MyDD December Straw Poll

by Chris Bowers, Sun Dec 04, 2005 at 08:01:54 PM EST

one more reminder to vote -- jonathan

The December Straw Poll is up.

It is that time of the month again. As we will do every first Friday between now and at least February 2008, it is time for MyDD readers to register their preferences on the apparent Democratic field for the 2008 nomination. Two weeks ago, Markos put up a good explanation as to how the ten candidates in the poll were selected. You can see the November MyDD results here.

Please vote in the MyDD poll now. I'll announce the results next week.

I have also put up a "fantasy" poll on the main page of MyDD. You can see the results of that poll here.




Tags: Primary Elections (all tags)

Display:
Permalink :: 82 Comments :: Post a Comment


nice (none / 0)

i managed to vote early enough for my vote to count for feingold this time around.
Visit us at TexasKAOS, where we're taking Texas back!
by annatopia on Fri Dec 02, 2005 at 01:52:39 PM EST

poll isn't working correctly (3.00 / 1)

  1.  not every candidate is showing up in round 1 results.

  2.  it says something in the results to the effect of "pies need gd2 extension.

  3.  I had feingold ranked ninth, above only Kerry and it tells me my vote counted for him in the final round.  What the hell!?!?!?  I really doubt Kerry v. Feingold was the final round.

by rapid response on Fri Dec 02, 2005 at 02:07:02 PM EST

Seems to be working for me (none / 0)

At least as far as the counting goes.  However, the graphs are not showing, and instead there is a broken picture titled "pies need gd2 extension".
by Geotpf on Fri Dec 02, 2005 at 06:52:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

2008 Poll Galore! (1.00 / 1)

I justed posted a diary with three different polls with wide ranging candidate choices (around 20), and an IRV poll for the general election.

Here is the LINK.

Thanks for visiting the diary and voting!
NL

Obama's Pop. Vote LEAD = 600K | Clinton & McCain = WAR Authorizers
by NeuvoLiberal on Fri Dec 02, 2005 at 11:50:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: poll isn't working correctly (none / 0)

I had the same problem. Feingold was my seventh choice and apparently my vote went to him. There is no way I can regard this as a legitmate poll.
by JCarlFinn5 on Sat Dec 03, 2005 at 10:30:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: poll isn't working correctly (none / 0)

Was Feingold ranked below Clark on your ballot?
"You say the world has lost it's love I say embrace what it's made of" -Dar Williams
by Valatan on Sat Dec 03, 2005 at 12:32:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: poll isn't working correctly (none / 0)

Same problem for me.  I don't think I'd ever vote for Feingold, although I respect him, so I can't regard my vote being case for Feingold or Clark (two of my bottom selections) as very legitimate.
by Eric H on Sun Dec 04, 2005 at 12:23:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: poll isn't working correctly (none / 0)

Never mind.  I figured it out.
by Eric H on Sun Dec 04, 2005 at 12:38:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The guard might be changing (none / 0)

I don't think Clark is going to win this one. He is done 2-1 to Feingold. Warner holds a large lead over him. Edwards is very close to him.

Intereting to see that as 2005 ends, Clark might no longer be the favorite of the netroots.

by Chris Bowers on Fri Dec 02, 2005 at 02:37:12 PM EST

i don't know (none / 0)

the IRV polls are weird, IMO.  last time around i voted a bit later, and i ranked russ #1 and clark #2, but it counted for clark.  i did the same thing this time around but was early enough that it counted for russ.

i think a lot of this depends on how fast people get to the polls.

Visit us at TexasKAOS, where we're taking Texas back!
by annatopia on Fri Dec 02, 2005 at 03:07:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: i don't know (none / 0)

So long as votes are being tallied, that should never happen unless something is broken about the poll.

If I recall correctly, Feingold was first or second last time, so if your vote went to Clark by mistake (the polling software, not YOUR fault) something is really messed up.  Whoever was in second place would not be 'eliminated' till the poll closed.

These results on myDD may mean less than these internet polls usually do, 'cos the scripts that run it may be screwed up.

by TxKat on Fri Dec 02, 2005 at 04:29:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Question: (none / 0)

If  I understand this correctly...

if I vote early I am told my vote counted towards X. That may or may not be the case when the polls closed. So I really don't know if my vote counted for X or not in the end. So I checked back this AM to see if it changed my tally. I noticed it appeared it would allow me to vote again, so I voted again to see if that was true. It looked to me like it counted my new ballot. On the other hand it also told I counted toward Russ. I had not deleted my cookies.

Is it possible to freep this poll?

"Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
by molly bloom on Sat Dec 03, 2005 at 08:11:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The guard might be changing (none / 0)

Does anyone actually think that Wes Clark has a real chance of winning the nomination?  I mean just seems to me that he is a great guy but his campaign never really got off the gound.  I can not see a roadmap fo him.  I would be interested in other thoughts.
by biglefty on Fri Dec 02, 2005 at 03:28:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The guard might be changing (none / 0)

Agree, would be great VP but I don't see him having the gravitas to win; right or wrong.  It's almost like he is too good of a guy.    
by Eric11 on Fri Dec 02, 2005 at 04:18:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The guard might be changing (none / 0)

I think the General is damaged goods, and that's why he can't win. Namely, there is too much videotape of him supporting Bush's War in 2002 floating around. Without a doubt, a sucessful 2008 Democratic presidential candidate will have to be  left of center to compete in the general election, but they will have to be homegrown to be viable, not ex-Republicans.
Richardson, Bayah and Warner are all moderates respected by many Republicans for being DEMOCRATS. That is the key.
ANd like I have always said, the last two Demcratic Presidents were Southern Governors. That is the formula.
by Bruticus on Sat Dec 03, 2005 at 07:31:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The guard might be changing (none / 0)

The 2008 Democratic Primary nominations are based on regionally Primaries.

The Iowa Demcoratic Caucus- (Bayh-IN)and (Feingold-WI) are the front runners in the Iowa Democratic Caucus.

In the New Hampshire Democratic Primary-(Kerry-MA)or Biden(DE)

Western States are going to have their Primary right after the IA and NH. (FEB 2008). Richardson- is favored to win the Democratic Primary in Western States. -AZ,CA,CO,NV,NM.

Warner(VA)is favored to win the Democratic Primary in the Southern States.

Bayh(IN),Richardson(NM)and Warner(VA)are the top three Democratic candidates for the 2008 Presidential Election.

by CMBurns on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 02:20:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The guard might be changing (none / 0)

Feingold may eventually overtake Clark among the netroots, but I think Warner's lack of serious foreign policy bona fides will hurt him tremendously down the road.  People still are relatively unfamiliar with a majority of Warner's positions, especially on the Iraq War (they are starting to surface), which, for many, is a litmus test of sorts.
by Hadi on Fri Dec 02, 2005 at 03:56:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The guard might be changing (none / 0)

Warner's lack of a record on foreign policy may benefit him.  He won't be weighed down by inconsistent votes in the past like Kerry and Edwards.

That said, until I see something else, I like Feingold for now.

by mmurphy on Fri Dec 02, 2005 at 05:21:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

IRV can fall victim to the same (none / 0)

strategic voting that plagues plurality, but in the case of IRV it happens when there are 3 or more major candidates with about the same support.

Condorcet works better as a ranked voting system.

Jeff Wegerson - PrairieStateBlue
by wegerje on Sat Dec 03, 2005 at 09:11:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Mark Warner (none / 0)

Warner continues his recent strong showings.

   -Daily Virginia Political News

by Corey D Hernandez on Fri Dec 02, 2005 at 02:54:58 PM EST

Im with ya'. (none / 0)

We would be fools to pass him up in '08.  With that said, we'll probably nominate Hillary or someone else with little to no chance of winning the general election.
by nickshepDEM on Fri Dec 02, 2005 at 11:40:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Im with ya'. (none / 0)

Surely we can find someone that's not the most conservative contenders on this field... I think even maybe Biden is more "liberal" than Warner. I mean this guy is a good management governor, but regardless he's more of a hawk on Iraq than Biden and i'm not sure if that's the direction we should be headed.
by KainIIIC on Sat Dec 03, 2005 at 12:21:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You obviously know nothing about Gov. Warner if.. (none / 0)

You think he is anywhere close to Biden.  Look over his record.  Strong supporter of public eduaction, great on health care, great on taxes, great on fiscal responsibility, great on aiding minorities.
by nickshepDEM on Sat Dec 03, 2005 at 01:12:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You obviously know nothing about Gov. Warner if.. (none / 0)

other than Biden's support of Iraq war (which Warner probably supported anyways) and his support of the Bankruptcy Bill (which Warner probably would've voted for in Congress), how is he any less conservative than Biden? Biden supports all of those things.
by KainIIIC on Sat Dec 03, 2005 at 02:33:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Warner is often mistaken as conservative dem (none / 0)

because people find it hard to believe that a solid democrat could be so popular in a 'red' state such as VA.  However, Warner has done some very progressive things in VA.

*Inherited a 2 billion dollar defecit, which he turned into a multi-million dollar surplus.

*Increased Education funding more than any VA-Gov in history.

*Cut the food tax and increased the earned income tax credit for the poor.

*Created the VA-Health Care Foundation, which has provided over 450,000 Virginians with Health Care.

*Expanded FAMIS (health care) to cover 97% of eligible children.

*Stood with the GLBT community on Marriage Affirmation Act.

*Named one of Americas 5 Best Governors by TIME Magazine.

*Named Public Offical of the year in 2005.

If you would like to read more go here...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=261x94

by nickshepDEM on Sat Dec 03, 2005 at 05:05:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner is often mistaken as conservative dem (none / 0)

I agree, Warner is a mixed bag, but he is a conservative dem on a number of issues.

I have a feeling dems aren't going to like the sort of reforms he will propose to programs like Medicaid.

My guess is he opposes gay marriage, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong on that.

I guarantee if nominated, which I would okay with, he will run on a  states' rights platform.  

He has an upperhand in that argument with regard to better adminisering the war on terrorism at home.

But I don't think he can be considered anything other than a conservative democrat.

by Eric H on Sun Dec 04, 2005 at 12:30:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner is often mistaken as conservative dem (none / 0)

From his Why I am a Democrat Speech...These are not the words of a "Conservative Democrat"

...I am a Democrat because the New Deal literally saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans.

I am a Democrat because a generation after a Democratic president started the Peace Corps, you can still find faded photographs of John F. Kennedy on the walls of homes from South Africa to South America.

I am a Democrat because fighting for working men and women is always the right fight.

I am a Democrat because our party led the struggle for civil rights and because we recognize that discrimination and bigotry are not dead - and that we must continue to seek equal opportunity for all.

I am a Democrat because despite our failures, our missteps, and our excesses - we know that waging a war on poverty does not mean fighting the individuals who are poor.

I am a Democrat because we know that today's battle is about the future versus the past - and it's time to put aside yesterday's battles of us versus them.

by sndeak on Sun Dec 04, 2005 at 12:39:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You obviously know nothing about Gov. Warner if.. (none / 0)

Check out the Forward Together PAC  site and the Draft Warner  site for more info on Mark Warner
by sndeak on Sat Dec 03, 2005 at 09:05:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Im with ya'. (none / 0)

The guy's not a good speaker.  
"You say the world has lost it's love I say embrace what it's made of" -Dar Williams
by Valatan on Sat Dec 03, 2005 at 12:36:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Thats so wrong I dont even know where to start. (none / 0)

Go over his 'Why I am a Democrat' speech.  Probably one of the best speeches in years.

He spoke in NH a couple weeks ago and shocked everyone.

by nickshepDEM on Sat Dec 03, 2005 at 01:15:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Where's GORE? (none / 0)

He shows up in your "fantasy" poll but not in the runoff poll. If I had thought to include him I would have ranked him 1st or second, and I imagine he would garner at least as much support as Clinton, Kerry, Bayh, Richardson, Vilsack, etc. His name should definitely be in the mix.
by ajpuckett on Fri Dec 02, 2005 at 02:55:37 PM EST

Re: Where's GORE? (none / 0)

Ya know, it's too bad that Jerry Kilgore (the failed GOP gov candidate for those unfamiliar with VA politics) didn't run for prez instead of Bush in 2000. Then we would have had the Kilgore v. Gore instead of Bush v. Gore. No wait, we would have had president Gore and wouldn't have had to deal with the nightmare of 8 years of Bush.
by ajpuckett on Fri Dec 02, 2005 at 02:58:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Are the results out already (none / 0)

I went through the last round and it had Feingold beating Warner 56-43..that's not right right?
by dantata on Fri Dec 02, 2005 at 03:53:40 PM EST

Re: Are the results out already (none / 0)

nope, Feingold's now beating him about 59-41.
by KainIIIC on Fri Dec 02, 2005 at 04:08:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Russ Feingold (none / 0)

Is my guy. I started to back him right after Kerry lost.

Go Russ go!

by Demrock6 on Fri Dec 02, 2005 at 04:18:08 PM EST

Re: Russ Feingold (none / 0)

I made up my mind the day after Kerry lost too, and that was before I discovered blogs. Before I discovered the blogosphere, I thought I was the only Feingold supporter out there. It's good to know I am not alone.
Tennesseans for Russ Feingold
by schwompa on Fri Dec 02, 2005 at 10:25:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Russ Feingold (none / 0)

damnit! and I thought that MY support for Russ was one of the earliest - the Sunday after the election.

I feel so dirty and ashamed that prior to the Sunday after the election, I was considering that Bayh (after his victory during the night) would be a good choice. ewww..

by KainIIIC on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 11:35:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This poll seems to be working improperly (none / 0)

I placed Clark first and the poll indicated that my vote went to Feingold and Clark had been eliminated (Which he hasn't because there are still votes being tallied).

My office partner voted and the poll reported that only one of her rankings counted too!

What's the deal?  Seems like a Diebold problem, unintentional though it may be.

Can you fix this?  If not, I really don't see that it's a valid result.

by TxKat on Fri Dec 02, 2005 at 04:25:16 PM EST

Re: This poll seems to be working improperly (none / 0)

Because probably when you voted, as when I voted, Mark Warner beat Wesley Clark in the 3-way battle between Warner, Clark, and Feingold (Warner won by a vote for me). For me it broke 59-41 Feingold.

I just checked it and it showed Wesley Clark beating Warner on the 2nd to last round, but losing to Feingold 53-47. This is clearly good news for Feingold, as Clark's votes disproportionally favor Feingold over Warner. Warner's votes also split about 50-50 to Clark/Feingold, which is good news for him too.

by KainIIIC on Fri Dec 02, 2005 at 04:31:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This poll seems to be working improperly (none / 0)

An IRV poll is not supposed to eliminate any but the bottom vote-getting candidate, not everyone except the top 2.

Having a little experience with coding, I can tell you it IS working improperly.

But hey, not everybody is a coder, so whatever!

by TxKat on Fri Dec 02, 2005 at 05:13:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This poll seems to be working improperly (none / 0)

Exactly, and it goes round-to-round, so by the time you get to the 2nd to last round, Clark goes and his votes get split between Feingold and Warner.

thus far i don't know what your problem with the system is. Are you sure that you don't understand the IRV or is there something really legitimately wrong with the IRV? There might be a problem with being able to vote in it infinitely, or it being diebolded into the wrong vote, but that hasn't been a problem for me (plus you can and should confirm it).

by KainIIIC on Fri Dec 02, 2005 at 05:17:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This poll seems to be working improperly (none / 0)

yes, duh.... I do know how an IRV poll works.

But when your initial ballot (on round #1) reports your vote improperly 1 hour after the poll opens (while votes are continuing) then there's something broken in the script.

Thanks for asking. The problem seems to be intermittent and may be browser related.  My initial point that (as reported upthread by a different poster) somethings skewy in the script running the thing.

by TxKat on Fri Dec 02, 2005 at 05:54:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This poll seems to be working improperly (none / 0)

To me it actually seems to be working properly. If you follow it through each round, it DOES eliminate only the bottom vote-getting candidate, and only narrows the field to the top two vote-getting candidates in the end result. It's a pretty simple algorithm, but the result can be confusing because of the complicated path taken to get to the result, and it is even more confusing because it tells you who your final vote went to and shows you the top two finalists without showing you how the rounds progressed.  
by ajpuckett on Fri Dec 02, 2005 at 05:20:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This poll seems to be working improperly (none / 0)

It is working improperly, but not for this reason. It's working improperly because I can vote an unlimited number of times and have all my votes counted. So if I were so inclined, I could force the outcome to one particular candidate (in my case, Warner). Not that I would be a jerk like that, but you obviously can't take this as an accurate pulse of the Democratic party or even of the liberal blogosphere.
by ajpuckett on Fri Dec 02, 2005 at 04:42:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I stand corrected (none / 0)

If I'm logged in, then I can only vote once. But if I'm not logged in, it seems I can cast multiple votes.
by ajpuckett on Fri Dec 02, 2005 at 04:44:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I stand corrected (none / 0)

I don't know, I'm logged in and it seemed to allow me to vote twice over the course of 2 days.
when does the poll close?
"Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
by molly bloom on Sat Dec 03, 2005 at 08:17:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This poll seems to be working improperly (none / 0)

If you voted early on, then this could have easily happened even if the IRV was working correctly, but, and correct me if I'm wrong, as more votes came in, the results changed, and now that Clark is coming in second, your first place vote for Clark will have been counted for Clark instead of Feingold, so there's nothing fishy going on.  
by ajpuckett on Fri Dec 02, 2005 at 05:27:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Russ 2008 (none / 0)

For many monthes, Clark was beating Feingold in the final round.  Now Feingold won.  Go Russ Go!!!
Max Friedman
by Max Friedman on Fri Dec 02, 2005 at 05:30:39 PM EST

Re: Russ 2008 (none / 0)

Ah, the poll is only a few hours old.  

The first comment on the poll was posted at 1:52 EDT today (see below).  Maybe the first poster was somewhat behind the initial posting of the poll, but I suspect not by more than an hour.

(Fri Dec 2nd, 2005 at 01:52:39 PM EDT ).

It's not over yet, voting is continuing.

 

by TxKat on Fri Dec 02, 2005 at 05:58:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Green poll (3.00 / 1)

For those who are interested, another straw poll, also for the 2008 race, courtesy of Ken Sain.  Matt Gonzales edges Winona LaDuke by a nose in the final round.
Vote for a true progressive in November: Cynthia McKinney (GRN) for President!
by brooklyngreenie on Fri Dec 02, 2005 at 06:35:25 PM EST

Re: Green poll (none / 0)

The hardcore Greens won't support LaDuke because she endorsed Kerry in 2004. Gonzales could give  Pelosi a serious run for her House seat in that district if Greens would be willing to focus their gunfire on that race. Furthermore, I think there are many Democrats who wouldn't mind the switch given the fact that Gonzales would caucus with them anyway.    

I'm hoping Ken Sain's poll puts an end to Rotzler's potential candidacy. I don't have anything against her but she's clearly not qualified to be a presidential candidate. My resume would stack up to hers and that's setting the bar real low. Given that she can't even win Ken Sain's straw poll amongst Greens, it's my sincere hope that the portion of the party's leadership which is determined to field a female candidate in 2008 will at least begin the process of looking elsewhere.  

Personally, as a Green, I strongly believe if the party can't field a candidate with a reasonable expectation of garnering 5% in the general election, they'd be much better off passing and throwing the party's weight behind Feingold early in the Democratic primary process. Green money and support would be better spent concentrating on local races where we can win. Spending a few hundred thousand dollars on a candidate who won't even get half of one percent of the popular vote is throwing away more good money after bad.  

by Seldom Seen Smith on Sun Dec 04, 2005 at 01:39:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

What about a WEIGHTED poll (none / 0)

Would it be hard to do a poll where you ranked first, second and third choice candidates? That's the fairest way to do voting overall, I think (not that we will ever see it in this day of Republican-controlled Diebold-tallied voting).

I'm not overwhelmed by any of the candidates so far, and find it difficult to figure out which one stands for what. I think that Feingold has said the most anti-war things, but I like some of what I've heard from Edwards, too.

I'd be interested in a brief chart comparing the candidates' views on 3-4 big questions.

by MS on Fri Dec 02, 2005 at 08:30:06 PM EST

I like Warner right now (none / 0)

He is a good governor, and his focus on future instead of the past as his cornerstone philosophy appeals to me.

And again, he is a governor.
The president is an executive position, so we need someone with executive experience.

by v2aggie2 on Sat Dec 03, 2005 at 08:08:11 AM EST

Gore supporters should boycott vote (none / 0)


by TrainWreck on Sat Dec 03, 2005 at 08:09:51 AM EST

Warner, Vilsack, and Bayh are the only candidates (none / 0)

on that list who could compete in the general election.
by nickshepDEM on Sat Dec 03, 2005 at 01:16:04 PM EST

Warner, Vilsack and Bayh (3.00 / 1)

I dunno, I have heard Bayh and Vilsack speak. Forgetaboutit.

Warner? Maybe- I haven't heard him.

"Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
by molly bloom on Sat Dec 03, 2005 at 06:16:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner, Vilsack and Bayh (none / 0)

Watch Warner HERE on CSPAN road to the white house
by sndeak on Sat Dec 03, 2005 at 09:00:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner, Vilsack and Bayh (none / 0)

Thank you. I will try to make time to do so in the near future.
"Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
by molly bloom on Sat Dec 03, 2005 at 11:35:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What criterion (none / 0)

are you using to argue that Feingold has no chance?  Conjecture?  The blanket senator argument?
"You say the world has lost it's love I say embrace what it's made of" -Dar Williams
by Valatan on Sun Dec 04, 2005 at 10:27:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What criterion (none / 0)

probably the jew arguement, failing to realize that this is post-1945 and not pre-.
by KainIIIC on Sun Dec 04, 2005 at 11:33:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The Markos link is not working (none / 0)


Washington Woman

Progressive Blue

by kevin22262 on Sat Dec 03, 2005 at 01:42:56 PM EST

Bill Richardson or Evan Bayh are my top pick (none / 0)

The criterias I have selected in picking the 2008 Democratic Presidential nominee is
1)Gubenatorial Experience(current or former Governor)
2)From a red State
3)Foriegn Policy/National Security Experience.

Richardson and Bayh fit those 3 criterias.

by CMBurns on Sat Dec 03, 2005 at 02:26:33 PM EST

i'd think... (3.00 / 1)

this quasi-electable crap would be over after John F. Kerry
Tennesseans for Feingold
by ben114 on Sat Dec 03, 2005 at 03:09:23 PM EST

Re: i'd think... (none / 0)

Any one who thinks or thought John Kerry was electable is either brain dead or is on drugs.

Kerry is reality is a liberal Democratic US Senator from a solid Blue State.
The only asset he had was national security issue. Wesley Clark was an unknown quantity- he did not held any elected office.
Other 2004 Democratic Presidential Candidates.
Dean- would not have received more than 45% of the popular vote.
Edwards- lightwieght- one term US Senator, lacked foriegn policy national security experience.
Gephardt- safe pick ie Kerry(from a Midwest,strong labor support.

by CMBurns on Sat Dec 03, 2005 at 03:23:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: i'd think... (none / 0)

"Any one who thinks or thought John Kerry was electable is either brain dead or is on drugs."

Bit of an overstatement. Aside from the fact Kerry has won several elections (and therefore is electable), but for voter "irregularities" in Ohio, Kerry would have been elected.

Kerry was never my top choice. Yes he lost. Yes close only counts in horseshoes, etc. If you think Kerry was a bad candidate who doesn't inspire, try Bayh or Vilsack! Ugh! Talk about potential landslide losers...

"Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
by molly bloom on Sat Dec 03, 2005 at 06:23:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You say Kerry would have been elected but Ohio... (3.00 / 1)

...like you have proof of such.

There is no proof.

It is quite possible, yes.  But, frankly, doubtful.

The voting machines etc. had vulnerabilities and problems.  However, there has been no proof that anybody used those vulnerabilities to cheat and steal the election.

Can we stop it with this stuff now?

by Geotpf on Sat Dec 03, 2005 at 08:37:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re-read my post (none / 0)

My point wasn't so much that Bush cheated, rather that Kerry came close to winning, which is not something an unelectable candidate could do.

But, while we are on the subject of Ohio, I didn't say the voting machines were fixed. YOU read that into what I wrote.  I said there were irregularities- something which is well documented. I invite you to peruse the Conyers report.  I have no doubt the GOP gamed the system in Ohio with sophisticated voter suppression techniques.  I don't have any proof of and nor do I charge anyway with fixing the machines.  

"Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
by molly bloom on Sat Dec 03, 2005 at 11:33:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: i'd think... (none / 0)

Bayh wouild have won the popular vote in Ohio by a decent margin-.

Bayh would have done extremely well in the Southern and Western Part of Ohio which is Republican leaning territory.

Bayh would have won the popular vote in
Cincinnati
Columbus
Dayton.

by CMBurns on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 12:11:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Talk about can't be proven! (none / 0)

Those are unproveable assertions. But even if true, I don't see him being that inspiring of a candidate and winning any more EV's than Kerry.  He is deadly dull. While I'd rather have a competent and dull president over Bush, dull doesn't win campaigns. I don't see him as an improvement over Kerry in that regard. Sad to say, Kerry might actually have more charisma than Bayh.
"Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
by molly bloom on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 07:12:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: i'd think... (none / 0)

Kerry won the popular vote in those 3 cities..... .... ....

are you talking about metro? Well I believe Kerry won in Colombus and Dayton metro too.

by KainIIIC on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 11:33:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: i'd think... (none / 0)

I was talking about the suburbs.
by CMBurns on Tue Dec 06, 2005 at 08:49:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: i'd think... (none / 0)

Ben you have a damn good point. Unfortunately, there are still people who listen to pundits in DC on who is electable.  These pundits have demonstrated only one thing consistently--they are full of shit and don't know what theyre talking about.
Tennesseans for Russ Feingold
by schwompa on Sat Dec 03, 2005 at 03:36:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Kerry has a resume, and that's it (none / 0)

Like Gore, he is not likable, and unlike Gore he is from the wrong state and married to the wrong woman.
by Cyt on Sat Dec 03, 2005 at 10:51:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Kerry has a resume, and that's it (none / 0)

"Like Gore, he is not likable, and unlike Gore he is from the wrong state and married to the wrong woman."

The unlikeable Gore actually won the 2000 election, got votes than Bush even though the press lied about him (Love Canal, Internet etc.) and even though people hadn't yet figued out that Bush was hardly a compassionate conservative. Jerry and Gore both got more votes than Bill Clinton did in his winning campaigns.

Keith

by keith johnson on Sun Dec 04, 2005 at 09:38:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

NO MORE SENATORS OR CONGRESSMEN (1.00 / 1)

DO WE WANT TO WIN OR DO WE WANT TO LOSE AGAIN. NO CONGRESSMAN OR SENATOR HAS WON SINCE KENNEDY. IT"S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN AGAIN ANYTIME SOON
by orin76 on Sun Dec 04, 2005 at 09:50:34 PM EST

Re: NO MORE SENATORS OR CONGRESSMEN (none / 0)

very convincing arguement.

snark

by KainIIIC on Sun Dec 04, 2005 at 10:11:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

... Democrats not ready for prime time yet ... (none / 0)

This list of candidates is horrible. Almost all the people listed, are exactly the people that grassroots Democrats don't want to vote for any more.  If we have rejected the DLC, then why are so many DLC people listed here?

This is no comment on the statistical rigor of this poll -- I'm sure that this poll accurately reflects what Democratic Party leaders want to put forward in three years. My problem is with the bad job the party is doing. We've already made it clear that we don't want any more candidates like this.    

Why is Clarke doing so well? There is no groundswell for him. He doesn't appear on TV. He has no plans. he has made no news.

Do you really think John Kerry will pull more than ten percent in the next primary season?

Why isn't Howard Dean listed?  Are you afraid that he would walk away with most of the votes? Even though he says he will not be a candidate, listing him would certainly send a message to the DLC-types who seem to think they still can force one of their own on us as the next candidate.  

bb

by blue73 on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 12:18:11 PM EST

Regarding Clark... (none / 0)

-He has strong netroots support.
-He has an active website and PAC, and has made appearances in support of several candidates, including Kaine in Virginia, Hackett in Ohio, and others.
-He participated in Clinton's recent conference, and has become active in fighting global warming
-He is a contracted commentator and appears regularly as THE token voice of reason (unless for some reason you would want to include Susan Estrich and Alan colmes) on Fox News
-He has been actively sought by Pelosi and other Congressional Democrats to participate in foreign policy and security initiatives  
by paul minot on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 03:58:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ... Democrats not ready for prime time yet ... (none / 0)

regarding Howard Dean: HE'S STATED HE IS NOT RUNNING. Though he should have been on the fantasy poll. If you want a non-DLC candidate, vote for Feingold, Clark, or gasp Joe Biden(who's technically not part of it).
by KainIIIC on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 04:11:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

TIme for a Real straw poll (1.00 / 1)

Lets make one with Democratic Governor and fmr miltary generals.
by orin76 on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 12:40:43 PM EST

None of these candidates can win (none / 0)

Only an anti war candidate will be able to win. This is the most pitiful list I've ever seen, what sad shape our country is in.
by lynfidel on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 05:53:32 PM EST

Re: None of these candidates can win (3.00 / 2)

well then your #1 Choice should be Russ Feingold.

With Wesley Clark as #2 (because he did not actually cast a vote for it, nor does he not necessarily support a timetable for withdrawal).

Russ has been extremely consistant on Iraq, and don't get him confused with corporatist and hawk Feinstein, this guy is no foolsgold!. Give him a good look

by KainIIIC on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 11:32:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.

Login
Username:

Password: