Russell Feingold...

[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.

[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.

[minionofmidas]

Why does everyone think economic populists are so electorally powerful? Weird Al? Gore tried it and lost, Kerry tried it and lost. They actually tend to lose most places, and Feingold won for a variety of reasons of which protectionism was minor.

One of the reasons is that...Republicans drew attention to their "social" deficits...of course that would happen to Russ too.

[minionofmidas]

At least his bot was nice enough to write you back.

[minionofmidas]

At least his bot was nice enough to write you back.

He must have a slow bot since I wrote him about a week ago...

It's got a lot of work to do. And it's got pains in the diods on its left side.

[minionofmidas]

The difficult thing to get your head around is this: To win, a Democrat needs to win enough votes in the Center AND hold the Liberal base together.
Thence a clear-cut Liberal won't win and neither will a clear-cut Moderate ... unless the Republicans do worse. Which they're close to.