Election 2008: Between Russ Feingold and Jeb Bush, who would win?

[Smash255]

This would be a really weird race.  I guess the Bush fatigue would hurt Jeb?  Does Santourm deliver PA?  Part of me says Yes and the other part says No.  For some reason I can see Feinogld peeling one of and winning West Virginia.  Im just gonna' take a guess and say this would be the result.


274-264 Bush/Santorum

I thinK Warner would have a better chance at giving the DEMS VA than Santorum would at giving the GOP PA.  Warner is more popular in VA than Santorum is in PA, and those that dislike Santorum do so with venom, those that dislike Warner don't dislike him as much

[Smash255]

Feingold's charisma very personable type of guy (Clintonesque) along with Byush fatigue gives Feingold a solid 322-216 victory 51.5-47.5 PV

[Smash255]

Feingold's charisma very personable type of guy (Clintonesque) along with Byush fatigue gives Feingold a solid 322-216 victory 51.5-47.5 PV

Democrats - Get over it. Virginia won't be a tossup/lean Dem state for another few elections and if it was to go Dem in 2008, it would not be with Feingold. Missouri is really starting to trend Republican. Feingold would not switch that.

Sorry, Smash but I think you live in the ultimate Democratic fantasy world. Democrats never lose in your opinion.

& You seem to think Santorum would beat just about every single Democrat.  I think a Feingold/Warner ticket would do quite well.  Warner is VERY popular in the state and would probably help the ticket in the more rural parts of the state while Fairfax continues to trend Dem at a very fast pace.  Missouri & Virginia were stretches, but with the right combination, along with Bush fatigue I think it could be done.  Don't underestimate the Bush fatigue factor or the charisma factor that Feingold brings.

[Smash255]

Feingold's charisma very personable type of guy (Clintonesque) along with Byush fatigue gives Feingold a solid 322-216 victory 51.5-47.5 PV

Democrats - Get over it. Virginia won't be a tossup/lean Dem state for another few elections and if it was to go Dem in 2008, it would not be with Feingold. Missouri is really starting to trend Republican. Feingold would not switch that.

Sorry, Smash but I think you live in the ultimate Democratic fantasy world. Democrats never lose in your opinion.

& You seem to think Santorum would beat just about every single Democrat.  I think a Feingold/Warner ticket would do quite well.  Warner is VERY popular in the state and would probably help the ticket in the more rural parts of the state while Fairfax continues to trend Dem at a very fast pace.  Missouri & Virginia were stretches, but with the right combination, along with Bush fatigue I think it could be done.  Don't underestimate the Bush fatigue factor or the charisma factor that Feingold brings.

Santorum would beat Clinton, Gore, Feingold. Santorum would not beat Bayh and Warner (but we can be happy they won't get the nomination). Warner is popular in VA but Feingold would not be. You're prediction is a joke.

Santorum is someone who would have a tough time winning in my opinon against most candidates.  His insane individual rights positions would destroy him in a Presidential election

[Smash255]

C'mon guys!  You still have a liberal at the top of the ticket.  It didn't fly in '04, it won't fly in '08. 

Santorum has a better chance of bringing PA to the GOP than Warner has pulling VA far enough to the left to elect Feingold. 

Give me a REALISTIC map!

Don't understimate the charasmatic factor.  Feingold brings a lot of charisma and energy to the table, something Kerry did not do.  Also Bush fatigue would ne a factor

[Smash255]

Feingold's charisma very personable type of guy (Clintonesque) along with Byush fatigue gives Feingold a solid 322-216 victory 51.5-47.5 PV

Democrats - Get over it. Virginia won't be a tossup/lean Dem state for another few elections and if it was to go Dem in 2008, it would not be with Feingold. Missouri is really starting to trend Republican. Feingold would not switch that.

Sorry, Smash but I think you live in the ultimate Democratic fantasy world. Democrats never lose in your opinion.

& You seem to think Santorum would beat just about every single Democrat.  I think a Feingold/Warner ticket would do quite well.  Warner is VERY popular in the state and would probably help the ticket in the more rural parts of the state while Fairfax continues to trend Dem at a very fast pace.  Missouri & Virginia were stretches, but with the right combination, along with Bush fatigue I think it could be done.  Don't underestimate the Bush fatigue factor or the charisma factor that Feingold brings.

Santorum would beat Clinton, Gore, Feingold. Santorum would not beat Bayh and Warner (but we can be happy they won't get the nomination). Warner is popular in VA but Feingold would not be. You're prediction is a joke.

Santorum is someone who would have a tough time winning in my opinon against most candidates.  His insane individual rights positions would destroy him in a Presidential election

But you can't provide a realistic map. Against any Democrat except Bayh or Warner, you really believe Santorum would lose states like Missouri and Florida? How about Virginia. You have yet to provide us with a scenario that has the Democrat losing. All aboard the Democratic Fantasy World express!

C'mon guys!  You still have a liberal at the top of the ticket.  It didn't fly in '04, it won't fly in '08. 

Santorum has a better chance of bringing PA to the GOP than Warner has pulling VA far enough to the left to elect Feingold. 

Give me a REALISTIC map!

whatever.  both of you are such partisan hacks who would never be satisfied with any scenario that doesn't involve the Republican winning.  obviously, the term 'realistic' to you has only one reference -when a Republican is winning an election. 

it is eminently possible for a populist liberal like Russ Feingold to win in 2008 -Kerry and Gore both came close.  with someone as personable as he is, you underestimate him at your peril.  still, continue what you are doing -i hope it encourages such complacency within the GOP that by the time November 2008 comes around, you'd never know what hit you.   

Partisan hacks? When has Smash ever given a scenario where a Democrat loses? Also, how many times have I said a Bayh-Santorum race would mean a Bayh win? Doesn't that count as a Republican loss? You really don't understand what you're saying.

I have said a bunch of times McCain would win if he was the GOP nominee, he just won't get the  nomination.  The GOP is moving further and further to the right and I think that will hurt them in 08.  Bush fatigue if Jeb is the nominee, Santorum's idiiotic individual rights comments if he is the nominee, Frist being more boring than even Gore is if he runs.  I admitted Virginia was a bit of a stretch, however I think Feingold would do quite well if he gets the nomination.  The GOP already played the liberal card really hard with Kerry, they can't exactly play it that much more with Feingold.  Feingold is a much better speaker, and has a lot more charisma than Kerry

[Smash255]

Smash,

It's true that the GOP never passed up an opportunity to remind eveyone of how liberal Kerry was.  However, Kerry's 'war hero' status helped to moderate him in the eyes of many, especially at CBS, NBC, and ABC. 

I can't  begin to count how many times a GOP stategist would start  exposing Kerry's record, only to be cut off with how Kerry was a 'war hero.'     

Unless Feingold can find some pictures of himself in uniform, I don't think that he will be able to dodge the red smear.

It was never moderated in the eyes of the voters because of the Swift Vet lies .  They were able to paint Kerry as a liberal, and Kerry still lost by the smallest amount ever in an incumbent election & Kerry is a very boring candidate, someone like Feingold is MUCH more chasamatic & that appeal will really help

[Smash255]

Its time to abandon the word liberal.  It has been destroyed forever.  Most people think the word liberals means, tree hugging, flower loving, anti-war, wussy, non-patriotic, un-americans.  The last thing you wanna' do is embrace it.  You can run the most aggressive campaign in the history of American politics and wont matter. All the GOP has to do is point their finger and say LIBERAL! and your done.

then it is our responsbility to take it back and redefine it as it originally meant in the minds and hearts of the American people before Republicans tarnished it.  it is far better to step forward and fight for what you believe in rather than continually running away from the fight like a coward (as you seem to advocate).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

...who has about as much charisma on the campaign trail as Bill Frist.  in any case, it's clear your mind is made up, and this whole debate has therefore been a waste of time, but no matter.  i wish the best of luck to you in your endeavors regardless.       

Its not made up.  I just need some persuading. 

Yourk making good points and keeping my mind open.  One thing I really like about Feingold is his econimc-populism.

Part of the problem the  Dems have is they haven't fought back on the liberal label.  We have let the GOP determine the definition of the word liberal and then ran away from the word and that has led to the problems that we have

[Smash255]

The people can see right thru a candidate who moderates his views 18 months to two years before running for President.  It's a clear sign that he/she is running FROM their record.   

If Feingold does run, and I've already said that I don't think he can win, he should go ahead and run as a liberal.  Admittedly, we will try to paint him as a liberal at every opportunity.  He can only make it worse by running against himself.   Look what that did to Kerry:  'I vactually voted for the $87 billion, before I voted against it.'  He's better off embracing his record than trying to hide from it.

Wiser still, you guys should nominate someone like Bayh, Bredesen, or even Sen Nelson from NE.  While many of you on the left that are committed activist see them as no different than Republicans, their views are FAR more mainstream than those of most Party activists.  They, unlike Feingold, stand a chance at getting elected.  Furthermore, they, unlike Feingold, have a better chance of getting some of their agenda passed by a Republican controlled Senate and House.

The problem is that Kerry didn't have the charisma, he wasn't able to respond well to the attacks & fell victim to the northeastern liberal stigma.  Feingold has the charisma,and he is from small town Wisconsin, not exactly the same breed as Kerry.

You mention that the Dems should nominate someone from the more moderate wing of their party with more mainstream views.  Well look at the names that hjas mainly been thrown around by the GOP its not Collis, Specter, Snowe its Santroum, Frist, etc, people with views FAR from the mainstream also.

A conservative that is a good candidate with charisma and can connect well to people can do well outside of their conservative base.  The same holds true for a liberal.  While you can make the same liberal argument for Feingold, he connects MUCH better with people than Kerry did & has a lot more charisma very CLintonesque in that sense.

[Smash255]

The people can see right thru a candidate who moderates his views 18 months to two years before running for President.  It's a clear sign that he/she is running FROM their record.   

If Feingold does run, and I've already said that I don't think he can win, he should go ahead and run as a liberal.  Admittedly, we will try to paint him as a liberal at every opportunity.  He can only make it worse by running against himself.   Look what that did to Kerry:  'I vactually voted for the $87 billion, before I voted against it.'  He's better off embracing his record than trying to hide from it.

Wiser still, you guys should nominate someone like Bayh, Bredesen, or even Sen Nelson from NE.  While many of you on the left that are committed activist see them as no different than Republicans, their views are FAR more mainstream than those of most Party activists.  They, unlike Feingold, stand a chance at getting elected.  Furthermore, they, unlike Feingold, have a better chance of getting some of their agenda passed by a Republican controlled Senate and House.

The problem is that Kerry didn't have the charisma, he wasn't able to respond well to the attacks & fell victim to the northeastern liberal stigma.  Feingold has the charisma,and he is from small town Wisconsin, not exactly the same breed as Kerry.

You mention that the Dems should nominate someone from the more moderate wing of their party with more mainstream views.  Well look at the names that hjas mainly been thrown around by the GOP its not Collis, Specter, Snowe its Santroum, Frist, etc, people with views FAR from the mainstream also.

A conservative that is a good candidate with charisma and can connect well to people can do well outside of their conservative base.  The same holds true for a liberal.  While you can make the same liberal argument for Feingold, he connects MUCH better with people than Kerry did & has a lot more charisma very CLintonesque in that sense.

It's true that most of the GOP candidates that get mentioned are conservatives rather than moderates.  However, as many on this site have pointed out, this country is basically moderate-conservative.  A conservative can rally the base and pull from the center. 
 
A left-leaning candidate has a harder time pulling moderates to the left that a right leaning candidate has of pulling them to the right (their natural inclination).   I'm not saying that it can't be don, but it is a much tougher task. 

Demographics also favor the right.  White men overwhelmingly vote GOP.  Married white women strongly favor the Republicans as well.  The most socially conservative group of all, as well as being the most religious, senior citizens, also lean GOP.   These 3 groups also tend to vote in higher proportions than younger voters, minorities, and single women. 

I really don't think a left leaning candidate has a harder time reaching out to moderates than conservatives.  It has more to do with the candidate themselves and the way they come off.  Despit coming from a family of wealth & prestige Bush was able to reach out & relate too the moderate on a personal level and come across as an average Joe.  That is something Gore & KKerry really wern't able to do.  That is something which Feingold, who has a lot of charisma can do & has a history of doing