10 horses left to be the democratic nominee in 08. Who gets your vote today

[Ben.]

Bayh 100%... failing that Warner, though with big reservations about his experiance, hence why i support Bayh in the primaries.

[Ben.]

Hmmm... not one vote for Hillary, but she's a "lock for the nomination"

[Ben.]

The wingnuts who decide the nomination process aren't as smart as we are.

The people you refer to as "wingnuts" definitely won't be voting for Hillary. Hillary fans are mainly the DLC crowd.

We already have fought this fight

For once Boss, I disagree with you. Scoonie is right.

The left-wingers in the party have little liking for Hillary, they think she’d lose but more importantly (for them) they see her as a DLC sponsored, establishment, flip flopper.

As a result they very found of liberal mavericks like Feingold, who seems to be the candidate of choice for most liberal Democrats, and to a lesser extent Clark has a hard core of support on the left of the party… very little support for Hillary, indeed a little lurking on the DU board and I can’t find any positive mentions of her.

That not to say that Hillary won’t try and cast herself positively should she end up running. I’d expect her to cast herself as a hawkish “tough” Dem who’s a progressive at home, much as Kerry did towards the end of his primary campaign, how he managed it I don’t know but he did (?)

So Clinton is certainly not the favourite of the liberal wing or left of the Democratic Party, but she’s pretty much though of as a sure loser and too liberal by pragmatic and moderate Dems… so where is her money and support coming from?

Simple…

She’s not the Liberal or the Moderate choice, neither want her, the Party leadership want her, she has a great deal of currency with the Party big wigs and with that comes cash and resources… she is “the establishment choice” if she decides to run, but while she has support at the top she has little amongst the activists and grassroots at the bottom.  

On a related topic…
She might receive some backing from the DLC, but the DLC has increasingly ceased to be a voice for the moderate elements of the Democratic Party and instead become a part of the Democratic establishment, entrenching party positions and doctrine.

Many in the DLC are genuine, pragmatic, moderates, such as Vilsack or Bayh, but increasingly the organisation is becoming a vehicle for the ‘Party establishment’ regardless of their political affinities, as a result the organisation is increasingly losing it purpose namely to generate bold, new policies for the party that tackle the problems thrown up by a changing world… it would be good if the DLC got back to doing that, but it hasn’t for a while now and as I say increasingly its just a arm of the party establishment.

The DLC has also become far more controlling in what it prescribes, instead of welcoming a “broad church” approach to the party, it has increasingly attempted to promote, even enforce, a narrow “party line” rather than attempting to build the kind of coalition that sustained the Democratic Party from the Depression till the Vietnam War, or has sustained the GOP from the election Nixon in 68 till the present day, that has been a fundamental mistake IMHO and the party leadership have been to blame.

Interestingly it seems to be maverick liberals like Dean and Schumer who seem to be more interested in creating the kind of coalition, the party needs to sustain if it is to challenge for power at every level across the country IMHO, its early days yet but its so far so good as far as I can see, I might not agree with Dean and Schumer on policy but they seems to be far better at their jobs and more far sighted then I though they might be a little while ago… early days though.  

[Ben.]

I just can't see how Hillary would appeal more to moderates than Bayh and Warner...

Agree totally, her support is the amougst the party big-wigs, certianly not the Moderates within the party. And the tradtional leadership of the DLC would back a stalwart like Bayh long before a liberal such as Hillary. This might not be the case when it comes to the "establishment" (not a perfect term for what i'm talking about but it'll do), with whom Hillary has strong ties and increasingly have a strong voice within the DLC.    

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Must disagree... Feingold would be strong, and Kerry would have a lot of cash, whats more liberals generally don't like/ distrust Hillary she just wouldn't get the nomination through the support of Liberals.

In short she has no strong base of support from any wing of the party, but neither did Kerry and he still got the nomination, but Hillary is already well know and for many in the party is simply not palatable to them, somthing Kerry never had working against him and would never have overcome had he faced it IMHO, if he does run for 2008 he could well split the Liberal vote even more with Hillary and Feingold both in the running and even then Feingold would be the better placed to beat both amougst Liberals.

With little support amougst moderates and pragmatics seeing her as too risky, Hillary would have no where to turn, but cash and connections could still take her a long way... sadly  

[Ben.]

The fact that the race in this polls is becoming Feingold vs Bayh, doesn't really surprise me... I think it could well work out as somthing like that... with Kerry and Edwards no doubt floundering behind both, and potentially with Hillary thrown into the mix somewhere between Bayh/Feingold and Kerry/Edwards... maybe....

[Ben.]

Feingold and Kerry aren't going to be overly strong candidates.  Kerry got the nomination because he was the most 'safe' of the candidates, or so was presumed, and never was well liked within the base.  Very few people will want a Kerry re-run in 2008, it's presumed by many people in the base that he's a loser.  Off topic, but Gore wouldn't have had the same problems in 2000 because the base felt he won, and it was stolen, and he was a folk hero, etc.

Feingold is likely the Howard Dean, the guy who not many people heard of in the beginning, then he scratches people where they itch and hits the top of the polls before falling away to a more practical and convential candidate in the end, likely this time being Bayh or Hillary.

I think Feingold is a stronger candidate than that, however i agree he's likley to sore, especially if the base feel aggrieved (they always do but the intensity changes with time ), and later fall back, however he's unlikely to generate the same scale of enthusiasm that Dean did in 2003 and while I think he would do respectably, I think he might find winning the nomination tough.

As for Kerry, he’s very very unlikely to be renominated, however like Stevenson in 1960 or Humphries in 1972, he’d still garner some support and his substantial supply of cash would have to help bankroll such a campaign… in the end I think he’d be able to hold onto a residual vote in both Iowa and New Hampshire, but would pretty soon bale out the race if he hadn’t done so by late 2007, such a vote would probably eat into both a Feingold candidacy and a Clinton candidacy’s support… leaving moderate, populist like a Bayh or a Warner pretty much unscathed… so he’d potentially have an impact though he wouldn’t stand a chance of being nominated again.       

IMHO he'd be useful person to have in the field who like Biden would have little to no chance of winning but would contribute to the pre-primary campaign, sadly i doubt anybody want to enter a race just to contribute though

[Ben.]

If the Republicans nominate John McCain, I doubt any Democrat can beat him.

We just have to hope they nominate Frist, Brownback, Allen, or one of other wingnuts.

In the end i think Allen'll win it and he's a strong candidate but not the steam roller McCain would be, against Hillary I'd vote for McCain simply because I know he'd be a better president than her... at the same time I'd vote for Feingold over McCain (despite my disagreements with the guy) and would vote for Bayh in a heartbeat... either way though we'd almost certianly lose if McCain is the GOP nominee.

Allen is still however the most likley GOP candidate and while he's no Santorum or Brownback and a strong Dem can beat him, though it'd be a tough race.

[Ben.]

In the end i think Allen'll win it and he's a strong candidate but not the steam roller McCain would be, against Hillary I'd vote for McCain simply because I know he'd be a better president than her... at the same time I'd vote for Feingold over McCain (despite my disagreements with the guy) and would vote for Bayh in a heartbeat...

It's tough to say who our strongest candidate would be against McCain. I honestly think you'd have to take a risk and go with Feingold.

By the way, what specifically are your disagreements with Feingold?

Social Issues I'm affraid, most importantly for me (abortion) you'll not have a pro-life Dem national ticket for decades but I still favour folks like Bayh and Warner who pretty much seem to share my concerns and vote acordingly.

I'm probably also more pro-second amendment and certianly more Hawkish...

He's a great Democrat and one of the finest senators of his generation, and i wouldn't even rule out backing him in the primaries, but we disagree on a whole load of stuff... i would also campaign hard for him where he nominated, as i would any Democrat except Hillary, who as i say i might even not vote for

[Ben.]

Social Issues I'm affraid, most importantly for me (abortion) you'll not have a pro-life Dem national ticket for decades

The majority in this country are pro-choice and a good majority of women (who the issue truly affects). I have no problem with pro-life Democrats, but making abortion illegal would be a nightmare for this country. It wouldn't make much sense running a pro-life Democrat, as it would alienate many, many women Democratic voters and pretty much ensure a loss.

but I still favour folks like Bayh and Warner who pretty much seem to share my concerns and vote acordingly.

Both are pro-choice as well, although they may favor a few restrictions.

I'm probably also more pro-second amendment and certianly more Hawkish...

Feingold is pretty moderate on gun issues. He's evolved into being more pro-gun as his time in the Senate has gone on. He was one of only 6 (I think) Democrats to vote against renewing the assault weapons ban. The NRA gives him a "C" rating I think, which beats Evan Bayh.

As for his hawkishness, I don' t think he is weak in that sense. I just think he is very pragmatic in his approach to war. He only votes for wars which he deems extremely neccessary (like Afghanistan). He has proven to be right time after time. The majority of the country now thinks Iraq was a mistake. Feingold had the foresight to see that it would not go well and that the country would likely not be any better off because of it. I think you will be impressed when you hear him speak of foreign policy.

He's a great Democrat and one of the finest senators of his generation, and i wouldn't even rule out backing him in the primaries, but we disagree on a whole load of stuff...

That's good to know. You can never have a candidate who you will agree with 100% of the time. Having Russ Feingold as president would help ensure that the priorities of this country will shift back to where they should be, education, healthcare, expanding the economic future of the country, and foreign policy. There would be much less focus on divisive social issues and the role of religion in government. Those issues would be left alone and again become personal matters, which they should be.

On abortion, most people want it to be kept legal, so do I, a ban would simply not work and be inhumane in the extreme, and while personally I would only support it in extraordinary circumstances I do not confuse that personal belief with what I would want to be the settled law of the land. I do however share the concern of the majority of Americans that while abortion should be legal it should not be “on demand” nor should late term or partial birth abortions be available except in extreme circumstances, where it must be a regrettable but probably necessary tragedy. So while personally I’m pro-life, politically I’m in favour of restricts not an out right ban of any kind… hence the support for folks like Bayh and Warner, indeed Bayh and I are pretty much a match when it comes to the abortion issue.

On guns, I agree, I didn’t really know that much about his stance but he seems pretty sane on the issue.

On the war, I greatly respect Feingold’s principled and consistent stance a great many of the Democrats in the Senate could learn from it (I’m looking at you John Kerry). But while I opposed the war in Iraq before it began, primarily because I though it unnecessary and that we where ill prepared for it, I’m now very much of the opinion that we have to stay in and sort the mess out… Feingold’s bill to withdraw troops I disagree with, at the same time I disagree with his “ney” votes on a number of defence and homeland security related bills.

So a little too much of a Dove and a little too socially liberal for me…

…but as I say a great Dem who I respect and would be happy to campaign for, indeed where he ever to be nominated, even though I probably would not back him, I agree that we would probably see a more positive campaign with little or no mention of social issues that by and large should be left up to the consciences of individual politicians and should not be made into the party political arguing points that they have regrettably become.       

[Ben.]

I think the best course of action is legislation that will help reduces the number of abortions (increasing access to birth control, morning after pill, sex education, lowering the poverty rate).

Agree totally! Better access to contraception of all kinds, birth control pills, more honest sex education at the right time in a young persons’ life as well as attempts to lower the overall poverty rate has to be part of any realistic attempt to limit the number of unwanted pregnancies and the abortions that can regrettably result. Too few pro-lifers realise this IMHO.     
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sorry I included the immediate, I didn’t mean to, but as I say I just think it’s the wrong thing to do, I fully expect that we’re going to be their longer than sixteen months… and we need to be there IMHO to get the job done and the mess sorted out.   

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Disagree, to do that you have to settle for the one extreme, in this case the liberal emphasis on the rights of the individual, which rejects, at least in part, the conservative position which emphasises an individuals’ responsibilities.

Now I’m not endorsing the notion that Politicians should legislate for the accepted morality of the state, what I am saying however is that politicians have to have some voice on social issues be it divorce, abortion, gay rights or paedophilia, television or video game violence, gun control etc… politics and politicians cannot and should not abandon the questions which may at times enter the realm of morality, it can be tricky and I would rather it was left down to the individual consciences of the law makers to legislate for their constituents rather than Political Party’s posturing to win votes, one way or another society through its elected representatives has to face these tough and often emotive issues.