Realistically, how difficult will it be for a "moderate" to win primary?

...for the Democratic Party? How many Democrats will be ready to vote for a moderate after what we have experienced in the last few years? For the Republicans, a "moderate" would seem a necessity but for the Democrats, are we looking for big changes?

I know many people are supporting moderates like Warner and Clinton but will the people go along with either of them in the primary process? Or would they be more tempted to go for a "progressive" like Feingold? I tend to think the latter... I could be wrong.

conservative, and it'll be really easy for one of them to win the primary.

He or she just won't win a general election.

No way. No how.

The old fiscal responsibility, don't run up the national credit card, make careful decisions about how money is spent, be careful with the national purse....and take good care of the middle class, and encourage more people to get to that economic point. Mileage varies, though...but that is how I view moderates.

but doing it intelligently instead of peace at absolutely any price.

Kerry is probably the most liberal candidate we'll see for a while.

Clinton. It's really hard for true blue liberals to win like Dennis Kucinich.

Feingold is the most fiscally conservative member of the senate, he is a maverick that believes in finance and lobbyist reform, he believes in a strong defense, some could say he believes in keeping government out of our business. His disagreement with the Iraq war had nothing to do with not believing war is sometimes necessary just that the evidence wasn't sufficient to get us into it. His disagreement with the patriot act were with specific aspects that he believed went too far.

He comes across as practical and a dedicated realist instead of an out of touch idealist.

I think all of us would like competence and someone who put American interests in front of partisan politics.

Feingold in many respects strikes me as a moderate independent in the absolute best since of the word.

Unlike you, I don't think the Repubs will nominate a moderate. The base is still in the mood for a power grab and I don't think they will compromise by putting up a moderate.

I would think. Their only hope is to put up a perceived "moderate" like McCain. But you are probably correct. Why switch from a winning horse?

We need a populist progressive that doesn't look like the lefts version of an extreme nut job. The good news is I think we have alot of those including Feingold, Clark and maybe even Warner.

Russ is too short (based upon a friend meeting him in a restaurant), too "liberal" , too Jewish and too divorced (twice) to bring us the pres. in the general election of '08.

I like him (except for his fawning over Ashcroft in the hearings), but crave him as a Wellstone type Senator as opposed to a Wannabe Pres.

My sister on the left of the picture is 5"3-5"4. Clinton set the bar "too high" so to speak.



Rank President U.S. customary
units SI (cm)
1 Abraham Lincoln 6′ 3¾″
2 Lyndon Johnson 6′ 3½″
3 Thomas Jefferson 6′ 2½″
4 Chester Arthur
George H.W. Bush
Franklin Roosevelt 6′ 2″
7 Bill Clinton
George Washington 6′ 1½″
9 Andrew Jackson
Ronald Reagan 6′ 1″
11 John Kennedy 6′ 0½″
12 James Buchanan
Gerald Ford
James Garfield
Warren Harding
James Monroe
William Howard Taft
John Tyler 6′ 0″
20 Richard Nixon
George W. Bush
Grover Cleveland
Herbert Hoover
Woodrow Wilson 5′ 11″
24 Dwight Eisenhower 5′ 10½″
25 Calvin Coolidge
Andrew Johnson
Franklin Pierce 5′ 10″
28 Jimmy Carter
Millard Fillmore
Harry Truman 5′ 9″
31 Rutherford Hayes
Theodore Roosevelt 5′ 8½″
33 William Harrison
James Polk
Zachary Taylor 5′ 8″
36 Ulysses Grant 5′ 7¾″
37 John Adams
John Quincy Adams
William McKinley 5′ 7″
40 Benjamin Harrison
Martin Van Buren 5′ 6″
42 James Madison 5′ 4″


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._Presidents_by_height_order

the primaries?

I really don't see Feingold as an extreme liberal - more of an outspoken moderate. In many respect, Dean was the same but their temperment and style differs.

Conyers, Boxer, Kucinich?

I think my point is that the terms "liberal" and "moderate" are verrrry relative even within the DU community.

One person's moderate is another person's appeaser. It all depends on the issues that are personally important to the person making the designation. At the end of the day, though, the voters define the term, because like it or not, a person who runs from the wing (either right or left) is going to have a tough time capturing the imagination. Even the MonkeyKing ran to the center (nudging and winking his rightwing pals) and he and Big 'Five Deferments' Dick threw out the odd platitudes to calm the worried minds of those who thought they might be a little too far over to suit them.

So, if anyone who is very liberal at heart gets the nod, they will play to the center, just like Rightie the Chimp did. Ya gotta homogenize the message to get out the vote, I guess.

look what happened to kucinich last time around.

Run a liberal who's perceived as a moderate. Someone who describes himself as a liberal, but, because of his work history is seen by many - even in the red states - as a moderate.

The people who actually pay attention to and vote in the primaries KNOW this person, by and large, is a liberal, but the "sheeple" who vote in the general election will think they're voting for a moderate.

(My user name... AHEM).

:)

With my user name - it's always pretty obvious. :7

But, I like Feingold, as well. I just think his baggage might be a bit much for the purple states.

My dream ticket would be Clark/Feingold. :hi:

Clark, Warner, Feingold, and Edwards. And all combinations, therein.

:hi:

Keep Edwards in mind. ;)

Edwards-Feingold has a nice ring to it.

they will take our Party back to our roots...

I've always been a big fan of your native son.

I hope you are having a Happy New Year! :hi:

I saw Edwards recently at an event at the UNC-Chapel Hill Poverty Center. It was great to see friends from the campaign who were there working the event.

We also recently saw John and his children, on the road, driving home from the beach. LOL. My children were hanging out of the windows, waving and giving him a thumbs up. He smiled and waved, of course. (I'm actually a bigger fan of Elizabeth's though).

I'm having a great New Year and hope you and your's are as well.

I think the list is quite a bit longer but I don't think I would have any problem with Clark. I liked him in 2004 I just thought he needed to become a bit more savy with the media which I think he is doing.

koch -- former democratic mayor of new york said he backed bush because the country had moved to far to the left. clinton was a moderate. can anyone explain this?

but its a good question.

that he didn't. i just never heard him say it. it made me lose respect for him. i'm a former new yorker and he was a great mayor.

It depends on the new primary schedule, only the first several states will have any say in choosing the candidate.

If they add on SC, between Iowa and NH, as proposed, a moderate stands a good chance to take the nomination.

It isn't a matter of ALL Democrats choosing, only those states that have primaries that count. Our primaries here in NC, made no difference. Kerry had already locked it up by the time we voted.

Do you suppose that Dems could drop one position in the nationals that is seen as "too radical", to garner enough crossover votes to capture the WH? That way, a liberal could win the primary, and be better "positioned" to win the nationals. What position would it be?