Binary testing the waters for '08 poll

Walt Starr

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Nov-10-05 11:04 AM
Original message

Poll question: Binary testing the waters for '08 poll

Edited on Thu Nov-10-05 11:05 AM by Walt Starr

COMPLETELY HYPOTHETICAL:

Okay, it's primary season and the field has been winnowed to two candidates in the Democratic Presidential Primaries. Who do you go for?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Nicholas D Wolfwood

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Nov-10-05 11:05 AM
Response to Original message

1. Probably vote for Warner, but I wouldn't be thrilled.

I still think we need to be shoring up the midwest and western states, not the all-but-lost south.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Walt Starr

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Nov-10-05 11:07 AM
Response to Reply #1

2. The problem is the number of Electoral votes in the Southern states

You need a much wider appeal in the West to gain as many electoral votes as Virginia.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Nicholas D Wolfwood

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Nov-10-05 11:11 AM
Response to Reply #2

4. You grab Ohio, it's all over.

Plus, it's not like you have to really diversify that much to appeal to, say, Arizona, Colorado, the Dakotas and New Mexico. It's done simply - tout state's rights on everything they may not agree with us on. It appeals to their true conservatism while deflecting tough questions on our core issues (and not compromising them either). Win-win, so far as I can see.

The South is not needed.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Walt Starr

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Nov-10-05 11:15 AM
Response to Reply #4

6. Okay, I'm going to throw out a name for Veep that KErry should have picked

Ted Strickland.

He's a VERY popular Democratic Congressman from a VERY conservative area of Ohio along the river.

He's also an ordained minister.

Had Kerry picked Strickland to be his Veep, we'd have President KErry today.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Nicholas D Wolfwood

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Nov-10-05 11:26 AM
Response to Reply #6

10. That would've probably been a great pick

I know Strickland - he's a good man.

I was thinking more along the lines of Dick Gephardt. With Missouri that surprisingly close, we might've picked up that state, and he would've energized labor in Ohio a lot more effectively.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Walt Starr

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Nov-10-05 11:55 AM
Response to Reply #10

18. I think a Warner/Strickland ticket would sweep the counrty

It would be hard for the republicans to defeat such a ticket.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Nicholas D Wolfwood

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Nov-10-05 12:25 PM
Response to Reply #18

24. Well, I'm not geeked up over anyone in '08 yet.

I AM of the belief that Hillary can't win simply because she'll energize a now lethargic right wing base.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Rowdyboy

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Nov-10-05 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #6

23. He'll make a damn fine governor of Ohio too....

I can't wait for January 2007 when the newly elected officials take office.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

insane_cratic_gal

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Nov-10-05 11:10 AM
Response to Original message

3. They are both moderate?

I'm not sure I like either choice but Mark would foreseeable have less strikes against him.

She's Hillary, nothing brings out the wing nuts more then a Clinton.
She's a woman, much as I'd love to see a woman president in my life time.. I don't think the Santorums that exist in this country would allow it.
Mark came out against the war, lucky for him he has no record to or vote for it. Who ever ends this madness and starts coming out against it gets my vote. So Mark it is.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Pithy Cherub

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Nov-10-05 11:14 AM
Response to Original message

5. Warner could not overcome Hillary's money advantage,

name recognition, media contacts, California & New York connections (Hillary also gets Big money out of Texas), political organization already in place, trial lawyer money, standing within the Black community and the guy she is married to will be no small advantage.

By no means is she my number 1 choice, but Warner is even further back than she is. :yoiks:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

GreenPartyVoter

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Nov-10-05 11:17 AM
Response to Original message

7. I dunno. I might close my eyes and just pick one.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Tierra_y_Libertad

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Nov-10-05 11:21 AM
Response to Original message

8. VichyDem DLCr's? Again? Green is such a nice color.

If the Dems are dumb enough to pick a moderate Repug again, it only confirms the the truth of the one party state.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

WiseButAngrySara

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Nov-10-05 11:31 AM
Response to Reply #8

11. Who are you referring to? "moderate Repug"!! A moderate Democrat,

who is an anti-war candidate,is probably the only way a Democrat will be elected.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

WiseButAngrySara

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Nov-10-05 11:38 AM
Response to Reply #11

12. I didn't vote, as I wouldn't be able to with your choices. Anyone but

Hillary...as much as I admire and respect her, the M$M is already preparing for her loss, by suggesting that she will be the candidate. I think it will be political suicide for the Democrats to support Hillary.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

tatertop

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Nov-10-05 11:24 AM
Response to Original message

9. Warner has no name recognition, Hillary has no chance in '08

Hillary will activate the right like you have never seen.
Hillary will turn away anti-war voters.

Pukes will say 'we can't have a woman sailing the ship
during a time of WAR!!!'
Americans are dumb enough to believe shit like that.
By foolishly endorsing 'staying the course in Iraq' Hillary has check-mated herself before the first salvo.

Hillary has to wait: forget about '08.

We really really need Gore.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Walt Starr

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Nov-10-05 11:47 AM
Response to Reply #9

16. It's 2005. Let's look to some previous years for guidance

Edited on Thu Nov-10-05 11:48 AM by Walt Starr

In 1989, William Jefferson Clinton had no name recognition. He won in 1992.

In 1973, nobody in the nation knew who James Earl Carter was except Georgians. No name recognistion at all. He wan in 1976.

Three years out, name recognition is not an issue, and Warner will be building name recognition.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

tatertop

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Nov-10-05 12:00 PM
Response to Reply #16

19. We should make Gore run. Force all contenders to stand down.

Let Gore hammer away while the pukes fight it out
in the primaries. America would finally know what the Democratic
Platform is and why pukes are bad for this country, because
Gore can lay it all out in no nonsense terms.
Gore can win. (Just keep lieberman out of sight and
out of mind till it's over.)

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Walt Starr

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Nov-10-05 12:12 PM
Response to Reply #19

21. That's not how primaries work. All comers are welcome

You cannot tell candidates they cannot run. It doesn't work that way.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

tatertop

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Nov-10-05 12:19 PM
Response to Reply #21

22. I know. We need a smoke-filled back-room meeting

Like this: Eat each other alive but
hands off Gore in the primaries!
Let Gore attack the real enemy.
The way I see it, this country is almost done.
Time to bend those rules, just this once.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Walt Starr

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Nov-10-05 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #22

26. Baloney

That sort of thing would be counterproductive.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

tatertop

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Nov-10-05 12:53 PM
Response to Reply #26

29. Big Bologna

Edited on Thu Nov-10-05 12:55 PM by tatertop

That sort of thing could begin to right the terrible
wrongs being done to this country.
We would not be cheating or stealing votes or fixing votes.

No muckraking or back stabbing of The Gore.
This is all we need to do.

We need to make our case to the American people.
We need to win in '08.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Walt Starr

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Nov-10-05 01:10 PM
Response to Reply #29

31. Then let the process proceed as it is set

If you start dictating how the political process will proceed, you'll end up with a dictator.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

tatertop

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Nov-10-05 01:36 PM
Response to Reply #31

34. Sounds to me like the same recipe that failed us in '04

Maybe Lieberman will run again.
He should be able to torpedo at least three
real Democrats in the primaries.
(Maybe he can confuse Americans into believing the Democratic
Party is merging with the Communists.)

We have the same end in mind.
However, I believe if this election is stolen, the Democratic Party
--as I know and love it-- is done.

Then you will truly have your dictator.

I would sooner see Gore be allowed to solidify the Democratic Platform
in the minds of Americans while he makes sure every vote counts.
I think he is the only one who can get it done.

And there you have his slogan.
Vote Gore: the only one who can get it done.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Walt Starr

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Nov-10-05 04:04 PM
Response to Reply #34

35. YA know, what you're saying sounds familiar

You've just replaced "Reoublican" with "Democrat" and changed the names to Democratic names, but I've heard this before at other sites.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Zynx

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Nov-10-05 12:42 PM
Response to Reply #9

27. Name recognition is a pathetic excuse.

So many major party nominees and indeed presidents have had no name recognition before they ran it's not even funny.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

tatertop

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Nov-10-05 01:07 PM
Response to Reply #27

30. I think he will get all tore up in the primaries

I suppose we will have eight candidates again.
Maybe nine or ten. No one will really know, like last time.
90% of the populace will be able to name maybe one (MAYBE two)
candidates, like last time.
All eight/ten will propose platforms so varied
it will be like running eight parties instead of one.
(I suppose The Pukes will run the real candidate and a make believe candidate. Lock-step message.)

By the way, can you tell me what the Democratic platform is
on most issues?

Try this plank for starters:
Are we pro or anti occupation?
I really can't tell you.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

progressivebydesign

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Nov-10-05 11:42 AM
Response to Original message

13. I think my head just exploded!!!

With all of the DEATH and heartache and poverty of the past 5 years under Bush, there are actually at least FIVE people here already that would willingly watch further destruction of our country and our people to satisfy their own high ground? Un-fucking-believable. I'd vote for a gerbil, before do anything to allow the Bush clan to control the country for even a second longer.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

insane_cratic_gal

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Nov-10-05 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #13

17. LOL those are the freeper spies

what they don't know is by choosing option c. they reveal themselves to Skinner!

that's plan: Eagle talon has rabbit.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

tatertop

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Nov-10-05 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #13

20. Never bet on a losing friend

Running Hillary is like betting on a losing friend.
Do you really, truly believe Hillary has any chance of winning?

Please allow me to quote myself:
"Hillary will activate the right like you have never seen.
Hillary will turn away anti-war voters.

Pukes will say 'we can't have a woman sailing the ship
during a time of WAR!!!'
Americans are dumb enough to believe shit like that.
By foolishly endorsing 'staying the course in Iraq' Hillary has check-mated herself before the first salvo.

Hillary has to wait: forget about '08.

We really really need Gore."

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

SaveElmer

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Nov-10-05 11:44 AM
Response to Original message

14. Hillary is my candidate...but

As a resident of Virginia I know what a great job Warner has done, and certainly would have no hesitation in supporting him!!!

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Beam Me Up

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Nov-10-05 11:45 AM
Response to Original message

15. I will not support any candidate who does not strongly OPPOSE the

policies put in place by the Bush administration. That means an immediate end to the invasion of Iraq. It means a lot more as well. For example, it means taking a strong stand in favor of verifiable elections, it means reconsidering the 'patriot act' and much more.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Perky

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Nov-10-05 12:28 PM
Response to Original message

25. Put Richardson on the TIcket with Warner and

Virginia is already in play but add AZ, NM, CO, NV and Florida.

If he sparks a high hispanic turnout in the battlegrounds we could rout the opposition.

He would be the best credentialed VP we have ever seen

Congressman
Secretary of Energy
UN Ambassador
Governor

He has Gravitas

He is respected by North Korea and the Bush Regime.

And he makes a great juxtapose after Cheney.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Zynx

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Nov-10-05 12:44 PM
Response to Original message

28. No question Warner.

The same goes for anyother candidate he might run against with the possible exception of Feingold. I happen to think that Warner would simply be a damn good president. I want competence and sound judgement in the White House. Ideology is not particularly important so long as they are not overboard one way or the other.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

mb7588a

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Nov-10-05 01:11 PM
Response to Original message

32. Feingold/Richardson... Feingold/Clark nt.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Catchawave

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Nov-10-05 01:26 PM
Response to Original message

33. Interesting poll choices

will you be doing these for all the '08 hopefuls ?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Sat May 04th 2024, 02:49 PM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.