As a registered Democrat, and a moderate, I agree. Although anecdotal evidence is not real evidence, my Democratic friends and I agree on this: The Dems have almost thoroughly alienated the moderates and, unless something drastic happens, some of us are thinking that we’ll be voting for Bush in the election. At least, it looks like that from here.
If the Democrats keep alienating this (largest) portion of the party, the election will be almost as embarassing as '84. While others are anticipating the best running mate for Dean, the rest of us are hoping for someone who will offer a real challenge to Bush.
Schumer’s a horrible choice unless a Southerner wins the nomination. Even then, Edwards or Clark can do MUCH better.
The actual Democratic candidates are doing a decent job of keeping the rhetoric sane. Since most voters don’t typically see the incredibly stupid statements of many Bush haters on the internet and alternative news like Counterpunch, they won’t have an opportunity to be alienated.
I agree. And no Schumer. He’s fine in NY, but whoever the Democrats nominate will win NY anyway. Someone with a higher profile and a difference constituency, a guy who will bring more votes to the campaign, is needed. I suppose that means someone more Southern or Western and maybe more moderate.
I don’t know that Bush will lose NY. Giuliani and Pataki will be campaigning heavily and the convention is being held there. More than enough time to overcome the small lead his opponents have over him right now.
adaher, I wouldn’t read too much into that. Most people aren’t obsessing on the election yet, as opposed to some people (like, well, me, for example.) Since most people don’t have an opinion yet, a good number of them aren’t likely to go ahead and form one. Get closer to Election Day and you’ll see some very different numbers.
If Bush were to overcome the “small lead” that his opponents have in New York right now, he’d have to move enough to the left to alienate his core constituency, which I don’t see happening. The fact that he’s performing so weakly in New York right now indicates that he’s going to be in a much tighter spot once the campaigns heat up.
Further, that article you linked to is very sloppily written. I mean no disrespect to the Quinnipiac University Polling Group; they’re a reliable organization. I expect better from the Associated Press, though. I wonder if Fox “edited” the article? Seems possible. Probable, even. The AP should fire any reporter who wrote an article that implied that John Kerry and Al Sharpton are likely to do as well as each other as presidential candidates against Bush in New York. (By the way, why did they put Al Sharpton’s name in bold face? And why did they provide a search tool for only him and Hillary Clinton, but for no one else?)
And what’s up with that article’s stats? It starts out with figures showing how each candidate would match up against Bush, one on one, and then it jumps to their support from potential Democratic voters. Why tack that on? Makes no sense.
And New York is not a “battleground state.” These days, those are generally agreed to be Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, Nevada, Florida, Missouri and a few others. And where do you get that Lieberman is leading in New York, anyway? That article was dated November 7. I suspect things have changed since then.
A Southern possibility that I haven’t seen mentioned is former Georgia Senator Sam Nunn. He was immensely popular when he retired, and remains so today. He is a towering figure in Georgia political history, and could possibly carry the Democratic ticket here. In fact, he is probably the only VP nominee who could carry the ticket here.
Since he left the Senate, Nunn has been working with the Nuclear Threat Initiative, an organization dedicated to prevention of nuclear terrorism. While in the Senate, he was head of the Armed Services committee. Plenty of gravitas and foreign policy credentials.
As a bonus, he is not a right-wing flake as Zell Miller has turned out to be (alienating many Georgia Democrats by the way - Miller is not a VP option). Nunn is a genuine moderate, solidly aligned with Democratic policies.
I don’t know if Nunn would be interested, but IF he were, and IF Dean wins the nomination, and IF he couldn’t get Clark to join him on the ticket, Nunn would be a great choice.
And hey, if they want to be clever, they can switch the ticket so Sam is running for President and Dean is the VP nominee. That way, Dean would be second to Nunn.
I should point out that Nunn has responded coolly to VP overtures in the past. You never know, though. He could be itching to get back into the game. If I were Dean, I would at least give him a call (and right away) to gauge his interest.
Someone with a higher profile and a difference constituency, a guy who will bring more votes to the campaign, is needed. I suppose that means someone more Southern or Western and maybe more moderate.