Russ Feingold in 2008
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 19, 2024, 01:30:18 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2004 U.S. Presidential Election
  Russ Feingold in 2008
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: Russ Feingold in 2008  (Read 7601 times)
The Dowager Mod
texasgurl
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,969
United States


Political Matrix
E: -9.48, S: -8.57

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: November 15, 2004, 02:17:27 PM »

The fact that he voted against the patriot act and got re-elected impressed me.
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: November 15, 2004, 05:19:19 PM »

We need to stop nominating the most progressive candidate who can win!

We need to start nominating the candidate we think can win soundly.
Logged
Rococo4
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,491


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: November 16, 2004, 01:59:36 AM »

Feingold = No Shot
Logged
Democratic Hawk
LucysBeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,703
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: 2.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: November 16, 2004, 01:54:46 PM »


We need to start nominating the candidate we think can win soundly.

Check out:

www.indystar.com/articles/5/195076-2845-098.html

I think Bayh's the man

Dave
Logged
The Duke
JohnD.Ford
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,270


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: -1.23

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: November 16, 2004, 09:44:07 PM »

Feingold voted against the PATRIOT Act and I think the Iraq War too.  We'll cut him up on national defense.  Not to mention values.
Logged
zachman
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,096


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: November 16, 2004, 10:02:25 PM »

Feingold voted against the PATRIOT Act and I think the Iraq War too.  We'll cut him up on national defense.  Not to mention values.
2008 is a long way away and I'd be surprised if those are as a big an issue in 2008 as they were this year, and I wouldn't be surprised if the tide turns in Feingold's favor for this by then. He can also say he doesn't give into the polls.

In a perfect world Russ Feingold would be my President, but unfortunately I'm convinced that electibility matters, so I'm polling my early support for the 2008 NH primary for Mark Warner.

Unfortunately, I still don't think America is ready for a Jewish President like Russ Feingold. I think the Democratic party can win on liberal values, but I think the party insiders (like Shrum this year) would fail the nominee into avoiding social issues. I'm convinced that the Evangelicals would show up against to vote against Feingold even if Bush doesn't fight his pro-life fight.
Logged
cwelsch
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 677


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: November 17, 2004, 11:08:15 PM »

He's Jewish, the far-left will hate him on Israel and Europe will despise him.  He gets my vote, in that case. Tongue
Logged
AuH2O
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,239


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: November 17, 2004, 11:27:11 PM »

Feingold has no chance. The establishment won't back him and most Dem primary voters won't either.

Vilsack and Richardson are guys to watch- clearly both have at least a mild case of Presidential fever. Rendell is a maverick but could be a compromise option for the DNC.

Both parties have the system set up to favor the establishment candidate (possibly candidates in the Democrats case). Warner and Bayh are DOA, especially Warner.
Logged
Beefalow and the Consumer
Beef
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,123
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.77, S: -8.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: November 18, 2004, 12:23:39 AM »

I'm convinced that the Evangelicals would show up against to vote against Feingold even if Bush doesn't fight his pro-life fight.

If you think that most Evangelicals would vote against someone simply for being Jewish, then you don't understand Evangelicals.  Evangelicals don't vote based on whether the candidate has the same religious views.  They vote based on whether the candidate has the same moral views.  Given a pro-life, anti-gay-marriage Jewish candidate, and a pro-choice, pro-gay-marriage Baptist candidate, the Evangelicals will break for the Jew 10:1.

Feingold would lose the Evangelical vote because he's a social liberal, not because he's Jewish.  Lieberman, for example, would do very well if he ran against someone like Rudy Giuliani or Arlen Spechter.
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: November 18, 2004, 03:01:53 AM »

I'm convinced that the Evangelicals would show up against to vote against Feingold even if Bush doesn't fight his pro-life fight.

If you think that most Evangelicals would vote against someone simply for being Jewish, then you don't understand Evangelicals.  Evangelicals don't vote based on whether the candidate has the same religious views.  They vote based on whether the candidate has the same moral views.  Given a pro-life, anti-gay-marriage Jewish candidate, and a pro-choice, pro-gay-marriage Baptist candidate, the Evangelicals will break for the Jew 10:1.

Feingold would lose the Evangelical vote because he's a social liberal, not because he's Jewish.  Lieberman, for example, would do very well if he ran against someone like Rudy Giuliani or Arlen Spechter.

Correct!  These people naturally hate Jews, but they hate libertines, liberals, and homosexuals far more.  I don't think their hatred of non-whites really even comes into it - its more FREEDOM they hate than any individual type or race.
Logged
Fmr. Gov. NickG
NickG
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,098


Political Matrix
E: -8.00, S: -3.49

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: November 18, 2004, 07:29:37 PM »

Feingold has no chance. The establishment won't back him and most Dem primary voters won't either.

Vilsack and Richardson are guys to watch- clearly both have at least a mild case of Presidential fever. Rendell is a maverick but could be a compromise option for the DNC.

Both parties have the system set up to favor the establishment candidate (possibly candidates in the Democrats case). Warner and Bayh are DOA, especially Warner.

Rendell could be a very good candidate for the Dems, but I'm told that there are things in his personal life that would not withstand the scrutiny of a presidential campaign.
Logged
zachman
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,096


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: November 18, 2004, 07:42:03 PM »

Rendell could be a very good candidate for the Dems, but I'm told that there are things in his personal life that would not withstand the scrutiny of a presidential campaign.
Rendell is hardly attractive and I just don't see him as a unique voice/biography.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,570


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: November 23, 2004, 07:15:55 PM »

Feingold voted against the PATRIOT Act and I think the Iraq War too.  We'll cut him up on national defense.  Not to mention values.

You mean he voted against allowing the President to detain US citizens indefinitely without a lawyer or charging them? What sort of values does he have?
Logged
phk
phknrocket1k
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,906


Political Matrix
E: 1.42, S: -1.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: November 25, 2004, 03:31:25 PM »

Logged
Democratic Hawk
LucysBeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,703
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: 2.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: November 27, 2004, 10:04:56 AM »

Interesting map, rocket. I'm thinking Bayh / Warner could be just the ticket.

I fear the worst come 2008 if the Democrats select a liberal, they need to selected proven centrist/moderates, who also appeal to moderate conservatives; while retaining support from liberals

Dave

Logged
Akno21
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,066
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: November 27, 2004, 10:09:49 AM »

The race will wind down to be between Hillary, Bayh, and Richardson. Whoever loses California between Hillary and Richardson will be out. If Richardson can sweep the entire Southwest (i.e. Texas and California) that's a lot of delegates that winning Mississippi and South Carolina won't help Bayh. Bayh will win almost every state that went Bush, except the Southwest, which Richardson will win. Washington and Wisconsin will be where Hillary needs to win, or else she will be out. If Richardson wins Florida, things could turn his way, but that's a late primary. Basically, will winning every Bush state except for the four Southwestern states + Florida (The Democratic vote there is minorities or New Yorkers, not Bayh territory) be enough for Bayh to win the nomination. Bayh could win Iowa, but Hillary will win New Hampshire, so I don't know how much of a snowball effect there will be. Richardson should get at least two, possibly three, states out of the Feb. 3 Primaries.
Logged
Ben.
Ben
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,249


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: November 28, 2004, 05:30:17 AM »

The race will wind down to be between Hillary, Bayh, and Richardson. Whoever loses California between Hillary and Richardson will be out. If Richardson can sweep the entire Southwest (i.e. Texas and California) that's a lot of delegates that winning Mississippi and South Carolina won't help Bayh. Bayh will win almost every state that went Bush, except the Southwest, which Richardson will win. Washington and Wisconsin will be where Hillary needs to win, or else she will be out. If Richardson wins Florida, things could turn his way, but that's a late primary. Basically, will winning every Bush state except for the four Southwestern states + Florida (The Democratic vote there is minorities or New Yorkers, not Bayh territory) be enough for Bayh to win the nomination. Bayh could win Iowa, but Hillary will win New Hampshire, so I don't know how much of a snowball effect there will be. Richardson should get at least two, possibly three, states out of the Feb. 3 Primaries.

I don't think either Richardson or Clinton will even run.

Added to that thanks to the large contigent of independents in NH, Bayh would win it in a walk.

Your also assuming that the primary cycle is the same, when it proably won't be.

Added to all of this i don't think Warner will run, he'll go for the Senate in 2008, so i doubt he'll be Bayh's VP.

Bayh looks like he'll run, i think Feingold will and ontop of that possibly Edwards, Kerry, Dean and loads of others we can't think of right now, maybe Rendell as well. 
Logged
Akno21
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,066
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: November 28, 2004, 11:42:29 PM »

The race will wind down to be between Hillary, Bayh, and Richardson. Whoever loses California between Hillary and Richardson will be out. If Richardson can sweep the entire Southwest (i.e. Texas and California) that's a lot of delegates that winning Mississippi and South Carolina won't help Bayh. Bayh will win almost every state that went Bush, except the Southwest, which Richardson will win. Washington and Wisconsin will be where Hillary needs to win, or else she will be out. If Richardson wins Florida, things could turn his way, but that's a late primary. Basically, will winning every Bush state except for the four Southwestern states + Florida (The Democratic vote there is minorities or New Yorkers, not Bayh territory) be enough for Bayh to win the nomination. Bayh could win Iowa, but Hillary will win New Hampshire, so I don't know how much of a snowball effect there will be. Richardson should get at least two, possibly three, states out of the Feb. 3 Primaries.

I don't think either Richardson or Clinton will even run.

Added to that thanks to the large contigent of independents in NH, Bayh would win it in a walk.

Your also assuming that the primary cycle is the same, when it proably won't be.

Added to all of this i don't think Warner will run, he'll go for the Senate in 2008, so i doubt he'll be Bayh's VP.

Bayh looks like he'll run, i think Feingold will and ontop of that possibly Edwards, Kerry, Dean and loads of others we can't think of right now, maybe Rendell as well. 

You probably know the Warner situation better than I do, so I won't argue with that.

Richardson had pointed to running on several occasions, and I don't think you can count Hillary out. I think it is very likely that at the end of it all, the primary map may look much like the electoral map with a few exceptions, with Bayh being Bush and Fiengold/Hillary being Kerry.

Does Rendell have health problems? Also, I heard someone say his voice is messed up, that would make it nearly impossible for him to win, if it's true.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.231 seconds with 14 queries.