Our 2008 nominee needs to be someone who can help us keep control of Congress with coat-tails

[Ignacio Upton]

One thing that hasn't been mentioned about 2008 is the issue of Presidential coat-tails, or how a candidate can be a liability in some regions of the country for Congressional candidates. For example, Bush's coat-tails helped Conrad Burns win a narrow re-election bid in 2000 against Schweitzer. Bush's coat-tails in 2004 also helped Lisa Murkowski win in Alaska, Mel Martinez win in Florida, and Jim Bunning cling to his Senate seat in Kentucky after running one of the worst campaigns in recent memory. Likewise, Gore and Kerry were seen as liabilities by some candidates running in red states during these election seasons. In contrast, Clinton did not have that problem in 1992 or 1996 (as far as I know he didn't have a negative effect in either election.)

Out of the potential candidates running, I think that Clark, Edwards, and possibly Evan Bayh would help us retain control of Congress through coat-tails. Hillary and Kerry could possibly cost us control of the Senate, if not the House. Can you picture Mary Landrieu or Nancy Boyda or Heath Shuler winning re-election in their states if we nominate Hillary or Kerry?

[KingFlorez]

1. That's a very good point

We need a someone who is not polarizing, but at the same time is good on the issues. I think Clark is that person.

[sandrakae]

2. If you do you fucking job right, you don't need coat tails.

It is ridiculous to think John Kerry or Hilary Clinton should not be President because Heath Shuler might lose his congressional seat. What the fuck kind of thinking is this. We need the most qualified person to be President. This country is in a mess.

[jgraz]

9. Coat tails are part of doing your job

The President has to be able to lead his/her party as well. Remember 1994? I thought Clinton was a pretty good president (for a Republican :P ), but he sure didn't help himself by letting Congress go to Gingrinch, et al.

If your criteria is "most qualified", you need to include the qualifications for running a campaign and leading a party. Most of our past presidential candidates fell far short on one or both of these requirements.

[dsc]

3. Edwards, as VP, helped Bowels not one bit

as a matter of fact Bowels did better than Kerry Edwards but worse than Easley.

[Ignacio Upton]

6. Edwards was on the bottom of the ticket

People were voting against Kerry. Likewise, in 1988 Bentsen did not help Dukakis and Quayle did not hurt Bush Sr., because voters were voting for people at the top of the tickets. About Bowles...one of the reasons why he lost was because of ads tying him to Clinton's excesses in order to fire up the base. In 2000, Easley was trying to distance himself from Gore. BTW, I think that Easley would make a great candidate against Liddy Dole if he runs in 2008, especially combined with Edwards or Clark being at the top of the ticket.

[Impashund Ubique]

12. Edwards was not on the ballot as a contender for any top seat

Okay, he was up there as the running mate; but if people voted for VP candidates, then all Bush evangelicals would've turned away from a Veep candidate who has a gay daughter.

If Edwards was running for re-election or if he was nominated for President, he could be held responsible for the loss. The 04 scenario says nothing about his coattails.

[MannyGoldstein]

4. Dean

Dean has a lot of credibility from his opposition to the war. And he's a straight speaker, which I think is what people want now. Feingold also has these qualities, but he needs an injection of "Get up and go". And he's now got an impressive victory under his belt.

I think Dean will play well in 2008. Remember, FDR and Reagan were both considered to be marginal crackpots prior to their becoming president. ANYONE with a vision and a spine will be derided as a crackpot - until they're in charge: that's when the "vision thing" is super important.

[last1standing]

5. Dean's a man of his word. He won't run.

n/t

[MannyGoldstein]

8. But When The DLC Kicks Him to the Curb,

spending their corporate zillions to do so, he may think again.

[last1standing]

10. I really don't think that'll happen.

The DLC has less power than most here think, specifically because they don't have an infrastructure to back them up. Yes, they get millions to air ads in "targeted" states every other year, but they have no power in Utah or Idaho. That's where Dean wins. He built the infrastructure that will keep him in place. That's why I said in an earlier post that if Dean was pushed out half a million Dems would go with him. Dean found the heart of the party again and we'll stand by him for remembering us. We ARE the infrastructure, isn't that fantastic? :)

[MannyGoldstein]

11. I Hope You're Correct

However, Ms. Clinton's ability to raise enormous money from The Predator Class, Mr. Clinton's ability as an "extraordinary" liar, and the vigor with which the DLC sucks the air from the room - I'm not so sure.

[Ignacio Upton]

7. He won't run

He said he wants to help build the DNC and I take him at his word. Also, he would hurt us in this area as well. While he was right, most voters will hear the GOP spin and remember him for the scream, which psychologically-speaking, makes it easier for them to open up and change their minds...short of perhaps meeting Dean personally, which only a handful of voters can do.