Russ is definately someone I can vote FOR, however I have a few questions

My concern is Russ' electability. I like Russ a lot, and believe that he would make a great President, but I'm concerned about his chances of getting elected, as well as whether or not he will have coat-tails for Congressional races. Russ is very progressive ideologically, which is not bad, but we also need to look at who has the best chance of winning the most state. Maybe Feingold IS that type of candidate who can pull it off, but on paper at least he has a lot of things that could sink his candidacy should he go for it in 2008. Being a twice-divorced, secular liberal Jew are two things against him. He's also stood out on several issues that put him to the left of many other Democrats (I can't remember specifically what they are, please don't flame me for that. I'll try looking them up too.)

I think that Russ is one of our best candidates ideologically-speaking, but I need to be assured that he can transcend expectations and obstacles.

Gore/Feingold

I like Al Gore but I really like Feingold and I consider myself a moderate independent before Bush took office and made me mad.

Democrats already know him, trust him, like him.
Gore/Feingold is the ticket we need.

Look at the electorate that has supported him. A surprising number of Wisconsin Republicans vote for Russ (you can see this in the '04 election results). In a Midwest state. Well, we used to be called the Midwest.

In any case, his straightforward manner and ability to explain complicated things using plain language, not to mention his reputation for being ethically upright and consistent, seems to appeal to far more voters than you'd think of a 'twice-divorced, secular liberal Jew'.

on edit:

One last thing: Could he win in the South? I don't know -- but he could definitely win in the West. He can even talk cows and pigs and actually know what he's talking about.

If the slightly smarter rednecks and fiscal Republican's who are morally liberal (like here in PA, Ohio), and the "stay out of my business" midwesterners - the gun thing will play very well. That is if they like him, which he is very likable. And he'd have a damn good chance in Florida. And, I think he could peel off a state like Iowa or Montana.

having coattails. In only a handful of seats in the last few elections were coattails a factor.

And if Russ can win in a swing state like Wisconsin he can win the country.

squeaked by with less than a 1% margin. It still amazes me that the same people that voted for Russ also voted for Bush. I think it is time we supported a man who "would make a great President" instead of who might be the most electable.

Election results from WP

Candidates Votes %
John F. Kerry (D) 1,488,935 50
George W. Bush * (R) 1,477,122 49
Other 26,333 1


U.S. Senate -- Wisconsin
Updated 11/24/04 1:59 AM ET
Precincts:100% Incumbent* declared winner
Candidates Votes %
Russ D. Feingold * (D) 1,632,562 55
Tim Michels (R) 1,301,305 44
Other 14,977 1

but is that considered a big win for a Senate race?

less than 12,000 votes (which we worked damn hard to get) and the Senator wins by over 330,000 votes, I'd say yes that is a big win in this particular Senate race.

As evenly divided as Wisconsin, yeah it is. Its not even so much the fact that he won, but more about how he won. He had at times an unpopular record, but he ran on that record. Ran on the fact that he voted against the Patriot Act, ran on the fact that he voted against the IWR. He got a lot of Bush voters, and he attracted those voters because like Bush they felt like he was genuinely standing up for what he believes in.

Feingold was the incumbent, Michaels a newcomer. Feingold demolished him in their debate on TV--creamed him with one hand tied behind his back. Michaels spent money on attack ads, but people knew and trusted Russ: he won, but not with such a big landslide. He got 55% of the vote statewide, to Kerry's 50%.

As for electibility, Bush's rating in Wisconsin at election time was 54% approve, but he only won 49% of the vote. Kerry took the rest.

how Feingold managed to pull a 330,000 plus vote margin while Kerry took our state by just over 11,000 votes? How could all those people vote for Bush and Feingold? By 2004 they should have known Bush as well as Russ.

day in and day out? And doubletime since 9-11, 2001?

actually watch/listen to broadcast media for "news" whereas I watch to see what they are not covering and if/how they spin what little they do talk about.

And THAT is the actual problem for the Dem party. New faces on the national scene get defined by an MSM controlled by the GOP.

we should test and license voters? ;)

They don't mind a Democratic Senator for the programs he'd bring to the state, but they don't trust one when it comes to "keeping us safe from terrorists".

From a letter to the editor that I wrote shortly after the "election".

Bush supporters were an incredibly ill informed electorate. The University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) report "The Separate Realties of Bush and Kerry Supporters" provides a remarkable insight into what Bush supporters believe.

Quoting from the PIPA press release as follows.
"Even after the final report of Charles Duelfer to Congress saying that Iraq did not have a significant WMD program, 72% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq had actual WMD (47%) or a major program for developing them (25%). Fifty-six percent assume that most experts believe Iraq had actual WMD and 57% also assume, incorrectly, that Duelfer concluded Iraq had at least a major WMD program. Kerry supporters hold opposite beliefs on all these points."
( http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04/html/new_10_21_04.html#)

Even more astounding is that 57% of Bush supporters believed that the rest of the world supports Bush over Kerry. The fact is that Kerry is supported by 2 to 1 over Bush overseas. 74% of Bush supporters believe that Iraq was supporting Al Qaeda in spite of the 9/11 commission=s findings that there was no link much less support.

20 yrs.

How can you compare?

BTW - You're saying here that Kerry wouldn't have made a good president. The lawmaker who believed the MOST in Open Book Government - who wrote the Clean Elections bill - who wrote a prescient book warning about the growing terrorism threat in 1996 - The lawmaker who uncovered and exposed MORE GOVT. CORRUPTION than ANY lawmaker in modern history and certainly more than anyone in office today....wouldn't make a good president?


Sorry, but your perception is skewed to me. You don't factor in HISTORY.

responding to the top post's comments on Feingold's electabilty. As a ward leader for the Kerry/Edwards campaign, I knocked on dozens of doors and made hundreds of phone calls to help eek the narrow margin that Wisconsin had for Kerry. So obviously, I thought Kerry would be and should be an excellent president.

And again regarding "how can I compare"? I was not comparing Kerry and Feingold. My comment is that basically, I still do not understand how people can vote for a progressive like Feingold and on the same ballot vote for the incompetent, bungling, corporate stooge that is in office when they had such a good, clear alternative in John Kerry.

" I think it is time we supported a man who "would make a great President" instead of who might be the most electable."

The implication to me is that we didn't do that in the past. People around DU often spout about "electability" in both bad and good context, but many Kerry supporters were on board with him enthusiastically based on his extraordinary record of achievement that focused on exposing government corruption.

We're Open the Books Democrats who believe in Government OF the people, BY the people, FOR the people, and accountable TO the people.

And an Open Government Democrat is the most desired president to us.

We lost with Mr. Electable and Mr. War Hero!

Let's stop playing the DLC game, they are a bunch of losers!

Using the term "electable" for a 2008 candidate doesn't imply that we'll get someone like Kerry again. Kerry ran a lousy campaign, whereas someone else, like Clark, Warner, or Edwards could run a better one. The problem with Feingold, despite being a terrific Senator and spokeperson for Progressives, is that he starts off with many handicaps politically- speaking.

left pundits on the tube everyday. They would've had the SAME weak-ass Dem party infrastructure. They would've had the same Election boards in charge of the votecount on Nov.2, 2004.

Kerry WON all his matchps with Bush AND his matchups with the others during the primary. The DNC and the left media got their asses handed to them every day by the RNC and the RW message machine who controlled the daily debate. Gee - possibly because the GOP controls most broadcast media?

The media did not offer a level playing field for each candidate. Why?Not just because * was the incumbent with the bully pulpit. The media was handled better by the RNC because the RNC had the infrastructure, the organization to do it--and they're still doing it.

It wasn't Kerry, it was the broken-down disorganized party he had to work from. And even though they raised a lot of money, the infrastructure wasn't there. Is it any better this year? I sincerely hope so. A better-built party would be able to manage the media better. The problem is that it takes time and money; let's hope Dean and Co. are working on this.

But even with all of those handicaps, Kerry almost won it.

and the GOP will stick it to us again in 2008.

Every time we back into "what will the neighbors think" mode we screw up. Speak for the right. Stand for the right. Vote for the right. Do the right thing. Feingold, Clark, Gore ... these are all men who GET that. Any one of them deserves my dollars, my effort, my respect.

Let's not worry over much about electability. The truth is the only thing that can save this nation now. Either the nation can respond to that, or it cannot. In any event, it is time for us to stand fast, and not pander to the MSM's perception of the masses.

WI is not exactly a hot bed of liberalism nor are most Bush overs liberal idealists. He plays well in the midwest meaning he would come across well throughout most of the country. He is also very non partisan, has an impecable record in terms of his integrity, and is the most fiscally conservative member of congress.

Anyone who would not vote for him because he is Jewish, is probably too much of a bigot to vote for any liberal Democratic candidate.....And his general demeanor is more Midwest than anything else.

Feingold won with Clean MoneyIn one of his campaigns he placed himself in a financial straightjacket by limiting the type of campaign contributions he would accept. he ws expected to lose because 0of it, but he won.

The twice-divorced thing might be a hindrence, but Ronald Reagan was divorced.

If we nonimate Russ it will be another hope and pray on Ohio or Florida election.

IMO

.....then problems solved.:loveya: :grouphug: :pals: :yourock:

And marital status are not among them.