Real ideas for 2008 (people that can win)

We need to get someone for 2008 that can win.

That means no to dean, no to kerry, no to edwards, NO to hillary, and most likely no to gore.

We need a southerner. This is because of the dynamics of the current situation. Right now we would have needed to have won virtually every swing state to win the presidency. We won a lot of them but not all of them. If we get a southerner then that will create a couple of swing states that normally would be solid bush states. This at the very least gives us a cushion to lose some swing states.

We need a governor. Senators are good men but they cant win presidential races. Their records are too easily distortable. Senators vote for and against stuff for various reasons that are too complicated to explain. The opponents side can just distort like they did this time and theres no real defense to it. On the other hand governors have executive experience and their records are hard to distort.

We need someone who will deliver a bush state. This is for the obvious reason to just give us a leg up. Governors are the best at this since people from their state know them more than they would know their senators.

We need someone who is moderate on personal and moral issues. To help take the south we are going to need people who are moderate on moral issues. The republicans have won the war with wedge issues. We need to stop nominating people who they can hit with wedge issues. They seem destined to nominate someone like guiliani or mccain who are moderate on social issues too. So if we elect someone who is also moderate the big moral issue advantage that the republicans have will be gone.


So in short we need a southern governor, who can deliver their state and is moderate on social issues.

Three guys fit this bill.

Mark Warner - Governor of Virginia
Phil Bredesen - Governor of Tennessee
Michael Easley - Governor of North Carolina

All three have their pros and cons.

Warner is the head of the national governors association and has good moderate ideals when it comes to social issues.

Bredesen is really liked in tennessee and i think even if the republicans nominated Bill Frist who is from tennessee that bredesen could still pull tennessee off. Tennessee is also sort of in the middle of the south meaning that he would give us a chance in a lot of other southern states (particularly missouri, and arkansas).

Michael Easley - He just won a new term in NC by a large margin. NC is 15 electoral votes so to just take that would be awesome.


Another one that kind of fits the bill is Evan Bayh. He is a former governor of Indiana who is now a senator. Hes moderate on social issues and is wildly popular in indiana. His senatorial career could handicap him a bit especially since he voted for the iraq war. However he also voted for the funding and has spoke out again how bush misled us to war. If hes wildly popular in such a republican state it makes you wonder what other republican states he could pull off.


I think these four guys are our only real choices when it comes down to it.

There are other people like Bill Richardson, Ed Rendell, and Tom Vilsack that would also be acceptable but they would be secondary choices that could make good VPs.

Reguardless of 2004, he deserves another chance.

nt

I completely agree that Hillary would be a bad idea. Not a diss on her personally, just the Clinton hatred baggage. Personally, I like Obama, and I hear that he was doing some stumping and seems to have some appeal to rural whites. Sadly, though, the country isn't ready for a black (or biracial) president.

How would he win? He WONT take NC. He is a disliked freshman senator. He didnt even get kerry anymore votes there than gore got. Trust me he wouldnt win unless he managed to run a better campaign than kerry did. And i dont think we want to nominate a candidate who has to run an extremely good campaign to win.

He has rural appeal which could take Iowa but thats about it.

And in 2008 obama will only have had 4 years in the senate. Thats not enough experience. We have to unleash him when hes not vulnerable to people saying he doesnt have any experience. Hes the 2012 or 2020 candidate.

I haven't seen it. Sure, there is a lot of right-wing spin against him, but are his negatives high among the general population? Remember that in the primaries he scored well among independents. Women love him. And in '08 the "inexperienced" label will have less resonance. He has campaign experience and held his own in a debate against Oily Dick.

Of course you're right that Kerry/Edwards lost the South big-time. Is that because of Edwards specifically, or is there a larger dynamic at play?

Anyway, I'm not convinced that a lesser known Southern governor would do better, unless one of those guys is the next Bill Clinton in hiding.

As for Obama, I was just throwing his name out there for reaction. I agree that 2008 would be too early for him. And I don't know if the country will we ready for him in '12 or '16. I have my doubts.

Another night like we had last Tuesday and we'll face VETO-PROOF/FILLIBUSTER proof House & Senate...and you're playing 2008 pipe dream games?

Good luck!

of who's up in 2006?

Just like any election, plus a lion's share of the Governorships and the Secretary of State races in Ohio & Florida (PRIORITIES).

I haven't gone through the Senate list, but I'm betting the RSCC already has their targets market...and they'll be in "purple areas"...

Here's just a few Senators that I can see are already in trouble:

Ben Nelson - FL
Debbie Stabenow - MI
Mark Dayton - MN
Ben Nelson - NE
Jeff Bingaman - NM
Kent Conrad - ND
Herb Kohl - WI

Plus, Chaffee's up in RI & Jeffords in VA. Lose just 5 of these seats and it's Fillibuster-proof.

I lived in ND for a long time and all my mother's family is still up there. Conrad is loved dearly, no matter what his party affiliation. I would be really surprised if he's in trouble. I think he & Byron Dorgan will be there until they are ready to leave.

In FL (where I've lived for the past 16 years), BILL Nelson has a big following. One major thing he has going for him is the fact that he's a former astronaut. The Space Coast (normally red) adores him for that because he fights for NASA.

I don't know about the rest, but I think these 2 seats will be okay. Unless, of course, the GOP steals FL again...

Lots of wishful thinking here. There were many who thought Daschele was safe. The Democrats were skunked out of the South in the Senate (that Lousiana loss was real bad since the Repugnican got 51% and thus avoided a run off) and now the few remaining, Nelson is one, will be targeted. So will those in the Midwest where Bunnypants took 60% of the popular vote.

If you'll notice I didn't put Byron Dorgan on the endangered list since he's one of the great Senators who can address the North Dakotan issues while working to uphold Democratic party goals. I wish he'd step up into a greater leadership role.

Nothing can be assumed safe right now after we've seen at what lengths and expense the GOOP will go to win elections.

The one I really want to get rid of is Santorum.

If Hoeffel couldn't knock of Spector with the large number of Democrats that came out vs. the rural Repugnicans, it's not gonna be an easy task in getting rid of Sanctorum...even with Rendell. Personally, I'd prefer to see Ed stay at Governor...he's in control of a critical state needed in 2008.

Right now we need to shore up any weak Democrats or win one seat and lose 4 more.

We have to hit the republicans hard on their ties to big corporations. Not only will that be a hit against them but it will distance us from the notion of corrupt government. It will also hurt them when it comes to "morals" while helping us.

Its also an issue which the republicans really cant defend very well.

There's a ton of issues Democrats to win on...each issue to the Repugnican group it affects...but this has to be done locally.

I can tell how few here worked on campaigns or, if they did, only listened to those who said "Yes" and not "No"...I listened and what I saw Tuesday reflected those "Nos" very loudly, and I'm in a very Blue state, I could only imagine how it is elsewhere.

We have to reach the large group of scared sheeple that voted for Bunnypants above their own best interests since they only heard the GOOP message and not ours, and those who were delivering our messages did so very poorly.

they both lost.

Clinton won but only got 43% of the vote, and he was a southerner.

Why do we need a southerner?

How about someone that can represent real Democratic values and make those values attractive to Southerners and others- a salesman type?

That's what put him over the top in terms of electoral votes, which is unfortunately all we need.

I do agree that we need a salesman.

I didnt say just a southernor. I said southern GOVERNOR.

People who are senators from a state are less able to deliver their state and cant deliver whole regions. Governors can.

I swear, I think people here are losing their minds. Haven't you learned by now that you can't pander to the South? It's not going to work... and even if it did, would ANYONE really want that set of attitudes, beliefs and values at the helm? It's not that much better than having a Republican running the show.

The Southern reasoning is that Southerners can get us states that aren't already blue.

We could nominate a block of cheese and still get NY, NJ, CA, and MA.

By that rationale of course, we could get a Nevadan or a Midstater...don't know that any of them have Dem governors. If so, I'd be willing to take a look at them.

I'd rather split hairs with a Democrat than deal with a Republican on a number of issues.

Who looks like he will become the Minority Leader. He's very moderate, but he appears to be pro-life. A possible Midwesterner is Russ Feingold, the senator from WI. Also Bill Richardson is a big name, and he is the Governor of New Mexico.

Kansas, Iowa, and Montana all have Democratic governors.

is NOT pandering to them.

Jimmy Carter DIDN'T pander to ANYBODY in 1976 AND HE SWEPT THE WHOLE REGION.

He was a rural farmer who spoke the same language as they did, AND he was a Evangelical Christian to boot!

If you hadn't heard of him, DU he'd be called a defacto homophobe and racist for those two reasons.

Dude we CANT win without a southernor. As i said without a southernor or possible a guy from the west we have very little chance. We have to pull out like every swing state. We dont want to have to do that.

If not, forget it.

Schwarzennegger.

describe him.

What kind of party says, well the regions that backed us the most cannot help us? Anyone who supports us in the NE, well forget it nationally. That will attract the best and brightest.

We NEED to figure out how to get good people elected DESPITE what region they come from. That is what a party organization does.

This Southern stuff is just BS, trying to game the system instead of doing hard work. I have nothing against running someone from the South if they're good, I have nothing against good Dems who represent conservative districts and work for their constituents - but we ran good candidates in the South, have been for years, and are losing. The problem is not who or where. The problem is it doesn't matter where people come from if you don't have an effective modern political apparatus.

We cant get the good people elected despite what region they come from. This election showed that. We had a decent candidate against the worst president in history and still lost.

We need a southernor to make the south competitive.

And what is up with all these "We must run DLC and only DLC because nobody but DLC can win" threads anyway?

Looks like you fucking traitors know your days are numbered, huh?

Sorry. Because of you goddamned neocon moles, we lost Congress.

Then we lost the White House.

Somewhere in there we lost the media.

Now we're on the verge of losing the Supreme Court for DECADES.

I can't tolerate any more losses at the hands of Al From, Will PNAC Marshall and the idiots who will blindly follow them all the way to a fascist HELL. Because I can already see the molten lava from here, and this handbasket doesn't have any brakes.

John Kerry was not a DLC candidate. I love the man. I'm a liberal Dem. But Kerry was our most liberal nominee since Mondale. To call him a DLCer is comical. We can't be kicking people out of the party. We need to grow the party. Ideological purity loses elections.

...and start thinking about NOW.

You're not going to find ONE person who can save our party in 2008. And if we continue to spend all our energy on that pursuit, we'll see victory slip further and further from our grasp in the meantime.

The answer isn't finding a new candidate to worship until '08. The answer is making a clear stand for ourselves until then, and then selecting the candidate who best represents us as that election nears.

I'm so sick of watching you people obsess over who the next presidential candidate will be. You know, there exists time BETWEEN presidential elections, too.

Flame away.

There won't be a 2008, as long as the black boxes are still in place.

How stupid/naive can people be?

on more than one thing at a time. Got it? ;)

He has kept an incredibly low profile in this state - though I pay attention to politics, I could not tell you one accomplishment of his, other than crashing a race car while trying to appeal to the NASCAR crowd.

He probably could win NC for the Dems, and he does have a pretty pro-business reputation (as Dems do in NC), and he did indeed crush Ballantine like a bug, but I don't think he is nominee material. I think he's like Bob Graham - looks awesome on paper, but once you see him on a Presidential debate stage, you just don't feel it.

I'd look more at Bayh. Yeah, he voted for the war, but I'd be surprised if voting on the war is an issue in four years, even if the war still is part of the national debate. The guy might be worth looking at.

Also, Bill Richardson is worth a look. He could make the inroads in the Southwest and among Hispanics that we need. Besides, he's a governor from a red state (sadly).