Mark Warner, the Democratic contender

[awfernan2002]

jfern, what is that multi-colored map that keeps flashing at the bottom of your signature area? - looks cool.

[Democratic Hawk]

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.

Someone sure doesn't like the Northeast.

I'd go-along with a whole scale re-arranging of the Democratic primary season - it might allow moderates as opposed to liberals to sieze the momentum and if, sanity, prevails that is what will happen in 2008

The fact that Southern primaries voted for the liberal Kerry, because he had the momentum following earlier victories, was absurd if you think about it. He might have won the primaries but he hadn't a cat in hell's chance of being even competitive in most Southern states - Florida wasn't even that close and while in West Virginia (not strictly a Southern state, geographically) the result there was probably the worst, nationally, for the Democrats. Bush 13-points ahead - that took time to sink it, but on reflection, I'm not surprised

So, Krusty, I pretty much agree with what you have said but I wouldn't go as far to call either Massachusetts or Vermont loony - but states like that are reliably Democrat and would vote for a moderate as well as a liberal over a conservative Republican. I wouldn't like to see them moved up in the primary order at all

Dave

[Speed of Sound]

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.

[MODU]

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.

Sounds like a decent idea, but then you'd hear from groups out of Idaho or where ever, claiming the change to be unfair. 

[Ben.]

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.       

[MODU]

Personally, I think that each election cycle, 5 states get to have their shot at opening day.  Then in the next cycle, those 5 states are replaced by 5 new ones.  After 40 years, the process starts over again.  That way, both moderately democratic states have a fair shot as the heavily liberal states.  The same should hold true for the Republicans.

[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

[Speed of Sound]

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.       

This too is a good idea, however you then risk picking candidates who may alienate bases in "guarenteed" states. Although I personally don't mind pulling the lever for a conservative, and i'm sure many liberals on this forum wouldn't either, you'd be suprised howmany "closed-minded liberals" there are. Couldn't all the states vote on the same day? Have a televised debate the day before, and then have everyone go out and vote on the same day. That would end the competition of 'Who Goes First?'.

[skybridge]

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.

Someone sure doesn't like the Northeast.

I'd go-along with a whole scale re-arranging of the Democratic primary season - it might allow moderates as opposed to liberals to sieze the momentum and if, sanity, prevails that is what will happen in 2008

The fact that Southern primaries voted for the liberal Kerry, because he had the momentum following earlier victories, was absurd if you think about it. He might have won the primaries but he hadn't a cat in hell's chance of being even competitive in most Southern states - Florida wasn't even that close and while in West Virginia (not strictly a Southern state, geographically) the result there was probably the worst, nationally, for the Democrats. Bush 13-points ahead - that took time to sink it, but on reflection, I'm not surprised

So, Krusty, I pretty much agree with what you have said but I wouldn't go as far to call either Massachusetts or Vermont loony - but states like that are reliably Democrat and would vote for a moderate as well as a liberal over a conservative Republican. I wouldn't like to see them moved up in the primary order at all

Dave

How far will this moderate/liberal split go? Wouldn't unity be a attribute to Democratic party that it hasn't had since perhaps Andrew Jackson's time? Unity really is a big advantage the Republicans have over the Democrats.

[MAS117]

Alot of key states are moving up there primaries to earlier. NJ is moving theres to last week in February, and I believe PA is moving theres from late April to late March.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

jfern, what is that multi-colored map that keeps flashing at the bottom of your signature area? - looks cool.

County Presidential results for 1856-2004.

I got it from here.

http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/trurl_pagecontent?lp=fr_en&trurl=http%3a%2f%2fgeoelections.free.fr%2fUSA%2faccueil.htm

[A18]

Would be nice if it was a little bigger.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Would be nice if it was a little bigger.

Hopefully it's not too big now.

[MODU]

jfern, what is that multi-colored map that keeps flashing at the bottom of your signature area? - looks cool.

County Presidential results for 1856-2004.

I got it from here.

http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/trurl_pagecontent?lp=fr_en&trurl=http%3a%2f%2fgeoelections.free.fr%2fUSA%2faccueil.htm

That's a cool map, jfern.  Thanks for sharing.  Maybe the Atlas might get something similar to that one of these days. 

[Democratic Hawk]

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.       

I agree with everything you've said Ben. Liberal PA's idea would easily see moderate Democrats out of the running and this, as far as the Democrats electoral prospects go, would mean the Democrats chances of victory in a polarised election at best slim. The liberal base is the smallest 'mainstream' ideological orientation (a whopping 21% according to exit polls)

Liberals may win Democratic primaries but what's the point of selecting them if they have precious little chance of defeating a mainstream conservative Republican - unless Bush and Congress totally mess-up

Democrats must win "red" states and if the party selects a clear liberal candidate in 2008, the party will yet again be defending marginal "blue" states. The GOP scored goals in Iowa and New Mexico - can the Democrats afford to see Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin follow suit because it could happen. The party needs a team who can 'lock' up these states, who can then take the fight into GOP turf. It's the only way forward from where I'm sitting

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

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.

Someone sure doesn't like the Northeast.

I'd go-along with a whole scale re-arranging of the Democratic primary season - it might allow moderates as opposed to liberals to sieze the momentum and if, sanity, prevails that is what will happen in 2008

The fact that Southern primaries voted for the liberal Kerry, because he had the momentum following earlier victories, was absurd if you think about it. He might have won the primaries but he hadn't a cat in hell's chance of being even competitive in most Southern states - Florida wasn't even that close and while in West Virginia (not strictly a Southern state, geographically) the result there was probably the worst, nationally, for the Democrats. Bush 13-points ahead - that took time to sink it, but on reflection, I'm not surprised

So, Krusty, I pretty much agree with what you have said but I wouldn't go as far to call either Massachusetts or Vermont loony - but states like that are reliably Democrat and would vote for a moderate as well as a liberal over a conservative Republican. I wouldn't like to see them moved up in the primary order at all

Dave

How far will this moderate/liberal split go? Wouldn't unity be a attribute to Democratic party that it hasn't had since perhaps Andrew Jackson's time? Unity really is a big advantage the Republicans have over the Democrats.

The Democratic Party was probably at its strongest with the 'New Deal Coalition', which in itself was the "biggest of tents"; while today's GOP is by-and-large conservative, which serves as a unifying ideology on that we can agree

As far as today's Democratic goes I think its best if they take the path of moderate, common sense pragmatism. Liberals must realise that a moderate-led Democratic Party is certainly more preferable to the conservative GOP.

The Democratic Party must field a candidate who can reach out beyond the base and  that means reaching out to moderate conservative/Republicans. Besides, aren't moderate Democrats the largest Democratic ideological plurality among voters at large? It's time they stood up to be counted when the primary season kicks off. The Democratic Party ought to be their haven as much as it is for liberals

Dave

[awfernan2002]

jfern, what is that multi-colored map that keeps flashing at the bottom of your signature area? - looks cool.

County Presidential results for 1856-2004.

I got it from here.

http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/trurl_pagecontent?lp=fr_en&trurl=http%3a%2f%2fgeoelections.free.fr%2fUSA%2faccueil.htm

Thank you for sending that, but I don't know if it's just me, but the links don't work and I can't view any of the historical (pre-2004) maps :--(

[MAS117]

June 17, 2005--Virginia, the state that gave our nation most of its Presidents during the founding era, now boasts two prospects for their parties' 2008 Presidential nomination--Governor Mark Warner for the Democrats and Senator George Allen for the Republicans.

A hypothetical Presidential match-up between the home-town candidates finds that 46% of Virginia voters would vote for Warner while 41% would vote for Allen. An earlier survey found that if those candidates were to meet in the 2006 U.S. Senate election, Allen would hold a slight edge.

(A separate release shows the GOP also has an edge in the 2005 race to be Virginia's next Governor).

Virginia voters may be split between Warner and Allen, but Allen holds a nine point lead in the state over Democrat Hillary Clinton. In that match-up, Allen gets 50% of the vote to 41% for Clinton.

Just 79% of Virginia's Warner voters would also vote for Clinton. Fifteen percent (15%) of Warner voters would opt for the Republican Allen rather than the former First Lady.

Governor Warner is viewed favorably by 62% of Virginia voters and unfavorably by 31%.

Fifty-nine percent (59%) have a favorable opinion of Senator Allen. Thirty-one percent (31%) have an unfavorable opinion.

For Senator Clinton, the numbers in Virginia are 45% favorable and 51% unfavorable.

In the Presidential match-up between Allen and Warner, 44% of those not committed to either candidate are Republicans. Thirteen percent (13%) are Democrats.

Allen leads among entrepreneurs (those who are self-employed or  own their own business). Warner leads among other private sector workers.

The telephone survey of 500 Likely Voters was conducted Thursday night, June 15, 2005. The margin of sampling error is +/- 4.5 percentage points, with a 95% level of confidence.

Rasmussen Reports is an electronic publishing firm specializing in the collection, publication, and distribution of public opinion polling information.

Our publications provide real-time information on consumer confidence, investor confidence, employment data, the political situation, and other topics of value and interest.

During Election 2004, RasmussenReports.com was the top-ranked public opinion research site on the web. We had twice as many visitors as our nearest competitor and nearly as many as all competitors combined.

Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports, has been an independent pollster for more than a decade.

[skybridge]

Assuring as these numbers sound, Warner still has less charisma than Paul Wolfowitz.

[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.