Just a reminder about what is at stake.

[ginchinchili]

It's important that we be as objective as possible in deciding who to support in this primary because there is so much at stake, and it behooves us to avoid the temptation to assume the Democrats already have this election in the bag. Candidates that fall into that mindset often do so at their own peril.

We've been witnessing all kinds of polls, but during the general election all bets are off. And as if it's not tough enough to have just Democrat against Republican, there's serious speculation that Michael Bloomberg and Chuck Hagel are going to run as a ticket. You might consider, for example, which Democratic candidates would be hurt the most by that in the general election and which would weather it the best. And we can't ever forget the kind of brutal Republican attack awaiting whichever candidate we choose. It will be very, very ugly, because the Republicans are feeling some desperation.

I'm sure many of you feel as I do that the Bush Administration has caused us to fall way behind in the development of alternative forms of energy and ways to make serious reductions in our nation's greenhouse gases. This is an example of what we'll continue to sacrifice if our candidate loses in the general election, because it will take a Democrat to give alternative energy research and the reduction of gases that contribute to global warming the priority it requires. We really can't afford to put this off any longer.

And of course there's Iraq. If a Democrat fails to get elected, the Iraq War will continue and Bush's Iraq agenda will continue to be forced down the throats of Iraqis and Americans alike. The Republicans want to make our presence there permanent, another insane foreign policy faux pas that will further threaten our national security and our credibility in the world. More of our soldiers will die, more innocent Iraqis will die, and our money that should be going toward things like health care and education will continue to evaporate with nothing but death and destruction to show for it. That has to end.

If the Democrats fail to win the White House our health care system will continue to be a source of national shame. A small group of people will continue expanding their bank accounts while the rest of us either go without the health care we need or we go broke paying for it.

The issues that need addressing are too numerous to mention here, but I'm sure you all get my drift. So, please be mindful of the consequences should we fail to win another presidential election. It might mean throwing your support behind another candidate if your personal favorite has weaknesses that might make for a risky prospect in the general election. How broad is your candidate's appeal? How strong will your candidate appear in the presidential debates? What would the effect be on your candidate, if any, should we have a terrorist attack during the campaign? And if Bloomberg runs? Try your best to think outside the box on these issues, and anything else you might consider pertinent.

Just wanted to put this out there because it's extremely important and should always be kept in mind during this primary. Peace.

[jillan]

1. It is time to see what candidate can really win against the GOP.

By Feb 5th, we will know who our candidate is going to be.

9 months of 527's.
Seriously - which candidate(s) are going to be able to survive that?

[PatSeg]

15. And not just win against the GOP

but win by a huge margin. The next president has to be more than willing to bring about broad changes, he/she will have to be able. The president will need to be able to work effectively with congress and have a mandate from the people behind him/her.

[RaleighNCDUer]

2. I'm sorry to point out that even if a Democrat is elected many of

those statements will still be true, if it is the wrong Democrat.

The wrong Democrat will not get us out of Iraq.
The wrong Democrat will not fix healthcare.
The wrong Democrat will not give us alternative energy.
The wrong Democrat will continue to enrich the wealthy while giving lipservice to the middle class.

That, also, must be kept in mind.

[ginchinchili]

3. I think it's a mistake to equate any of the Democratic candidates

with George Bush, which is essentially what you're saying, since my point was that if the Republicans win the Bush agenda continues. True, different candidates have different priorities, but I believe any one of them would be an improvement over Bush's America. However, I agree that we should consider their strengths and weaknesses, how they prioritize the issues, and the details of their plans. I think you're absolutely right in that respect. Your post brings to mind another point worth weighing. We should also be considering which candidates would be best at getting their plans enacted. I don't believe all the candidates are created equal in their skills at bringing others on board to get legislation passed. It ain't easy in our diverse nation.

[Beam Me Up]

6. But, by your definition, can the RIGHT Democrat get elected?

I question whether or not such a RIGHT Democrat can even get nominated.

And I think this is the same situation BOTH parties are in.

[ginchinchili]

8. That's up to us.

The point of my post is to encourage everyone to be as objective and to weigh as many different angles as possible in a realistic way so that we DO come up with the best candidate for what we need. Can we do that? Sure. The question is, will we? That remains to be seen.

[nightrider767]

7. Yes and thank you for saying the truth n/t

[Kucinich4America]

4. If Bloomberg and Hagel run as a third party, then the answer is obvious.

There would be no point in wasting energy and money on a mythical "center" that would be split possibly three ways while ignoring the HUGE number of people who have drifted away from the last several elections because the candidates do not represent them.

Nominate a candidate of the people. Kucinich can deliver that message. Edwards and Obama? perhaps. Richardson? From what I've read, he sounded great today, but he needs to bring it to the debates when he has a nationwide audience watching. Biden? I'm still pissed at him for the bankruptcy bill, and a lot of people probably won't forgive him for that.

Hillary? Not buying it. Never will. And that's what I hear everywhere I go, as well. This time "electability" is not spelled with a dollar sign, it's going to require a candidate that the people want to elect.

[Inuca]

9. The problem with your argument is that

it is almost certain that Bloomberg will decide only AFTER the two party candidates will be known. And who these candidates are will obviously influence his decision. The man is no fool (and neither is Hagel for that matter) and he stated repeatedly that he will not get into this unless he thinks he has a decent chance to win. All this is assuming of course that Bloomberg is actually interested, which he keeps denying, even after the recent spate of speculations after his meetings with Hagel and Obama.

[ginchinchili]

10. You make some good points.

So perhaps the best approach to take would be to consider who would be a strong candidate and remain so if Bloomberg decides to enter the race. And, as you point out, who we choose as our nominee will affect whether or not Bloomberg decides to do so. Part of that equation would be the strength of the candidates, especially the Democrat. In theory, if the Democrats choose a candidate who will have a tough time in the general election, Bloomberg will probably run. If he perceives the candidate to be a strong general election candidate, he'll stay out. Thanks for sharing your astute observations.

[Inuca]

11. I am sure that Bloomberg's final decision

will be affected by the dem and repub choices, but I not sure (obviously!) what his criteria would be. The perceived strength of the candidates will definitely come into play, as you suggest. But also the speculation seems to be that he is more likely to enter he race if Hillary, and especially the Hillary/Giuliani combo. One reason for that would be that they (especially Giuliani, since I do not really think of HRC as a New Yorker) would negate the NY backlash from the heartland. But my feeling (and I am most likely completely off on this, not to mention naive) is that he does not like Hillary, and would not want her to win. I mention this because, in spite of my dislike of her, I think that if Hillary is nominated, she has a pretty decent chance of winning. In any case, I know who you have in mind, and my gut feeling (worth extremely little, of course) is that the NY B would not run against the other B.

[ginchinchili]

12. I concur.

[ginchinchili]

13. Is Kucinich really the obvious answer?

I don't necessarily believe that Bloomberg's entrance into the race would mean he'd capture a majority center. For one, we shouldn't assume that everyone is going to go running to Bloomberg just because he enters the race. He has the advantage of endless money, but he's late in the game, has little name recognition, and his political experience is limited. I also think people will resent him trying to buy the election with his own money. Another point is that we shouldn't forget that both Bloomberg and Hagel are Republicans, so they wouldn't be offering a lot of change, which people want, and they wouldn't peel off too many Democrats, because we're so sick of Republicans. And that's true even if he runs as an Independent.

I'm not sure if they'd run as Republicans or Independents, but frankly it's hard to imagine Kucinich garnering enough votes to win the election, with or without Bloomberg in the race. It would be risky on the part of Democrats, particularly since he has a difficult time capturing a significant percentage of Democratic support, much less winning over moderate Republicans and/or independents. I admire Dennis Kucinich for his courage to speak his mind and often take unpopular positions on issues, but he does pay a price for that. You still have to get a majority of Americans to vote for you and I don't know if Kucinich has that kind of broad based appeal.

I think Bloomberg would split the Republican vote and a strong Democratic candidate would still get most of the Democratic vote and perhaps some independents who don't want another Republican; don't like Bloomberg's policy offerings (whatever they may be); are skeptical about his limited experience; or who resent him trying to buy the presidency, which would make for a very bad precedent, very dangerous. And a big question mark looms over Bloomberg's life and whatever skeletons he may have in his closet. Anyone that enormously successful in business had to have stepped on a few toes along the way.

[asdjrocky]

5. K&R

[livvy]

14. What an excellent post.

You make many good points.

I know from different online polly things whom I am most aligned with, but I understand that I am on the far end of the political spectrum. I'm a real liberal liberal, and that's not where most of the people in this country are at. I actually think that most people are more liberal than they believe themselves to be, but it is only because the label of liberal is negative.

I'm willing to give a bit and support the person that I believe can do the best for our country at this particular point in time. I feel we are in the midst of a constitutional crisis, with over-aggressive (to say the least)foreign policies, an abuse of the rule of law, and a severe attack on our civil rights.

We are in a really scary time that most people aren't even aware of. They are going about their daily lives like nothing has changed, and we know that's not the truth.

My choice of a candidate was based on these concerns. I chose Biden. I'm sure I have made a good choice based on the concerns I've expressed.

[ginchinchili]

16. I think your concerns are very well founded and on the mark.

I totally concur with you that Americans are naive about just how serious things have gotten. If everyone analyzed the current political landscape and put the nation's best interests before their own personal leanings like you have, we'd be a hell of a lot better off. In my book that qualifies as a good American, and I don't say that lightly. Thanks for your response.