Wednesday 2008; The democrat's primary
The democrat's primary, can Feingold win?
In short yes. I wouldn't be backing him if I thought he couldn't win.
There is no doubt that Hillary Clinton is the front runner, however she has been the front runner since she won her senate seat in 2000. That is a long time to run and as the poll I put up on the site yesterday shows he popularity is sinking. It is also becoming evident that if she wins the primary she won't win the final election. Since going to the senate she has moved herself to the center on most issues from abortion to flag burning to become more electable in 2008, but instead this has confused her position on issues and will easily be tagged as a "flip-flopper". She also has yet to take a stand on the Iraq war which John Kerry proved doesn't work. I am also convinced that someone somewhere is making a Fahrenheit 911 type film about her waiting to release it after the primary's. I could go on, but I think you see where I am going. In the end I think she may not even run much like Al Gore decided not to in 2004 when he was suppose to be the front runner. Who will replace her? Probably Mark Warner but it could be any of the other candate's. They are basically all the same.
They are basically all the same except for Feingold. Feingold has developed strong stances on issues and while people may not agree with all of them, they know where he stands. While this may not seem like a good thing, this is exactly how George Bush got elected (did I seriously just compare Feingold to Bush?). Feingold is going to be a strong opposition to the status quo of "DC democrat's". Chris Mathews described him as a "sane Dean". He is going to have the grassroots support going into the primary like Dean, but unlike Dean as people get to know him they like him more.
His biggest obstacles seem to be twice divorced Jew and raising money. I think being single will be a big obstacle (for the live of me I can't see why that matters. I vote on issues, but that is just me), but I have a feeling he is going to get married again in the next year or two. As for being twice divorced, divorced is so common these days, I think that most people won't care that much. I think that most of the people who won't vote for him for being the twice divorced Jew wouldn't vote for a democrat anyway, so that is a nonissue as far as I am concerned. As for the money, that is where I think his real obstacle lies. Hopefully his grassroots support can over come this. I would like also to add labeling is really important these days. Another of Feingold's electable qualities is he is not a eastcoast liberal he is a Midwest progressive and as much as they are going to try to label him as a liberal it just won't stick, ask Tim Michaels about that.
Right now, I see it going like this Clinton or Warner 60%, Feingold 30%, someone else 10%. I have a couple of Feingold articles I will be putting up tomorrow.
Next week; The Republicans from a progressive point of view.
In short yes. I wouldn't be backing him if I thought he couldn't win.
There is no doubt that Hillary Clinton is the front runner, however she has been the front runner since she won her senate seat in 2000. That is a long time to run and as the poll I put up on the site yesterday shows he popularity is sinking. It is also becoming evident that if she wins the primary she won't win the final election. Since going to the senate she has moved herself to the center on most issues from abortion to flag burning to become more electable in 2008, but instead this has confused her position on issues and will easily be tagged as a "flip-flopper". She also has yet to take a stand on the Iraq war which John Kerry proved doesn't work. I am also convinced that someone somewhere is making a Fahrenheit 911 type film about her waiting to release it after the primary's. I could go on, but I think you see where I am going. In the end I think she may not even run much like Al Gore decided not to in 2004 when he was suppose to be the front runner. Who will replace her? Probably Mark Warner but it could be any of the other candate's. They are basically all the same.
They are basically all the same except for Feingold. Feingold has developed strong stances on issues and while people may not agree with all of them, they know where he stands. While this may not seem like a good thing, this is exactly how George Bush got elected (did I seriously just compare Feingold to Bush?). Feingold is going to be a strong opposition to the status quo of "DC democrat's". Chris Mathews described him as a "sane Dean". He is going to have the grassroots support going into the primary like Dean, but unlike Dean as people get to know him they like him more.
His biggest obstacles seem to be twice divorced Jew and raising money. I think being single will be a big obstacle (for the live of me I can't see why that matters. I vote on issues, but that is just me), but I have a feeling he is going to get married again in the next year or two. As for being twice divorced, divorced is so common these days, I think that most people won't care that much. I think that most of the people who won't vote for him for being the twice divorced Jew wouldn't vote for a democrat anyway, so that is a nonissue as far as I am concerned. As for the money, that is where I think his real obstacle lies. Hopefully his grassroots support can over come this. I would like also to add labeling is really important these days. Another of Feingold's electable qualities is he is not a eastcoast liberal he is a Midwest progressive and as much as they are going to try to label him as a liberal it just won't stick, ask Tim Michaels about that.
Right now, I see it going like this Clinton or Warner 60%, Feingold 30%, someone else 10%. I have a couple of Feingold articles I will be putting up tomorrow.
Next week; The Republicans from a progressive point of view.
posted by Jon at 11:43 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home