I'm concerned that in their effort to not have to carry the south in 2008 the Democrats are going to rely heavily on the upper midwest and the sometimes unintelligent anti-trade protectionist policies that are currently a part of that region.
If we're relying on location, let's see who we've got (using Wikipedia's list of potential candidates for my list):
STRONG STATE CHOICES:
*Tom Vilsack, Iowa. Assuming an Iowan can keep the momentum going through New Hampshire, Iowa would be great. It counts as 'Upper Midwest' in some circles, and 'Plains State' in others. Also a swing state and sandwiched between blue and red factions.
*Evan Bayh, Indiana. You're sure to carry what is normally a solid red state, and the apeal of Bayh can seep down into Kentucky as well. As the first two states to close polls, it gets some momentum going for later in the night.
*Phil Bredesen and Al Gore, Tennessee. Gore's the better candidate by a mile, but both have an appeal to the south. Gore couldn't carry Tennessee last time, but this is a friendlier environment for him.
*Gary Hart, Colorado. A chance to pick off a couple mountain states. They're not worth much on their own, but they add up.
*Bill Richardson, New Mexico. Also a mountain pick-off, as well as a gain of the Hispanic vote.
*Brian Schwietzer, Montana. Again with the mountains, and Montana is showing a marked trend towards the Dems. A very realistic state to win with the right candidate.
OKAY CHOICES:
*Wesley Clark, Arkansas. South, but maybe too red to carry.
*Hilary Clinton and Al Sharpton, New York. You'll carry it, but the Dems are supposed to carry New York anyway. Also, New York intellectual lol. (Also, Al Sharpton lol.)
*John Edwards, South Carolina. There's the risk of not carrying it, but Edwards could possibly carry SOMETHING in the south. Maybe not SC, but SOMETHING.
*Barack Obama and Rod Blagojevich, Illinois. Prime location as blue surrounded by red, but no way a black guy's winning in the south. (I know, it's bigoted, but so are many southern voters.) Rod has the added advantage of being white, and the added disadvantage of being insane.
*Mike Easley, North Carolina. A bit on the unfriendly side to Dems, but still a possibility with the right candidate.
*Dennis Kucinich, Ohio. You get a swing state, but would you pick up anything else with the likes of Kucinich?
*Carl Levin, Michigan. Same story, but even more so as Michigan's further removed from other potential battlegrounds than Ohio is.
WEAK CHOICES:
*Joe Biden, Delaware. Small, no state in the vicinity is really up for grabs. Plus the no-sales-tax thing could leave one open to enough beholden-to-big-business accusations to sink someone. Too much of a risk of not carrying Delaware as well, and that's a killer.
*Tom Daschle, South Dakota. At this point, I doubt ANY Democrat could take South Dakota, and Thune beat him in '04 anyway, so he's got that mark against him.
*Christopher Dodd, Connecticut. You're guaranteed your area, but you're not swinging any states. Plus, you know, New England liberal lol.
*John Kerry, Massachusetts. Same problens as Dodd and Connecticut, with the added burden of being John Kerry.
HAHAHAHAHAHA:
*Mike Gravel, Alaska. No way one of the Freak States is a good choice. It's too far removed from the lower 48.
Gosling on
I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
*Phil Bredesen and Al Gore, Tennessee. Gore's the better candidate by a mile, but both have an appeal to the south. Gore couldn't carry Tennessee last time, but this is a friendlier environment for him.
Gore isn't really a better candidate at this point, I think. Bredesen has a very strong, fiscally-conservative record while staying out of other people's buisness. He'll attract moderates from both sides, and actually could carry Tennessee and other nearby states (Mississippi, Arkansas, South Carolina), unlike Gore. I'd vote for him in a heartbeat.
John Edwards, South Carolina. There's the risk of not carrying it, but Edwards could possibly carry SOMETHING in the south. Maybe not SC, but SOMETHING.
Edwards is North Carolina. He didn't carry that in 2004, I don't know what in the south he would carry this time.
Really, I think triangulating to pick up a small swing state versus chosing someone on charisma and character is likely to backfire in this day and age. The only regional concern the democrats should have is to avoid nominating someone from the northeast.
Joe Biden, Delaware. Small, no state in the vicinity is really up for grabs. Plus the no-sales-tax thing could leave one open to enough beholden-to-big-business accusations to sink someone.
How exactly does the state government of Delaware not having a sales tax reflect on their federal senator?
Too much of a risk of not carrying Delaware as well, and that's a killer.
What? Democrats always carry Delaware, unlike Arkansas, North Carolina and Iowa.
The South has had their turn at fucking the country up.
I'm so fucking sick and tired of appealing to those fucking rednecked, bigoted, xenophobic assholes.
Colorado can go fuck itself, too.
A field full of conservative Democrats pandering to white southerners feels like a step back in time, and I'd almost rather have a competent Republican with strong opposition from congress. White southerners are not necessarily economic conservatives anyway. What was the margin that Kerry lost South Carolina by? I could still see him carrying it without Kerry's dead weight.
TroubledTom on
Wii friend code: 8704 3489 1049 8917
Mario Kart DS: 3320 6595 7026 5000
0
Options
GoslingLooking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, ProbablyWatertown, WIRegistered Userregular
edited November 2006
What? Democrats always carry Delaware, unlike Arkansas, North Carolina and Iowa.
(checks map) Ah crap. I thought the blue state-red state divide was a state or two north of where I thought it was. Okay, then Delaware's a bit more viable. Not much more, though.
As for the South, they carry far too many electoral votes to ignore completely. West Virginia's 6, Arkansas and Mississippi have 6, then you go into 8, 9 and double digits. You've got to get in there a little. Indiana's 11 is up for grabs now, Ohio's 20 isn't going red again for a long time, so that's enough to win, but not by enough to leave things up to chance.
Gosling on
I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
*Brian Schwietzer, Montana. Again with the mountains, and Montana is showing a marked trend towards the Dems. A very realistic state to win with the right candidate.
Keep in mind that Montana Democrats don't exactly follow the same platform as the national Democrats. Schweitzer, for instance, is anti-gay marriage, pro-gun, and (IIRC) anti-abortion. He also ran with a Republican running mate. I like him a lot better than I like most Republicans, but aside from his chances of winning I really don't like him as a Democrat presidential candidate.
A field full of conservative Democrats pandering to white southerners feels like a step back in time, and I'd almost rather have a competent Republican with strong opposition from congress.
*Brian Schwietzer, Montana. Again with the mountains, and Montana is showing a marked trend towards the Dems. A very realistic state to win with the right candidate.
Keep in mind that Montana Democrats don't exactly follow the same platform as the national Democrats. Schweitzer, for instance, is anti-gay marriage, pro-gun, and (IIRC) anti-abortion. He also ran with a Republican running mate. I like him a lot better than I like most Republicans, but aside from his chances of winning I really don't like him as a Democrat presidential candidate.
A field full of conservative Democrats pandering to white southerners feels like a step back in time, and I'd almost rather have a competent Republican with strong opposition from congress.
Amen, brother.
So who is running on the other side of the aisle, besides McCain?
TroubledTom on
Wii friend code: 8704 3489 1049 8917
Mario Kart DS: 3320 6595 7026 5000
So the primary qualification for Presidency is whether you can carry your home state?
And that the home state is important.
Yes. Your home state is viewed as the easiest of the 50 to take- your campaign would be based there, and your home-staters would naturally love to have a President from their state for many reasons. The figuring is, if you can't take your own state, what chance do you have of carrying 270 electoral votes' worth of states?
And seeing as you're supposed to win your home state, it helps if that state either A) carries a bunch of electoral votes, and/or is a swing state or, better yet, in the other party's camp.
This is how Al Gore lost in 2000. Yes, Florida, but had he carried Tennessee, his home state, Florida wouldn't have mattered.
Gosling on
I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
*Brian Schwietzer, Montana. Again with the mountains, and Montana is showing a marked trend towards the Dems. A very realistic state to win with the right candidate.
Keep in mind that Montana Democrats don't exactly follow the same platform as the national Democrats. Schweitzer, for instance, is anti-gay marriage, pro-gun, and (IIRC) anti-abortion. He also ran with a Republican running mate. I like him a lot better than I like most Republicans, but aside from his chances of winning I really don't like him as a Democrat presidential candidate.
A field full of conservative Democrats pandering to white southerners feels like a step back in time, and I'd almost rather have a competent Republican with strong opposition from congress.
Amen, brother.
So who is running on the other side of the aisle, besides McCain?
Well, since it's so early we're in "they're almost certainly running but they haven't declared, so there's technically some doubt" territory. But here are the ones I can think of:
BUT PEOPLE KEEP THINKING SHE WILL FOR SOME REASON:
-Condoleezza Rice (SecState, AL? CA?)
- minority
- generally well-liked by Republicans
- woman, to counter Hillary
If those are your only criteria, hell, why not put Oprah Winfrey on the list? Rice has said over and over that she doesn't want the job, and I see no reason to disbelieve her at this point.
Dead Guy Perez on
0
Options
GoslingLooking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, ProbablyWatertown, WIRegistered Userregular
*Brian Schwietzer, Montana. Again with the mountains, and Montana is showing a marked trend towards the Dems. A very realistic state to win with the right candidate.
Keep in mind that Montana Democrats don't exactly follow the same platform as the national Democrats. Schweitzer, for instance, is anti-gay marriage, pro-gun, and (IIRC) anti-abortion. He also ran with a Republican running mate. I like him a lot better than I like most Republicans, but aside from his chances of winning I really don't like him as a Democrat presidential candidate.
A field full of conservative Democrats pandering to white southerners feels like a step back in time, and I'd almost rather have a competent Republican with strong opposition from congress.
Amen, brother.
So who is running on the other side of the aisle, besides McCain?
Well, since it's so early we're in "they're almost certainly running but they haven't declared, so there's technically some doubt" territory. But here are the ones I can think of:
AIN'T GONNA RUN, BUT PEOPLE KEEP THINKING SHE WILL FOR SOME REASON:
-Condoleezza Rice (SecState, AL? CA?)
I know Duncan Hunter (Rep, CA) is confirmed, but... come on, Duncan, get serious.
As far as Oprah, hell, I'd vote for her over a bunch of the names I see getting tossed around. (No, really. I hate the celebrity factor with a passion, but Oprah actually seems like she'd do okay.)
Gosling on
I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
Given how well Kerry did just from a loose association with the DLC, I expect this guy at least to finish in the top 3.
DLC has been taking a drubbing in the Democratic party since Clinton. They're going to face an uphill fight with Pelosi's anti-lobbying stuff, since their whole raison d'etre was to raise gobs of money from corporations.
Really, I don't like the DLC a bit. They represent, IMO the wing of the Democratic party most open to corruption. They also have no real ideology at all, outside of "we're Democrats who can raise money".
I can't say I particularly care to choose the candidate based on electoral math.
Agreed. I'd rather nominate a charismatic candidate and take 5 or 6 swing states with some coattails than try to squeeze out a couple of home swing states for an excruciatingly narrow win in the electoral college.
Al Gore wouldn't have needed Tennessee at all if he had appealed more to the upper midwest.
As far as Oprah, hell, I'd vote for her over a bunch of the names I see getting tossed around. (No, really. I hate the celebrity factor with a passion, but Oprah actually seems like she'd do okay.)
Because the ability to review shitty books and get them on the New York Times best seller list translates directly to the ability to run a nation of 300 million people?
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
So, Rudy's throwing his hat into the ring according to CNN. Thoughts?
Personally, I think he's just too liberal on social issues to take the republican nomination unless republicans get really desperate in the next 2 years and he looks like the only way to win.
jtmorgan61 on
0
Options
GoslingLooking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, ProbablyWatertown, WIRegistered Userregular
As far as Oprah, hell, I'd vote for her over a bunch of the names I see getting tossed around. (No, really. I hate the celebrity factor with a passion, but Oprah actually seems like she'd do okay.)
Because the ability to review shitty books and get them on the New York Times best seller list translates directly to the ability to run a nation of 300 million people?
Two reasons, largely.
A) You can in fact glean several issues she'd be likely to run on, most of them involving some sort of equality. Minorities, women, gays, whatever. I can also, from her shows, deduce that she would be fairly adamant about keeping her nose and the noses of her administration clean, and if they weren't, there'd be a swift outing. (As for the aformentioned books: education funding!)
The uber-philanthropy (EVERYBODY GETS A CAR!), which leads me to think she'd make relief aid a significant part of her foreign policy, like to Africa. (I could be reading that wrong, and probably am, but foreign aid is what I concluded it would most likely translate into.)
As for 'could she win': if she ran, she's an immediate threat. The black vote is hers, the women's vote is hers, and the celebrity factor might put her over the top right then and there. And few would even be able to run negative ads on her without a crazed backlash to the tune of "HOW COULD YOU SAY SUCH THINGS ABOUT OPRAH?!"
Gosling on
I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
0
Options
deowolfis allowed to do that.Traffic.Registered Userregular
As far as Oprah, hell, I'd vote for her over a bunch of the names I see getting tossed around. (No, really. I hate the celebrity factor with a passion, but Oprah actually seems like she'd do okay.)
Because the ability to review shitty books and get them on the New York Times best seller list translates directly to the ability to run a nation of 300 million people?
Two reasons, largely.
A) You can in fact glean several issues she'd be likely to run on, most of them involving some sort of equality. Minorities, women, gays, whatever. I can also, from her shows, deduce that she would be fairly adamant about keeping her nose and the noses of her administration clean, and if they weren't, there'd be a swift outing. (As for the aformentioned books: education funding!)
The uber-philanthropy (EVERYBODY GETS A CAR!), which leads me to think she'd make relief aid a significant part of her foreign policy, like to Africa. (I could be reading that wrong, and probably am, but foreign aid is what I concluded it would most likely translate into.)
As for 'could she win': if she ran, she's an immediate threat. The black vote is hers, the women's vote is hers, and the celebrity factor might put her over the top right then and there. And few would even be able to run negative ads on her without a crazed backlash to the tune of "HOW COULD YOU SAY SUCH THINGS ABOUT OPRAH?!"
Just because everyone thinks you're a cool person doesn't mean they'd vote for you. All it'll take is someone trying to imagine her in negotiations with the Russian PM to realize, "Wait, what the hell am I thinking supporting her?" Being loveable and philanthropic doesn't mean shit. And having ovaries does not guarantee her the female vote by any stretch. It certainly hasn't worked for Hillary.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
0
Options
GoslingLooking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, ProbablyWatertown, WIRegistered Userregular
Just because everyone thinks you're a cool person doesn't mean they'd vote for you. All it'll take is someone trying to imagine her in negotiations with the Russian PM to realize, "Wait, what the hell am I thinking supporting her?"
That would be her downfall. She's not too good on the more difficult targets. This would come out over the course of the campaign. guaranteed. The question is whether she can come off as passable.
Being loveable and philanthropic doesn't mean shit. And having ovaries does not guarantee her the female vote by any stretch. It certainly hasn't worked for Hillary.
Hilary does not have an already-existing base of housewife slaves.
Gosling on
I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
Posts
If we're relying on location, let's see who we've got (using Wikipedia's list of potential candidates for my list):
STRONG STATE CHOICES:
*Tom Vilsack, Iowa. Assuming an Iowan can keep the momentum going through New Hampshire, Iowa would be great. It counts as 'Upper Midwest' in some circles, and 'Plains State' in others. Also a swing state and sandwiched between blue and red factions.
*Evan Bayh, Indiana. You're sure to carry what is normally a solid red state, and the apeal of Bayh can seep down into Kentucky as well. As the first two states to close polls, it gets some momentum going for later in the night.
*Phil Bredesen and Al Gore, Tennessee. Gore's the better candidate by a mile, but both have an appeal to the south. Gore couldn't carry Tennessee last time, but this is a friendlier environment for him.
*Gary Hart, Colorado. A chance to pick off a couple mountain states. They're not worth much on their own, but they add up.
*Bill Richardson, New Mexico. Also a mountain pick-off, as well as a gain of the Hispanic vote.
*Brian Schwietzer, Montana. Again with the mountains, and Montana is showing a marked trend towards the Dems. A very realistic state to win with the right candidate.
OKAY CHOICES:
*Wesley Clark, Arkansas. South, but maybe too red to carry.
*Hilary Clinton and Al Sharpton, New York. You'll carry it, but the Dems are supposed to carry New York anyway. Also, New York intellectual lol. (Also, Al Sharpton lol.)
*John Edwards, South Carolina. There's the risk of not carrying it, but Edwards could possibly carry SOMETHING in the south. Maybe not SC, but SOMETHING.
*Barack Obama and Rod Blagojevich, Illinois. Prime location as blue surrounded by red, but no way a black guy's winning in the south. (I know, it's bigoted, but so are many southern voters.) Rod has the added advantage of being white, and the added disadvantage of being insane.
*Mike Easley, North Carolina. A bit on the unfriendly side to Dems, but still a possibility with the right candidate.
*Dennis Kucinich, Ohio. You get a swing state, but would you pick up anything else with the likes of Kucinich?
*Carl Levin, Michigan. Same story, but even more so as Michigan's further removed from other potential battlegrounds than Ohio is.
WEAK CHOICES:
*Joe Biden, Delaware. Small, no state in the vicinity is really up for grabs. Plus the no-sales-tax thing could leave one open to enough beholden-to-big-business accusations to sink someone. Too much of a risk of not carrying Delaware as well, and that's a killer.
*Tom Daschle, South Dakota. At this point, I doubt ANY Democrat could take South Dakota, and Thune beat him in '04 anyway, so he's got that mark against him.
*Christopher Dodd, Connecticut. You're guaranteed your area, but you're not swinging any states. Plus, you know, New England liberal lol.
*John Kerry, Massachusetts. Same problens as Dodd and Connecticut, with the added burden of being John Kerry.
HAHAHAHAHAHA:
*Mike Gravel, Alaska. No way one of the Freak States is a good choice. It's too far removed from the lower 48.
Edwards is North Carolina. He didn't carry that in 2004, I don't know what in the south he would carry this time.
Really, I think triangulating to pick up a small swing state versus chosing someone on charisma and character is likely to backfire in this day and age. The only regional concern the democrats should have is to avoid nominating someone from the northeast.
I'm so fucking sick and tired of appealing to those fucking rednecked, bigoted, xenophobic assholes.
Colorado can go fuck itself, too.
How exactly does the state government of Delaware not having a sales tax reflect on their federal senator?
What? Democrats always carry Delaware, unlike Arkansas, North Carolina and Iowa.
A field full of conservative Democrats pandering to white southerners feels like a step back in time, and I'd almost rather have a competent Republican with strong opposition from congress. White southerners are not necessarily economic conservatives anyway. What was the margin that Kerry lost South Carolina by? I could still see him carrying it without Kerry's dead weight.
Mario Kart DS: 3320 6595 7026 5000
(checks map) Ah crap. I thought the blue state-red state divide was a state or two north of where I thought it was. Okay, then Delaware's a bit more viable. Not much more, though.
As for the South, they carry far too many electoral votes to ignore completely. West Virginia's 6, Arkansas and Mississippi have 6, then you go into 8, 9 and double digits. You've got to get in there a little. Indiana's 11 is up for grabs now, Ohio's 20 isn't going red again for a long time, so that's enough to win, but not by enough to leave things up to chance.
Keep in mind that Montana Democrats don't exactly follow the same platform as the national Democrats. Schweitzer, for instance, is anti-gay marriage, pro-gun, and (IIRC) anti-abortion. He also ran with a Republican running mate. I like him a lot better than I like most Republicans, but aside from his chances of winning I really don't like him as a Democrat presidential candidate.
Amen, brother.
So who is running on the other side of the aisle, besides McCain?
Mario Kart DS: 3320 6595 7026 5000
And seeing as you're supposed to win your home state, it helps if that state either A) carries a bunch of electoral votes, and/or
This is how Al Gore lost in 2000. Yes, Florida, but had he carried Tennessee, his home state, Florida wouldn't have mattered.
Well, since it's so early we're in "they're almost certainly running but they haven't declared, so there's technically some doubt" territory. But here are the ones I can think of:
ALMOST CERTAINLY:
-Sam Brownback (Senator, KS)
-Bill Frist (Senator, TN)
-Mike Huckabee (Governor, AR)
-John McCain (Senator, AZ)
-Mitt Romney (Outgoing governor, MA)
MAYBE:
-Rudy Giuliani (fmr mayor, NYC)
-Newt Gingrich (fmr congressman, GA)
WHO KNOWS?:
-Chuck Hagel (Senator, NE)
Edit: Forgot one.
AIN'T GONNA RUN, BUT PEOPLE KEEP THINKING SHE WILL FOR SOME REASON:
-Condoleezza Rice (SecState, AL? CA?)
- generally well-liked by Republicans
- woman, to counter Hillary
If those are your only criteria, hell, why not put Oprah Winfrey on the list? Rice has said over and over that she doesn't want the job, and I see no reason to disbelieve her at this point.
As far as Oprah, hell, I'd vote for her over a bunch of the names I see getting tossed around. (No, really. I hate the celebrity factor with a passion, but Oprah actually seems like she'd do okay.)
DLC has been taking a drubbing in the Democratic party since Clinton. They're going to face an uphill fight with Pelosi's anti-lobbying stuff, since their whole raison d'etre was to raise gobs of money from corporations.
Really, I don't like the DLC a bit. They represent, IMO the wing of the Democratic party most open to corruption. They also have no real ideology at all, outside of "we're Democrats who can raise money".
Agreed. I'd rather nominate a charismatic candidate and take 5 or 6 swing states with some coattails than try to squeeze out a couple of home swing states for an excruciatingly narrow win in the electoral college.
Al Gore wouldn't have needed Tennessee at all if he had appealed more to the upper midwest.
Because the ability to review shitty books and get them on the New York Times best seller list translates directly to the ability to run a nation of 300 million people?
Personally, I think he's just too liberal on social issues to take the republican nomination unless republicans get really desperate in the next 2 years and he looks like the only way to win.
A) You can in fact glean several issues she'd be likely to run on, most of them involving some sort of equality. Minorities, women, gays, whatever. I can also, from her shows, deduce that she would be fairly adamant about keeping her nose and the noses of her administration clean, and if they weren't, there'd be a swift outing. (As for the aformentioned books: education funding!)
As for 'could she win': if she ran, she's an immediate threat. The black vote is hers, the women's vote is hers, and the celebrity factor might put her over the top right then and there. And few would even be able to run negative ads on her without a crazed backlash to the tune of "HOW COULD YOU SAY SUCH THINGS ABOUT OPRAH?!"
Well, what state is her home state?
...well, knowing her, all of the above, and then Arizona to balance out the ticket.
Just because everyone thinks you're a cool person doesn't mean they'd vote for you. All it'll take is someone trying to imagine her in negotiations with the Russian PM to realize, "Wait, what the hell am I thinking supporting her?" Being loveable and philanthropic doesn't mean shit. And having ovaries does not guarantee her the female vote by any stretch. It certainly hasn't worked for Hillary.
Hilary does not have an already-existing base of housewife slaves.