MyDD January 2006 Straw Poll

by Chris Bowers, Tue Jan 03, 2006 at 01:32:04 PM EST

Here we are: the first straw poll of the new year. The candidate choices are the same as the November and December straw polls, whose results were as follows: 
First Round
		Nov	 Dec
Clark	       28.4	22.1
Feingold       25.7	28.4
Edwards        12.2	11.3
Warner	       10.6	15.6
Unsure		6.6	 8.0
Clinton 	6.2	 4.9
Richardson	4.3	 4.6
Kerry		2.2	 3.0
Bayh		1.9	 1.6
Biden		1.3	 1.5
Vilsack 	0.5	 0.5

Final Round
Clark	       53.7	48.1
Feingold       46.2	51.9
December was the first time since March that Clark did not lead a MyDD Presidential Straw Poll. Right now, Feingold, Clark, Warner and Edwards seem to form a "big four" online.

Please vote in the January straw poll now. If you want a good explanation for why your favorite candidate was not included in this poll, please read this post by Markos.

I should note that although this post does not mean I am back full-time yet, the vacation I am taking has been a great idea. I am feeling very much rejuvenated, and you can expect me to be back with a vengeance starting either late tomorrow night, or early Thursday morning.




Tags: Primary Elections (all tags)

Display:
Permalink :: 58 Comments :: Post a Comment


I voted Feingold (none / 0)

Although I like Clark too, and Warner. Warner, IMO, should be ahead of Edwards.
by jj32 on Tue Jan 03, 2006 at 02:35:10 PM EST

Wow (none / 0)

Feingold almost wins it outright in the first round, with more than 20% more than any other candidate in the 1st.  Beats out both Clark and Warner in the final.  Clark has really fallen over the last few months, with Feingold and Warner rising fast.  I know its early, but at least we can say that Hillary  Clinton doesn't have the blogs at all.  Go Feingold!!!
Max Friedman
by Max Friedman on Tue Jan 03, 2006 at 02:40:54 PM EST

Re: Wow (none / 0)

Yeah, but that (Hillary not getting Blog Support) shouldn't be too much of a surprise...

Although I must say I am surprised that she got beat as badly as she did.  

Just Glad to see Russ's momentum building.  Go Feingold!

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Tue Jan 03, 2006 at 08:49:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wow (none / 0)

Still much work to be done... let's get over 50% on the first round!
by KainIIIC on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 12:18:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Unsure is making a BIG move (none / 0)

Wow!  Go Unsure!  

A 20% increase in support for Unsure!

Kidding aside, I voted Warner.  We're gonna need someone who can fix deficits when this is all over.

by jcjcjc on Tue Jan 03, 2006 at 03:08:09 PM EST

Re: Unsure is making a BIG move (3.00 / 1)

Exactly!

http://www.njforfeingold.org/issues/fiscal-responsibility

by gdtroiano on Tue Jan 03, 2006 at 03:34:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Unsure is making a BIG move (3.00 / 1)

Glad to see you took that one Jerry. Otherwise, I would have had to.
Tennesseans for Russ Feingold
by schwompa on Tue Jan 03, 2006 at 03:51:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Unsure is making a BIG move (none / 0)

Let me just ask though, would anyone here have a problem with some form of a Feingold and Warner ticket?  I like both guys (but Feingold more) and would be very pleased with that ticket.  
http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Tue Jan 03, 2006 at 08:51:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Proof in the Pudding (none / 0)

Government WAS Reinvented  in the 1990s!
Obama's Pop. Vote LEAD = 600K | Clinton & McCain = WAR Authorizers
by NeuvoLiberal on Tue Jan 03, 2006 at 03:56:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Proof in the Pudding (none / 0)

Uh...why doesn't Gore's name ever appear on these things?

Just asking.

by Pericles on Tue Jan 03, 2006 at 04:17:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Proof in the Pudding (none / 0)

not sure what you mean by "these things".

Obama's Pop. Vote LEAD = 600K | Clinton & McCain = WAR Authorizers
by NeuvoLiberal on Tue Jan 03, 2006 at 05:19:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Proof in the Pudding (none / 0)

I think he meant the poll.
http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Tue Jan 03, 2006 at 09:26:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Proof in the Pudding (none / 0)

Yes...that's it.
by Pericles on Tue Jan 03, 2006 at 11:32:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Proof in the Pudding (none / 0)

cut over 300,000 govt jobs and cut spending by, I believe, $200 billion. Gotta give Al Gore credit for leading the Reinventing Govt effort under the Clinton Admin. However, the authors of Reinventing Government, the book that inspired the Clinton Administration to name the reorganization Reinventing Govt, were kind of full of shit.
Tennesseans for Russ Feingold
by schwompa on Tue Jan 03, 2006 at 04:17:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Proof in the Pudding (none / 0)

The Clinton-Gore overall economic platform created 20+ millions of new jobs (quite a few of them well-paying), and every income group has been shown to have improved their financial well-being by the end of the two terms. All this while turning record deficits ($290 Billion deficit in 1992) to record surpluses ($236 Billion surplus in 2000).
Obama's Pop. Vote LEAD = 600K | Clinton & McCain = WAR Authorizers
by NeuvoLiberal on Tue Jan 03, 2006 at 05:04:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Proof in the Pudding (none / 0)

Well, some of that is dubious, as a lot of the economic growth was a mirage created by the speculative tech bubble, which the Clinton/Greenspan team did little to slow down.  Also, Clinton was not on the ball w.r.t. anti-trust and SEC policy, and so let things like Enron go on for far too long.

Not to say that Bush doesn't deserve some of the blame for all this, but we need to realize that much of the Clinton economic expansion was only on paper.

"You say the world has lost it's love I say embrace what it's made of" -Dar Williams
by Valatan on Tue Jan 03, 2006 at 05:46:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Proof in the Pudding (none / 0)

The tech bubble is reflected in the stockmarket indexes.

But the fact that we had a $290 Billion deficit in 1992 and Clinton/Gore policies helped turn it into a $236 billion surplus is as real as your bank balance.

Enron etal are not the main thrust here, but my impression is that much of the Enron/Worldcom corruption occured under the auspices of BushCo.

Most people I know did better during the 1990s and the national debt growth was incredibly reversed during those 8 years.

Obama's Pop. Vote LEAD = 600K | Clinton & McCain = WAR Authorizers
by NeuvoLiberal on Tue Jan 03, 2006 at 06:00:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Quite a bit of that was fueled by the tech boom (none / 0)

Stocks rose across the board because of the degree to which the market was flooded with cash.  Government recieved more in reciepts because they were able to tax the upper brackets more.  This made balancing the budget a much simpler proposition than it was under Bush I.  Eventually, this rising tide did help to raise all middle class boats, one of the things that Clinton actually kinda helped with.

This isn't to say that Clinton wasn't vastly superior to Bush in virtually every way, because that would be wrong.  But Clinton does, IMO, get way too much credit from people for his "handling" of the economy.  His economic team should have seen the tech boom for what it was, and the impending crash for what it was, but instead, they did nothing, and really, encouraged people to keep on speculating, letting the whole thing grow into a fever pitch that collapsed horribly.  The reason why--because it made his job easier.  For his term, he got to have it both ways.  Bush just took this legacy and made it much, much worse.  

Clinton = lazy caretaker
Bush = incompetent and dangerous

"You say the world has lost it's love I say embrace what it's made of" -Dar Williams
by Valatan on Tue Jan 03, 2006 at 09:20:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Quite a bit of that was fueled by the tech boo (none / 0)

I think you are undermining some good honest work.

It is well-documented that they went to work on bringing down the deficits from the early days of the administration. Two key intiatives were: 1. Clinton's tax cut package: targetted (middle class) tax cuts 2. Gore's reinventing the govt initiative (RGI)

IMO, targetted tax cuts helped spur the economy from back in 1993 itself, when the "tech boom" was still a few years away (it kicked in beginning 1997 I think). And the RGI helped cut unnecssaray govt expenditures (a legacy of Democratic congressional lazywonkness), and hence the deficits. Please note that the deficits went down every year of the Clinton/Gore admin (please see the table below).

These IMO set the stage for the subsequent economic expansion, which happens to have included the dotcom bubble and other factors as well.

I don't disagree with you that they should have taken some measures to keep the tech bubble from inflating beyond proportion. But we should also keep in mind that beginning 1998 Jan, it was all one fucking (or blowing, if you prefer) mess, thanks to the scandal, Starr/VRWC, and the impeachment. It is worth noting that the team still kept things going well enough even through that period.

All in all, to say that they (Clinton, Gore, and the rest of their team) didn't work diligently from the get go to shape up the economy is not only unfair, but actually inaccurate. This simple table of budget deficits proves my point i think if one pays close attention to the trends in it: 

Yearly Budget Deficits

Bush-I:
 1990	1991   1992
-221.1 -269.3 -290.3

Clinton/Gore:
 1993	1994   1995    1996   1997  1998   1999   2000
-255.1 -203.2 -164.0 -107.5  -21.9   69.2  125.5  236.2 

Bush/Cheney:
2001   2002   2003   2004
128.2 -157.8 -377.6 -412.1

Obama's Pop. Vote LEAD = 600K | Clinton & McCain = WAR Authorizers
by NeuvoLiberal on Tue Jan 03, 2006 at 11:30:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Quite a bit of that was fueled by the tech boo (none / 0)

I'd say that the Clinton/Gore team worked very hard the first term, especially in 1993 and this led the way for economic growth. Now lets say it was growth under a Republican Administration, it probably would not have been nearly as good in many ways (the rich would benefit the most while the defecit would never go down), but there WOULD have been a boom, if lessened. I don't think the Clinton/Gore administration did much their second term economic-wise, they were sort of letting the economy expand and expand... until the bubble burst.
by KainIIIC on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 12:17:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Quite a bit of that was fueled by the tech boo (none / 0)

But you'll probably agree with me that the Wingers and VRWC/RWNM didn't make it easy on either Clinton or Gore (for different reasons) during the second term.

Obama's Pop. Vote LEAD = 600K | Clinton & McCain = WAR Authorizers
by NeuvoLiberal on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 08:15:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Quite a bit of that was fueled by the tech boo (none / 0)

What Kain said.  I did exaggarate beyond what I should have said, and the 1993 tax/spending bills were good.  But we should temper our joy at the Clinton economy, given the tech boom, and the disgusting mergers that went through under his watch--of which Exxon/Mobil was the worst, though there are host of others.
"You say the world has lost it's love I say embrace what it's made of" -Dar Williams
by Valatan on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 01:52:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One things for sure (none / 0)

One things for sure, we're not going to see Dems online coalescing behind one candidate. The Howard Dean online unity will be a tough act to follow by any candidate.
Howard Dean's success will be one for the books.

Although it may be too early to tell, we may discover in 2 years that Chris Bower's poll today may be pretty accurate for the online community. Unless a surprise candidate comes out, I think Feingold & Clark will be the "Big Dogs" of the Dem Blogsphere. While Warner will emerge as the 3rd place candidate.

I was a Clark coordinator in '04. I know that many of us are taking a serious look at Mark Warner. Clark & Warner are attracting many of the same supporters. We shall see!

by labanman on Tue Jan 03, 2006 at 03:59:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

For those of you in VT and NH (none / 0)

Feingold will be visiting your states on January 7th. Be sure to check him out.
Tennesseans for Russ Feingold
by schwompa on Tue Jan 03, 2006 at 03:53:35 PM EST

I voted (none / 0)

Richardson, followed by Warner, then Clark.

Richardson/Warner: there's a ticket. Popular Latino Governor of a crucial swing state and popular former Governor (with the best fiscal responsibility record out there) of a blue-trending red state.

by raginillinoian on Tue Jan 03, 2006 at 04:20:00 PM EST

Re: I voted (none / 0)

No state with 5 EVs can be called crucial.  If it had gone blue in 04 it wouldn't have made any difference.  Even if we jump over two states, and say he'll pull in Nevada too, it's still not enough to win.

And Richardson is not electable simply because he is ugly and short.  It's stupid yes, but it's true.

As far as "electable" goes, Warner wins hands down.  

by Bodot on Tue Jan 03, 2006 at 05:21:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

ReUgly & Short??? LoL! (none / 0)

Ugly & Short? LoL! Talk about being direct to the point.

Unfortunately for Richardson, I agree with you 100%. While one's stand on issues, intelligence, honesty, experience are ALL important- the REALITY is a Large Enough number of mostly independent, less informed voters decide based on a candidates looks & likeability.

Since the dawn of TV & now the internet, Looks & Likeability are without a doubt HUGE especially in Presidential elections.

If Presidential elections were based on Intelligence, one's stand on issues, & one's experience alone _ BUSH Jr. nor REAGAN would have NEVER been President.

Billyboy Clinton had the rear qualities of Intelligence, Looks & Likeability. That's why Dole never had a chance- Dole's looks alone was a HUGE disadvantage.

The partisans & the informed look closely at issues, exoerience & party unity. But the fact of the matter is the INDEPENDENTS & UNDECIDES who always decide Presidential elections have a lesser standard than the informed political junkie.

Is that right? Is that Fair? Is that a stupid way of picking a President? It does not matter what you & think- THAT's REALITY!

Now these same people who voted for Bush Jr. are getting the brunt of his stupidity. BUT PEOPLE NEVER LEARN!

by labanman on Tue Jan 03, 2006 at 08:04:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I voted (none / 0)

Short?  Richardson is over 6 feet tall!
by arlaur on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 04:41:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I voted (none / 0)

Well he looks short on TV, which is what matters.  I guess I should say his face is too pudgy.  I've never actually seen him from head to toe.

And his hair is absolutely horrible.  I can hardly pay attention to what he's saying because of that train wreck above his face.

by Bodot on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 05:58:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Warner! (none / 0)

I voted for Warner...despite blogs, Feingold is kind of a dead duck.  Warner's on fire though nationally...pretty exciting.
by JamesSWVA on Tue Jan 03, 2006 at 05:52:03 PM EST

Re: Warner! (none / 0)

Funny, seeing as how Feingold was the most sought out person to have on an Interview for a few weeks back and how Warner only gets famed on the Chris Matthews show.
by KainIIIC on Tue Jan 03, 2006 at 06:18:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner! (none / 0)

And correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't both John Kerry and Howard Dean pretty much considered as NOT A CHANCE IN HELL candidates at this point in 2002?
http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Tue Jan 03, 2006 at 09:30:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner! (none / 0)

Dean, yes.  Wasn't really on the radar to anybody except some of us in VT, who knew he was leaving office and considering a WH run... and we mostly thought, wow, he's going to tilt at windmills. (Little did we know.)

Kerry, though, was seen as the likely frontrunner, at least in early 2003. But a year earlier... I can't remember whether anyone was being talked about with a lot of interest then.

Tim Wolfe

John McCain is not pro-choice!

by bruorton on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 05:18:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner! (none / 0)

I supported Clark in 04. But if you would ask me today, Mark Warner has my vote.

HRC is about to get her hands-full.

We have Russ Feingold coming from the left & Mark Warner coming from the right.

I think Feingold is awesome. I also think he gets less credit than he deserves. MCcain gets so much credit when Feingold is just as moral & responsible if not more.

I just think Feingold's personal life combined with his thousands of Senate votes, plus the state he's from - makes others like Warner or Clark more appealing.

by labanman on Tue Jan 03, 2006 at 08:11:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Plus the state he's from? (none / 0)

Wisconsin's a swing state.  The Midwest is a swing region, with many more electoral votes than the southwest.  Why the hell is Feingold's home state a disadvantage?
"You say the world has lost it's love I say embrace what it's made of" -Dar Williams
by Valatan on Tue Jan 03, 2006 at 09:22:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Plus the state he's from? (none / 0)

I was wondering the same thing.  Feingold's biggest issue I can see is the divorce and the fact he would be a bachelor candidate and being Jewish.  I can't really see the divorce being a big deal.. Reagan was divorced, Kerry was divorced and I am sure there are people I am leaving out.  The only people who might be unaccepting of his divorce are probably not going to vote for him regardless.  THe country really hasn't been faced with the Bachelor candidate in over 100 years, so who knows how that will play.  The only Jewish person of Prominence recently on a national ticket was Joementum and he was a HECK of a lot more conservative.  If Joe didn't really hurt Gore (and I don't think he did, although I don't think he helped either), then Russ should be fine.

As long as Feingold doesn't act ashamed or ignore any attacks (like Kerry and the Swifties) and handles it more like Clinton did in 1992, he should be fine.

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Tue Jan 03, 2006 at 09:40:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Plus the state he's from? (none / 0)

Let me just remind you that the Democratic party Presidential Nominee has CARRIED the State of Wisconsin 5 STRAIGHT times NOW!  That's my point about the state his from.

The Media likes to label Wisconsin as a Battleground state. But in reality, even Michael Dukakis carried Wisconsin.

That's Four Democratic Non-Wisconsin residents Dukakis, Clinton ( won it twice), Gore & Kerry ALL carrying the state of Wisconsin in 5 STRAIGHT Elections from 1988,1992,1996,2000 & 2004 -( despite losing nationally in 88,00 & 04)

In fact, Wisconsin has pretty much the SAME record as the Blue states of NJ, NY, & PA.

That's my point. Sure, Russ ensures a victory for Democrats. But any serious Democratic candidate BETTER win Wisconsin if they are to win the National Elections. If Dukakis, Kerry & Gore did it - our 2008 nominee BETTER win it or we would be in bad shape.

That's what a guy like Mark Warner brings to the table. No Democrat in the last 7 elections has won Virginia. If we win VA, its pretty much SAYONARA to any Republican. Same with say Evan Bayh ( I doubt he can win the nomination). But to make my point, all polls in Indiana show that if Bayh was the nominee, IN would go Democratic for the First time in 7 Presidential elections.

That's my point about Russ's home state.

by labanman on Tue Jan 03, 2006 at 11:41:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Plus the state he's from? (none / 0)

As a preface, let me state that these "where is a candidate from" type of electability arguments are somewhat beside the point.  I also find the argumetns against senators beside the point b/c every senator candidate has also been a shitty candidate, back to Johnson and Kennedy, and lo!  They won.

Wisconsin was carried by Kerry by 11,000 votes.  That is hardly a significant margin.  It's not the media playing up "swing state status," it's the fact that WI is a swing state.  Going back that far is meaningless due to demographic changes.  CA went to Bush in 1988--does that mean that CA is more closely contested than WI?  What if Allen runs against Warner, soemthing still in the realm of possibility, albeit marginally?

Furthermore, The Midwest is a swing region.  Feingold also brings, potentially, an increased ability to speak to MN, IA, MO, MI and perhaps even OH.  Carry four of those five states plus WI, and the election is looking very hard for the Republicans to win.

Gore's performance in Tennessee makes me wonder about Warner's chances of carrying Virginia.  

And I also doubt that any candidate, no matter how "southern", could carry any states in the south beyond VA, LA and AK, and all three of them would be a major battle.

"You say the world has lost it's love I say embrace what it's made of" -Dar Williams
by Valatan on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 12:24:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How far do we want to go ? (none / 0)

Again, if you're saying that going way back is meaningless. Then, what do you consider way back? Is 1996 way back. Is 2000 too far? Is 2004 not close enough? Prez Elections are only held every 4 years & so we can't get any closer, don't you think?

Let's forget 88 & focus on 92 & forward-still shows 4-0. Yes, Kerry only won by 11,000 in 04? But was Kerry, a New England Liberal a strong candidate? Especially for the more conservative Midwest?
God, he couldn't even defend Iowa & NM after successful victories by Clinton & also Gore.
Secondly, did you notice how much more ( almost double from 2000) the GOP spent on WI, OH, NM & IA. And it obviously paid off since they picked- off IA, & NM.

Again, if HRC, Warner, Richardson, Clark or whoever the nominee may be cannot win a state like Wisconsion ( where we have never lost in 20 years by 2008)- I CAN GUARANTEE YOU that WE Ain't gonna win 2008! Is it a Battleground state? Yes, it is a battleground state in the sense that Republicans still spend money to try & win them.

But so is Michigan, PA, & MO are always called battleground states but Democrats have not lost MI or PA in the last 5 elections while Republicans have NOT lost MO in the last 5 as well.

Obviously, we will need a candidate who can win Every state that Al Gore won in 2000 & then some.

Is it an Asset that Russ is from WI? Absolutely!
Better than HRC who hails from her adoptive state of NY & is originally from IL. No bonus there whatsoever.

But Feingold's home state is definitely a plus but is not his biggest ace. And as you said, he is a Senator like the rest of them. And his messed-up personal life & him being Jewish will be a factor.

IMHO, a person like Warner will run well in Midwest, Southwest, & & the South where we need those states badly. While Russ's personal issues & his being Jewish will be relevant especially in the south.

At the end of the day, who ever brings that unique ability to attract a strong core of constituents will be strong contenders.

 Right now, Russ Feingol is attracting a significant portion of the progressive block, Warner is attracting the moderate wing, while Hillary Clinton has a built-in ( very strong) base among Democratic women, African-Americans ( thru Bill), & a unique mix of Liberals & DLC'ers who have a common love for Bill Clinton.

HRC is in such a unique position. You can find thousands of Liberals who HATE her. But you can also find thousands of Liberals who ADORE her. You can find millions of Moderate/Conservative Democrats who DESPISE her. But you can also find thousands of Centrist/Moderate Democrats who LOVE her.  

But IMHO, as we get closer to 2008. Her handlers will use millions of dollars to highlight the " History in the Making, First Women President" mantra in the primaries- It will be an inevitable sight to see majority of Democratic Women primary voters flock to her. I could just imagine the excitement for some women of actually visualizing the thought of a Woman actually having a REAL SERIOUS SHOT as the First Ever Nominee of any Major Political Party & actually have a chance of winning & becoming president.

Gosh, even among those is my family & friends who are women & NOT really political & who vote but don't pay attention to issues like political junkies do. I can see many if not most of them really jumping in the HRC bandwagon once the excitement of her actually being a serious contender starts hitting the airwaves in early 2008.  

And with Women being the largest Democratic Party Block of voters ( even larger than African-Americans) in our Primaries, THAT's going to be the BIGGEST CHALLENGE for the rest of the field.

P.S.( Interesting side note)  Every Major NY State Poll done in 2005 showed HRC getting surprisingly very strong support from NY Republican Women voters. This is the reason she is defeating every possible NY challenger for her Senate race by at least 30%-40%.

If she does win the nomination, this will probably be one of her biggest goals that she has to achieve- WINNING enough crossover Republican Women Voters & Independent Women voters. She will need that BLOCK of voters in order to offset the strong Anti-Hillary movement from Republicans, conservatives, & Republican men.

 

by labanman on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 02:30:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How far do we want to go ? (none / 0)

<quote>
while Republicans have NOT lost MO in the last 5 as well.
</quote>

Clinton/Gore carried MO.  Both times.  MO has gone with the declared winner in every single election going back beyond any reasonable realm of validity, probably the 20s, though I don't really want to bother going back that far.  Calling MO a red state is a huge mistake.

Calling any Southern states aside from VA, LA, FL and AK winnable is a huge mistake (and FL isn't really a Southern state anymore).  We are wasting time thinking that we can compete in Texas, Mississippi at the Presidential level.  Running Warner does not guarantee a win in Virginia, especially if his opponent is Allen.  The Dems cannot compete in the south without pulling a '68 Nixon-style campaign, and fuck them if they do.

All that is necessary is that the Dems run a telegenic, intelligent candidate that doesn't mince words.  The Republicans have used the 'wimply cerebral flip-flopper" meme against the dems in pretty much every losing election going back to Adlai Stevenson.  Take it away from him, run fighting Russ Feingold.

"You say the world has lost it's love I say embrace what it's made of" -Dar Williams
by Valatan on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 01:17:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How far do we want to go ? (none / 0)

Alrighty, first off, Wisconsin is a HUGE swing state, and your claim that because Dukakis and Clinton won it makes it safe. Not so, as Clinton carried even the most unimaginable states and handily defeated each of his opponents, and Dukakis? Let's look at Dukakis's performance. First, he got 55% of the vote in Iowa, something Clinton wasn't even able to do, getting 43% and 51% respectively. Kerry did not take Iowa. Secondly, Dukakis nearly carried Missouri by only about 1.5 points, as well as Montana, Colorado, and even South Dakota. Dukakis got 43% in Kansas and 40% in Oklahoma, and nearly took California, and got 45% in Texas. Dukakis also took West Virginia, which Gore and Kerry both failed to do. Dukakis also took Oregon, which was a solid Republican state before this. Simply said, Dukakis did VERY well with the Agrarian vote, and is why he was easily able to carry Wisconsin and Iowa, and infact credit Dukakis for putting Iowa and Oregon in play for the Democrats in elections (as they were solid Republican states). Your arguement is moot.

The best part about a Feingold candidacy is that we will NOT have to play defense! Feingold locks up the mid-west vote, making the only realistic state to hold on to New Hampshire. And his MidWest appeal and his anti-Corrupted Free Trade (NAFTA, CAFTA) makes it possible to grab Missouri, Arkansas(especially w/ Clark), Ohio, West Virginia, and maybe even South Dakota (hey, Dukakis almost did it, right?). And while you say being Jewish will hurt, I think his Jewishness will help him solidify the Floridian Jews and make us very competitive in the state (Floridian Jews are among the most conservative Jews in the country, yet Lieberman locked them up for Gore). Furthermore, his Libertarian stances on the Patriot Act and wiretapping, while being a HUGE defecit hawk, puts into play the takable mountain west - New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Colorado, and Montana (but definetely not Arizona if McCain is their nominee).

by KainIIIC on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 03:07:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner! (none / 0)

As someone who is a stone's throw away from SW VA, I have often seen Warner on tv and I can tell you he's not telegenic. I admire the guy's management abilities, but he is fairly conservative, uninspirable, and not charismatic.
Tennesseans for Russ Feingold
by schwompa on Tue Jan 03, 2006 at 10:29:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner! (none / 0)

As someone who is actually in SWVA and has seen Warner many times on TV and also a couple times live, I would argue strongly against that.  There was a time when he was less than telegenic, but as anyone can tell you who has seen him in the past year and a half, this guy has energy and enthusiasm.  I'm also not entirely sure why people say he comes in from the right.  Is he a centrist? Yeah, and he is consistent.  Is he loyal to the party?  You bet.  He has done more for democrats in Virginia, and in many ways across the South, than most of had ever hoped.  Want proof?  Look to Tim Kaine.
by JamesSWVA on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 01:04:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Clark voters (none / 0)

It seems like Clark always makes a late charge in these polls. Is there some kind of group that puts out an APB or something after the poll has been posted for a while?

I'm not knocking the guy at all, in fact, he's among the candidates I'm keeping my ear open for, but it seems strange that his tally always rallies.  

by danielj on Tue Jan 03, 2006 at 06:03:29 PM EST

Re: Clark voters (none / 0)

Geez, the poll's only been up five hours, and most of us are just getting home from work.  Kind of early to be drawing a that sort of conclusion, doncha think?
by hf jai on Tue Jan 03, 2006 at 06:37:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clark voters (none / 0)

I wouldn't have made the above statement if this was the first time I'd noticed the trend.
by danielj on Tue Jan 03, 2006 at 06:45:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clark voters (none / 0)

As I've said before this type of polling is a waste of time since people who vote in these polls only tend to be representive of 20 to 25% of democratic primary voters. Finegold could have 100%. THey lack the general methodology and accuracy of poll that proportionally polls Democrats by areas,states,and age groups.
by orin76 on Tue Jan 03, 2006 at 08:12:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clark voters (none / 0)


Clark is more popular than you may think. Since I was active in the Clarkies back in '04, Clark still has a strong base of support.

If not for fighting with Edwards for the same voters especially in the Southern primaries, Clark would have nailed Kerry one on one.

I hope he does run. I just think he & Edwards will be fighting again for the same Dem voters. While Warner & Bayh will be fighting for a similar group of voters.

by labanman on Tue Jan 03, 2006 at 08:15:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clark voters (none / 0)

I didn't say he wasn't popular.  I just don't understand why he consistently is more popular as each poll goes on.
by danielj on Tue Jan 03, 2006 at 08:25:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clark voters (none / 0)

There is stuffinf going on, but in polls like this, there is probably stuffing going on for multiple candidates. It is par for the course, and perfectly valid.
by Chris Bowers on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 01:19:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clark voters (none / 0)

I like Clark, but his lack of skill on the stump and late start in campaigning sunk his chances in 2004.  If he had better speaking skills then OR had started earlier, then he might have won or at least had a better showing than he did.  

At least he beat Lieberman!!!

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Tue Jan 03, 2006 at 09:43:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Clark's Support (none / 0)

Clark's support seems to be mostly residual from the 2004 campaign rather than anything he's done recently.  His netroots support reminds me a lot of Lieberman's support in national polls early in the presidential cycle (which was residual from his VP run).

That's not to say Clark is necesarrily got net joementum fatalis.  He's got plenty of time to reverse the slide.

Btw, I voted for Feingold.

by Lavoisier1794 on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 03:16:49 AM EST

Feingold 2008! (none / 0)

Thrilled to see the rise of Feingold in this poll.  I've been beating this drum for quite a while now:

http://pressingtheflesh.blogspot.com/2005/09/russ-feingold-bold-democratic-leader.html

Thrills me to see him land on the radar screens of so many others.

Warner is an interesting candidate, and Edwards is always welcome in my book, but Russ brings the best leadership, integrity, and creativity to the table - if his Presidential campaign looks anything like his campaigns did in Wisconsin (particularly his early ones), this country is in for a Bulworth-like shake-up come November 2008.

by FleshPresser on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 10:55:35 AM EST

2008 Democratic Candidates (none / 0)

They are 10 Democratic Candidates for the 2008 Democratic Presidential Nomination
1)Hillary Clinton-NY
2)John Kerry-MA
3)John Edwards-NC
4)Joe Biden-DE
5)Wesley Clark-AR
6)Bill Richardson-NM
7)Evan Bayh-IN
8)Russell Fiengold-WI
9)Mark Warner-VA
10)Tom Vilsack-IA

The Democratic Party historically rejects candidate who have previously ran for president and lost in the primary or general election.
That is Kerry-MA,Edwards-NC,Biden-DE,Clark-AR.
The remaining candidates are
1)Hillary Clinton-NY
2)Bill Richardson-NM
3)Evan Bayh-IN
4)Russell Feingold-WI
5)Mark Warner-VA
6)Tom Vislack-IA

Bill Richardson-NM has close ties to Bill and Hillary Clinton. Richardson is a Hispanic Male from the SouthWest. A current Governor ,a Former Member of Congress and former Presidential Cabinet-level Secretary. Richardson(NM)will most likely be the 2008 Democratic Vice Presidential Nominee.

Evan Bayh-IN and Tom Vilsack are both Midwestern DLCer. Evan Bayh will be the Midwestern DLCer. Bayh has strong foriegn policy and national security experience. Bayh is a member of the Senate Armed Services Commitee.

The top tier 2008 Democratic Presidential candidates are
1)Hillary Clinton-NY
2)Evan Bayh-IN
3)Russell Fiengold-WI
4)Mark Warner-VA

Evan Bayh-IN and Mark Warner-VA will be the Centrist Moderate Anti Hillary Candidate. Mark Warner -VA has an advantage- he is a Governor of a southern State- last two Democratic Presidents- Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton are both Governors of Southern States. Warner is not a US Senator unlike Evan Bayh.

The top three Candidates for the 2008 Democratic Presidential nomination is
1)Hillary Clinton-NY
2)Russell Fiengold-WI
3)Mark Warner-VA

Hillary and Fiengold will split the liberal vote.

Mark Warner-VA will be the 2008 Democratic Presidential nominee. and Bill Richardson-NM will be the 2008 Democratic Vice Presidentail Nominee.

The 2008 Republican Presidential nominee will be Mitt Romney-MA. a Conservative Republican Governor from a Solid Blue State in the Northeastern Region. The 2008 Republican Presidential nominee will be Chuck Hagel-NE. a social conservative from the Midwest but a maverick on foriegn policy/national security issues. a Vietnam War veteran.

The Warner/Richardson 2008(D)Ticket will defeat the Romney/Hagel 2008(R)Ticket.
Warner and Richardson will carry their home state. Virginia is increasingly becoming a battleground state. New Mexico is a typical purple state.
Romney will lose his home state- Massachusetts is a solid Blue state. But will win Hagel's home state of Nebraska.

The Warner/Richardson 2008 Democratic Ticket will win all of the Kerry 2004 States plus
Virginia,New Mexico,Iowa,Ohio,Nevada,Colorado,Florida,and probally Missouri.

Warner/Richardson(D)-349ev
Romney/Hagel(R)-199ev

by CMBurns on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 01:58:45 PM EST

Re: 2008 Democratic Candidates (none / 0)

I'm with you all the way to the top three Dems. Much as I like Richardson, you're probably right that he'll end up looking most like VP material.

How you could predict what might come beyond that, however, I have no idea. HRC is trying to sell herself as farther right, while Warner has a lot more experience addressing conservative rural voters. All three will be powerhouses, but there is no way to guess how the fund-raising will progress (HRC's war chest will probably be balanced out by her disadvantage in online support).  There will be a solid 6 months of competition in late 2007, and as 2003 showed -- and I should add, Jan '04 -- big surprises can occur.

As for the Republicans, while you go into less detail, I have an even harder time buying your prediction. Hagel will do much better than Romney (who will utterly fail in 2006 as the head of Repub. Gov's Assoc.) What about Allen? McCain? I think that one may be even harder to narrow to three than the Dem primary.

Tim Wolfe

John McCain is not pro-choice!

by bruorton on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 05:31:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 2008 Democratic Candidates (none / 0)

That said, it was an astute handicapping of the Dem primary, and I enjoyed reading it. I would SO go to work for a Warner/Richardson ticket.
Tim Wolfe

John McCain is not pro-choice!

by bruorton on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 05:34:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 2008 Republican Candidates (none / 0)

Regarding the 2008 Republican Presidential Candidates.

1)Condi Rice- is part of the unpopular Bush Administration, unpopular Iraq War. It is unlikely Republicans will nominate a Black Female for President.
2)Bill Frist and Newt Gingrich are highly controversial and polarizing figures.
3)Guiliani is pro-choice and pro-gay rights.
4)McCain and Hagel are mavericks- They are unpopular with the rank and file Republicans.

The likely candidates for the 2008 Republican Presidential Nomination are
1)Sam Brownback-the social conservative favorite
while the economic conservative candidates are
1)George Allen
2)Haley Barbour(MS)Governor,former Chairman of the Republican National Commitee- close ties to K-street
3)Mitt Rommey(MA)-Conservative Republican from a solid Blue State.

My prediction is that Haley Barbour(MS)is the wild card candidate for the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination.
Current Governor of Mississippi
Barbour's job approval rating was helped by Hurricane Katrina while Blanco's job approval rating was harmed by Katrina.
Barbour is the former Republican National Commitee Chairman and Barbour has close ties K-Street/tobbaco industry.

by CMBurns on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 01:24:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

2008 Presidential Race (none / 0)

2008 Presidential Election will be an open seat election. President Bush is term limited and Vice President Cheney will not be candidate for President. The last time we had an open seat election was in 1952- The winner of the 1952 Presidential Election was Dwight D Eisnhower- the former US Military General.
The last three Democratic US Presidents were Southern Democrats (Clinton,Carter,and Johnson)and the last two Democratic Presidents were Governors were Governors(Clinton-AR,and Carter-GA)

The strongest and the idealist 2008 Democratic Presidential nominee will be either Wesley Clark(AR) - the former NATO Allied Supreme Commander/US Military General or Mark Warner(VA)-the outgoing Democratic Governor of Virginia.

Bill Richardson(NM)will be the 2008 Democratic Vice Presidential nominee.

Clark/Richardson or a Warner/Richardson will be the perfect 2008 Democratic Presidential or Vice Presidential Ticket.

by CMBurns on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 03:44:57 PM EST


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: