Monday 2008 Thread

I don't mean to be writing so much about 2008, but the thing is that the 2008 Presidential field will be set, or close to set, far, far earlier than the 2008 Senate picture. In a very real way, what happens in the Presidential scene over the next two months will have more impact on the race than anything that happens before September of 2007. Setting the field and the primary schedule puts the pieces in the place. From that point, the game will move quite slowly for a number of months.

Anyway, with that justification in place to make me feel a little better, here is the latest 2008 news:
  • Kerry has significantly delayed his decision on whether to run in 2008:
    The Massachusetts Democrat is now leaning toward waiting until late spring before declaring his intentions, even as other candidates jump into the race and begin building organizing and fund-raising teams in early-primary states. Before the joke derailed his comeback, Kerry had signaled that he would decide whether to run by the end of January.
    A delay of this extent strikes me as Kerry leaning strongly toward not running. He must be waiting to see exactly who makes up the field, and if there is any kind of opening at all. To push back a decision on whether to run by three or four months is, in the modern environment, akin to not running. I, for one, hope he stays in the Senate, thereby making those huge warchests certain ultra-safe Democratic Representatives in Massachusetts seem even more pointless than before.

  • Joe Biden, never a favorite around these parts, steps in something pretty foul during a recent trip to South Carolina. Corrente and MyDD's Laurin from SC have more.

    I have repeated written that I am keeping an open mind on the 2008 field, and that I believe any Democratic candidate has the potential to step up and become the type of leader I would seek to follow during the campaign. However, this kind of behavior just makes me wish that Biden would drop out / decide to not formally run. Bragging that Delaware was a slave state? The guy already represents a state with only 7% of the population of Pennsylvania, yet he has power equal to any Pennsylvania Senator. Wasn't that level of injustice large enough for him already before he had to bring up memories of things like the three-fifths compromise? Will he next brag that Delaware is a wholly owned subsidiary of MBNA? The only way Biden wins the nomination is if the only voters were Sunday morning talk show hosts. Please, go away.

  • The DNC is trying to institute an incentive based system to prevent frontloading in the primaries:
    In February, the whole Democratic National Committee will vote to ratify or reject the idea. The proposal, which is designed to provide an incentive for states to schedule their contests later in the process, goes like this:
    • States holding 2008 primaries between February 5 and March 31 -- known as stage 1 -- will get no bonus delegates.

    • States with contests between April 1 and April 30 -- stage 2 -- receive a 5 percent bonus for staying in that time period.

    • States with contests between May 1 and June 10 -- stage 3 -- will receive a 10 percent bonus for staying in that timeframe.

    • At the same time, if any state in stage 1 moves to stage 2, it receives a 15 percent bonus. Finally, if a stage 1 or 2 state moves into stage 3, it receives a 30 percent bonus.
    There was little dissent at the meeting today, according to party officials, but stay tuned to see if this actually prevents a free-for-all in the always-contentious primary calendar.
    While it looks like this will pass, it is hard to imagine this will dissuade too many states from holding early primary contests. I personally long for an extended primary season, mainly for the high political drama that would satiate my electoral junkie fix for years afterward. I don't really care what the arguments are for a longer or shorter primary season on either side: I want a longer primary season just because I think it would be really cool. Thus, I back this proposal.

  • As I noted last night, Daschle is out, and Bayh is in. Hotline on Call looks at the makeup of Bayh's staff, if you are into that sort of inside baseball.

  • Bloomberg08 I mean Unity08 seems to have their main man interested in a possible run. Atrios is just as excited as I am about this wonderful possibility of corporate centrists saving the peasants from destroying the nation. It now seems possible that, should neither the Republican nor Democratic primaries go the way LieberDems like, the 2008 Presidential election could very well be the sequel to the 2006 Connecticut Senate race. A Theocon--LieberDem--Movement Candidate three way race is not outside the realm of possibility. Thankfully, Democrats now (narrowly) control the outcome if the race is thrown into the house of Representatives (we control 26 state delegations).
Expect large fields on both the Democratic and Republican sides in 2008, given that this is the first time since 1928 that none of the sitting President, Vice-President, or Eisenhower is running. The field is, at least seemingly, wide open, just like this thread.



Display:


Re: Monday 2008 Thread (none / 0)

What about James Webb?  He is the only Democrat who has shown that he can beat a Republican Presidential candidate in their HOME STATE.

If I were a Democratic king maker, I would be drooling to have Webb run.

Gun control?  Let's be serious for awhile.  50,000 dead on the highway each year.  Houses within two miles of a body of water uninsurable because of flood risk.  I'll spot him gun control.


by Ethelred on Mon Dec 04, 2006 at 11:43:57 AM EST

No spotting gun control (none / 0)

With Dean as the DNC chair the unofficial policy has become "shut up about guns".

The truth, the gun issue has always been a distraction from addressing the core cause of violence -- the social destruction caused by a society that seems to encourage poverty as necessary to a capitalist system.

The gun just happens to be the weapon of choice for that social destruction.

---

More on your point, sure, let's run Jim Webb.  Why not?

The opposed the war vociferously long before it was even fought.  In 2008, that's going to carry a lot of credibility.

And if Obama can be considered a serious candidate without fulfilling his Senate, why not Webb?


by jcjcjc on Mon Dec 04, 2006 at 12:08:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Webb (none / 0)

Yeah, that makes sense... a guy who has no experience in government running for president right after he's been elected by a razor thin margin to the U.S. Senate.

I like Webb, but this is silly.


by Bob Fenster on Mon Dec 04, 2006 at 10:58:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Politics is silly (none / 0)

Hate to say so, but very little of this is well-thought out or purposeful.

Perhaps we should do like other countries and elect a leftist economist.


by jcjcjc on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 10:55:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Monday 2008 Thread (3.00 / 2)

Eisenhower's not running? I was planning on voting for him.


by ira500 on Mon Dec 04, 2006 at 11:50:42 AM EST

Re: Monday 2008 Thread (3.00 / 2)

He is the only Democrat who has shown that he can beat a Republican Presidential candidate in their HOME STATE.

Uh, Bob Casey?


by Adam B on Mon Dec 04, 2006 at 11:53:47 AM EST

It's still about John Edwards! (3.00 / 2)

Iowa will still set a leading example and a headstart.


Check out the New Progressive Blog EENRBLOG
by dk2 on Mon Dec 04, 2006 at 12:03:14 PM EST

Re: Monday 2008 Thread (none / 0)

Did anyone notice John Bolton just resigned from the United Nations?  Got milk? :-)


.. and when I win the lottery, gonna donate half my money to the city so they have to name a school or a park after me - camper van beethoven
by heyAnita on Mon Dec 04, 2006 at 12:08:54 PM EST

Re: Monday 2008 Thread (none / 0)

That's a very interesting idea from the DNC.  However, I'm not sure there's anything you can do to set things up for a long primary season if circumstances don't support it.

In 2004, for example, Democrat were really really eager to consolidate behind one nominee to take on Bush, and I'm not sure it really mattered who that nominee was.  Democrats nationwide didn't magically fall in love with Kerry overnight, but after he won the first few primaries, everyone figured "he's the guy, now is not the time to be divided."  Maybe if you reshuffled the schedule, someone else would have ended up as "the guy."  But I don't think there's any way you could have set the schedule, under the circumstances of 2004, to provide for a long primary season.

Obviously not every year is 2004.  But I'm still not sure how much difference the schedule actually makes.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Mon Dec 04, 2006 at 12:10:11 PM EST

Re: Monday 2008 Thread (none / 0)

The current primary schedule looks like it was designed by Edwards so expect other states to move their primary forward to counter this.
by kundalini on Mon Dec 04, 2006 at 12:15:59 PM EST

The current field sucks (none / 0)

Obama - inexperienced.

Hillary - Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton is frighteningly similar to a dual-monarchy.  Also, she was wrong on the damned war.

Edwards - see Obama.  America had its chance to buy a puppy in 2004.

Clark - can't speak against, but not jumping up and down as relevant right now.

Biden - HAH!

Bayh - war.

Kerry - war + incapable of speaking in public.

Right now, the only apparent candidates that I would even waste my time going to the polls in spring 2008 for are Richardson and maybe Vilsack.

First off, because we need someone with experience as a governor.  It is the only job that vaguely resembles being president.  All these Senators need to just pack their bags and go home.

Secondly, because Richardson is the only candidate right now who doesn't make me want to either gag (Biden, Hillary) or sit there and wonder whether they're a joke (Obama, Edwards).

Third -- anyone who supported the war is off the table.  No debate, no question.

Right now, I'd give my right arm to see Gore or Dean find their way into the field.  Especially if Gore shows he can keep the distinct voice he has gained since losing in 2000.

Dean's young enough that I suspect he is committing himself to fixing the Democratic Party before even joking about ever running for President again.  Truth be told, it ain't a bad idea.

That said, 2008 is shaping up to be an ugly pig contest, which bodes well for Bloomberg.


by jcjcjc on Mon Dec 04, 2006 at 12:17:51 PM EST

Re: The current field sucks (none / 0)

Draft Gore!


by drlimerick on Mon Dec 04, 2006 at 12:21:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Draft Gore (none / 0)

just tell me where to sign up!


by BlueinColorado on Mon Dec 04, 2006 at 12:55:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Sadly, I think Gore is serious (none / 0)

I don't think he is going to run.  Which is too bad, because he is a miles better man now than he was in 2000.  Few people have gained more in defeat than Al Gore.


by jcjcjc on Mon Dec 04, 2006 at 01:16:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sadly, I think Gore is serious (none / 0)

Jimmy Carter probably is up there in candidates who gained most from losing as well. The guy's has done a total 180 on how he is perceived by America.


by Cheebo on Mon Dec 04, 2006 at 02:06:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Carter drew a terrible hand (none / 0)

The truth is, whoever had the misfortune of leading post-Vietnam America was screwed.

The Republicans knew this and that's why they threw Gerald Ford to the wolves in '76.

When you compound post-Vietnam with the Iranian Revolution, rampant inflation and Soviet aggression, it is hard to see how anyone could have done any better than Carter.


by jcjcjc on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 02:18:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Edwards (3.00 / 4)

Candidates who failed in earlier nominating campaigns won in later primaries--Reagan, Gore, for example.  I actually consider Edwards the front-runner.  He doesn't have Hillary's baggage--the electability baggage, and the DLC baggage.


by jayackroyd on Mon Dec 04, 2006 at 12:25:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards (none / 0)

"electability baggage" is wrong argument except for extreme cases.

As of now, all of HRC/Gore/Edwards/Obama are doing quite well in matchup polls againts most of the GOP field and in striking distance of Mccain and Giuliani.

the DLC baggage.

Edwards was member of the DLC (as of Nov 7, 2000) and the senate "New" Democrat coalition (as of Jan 1, 2001) according to issue2000.org.


by NuevoLiberal on Mon Dec 04, 2006 at 02:05:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

As of November 2000... (3.00 / 1)

...Al Gore thought Joe Lieberman should be a heartbeat away from the presidency.


John Edwards 2008
by MeanBoneII on Mon Dec 04, 2006 at 03:21:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

As of October 2002, (none / 0)

Edwards co-sponsored Lieberman's war resolution  


S.J.RES.46

Title: A joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
Sponsor: Sen Lieberman, Joseph I. [CT] (introduced 10/2/2002)      Cosponsors (16)

COSPONSORS(16), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]:     (Sort: by date)

     Sen Allard, Wayne [CO] - 10/2/2002
      Sen Baucus, Max [MT] - 10/7/2002
      Sen Bayh, Evan [IN] - 10/2/2002
      Sen Breaux, John B. [LA] - 10/9/2002
      Sen Bunning, Jim [KY] - 10/4/2002
      Sen Domenici, Pete V. [NM] - 10/2/2002

     Sen Edwards, John [NC] - 10/3/2002

     Sen Helms, Jesse [NC] - 10/2/2002
      Sen Hutchinson, Tim [AR] - 10/2/2002
      Sen Johnson, Tim [SD] - 10/7/2002
      Sen Landrieu, Mary L. [LA] - 10/2/2002
      Sen McCain, John [AZ] - 10/2/2002
      Sen McConnell, Mitch [KY] - 10/2/2002
      Sen Miller, Zell [GA] - 10/2/2002
      Sen Thurmond, Strom [SC] - 10/10/2002
      Sen Warner, John [VA] - 10/2/2002

but Gore stood against the tide to oppose it as of a month earlier (57% of Americans supported an invasion at that point):


    Gore's speech against the war, 9/23/2002

      Former Vice President Al Gore
       Iraq and the War on Terrorism
       September 23, 2002
       Prepared Remarks

       "If Saddam Hussein does not present an imminent threat, then is it justifiable for the Administration to be seeking by every means to precipitate a confrontation, to find a cause for war, and to attack?"

            "I believe we should focus our efforts first and foremost against those who attacked us on September 11th and have thus far gotten away with it. "

            "the coalition assembled in 1991 paid all of the significant costs of the war, while this time, the American taxpayers will be asked to shoulder hundreds of billions of dollars in costs on our own."

   -------

   Hardball College Tour: Al Gore

   Dec. 11, 9 p.m. ET Lehman College, The City University of New York
    Updated: 3:25 a.m. CT Nov 26, 2002

   MATTHEWS: But you would have voted against it.

   GORE: I would have voted against that resolution. I would have voted against it.


posted October 3, 2002 (October 21, 2002 issue)
Al Gore, democrat

Eric Alterman

he sure galvanized Tom Daschle and other Democrats to face up to a frightening juggernaut for war they would have preferred to duck for the sake of re-election. Naderites take note. It was not "smart" in the Washington sense. It was not strategic. But damn it, it was brave.

And as of, Dec. 2003, Gore endorsed Howard Dean over Lieberman primarily on the basis of the war which gave Dean a significant boost in polls (from 1 pt lead to 12 pts), which led to the Democratic party "establishment" to huddle and gang-bust Dean before Iowa.


by NuevoLiberal on Mon Dec 04, 2006 at 03:38:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

So he co sponsored! (none / 0)

There has been much since the co-sponsoring or should we just stop in a time-warp at the Date, time and minute that it was signed?

THere is much more since then unless you continue to live in a bubble.

Give it up Nuevo!


Check out the New Progressive Blog EENRBLOG
by dk2 on Mon Dec 04, 2006 at 03:59:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Exactly. (none / 0)

Notice he doesn't want time to stop when Al made Joementum his running mate.


John Edwards 2008
by MeanBoneII on Mon Dec 04, 2006 at 04:07:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Lieberman was a main stream Democrat in 2000 (none / 0)

Iraq war was the most catastrophic foreign policy decision made in the the last 26 years with immense consequences. Edwards joined Lieberman on that front two years later, in 2002.

Gore was the first and leading voice against it, spurring Democrats to oppose it when they were weak-kneed about standing up. About 60% of Dems voted against IWR, which I think was a key in us winning in 2006.

That contrast will be important in 2008 as well.


by NuevoLiberal on Mon Dec 04, 2006 at 04:36:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lieberman was a main stream Democrat in 2000 (none / 0)

Exactly. 9.11 didn't change everything, but it changed Joe Lieberman. Gore picked Lieberman as a ploy to win over Lieberman's largest constituency: The Beltway Media, and in that regard, it worked a little bit.


by BlueinColorado on Mon Dec 04, 2006 at 04:50:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's not an issue since he has said it was (3.00 / 1)

not the right thing to do.

If he was running on the premise that it was still a good thing to do, you may have a point.

But he is not therefore you do not have a point of any concern.


Check out the New Progressive Blog EENRBLOG
by dk2 on Mon Dec 04, 2006 at 05:39:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The current field sucks (3.00 / 1)

First off, because we need someone with experience as a governor.  It is the only job that vaguely resembles being president.  All these Senators need to just pack their bags and go home.

Right, we should never support Abraham Lincoln. He never had experience as a governor. And he didn't even win his race for Senate!


by Angry White Democrat on Mon Dec 04, 2006 at 01:41:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The current field sucks (none / 0)

Plus, he's a Republican!


Read Brian's Utah Weblog
by Brian Watkins on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 06:30:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Dear God, don't cite Lincoln (none / 0)

You are aware that the majority of serious efforts to analyze Lincoln's presidency conclude he was one of the worst presidents ever, right?

His handling of the Army of the Potomac, coupled with ridiculous micromanaging likely extended the war at least two years longer than it should have been.

Also, Lincoln offered up the lives of black slaves for three years trying to buy the South off into returning to the Union.

Lincoln was grossly incompetent and a terrible president by any measure.


by jcjcjc on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 10:31:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The current field sucks (none / 0)

"Third -- anyone who supported the war is off the table.  No debate, no question."
I would think you'd be an Obama man then. Is there anyone else who was against the war as early as 2002   like him? Wes Clark maybe?
by Cheebo on Mon Dec 04, 2006 at 02:08:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The current field sucks (none / 0)

My problem with Obama is he looks very hollow.  This is a man who is going to have to do a lot in the next couple years for me to take him seriously.


by jcjcjc on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 10:33:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Gore and Dean are both 58 (none / 0)

Dean is a about 6 months younger than Gore.


by NuevoLiberal on Mon Dec 04, 2006 at 04:40:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Monday 2008 Thread (3.00 / 1)

Biden has been a joke candidate ever since the great plagiarism scandal of 1988.  Pandering to the racist streak in S.C., though, is a new low for two reasons.  First, it's racist.  Second, you'd hope that someone who wants to be President would have his ear sufficiently attuned to the facts that a) Trent Lott was torpedoed as Majority Leader for comments along these same lines; and b) Trent Lott, along with the tale of Strom's birthday, is back in the news lately.  Do we want a President with such a tin ear for the zeitgeist?

But two things, Chris, about Delaware:

First, I'd always thought it was a wholly-owned subsidiary of DuPont.

More important, though, your suggestion that senators from small states ought to be humble is 'way out of line.  You may not like the Great Compromise -- God knows it's done enough damage over the decades -- but when you badmouth Biden this way you also badmouth Robert Byrd, Bernie Sanders, Jim Jeffords, Tom Daschle, Bill Richardson, Harry Reid, Jon Tester. . .


by drlimerick on Mon Dec 04, 2006 at 12:20:48 PM EST

Re: Monday 2008 Thread (none / 0)

The difference being, not a single one of the Senators you mentioned has anything close to Biden's ego.  As Senators go, they're a pretty soft-stated and humble bunch.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Mon Dec 04, 2006 at 12:37:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Monday 2008 Thread (none / 0)

Another difference being that Bill Richardson was never a Senator ...


by BriVT on Mon Dec 04, 2006 at 02:07:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Is field really that wide open? (none / 0)

McCain seems a lock on Republicans, name recognition, poll numbers, organization, supporters, money, purchase of Bush Jr supporters during 2004...hard to see him losing especially with right wingers chastened from 2006 losses.

On Demo's side, Hillary has a similar lock, with only Obama having the star power to get money and get up and running in the few remaining months to offer much of a challenge.

The others all seem like Indonesion shadow dancers boosting name recognition for future races or trolling for VP, Sec. of Defense, etc. spots by showing some political pull.


by BrionLutz on Mon Dec 04, 2006 at 12:21:27 PM EST

Re: Is field really that wide open? (none / 0)

McCain is going to have a hard time moving to the right far enough for the movement conservatives. His straight-talk, moderate image is a problem with the Republican base. That the image is largely false is irrelevant; it's how people think of him.

Hillary has tons of negatives, on the left and on the right.  The general would be very tight.  And I think she may have alienated enough of the grassroots of the party that she will have a hard time getting the nomination.  (although she has done a fine job as my senator.)


by jayackroyd on Mon Dec 04, 2006 at 12:30:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

McCain doesn't have to move, they come to to him (none / 0)

the Republican right wing got hit in 2006 so they see McCain as the "moderate" medicine they have to swallow to hold on to the presidency.  McCain is right wing enough to give them plenty of reasons to vote for him.

"His straight-talk, moderate image is a problem with the Republican base."

I don't agree and two elections of Bush Jr tend to confirm that...you heard a lot of voters say "I disagree with him but I know where he stands" when voting for Bush Jr over Gore and even more so vs. Kerry. That dynamic works for McCain bigtime.

"Hillary has tons of negatives, on the left and on the right."

Issue isn't so much negatives of McCain and Hillary, it's that they have such huge advantages going in to their respective primaries that I don't see anyone knocking off McCain and only Obama can beat Hillary.

The more crowded the field, the more it works to McCain and Hillary's advantage in primaries, splitting the "other" votes and leaving them with big pluralities...and the nomination.


by BrionLutz on Mon Dec 04, 2006 at 12:37:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: McCain (none / 0)

I dunno--I think it was the GOP moderates who got hit in 2006, leaving a very conservative party who looks around and sees that it was the conservatives (with the exception of Allen, a  special case, and Santorum) by and large who survived.  I think a candidate will emerge on the far right who may get the nod.  I think both parties are really fluid right now and the beltway CW is pretty insular and off the mark.  And Bloomberg's problem is that he doesn't have a party.  CT Sen is not the US Presidency.


by Mimikatz on Mon Dec 04, 2006 at 12:54:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

GOP Moderates or Right wing took 2006 hit? (none / 0)

"I think it was the GOP moderates who got hit in 2006."

Wasn't some guy named Delay the Republican face in the House and whose demise over corruption lead to Republicans unraveling in 2006?

Santorum was crazy right winger complete with bible and he got killed by pushing evolution in schools with the Dover, PA wipe out of pro-religion Repubs leading the charge.

Allen in VA was another leading light of the right who got smite.

You've got the right wing stars, the House leader and two leading right wing Republican presidential candidates, going down hard in 2006.

2006 vote took out the two leading right wing challengers to McCain in 2008.

McCain can point to PA and VA and say it's gotta be him.


by BrionLutz on Mon Dec 04, 2006 at 02:14:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: GOP Moderates or Right wing took 2006 hit? (none / 0)

At least in the House the ones that lost elections (as opposed to being ousted by their own chicanery) were mostly moderates.  Also Chafee in the Senate.  De Wine wasn't far right, just conservative.  


by Mimikatz on Mon Dec 04, 2006 at 06:43:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: McCain doesn't have to move, they come to to h (none / 0)

I think the right's biggest fear is if he gets the nomination he'll no longer "hold back" if you will and go total anti-Republican Teddy Roosevelt Bull Moose style.


by Cheebo on Mon Dec 04, 2006 at 02:11:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Monday 2008 Thread (none / 0)

CNN is reporting that Sam Brownback is now "taking steps" toward making a bid. This is welcome news, and I think we should all do our part and throw a few dollars his way; there would be nothing worse for the conservatives and nothign better for the Dems than for the GOP t actually nominate someone who shares their radical views on every social issue of the day (and will not use the coded language that GOP's has successfully used ie..i belive in a culture of life vs. I will ban all abortions!). It would be a cake walk.


by bjschmid on Mon Dec 04, 2006 at 12:26:53 PM EST

Re: Monday 2008 Thread (none / 0)

I hope Bloomberg does not run, although I doubt he would win any electoral votes.  

If Democrats nominate somebody who is too left wing, the Mayor could capture enough of the centrist Democratic vote (people to whom McCain also appeals) to turn a few blue states red.  

We've got the Congress back, and we need the White House as well.


by Francis Vecellio on Mon Dec 04, 2006 at 12:42:15 PM EST

Unity Party (none / 0)

As I understand it the Unity Party plans to allow some type of online voting to "select" their nominee. I am not sure how straightforward that will be.

Do they have mechanisms in place to stop groups from getting together to nominate someone too far to the left or right? If the online voting is a real election what would stop groups from selecting a fringe candidate?


BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog
by robliberal on Mon Dec 04, 2006 at 12:48:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

actblue (none / 0)

just a reminder - you can now donate to the candidate of your choice at actblue.  even if that candidate hasn't officially declared.

http://actblue.com/directory/search?year =2008&q=presidential


Strengthening the progressive movement through liberal entrepreneurship http://www.plantingliberally.org
by Shai Sachs on Mon Dec 04, 2006 at 12:45:58 PM EST

I prefer a longer primary season also (3.00 / 1)

I personally long for an extended primary season, mainly for the high political drama that would satiate my electoral junkie fix for years afterward.

Personally, I prefer a longer primary season for a couple of reasons -

1.  The longer we draw out the primary the longer the press pays attentions to what the Democratic Candidates are saying instead of ignoring them once the ticket is locked in.

2.  We get a better look at the candidates.  This means we get to see how they handle the pressure for an extended period of time before we select our ticket and we have a longer time to vet them so that real skeletons in the closet have time to reveal themselves.


by lisadawn82 on Mon Dec 04, 2006 at 12:56:07 PM EST

Re: I prefer a longer primary season also (none / 0)

This was really inspired. That´s why we want a longer primary season.


What if the democracy we thought we were serving no longer exists, and the Republic has become the very evil we have been fighting to destroy?
by santos on Mon Dec 04, 2006 at 02:11:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I prefer a longer primary season also (none / 0)

2.  We get a better look at the candidates.  This means we get to see how they handle the pressure for an extended period of time before we select our ticket and we have a longer time to vet them so that real skeletons in the closet have time to reveal themselves.

Unless, like in 2004, the media loses its attention span and declares a winner after the second or third primary.

Regardless of how long the primary season is on the calendar, if the last few elections are any indication, it's going to be over after about a month or two anyway because after that point all but one candidate will have dropped out. While obviously it would be great if we could take our time with the primaries and really get the chance for everyone to know the candidates and make their voice heard, that's not really the choice we're being given. The choice we're being given is how much actual voting we want to get in before the deadline when the race will be arbitrarily declared over.


by Silent sound on Mon Dec 04, 2006 at 04:56:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Biden (3.00 / 1)

If you  didn't read the Corrente link on Biden, it wasn't just his weird regret that Delaware didn't join the confederacy, he also for some reason decided to channel his good friend Joe Lieberman:

"America needs, and I need, for the Republican Party to get back up," [Biden] said.
[...]
"The mid-term election may have been a rejection of the policies of this administration," Biden said. "But it was not an embrace of the Democratic program or the Democratic Party. We're in a state of flux right now and have a lot of problems that need to be resolved."


by BlueinColorado on Mon Dec 04, 2006 at 12:57:59 PM EST

Re: Biden (none / 0)

He is making an odd move by appealing to the right like that. Hillary has the running to the right thing locked up in the primary.


by Cheebo on Mon Dec 04, 2006 at 02:09:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Monday 2008 Thread (none / 0)

This incentive plan makes no sense...

Basically... I'm either going to sched. my primary in Feb- for max impact, or June, to get a bonus-- why would I schedule in between?

Time for regional primaries


Would you hire George W Bush to be YOUR latex salesman?
by jgkojak on Mon Dec 04, 2006 at 01:29:22 PM EST

We like Ike! (none / 0)

Any chance we can convince Eisenhower to make a comeback for the Dem nomination?


by Windowdog on Mon Dec 04, 2006 at 01:40:00 PM EST

Electoral Map (none / 0)

Denver is the right play here, because Democrats really need to win the blue-trending west.
The GOP picked Minneapolis (that bastion of conservatism) to increase its influence in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Iowa- three vital midwestern swing states.
To counter this, Dems should hold the convention in Denver to try to better its chances of picking up Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada. Picking up those three states alone (which narrowly went to GWB) while holding all the states Kerry won last election would give us victory.
by AC4508 on Mon Dec 04, 2006 at 02:40:30 PM EST

Re: Monday 2008 Thread (none / 0)

Biden's PAC blog features excerpts from the newspaper article mentioning both the "slave state" comment and the comment about the 2006 election results not being an "embrace" of the Democratic party.  Not surprisingly, both of those parts of the story were clipped from the blog highlights.  (I think the "slave state" line was included in the blog piece yesterday, but I didn't take a screenshot.)


by Laurin from SC on Mon Dec 04, 2006 at 02:49:49 PM EST

"progressive pragmatism?" (none / 0)

1) This is not the comment of a progressive pragmatist:

I don't really care what the arguments are for a longer or shorter primary season on either side: I want a longer primary season just because I think it would be really cool. Thus, I back this proposal.

If, as looks likely, McCain wraps things up early on the GOP side, the pragmatic argument for the Dems to finish early grows.

2) Not for Chris, but for some of the other commenters: if Obama and Clinton both run, the field will be wide open -- Obama may be the only candidate that can take a big slice out of, or remove, the African-American bloc of primary voters that Clinton enjoys.


Visit DebateScoop
by demondeac on Mon Dec 04, 2006 at 03:45:05 PM EST

Re: Monday 2008 Thread (none / 0)

Let's see if I "get it" correctly?

Clinton, a one term Senator.
Edwards, a one term Senator
Vilsack, a Governor
Dean, a Governor
Dodd, a Senator
Biden, a Senator
Kerry, a Senator
Richardson, a Congressman, an Appointed
    Official, and Governor

So, for the most part, who has the better and far more ranging Resume?

Ahhh, Richardson, and yet, none of the posters can bring themselves to acknowledge Richardson.

I suppose, I shouldn't be so hard on my fellow DD-posters, given that I am pleading that you keep Clinton, Kerry, Biden, and Dodd, out of the Sonoran Desert.  And any Democrat that can politically equate undocumented immigrants to animals, does not deserve serious consideration for our Party's nomination.

Just a thought from Indian Country.


by Jaango on Mon Dec 04, 2006 at 03:51:07 PM EST

Re: Monday 2008 Thread (none / 0)

Ahhh, Richardson, and yet, none of the posters can bring themselves to acknowledge Richardson.

Just a guess, but I assume that's because nobody's ever heard of him.


by Silent sound on Mon Dec 04, 2006 at 05:00:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Monday 2008 Thread (none / 0)

Bayh - Two term governor and Senator


The Kentucky Democrat
by kydem on Mon Dec 04, 2006 at 11:46:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Monday 2008 Thread (none / 0)

The Republicans and Democrats are on two entirely different time tables.  Based on 2000, the Republican front runner will be picked in the Iowa straw poll rather than the Iowa caucusses.  The straw poll is being held on August 11, 2007.  This is trictly a money/connections event.  The campaigns pay a $25 fee per person to cast a vote and also pay bus transportation, meals and God knows what else.  W got 50% in 2000.

That "event" strongly favors the Republican establishment's candidate.  The caucusses, themselves, have been trending winger/fundy since at least 1988. For Republicans (but not Democrats), New Hampshire has often served to "correct" the Iowa caucusses.  reagan was beaten by George Bush in 80 in Iowa and came back in New hampshire.  Similarly, Bush beat back Dole in NH in 1988.

With the exception of the Harkin year of 1992 and Dukakis' third place finish in 1988, Iowa has been the whole ball of wax for Dems.


by David Kowalski on Mon Dec 04, 2006 at 03:52:06 PM EST

Clinton or Obama! (none / 0)

Hillary Clinton: Experienced, smart, bad personality, not a great speaker

Barack Obama: great speaker,didn't vote for the war but nothing else

Besides the war in Iraq, can any of these two actually beat Iraq. I'll lean toward Clinton right now but I can't say for sure. Who made up this crap about Clinton being too liberal? She's like her husband on economic, and foreign poilicy issues!

Don't pretend that Clinton or Obama aren't going to win the nomination. So will McCain on the Republican side.


by bsavage on Mon Dec 04, 2006 at 04:46:15 PM EST

Re: Monday 2008 Thread (none / 0)

Just to have some fun with Silent Sound, he has probably never heard of Governor Janet Napolitano of Arizona either?

Newt Gingrich will wrap it up early for the GOP.  He is from the South, and McCain is running on delusional aviation fumes if he thinks that he can beat Gingrich in the South.  Oops, I forget, McCain forgot about Bush in the South too.  Only Huckabee is capable of challenging Gingrich.


by Jaango on Mon Dec 04, 2006 at 05:13:32 PM EST

3/5 Compromise (none / 0)

I wish people would understand the 3/5 compromise. It had nothing to do with people thinking that slaves were worth literally 3/5 of what a non-slave was worth. The South wanted slaves counted as one whole person for purposes of Congressional representation. The Northern states did not want slaves counted at all. The 3/5 compromise slightly favored the Northern non-slave states. If slaves had been counted as one person, the Southern slave states would have had even more Congressional representatives than they had.


by mdf1960 on Mon Dec 04, 2006 at 06:02:53 PM EST

Re: Monday 2008 Thread (none / 0)

I think Bloomberg could win: www.minor-ripper.blogspot.com --wrote about why on my blog.  ty, MR


The Ripper www.minor-ripper.blogspot.com
by MinorRipper on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 08:57:27 AM 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.