I totally agree about Feingold I think you could even add West Virginia to that list, possibly Missouri if the Democratic party bounces back in that state. Because I live in Western Pennsylvania and I got direct mail ads on how Kerry voted against the steel tariffs, I'm sure these were used in West Virginia too and probably had a good bit to do with Kerry's huge lose there.
That wouldn't help. The problem isn't that Iowa and New Hampshire go first, the problem is how the media covers the results and how people let how someone else voted determine who they want to vote. The type People that say something like I voted for the winner in the last 3 elections.
I think if 2 Democrats are running in the same media market, they could do tv ads with both of them in the ads as a way of saving money and getting the name ID of each canidate up. And I think the DCCC should give pretty much every canidate a hundred thousand give them a chance to run a semi capaign if the race gets closer then they can give more money to race that otherwise would not have been competitive without the initial investment.
And you'll find a hell of alot more than 20 in response to DaveB's post. There are atleast 7 Republicans that meet the standard of the incombent getting around 60 or less in recent election history and either Gore or Kerry getting at the very least 40% and that's just Pennsylvania. The districts in just Pennsylvania the 3rd, 4th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 15th, and 18th, now in all of these districts Gore got atleast 46%. And one other Republican district where Gore got 41%. My numbers are uses 2000 Presidential results in the newly created 2002 districts. Here's my source http://www.polidata.us/pub/reports/42a0a2a.pdf
The Democrats lost the south the first time because of civil rights, which was a stand for rights of all people.
But it is my belief the south was lost because Clinton and half the Democrats stood of the wrong side of an issue with Republicans and that issue is/was free trade. Democrats sided with the multi nationals instead of people and southerners thought vote Republican lose my job today vote Democrat lose my job tomorrow.
And Kerry lost ground from what Gore did in most places. Compare the county map of Kerry to Gore in Pennsylvania, Gore won about a half dozen more working class counties in Pennsylvania that Kerry lost.
I aggree we need a canidate with a pro gun record, or atleast one better than Kerry. We need somebody against these trade deals NAFTA, China, Moroco, Chile, ect... We need someone strongly against illegal immigration, but not someone that's antimmigrant. I aggree with the part about ideally having candidates from more of a swing state. I don't aggree about totally righting off Senators or Representative, but we can't have two on the ticket.
So who fits my mold,I think Senator Feingold would be a great canidate, he voted against NAFTA and is popular in Wisconsin and also the patriot act. Harry Reid is only other Senator, I'd support, but since he won't be running it doesn't matter. Richardson might be a good canidate he is a good guy charistmatic and has done a pretty good job as Governor so maybe. So in 2008 please no Gore, no Kerry, no Hillary, and no Bayh.
Actually it's Dan Onorato, I would have put him in the poll had their been more room. I don't see him as a likely canidate for the senate in 2006, like Heinz I don't really think he's ready, but if we could get him to run against Melisa Hart or Tim Murphy in the Senate that would be great. My choice is Bob Casey in his latest race he won just about every county except some in central PA. Casey pretty much won every western Pennsylvania county, here is a map and an article that compares counties won by Kerry and Casey to Bush and Casey's opponent. http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/states/pennsylvania/10501002.htm
I don't think Heinz could beat Santorium, but I do think he can beat Santorium in drag (Melissa Hart) as she has never faced a good challenge and her district was held by Democrats the previous 16 years.
Democrats should at least mount a strong challenge unlike, the Idaho senate race where no Democrat ran this just cannot happen, when you don't run canidates your minority will shrink smaller and smaller.
Notice who is opposing Dean it's the party elitist and the media big whig elitist. Murtha is pretty much a moderate populist in idealogy, I think he cares about the Democratic party and is a loyal Democrat and he thinks that Dean is the best to lead the party, while people like Pelosi, who have lead the party down the drain oppose him.
The PA 3rd and 4th, I think are both districts are gettable.
Rich Santorum in drag(Melisa Hart) represent the 4th, Democrats have registration edge, but the district slightly favored Bush vs. Gore in 2000 about 52% to 46.5%. This district was held for 16 years before Hart. Not sure who could win this maybe Chris Heinz or Franco Harris.
The 3rd district is represented by Phil English who got 17% less in 2004 than he did in 2002. In 2000 the district voted for Bush about 51% to Gores 46.6% with Nader getting about 3%. Democrats represent 47% of voters and Republicans 44% with the rest indepents and 3rd parties. I don't think there are any elected Democrats that can win maybe Fred Vero who lost in a PA House race in a pretty conservative district. Here is his campaign website for state rep. http://www.electfredvero.org/
Republican Phil English went from 77% to like 59-60%, this was mostly due to Democrats fielding a canidate although he was an extremely weak canidate, , in 2002 only a Green Party canidate opposed him, but that's still a 17 point decline.