Which of these 2016 Democratic Candidates do you support?

[Bo]

Well, Evan Bayh had more Senate and Executive experience than Obama as well, so why was Biden chosen then?  JFK appealed to Irish Catholics primarily but I'm sure Italians also voted for him.  I actually think Kerry lost votes because people thought he was a French-speaking liberal European socialist, and not a true American Christian Texan like Bush.  Dubya's ethnicity of a Wasp helped him secure more votes from the Christian Conservative voters.

No, Biden was primarily picked to counter claims that Obama was inexperienced. I clearly remember the 2008 campaign, so I know. This is the same reason for why Cheney was picked in 2000. McCain would not have won PA no matter who he picked for VP. Obama won the state by double-digits and Santorum was voted out in a landslide in 2006. Bush wasn't Catholic, so what's your point about him winning some Latinos? You're making a lot of assumptions about how blue-collar Catholics vote. They didn't vote for Biden in the 2008 Democratic primaries. Why would they necessarily vote for Cuomo?

Catholics don't subscribe to identity politics, as evidenced in 2004. No one cared what Kerry's ethnicity or religion was. I didn't hear anyone complaining that Kerry wasn't Irish or Italian, or about the fact that his dad was Jewish and his mom was French. Kerry did worse than Gore among Catholics despite the fact that he was Catholic and Gore was not. JFK was also a spoiled rich kid, maybe even to a greater extent than Kerry was. The reason he did a better job appealing to Catholics than Kerry did was because Catholics were excited to elect the first Catholic President, but since electing Kerry would have been nothing new, his religion wasn't a big deal among Catholics. And again, if candidates are going to talk about race, religion, and ethnicity too much, then they risk dividing and alienating many voters. I know appealing to certain ethnic and religious groups is important, but not all ethnic and religious groups subscribe to identity politics nowadays, and thus that is not the best way to appeal to them.

Obama picked Biden over Bayh because picking Bayh would have meant losing a Senate seat (which would have made it harder for Obama to push through his agenda) and also because the Democratic base was less happy with Bayh because he was more conservative than Biden.    I agree that Kerry lost votes due to perceptions of him being an elitist, but this just strengthens my point that identity politics don't work as well with Catholics as it used to. Also, this proves my point that I doubt Cuomo will do significantly better than Obama did with Catholics relative to the national average if the Democrats nominate him.

Again you seem to be grouping Italian-Catholics with Irish-Catholics.  There was an Irish President, but there has not been an Italian president.  There may also someday be an HIspanic-Catholic president.  Kerry was neither Irish or Italian.  Bush won because he won Christian Conservatives, so identity politics helped him in that instance.  Also, Dodd or Richardson could have been picked over Biden as well.

I seriously doubt any Irish-American or Italian-American voters voted against Kerry because he wasn't Irish or Italian. This isn't 1900. An Irish or Italian candidate with the same record, personality, and campaign as Kerry would have still lost by about the same margin to Bush. I never said anything about Evangelicals, so that's irrelevant. Chris Dodd was a bad VP pick because he was too closely tied to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Richardson was considered a bad VP pick because he had some corruption allegations and also because Obama's campaign feared that having a black and a Latino on the same ticket might be too much for many voters.

[Хahar 🤔]

Kerry was neither Irish or Italian.

Basically nobody knew this. He's a Catholic from Boston named Kerry. It's reasonable to assume he's Irish.

[sentinel]

Did you ever think that Obama just liked Biden better than Bayh? I bet someone looked at it as analytically as you like Axelrod or Plouffe, but in the end they were both safe choices.

I like Feingold and Cuomo for 2016 as of right now (I voted for Cuomo on this thread).

I think Sen. Alexi Giannoulias would be good looking enough to run.

[milhouse24]

Kerry was neither Irish or Italian.

Basically nobody knew this. He's a Catholic from Boston named Kerry. It's reasonable to assume he's Irish.

Kerry downplayed it a lot, but most people in Boston knew he was not irish after the globe reported about his father and grandfather's name change.  Kerry downplayed being catholic as well.  It made him seem like he wasn't proud of being himself, a rich european prep schooler.

[milhouse24]

Well, Evan Bayh had more Senate and Executive experience than Obama as well, so why was Biden chosen then?  JFK appealed to Irish Catholics primarily but I'm sure Italians also voted for him.  I actually think Kerry lost votes because people thought he was a French-speaking liberal European socialist, and not a true American Christian Texan like Bush.  Dubya's ethnicity of a Wasp helped him secure more votes from the Christian Conservative voters.

No, Biden was primarily picked to counter claims that Obama was inexperienced. I clearly remember the 2008 campaign, so I know. This is the same reason for why Cheney was picked in 2000. McCain would not have won PA no matter who he picked for VP. Obama won the state by double-digits and Santorum was voted out in a landslide in 2006. Bush wasn't Catholic, so what's your point about him winning some Latinos? You're making a lot of assumptions about how blue-collar Catholics vote. They didn't vote for Biden in the 2008 Democratic primaries. Why would they necessarily vote for Cuomo?

Catholics don't subscribe to identity politics, as evidenced in 2004. No one cared what Kerry's ethnicity or religion was. I didn't hear anyone complaining that Kerry wasn't Irish or Italian, or about the fact that his dad was Jewish and his mom was French. Kerry did worse than Gore among Catholics despite the fact that he was Catholic and Gore was not. JFK was also a spoiled rich kid, maybe even to a greater extent than Kerry was. The reason he did a better job appealing to Catholics than Kerry did was because Catholics were excited to elect the first Catholic President, but since electing Kerry would have been nothing new, his religion wasn't a big deal among Catholics. And again, if candidates are going to talk about race, religion, and ethnicity too much, then they risk dividing and alienating many voters. I know appealing to certain ethnic and religious groups is important, but not all ethnic and religious groups subscribe to identity politics nowadays, and thus that is not the best way to appeal to them.

Obama picked Biden over Bayh because picking Bayh would have meant losing a Senate seat (which would have made it harder for Obama to push through his agenda) and also because the Democratic base was less happy with Bayh because he was more conservative than Biden.    I agree that Kerry lost votes due to perceptions of him being an elitist, but this just strengthens my point that identity politics don't work as well with Catholics as it used to. Also, this proves my point that I doubt Cuomo will do significantly better than Obama did with Catholics relative to the national average if the Democrats nominate him.

Again you seem to be grouping Italian-Catholics with Irish-Catholics.  There was an Irish President, but there has not been an Italian president.  There may also someday be an HIspanic-Catholic president.  Kerry was neither Irish or Italian.  Bush won because he won Christian Conservatives, so identity politics helped him in that instance.  Also, Dodd or Richardson could have been picked over Biden as well.

I seriously doubt any Irish-American or Italian-American voters voted against Kerry because he wasn't Irish or Italian. This isn't 1900. An Irish or Italian candidate with the same record, personality, and campaign as Kerry would have still lost by about the same margin to Bush. I never said anything about Evangelicals, so that's irrelevant. Chris Dodd was a bad VP pick because he was too closely tied to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Richardson was considered a bad VP pick because he had some corruption allegations and also because Obama's campaign feared that having a black and a Latino on the same ticket might be too much for many voters.

Again, I will state that Italian-Americans will vote for a moderate Italian candidate like Cuomo.  How do you explain how Giuliani won the NYC mayorship when the city is completely Democratic?  How did Bloomberg win the mayorship?  Surely neither of their ethnicities swayed voters across the political aisle.

[Bo]

Well, Evan Bayh had more Senate and Executive experience than Obama as well, so why was Biden chosen then?  JFK appealed to Irish Catholics primarily but I'm sure Italians also voted for him.  I actually think Kerry lost votes because people thought he was a French-speaking liberal European socialist, and not a true American Christian Texan like Bush.  Dubya's ethnicity of a Wasp helped him secure more votes from the Christian Conservative voters.

No, Biden was primarily picked to counter claims that Obama was inexperienced. I clearly remember the 2008 campaign, so I know. This is the same reason for why Cheney was picked in 2000. McCain would not have won PA no matter who he picked for VP. Obama won the state by double-digits and Santorum was voted out in a landslide in 2006. Bush wasn't Catholic, so what's your point about him winning some Latinos? You're making a lot of assumptions about how blue-collar Catholics vote. They didn't vote for Biden in the 2008 Democratic primaries. Why would they necessarily vote for Cuomo?

Catholics don't subscribe to identity politics, as evidenced in 2004. No one cared what Kerry's ethnicity or religion was. I didn't hear anyone complaining that Kerry wasn't Irish or Italian, or about the fact that his dad was Jewish and his mom was French. Kerry did worse than Gore among Catholics despite the fact that he was Catholic and Gore was not. JFK was also a spoiled rich kid, maybe even to a greater extent than Kerry was. The reason he did a better job appealing to Catholics than Kerry did was because Catholics were excited to elect the first Catholic President, but since electing Kerry would have been nothing new, his religion wasn't a big deal among Catholics. And again, if candidates are going to talk about race, religion, and ethnicity too much, then they risk dividing and alienating many voters. I know appealing to certain ethnic and religious groups is important, but not all ethnic and religious groups subscribe to identity politics nowadays, and thus that is not the best way to appeal to them.

Obama picked Biden over Bayh because picking Bayh would have meant losing a Senate seat (which would have made it harder for Obama to push through his agenda) and also because the Democratic base was less happy with Bayh because he was more conservative than Biden.    I agree that Kerry lost votes due to perceptions of him being an elitist, but this just strengthens my point that identity politics don't work as well with Catholics as it used to. Also, this proves my point that I doubt Cuomo will do significantly better than Obama did with Catholics relative to the national average if the Democrats nominate him.

Again you seem to be grouping Italian-Catholics with Irish-Catholics.  There was an Irish President, but there has not been an Italian president.  There may also someday be an HIspanic-Catholic president.  Kerry was neither Irish or Italian.  Bush won because he won Christian Conservatives, so identity politics helped him in that instance.  Also, Dodd or Richardson could have been picked over Biden as well.

I seriously doubt any Irish-American or Italian-American voters voted against Kerry because he wasn't Irish or Italian. This isn't 1900. An Irish or Italian candidate with the same record, personality, and campaign as Kerry would have still lost by about the same margin to Bush. I never said anything about Evangelicals, so that's irrelevant. Chris Dodd was a bad VP pick because he was too closely tied to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Richardson was considered a bad VP pick because he had some corruption allegations and also because Obama's campaign feared that having a black and a Latino on the same ticket might be too much for many voters.

Again, I will state that Italian-Americans will vote for a moderate Italian candidate like Cuomo.  How do you explain how Giuliani won the NYC mayorship when the city is completely Democratic?  How did Bloomberg win the mayorship?  Surely neither of their ethnicities swayed voters across the political aisle.

No, Italian-Americans will not necessarily vote for a moderate Italian candidate. They might if that candidate has good positions on the issues, but they won't vote for a candidate just because that candidate is Italian. NYC is only Democratic when it comes to Presidential and Congressional races. When local races (Mayor, etc.) are concerned, NYC is willing to elect Republican candidates if they have good platforms and run good campaigns. This is similar to how some states are solidly Democratic on the Presidential level but have no problem electing Republican candidates to local office if those candidates appeal to them. And NYC had Italian-American and Jewish-American mayors before Giuliani and Bloomberg came to power. Thus, electing an Italian or Jewish mayor wasn't a new thing and thus I doubt that the main reason Giuliani and Bloomberg won was due to their ethnicity. They won because they were good candidates and ran good campaigns, plus the Democrats might not have nominated the best candidates that they had.

[Bo]

Kerry was neither Irish or Italian.

Basically nobody knew this. He's a Catholic from Boston named Kerry. It's reasonable to assume he's Irish.

Kerry downplayed it a lot, but most people in Boston knew he was not irish after the globe reported about his father and grandfather's name change.  Kerry downplayed being catholic as well.  It made him seem like he wasn't proud of being himself, a rich european prep schooler.

Kerry still won MA in a landslide, though, so those revelations about his ethnicity didn't affect him there. Plus, I doubt the nationwide media covered this story that much, since they had better things to focus on (Iraq, etc.). And I doubt most voters really cared about Kerry downplaying his religion. Many Presidential candidates have downplayed their religion in recent years, including JFK. And Kerry wasn't the only spoiled rich kid running in 2004. Bush was also a spoiled rich kid who had everything handed to him, and unlike Kerry, Bush was also a draft dodger.

[milhouse24]

Kerry was neither Irish or Italian.

Basically nobody knew this. He's a Catholic from Boston named Kerry. It's reasonable to assume he's Irish.

Kerry downplayed it a lot, but most people in Boston knew he was not irish after the globe reported about his father and grandfather's name change.  Kerry downplayed being catholic as well.  It made him seem like he wasn't proud of being himself, a rich european prep schooler.

Kerry still won MA in a landslide, though, so those revelations about his ethnicity didn't affect him there. Plus, I doubt the nationwide media covered this story that much, since they had better things to focus on (Iraq, etc.). And I doubt most voters really cared about Kerry downplaying his religion. Many Presidential candidates have downplayed their religion in recent years, including JFK. And Kerry wasn't the only spoiled rich kid running in 2004. Bush was also a spoiled rich kid who had everything handed to him, and unlike Kerry, Bush was also a draft dodger.

I think Bush won because he created this Christian Texan American Military Personality, and played it up to the Evangelical crowd and rallied voters to his identity.  That is basic politics, creating a candidate that is a larger than life personality in a few short Buzz Words for Media and Voter consumption.  Politicians have now become Characters in a 30 second commercial or 1 hour debate.  IMAGE is everything in Politics and how you sell yourself.

[milhouse24]

Rudy was the first NYC republican since 1973, so while he was a great candidate, he might have won with some voters who chose were biased because of religion or Italian-heritage over the African-American Dinkens. 

Maybe NYC is now more Republican, but from personal and statistical experience it is not republican at any level.  Bloomberg won because he had strong support from Jewish voters who traditionally vote Democratic.  You should do some research as NYC is comprised of almost entirely minorities, Catholics, and Jewish people who traditionally vote Democrat.  It is more likely for the NYC mayor to be a minority religion than a White-Protestant.

[Bo]

Kerry was neither Irish or Italian.

Basically nobody knew this. He's a Catholic from Boston named Kerry. It's reasonable to assume he's Irish.

Kerry downplayed it a lot, but most people in Boston knew he was not irish after the globe reported about his father and grandfather's name change.  Kerry downplayed being catholic as well.  It made him seem like he wasn't proud of being himself, a rich european prep schooler.

Kerry still won MA in a landslide, though, so those revelations about his ethnicity didn't affect him there. Plus, I doubt the nationwide media covered this story that much, since they had better things to focus on (Iraq, etc.). And I doubt most voters really cared about Kerry downplaying his religion. Many Presidential candidates have downplayed their religion in recent years, including JFK. And Kerry wasn't the only spoiled rich kid running in 2004. Bush was also a spoiled rich kid who had everything handed to him, and unlike Kerry, Bush was also a draft dodger.

I think Bush won because he created this Christian Texan American Military Personality, and played it up to the Evangelical crowd and rallied voters to his identity.  That is basic politics, creating a candidate that is a larger than life personality in a few short Buzz Words for Media and Voter consumption.  Politicians have now become Characters in a 30 second commercial or 1 hour debate.  IMAGE is everything in Politics and how you sell yourself.

I agree that image matters a lot but I just wanted to point out that Bush was also a spoiled rich kid. Also, I just want to repeat my point that I seriously doubt Kerry lost a lot of votes due to his ethnicity. The mainstream media didn't really report the story about his ethnicity since they had better things to focus on.

[Bo]

Rudy was the first NYC republican since 1973, so while he was a great candidate, he might have won with some voters who chose were biased because of religion or Italian-heritage over the African-American Dinkens. 

Maybe NYC is now more Republican, but from personal and statistical experience it is not republican at any level.  Bloomberg won because he had strong support from Jewish voters who traditionally vote Democratic.  You should do some research as NYC is comprised of almost entirely minorities, Catholics, and Jewish people who traditionally vote Democrat.  It is more likely for the NYC mayor to be a minority religion than a White-Protestant.

Actually, Dinkins primarily lost because of his policies as Mayor, rather than due to Giuliani's ethnicity. Also, Bloomberg primarily won due to Giuliani's popularity and due to 9/11. I seriously doubt ethnicity played that much of a role in either Giuliani's or Bloomberg's victories. Maybe many people in NYC were just tired of 20 years of Democratic rule. And again, just because NYC votes Democratic for President and Congress doesn't mean that it is unwilling to elect Republicans to local offices. A lot of other areas are this way as well--some states in new England, some areas in California, etc. Presidential results and results for local offices don't always have to match or be identical.

[Mr.Phips]

Why is Tim Kaine on this list?  Do people realize that if Democrats do horribly in 2010, Kaine will likely be banished from Democratic party politics forever?  Who's next?  1993-1994 DNC Chair David Wilhelm for VP?

[Bo]

Why is Tim Kaine on this list?  Do people realize that if Democrats do horribly in 2010, Kaine will likely be banished from Democratic party politics forever?  Who's next?  1993-1994 DNC Chair David Wilhelm for VP?

I doubt that Kaine would be that negatively affected if Dems do poorly in 2010. Most Dems don't know who Kaine is. Even once they would know more about him, they'd cut him some slack since 2010 was bound to be a bad year for the Dems.

[milhouse24]

Rudy was the first NYC republican since 1973, so while he was a great candidate, he might have won with some voters who chose were biased because of religion or Italian-heritage over the African-American Dinkens. 

Maybe NYC is now more Republican, but from personal and statistical experience it is not republican at any level.  Bloomberg won because he had strong support from Jewish voters who traditionally vote Democratic.  You should do some research as NYC is comprised of almost entirely minorities, Catholics, and Jewish people who traditionally vote Democrat.  It is more likely for the NYC mayor to be a minority religion than a White-Protestant.

Actually, Dinkins primarily lost because of his policies as Mayor, rather than due to Giuliani's ethnicity. Also, Bloomberg primarily won due to Giuliani's popularity and due to 9/11. I seriously doubt ethnicity played that much of a role in either Giuliani's or Bloomberg's victories. Maybe many people in NYC were just tired of 20 years of Democratic rule. And again, just because NYC votes Democratic for President and Congress doesn't mean that it is unwilling to elect Republicans to local offices. A lot of other areas are this way as well--some states in new England, some areas in California, etc. Presidential results and results for local offices don't always have to match or be identical.

You're just making guesses and assumptions.  I'm going on statistical analysis on demographics as an instrument for viewing voting and population trends.  Just because you don't want to believe ethnicity plays a role in politics, doesn't make it not true.  Because we live in a democracy, the person who is able to appeal to the widest number of people will win, and this often involves, personality, religion, race, experience, regionally, etc. 

[Bo]

Rudy was the first NYC republican since 1973, so while he was a great candidate, he might have won with some voters who chose were biased because of religion or Italian-heritage over the African-American Dinkens. 

Maybe NYC is now more Republican, but from personal and statistical experience it is not republican at any level.  Bloomberg won because he had strong support from Jewish voters who traditionally vote Democratic.  You should do some research as NYC is comprised of almost entirely minorities, Catholics, and Jewish people who traditionally vote Democrat.  It is more likely for the NYC mayor to be a minority religion than a White-Protestant.

Actually, Dinkins primarily lost because of his policies as Mayor, rather than due to Giuliani's ethnicity. Also, Bloomberg primarily won due to Giuliani's popularity and due to 9/11. I seriously doubt ethnicity played that much of a role in either Giuliani's or Bloomberg's victories. Maybe many people in NYC were just tired of 20 years of Democratic rule. And again, just because NYC votes Democratic for President and Congress doesn't mean that it is unwilling to elect Republicans to local offices. A lot of other areas are this way as well--some states in new England, some areas in California, etc. Presidential results and results for local offices don't always have to match or be identical.

You're just making guesses and assumptions.  I'm going on statistical analysis on demographics as an instrument for viewing voting and population trends.  Just because you don't want to believe ethnicity plays a role in politics, doesn't make it not true.  Because we live in a democracy, the person who is able to appeal to the widest number of people will win, and this often involves, personality, religion, race, experience, regionally, etc. 

The reason that I'm making these assumptions is because I didn't see any clear evidence that Giualiani and Bloomberg won due to the Italian/Jewish vote and I also didn't see any evidence that their ethnicity was the main reason that many voters voted for Giuliani and Bloomberg. Unless you give me solid statistical data, then my assumptions aren't necessarily going to be wrong.

[milhouse24]

Rudy was the first NYC republican since 1973, so while he was a great candidate, he might have won with some voters who chose were biased because of religion or Italian-heritage over the African-American Dinkens. 

Maybe NYC is now more Republican, but from personal and statistical experience it is not republican at any level.  Bloomberg won because he had strong support from Jewish voters who traditionally vote Democratic.  You should do some research as NYC is comprised of almost entirely minorities, Catholics, and Jewish people who traditionally vote Democrat.  It is more likely for the NYC mayor to be a minority religion than a White-Protestant.

Actually, Dinkins primarily lost because of his policies as Mayor, rather than due to Giuliani's ethnicity. Also, Bloomberg primarily won due to Giuliani's popularity and due to 9/11. I seriously doubt ethnicity played that much of a role in either Giuliani's or Bloomberg's victories. Maybe many people in NYC were just tired of 20 years of Democratic rule. And again, just because NYC votes Democratic for President and Congress doesn't mean that it is unwilling to elect Republicans to local offices. A lot of other areas are this way as well--some states in new England, some areas in California, etc. Presidential results and results for local offices don't always have to match or be identical.

You're just making guesses and assumptions.  I'm going on statistical analysis on demographics as an instrument for viewing voting and population trends.  Just because you don't want to believe ethnicity plays a role in politics, doesn't make it not true.  Because we live in a democracy, the person who is able to appeal to the widest number of people will win, and this often involves, personality, religion, race, experience, regionally, etc. 

The reason that I'm making these assumptions is because I didn't see any clear evidence that Giualiani and Bloomberg won due to the Italian/Jewish vote and I also didn't see any evidence that their ethnicity was the main reason that many voters voted for Giuliani and Bloomberg. Unless you give me solid statistical data, then my assumptions aren't necessarily going to be wrong.

I think that the fact that they won proved that Italian voters and Jewish voters crossed party lines to vote for them.  If both were White Protestants, there may be other sets of data available.  There are many powerful political consultants that seek to sway voting groups to party candidates, you may not choose to believe this, but their job is make sure that Democrats hold on to the Union vote, the Jewish vote, the Catholic vote, the Black vote, etc.  There are no longer political machines, but politicans grasp at anything they can get for polling data.  Also, Ronald Reagan won over many Catholic Democratic voters, these were called Reagan Democrats.  "Reagan" had a father who was Irish-Catholic, and Reagan is a very popular Irish name.  It certainly helped him convince Irish voters to trust him and cross over.  For Kerry, perhaps he would have lost more if he had a different last name.

[Bo]

Rudy was the first NYC republican since 1973, so while he was a great candidate, he might have won with some voters who chose were biased because of religion or Italian-heritage over the African-American Dinkens. 

Maybe NYC is now more Republican, but from personal and statistical experience it is not republican at any level.  Bloomberg won because he had strong support from Jewish voters who traditionally vote Democratic.  You should do some research as NYC is comprised of almost entirely minorities, Catholics, and Jewish people who traditionally vote Democrat.  It is more likely for the NYC mayor to be a minority religion than a White-Protestant.

Actually, Dinkins primarily lost because of his policies as Mayor, rather than due to Giuliani's ethnicity. Also, Bloomberg primarily won due to Giuliani's popularity and due to 9/11. I seriously doubt ethnicity played that much of a role in either Giuliani's or Bloomberg's victories. Maybe many people in NYC were just tired of 20 years of Democratic rule. And again, just because NYC votes Democratic for President and Congress doesn't mean that it is unwilling to elect Republicans to local offices. A lot of other areas are this way as well--some states in new England, some areas in California, etc. Presidential results and results for local offices don't always have to match or be identical.

You're just making guesses and assumptions.  I'm going on statistical analysis on demographics as an instrument for viewing voting and population trends.  Just because you don't want to believe ethnicity plays a role in politics, doesn't make it not true.  Because we live in a democracy, the person who is able to appeal to the widest number of people will win, and this often involves, personality, religion, race, experience, regionally, etc. 

The reason that I'm making these assumptions is because I didn't see any clear evidence that Giualiani and Bloomberg won due to the Italian/Jewish vote and I also didn't see any evidence that their ethnicity was the main reason that many voters voted for Giuliani and Bloomberg. Unless you give me solid statistical data, then my assumptions aren't necessarily going to be wrong.

I think that the fact that they won proved that Italian voters and Jewish voters crossed party lines to vote for them.  If both were White Protestants, there may be other sets of data available.  There are many powerful political consultants that seek to sway voting groups to party candidates, you may not choose to believe this, but their job is make sure that Democrats hold on to the Union vote, the Jewish vote, the Catholic vote, the Black vote, etc.  There are no longer political machines, but politicans grasp at anything they can get for polling data.  Also, Ronald Reagan won over many Catholic Democratic voters, these were called Reagan Democrats.  "Reagan" had a father who was Irish-Catholic, and Reagan is a very popular Irish name.  It certainly helped him convince Irish voters to trust him and cross over.  For Kerry, perhaps he would have lost more if he had a different last name.

I know that many political consultants try to appeal to different ethnic and religious groups. However, just because Giuliani and Bloomberg won doesn't necessarily mean a lot of Italians and Jews who typically vote Democratic voted for them. Both of them could have won by doing much better among groups other than Italians and Jews than previous Republican candidates did.

[milhouse24]

I know that many political consultants try to appeal to different ethnic and religious groups. However, just because Giuliani and Bloomberg won doesn't necessarily mean a lot of Italians and Jews who typically vote Democratic voted for them.

Both of them could have won by doing much better among groups other than Italians and Jews than previous Republican candidates did.

Okay, lets say NYC is 40% Catholic and is 15% Jewish and 25% Black.  The White Protestant population is in the minority and the Italian-Catholic and Jewish groups have a lot of influence in the voting outcomes of the election, especially in a close election.  Lets say most White Protestants vote Republican, that still is less than half of the NYC population, so He would need to get votes from Blacks, Jews, Catholics, and Hispanics.  Thus, he wins the mayoral election.

[pragmatic liberal]

In 2016, I think the field will include Andrew Cuomo, Amy Klobuchar, Sheldon Whitehouse, and maybe Mark Warner. Brian Schweitzer may run, but despite his popularity with the netroots, he strikes me as an also-ran.

I think it'll come down to Cuomo vs. Klobuchar.

Obviously, it's really far too early to be forecasting any of this. So we can probably dig this thread out in six years and laugh at these predictions, including mine. For all we know, maybe Cuomo will self-destruct a la Spitzer. Maybe Klobuchar will unexpectedly lose reelection in 2012. Who knows?

[milhouse24]

In 2016, I think the field will include Andrew Cuomo, Amy Klobuchar, Sheldon Whitehouse, and maybe Mark Warner. Brian Schweitzer may run, but despite his popularity with the netroots, he strikes me as an also-ran.

I think it'll come down to Cuomo vs. Klobuchar.

Obviously, it's really far too early to be forecasting any of this. So we can probably dig this thread out in six years and laugh at these predictions, including mine. For all we know, maybe Cuomo will self-destruct a la Spitzer. Maybe Klobuchar will unexpectedly lose reelection in 2012. Who knows?

You mean Cuomo's wife would leave him and cheat on him? 
I think Hillary would run again.  Warner is running, Bayh is running.

[Bo]

In 2016, I think the field will include Andrew Cuomo, Amy Klobuchar, Sheldon Whitehouse, and maybe Mark Warner. Brian Schweitzer may run, but despite his popularity with the netroots, he strikes me as an also-ran.

I think it'll come down to Cuomo vs. Klobuchar.

Obviously, it's really far too early to be forecasting any of this. So we can probably dig this thread out in six years and laugh at these predictions, including mine. For all we know, maybe Cuomo will self-destruct a la Spitzer. Maybe Klobuchar will unexpectedly lose reelection in 2012. Who knows?

You mean Cuomo's wife would leave him and cheat on him? 
I think Hillary would run again.  Warner is running, Bayh is running.

I think he means Cuomo could get into any kind of scandal. And I doubt Warner and Bayh would run if Hillary runs. She'd have too much name recognition and fundraising connections for them to bother running if she runs.

[milhouse24]

In 2016, I think the field will include Andrew Cuomo, Amy Klobuchar, Sheldon Whitehouse, and maybe Mark Warner. Brian Schweitzer may run, but despite his popularity with the netroots, he strikes me as an also-ran.

I think it'll come down to Cuomo vs. Klobuchar.

Obviously, it's really far too early to be forecasting any of this. So we can probably dig this thread out in six years and laugh at these predictions, including mine. For all we know, maybe Cuomo will self-destruct a la Spitzer. Maybe Klobuchar will unexpectedly lose reelection in 2012. Who knows?

You mean Cuomo's wife would leave him and cheat on him? 
I think Hillary would run again.  Warner is running, Bayh is running.

I think he means Cuomo could get into any kind of scandal. And I doubt Warner and Bayh would run if Hillary runs. She'd have too much name recognition and fundraising connections for them to bother running if she runs.

Cuomo's wife did leave him and cheat on him, but she was a Kennedy. 
Bayh's a wimp, hopefully he'll grow some stones and run for president, because he badly wants to but no one seems to like him in that way.  He's sucking on Hillarys milk and is her boy toy whipping boy praying for the vp slot.
Warner will run, he's not afraid of Hillary, plus he's rich so it doesn't matter.

[Bo]

In 2016, I think the field will include Andrew Cuomo, Amy Klobuchar, Sheldon Whitehouse, and maybe Mark Warner. Brian Schweitzer may run, but despite his popularity with the netroots, he strikes me as an also-ran.

I think it'll come down to Cuomo vs. Klobuchar.

Obviously, it's really far too early to be forecasting any of this. So we can probably dig this thread out in six years and laugh at these predictions, including mine. For all we know, maybe Cuomo will self-destruct a la Spitzer. Maybe Klobuchar will unexpectedly lose reelection in 2012. Who knows?

You mean Cuomo's wife would leave him and cheat on him? 
I think Hillary would run again.  Warner is running, Bayh is running.

I think he means Cuomo could get into any kind of scandal. And I doubt Warner and Bayh would run if Hillary runs. She'd have too much name recognition and fundraising connections for them to bother running if she runs.

Cuomo's wife did leave him and cheat on him, but she was a Kennedy. 
Bayh's a wimp, hopefully he'll grow some stones and run for president, because he badly wants to but no one seems to like him in that way.  He's sucking on Hillarys milk and is her boy toy whipping boy praying for the vp slot.
Warner will run, he's not afraid of Hillary, plus he's rich so it doesn't matter.

I doubt Warner would want to run against Hillary's campaign machine. It would be a futile effort and he would really fail to distunish himself in any way. Besides, I doubt Warner has Presidential ambitions at this point (he might have had some before 2008, but that time is gone now) and I doubt he'd want to subject himself to the stresses of running a very long campaign.

[milhouse24]

In 2016, I think the field will include Andrew Cuomo, Amy Klobuchar, Sheldon Whitehouse, and maybe Mark Warner. Brian Schweitzer may run, but despite his popularity with the netroots, he strikes me as an also-ran.

I think it'll come down to Cuomo vs. Klobuchar.

Obviously, it's really far too early to be forecasting any of this. So we can probably dig this thread out in six years and laugh at these predictions, including mine. For all we know, maybe Cuomo will self-destruct a la Spitzer. Maybe Klobuchar will unexpectedly lose reelection in 2012. Who knows?

You mean Cuomo's wife would leave him and cheat on him? 
I think Hillary would run again.  Warner is running, Bayh is running.

I think he means Cuomo could get into any kind of scandal. And I doubt Warner and Bayh would run if Hillary runs. She'd have too much name recognition and fundraising connections for them to bother running if she runs.

Cuomo's wife did leave him and cheat on him, but she was a Kennedy. 
Bayh's a wimp, hopefully he'll grow some stones and run for president, because he badly wants to but no one seems to like him in that way.  He's sucking on Hillarys milk and is her boy toy whipping boy praying for the vp slot.
Warner will run, he's not afraid of Hillary, plus he's rich so it doesn't matter.

I doubt Warner would want to run against Hillary's campaign machine. It would be a futile effort and he would really fail to distunish himself in any way. Besides, I doubt Warner has Presidential ambitions at this point (he might have had some before 2008, but that time is gone now) and I doubt he'd want to subject himself to the stresses of running a very long campaign.

wow, that's a lot of guessing about warner.  Unlike you, most people aren't afraid of Hillary including Obama and Biden and they beat her, so sometimes people get lucky.  Again, Warner's rich so why does he care about wasting time or money, he's got the rest of his life to be a senator but realistically only 1 chance before he gets too old to win the presidency.

[Bo]

In 2016, I think the field will include Andrew Cuomo, Amy Klobuchar, Sheldon Whitehouse, and maybe Mark Warner. Brian Schweitzer may run, but despite his popularity with the netroots, he strikes me as an also-ran.

I think it'll come down to Cuomo vs. Klobuchar.

Obviously, it's really far too early to be forecasting any of this. So we can probably dig this thread out in six years and laugh at these predictions, including mine. For all we know, maybe Cuomo will self-destruct a la Spitzer. Maybe Klobuchar will unexpectedly lose reelection in 2012. Who knows?

You mean Cuomo's wife would leave him and cheat on him? 
I think Hillary would run again.  Warner is running, Bayh is running.

I think he means Cuomo could get into any kind of scandal. And I doubt Warner and Bayh would run if Hillary runs. She'd have too much name recognition and fundraising connections for them to bother running if she runs.

Cuomo's wife did leave him and cheat on him, but she was a Kennedy. 
Bayh's a wimp, hopefully he'll grow some stones and run for president, because he badly wants to but no one seems to like him in that way.  He's sucking on Hillarys milk and is her boy toy whipping boy praying for the vp slot.
Warner will run, he's not afraid of Hillary, plus he's rich so it doesn't matter.

I doubt Warner would want to run against Hillary's campaign machine. It would be a futile effort and he would really fail to distunish himself in any way. Besides, I doubt Warner has Presidential ambitions at this point (he might have had some before 2008, but that time is gone now) and I doubt he'd want to subject himself to the stresses of running a very long campaign.

wow, that's a lot of guessing about warner.  Unlike you, most people aren't afraid of Hillary including Obama and Biden and they beat her, so sometimes people get lucky.  Again, Warner's rich so why does he care about wasting time or money, he's got the rest of his life to be a senator but realistically only 1 chance before he gets too old to win the presidency.

I'm not afraid of Hillary. I am a realist, though. Obama only narrowly beat her in 2008, and that was an election where change and Iraq (both of which favored Obama) were huge issues. If Obama is reelected and Hillary decides to run, then things are probably going well in the country and thus Democrats are going to want someone with experience and ties to the current administration. Who's better to fit the bill than Hillary? No one. If the issues and atmosphere in 2016 favor Hillary, then I doubt Warner would run. He sure didn't in 2008, when many Democrats wanted a fresh face (and Warner fit the bill). Warner would have no appealing message like Obama did and unlike Obama, he would be unable to compete with Hillary's massive fundraising. Besides, Hillary would get full support from the Obama administration if she decides to run. I'm not sure Warner even wants to be President and even if one is rich, running for President is still a very stressful job and not many people are up for it. If Hillary doesn't run in 2016, then Warner could definitely run, though. I just doubt he'd want to compete against Hillary.