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

[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

[Notre Dame rules!]

I disagree.  The MSM savaged the Swift Boat Veterans at every turn. 

How many times do you recall Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, or Tom Brokaw calling for Kerry to sign a release of his military records.   On several occasions, I heard reporters asking Scott McClellan when Bush would release his records--something that Bush had already done when he signed the SF-180. 

The MSM routinely accepted Kerry's ever changing account of his Vietnam service, while challenging Bush at every turn.

Fox News may be powerful by cable news standards, but far more people geet their news from the big 3 than they do from Fox.  The only thing that viewers from the major networks were told about the Swift Boat Vets was that they were a cabal of GOP activists hired by the White House to smear Kerry.  While ONE of their contributors was a GOP activist, many thousands of others donated to their effort.  Ironically, the MSM virtually never mentioned the millions of dollars that George Soros personally donated to unseat Bush, nor did they mention his connections to the Kerry campaign.

[TomC]

Those of you who say that Bush fatigue would hurt Jeb also said that it would hurt W in 2004. Didn't.

It didn't KILL him, no, but it hurt him. A wartime President who Presided over the worst terrorist attck in history, sub 6% unemployment, good GDP growth,  massive tax cuts, midterm gains...

And we went into election day not knowing if he'd even be reelected. His re-election was tight for an incumbent who ended up winning. A 3% MOV, close electoral vote, etc

Bush fatigue hurt W, it just didn't kill him.

[Frodo]

NotreDame, Keystone Phil:

perhaps i erred in calling you both party hacks, but you seem to forget that the main reason why Bush won in 2000 and 2004 was not because voters saw Kerry and Gore as being too liberal since they agreed with them more on more issues than with Bush, but for a number of other reasons that don't directly relate to their liberalism.

in Gore's case, he was seen as being the aloof elitist, terminally unable to connect with people the way Bush can, and also because of a major backlash over Clinton's sexual predilictions that unfairly tarnished him in association.  keep in mind that had the 2000 election followed normal rules of engagement, Gore would have won in a landslide (or at least by a hefty margin) on the back of Clinton's economic record, alongside a steadily decreasing Republican majority in Congress. 
still, despite all that, and Bush's immense early lead in the polls, Gore made the election closer than it would have been (at Bush's expense) by donning a populist tone to his campaign later on after the Democratic National Convention that year that made the race a nail-biter to the end -in December, that is.  liberalism was hardly a major cause of his defeat -in fact, if he had more emphasis on his populism early in the campaign, he could have won. 

with regard to Kerry, he did not lose because he was seen as being too liberal, but for many of the same reasons that i already enumerated for Gore, but also because of the way that he ran his campaign and responded (or not) to the attacks made against him by the Bush re-election campaign.  with national security being such an important issue in the first presidential election since 9/11, people saw his perceived inability to defend himself vigorously against the Swift Boat Vets for 'Truth' ads as a reflection of his inability to defend the country against terrorism and other enemies.  the rationale was that if he seemed so unable to defend himself against such attacks on the campaign trail, why should we entrust him with the defense of the country?  that's what did him in -not his liberalism.  had he been more aggressive and unapologetic throughout the campaign instead of being so damned passive-aggressive, he would have won the election against an increasingly unpopular president despite it being the first wartime election since 1972. 

while i do not pretend to know how Russel Feingold would run his campaign in 2008, i do see his ability to win elections in Wisconsin, as well as his appeal to constituencies that otherwise would vote Republican as a key asset in whatever bid he makes for the Democratic nomination, and in the general election.  ultimately, what will be crucial to his chances of winning the general election in 2008 will be his ability to run an aggressive campaign -the more aggressive that it is in responding to attacks against him like the ones you have made against his liberalism, the more likely people would vote him into office...bottom line, they want a FIGHTER in the Oval office.  and i believe Feingold is fully capable of doing that given his unapologetic liberalism and his ability to win reelection in a swing state like Wisconsin.  i just wish the Democrats here would have more courage, rather than lurching to such candidates like Mark Warner or Evan Baye because they see those candidates as being 'safer' to rally behind.   

[TomC]

NotreDame, Keystone Phil:

perhaps i erred in calling you both party hacks, but you seem to forget that the main reason why Bush won in 2000 and 2004 was not because voters saw Kerry and Gore as being too liberal since they agreed with them more on more issues than with Bush, but for a number of other reasons that don't directly relate to their liberalism.

in Gore's case, he was seen as being the aloof elitist, terminally unable to connect with people the way Bush can, and also because of a major backlash over Clinton's sexual predilictions that unfairly tarnished him in association.  keep in mind that had the 2000 election followed normal rules of engagement, Gore would have won in a landslide (or at least by a hefty margin) on the back of Clinton's economic record, alongside a steadily decreasing Republican majority in Congress. 
still, despite all that, and Bush's immense early lead in the polls, Gore made the election closer than it would have been (at Bush's expense) by donning a populist tone to his campaign later on after the Democratic National Convention that year that made the race a nail-biter to the end -in December, that is.  liberalism was hardly a major cause of his defeat -in fact, if he had more emphasis on his populism early in the campaign, he could have won. 

with regard to Kerry, he did not lose because he was seen as being too liberal, but for many of the same reasons that i already enumerated for Gore, but also because of the way that he ran his campaign and responded (or not) to the attacks made against him by the Bush re-election campaign.  with national security being such an important issue in the first presidential election since 9/11, people saw his perceived inability to defend himself vigorously against the Swift Boat Vets for 'Truth' ads as a reflection of his inability to defend the country against terrorism and other enemies.  the rationale was that if he seemed so unable to defend himself against such attacks on the campaign trail, why should we entrust him with the defense of the country?  that's what did him in -not his liberalism.  had he been more aggressive and unapologetic throughout the campaign instead of being so damned passive-aggressive, he would have won the election against an increasingly unpopular president despite it being the first wartime election since 1972. 

while i do not pretend to know how Russel Feingold would run his campaign in 2008, i do see his ability to win elections in Wisconsin, as well as his appeal to constituencies that otherwise would vote Republican as a key asset in whatever bid he makes for the Democratic nomination, and in the general election.  ultimately, what will be crucial to his chances of winning the general election in 2008 will be his ability to run an aggressive campaign -the more aggressive that it is in responding to attacks against him like the ones you have made against his liberalism, the more likely people would vote him into office...bottom line, they want a FIGHTER in the Oval office.  and i believe Feingold is fully capable of doing that given his unapologetic liberalism and his ability to win reelection in a swing state like Wisconsin.  i just wish the Democrats here would have more courage, rather than lurching to such candidates like Mark Warner or Evan Baye because they see those candidates as being 'safer' to rally behind.   

Great post and analysis. I'm giving Feingold a second look!

[Moooooo]

NotreDame, Keystone Phil:
  i just wish the Democrats here would have more courage, rather than lurching to such candidates like Mark Warner or Evan Baye because they see those candidates as being 'safer' to rally behind.   

I dont think their safer to rally behind.  You pointed out that Feingold win's in a swing state and that proves his electability.  Look at Evan Bayh and Mark Warner.  They are winning in SOLID red-states.  Plus, their more intact with Americas social beliefs than Russ Feingold.  Dont get me wrong I like Feingold and I have not ruled out voting for or supporting him in the 2008 primary.  Its just my opinion that he will alienate too many swing voters in a national election with his far left social views.  This country is center-right on social issues and its time that the democrats realize that.  Most Americans oppose partial birth abortion, gay marriage, gay's being able to adopt, and they love their gun's.  Hopefully, Feingold balances himself out on those issues or I dont see him standing much of a chance.

[Frodo]

NotreDame, Keystone Phil:
  i just wish the Democrats here would have more courage, rather than lurching to such candidates like Mark Warner or Evan Baye because they see those candidates as being 'safer' to rally behind.   

I dont think their safer to rally behind.  You pointed out that Feingold win's in a swing state and that proves his electability.  Look at Evan Bayh and Mark Warner.  They are winning in SOLID red-states.

you mention that both of the above candidates are able to win in states even redder than Wisconsin -in a general election, which of these three states are more likely to vote Democratic: Wisconsin, Virginia, or Indiana?  for the latter two, they are more likely to follow their partisan allegiances and vote Republican, since they can hardly be considered swing states -unlike Wisconsin, which is.  Wisconsin (and much of the upper Midwest swing states like Minnesota, Iowa, Michigan, and Missouri) is more likely to vote for its native son in a general election than Indiana or Virginia would since it is a swing state in a way that the latter two cannot be. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

i don't know if you even read my post i posted earlier in its entirety, but the most important attribute that the general public is looking for in presidential candidates is their ability to defend the country in a time of war.  that in turn is reflected in the type of campaign that they run, and how effectively, aggressively, and unapologetically they defend themselves against attacks on the campaign trail.  if they see a candidate who is able to not only defend himself vigorously throughout the campaign, but also articulate a vision for where they would like to see this country in decades to come (and have it reflected in their platform), that would be of far more consequence than any disagreements people might have with their views on hot button social issues that in any event cannot be solved by them.

please keep in mind that no matter how centrist or conservative a Democrat that you nominate, he or she will always be painted as a liberal, and as such they will run as far away from possible from it.  why not choose a candidate who is not only a liberal but able to vigorously defend it unapologetically?  you can't hide from it no matter what you do.  besides, people like a fighter when they see one.

in any event, Feingold would likely moderate his social views somewhat anyway (at least perceived by the public) if he is viewed as a viable contender in the general election -every politician does who has a serious chance of winning in the general election, no matter what their position on the political spectrum.   

[Moooooo]

Its time to abandon the word liberal.  It has been destroyed forever.  Most people think the word liberal 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 it wont matter. All the GOP has to do is point their finger and say LIBERAL! and your done.

On another note, maybe its just me, but from now on Im sticking with Governors.  Now theres an agruement no one can deny.  Governor are 1000000 x's more electable then Senators.  One more reason I like Warner.

[Frodo]

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.       

[Moooooo]

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.       

My mind isnt made up 100% yet.  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.

[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

[Frodo]

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.       

My mind isnt made up 100% yet.  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.

if you don't mind me asking, what are you looking for here, Nick?  what more must i do to convince you?   

[Moooooo]

Im pretty populist, Frodo.  I dont really care for far left stance on social views.  I do not support gay marriage, I am very reluctantly pro-choice, and I do not support the ACLU 99% of the time. So, you can see why I am a little reluctant to jump onboard the Feingold express.  Im hoping he moves right on some social issues between now and 2008.  But overall I really like the way he takes on economic issues.  He voted against NAFTA and GATT, he supports a universal health care system, and he is a deficit hawk.

Im not really sure how strong he is on terrorism.  Do you know where he stands on this issue and The War On Terror?

[skybridge]

Feingold will emerge victorious.

[Frodo]

Im pretty populist, Frodo.  I dont really care for far left stance on social views.  I do not support gay marriage, I am very reluctantly pro-choice, and I do not support the ACLU 99% of the time. So, you can see why I am a little reluctant to jump onboard the Feingold express.  Im hoping he moves right on some social issues between now and 2008.  But overall I really like the way he takes on economic issues.  He voted against NAFTA and GATT, he supports a universal health care system, and he is a deficit hawk.

well, all i can say is that like every other Senator and Congressman with presidential ambitions, he probably will moderate his social positions as the elections come closer, and he moves closer to making a decision whether or not he will run.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

if you look at his voting record: http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=S0972103,
 he is quite solid in the categories of defense, military, and national security, though he voted against the Patriot Act (and that vote was largely because he objected to some extreme measures in that bill), as well as the Iraq War Resolution.  otherwise, he is very supportive of the military, voting for every military appropriations bill before Congress, as well as authorizing the president shortly after 9/11, to use military force against those who had planned and perpetrated the terrorist attacks.  he also voted Aye on the intelligence overhaul bill.  you can depend on him when it comes down to hunting down terrorists and defending the country.     

[Notre Dame rules!]

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.

[skybridge]

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.

Who ever the Democrats nominate, the Republicans will try to paint as something bad. So the strategy shouldn't be to nominate yet another "less of two evil" "flip-flopper," but someone who can stand up to those attacks. So you don't run another lame moderate, run Feingold who can truthfully debate himself out misleading accusations.

[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.

[Notre Dame rules!]

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. 

[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