Choose the presidential nominee for the dems in '08

[dixieflatline]

Lets try that again. Please vote for the most appealing.

[duckman]

Still no trout option!

[SirFozzie]

Ugh, a trout option would be welcome here.

Bayh or Warner I think

The rest are retreads (Kerry/Edwards/Feingold) or too liberal (Clinton)

Edit: or Too New (Obama)

[Toddzilla]

No Al Gore? Invalid poll....

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Ok, who voted for Hillary? Fess up.

[PraetorianX]

I voted for Bayh, but that could be the Hoosier in me.

That, and the fact that none of them really inspire me too much. Warner and/or Obama could be interesting choices however, though Obama may be too new on the scene. Warner's record in Virginia was pretty good though.


I'd prolly vote for Clinton though, if she were the dems candidate in '08. If for no other reason than I liked Bubba.

I'd also vote for Gore in a heartbeat.

But please God not Kerry again...I mean crap, he makes Gore look charismatic!

[johnd2442]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

No Al Gore? Invalid poll....

good post.

[stevew]

I don't see Giant Douche or Turd Sandwich anywhere on this list.

I'd probably vote for Mark Warner in lieu of the others.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Trout in '08.

[Raiders Army]

Hillary might be a good running mate. Palatable enough for the moderates and a good setup for her to become President.

[chinaski]

Im pretty shocked so many for Obama; there's zero chance of that happening imo.

[JW]

Where is "none of the above." That list is just about as depressing as a potential Republican candidate list. Bush-Gore. Bush-Kerry. How can it get worse? But then I consider the possibilities for 08.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by -Mojo Jojo-

Ok, who voted for Hillary? Fess up.

I did...she'll never win the White House. I hope she wins the primary

[stevew]

I think that it will eventually turn into a Hillary vs Warner race at the end, and most likely Hilary has the right people in place in order to win the primary. The rest of these guys don't really do much for me, Edwards isn't going to be able to pull his class warfare nearly effectively enough this time.

[timmynausea]

Interesting results so far. I had to vote for Feingold, but I seriously doubt he'll be much of a contender.

Once the primaries get closer, I think there'll be a split between Hillary supporters and a more or less "Anyone but Hillary" group that will try to consolidate behind one guy. (Along the same lines as everyone rallying behind Kerry at the last minute to knock off Dean.)

[Bee]

My answer to this would depend on the Republican candidate.

[Galaxy]

Missing a lot of candidates.

[King of New York]

I would have voted for Mark Warner, but just today he announced that he is not interested in running for president, as it would entail too much of a sacrifice of his family life.

You know, I think I just figured out the problem with democracy: anyone interested in running for public office is most likely not suitable for holding public office--no normal person would subject himself or herself to that sort of scrutiny or life.

Still, democracy is better than the alternatives (although I wonder if we wouldn't be better off picking names out of a hat.)

[Arles]

I'd vote for Byah and maybe Vilsack. I'd want to know more about their economic policies and stance on the current military activities though. At this point, if a sensible democrat campaigned with a pledge not to raise taxes, a decent immigration policy and not pull out of Iraq (I don't mind making strategy changes though), I'd probably vote for him. Byah looks like the closest fit given his record.

[dixieflatline]

Originally Posted by timmynausea

Interesting results so far. I had to vote for Feingold, but I seriously doubt he'll be much of a contender.

Once the primaries get closer, I think there'll be a split between Hillary supporters and a more or less "Anyone but Hillary" group that will try to consolidate behind one guy. (Along the same lines as everyone rallying behind Kerry at the last minute to knock off Dean.)

I was pretty surprised by that as well. Certainly with all the votes that Feingold has made in the senate the GOP would have little trouble trying to paint him as very left of center. But he does have the not voting for the iraq war going for him which could be huge in '08 (at least in the primary). He also has the Feingold-McCain campaign finance reform going for him but that was a while ago. He also plays well in the midwest which would help.

[Bee]

Looking at that list again...that's a pretty sad list of candidates.

[Warhammer]

I was looking for the Balsack/Douchebag ticket, but guess I'll have to wait until 2012...

[st.cronin]

If I was a betting man, I'd bet on Al Gore.

[MrBigglesworth]

I was looking for Gore, he'd get my vote.

[Anthony]

i wouldn't mind Kerry running again. i think with hindsight being what it is, we'll have realized his way couldn't have been any worse circa 2004 than what we have now. we've liberated nothing and made a bad situation worse, and the price of our oil is still high.

his entire campaign should be "I told you so".

[Arles]

The problem with Kerry is that the "haughty northeastern liberal" tag doesn't play well across the heartland. Also, people aren't really in favor of having a true politician (something Kerry's voting record suggests) leading the country at a time of war.

If I were advising the democrats, I would throw out any candidate not from a red state. At a minimum, maybe you end up stealing that one red state (which might be the difference in the election). I think there is a strong desire to see a democrat as president by many people, but they don't want the "anti-Bush" from the NE. They just want someone they view as more sensible, but won't go nuts in changing things.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Arles

The problem with Kerry is that the "haughty northeastern liberal" tag doesn't play well across the heartland. Also, people aren't really in favor of having a true politician (something Kerry's voting record suggests) leading the country at a time of war.

If I were advising the democrats, I would throw out any candidate not from a red state. At a minimum, maybe you end up stealing that one red state (which might be the difference in the election). I think there is a strong desire to see a democrat as president by many people, but they don't want the "anti-Bush" from the NE. They just want someone they view as more sensible, but won't go nuts in changing things.

yep

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Arles

The problem with Kerry is that the "haughty northeastern liberal" tag doesn't play well across the heartland. Also, people aren't really in favor of having a true politician (something Kerry's voting record suggests) leading the country at a time of war.

If I were advising the democrats, I would throw out any candidate not from a red state. At a minimum, maybe you end up stealing that one red state (which might be the difference in the election). I think there is a strong desire to see a democrat as president by many people, but they don't want the "anti-Bush" from the NE. They just want someone they view as more sensible, but won't go nuts in changing things.

Gore lost Tennessee. Kerry came almost as close. The Dems don't have to play to the heartland's inferiority complex to win, they just have to choose a good candidate and run a good campaign. People act as though the Dems cause is hopeless, when the fact is nearly any Dem would kill Bush if the election were held this year (and the Dems will probably make major gains in both houses), and if there had been Democratic Secretary's of State in Florida or Ohio in 2000 or 2004, respectively, the Dem candidate may have won. That's how close the elections were.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Gore lost Tennessee. Kerry came almost as close. The Dems don't have to play to the heartland's inferiority complex to win, they just have to choose a good candidate and run a good campaign.

Gore was still part of the "Clinton club" when he lost Tennessee and did not represent Tennessee in many of his views (he and Kerry were both NE liberals in policy). The Dems don't "have to" play to the hearltand/south, but it would certainly help their chances.

People act as though the Dems cause is hopeless, when the fact is nearly any Dem would kill Bush if the election were held this year (and the Dems will probably make major gains in both houses), and if there had been Democratic Secretary's of State in Florida or Ohio in 2000 or 2004, respectively, the Dem candidate may have won. That's how close the elections were.

This is one of the reasons there are 2-term limits to the presidency. You could have said the same thing about Clinton in 1998. The point here is that the Dems will NOT be running against Bush in 2008. They will probably be running against someone like McCain, Rudy or a darkhorse governor with few ties to this Bush White House. Just because people feel good about their chances against Bush does not mean they will beat the new candidate in 08. Going with a midwestern democrat (Vilsack/Byah) is their best chance to get broad appeal.

Being "Not Bush" may have helped in 04, but it may not mean much in 08.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

I'm still baffled, how is Hillary in second place? Are those all votes from Republicans, or does someone actually want to defend her?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Arles

Gore was still part of the "Clinton club" when he lost Tennessee and did not represent Tennessee in many of his views (he and Kerry were both NE liberals in policy). The Dems don't "have to" play to the hearltand/south, but it would certainly help their chances.

The interesting thing with this quote, being part of the "Clinton club" shouldn't have hurt Gore as Clinton WON the state of Tennessee in 1996:



And, wouldn't you know it... 1992 as well!

[Arles]

Originally Posted by -Mojo Jojo-

I'm still baffled, how is Hillary in second place? Are those all votes from Republicans, or does someone actually want to defend her?

When you are talking 2+ years ahead of an election, name recognition is a big part of any poll. Back in 1990, candidates like Paul Tsongas, Bob Kerry and Tom Harkin were polling better than Clinton. I would really be surprised if Hillary ends up getting nominated and I think a better candidate will show up.

[Crapshoot]

Seriously - one of the dirty secrets in that the Democrats don't really need the South to gain the presidency. They'll get the inner West, slowly but surely. A former New York Post writer of all people has a book out on the GOP's complete shift to the "Southern-fried morality" as compared to its more western, libertarian outlook - "The Elephant in the Room."

http://www.rhsager.com/thebook/

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by -Mojo Jojo-

I'm still baffled, how is Hillary in second place? Are those all votes from Republicans, or does someone actually want to defend her?

You know what's crazy about Clinton? She is the conservative Democrat running. Warner dropped out of the race already, and Beyh will prob do so eventually, because there is no room to run to the right of Clinton. Yet the perception is that she is a crazy liberal. Right now the front runners are Clinton on the right and Edwards on the left. The left though would prob fall to Gore if he decides to run, however.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

The interesting thing with this quote, being part of the "Clinton club" shouldn't have hurt Gore as Clinton WON the state of Tennessee in 1996:

And, wouldn't you know it... 1992 as well!

I think the Monica factor in 1998 hurt Gore a lot more than if he would have run in 1996. Just because people liked Clinton in 1996 didn't mean much in 2000 - or Gore would have easily won the election (like Clinton did in 96).

[wade moore]

It's unfortunate to read that Warner won't be running.

In general, my views aline so that I vote for Republicans more often than Democrats. But I was so happy with Warner as Governor of Virginia that I voted for Kaine largely on the fact that he was under Warner.

I think he'd make an intrigueing candidate, a candidate that I would think might even give him a chance at VA as I think he really gained a ton of respect here.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Arles

This is one of the reasons there are 2-term limits to the presidency. You could have said the same thing about Clinton in 1998.

Actually, at this point in Clinton's term, he had favorability of about 54-43, twenty points higher than Bush right now.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Seriously - one of the dirty secrets in that the Democrats don't really need the South to gain the presidency. They'll get the inner West, slowly but surely. A former New York Post writer of all people has a book out on the GOP's complete shift to the "Southern-fried morality" as compared to its more western, libertarian outlook - "The Elephant in the Room."

That's why I said "red state" not just the South. I think a midwestern democrat would have a better chance than a west coaster, but someone from Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona or Nevada would also be a good choice (if someone exists). In the end, the democrats just need someone that can avoid the "coastal liberal" tag that turns many people off.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Arles

I think the Monica factor in 1998 hurt Gore a lot more than if he would have run in 1996. Just because people liked Clinton in 1996 didn't mean much in 2000 - or Gore would have easily won the election (like Clinton did in 96).

You are forgetting that Gore, thinking that people didn't like Clinton in 1999 & 2000 decided to run AWAY from Clinton. He didn't let Clinton campaign for him. He had to put Clinton on in the Dem Convention, but gave him a 'meh' spot. He basically tried to run on the "I'm not Clinton" campaign and it cost him dearly.

If he had embraced Clinton and let Clinton hit the campaign trail for him (as Clinton wanted to do), Gore would have been President in 2001.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Actually, at this point in Clinton's term, he had favorability of about 54-43, twenty points higher than Bush right now.

The question wasn't about favorability (Clinton has always been liked by the masses), it's about his chances in an election in 1998. I think Clinton would have had a tough time in 1998 election due to the fatigue with the scandals more than likeability. In the end, though, it didn't matter as Gore lacked the likeability Clinton had to offset the negatives of the scandals.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

You are forgetting that Gore, thinking that people didn't like Clinton in 1999 & 2000 decided to run AWAY from Clinton. He didn't let Clinton campaign for him. He had to put Clinton on in the Dem Convention, but gave him a 'meh' spot. He basically tried to run on the "I'm not Clinton" campaign and it cost him dearly.

If he had embraced Clinton and let Clinton hit the campaign trail for him (as Clinton wanted to do), Gore would have been President in 2001.

No, if Gore would have had the likeability of Clinton, he would have been president. His own dimeanor turned off many voters and it's doubtful having Clinton stump for him more would have changed that. Likeability is a big part of a presidential election. That, IMO, is why guys like Clinton, Carter and Reagan have won while "non-likeable" figures like Bob Dole, Gore and Kerry lost. Bush was likeable in 2000, but that has faded greatly.

[Arles]

The more I think about, I think Clinton *may* have won re-election in 1998. My thought process was that most people still liked Clinton as a person, they were just tired of the drama with him in the White House. Still, I think that speaks more to his likeability than anything else and likeability isn't something that often transfers to a running mate. Although, I do think Gore would have won running away if there was no Monica scandal in 1998.

[Kodos]

I would vote for Gore again. Especially if he sticks to his guns on environmental issues.

[Izulde]

If Hillary wins the Dem nom, I'd have to vote Republican.

That being said, I highly doubt she will win it. Country's not ready for a woman pres yet, especially once that inspires antagonism to the level that she does.

[timmynausea]

Now that I've thought it through, I really hope Gore runs. He may be the only one that could stop Hillary.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Wow. Interesting that Obama and Hillary are the leaders in this poll. As a conservative, I can tell you that most of us in the middle portion of the country would vote Republican if either of those candidates were the Democratic nominee. Those two are very polarizing figures and would probably cause people to vote Republican simply because they didn't want either Hillary or Obama in the White House.

Democrats need to start finding candidates that more moderate conservatives like myself would actually consider voting for. I, like many Republicans, am willing to vote for the other party's candidate if they just put up a decent one. Hillary and Obama are definitely no-go's for me.

[Alan T]

I think most people are mistaken on the reasons why Gore did not carry Tennessee. I can't speak for the entire state, but I can speak for the 60-80 family and friends who live there (all on the eastern half of the state if it makes any difference.. not sure). They all voted against Gore, not because of Clinton or Bush or anything other than they felt betrayed by Gore.

Gore was pretty popular when elected into the senate, ran on some platforms that people were interested in, and once he got into office, he went much further liberal in their opinions than what he ran as. The majority of them felt he lied and betrayed them.

I also grew up in the Southeast, as a "conservative democrat" which in the end makes me pretty moderate on most issues. I didn't vote for Gore in the election vs Bush, not because I liked Bush but because I didn't like Gore. I didn't vote for Bush this last election however.

Don't get me wrong, I don't know every thought of every Tennessean, but my family had some nice heated debates over thanksgivings about this topic.

[Kodos]

Bill Maher for President!

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Kodos

I would vote for Gore again. Especially if he sticks to his guns on environmental issues.

I would think the environment, and it's relationship to foreign policy (as in, independence from oil), would be the major focus of his campaign, if he were to run.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Wow. Interesting that Obama and Hillary are the leaders in this poll. As a conservative, I can tell you that most of us in the middle portion of the country would vote Republican if either of those candidates were the Democratic nominee. Those two are very polarizing figures and would probably cause people to vote Republican simply because they didn't want either Hillary or Obama in the White House.

Democrats need to start finding candidates that more moderate conservatives like myself would actually consider voting for. I, like many Republicans, am willing to vote for the other party's candidate if they just put up a decent one. Hillary and Obama are definitely no-go's for me.

This is the first time I have ever heard that Obama was a polarizing figure. He might have the best favorability ratings of anyone in government right now (I pulled that stat out of my ass, maybe I'm wrong). And Clinton, with her hawkish stances and conservative economic policy, is going to be the conservative Democrat in the primary, so if she is too liberal for you I don't know what the dems would have to do on an ideological level to get 'moderate conservatives' like you to consider voting for them, short of nominating a Republican.

All the Dem's need to do is pick up a couple thousand votes in a border state to win.