Don't Look At Senators Or Reps If You Want To Win the Presidency in '08

[ruggerson]

I see a lot of folks ruminating about Feingold, Hillary, Biden, Boxer, etc.

Won't happen. The RNC slime machine can and will take every single one of them out. Anyone with a long history of votes can be demonized in the same way that Dukakis and Kerry were.

Nominating another senator or a member of the house will be suicidal.

If there is to be a Democratic President in '08 it will come from the ranks outside of Washington DC. A telegenic, straight shooting populist.

The most likely contenders are Mark Warner, Wes Clark and Brian Schweitzer.

They are the future of the national party and that is where we should be looking.

[barbaraann]

1. I agree. Strange things happen inside the Beltway.

I have visited a few times and I hope I haven't been infected with whatever it is! :o

[still_one]

2. nothing is wrong with Feingold, including his record

as far as Wes Clark, I liked him in 2004, but his plan on Iraq is a disaster. Hackett on the other hand all ready realizes it is time to get out

I will NOT vote for anyone who says we must stay the course in Iraq

[ruggerson]

3. That's the other good thing about a Governor

None of them voted for the war.

[still_one]

5. look what they did to Dean

Frankly, whether it is from Congress or outside, the only way we will win is speaking truth to power. Paul Hackett is a perfect example.

I also believe that people are slowly getting wise to PNAC and this administration. ONE BILLION DOLLARS A WEEK IN IRAQ!

I will be very surprised if the economy doesn't entirely collapse before 2008

[emulatorloo]

11. I am tired of dumbass blank slate governors - look at the one we have

if the best you can say about somebody is that they never made a decision then that is not saying much.

[formernaderite]

40. Exactly...we need a governor

unfortunately a senator can easily be painted as a flip flopper....because most of them have on at least one issue. Their job is to compromise.

[kevsand]

14. Clark never said we should "stay the course."

In fact, he said that Bush doesn't have a course to stay on. What he has been saying all along is that there are certain things we have to do on our way out the door.

He doesn't think we can wait for the Iraqi police forces, ala Bush's "Vietnamization" strategy. He wants replacement of U.S. forces with alternative troops from both Arab and European countries, to minimize the loss of civilian life by preventing a civil war, as well as to eliminate the antagonistic U.S. footprint.

And he also recognizes that the only long term solution must be political, rather than military. He wants the neighboring countries at the table now, to exert positive influences on the region for the common good.

He's the first to acknowledge that these are all things that should have been done long ago, since he's been calling for them for years. He also lays the blame for their not happening squarely on Bush's desk. And he pointedly acknowledges that it may already be too late, but that he hopes it is not.

Finally, he says point blank that unless Bush makes the right moves now, that the American people are entirely justified in calling for full and immediate withdrawal regardless of the consequences, in order to avoid wasting any more American lives in a pointless effort to support a virtually non-existent failed policy. It doesn't get any more direct than that.

[FrenchieCat]

26. Clark is not for staying the course!

you saying that "his plan on Iraq is a disaster" is a sound byte. Please provide some back up for this statement.

Clark is not for "staying the course" in Iraq...
Clark is for changing the course, or getting out.

[wakeme2008]

4. I like anybody but from the Senate or House

too many votes for the RNC to play with.

[Cocoa]

6. that's only true until a Senator wins

yes a lot of people think senators can't win, but obviously the senators that run disagree with that.

[ruggerson]

7. It's been almost fifty years

since a sitting senator (of either party) has won the Presidency. In that same time period FOUR sitting or former governors won.

And it's not just this historical track record. It's the fact that the RNC can manipulate anyone's votes to make it look like they are a wild eyed extremist. They will do it to Hillary, Feingold, Biden... you name it.

The way to win is to nominate a populist governor. I'm liking Brian Schweitzer more and more.

[Cocoa]

8. it's 4-0 now

when a Senator wins, it will be 4-1.

[Pepperbelly]

18. one of your predicate examples ... Dukakis ... is wrong.

He was a governor. Since you got that so wrong, does that reflect on the rest of your post? You have lost 25% of your proof.

Mondale's last gig was as a sitting Vice-President. There goes another 25%. Gore was a sitting Vice-President. There goes 25% more. So what do we have left?

Kerry.

[ruggerson]

20. Uh, nice try

but I never said Dukakis wasn't a governor. I said they demonized him as they demonized Kerry. With the usual extreme liberal from Massachussetts bullshit. And I didn't even bring up sitting (or former) vice presidents, who have a much better track record in the past fifty years than do Senators. But we don't have a sitting vice president running this time, do we?

Our best bet is someone who they cannot demonize as an extremist, 100% ADA voting, leftist activist. We have an extraordinarily good shot this time, since BOTH our candidate and theirs will be someone who is not yet defined negatively by the other side.

[Pepperbelly]

25. Your whole point in the OP

was that we should not go to the Congress for nominees because they lose. Then there was but one example of one who was a sitting in Congress when nominated and then lost.

You could go back to McGovern and get another but the one before that, JFK, won.

Your reasoning and examples were specious. You cannot have the examples you cited and the conclusions you drew. They are contradictory.

on edit .... note ... when someone starts a post with an um or an uh, it ordinarily signals that someone who doesn't get it is about to pretend that the other person doesn't get it. Bad form.

[ruggerson]

29. If you want more examples

I'll be happy to oblige:

Mondale, Dole, Humphrey, McGovern, Kerry.

The Presidential loser's list of the last ten cycles is littered with Senators (or former Senators).

And what is bad form is your hostility ("since you got that so wrong..."). Much better (and stronger for your argument) to discuss and debate rationally and civilly.

[ruggerson]

31. And I might add

I never limited it to "sitting" Senators. You added that word in to bolster your argument. My point about Congress people is that they have a VOTING record, unlike executives. Both Gore and Mondale were demonized by the GOP more for what they said while they were in Congress than for what they did while Veeps. Read the OP again and tell me where I used the word "sitting."

[Pepperbelly]

36. Nothing uncivil in noting ...

that I believe that your predicates are all wrong. Of those, only McGovern and Kerry lacked executive experience. Unless your point is that people who have served in the Congress are toxic in the electoral process which, btw, I disagree with also ... then perhaps a case might be made.

It will always be a matter of election dynamics in the race. After all, Dukakis was a sitting governor with an impressive record ... the Massachusetts Miracle and it was very, very good. McGovern was running against an incumbent, at the time, with very good ratings. We could have nominated a sitting governor ... say Dale Bumpers of Arkansas ... and lost just as badly. The same could be said of Dole when he ran against Clinton.

[safi0]

38. Dukakis and 1988 is

Commonly my arguement when arguing for Senators winning the nomination. In 1988 if he hadn't had his scandal I think sitting senator Gary Hart would have defeated George Bush, or atleast fought back against him.

[kevsand]

21. None of the examples is wrong.

Dukakis ran against a sitting VP. Mondale ran against a sitting P. Gore ran against a governor. When both opposing candidates come from the preferred experience pool (executives), other factors obviously come into play. The only way to disprove the point is to find examples of senators or congresspeople beating executives. There are only two in the last hundred years.

[Pepperbelly]

23. only one was accurate and within the predicate noted in the OP

We ran only one sitting Senator and that was Kerry. Unless you want to go back to McGovern and then it would be two.

The one before that we won.

Either the conclusion or the predicates were wrong. Choose one because you cannot have both.

[kevsand]

32. The claim in the OP was that

sitting senators and reps tend to lose. That statement stands with only two exceptions in the last hundred years.

My extension of it is that executives generally trump legislators. That statement also stands.

I hope we don't spend too much time arguing about what was or wasn't said, since it's all still listed further up the page.

[ruggerson]

33. To be fair

I didn't mention "sitting", tho I understand how one could think that is implied in the OP.

You are correct about the intent of the OP; and as you point out, history bears us out. And I wholly agree with your assertation that in general the executive candidate trumps the legislative one as far as the Presidency is concerned.

[kevsand]

34. You're right.

I tend to insert "sitting" mentally to distinguish between current legislators and former legislators who acquire executive experience as vice-presidents or presidents. My bad...

[safi0]

35. I guess the

Historical arguement can be used, but prior to Carter the last Governor to win was FDR. But I think the arguement that there going to be slimed anyway is extremely weak. Everyone, Governor, Senator, VP, General, Reverend, anyone who decides to run will be slimed. If they don't have a record to slime they'll find other things or they'll just make shit up. The questions should be will the candidate fight back, and how fiercely.

[Pepperbelly]

37. Exactly right ...

it is always a matter of the dynamics in a particular election at a particular time involving particular candidates.

[kevsand]

39. I can agree with that.

I do think that the public's overall attitude toward executives vs. legislators is one of the perennial factors that always should be taken into account, but it's just one among many. The right individual can always overcome (or the wrong individual can under-perform) in spite of that.

[KoKo]

9. I agree we need a Governor, but Dukakis was a Governor of Massachusetts.

I was hoping a strong govenor with lots of charisma would emerge. They usually know how to manage the "apparatus" better than Senators.

The Repubs will trash any Democrat if they run, though. Doesn't matter where they come from or what credentials they have. Sadly, experience and qualifications no longer matter when attacks are what makes the decision for the voters. Lets hope we can change this by 08.

[kevsand]

17. Dukakis was running against a two term VP.

But your point about the Repubs trashing anyone and everyone regardless is dead on. I don't think we should avoid legislators based solely on that reason. I do think that the public inherently views them differently from governors and other executives, however, and that must be taken into account.

[Chocolatebison]

10. JENNIFER GRANHOLM

What a babe!

[emulatorloo]

12. and what a CANADIAN! So she can't run. . .

[safi0]

13. The only 2 sitting Senators

Who haven't run against incumbents were Warren Harding and JFK, what do those 2 have in common?

[kevsand]

15. Both died in office.

Not sure if that helps or not. I'm still thinking...

[wanpete]

16. I totally agree, especially with anyone who voted to authorize the

war. Plus, most of the sens. and reps, are afraid to call * what he is...a liar who took us into a illegal war where thousands of Americans have lost their lives for a cause that could not even be thought of as "noble".

We need fresh ideas and someone who cannot have the vote to authorize the war used against them. We see what it did to Kerry...

[Cocoa]

19. like Feingold

SENATOR Feingold.

[ruggerson]

22. You don't think they'll demonize Russ?

What's his ADA rating? I'll bet it's in the high 90's. That's all they need. When they have a voting record, they can distort it.

[safi0]

24. They'll demonize

Anyone and everyone. I think a better question to ask is how would the candidates respond to the chrachter assassination, and I know from seeing it, Russ will fight back.

[Cocoa]

27. no, I don't think they'll demonize Russ

I KNOW they'll demonize Russ.

What's your point? Who won't they demonize?

oh, and by the way, he'll be demonized from the "left" as well. You can bet on that.

[bribri16]

28. O'Malley (Balt)? Just asking. n/t

But put your votes where they really count LOCAL elections.

[Imagevision]

30. How are we guranteed an honest election with no paper trail??

Kerry had the right idea stating a foreign country would step in to oversee our election and be involved in the voting tabulation, but he didn't pull it off!

paperless trial machines = they'll do it again!

http://downingstreetmemo.com/

[Skidmore]

41. Clark/Hackett

[1932]

42. If you're looking for someone they won't demonize, you're wasting yer time

Look for someone who puts the focus on the most important issues, and whose frame is deeply progressive and well-articulated.

Don't look for the person whose laundry list includes your issues. Look for the guy whose big picture says something to people about what it means to be a democrat.

If you do that, it won't matter what they throw at the candidate. Slime only works when the slime is really really bad (like Hart--and the historical-cultural context is right) or when the candidate doesn't make a clear, conscise argument about what their progressive values are, like every other losing democrat.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

43. It's okay if they're demonized as long as they fight back

It's okay if they don't match my laundry list of issues as long as they stand up for ordinary people versus the corporations.

[1932]

44. ...so long as we fight with ideas--with candidates who represent powerful

ideas about what it means to be a progressive.

Ideas are powerful. Laundry lists and check boxes are not.

Which is what you're saying.