Democrats in 2008

[danwxman]

Dean is making another run.  Heard him speak in late September, and it certainly seemed like he was still interested.  The scary thing is, he has a chance if Bush's second term goes to hell in a handbasket and Hillary doesn't run--and he's worse now than he was this cycle...his rhetoric has gotten worse than some of the Democratic trolls on this board (not opebo, or I'd really be running for the hills).

And now for a select line from Dean's talk (admittedly, to an overwhelmingly liberal audience):

"There are no moderate Republicans."

I would think he's just playing to his audience for that one -- Dean IS a moderate Democrat, who may have been anti-war, but promised to finish the job Bush started there. He also governed as a moderate, and made civil unions legal (without making same-sex marriage in itself legal). He's still my favorite politician, who, depending on the success of Bush's second term, could run on a moderate platform very easily and win, IMHO.

I dunno. I can see the same thing over again in 4 years


"Liberal Vermont Governor" and "Gay Marriage"

The Republicans will just re-start the culture war. ugh.

[Democratic Hawk]

Zel Miller

When Zell Miller was on Hannity and Colmes last week. He named several Democrats who he considered to be good candidates and great presidents:

Evan Bayh topped his list. He named Mark Warner of Virginia, Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Tom Vilsack of Iowa.

It's funny to see Zell and I agree on something. I'll never forgive him for endorsing Bush though. If you don't like the direction your party's moving in, you fight the good fight from within like us moderates in the British Labour Party had to.

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

IMHO these guys are the best Democrats can hope for...

1. Evan Bayh
Has cross-over appeal and would appeal to Republicans and Democrats alike. Might even, shock horror, carry his state of Indiana for the Democrats (of course depending on who he's up against).

2. Mark Warner
Has leadership experience as Govenor, charismatic, would also appeal to both sides of the political divide. Like Bayh a unifying, not a polarising, figure.

3. John Edwards
Only drawback would be his lack of political experience, but still possesses the charisma as well as ability to attract vast funding to pull off a Presidential bid. An Edwards/Bayh or an Edwards/Ford ticket could do very well in my view.

No, no, no:

Hillary R. Clinton
I like Hillary. I do. But she wouldn't be the right choice. 2004 has shown that North East liberals have a very hard time winning the votes of Middle America, besides she's a very polarising figure which is the last thing America needs after eight years of possibly the most polarising Presidency in modern times.

Howard Dean
I like Howard. I do. But he'd be another McGovern no matter who he faces, and in a day and age where television watches a Presidential candidate's every move he slips up too many times. I can envisage him losing his cool during a debate (...even though that didn't stop GWB from winning this year.....).

John Kerry
I like Kerry. I do. Unfortunately the track record of most Democratic losers, from HHH to Gore, doesn't bode well. But then I suppose only time will tell whether Kerry can come back from the political dead, so watch this space. Well, not this space. It's just a saying, 's all.

Barack Obama
I like Obama. I do. But he's too inexperienced. Maybe in 2012 (or in 2020, after eight years of Ahnuld).

Well said. I'm effectively committed to Bayh (should he run) and have a highly favourable opinion of Warner.

Dave

[ian]

Of the choices given (and, let's face it, everyone hates the "other" vote) I chose Edwards because he's a southern Democrat and he is quite likable.  And Bayh just sucks.

[Ben.]

Of the choices given (and, let's face it, everyone hates the "other" vote) I chose Edwards because he's a southern Democrat and he is quite likable.  And Bayh just sucks.

Edwards would do very poorly after four years of doing diddily squat and his voting record is almost as Liberal as Kerry's, he won't win the nomination and if he goes for it he's a fool IMHO.

Bayh has the experience and the record as a moderate and by-partisan legislator that make him by far the strongest candidate that the party could ever hope to put forward, the only other viable candidate is Warner and he's too weak on experaince IMHO and as he could stand a great chance of winning a senate seat in 2008 he should go for that rather than make the same mistake of Mr Edwards.   

[Democratic Hawk]

Of the choices given (and, let's face it, everyone hates the "other" vote) I chose Edwards because he's a southern Democrat and he is quite likable.  And Bayh just sucks.

Bayh would be a centrists dream given the opportunity to run. I can't see him having a high negativity rating among the electorate as a whole. He's moderate enough (pretty close to the ideological centre) and would be a far from polarising candidate

Bayh's base in 2004 (according to exit polls in Indiana) was as follows:

Democratic 29.44 + Independent 16.06 + Republican 16.1 = 61.6%

Liberal 12.18 + Moderate 33.11 + Conservative 15.91 = 61.2%

Dave

[Erc]

Looking at it now with nearly a month of perspective from the elections...

Barring some weird sequence of events in the next four years, it's going to be a centrist.  The only person who has  a chance of peeling it away from the Bayh/Warner-esque candidate is Hillary (and she has a pretty good chance of doing that too).  If many of these candidates fizzle or don't run (and I expect many of them to do just that)...who knows.

But it's all idle speculation until November of 06 anyway.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Whoever is picked, I hope it's someone that has appeal to Small Town America... there is a hell of a lot of discontent there and to say that Kerry missed an open goal is being nice...