclemens]

a friend of mine seems convinced that edwards will step back into the spotlight and re-emerge for a run in 08.

[Rex Kickass]

He'll run in 08, but he won't get anywhere.

[NorthSideSox72]

You're right on Vilsack.

 

If Richardson runs, he'd have a very good shot at that nomination.  Good experience, been a governor, hispanic heritage, pretty good record as governor, run a western state which could help the Dems appeal to other states in the West, Energy Secretary experience helps him deal with what will probably be one of the most important issues in 08 as gas prices keep going up, etc.

 

Only difference is, thus far he's another one of those guys who has said every time that he's not going to run for the nomination also.  I believe him less than Gore when he says that, because the people of his state don't want him to be saying that he's running for President when he should be running that state.

 

Warner also has a very good shot.  Depending on what Feingold, Obama, and Richardson do in terms of running, he's at least somewhere on the list of people I'd consider.

 

I've been researching Richardson a bit lately. He is very good at finding a handful of priority issues, and making big strides on them. But issues that aren't in his narrow focus seem to just not come up at all. He is very much a keep-it-simple guy, and NM has been helped because of it. I am a bit puzzled by his lack of attention to environmental issues (outside of water and oil/gas issues, which he has made great strides in), since that is generally a hot topic in NM. But he has been nothing short of fabulous for businesses in NM, he understands the energy community, he saw a huge dip in DUI and violent crimes on his watch (DUI is a huge thing in NM) and he is a fiscal conservative. He even has shown some foreign policy skills, working to negotiate the release of US hostages in multiple situations.

 

Like I said in the Indie thread, I really like Bayh or Richardson for the Dems. And I do think Bayh could swing IN, for the record. Richardson's key swing state draws would be NM and CO, and maybe could help push other close states in the west like OR, WA and even MT, since he is a mountain-west guy. I don't think he will win TX, but I bet he makes it interesting. He may struggle in OH, PA and FL though, being as far away geographically and with such a low profile nationally.