Mark Warner, the Democratic contender

[tarheel-leftist85]

The more I think of it, the more I'm afraid Mark Warner won't be able to win the primaries, especially if Evan Bayh is competing:  It'll be like Clark and Edwards splitting the Southern vote and giving the pass to Kerry.  We really need to coalesce around ONE moderate alternative to Hillary.  My pick for this alternative is, of course, Mark Warner (and Blanche or Bayh as VP).  It'll be great if there are lots of liberal Senators vying along w/ Hillary:  They'll split the liberal vote.  The still more promising prospect is if Reps. have so many Evangelical senators (Frist, Brownback, Allen) that they split the vote and allow someone like Guliani or Romney to grab the nomination (maybe that's too far-fetched, but interesting, nonetheless).  In this scenario it would a decisive Democratic victory, dare I say, picking up most of the South (I doubt a lot of Southerners would vote for Guliani, even if he's a Republican, but actually more libertarian).  To my fellow Dems. who are more socially liberal than I:  I urge you to take a look at Warner.  Sure he's not 100% socially liberal, but do we want to risk marginalizing our party for another four years and giving a free pass to unchecked power?  If Warner faces off against Allen, he won't win VA (though he'll make it close along w/ NC), but a quintessentially populist state like Arkansas or Missouri is up for grabs.  Nevada will be ours by 08 (from 1992 to 2004 the Dems. have been steadily gained ground and made it a 2pt. race with an ultra-weak candidate).  If it's Warner and Frist, I actually think Warner will prevail in VA by the smallest of margins (dare I say, recount?!?).  If Brownback secures the nomination (not out of the question, as the first caucus is held in a Midwest, socially conservative state), Warner will win Virginia with a majority of the vote (but no more than 52%).  Besides the jackpots of FL and OH, all it takes for us to win is VA + NV with the Kerry states, or MO/IN + IA.

[tarheel-leftist85]

Warner would beat Bayh in the South.  The reason is Warner has charisma, while Bayh gives off that high school teacher aura.

Hey!  I want to be a high school chemistry or calculus teacher

[tarheel-leftist85]

If that Warner speech from May 2003 was better than Kerry's nomination acceptance last year.

I sure hope it was

[tarheel-leftist85]

Warner is unlikely to get the nomination. The primary voters are the true believers- the dogmatic, intolerant far left. They may be small in numbers- perhaps 5-10 percent of the Democratic Party- but they wield disproportionate influence due to groups like MoveOn. The Michael Moore lovers are going to hate Warner.

Yep

[tarheel-leftist85]

I think the Democrats should arrange the primaries such that:
(1)  Iowa switches from caucuses to primaries.
(2)  New Hampshire is held AFTER South Carolina, North Carolina, Arkansas, Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Lousiana, and West Virginia.
(3)  No more front loading.  Perhaps three to four primaries every Tuesday, even the first week.
It's not going to happen though.  Some loony state, like Vermont or Massachusetts, might even be moved up.

[tarheel-leftist85]

yes...SC's a little loony w/ DeMint and Sanford
but they've got Dean...but at least we didn't vote for Kerry or Dean in the last primaries

[tarheel-leftist85]

Actually I'm from NC...just to set the record straight (and I may move back if I go to grad. school there or VA).

[tarheel-leftist85]

Still too cold!  Though we finally got above 90degrees today!

[tarheel-leftist85]

To be blunt (and probably ignorant) Clark scares me.  He reminds me of L.T. Smash on "The Simpsons" who solicits Ralph, Bart, Nelson, and Milhous to start a boy band so they can recruit people for the Navy with subliminal (liminal, and supraliminal) messages.  I'm sure it sounds stupid to a lot of people, but he strikes me as someone whose slacks can become parachute pants at any second
"YVAN EHT NIOJ"

[tarheel-leftist85]

What the democrats should do is reward states that give them the most votes percentage wise. The more percent of voters that voted Dem, the higher up the primary list you go. I think thats the only fair way to do it.

That would scupper any moderate candidates looking to reach out beyond the Democratic base and would only serve to further hamper the chances of the Democrats being competitive nationally, the question is no weather a Democratic candidate can win in DC or Massachusetts it weather they can win in Ohio, Iowa, Florida, New Mexico etc…         

Basically giving the most democratic inclined or most liberal states the biggest say in who gets the Democratic nomination would be a ticket to oblivion.

IMHO, Iowa should shift from the caucus system to a simple full on primary and while I think the primaries should be less “front loaded” than they where in 04 I think that states such as electorally significant states such as PA should get an earlier say.       

Yep

[tarheel-leftist85]

Elections are won by concrete numbers, not emotional interpretations (charisma, connection, etc., etc.).  John Kerry won fewer electoral votes.  Blue states have stagnant populations.  Being a chemistry (and maybe mathematics major), I put my stock in numbers and not arbitrary emotional barometers.