Russell Feingold...

[Moooooo]

U.S. Senator Russell Feingold


10.  Charisma
Charisma - A rare personal quality attributed to leaders who arouse fervent popular devotion and enthusiasm.
Russ Feingold has something that Al Gore and John Kerry combined can't get close to.  Charisma.  It is a trait reminiscent of Bill Clinton that will draw in even the most conservative republicans.  John Edwards had it and he could get the quietest crowd in an uproar with his speeches.  Although right-of-center people may not vote for Senator Feingold solely because of this, they will give him a second look and be more willing to listen to what he has to say.

9.  Wealth
Wealth is a broader category than it implies.  Not only is Senator Feingold one of the least wealthiest senators there are, he refuses to take any pay raise while in office.  When a raise is voted for, he always vote a strong 'no', and returns his raise to the treasury.  Senator Kerry was looked at as an elitist by many outsiders because of his (and Teresa's) substantial wealth.  Senator Feingold also demands that the rest of the United States have the same quality of healthcare as congress.  Having a low income allows the poor republican demographic to feel as if they can relate to him and vote for someone who understands their problems.

8.  Intelligence
This isn't to say that Gore or Kerry weren't intelligent.  Russ Feingold, however, is a Rhodes Scholar, like President Clinton, and is known for his excellent understanding of Foreign Policy.  We need someone who is knowledgeable in all areas of life so s/he is more likely to relate with the voters.

7.  Debate Abilities
I have posted Russ' 2004 Senate campaign debates with Tim Michels for you to view (in the media section).  Because Russ has such a strong intellect, he is able to quickly counter anything said about him without hesitation.  He is confident and proactive in his debating style.  Many voters choose their candidate based solely on the debates.  A successful debate, as seen in the 2004 presidential race, can result in much positive publicity, and better yet, much negative publicity for the loser.

6.  Doesn't Vote In Line With The Party
Russ Feingold is a true independent.  Because he votes what he feels will help the country the most, he has never had the tag of a 'partisan hack'.  People want someone who is a liberal, moderate or conservative, not someone who is a Democrat or Republican.  John McCain has has tremendous success because he doesn't vote in line with the Republican party.  Russ Feingold doesn't 'work with' the Republican party and he doesn't 'work with' the Democrats.  He simply works with everyone to do what is best for the country.

5.  Consistency
The biggest problem John Kerry had in the 2004 election was that he was portrayed as inconsistent.  Whether it was true or not is irrelevant.  The fact is that most voters want someone who they can count on not to change their minds.  George W. Bush is a great example of someone who is viewed by the general public as consistent in his decisions.  Again, it is irrelevant whether or not this is fact.  Russ Feingold has always been consistent for the simple reason that he reads all of the bills he votes on.  The Patriot Act, for example, recieved votes from every other Senator except Feingold.  This is attributed to the fact that most Democrats in the Senate did not read the bill.  Had they read it, their votes would have been consistent with their prior ones (affecting civil liberties).  Love him or hate him, no one could ever charge Russ Feingold with being a 'flip-flop'.

4.  Believable
Being believable does not mean convincing people of something untrue.  Most presidential candidates, republicans and democrats, tell what they believe is true during campaigns.  Most citizens, however, do not believe a lot of what comes from their mouths.  Much of that has to with broken promises when presidents face a tough congress or when a president is given information during a campaign that turns out to be inaccurate (such as the size of tax cuts promised).  Russ has proved to the Wisconsin voters, time and again, that he will stick to his promises, and he makes tough ones to hold (such as his promise to only spend $1.00 per eligible voter during his campaign).

3.  Honesty and Integrity
Being believable has to do with honesty, especially when you have a voting record.  Perhaps the most important individual quality in winning any election is honesty.  Democrats tend to like John McCain not because he is a moderate, but because he is bluntly honest and has integrity.  These qualities have nothing to do with your side of the aisle.  Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader are both great examples or two people who have these qualities.  Although they are on the extreme left and the extreme right, they have no hidden agendas, they are upfront with the public and both adhere to their own strict moral code.  Feingold's passage of the McCain-Feingold bill show voters that he wants to clear the corruption up in our government and thus giving him the titles of both honest and having integrity.

2.  Progressive
Everyone agrees that the Democratic Party has to go in a new direction.  The election of Howard Dean to the chair of the DNC is an excellent example of that.  Russ has never wavered in his stances and he has always been considered a progressive democrat.  He want other democrats to stand up for what they believe instead of slowly moving right to accommodate the republicans who are becoming more and more conservative every year.

1.  The Broadest Appeal
This is something that deserves to take up much more than one spot on this list.  Everything mentioned above results in the most important aspect in any presidential candidate.  In order to have the broadest appeal possible, you cannot be missing any of the above qualities.  Russ will be able to get votes in the South and get the moderates to be convinced in his ability to lead.  Russ has proven himself to draw votes from all sides of the spectrum.  In 2004 he drew in 6 percent more votes than John Kerry in the Wisconsin Senate race.  Though some may disagree, I believe the most important quality a democrat can admire in his or her candidate is the ability to get elected.  Luckily with Senator Feingold, we have both an electable candidate and one who will vote in line with our values.



http://www.russforpresident.com/index.html

[Moooooo]

I just wanted to get your thoughts on how Russ Feingold would do in a general election.  Im starting to think that if he wasnt Jewish, he may be a really really really strong candidate.  Its sad that his being jewish is probably his biggest problem. (I dont mean problem, but you know that I mean.)

[Moooooo]

I already have posted at draftruss.org urging members there to join in the discussion on this forum.

Thats cool.  Im actually really starting to warm up to Russ.  Before I actually read up on the guy I assumed he was some Loony Lefty, but now that I have done my reasearch I have found out....

*He didnt oppose the Patriot Act completley.  He actually agreed with 95% of it, but there were some parts that were just plain fascist.
*He is now working in a bipartisan group to draft the "Safe Act."  Which is essentially the Patriot Act without the fascist parts.
*He is a hardcore economic populist and was on the front lines of the fight against NAFTA and GATT.
*His vote against the Patriot Act was actually the key to his victory in his 2004 Senate race.
*Rural Wisconsin seems to like the guy.

and a ton of other things....

[Moooooo]

You are right on all counts excpet #1.  Russ Feingold is an extreme leftist, and would get slaughtered in the 2004 Red States.  I love the guy, but his social views are way, way radical.

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

I see what you mean.  He is a little further left on social issues than I like my candidates to be, but on economic issues he is on point.  His vote against NAFTA and GATT could be winning issues.

[Moooooo]

I agree with Bob.  I wouldnt mind him on the ticket as VP because he would lock up Wisconsin and a couple other states that are close by.

[Moooooo]

*Rural Wisconsin seems to live the guy.

I think rural Wisconsin favored Michels, who was a very weak candidate.  Eastern rural Wisconsin most certainly favored Michels.

Michals won the following counties:
* Calumet - Easter Rural
* Dodge - Southeastern Suburban/Rural
* Florence - Northern Rural
* Fond du Lac - Eastern Semi-rural
* Green Lake - Central Rural
* Jefferson - Southern Rural
* Marquette - Central Rural
* Oconto - Northeastern Rural
Ozaukee - Milwuakee Suburbs
* Shawano - Northeastern Rural
* Sheboygan - Northeastern Rural
* Vilas - Northern Rural
* Walworth - Southeastern Suburban/Rural
Washington - Milwaukee Suburbs
Waukesha - Milwaukee Suburbs
* Waupaca - Central Rural
* Waushara - Central Rural

14 out of the 17 counties Michals won were rural or semi-rural.

How many rural counties did Feingold win?

[Moooooo]

For some reason i assumed Michels would win the primary.
Darrow can sell used cars but he had a hard time selling himself as the "right russ".

I dont see how Feingold could lose to anyone.  From what Ive read and heard the guy seems like he really cares about Wisconsin and delivers all he can to that state.  Im assuming some of his races are close, only because his Republican challengers try to play the Wedge Issues card, big time. I was just buzzing through the debates between Michels and Feingold.  All I have to say is "My god!"  From what I saw Feingold made Michels look like a complete idiot.  That man can debate.

[Moooooo]

I read somewhere that Feingold gets close to defeat because he refuses PAC money, so the GOP always spends a ton more than him.

Thats true.  In his 2004 campaign he promised to only spend 1 dollar per registered voter.

[Moooooo]

For some reason i assumed Michels would win the primary.
Darrow can sell used cars but he had a hard time selling himself as the "right russ".

I dont see how Feingold could lose to anyone. 

1998 - Feingold - 51%
           Neumann - 49%

Ive seen the numbers.  I just cant see why.  From what Ive read he does alot for the state.  Im assuming it has alot to do with his promising not to spend millions upon millions on campaigns.  That and his stances on some social issues are a very easy target for the GOP.

[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.

[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.

[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. 

[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.

[Moooooo]

Wedge issues.  If a real life populist was to somehow slip through the cracks and win the Democratic nomination.  Im talking a real pro-life, anti-gay marriage, pro-gun rights etc.  democrat.  It would make life really hard for the GOP.   (assuming no strong 3rd party contenders jump in)

[Moooooo]

Wedge issues.  If a real life populist was to somehow slip through the cracks and win the Democratic nomination.  Im talking a real pro-life, anti-gay marriage, pro-gun rights etc.  democrat.  It would lights out for the GOP.   (assuming no strong 3rd party contenders jump in)

Maybe, but who would care?  We'd just have another stinking Religious Party ruling over us.  There's really no point in emulating the other side - they've got the intolerant vote sewn up.

I agree.  I was just trying to make a point that wedge issues are killing the democraitc party.  Abortion to me is a non-issue.  Roe vs Wade will never be overturned, period.  Gay Marriage, who cares?   Gun rights, we are suppose to be the party of civil liberties, but our leadership does all it can to shoot down the second amendment.  You know what I mean?

[Moooooo]

The Democrats who are calling for a moderate are those who want at least a snowball's chance in hell of getting their candidate elected. 

However, I encourage you to go as liberal as you dare.  That will not only guarantee a GOP landslide in the Presidential race, but boost our margins in the House and Senate also.

On this, we can agree.

Liberals are a no-no for any presidential run! The Democrats need to select a moderate to avoid a polarising election in which a conservative Republican has a sure-start advantage, simply, because the facts are simple: Conservatives (34%) outnumber Liberals (21%) by 3 to 2 and Democrats need to pay heed to that

Feingold would make a better VP nominee who can work the 'blue' states, while a bona fide moderate nominee can take the battle to the the marginal , and indeed, the not-so marginal, 'red' states

As long the Democrats go for liberals, they will be fighting a defensive election on their turf, in which the Republicans in 2004 scored a couple of goals: Iowa and New Mexico. It's a trend that bodes ill for the party

Dave

Gotta' agree with Hawk and Notre Dame on this one.  After much thought, I have come to the conclusion that Feingold is a potential VP at best.  At the top of the ticket he will do more harm then good.  Put him in the VP slot to keep the base happy and maybe he can lock up states like Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, and Iowa early.

[Moooooo]

I dont care to much for gay marriage, but adoption is a different thing.  Id rather see a child in a loving home with two parents of the same sex than in a broke down orphanage or foster home.  As long as they DONT push their lifestyle on the child.

[Moooooo]

As long as they DONT push their lifestyle on the child.

Garbage!  We put up with heterosexuals....

You can't argue with nature.