Russell Feingold...

[skybridge]

I admire him for being the one Senator to oppose the PATRIOT ACT. I also like that he refuses pay raises and that he's Jewish. His Jewishness might actually not be much of a problem as long as the Republicans don't nominate another born-again Christian. Rove's strategy for 2004 was to get 4 million evangelicals to vote for Bush who stayed home in 2000--and those voters who aren't likely to vote for Feingold in the first place would stay home again. Even if they don't, these people tend to be strongly pro-Israel (they need the country to survive for Jesus to return or something) and thus can't logically opppose Feingold for being Jewish. Besides, nobody made a big deal about Kerry's Catholicism.

Like I said in another thread, if the Democrats were a stronger party they could sell a lot of strengths properly. However, don't overestimate debating skills. Kerry was generally considered the winner (even if slightly) of the debates and Bush still beat him in the election--and Kerry is a Northeastern intellectual too.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

And radical social views are exactly what the Democrats need to distance themselves from.

No, it is not a good idea to abandon our base.

No, the Democrat base is the lower-middle-class, the working poor, and the inner city.  Economic issues should form the core of the Democrat strategy.

See those megachurches filled with factory workers just barely keeping their heads above water because of braindead GOP economics?  THAT'S where the Democrats should be going for votes.

Feingold would be a nice candidate, and I doubt his jewishness hurts that much, since most anti-Semites would already be staunch Republican voters.

Is that why the Republicans are unwavering supporters of Israel?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

No, the Democrat base is the lower-middle-class, the working poor, and the inner city.  Economic issues should form the core of the Democrat strategy.

See those megachurches filled with factory workers just barely keeping their heads above water because of braindead GOP economics?  THAT'S where the Democrats should be going for votes.

Great to see you back

[minionofmidas]

And radical social views are exactly what the Democrats need to distance themselves from.

No, it is not a good idea to abandon our base.

No, the Democrat base is the lower-middle-class, the working poor, and the inner city.  Economic issues should form the core of the Democrat strategy.

See those megachurches filled with factory workers just barely keeping their heads above water because of braindead GOP economics?  THAT'S where the Democrats should be going for votes.

Feingold would be a nice candidate, and I doubt his jewishness hurts that much, since most anti-Semites would already be staunch Republican voters.

Is that why the Republicans are unwavering supporters of Israel?

Great to see you back.

I don't think there are many staunch anti-Semites left in the US, so even if they are mostly Republican voters (those of them who vote) they wouldn't be enough to influence the Republican party's policies.
Nor influence the outcome of a presidential election unless it were VERY VERY VERY close anyways.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

And radical social views are exactly what the Democrats need to distance themselves from.

No, it is not a good idea to abandon our base.

No, the Democrat base is the lower-middle-class, the working poor, and the inner city.  Economic issues should form the core of the Democrat strategy.

See those megachurches filled with factory workers just barely keeping their heads above water because of braindead GOP economics?  THAT'S where the Democrats should be going for votes.

Feingold would be a nice candidate, and I doubt his jewishness hurts that much, since most anti-Semites would already be staunch Republican voters.

Is that why the Republicans are unwavering supporters of Israel?

Great to see you back.

I don't think there are many staunch anti-Semites left in the US, so even if they are mostly Republican voters (those of them who vote) they wouldn't be enough to influence the Republican party's policies.
Nor influence the outcome of a presidential election unless it were VERY VERY VERY close anyways.

As late as the 1980s, it might have been an issue.  But I don't think it would be today.  A Jewish candidate with Feingold's looks and charisma and Joe Lieberman's social views would have no problem getting votes from much of "Red State America."

[Keystone Phil]

I am a strong supporter of Russ Feingold for the Democratic Party's nomination.

Same here. Santorum vs. Feingold would probably be better than Santorum vs. Clinton!

[opebo]

And radical social views are exactly what the Democrats need to distance themselves from.

No, it is not a good idea to abandon our base.

No, the Democrat base is the lower-middle-class, the working poor, and the inner city.  Economic issues should form the core of the Democrat strategy.

See those megachurches filled with factory workers just barely keeping their heads above water because of braindead GOP economics?  THAT'S where the Democrats should be going for votes.

Feingold would be a nice candidate, and I doubt his jewishness hurts that much, since most anti-Semites would already be staunch Republican voters.

Is that why the Republicans are unwavering supporters of Israel?

No, I never saw any mega-churches like that.  All the ones I've heard of are full of the exurban Republican upper-middle class, not factory workers.

As for Isreal - giving someone military aid and inviting him to join your country club are very different things.

[Moooooo]

Feingold would keep all the Kerry states, but Im not sure how he would play out in Ohio and other swing states.  Doesnt Florida have a large jewish population?  If so he could proably do well there and I could see him doing well in Nevada.

[Notre Dame rules!]

His being Jewish doesn't hurt him, provided that he is an observant Jew.  If he is Jew in name only, then he loses the faith and values issue from the start.

His being a liberal (call him progressive if you want, but he's still a liberal) will hurt him in every Red state and will cost him the close Blue states.

As for the GOP being the home of anti-semitism, I suggest that you look at the Arab-American and African-American communities first.  Those two groups exibit the most virulent anti-semitism in the country today, and if my memory serves correctly, they both voted overwhelmingly Democrat in 2004.

[ian]

His being Jewish doesn't hurt him, provided that he is an observant Jew.  If he is Jew in name only, then he loses the faith and values issue from the start.

His being a liberal (call him progressive if you want, but he's still a liberal) will hurt him in every Red state and will cost him the close Blue states.

As for the GOP being the home of anti-semitism, I suggest that you look at the Arab-American and African-American communities first.  Those two groups exibit the most virulent anti-semitism in the country today, and if my memory serves correctly, they both voted overwhelmingly Democrat in 2004.

No Arab-American or African-American I've known has ever said or had thoughts that were even relatively anti-Semetic about myself.  All the people--and trust me, there are a lot in rural Arkansas--that have ever said anything even remotely anti-Semetic to me have been white and Protestant.  Don't misenterpret that to say that all white Protestants are anti-Semetic, because most arent, but all that have confronted me in that manner were, in fact, white Protestants.

[opebo]

His being Jewish doesn't hurt him, provided that he is an observant Jew.  If he is Jew in name only, then he loses the faith and values issue from the start.

His being a liberal (call him progressive if you want, but he's still a liberal) will hurt him in every Red state and will cost him the close Blue states.

As for the GOP being the home of anti-semitism, I suggest that you look at the Arab-American and African-American communities first.  Those two groups exibit the most virulent anti-semitism in the country today, and if my memory serves correctly, they both voted overwhelmingly Democrat in 2004.

Kerry was a liberal.  Feingold would definitely win every state Kerry won, and possibly add a few:


Feingold/Bayh         - 289
Santorum/Coleman - 249

[Keystone Phil]

His being Jewish doesn't hurt him, provided that he is an observant Jew.  If he is Jew in name only, then he loses the faith and values issue from the start.

His being a liberal (call him progressive if you want, but he's still a liberal) will hurt him in every Red state and will cost him the close Blue states.

As for the GOP being the home of anti-semitism, I suggest that you look at the Arab-American and African-American communities first.  Those two groups exibit the most virulent anti-semitism in the country today, and if my memory serves correctly, they both voted overwhelmingly Democrat in 2004.

Kerry was a liberal.  Feingold would definitely win every state Kerry won, and possibly add a few:


Feingold/Bayh         - 289
Santorum/Coleman - 249

Feingold could not take PA or OH against Santorum (or any other serious candidates that the GOP puts up.)

[AuH2O]

Feingold is a ~45% type candidate maximum, possibly dipping into the low 40s (i.e. landslide)

[opebo]

Feingold is a ~45% type candidate maximum, possibly dipping into the low 40s (i.e. landslide)

Nah, Kerry's 48% is very, very solid Democrat.

[Moooooo]

Feingold is a ~45% type candidate maximum, possibly dipping into the low 40s (i.e. landslide)

I agree somewhat.  I see Feingold either doing really good or extremley bad, nowhere in between. Wedge/Social-issues are just to important to the American people right now.  Running someone with Feingold's liberterian-like social views would probably be bad, real bad.  However, if he could somehow divert the campaign away from his social views and make the voters focus on his economic populism he could do very well.  He voted against NAFTA and GATT.  He is currently proposing a piece of legislation, "The Buy American  Act", which would sit very well with most Americans.  Plus, he's a great debater and fairly charismatic.  Maybe a little arrogant, but I like that.

[AuH2O]

Maybe Feingold works out, but I'll gladly take my odds with about 30 Republicans over him. He's not really that Presidential, so his reform cred isn't really enough in my opinion.

Kerry's 48%-- admittedly ~1% more than I thought he could pull, though I thought Nader would do a little  better-- was not solid Democrat at all. A lot of it was anti-Bush sentiment that is no longer relevant once Bush is out of the picture.

I mean, Feingold is a guy that could make a run at losing 50 states. Or he could win. To me that's not a smart risk, because if he loses he could drag down the party. At least Kerry held the line somewhat.

I don't think some people realize what a real Republican candidate could do to a crappy Democrat. Yes, 1984 or 1972 could happen again, don't doubt that for an instant. You can make a case that we're in another Gilded Age, ala the late 19th century, but I don't buy it.

[Moooooo]

I agree.  The risk just isnt worth the reward.  Hes on my radar screen as a possible candidate, but definitley not one of my absolute favorites.

Mark Warner
Evan Bayh
Brad Henry
Phil Bredesen

They are all on my short list of candidates I want to run and would consider supporting in the primary. Pretty much any Southern or Midwestern governor.  Im done with Senators.  Bayh is the exception.  I know you think he is weak, but were just gonna' have to agree to disagree on that one. 

[minionofmidas]

Maybe Feingold works out, but I'll gladly take my odds with about 30 Republicans over him. He's not really that Presidential, so his reform cred isn't really enough in my opinion.

Kerry's 48%-- admittedly ~1% more than I thought he could pull, though I thought Nader would do a little  better-- was not solid Democrat at all. A lot of it was anti-Bush sentiment that is no longer relevant once Bush is out of the picture.

I mean, Feingold is a guy that could make a run at losing 50 states. Or he could win. To me that's not a smart risk, because if he loses he could drag down the party. At least Kerry held the line somewhat.

I don't think some people realize what a real Republican candidate could do to a crappy Democrat. Yes, 1984 or 1972 could happen again, don't doubt that for an instant. You can make a case that we're in another Gilded Age, ala the late 19th century, but I don't buy it.

True. Though I think another 1936 is slightly more likely -
basically all it takes is a moderate-but-no-Zell Miller Democrat who also happens to be pro life vs a moderate-but-no-Lincoln Chafee Republican who also happens to be pro choice.
I'd predict a Dem PV landslide on a low vote total in that scenario, not sure how the EV would map out.
Not that either scenario is that very likely ... but both are distinctly possible.

[opebo]

Maybe Feingold works out, but I'll gladly take my odds with about 30 Republicans over him. He's not really that Presidential, so his reform cred isn't really enough in my opinion.

Kerry's 48%-- admittedly ~1% more than I thought he could pull, though I thought Nader would do a little  better-- was not solid Democrat at all. A lot of it was anti-Bush sentiment that is no longer relevant once Bush is out of the picture.

I mean, Feingold is a guy that could make a run at losing 50 states. Or he could win. To me that's not a smart risk, because if he loses he could drag down the party. At least Kerry held the line somewhat.

I don't think some people realize what a real Republican candidate could do to a crappy Democrat. Yes, 1984 or 1972 could happen again, don't doubt that for an instant. You can make a case that we're in another Gilded Age, ala the late 19th century, but I don't buy it.

True. Though I think another 1936 is slightly more likely -
basically all it takes is a moderate-but-no-Zell Miller Democrat who also happens to be pro life vs a moderate-but-no-Lincoln Chafee Republican who also happens to be pro choice.
I'd predict a Dem PV landslide on a low vote total in that scenario, not sure how the EV would map out.
Not that either scenario is that very likely ... but both are distinctly possible.

No, the primary process in both parties makes that nearly impossible.

[2952-0-0]

Feingold would be an excellent VP candidate:

Jewish, and Jewish VP running mates traditionally do well in FL

liberal, should keep otherwise Nader voters in line

populist, plays well in in WI, IA, MI, OH, etc

rural WI loves him

he won't hurt the ticket that much as a liberal

he's a maverick.

A popular governor should complement that.



Oh, and NixonNow,
[size=-2]ROWLAND/KEYES 08!!![/SIZE]

[skybridge]

Jewish, and Jewish VP running mates traditionally do well in FL

Who was there other than Joe Lieberman so far?

[Rob]

Jewish, and Jewish VP running mates traditionally do well in FL

Who was there other than Joe Lieberman so far?

Lieberman was the only one, unless you count Barry Goldwater who was part Jewish.

[skybridge]

Jewish, and Jewish VP running mates traditionally do well in FL

Who was there other than Joe Lieberman so far?

Lieberman was the only one, unless you count Barry Goldwater who was part Jewish.

But Goldwater was a presidential candidate. Bob was arguing that Feingold would make a good VP.

Kerry has Jewish ancestors, Dean married a Jewish woman who raises their kids Jewish and Clark supposedly descends from a line of rabbis too.

[Democratic Hawk]

The thing with Feingold is that I don't have any confidence in him bringing in "red" states to the Democratic fold

Dave

[Moooooo]

The thing with Feingold is that I don't have any confidence in him bringing in "red" states to the Democratic fold

Dave

I agree.  Unless, he can divert the campaign away from his libertarian-like social views and focus on his economic populism.  He was on the front lines of voting against NAFTA and GATT.  Also, he is currently proposing a piece of legislation, "The Buy American Act", that would make the federal government buy certain American products rather than foreign ones.  I think all of that would sit very well with the American people.