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

[MissCatholic]

With over two years to go the race for the White House has already begun. Apparently it is now down to just 10 people to get the nomination. All 10 candidates above have a base that they can start a campaign from.

John Kerry and John Edwards hav kept up their campaigning from 2004. Mark Warner and Phil Bredesen are two new democrats that have done a successful job as governors of red states. Russ Feingold will be strong within the Progressive ranks of the democratic party. Biden is a well respectded while Bill Richardson is the only Hispanic in the running. Vilsack is from Iowa and all candidates need a good start. While Hillary is the favourite but Evan Bayh is another democrat in a red state that can carry his state.

Wesley Clark is a popular democrat but will be in the Clinton corner. Blanche Lincoln, Janet Napolitano, Mary Landrieu and Ken Salazar may wait until 2012 to make a run.

So 10 horses left. Who do you want as the nominee?

[MAS117]

Governor Mark Warner

[minionofmidas]

Al Gore.

[Frodo]

Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh -and in the event he doesn't run for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination after all, then Virginia Gov. Mark Warner.

[Ben.]

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

[Sarnstrom]

Russ Feingold

[© tweed]

Evan Bayh

[TheresNoMoney]

Feingold.

[minionofmidas]

Well, right. Of these options, Feingold. (leaving tactical considerations aside for the moment)

[Moooooo]

Mark Warner.  Didnt even take a look at the other options.

[Ben.]

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

[© tweed]

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

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

[TheresNoMoney]

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.

[© tweed]

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

[TheresNoMoney]

I know, that's why I wonder why the same misconception is repeated.

The "liberal" wing of the party likes Wesley Clark and Russ Feingold much more than Hillary.

[Moooooo]

I know, that's why I wonder why the same misconception is repeated.

The "liberal" wing of the party likes Wesley Clark and Russ Feingold much more than Hillary.

He's right.  Many of "wingnuts" despise Hillary.  Hell, they despise anyone who is DLC.  These are the people who argued John Kerry was too moderate and dismissed Obama as soon as he joined the DLC.

[TheresNoMoney]

He's right.  Many of "wingnuts" despise Hillary.  Hell, they despise anyone who is DLC.  These are the people who argued John Kerry was too moderate and dismissed Obama as soon as he joined the DLC.

Obama is not in the DLC.

My problem with the DLC is that many of them are stooges for big business. The overall goal of the DLC is admirable, but they are not economically populist enough for my taste.

[Lincoln Republican]

I think the Democrats should nominate Ted Kennedy.

Give him a chance.

[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.  

[minionofmidas]

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.

No, but then the people who really decide the nomination process aren't as smart as the wingnuts.

[© tweed]

I don't see how a majority of Hillary's support would come from the DLC.  And if it will, she's in trouble.

The DLC likely will have two candidates they will rally around--Mark Warner and Evan Bayh.  Both of these candidates are far more tolerable to them than Hillary I'm sure, who has a very liberal voting record since being elected.  Warner's time may not be in 2008, but he'll run, and pick up some of the moderate votes.  Bayh, on the other hand, should pick up most of the centrist votes.  He goes back a generation, has a very centrist voting record, and has been active (to my knowledge) in the DLC over the past decade.

The liberal vote is more wide open.  No liberal candidate stands out to me other than Hillary.  The two that stand out are Feingold and possibly John Kerry.  Feingold could take the Deaniac base, but as we learned in 2004, that base is volatile and not as large as it once appeared early in the campaign.  Kerry will get some votes that he got in 2004, but I think that most of his base has/will tire on him and ditch the past and look to a future.  I think most of the voters that went for Kerry in 2004 and won him the nomination will vote for Hillary.  These votes, and not the DLC votes (which will go about 75% Bayh 25% Warner) are what would potentially propel Hillary to the nomination.  I just can't see how Hillary would appeal more to moderates than Bayh and Warner, but I could see her winning alot of liberal votes in an otherwise weak left-wing field (Kerry, Feingold, and Edwards).

[Speed of Sound]

Warner. Not because hes my closest choice (obviously) but because he has the best chance of winning

[minionofmidas]

I don't see how a majority of Hillary's support would come from the DLC.  And if it will, she's in trouble.

Only if she's running at all. Which is not a lock.

[© tweed]

I don't see how a majority of Hillary's support would come from the DLC.  And if it will, she's in trouble.

Only if she's running at all. Which is not a lock.

Oh please, of course she's running.  She didn't run for senate because she wants be a Senator, she ran for senate as a springboard for the presidency.

[TheresNoMoney]

I think Justice Ben is right. Hillary is the candidate of the "establishment". The people who will vote for her are those who don't pay too much attention to everyday politics, but like her name recognition and status. These are the people who want to go back to the Clinton days (I can't really blame them there). She will also have much support from those at the top of the food chain in the Democratic party.

No one will come close to Hillary when it comes to name recognition, status, and fundraising power. How well that will translate into votes remains to be seen.