Louisiana operates with an Open Primary system, and all qualifying candidates run in the general election. So you often have multiple members of the same party running against each other. If no one gets over fifty percent of the vote, then there is a runoff.
Blanco must be talked out of running. The amount of animosity towards her in New Orleans is pretty stunning. She faces little chance of being reelected. Unfortunately, the bench for Louisiana Democrats is not very deep. The only Dems who might have a chance to win are John Breaux and possibly Mitch Landrieu.
The best-case scenario is this: Blanco bows out, Landrieu is the sole Democrat in a race against multiple Republicans. He then pulls in over fifty percent in the general, which ends the possibility of a runoff. This would certainly be best for New Orleans, since Landrieu already proved his dedication to rebuilding during the campaign for Mayor.
Coming back to this thread after a few days, so I'm not sure that this will even be read. But to answer your question, although I actually did already answer it, check here.
NOW ratings 2005 - Harold Ford scored a 100, along with most Democrats. The vast majority of Republicans scored a 50.
Americans for the Arts Action Fund 2004 - Ford scores a perfect 100. Compare that to fellow Tennessee Democrat John S. Tanner, who scores a 33. Most Republicans score below a 20.
Americans for Tax Reform 2004, a group which "opposes all tax increases as a matter of principle" - Republicans tended to score 80 or above in this rating, Harold Ford scored a 25.
Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence 2003 - Few Republicans scored higher than a 35. Harold Ford scored a 77. But compare that to fellow Tennessee Democrats Lincoln Davis (0), Jim Cooper (0), John S. Tanner (5), and Bart Gordon (35).
AFL-CIO 2005 - Ford scores a 73, not great, but consider that few Republicans score over a 30. In Tennessee, only Democrat Bart Gordon scored higher, with an 80.
While Ford may not be one of our most liberal congressmen, he still qualifies as a steady Democratic voice in the House, and will in the Senate.
In no way did I pretend that there weren't racial issues in the country. But to pretend that race is now the only factor in poverty is also dishonest.
And Katrina is a matter the likes of which have never been seen. It cuts across ethnic and financial barriers. There was a systematic failure of the government, and everybody got screwed. Everybody. White, black, hispanic, rich, poor, old, and young - they're all waiting for the insurance companies to stop screwing them and for FEMA to hook up their trailers.
What exactly about my statement, "of course there is a line to be drawn" doesn't answer your question?
There is no damage to my credibility when the question is absurd. Would I vote for Hitler if he was a democrat? Would I vote for Buddha if he was a republican? What do you think?
Show me a real, living and breathing ultra-conservative Democratic politician and ask me if I support his candidacy. Otherwise, it strikes me as some kind Sean Hannity-style "Gotcha" question that there is no right answer to. Like I'm inclusive or I'm not. I'm a partisan hack or I'm not. Life is filled with grey areas, kids.
If Harold Ford, or some other conservative Dem, is the 51st member of our Senate majority, that's all I care about right now. Harry Reid and Max Baucus are too conservative for my tastes, but I'll take them for now.
Yes, it sucks that we don't have another candidate in Tennessee. But guess what? Progressives didn't field a good challenger to Ford. He's the choice, not because he's more "electable", but because nobody else could get their act together in time to really fight him.
Of course there is a line to be drawn. But any choice made when casting a vote has to rely on a number of factors. And one of those main factors is party affiliation. Especially in terms of gaining control of Congress. If we're one seat away from gaining a majority, there would have to be a real nut-job in the race for me to not vote for the Democrat.
Joe Lieberman is the bane of the Democrats right now. But if he beats Lamont in the primary, nearly all of his Dem critics are going to fall in line and vote for him.
Henry Cuellar is not an ideal member of the party. But Ciro Rodriguez's supporters would vote for Cuellar if a Republican was running.
I don't think you'll find a Democrat with Bill Frist's voting record. Ever. So the question is a BS hypothetical situation that doesn't add anything constructive to the debate.
I was born in New Orleans, spent most of my life there, and left a national theatrical tour to go back and help my family rebuild.
St. Bernard, where they had all of those nursing home deaths, is predominantly white. The 17th Street Canal, where they had one of the largest breaks in the levee, was in a predominantly white, upper-middle class part of town. Blacks weren't the only faces in that tv coverage. You should get the whole story before you start leaping to judgement.
Yes, New Orleans is an African-American majority city, but that doesn't mean that the only people affected were poor blacks. And it doesn't prove that all blacks are poor.
People of all ethnicities are sliding into poverty. If you go into the midwest, it's not blacks and hispanics that you find in the trailer parks and shoddy housing. Class and race are becoming less intertwined with each passing year.
And right now, the main factor for an african-american voter seems to be the 'D' behind the name. To suggest that they're totally blinded by color when it comes to the ballot, you're not giving them enough credit.