If Warner gets the nomination, what red states are in play?

[Notre Dame rules!]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And Feingold is an arrogant jewish version of John Kerry w/ an even more liberal voting record that will get torn to shreds.  No, wait, Russ Feingold will be the Howard Dean of 2008.  The far left will love him and jump on his bandwagon, but he will finish a dissapointing 3rd or 4th in Iowa and be forced out of the race.  All the extreme liberals will pout and cry.  Vow to stay home on general election day.  Call foul on the DLC for pushing their candidate through the primaries.  Booo HOoo Hooo.

By the way...

Edwards and Warner are not comparable.
-Warner is a Governor.  Edwards was a Senator
-Warner has a decent list of accomplishments.  Edwards did not.
-Warner is well respected and popular in his home state.  Edwards was not.
-Warner is term limited.  Edwards took the VP slot because his Senate seat was gone.

And the list goes on... 

That's a very accurate assessment.

[Notre Dame rules!]

And Feingold is an arrogant jewish version of John Kerry w/ an even more liberal voting record that will get torn to shreds.  No, wait, Russ Feingold will be the Howard Dean of 2008.  The far left will love him and jump on his bandwagon, but he will finish a dissapointing 3rd or 4th in Iowa and be forced out of the race.  All the extreme liberals will pout and cry.  Vow to stay home on general election day.  Call foul on the DLC for pushing their candidate through the primaries.  Booo HOoo Hooo.

Very true.  I'm increasingly of the opinion that Feingold is unelectable. But if he doesn't get the nomination, the far left will throw a fit and vote Green.

Democrats don't win elections by mindlessly bashing their base. People like Lieberman do the Democratic party more harm than good. Look at the Republican party. Do you see them trashing their conservative base? Do you see them talking about how they have to run a liberal? No. That's why they win.

Have you paid no attention to such Republicans as Linc Chafee,  Christie Todd-Whitman, Chris Sheays?

[Akno21]

And Feingold is an arrogant jewish version of John Kerry w/ an even more liberal voting record that will get torn to shreds.  No, wait, Russ Feingold will be the Howard Dean of 2008.  The far left will love him and jump on his bandwagon, but he will finish a dissapointing 3rd or 4th in Iowa and be forced out of the race.  All the extreme liberals will pout and cry.  Vow to stay home on general election day.  Call foul on the DLC for pushing their candidate through the primaries.  Booo HOoo Hooo.

That comparison is dreadfully inaccurate. Feingold has charisma, which Kerry does not. Feingold, even if he is not one, can play the role of the populist. Feingold will do better than Dean in Iowa. First of all, I highly doubt there is video of him bashing the Iowa caucus. Second, he is geographically closer to Iowa, and is a midwesterner like them. It really depends who runs in Iowa, but Bayh and a moderate governor are the only ones who I think could beat him, and it's unclear how many will run.

Don't get me wrong, I don't support Feingold, mainly because he is a liberal senator. But he's better than Kerry, and would support him over another leftist Senator, like Hillary.

I do agree with your statement starting with "All the extreme...". The left-wing needs to do something constructive and not destructive, quit complaining and fix the system if you think it's crooked.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Democrats don't win elections by mindlessly bashing their base. People like Lieberman do the Democratic party more harm than good. Look at the Republican party. Do you see them trashing their conservative base? Do you see them talking about how they have to run a liberal? No. That's why they win.

Have you paid no attention to such Republicans as Linc Chafee,  Christie Todd-Whitman, Chris Sheays?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They're a dying breed. Whitman doesn't hold an elected position. Shays and Chaffee have name/incumbency advantages, and that doesn't stop them from being very vulnerable in 2006. Also, I don't see them bashing conservatives non-stop. 

Chaffee still voted for Rice, Gonzales, and the bankruptcy bill, so he's still definitely a Republican. He's not giving ammo to the anti-right-wing there.

[Rob]

How hard is this to understand:

If you spend all of your time bashing liberal Democrats when right-wing Republicans run this country, you're basically supporting right-wing Republicans.

I think you don't give a sh**t that they control this country, and so you have no useful advice for the Democratic party, since we don't take advice from people who want us to lose.

I want left wing Democrats to lose, definitely. I want sane, moderate Democrats- Warner, Bayh, Bredesen- to win. They won't get a shot at the nomination with extremists like you in the party.

People like you have ruined the Democratic Party. So, once again: become a Green. Why deny yourself ideological purity?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I want left wing Democrats to lose, definitely. I want sane, moderate Democrats- Warner, Bayh, Bredesen- to win. They won't get a shot at the nomination with extremists like you in the party.

People like you have ruined the Democratic Party. So, once again: become a Green. Why deny yourself ideological purity?

Liberals actualyl like Warner. Bayh has some major strikes against him, the Iraq war, and the Bankruptcy bill. Who know's maybe he'll still end up the nominee, but those will hurt him.  I don't know much about Bredesen.

Anyways, if you think this is about how right/left a given candidate is, you're mistaken.

Dean is more conservative than Kerry and more popular with the base.
Reid is more conservative than Daschle and more popular with the base.

[Moooooo]

George Lakoff has written some good books on framing.

I agree that framing is a big part of winning elections, but certian issues cannot be "framed" into winning issues.  Gay marriage aka "Equal Rights for All Americans"... Partial birth abortions aka "Womens reproductive rights." Gun-Controll aka "Gun Safety" etc...  People are dumb, but not that dumb.  They can see right through the bullsh**t.

If the Democrats can get back to their populist roots. They will be winning elections in no time.  Check out your buddy Brian Schweitzer.  Read up on his campaign.  He gets it.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

George Lakoff has written some good books on framing.

I agree that framing is a big part of winning elections, but certian issues cannot be "framed" into winning issues.  Gay marriage aka "Equal Rights for All Americans"... Partial birth abortions aka "Womens reproductive rights." Gun-Controll aka "Gun Safety" etc...  People are dumb, but not that dumb.  They can see right through the bullsh**t.

If the Democrats can get back to their populist roots. They will be winning elections in no time.  Check out your buddy Brian Schweitzer.  Read up on his campaign.  He gets it.

Who ran for President who was for gay marriage ro partial birth abortions? You seem to totally be mis-understanding what I'm staying. Schweitzer is opposed to gay marriage, but opposes the anti-gay marriage constituional amendment, just like Kerry, and just like Dean.

[Moooooo]

Who ran for President who was for gay marriage ro partial birth abortions? You seem to totally be mis-understanding what I'm staying. Schweitzer is opposed to gay marriage, but opposes the anti-gay marriage constituional amendment, just like Kerry, and just like Dean.

I was using examples to explain that re-framing our issues alone will not magically place a Democrat in the White House as you implied earlier.  The voters will see right through the BS.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Who ran for President who was for gay marriage ro partial birth abortions? You seem to totally be mis-understanding what I'm staying. Schweitzer is opposed to gay marriage, but opposes the anti-gay marriage constituional amendment, just like Kerry, and just like Dean.

I was using examples to explain that re-framing our issues alone is not going to magically place a Democrat in the White House as you implied earlier.  The voters will see right through the BS.

Reframing does not mean lying about ones positions. It means about marketing ones positions successfully. The Democrats often use language that helps the Republicans. You're somehow implying that Democratic ideas are unwinnable. That's bullsh**t. 60% of America supports single payer health care (too left-wing a position for Kerry or Dean).  67% support both eliminating the SS cap of 90k, and cutting SS benefits to the rich. You'll find similar support on the environment, and many other issues.

You're nuts if you think that oppsing the Iraq war and that bankruptcy bill makes you some sort of liberal extremist. Plenty of conservatives oppose both of those.

[Moooooo]

Reframing does not mean lying about ones positions. It means about marketing ones positions successfully. The Democrats often use language that helps the Republicans. You're somehow implying that Democratic ideas are unwinnable. That's bullsh**t. 60% of America supports single payer health care (too left-wing a position for Kerry or Dean).  67% support both eliminating the SS cap of 90k, and cutting SS benefits to the rich. You'll find similar support on the environment, and many other issues.

You're nuts if you think that oppsing the Iraq war and that bankruptcy bill makes you some sort of liberal extremist. Plenty of conservatives oppose both of those.

WTF are you talking about?  Seriously.  I named a couple issues that CANNOT be framed to our advantage and you respond with, 60% of Americans support a single payer health care system.

Ive read Lakoff's book (most of it.).  I understand that framing issues to your advtange is a key to victory.  I never said we should lie or abandon all Democratic principles.  Im saying maybe we should totally abandon or re-think some of our issues.

[Smash255]

Who ran for President who was for gay marriage ro partial birth abortions? You seem to totally be mis-understanding what I'm staying. Schweitzer is opposed to gay marriage, but opposes the anti-gay marriage constituional amendment, just like Kerry, and just like Dean.

I was using examples to explain that re-framing our issues alone will not magically place a Democrat in the White House as you implied earlier.  The voters will see right through the BS.

What we have to do is re-gain the backbone the Democratic Party once had.  The reason we have lost the White House really has nothing to do with Socially liberal positions.  It has to do with the labeling the GOP has done, & been effective with.  We try to run away from an issue instead of tackling it straight on.  MOST Americans don't agree with either side on every issue, and will vote for those who don't agree with them on certain issues  One thing we have done as a party that has hurt us is by not defending the positions we take on certain issues, not fighting back on the attacks from the GOP we get on certain issues.  This makes the party appear as weak in the eyes of the public.  The public will vote for someone  even if they disagree with that person on certain issues as long as they show themselves to be strong & principled (polls show most Americans are pro-choice, and vast majority) Pro-Gun Control as well.  Yet the GOP has won because they have been stronger willed in the positions they take.  2000 for example with the whole Gun Control issue the GOP effectivley used the scare tatic "the Dems will take your Guns Away" we didn't fight  back on that issue,  fight on that issue with something like "we don't want to take your guns away, we just want top make sure guns don't get into the wrong hands' (take a strong principal with that argument) you probably win it

[MHS2002]

Now, I'm not a Democrat, but since when was the "base" of the party those on the left end of the spectrum? The more your party panders to your "base," you lose your true base: Union workers, blue-collar workers, and other hard-working Americans. It's no coincidence Kerry lost West Virginia by double digits, and he lost Ohio.  Please, please, abandon your base. Your "base" will thank you for it, and so will I. I like winning elections.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Now, I'm not a Democrat, but since when was the "base" of the party those on the left end of the spectrum? The more your party panders to your "base," you lose your true base: Union workers, blue-collar workers, and other hard-working Americans. It's no coincidence Kerry lost West Virginia by double digits, and he lost Ohio.  Please, please, abandon your base. Your "base" will thank you for it, and so will I. I like winning elections.

So opposing the bankruptcy bill is pandering to your base, since the banktupcy bill can't hurt hard-working blue collar union workers? Thanks for missing the point.

Those hard working blue collar union workers are going to have to pay higher taxes in the future to pay for war in Iraq.  Maybe they even lost a son there.

[Smash255]

Now, I'm not a Democrat, but since when was the "base" of the party those on the left end of the spectrum? The more your party panders to your "base," you lose your true base: Union workers, blue-collar workers, and other hard-working Americans. It's no coincidence Kerry lost West Virginia by double digits, and he lost Ohio.  Please, please, abandon your base. Your "base" will thank you for it, and so will I. I like winning elections.

Well both sides are guilty on this one.  Republicans have lost much of their suburban base because of their social views.  Long Island, Westchester NY, Bucks & Mont Co in PA, Fairfax in VA use to be very Republican areas, even just 15 years ago (less in the case of Fairfax)  & now has gone into pretty much safe Democratic hands

[Moooooo]

So opposing the bankruptcy bill is pandering to your base, since the banktupcy bill can't hurt hard-working blue collar union workers? Thanks for missing the point.

Thats a winning issue supported by most if not all democrats.  We're talking about issues that only satisfy the extreme liberal base.  Gay Marriage, Partial Birth Abortion, Gun Control, Pussy Foreign Policy, etc...

[Smash255]

So opposing the bankruptcy bill is pandering to your base, since the banktupcy bill can't hurt hard-working blue collar union workers? Thanks for missing the point.

Thats a winning issue supported by most if not all democrats.  We're talking about issues that only satisfy the extreme liberal base.  Gay Marriage, Partial Birth Abortion, Gun Control, Pussy Foreign Policy, etc...

How many Democrats are actually adocating gay-marriage.  THE PBA was a losing issue because the Dems let the GOP frame the argument (most of the opositoin to the bill was because of the mother's health exemption which wasn't into the bill) but when comfronted & talking about it, the Dems backed away & didn't really fight the issue through the health exemption.  Gun Control as I said in te post earlier, they lost the issue because they let the GOP frame the issue & the argument into "Take Your Guns Away" instead of "Keeping Guns out of the hands of Those who Shouldn't Handle them" (criminals, people with histories of violence, mental health issues).  The main problem the Dems have on some of these social issues, is not the issue itself, but the way the issue is framed.  Instead of Framing the issues themselves (or at least having both sides frame an issue) the issue is framed the way the Republicans want to frame it)  & the Dems make a big mistake by not fighting back on it.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

So opposing the bankruptcy bill is pandering to your base, since the banktupcy bill can't hurt hard-working blue collar union workers? Thanks for missing the point.

Thats a winning issue supported by most if not all democrats.  We're talking about issues that only satisfy the extreme liberal base.  Gay Marriage, Partial Birth Abortion, Gun Control, Pussy Foreign Policy, etc...

Ummm, you're totally wrong. Many Democrats including Bayh and Biden voted for the bill.

But let's humor you and talk about the issues that I was not discussing. Bob was calling me a left-wing extremist for opposing the bankruptcy bill and the Iraq war and not these issues.

Gay marriage - Dean and Kerry both opposed gay marriages, but did not support a constitutional amendment that would result in MA marriage licenses being revoked

Partial Birth Abortion - the ban made no exceptions for if the woman's life was in danger, and it's quite rarre anyways.

Gun control - Neither Dean nor Kerry called for new gun laws. They called for enforcement of existing laws. Dean has an A rating from the NRA, and Kerry has been going hunting for a long time.

Pussy Foreign Policy - Bush ignored the 8/06/01 memo. Both Dean and Kerry supported going after Al Qaeda in Afganistan. Really, any President, Dean, Kerry, Gore, Clinton, whoever, would have favored going after Al Qaeda in a war on terrorism. Dean favors taking a hard line against Saudi Arabia, which is where most of the hijackers and OBL came from. Dean and Kerry favor securing nukes in the former USSR. Kerry said he's not opposed to pre-emptive attacks if there's an actual threat.

[Rob]

Bob was calling me a left-wing extremist for opposing the bankruptcy bill and the Iraq war and not these issues.

WTF? Where did I say anything like that?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Bob was calling me a left-wing extremist for opposing the bankruptcy bill and the Iraq war and not these issues.

WTF? Where did I say anything like that?

Bayh voted for both of those. Do you support any Democrats who oppose those?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

You didn't answer my question. Where did I call you a left wing extremist for opposing those? Those issues were not raised at all.

If you're going to try to argue, at least do so logically.

Ok, you're right that you didn't say that. I was talking about Bayh  voting for those in a different thread, and somehow I assumed you meant that moving to the right meant being pro-Iraq war and bankruptcy bill.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

.  Long Island, Westchester NY, Bucks & Mont Co in PA, Fairfax in VA use to be very Republican areas, even just 15 years ago (less in the case of Fairfax)  & now has gone into pretty much safe Democratic hands

Only Westchester and Montgomery were "safe" for Kerry. Most of the others were pretty close... and changes in most of the above areas are more to do with general demographic trends in suburbia rather than the GOP losing their base.

[Moooooo]

Ummm, you're totally wrong. Many Democrats including Bayh and Biden voted for the bill.

I know who voted for the bill.  When did I say Bayh and Biden did not vote for the Bankruptcy bill?

[MHS2002]

Now, I'm not a Democrat, but since when was the "base" of the party those on the left end of the spectrum? The more your party panders to your "base," you lose your true base: Union workers, blue-collar workers, and other hard-working Americans. It's no coincidence Kerry lost West Virginia by double digits, and he lost Ohio.  Please, please, abandon your base. Your "base" will thank you for it, and so will I. I like winning elections.

So opposing the bankruptcy bill is pandering to your base, since the banktupcy bill can't hurt hard-working blue collar union workers? Thanks for missing the point.

Those hard working blue collar union workers are going to have to pay higher taxes in the future to pay for war in Iraq.  Maybe they even lost a son there.

Given that 18 of 44 Democrats voted for the bankruptcy bill, it's hard to say that the Democrats were in staunch opposition to it. And something tells me neither party is going to raise taxes on lower and middle-income workers anytime soon. Also, if you think the only reason people serve in the military (and some die in Iraq) is due to their financial situation, which is what you're alluding to, then you really don't understand those who serve in the military.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Definetely would be in play-
Arkansas
Colorado
Florida
Iowa
Nevada
New Mexico
Ohio
Virginia
West Virginia

Maybe......-
Missouri
North Carolina

Long shot-
Arizona
Kentucky
Louisiana
Tennessee

No way-
Alabama
Alaska
Georgia
Idaho
Indiana
Kansas
Mississippi
Montana
Nebraska
North Dakota
Oklahoma
South Carolina
South Dakota
Texas
Utah
Wyoming