Which current politician represents you and how would they do if they ran in 08.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Ralph Nader, Barbara Boxer, and Russ Feingold.  the first two obviously won't stand a chance if they run in 2008.  as for Feingold, had he not had his second divorce, he could have made it to the presidency.  as it is, not one of them will make it. 

which leaves my second choice -Evan Bayh- as my only viable option at this point. 
 

What about Warner?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Also, this happened only roughly 120 years ago, Grover Cleveland actually got married in the White House (the only president to do so) and had his child there too!

Not only that, but it was common knowledge at the time that he had a kid out of wedlock.

The woman he married while President was 21, and he had been her guardian since she was 11. He was 49 at the time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grover_Cleveland

[Frodo]

Ralph Nader, Barbara Boxer, and Russ Feingold.  the first two obviously won't stand a chance if they run in 2008.  as for Feingold, had he not had his second divorce, he could have made it to the presidency.  as it is, not one of them will make it. 

which leaves my second choice -Evan Bayh- as my only viable option at this point. 
 

What about Warner?

after having seen John Edwards being criticized throughout the 2004 campaign as being too inexperienced to lead the country in such turbulent times as we now live in after 9/11, especially given his single term stint in the Senate, i have little reason to believe Mark Warner will fare any better. as far as ideology, he is probably little different from Evan Bayh, but when it comes to determining whom i want to have win the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008, he simply doesn't cut it, as a single term governor of a southern state.  he will be seen as a provincial completely out of his league when dealing with world crises.  i think Evan Bayh fits the needed requirements much better than Mark Warner ever would. 

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Ralph Nader, Barbara Boxer, and Russ Feingold.  the first two obviously won't stand a chance if they run in 2008.  as for Feingold, had he not had his second divorce, he could have made it to the presidency.  as it is, not one of them will make it. 

which leaves my second choice -Evan Bayh- as my only viable option at this point. 
 

What about Warner?

after having seen John Edwards being criticized throughout the 2004 campaign as being too inexperienced to lead the country in such turbulent times as we now live in after 9/11, especially given his single term stint in the Senate, i have little reason to believe Mark Warner will fare any better. as far as ideology, he is probably little different from Evan Bayh, but when it comes to determining whom i want to have win the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008, he simply doesn't cut it, as a single term governor of a southern state.  he will be seen as a provincial completely out of his league when dealing with world crises.  i think Evan Bayh fits the needed requirements much better than Mark Warner ever would. 

He'll be more experienced than a 1 term governor elected in 2004. His running for President wouldn't interfere with his job as governor.  Maybe he should think of something to do that would make him seem more experienced with foreign policy.

What about Schweitzer? He knows Arabic and has spent quite a bit of time in the middle east. Wouldn't that be good, a white Christian who understands that area pretty well?

[Ebowed]

Um, California is the biggest state...

So? She's beaten everyone's 1 state total by at least a million votes, except Kerry 2004 in CA.

That statistic doesn't mean anything.  She's from a state with what, 30 million people or something.  Of course she's gonna get lots of votes, that's what you do when you're from a big state.  If someone had won in North Dakota with 57% of the vote, who would care?  Exactly.  It's no different in California.  The amount of votes she can get in her homestate is no reflection of how a radical like her would do nationally.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

That statistic doesn't mean anything.  She's from a state with what, 30 million people or something.  Of course she's gonna get lots of votes, that's what you do when you're from a big state.  If someone had won in North Dakota with 57% of the vote, who would care?  Exactly.  It's no different in California.  The amount of votes she can get in her homestate is no reflection of how a radical like her would do nationally.

In CA, she beat Kerry, Arnold, Davis, Wilson, Gore, Clinton, Feinstein, and so on, and all but Kerry by at least 1 million votes. Kerry only beat Bush by 10 points, but she beat Jones by 20, despite that Bush is a wingnut, and she, and not Kerry, is the most liberal Senator.

And these things don't just scale down. I got 100% of the vote in an election once, but it wasn't Senator from California with 6.95 milliion votes.

[Ebowed]

That statistic doesn't mean anything.  She's from a state with what, 30 million people or something.  Of course she's gonna get lots of votes, that's what you do when you're from a big state.  If someone had won in North Dakota with 57% of the vote, who would care?  Exactly.  It's no different in California.  The amount of votes she can get in her homestate is no reflection of how a radical like her would do nationally.

In CA, she beat Kerry, Arnold, Davis, Wilson, Gore, Clinton, Feinstein, and so on, and all but Kerry by at least 1 million votes. Kerry only beat Bush by 10 points, but she beat Jones by 20, despite that Bush is a wingnut, and she, and not Kerry, is the most liberal Senator.

And these things don't just scale down. I got 100% of the vote in an election once, but it wasn't Senator from California with 6.95 milliion votes.

Sure they scale down.  Her ability to win in her homestate has nothing to do with her ability to win anything more than those 6.95 million votes locked up in California.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Sure they scale down.  Her ability to win in her homestate has nothing to do with her ability to win anything more than those 6.95 million votes locked up in California.

How are these Arnold and Bush voters "locked up" by Boxer?

[Ebowed]

Sure they scale down.  Her ability to win in her homestate has nothing to do with her ability to win anything more than those 6.95 million votes locked up in California.

How are these Arnold and Bush voters "locked up" by Boxer?

I think you have confused local politics quite severely with national politics.  Boxer got 57%; how much did Kerry get, something like 54% (wild guess)?  That leaves 3%.  Ooh, big gains that Boxer made with the Nader voters, huh?

Quit acting like Boxer getting the most votes for a Senate race means anything.  What if the largest state were Republican leaning and the winning Senator-elect won the most votes in history?  Would you be touting that fact?  No, because it shouldn't matter.  California's a big state, naturally lots of votes will be present.   If you seem to be thinking that Boxer has tapped some big base of Republican voters and would do well nationally, you're terribly mistaken.

In regards to Arnold, maybe it didn't occur to you that Arnold isn't exactly conservative.  He's pro-abortion and pro-gay rights.  That sort of thing plays well in California.

[2952-0-0]

See my sig. However given recent developments I would back Bayh.

[skybridge]

Ralph Nader, Barbara Boxer, and Russ Feingold.  the first two obviously won't stand a chance if they run in 2008.  as for Feingold, had he not had his second divorce, he could have made it to the presidency.  as it is, not one of them will make it. 

which leaves my second choice -Evan Bayh- as my only viable option at this point. 
 

Wow, somebody who thinks just like I do! Sorry, I forgot about Boxer.

Ralph Nader, Barbara Boxer, and Russ Feingold.  the first two obviously won't stand a chance if they run in 2008.  as for Feingold, had he not had his second divorce, he could have made it to the presidency.  as it is, not one of them will make it. 

which leaves my second choice -Evan Bayh- as my only viable option at this point. 
 

What about Warner?

after having seen John Edwards being criticized throughout the 2004 campaign as being too inexperienced to lead the country in such turbulent times as we now live in after 9/11, especially given his single term stint in the Senate, i have little reason to believe Mark Warner will fare any better. as far as ideology, he is probably little different from Evan Bayh, but when it comes to determining whom i want to have win the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008, he simply doesn't cut it, as a single term governor of a southern state.  he will be seen as a provincial completely out of his league when dealing with world crises.  i think Evan Bayh fits the needed requirements much better than Mark Warner ever would. 

Incredible, someone who thinks like me again! But go ahead and say it: Mark Warner is an uncharismatic sheep who would reward the GOP for bullying him into self-defeat.

[Joe Biden 2020]

I would say Fmr. Sen. David Boren (D-OK).  He retired from the US Senate in 1994 when Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) took over his seat.  He would do pretty well amongst moderate Democrats, but I don't think he wants to give up his seat right now.  He is the President of the University of Oklahoma right now and has been for several years.

[Joe Biden 2020]

Of current politicians, Rep. Frank Lucas (R-CD3-OK).  He is in Northwest Oklahoma.  I don't think he has any intentions of running for President, but if he were to run for Senate or Governor in the future, he would do quite well.

[opebo]

Is there a politician currently holding office who is a passionate advocate for legalization of prostitution and drugs?

Fortunately not.  You have to wonder about even the possibility of your views becoming popular when not a single elected official agrees with you.

I have never claimed that the mob would adopt my views.  Though there are a few countries in the world that have tolerated individual freedom for a while.  The US obviously not being one of them.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

How are these Arnold and Bush voters "locked up" by Boxer?

I think you have confused local politics quite severely with national politics.  Boxer got 57%; how much did Kerry get, something like 54% (wild guess)?  That leaves 3%.  Ooh, big gains that Boxer made with the Nader voters, huh?

Quit acting like Boxer getting the most votes for a Senate race means anything.  What if the largest state were Republican leaning and the winning Senator-elect won the most votes in history?  Would you be touting that fact?  No, because it shouldn't matter.  California's a big state, naturally lots of votes will be present.   If you seem to be thinking that Boxer has tapped some big base of Republican voters and would do well nationally, you're terribly mistaken.

In regards to Arnold, maybe it didn't occur to you that Arnold isn't exactly conservative.  He's pro-abortion and pro-gay rights.  That sort of thing plays well in California.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nader wasn't on the ballot in CA. Jones ran 7-8 points lower than Bush. Boxer won a few Bush counties.

As for Arnold, he's pretty conservative on economic issues. While the Republican governor of Alabama was trying to raise taxes, and the Republican controlled NYS Senate unamiously voted to raise taxes by $10 billion a year, and California was running a massive deficit, Arnold decided to cut taxes.

[ian]

Technically, Byron Dorgan's probably my closest match ideologically, but I support Gephardt for the presidency again.
I think Gephart, against a generic Republican, could pull 53%.  Dorgan could pull 50% even maybe.  He is just a tad dull.

[Jake]

Sadly Ashcroft will not run in '08

[No more McShame]

John Kyl would make a fine president, but I don't see him running in 2008.  Maybe if no promienent Republicans address the immigration issue.

[Inverted Things]

Give me Russ Feingold, and I'll vote Democratic rather than Green. All the other Democrats with a chance are a bunch of Republican-lites.

[Smash255]

Feingold & he could win  (even with the divorce)