Primary 2008: The first battle

[XemaSab]

:evilgrin:

[mike_c]

1. what about Kucinich?

:shrug:

[XemaSab]

2. I just turned someone's "other" vote into a vote for the man

Hi Mike! :hi:

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. Why not keep this to ANNOUNCED

candidates, for instance you are missing Vulsack, but you have people who have NOT announed their intent to run yet

[XemaSab]

4. Nobody knows who's running yet, not even the candidates themselves.

Bayh dropped out; Edwards announced; life goes on.

[paulk]

6. Vilsack has announced his candidacy. So I guess he knows

he's running.

It seems like you're the one who doesn't know who's running...

[Warren DeMontague]

7. I would say add Vilsack, but when people talk about limiting polls to "announced" candidates

What they usually seem to mean is, they know Al Gore is going to win and they want someone else.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

9. Could Always Keep It Just To Those Who Have Any Viability Too,

which would knock Kucinich off the list and possibly a few others as well.

[Warren DeMontague]

11. Or you could say that using complaints about "viability" or "status" to keep people out of polls at

this extremely early stage in the process is premature, at best. If you had taken a 1992 primary poll in December 1990, the media would have said Mario Cuomo was "clearly" the "front runner". A Governor named Bill Clinton (who?) probably wouldn't have been on the map.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

12. That's True.

But Kucinich isn't an unknown. It is already pretty well known that he will pull in the single digits.

But regardless of that, overall your point is well taken and correct.

[Warren DeMontague]

13. Although I wasn't a Kucinich supporter last time around and I don't envision supporting him this

time, I agree with the man on a lot of things and I think he was a valuable addition to the process.

I also would say that the landscape has changed significantly since 2004... and the landscape in 2004 wasn't even what the folks buying into the "conventional wisdom" (myself included) thought it was. For instance, lots of us thought Kerry would be a stronger candidate than Howard Dean in the general election because he voted for the Iraq war.. well, although whether Dean would have run better -and won- against Bush is totally hypothetical (I think he would have) it is undeniable that the vote for the IWR, which was supposed to be a "plus" for Kerry, turned into an albatross the GOP hung around his neck.

Bottom line? I think Kucinich's success in the primaries will be directly related to the number of other candidates who provide an alternative to DLC policies and "stay the course" more-of-the-same on Iraq. If he's the only Uncola, as it were, he could do VERY well.

[XemaSab]

23. elect ability

n/t

[Pithy Cherub]

5. Clark of course!

Hi XemaSab long time no see. :hi:

[Warren DeMontague]

8. Al Gore.

[Coventina]

10. Gore / Edwards

Strong experience & environmentalism backed by Southern populism & personal charm!

YEAH!!!!!!!

:headbang:

[WiseButAngrySara]

15. Sounds good but so does Gore/Kucinich, or Gore/anyone! ....n/t

[Warren DeMontague]

16. Groe/Feingold is my dream ticket. I think Gore/Clark could be tough to beat, though. nt

[TOhioLiberal]

14. Al Gore...

...or as I like to call it, 2008--The grudge match. 'This time it's personal!' :rofl:

[SoCalDem]

17. Cher/Clooney?

In other words...I'll wait until the actual primaries to get all worked up.. None of the candidates will be beating a path to my door to ask my opinions anyway :)

[XemaSab]

18. Not a resident of Iowa or New Hampshire?

:shrug:

[SoCalDem]

20. Nope.. Californiacs only get to vote in primaries after it's mostly decided

That's why I wish we had regional primaries a month apart..on a rotating basis every cycle..

I even made a map.

My scenario would incorporate cities, rural, and all kinds of demographics too.

[XemaSab]

21. I planned it out once

Iowa, New Hampshire, New Mexico, South Carolina, and Oregon all voting/caucusing on the same day, followed a month later by Tennessee, Alabama, Vermont, Minnesota, and Montana (or five other small, politically and regionally diverse states). Everyone else votes a month after that.

Candidates would probably not be able to "sweep" all five of the first states, so they could focus intensively on a couple states doing the traditional small-town stump speeches that Iowa and New Hampshire are good for. Then the rest of the US would have a month to consider the results, while the candidates could focus on the next five states. Finally, the whole US would vote at once so nobody's vote would be decided well before the state primary.

[dropkickpa]

19. I picked Gore

But I'll most likely have no choice in the primaries because of PA's late primary. By then, we are usually stuck with just 2 candidates.

[Left Is Write]

22. I'd love to vote for Gore, but I don't see it happening.