Russell Feingold...

[AuH2O]

Why does everyone think economic populists are so electorally powerful? Weird Al? Gore tried it and lost, Kerry tried it and lost. They actually tend to lose most places, and Feingold won for a variety of reasons of which protectionism was minor.

Sanford, perhaps one of the most dedicated free-market conservatives in government, obliterated Hodges in areas of SC hit by textile mill closings.

Russ Feingold can't come to the South. I mean he can physically, and some Democrats would come out to watch him. But he can't connect with Southerners.

[Moooooo]

Wedge issues.  If a real life populist was to somehow slip through the cracks and win the Democratic nomination.  Im talking a real pro-life, anti-gay marriage, pro-gun rights etc.  democrat.  It would make life really hard for the GOP.   (assuming no strong 3rd party contenders jump in)

[opebo]

Wedge issues.  If a real life populist was to somehow slip through the cracks and win the Democratic nomination.  Im talking a real pro-life, anti-gay marriage, pro-gun rights etc.  democrat.  It would lights out for the GOP.   (assuming no strong 3rd party contenders jump in)

Maybe, but who would care?  We'd just have another stinking Religious Party ruling over us.  There's really no point in emulating the other side - they've got the intolerant vote sewn up.

[Moooooo]

Wedge issues.  If a real life populist was to somehow slip through the cracks and win the Democratic nomination.  Im talking a real pro-life, anti-gay marriage, pro-gun rights etc.  democrat.  It would lights out for the GOP.   (assuming no strong 3rd party contenders jump in)

Maybe, but who would care?  We'd just have another stinking Religious Party ruling over us.  There's really no point in emulating the other side - they've got the intolerant vote sewn up.

I agree.  I was just trying to make a point that wedge issues are killing the democraitc party.  Abortion to me is a non-issue.  Roe vs Wade will never be overturned, period.  Gay Marriage, who cares?   Gun rights, we are suppose to be the party of civil liberties, but our leadership does all it can to shoot down the second amendment.  You know what I mean?

[opebo]

Wedge issues.  If a real life populist was to somehow slip through the cracks and win the Democratic nomination.  Im talking a real pro-life, anti-gay marriage, pro-gun rights etc.  democrat.  It would lights out for the GOP.   (assuming no strong 3rd party contenders jump in)

Maybe, but who would care?  We'd just have another stinking Religious Party ruling over us.  There's really no point in emulating the other side - they've got the intolerant vote sewn up.

I agree.  I was just trying to make a point that wedge issues are killing the democraitc party.  Abortion to me is a non-issue.  Roe vs Wade will never be overturned, period.  Gay Marriage, who cares?   Gun rights, we are suppose to be the party of civil liberties, but our leadership does all it can to shoot down the second amendment.  You know what I mean?

I do know what you mean, though I believe Roe V. Wade may very well be overturned.

[zorkpolitics]

Looks like Feingold is considering a national run, since he has been moving towards the center the last few years.   In 2000 he was the most liberal Senator (based on 498 roll call votes  Political Analysis, 8:211-237, 2000.)

But in 2004 he was not even in the top ten, though he was more liberal than Clinton or Biden.  (The National Journal's vote ratings on 63 roll call votes).

[skybridge]

Looks like Feingold is considering a national run, since he has been moving towards the center the last few years.   In 2000 he was the most liberal Senator (based on 498 roll call votes  Political Analysis, 8:211-237, 2000.)

But in 2004 he was not even in the top ten, though he was more liberal than Clinton or Biden.  (The National Journal's vote ratings on 63 roll call votes).

Could you provide a complete list?

[zorkpolitics]

Looks like Feingold is considering a national run, since he has been moving towards the center the last few years.   In 2000 he was the most liberal Senator (based on 498 roll call votes  Political Analysis, 8:211-237, 2000.)

But in 2004 he was not even in the top ten, though he was more liberal than Clinton or Biden.  (The National Journal's vote ratings on 63 roll call votes).

Could you provide a complete list?

Unfortunately the Political Analysis, 8:211-237, 2000 is not online and The National Journal is by subscription to all the data.
Here is the 2000 top 20 liberals:                         RANK
FEINGOLD        WISCONSIN   D    1
DAYTON          MINNESOTA   D    2
CORZINE         NEW JERSEY   D    3
WELLSTONE       MINNESOTA   D    4
BOXER           CALIFORNIA   D    5
SARBANES        MARYLAND   D    6.5
REED            RHODE ISLAND   D    6.5
KENNEDY                   MASSACHUSETTS   D    8
DURBIN          ILLINOIS                   D    9
HARKIN          IOWA                       D    10
DODD            CONNECTICUT   D    11
AKAKA           HAWAII                     D    12.5
BYRD                   WEST VIRGINIA   D    12.5
LEAHY           VERMONT    D    14
INOUYE          HAWAII                     D    15
LEVIN                    MICHIGAN   D    16
CONRAD          NORTH DAKOTA   D    17
STABENOW        MICHIGAN   D    18
MIKULSKI        MARYLAND   D    19
TORRICELLI      NEW JERSEY   D    20.5
SCHUMER         NEW YORK   D    20.5
CLINTON         NEW YORK   D    22

Here is National Journal info I have:
Most Liberal                             Rating
Daniel Akaka (D-HI)           94
Richard Durbin (D-IL)        93.2
Paul Sarbanes (D-MD)        92.2
Ted Kennedy (D-MA)         91.2
Jack Reed (D-RI)                90.3
Jon Corzine (D-NJ)             89.3
Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ)   88.5
Carl Levin (D-MI)              88.5
Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)    85.7
Tom Harkin (D-IA)            84.5
   
Presidential Candidates          Rating
John Kerry (D-MA)         NA  (Kerry missed too many votes)
Hillary Clinton (D-NY)   71
Russ Feingold (D-WI)     82.8
Chris Dodd (D-CT)        78.8
Joe Biden (D-DE)         78.7
Evan Bayh (D-IN)         61.7

[skybridge]

Looks like Feingold is considering a national run, since he has been moving towards the center the last few years.   In 2000 he was the most liberal Senator (based on 498 roll call votes  Political Analysis, 8:211-237, 2000.)

But in 2004 he was not even in the top ten, though he was more liberal than Clinton or Biden.  (The National Journal's vote ratings on 63 roll call votes).

Could you provide a complete list?

Unfortunately the Political Analysis, 8:211-237, 2000 is not online and The National Journal is by subscription to all the data.
Here is the 2000 top 20 liberals:                         RANK
FEINGOLD        WISCONSIN   D    1
DAYTON          MINNESOTA   D    2
CORZINE         NEW JERSEY   D    3
WELLSTONE       MINNESOTA   D    4
BOXER           CALIFORNIA   D    5
SARBANES        MARYLAND   D    6.5
REED            RHODE ISLAND   D    6.5
KENNEDY                   MASSACHUSETTS   D    8
DURBIN          ILLINOIS                   D    9
HARKIN          IOWA                       D    10
DODD            CONNECTICUT   D    11
AKAKA           HAWAII                     D    12.5
BYRD                   WEST VIRGINIA   D    12.5
LEAHY           VERMONT    D    14
INOUYE          HAWAII                     D    15
LEVIN                    MICHIGAN   D    16
CONRAD          NORTH DAKOTA   D    17
STABENOW        MICHIGAN   D    18
MIKULSKI        MARYLAND   D    19
TORRICELLI      NEW JERSEY   D    20.5
SCHUMER         NEW YORK   D    20.5
CLINTON         NEW YORK   D    22

Here is National Journal info I have:
Most Liberal                             Rating
Daniel Akaka (D-HI)           94
Richard Durbin (D-IL)        93.2
Paul Sarbanes (D-MD)        92.2
Ted Kennedy (D-MA)         91.2
Jack Reed (D-RI)                90.3
Jon Corzine (D-NJ)             89.3
Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ)   88.5
Carl Levin (D-MI)              88.5
Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)    85.7
Tom Harkin (D-IA)            84.5
   
Presidential Candidates          Rating
John Kerry (D-MA)         NA  (Kerry missed too many votes)
Hillary Clinton (D-NY)   71
Russ Feingold (D-WI)     82.8
Chris Dodd (D-CT)        78.8
Joe Biden (D-DE)         78.7
Evan Bayh (D-IN)         61.7

Hmmm. The states aren't surprising, really.

[minionofmidas]

Why does everyone think economic populists are so electorally powerful? Weird Al? Gore tried it and lost, Kerry tried it and lost. They actually tend to lose most places, and Feingold won for a variety of reasons of which protectionism was minor.

One of the reasons is that...Republicans drew attention to their "social" deficits...of course that would happen to Russ too.

[skybridge]

I got this email from Senator Feingold today. He didn't answer any of my questions about his presidential ambitions and must have mistaken me for a Wisconsinite. However, I think some of you may find it interesting:

 Dear Friend,
     
     Thank you for taking the time to e-mail me and let me know your
     thoughts on matters of concern to you. Hearing from Wisconsinites is
     my most important source of information and one of the things I enjoy
     most about my job.
     
     Due to the high volume of non-constituent Internet mail and "spam"
     this account receives on a daily basis, I unfortunately am unable to
     respond to your message by e-mail, but I do want to respond to your
     thoughts and concerns. Constituents who have included their name and
     address in the e-mail will receive a letter from me through the U.S.
     mail addressing the issues raised.  If you did not include an address,
     I encourage you to resend your original message with your address, or
     feel free to use the "contact me" form on my web site at
     http://feingold.senate.gov/contact.html. At this time, I am only able
     to respond to e-mails that are sent individually, not to
     mass-generated e-mails. However, the views expressed in any
     mass-generated e-mail that includes a Wisconsin address will be
     recorded.
     
     If you have a time sensitive question, please feel free to contact one
     of my offices by calling one of the numbers listed below.
     
     Thank you for writing me, I look forward to hearing from you on other
     issues of importance to you.
     
     Sincerely,
     
     Russell D. Feingold
     United States Senator
     
     506 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING
     WASHINGTON DC 20510-4904
     PH) 202-224-5323
     TDD) 202-224-1280
     
     1600 ASPEN COMMONS
     ROOM 100
     MIDDLETON WI 53562-3506
     PH) 608-828-1200
     TDD) 608-828-1215
     
     425 STATE STREET ROOM
     225 LACROSSE WI 54601-3341
     PH) 608-782-5585
     
     517 E WISCONSIN AVE
     #408
     MILWAUKEE WI 53202-4504
     PH) 414-276-7282
     
     401 5TH STREET
     ROOM 410
     WAUSAU WI 54403
     PH) 715-848-5660
     
     1640 MAIN STREET
     GREEN BAY WI 54302-7508
     PH) 920-465-7508

[minionofmidas]

At least his bot was nice enough to write you back.

[skybridge]

At least his bot was nice enough to write you back.

He must have a slow bot since I wrote him about a week ago...

[minionofmidas]

At least his bot was nice enough to write you back.

He must have a slow bot since I wrote him about a week ago...

It's got a lot of work to do. And it's got pains in the diods on its left side.

[wallock]

I got this email from Senator Feingold today. He didn't answer any of my questions about his presidential ambitions and must have mistaken me for a Wisconsinite. However, I think some of you may find it interesting:

I worked for Senator Feingold and he goes WAY beyond what is called for as far as campaign finance.  I am 100 percent positive he didn't respond to your presidential inquiry was because he (meaning he told his staff) that is was a misuse of funds to discuss campaign related issues through his Federal office.  If you want a response contact him through www.russfeingold.org to get ahold of his Senate committee, they may be more leniant in answering a question about his run.  I know from experience that at his town hall meetings he refuses to allow people to write checks for his campaign and won't let teachers put their school/university email addresses on the sign in sheet because it is unethical to use the tax payers money in that way without permission.  Visit my site www.russforpresident.com to learn more about him (my ten reasons list is at the beginning of this thread).

[wallock]

Also, I hear a lot of talk about how we need a moderate.  John Kerry was called a 'liberal' but if you noticed, the Bush campaign focused on his moderate votes (iraq war, no child left behind, etc...).  What the Democratic Party needs is someone who IS a liberal.  We need to set ourselves a part from the Republicans instead of continually moving 'right' with them.  If a moderate is elected, the republicans will just move farther right and our 'moderates' will move with them.  The American people need two candidates that are completely different.  Whether or not it is Feingold is irrelevant.  Also, I have hear a lot of talk about the difficulty of a Senator becoming a president.  John Kerry is a perfect example of why.  His votes were viewed as inconsistent (whether or they were is again irrelevant, the fact is they were viewed that way), and they could be easily distorted.  Senator Feingold has been so incredibly consistent in everything he votes on.  Republicans will argue about why he voted in one way or another, but they will not be able to call him indecisive (and Feingold can argue anyone into the ground and is known to speak in front of Republican audiences purposely).  Check out some of his campaign ads here:  www.russforpresident.com/media.htm.  He connects with the voters like no one I have ever seen and he does it without mudslinging or talking about non-issues.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

     1640 MAIN STREET
     GREEN BAY WI 54302-7508
     PH) 920-465-7508

Heh.  His Green Bay office is right next to all of the strip clubs.

[skybridge]

Also, I hear a lot of talk about how we need a moderate.  John Kerry was called a 'liberal' but if you noticed, the Bush campaign focused on his moderate votes (iraq war, no child left behind, etc...).  What the Democratic Party needs is someone who IS a liberal.  We need to set ourselves a part from the Republicans instead of continually moving 'right' with them.  If a moderate is elected, the republicans will just move farther right and our 'moderates' will move with them.  The American people need two candidates that are completely different.  Whether or not it is Feingold is irrelevant.  Also, I have hear a lot of talk about the difficulty of a Senator becoming a president.  John Kerry is a perfect example of why.  His votes were viewed as inconsistent (whether or they were is again irrelevant, the fact is they were viewed that way), and they could be easily distorted.  Senator Feingold has been so incredibly consistent in everything he votes on.  Republicans will argue about why he voted in one way or another, but they will not be able to call him indecisive (and Feingold can argue anyone into the ground and is known to speak in front of Republican audiences purposely).  Check out some of his campaign ads here:  www.russforpresident.com/media.htm.  He connects with the voters like no one I have ever seen and he does it without mudslinging or talking about non-issues.

Couldn't agree more. If the Democrats really wanted to be a strong party, Feingold (or someone like him) would be their man! The Republicans would probably attack him for opposing the PATRIOT Act but if the Dems were stronger campaigners they would make people understand that this is a courageous act of independence and a refusal to infringe civil liberties.
However, being the least wealthy member of the Senate since he constantly refuses pay raises, how would he finance a presidential campaign? I hope he'd accept contributions for that matter.

[wallock]

Also, I hear a lot of talk about how we need a moderate.  John Kerry was called a 'liberal' but if you noticed, the Bush campaign focused on his moderate votes (iraq war, no child left behind, etc...).  What the Democratic Party needs is someone who IS a liberal.  We need to set ourselves a part from the Republicans instead of continually moving 'right' with them.  If a moderate is elected, the republicans will just move farther right and our 'moderates' will move with them.  The American people need two candidates that are completely different.  Whether or not it is Feingold is irrelevant.  Also, I have hear a lot of talk about the difficulty of a Senator becoming a president.  John Kerry is a perfect example of why.  His votes were viewed as inconsistent (whether or they were is again irrelevant, the fact is they were viewed that way), and they could be easily distorted.  Senator Feingold has been so incredibly consistent in everything he votes on.  Republicans will argue about why he voted in one way or another, but they will not be able to call him indecisive (and Feingold can argue anyone into the ground and is known to speak in front of Republican audiences purposely).  Check out some of his campaign ads here:  www.russforpresident.com/media.htm.  He connects with the voters like no one I have ever seen and he does it without mudslinging or talking about non-issues.

Couldn't agree more. If the Democrats really wanted to be a strong party, Feingold (or someone like him) would be their man! The Republicans would probably attack him for opposing the PATRIOT Act but if the Dems were stronger campaigners they would make people understand that this is a courageous act of independence and a refusal to infringe civil liberties.
However, being the least wealthy member of the Senate since he constantly refuses pay raises, how would he finance a presidential campaign? I hope he'd accept contributions for that matter.

He accepts many contributions, but he likes his contributions to be from individuals, not corporations (in the form of 527's etc...).  Personal wealth really has very little to do with how much you spend on a campaign.  He would generate millions and millions from individuals.  He would do just as well as Kerry did as far as money is concerned.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

     1640 MAIN STREET
     GREEN BAY WI 54302-7508
     PH) 920-465-7508

Heh.  His Green Bay office is right next to all of the strip clubs.

[wallock]

Also, I hear a lot of talk about how we need a moderate.  John Kerry was called a 'liberal' but if you noticed, the Bush campaign focused on his moderate votes (iraq war, no child left behind, etc...).  What the Democratic Party needs is someone who IS a liberal.  We need to set ourselves a part from the Republicans instead of continually moving 'right' with them.  If a moderate is elected, the republicans will just move farther right and our 'moderates' will move with them.  The American people need two candidates that are completely different.  Whether or not it is Feingold is irrelevant.  Also, I have hear a lot of talk about the difficulty of a Senator becoming a president.  John Kerry is a perfect example of why.  His votes were viewed as inconsistent (whether or they were is again irrelevant, the fact is they were viewed that way), and they could be easily distorted.  Senator Feingold has been so incredibly consistent in everything he votes on.  Republicans will argue about why he voted in one way or another, but they will not be able to call him indecisive (and Feingold can argue anyone into the ground and is known to speak in front of Republican audiences purposely).  Check out some of his campaign ads here:  www.russforpresident.com/media.htm.  He connects with the voters like no one I have ever seen and he does it without mudslinging or talking about non-issues.

Couldn't agree more. If the Democrats really wanted to be a strong party, Feingold (or someone like him) would be their man! The Republicans would probably attack him for opposing the PATRIOT Act but if the Dems were stronger campaigners they would make people understand that this is a courageous act of independence and a refusal to infringe civil liberties.
However, being the least wealthy member of the Senate since he constantly refuses pay raises, how would he finance a presidential campaign? I hope he'd accept contributions for that matter.

He also only refuses a pay raise while in office.  He see's like this:  You shouldn't be able to vote for your own raise and the people should be able to elect into office at the current pay rate if they think you deserve it.  For example, Feingold is making more this year than last because Wisconsin elected him into the Senate at the current rate.  He makes just as much as any other senator, but in five years from now he will be making the same, unlike all the other senators who voted to give themselves raises.

[Notre Dame rules!]

The Democrats who are calling for a moderate are those who want at least a snowball's chance in hell of getting their candidate elected. 

However, I encourage you to go as liberal as you dare.  That will not only guarantee a GOP landslide in the Presidential race, but boost our margins in the House and Senate also.

[Democratic Hawk]

The Democrats who are calling for a moderate are those who want at least a snowball's chance in hell of getting their candidate elected. 

However, I encourage you to go as liberal as you dare.  That will not only guarantee a GOP landslide in the Presidential race, but boost our margins in the House and Senate also.

On this, we can agree.

Liberals are a no-no for any presidential run! The Democrats need to select a moderate to avoid a polarising election in which a conservative Republican has a sure-start advantage, simply, because the facts are simple: Conservatives (34%) outnumber Liberals (21%) by 3 to 2 and Democrats need to pay heed to that

Feingold would make a better VP nominee who can work the 'blue' states, while a bona fide moderate nominee can take the battle to the the marginal , and indeed, the not-so marginal, 'red' states

As long the Democrats go for liberals, they will be fighting a defensive election on their turf, in which the Republicans in 2004 scored a couple of goals: Iowa and New Mexico. It's a trend that bodes ill for the party

Dave

[Moooooo]

The Democrats who are calling for a moderate are those who want at least a snowball's chance in hell of getting their candidate elected. 

However, I encourage you to go as liberal as you dare.  That will not only guarantee a GOP landslide in the Presidential race, but boost our margins in the House and Senate also.

On this, we can agree.

Liberals are a no-no for any presidential run! The Democrats need to select a moderate to avoid a polarising election in which a conservative Republican has a sure-start advantage, simply, because the facts are simple: Conservatives (34%) outnumber Liberals (21%) by 3 to 2 and Democrats need to pay heed to that

Feingold would make a better VP nominee who can work the 'blue' states, while a bona fide moderate nominee can take the battle to the the marginal , and indeed, the not-so marginal, 'red' states

As long the Democrats go for liberals, they will be fighting a defensive election on their turf, in which the Republicans in 2004 scored a couple of goals: Iowa and New Mexico. It's a trend that bodes ill for the party

Dave

Gotta' agree with Hawk and Notre Dame on this one.  After much thought, I have come to the conclusion that Feingold is a potential VP at best.  At the top of the ticket he will do more harm then good.  Put him in the VP slot to keep the base happy and maybe he can lock up states like Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, and Iowa early.

[ian]

The Democrats who are calling for a moderate are those who want at least a snowball's chance in hell of getting their candidate elected. 

However, I encourage you to go as liberal as you dare.  That will not only guarantee a GOP landslide in the Presidential race, but boost our margins in the House and Senate also.

On this, we can agree.

Liberals are a no-no for any presidential run! The Democrats need to select a moderate to avoid a polarising election in which a conservative Republican has a sure-start advantage, simply, because the facts are simple: Conservatives (34%) outnumber Liberals (21%) by 3 to 2 and Democrats need to pay heed to that

Feingold would make a better VP nominee who can work the 'blue' states, while a bona fide moderate nominee can take the battle to the the marginal , and indeed, the not-so marginal, 'red' states

As long the Democrats go for liberals, they will be fighting a defensive election on their turf, in which the Republicans in 2004 scored a couple of goals: Iowa and New Mexico. It's a trend that bodes ill for the party

Dave

Yep, I'm with you guys on that one.