I don’t think Kerry is a liberal. In fact, I’ve defended him against that “charge” on this board many times. But he was an easy target to be painted as a liberal. Pelosi, OTOH, is a liberal (not that there’s anything wrong with that ). And this country simply won’t elect someone president of her polical stripe. I could be wrong, but I doubt it. The problem with Kerry (other than that we was a Senator from MA) is that he just wasn’t likeable. The Dems needs someone more like Warner or Richardson.
I sure hope the Dems don’t nominate someone like Pelosi. That might give the Pubs enough courage to nominate someone like Bush again. I want the Pubs to nominate McCain. One thing that will motivate them to do so is if the Dems nominate someone more centrists and “electability” becomes an issue for them. Almost any Pub takes on a cloak of “electability” when Peliso is the Democratic candidate.
If you want to make a statement, nominate Pelosi. If you want to win an election, nominate someone like Warner.
No, John, I’m trying to get rid of the whole “San Francisco Democrat” meme. The one where everyone automatically thinks of a pot smoking tinfoil hat wearing Berkeley hippie that you’re helping to perpetuate. “Nancy Pelosi is a San Francisco Democrat!” So what? What, exactly, is so unsavory about a “San Francisco Democrat”, as opposed to an Ohio Democrat or even an Arizona Democrat, assuming of course that the latter exists? Why is, say, Gavin Newsom not taken seriously as a politician, when he’s one of the most intelligent, well spoken and natural politicians in the state? Explain why “SF Democrat” is a bad thing. And please leave out “because SF is out of touch with the rest of the country,” which is obviously not the case, unless you count yourself among some rare minority in the area.
Palo Alto, Marin, Redwood City, Burlingame, Mountain View, in fact take most of the Peninsula, Atherton, Fremont, Castro Valley, … shall I go on? The Dem majority is only majority by a very small amount if it exists in most of those places.
Maureen, you are absolutely correct but John Mace is also correct that a Democrat from San Fransisco has a large handicap in being elected. Considering Kerry the “Liberal Massachusetts Democrat” had a very hard time, Ms. Pelosi would probably have an even harder time. Perception means more in voting than reality.
Unfortunate but true.
Of course you probably realized all this, but it is my way of defending what John said. I think he is a 100% correct.
It’s hopeless in the short term. For 2008 the Dem’s need a candidate that is perceived as a Moderate from a moderate state. Preferably a Governor. This should make the list small. I’ve heard good things about Warner from Virginia. I wonder who else meets the criteria.
Jim {please let either party provide a candidate I want to vote for}
Puhleez. You’re talking about a city where Gavin Newsom was the conservative candidate for mayor. You’re the one perpetuating ignorance here. You’re the one making the leap from “liberal” to " pot smoking… hippie". I never said that and I would ask you to stop implying that I did.
Not one county in CA voted more strongly Democratic than SF county did in 2004. Not one!
Well, let’s look at the 2004 election again:
County (% voted Dem)
SF (83)
Alameda (75)
Marin (73)
San Mateo (70)
Santa Clara (64)
Contra Costa (62)
Not one is even close to 50/50.
If you want to claim Atherton is Republican, fine. I really don’t know. But what I do know is that the population of Atherton is all of 7,000. Big whoop.
Dianne Feinstein seems to have done a decent job of appearing moderate and avoiding that stigma, so it’s not an insurmountable obstacle. I do think Pelosi is too clearly liberal to be nationally electable, which is why I was pondering the possibility of a back-door entry to the job.
If we go by this map – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2004_US_elections_purple_counties.png – based on the 2004 presidential election – which is broken down by county, and does not designate each county simply “red” or “blue,” but grades them along a red-purple-blue continuum according to vote percentages – the whole SF Bay Area is pretty solidly blue or bluish-purple.
Then please stop using “San Francisco Democrat” as an insult. Unless you meant something by it other than “horrors, you can’t do any worse than that!” when you said:
What image, exactly, were you trying to convey with your use of “San Francisco Liberal”?
Good point. Of course there are centrist Democrats in the SF Bay area. But Nancy Pelosi is not one of them.
Maureen: I don’t know where you get this idea that the Dems are only a small minority in the Bay Area. If you’re saying there are some cities in the Bay Area that are majority Republican or close to 50/50, I agree. But so what? The Bay Area is one of the most heavily Democratic regions in the country. In fact, I’d be surprised if you could find one this large where registered Democrats outnumber Republicans 2-1:
Oh, it definitely is. But there are areas that are very definitely Republican. California also has a huge number of voters that, unfortunately, just don’t bother to show up to vote. I don’t know where John got his numbers, but this PDF has a grid which breaks it down a bit, although not by very many cities. The Democrat majority isn’t nearly as large as it’s touted to be.
I never said Dems were a minority, John. I said it isn’t the huge whopping majority it’s made out to be. My entire objection was how San Francisco Dems are constantly painted. Apparently, even by San Francisco Republicans.
Depends on the topic. As one of the big three leading the charge on gun control, she has been positioned firmly in the minds of gun owners nationwide as a knee-jerk liberal. You don’t hear about her in any other context, really, so other than that she has managed to keep a pretty low profile.
I didn’t say it was an insult. It is a fact. She is a SF Democrat. I said that having that label applied to you wuld be a losing proposition in a national election. Are you saying it would be a plus? Would Pelosi, if she were nominated, campaign on being a Liberal from San Francisco? Would you advise her to do that if you were her campaign manager? Of course you wouldn’t.
I mean to point out the image that the Republican Party would convey. Just as they did with Kerry. And I think in mainstream America “SF Liberal” is a bigger millstone around a person’s neck than “MA Liberal” is.
But if Dems do take the Senate and House, expect the Presidential and Vice presidential security details to increase and their public appearances to decrease. There are whackos on both sides.
Notice I said “this large” when I asked for comparisons. The 9-county Bay Area is slightly smaller by population, but it is many times larger, geographically and much more diverse (urban/suburban/rural). Boston doens’t even come close.
If you want to go mano a mano with SF vs NYC, consider this: NYC has a Republican mayor while SF has a Democrat who lost in a run-off election to the Green candidate. Show me a major metropolitan city in the US where the Greens came that close to holding the mayor’s office. In the general election, Newsom got 41% of the vote and Gonzalez (the Green candidate) got 20%. It went to a run-off because no candidate got more than 50%. The run-off election went 53/47 in favore of Newsom (obviously).
). And this country simply won’t elect someone president of her polical stripe. I could be wrong, but I doubt it. The problem with Kerry (other than that we was a Senator from MA) is that he just wasn’t likeable. The Dems needs someone more like Warner or Richardson.
