Assuming they could ALL get Elected?

[Protagoras]

Ok, because I'm a bit befuddled by the rancor I see aimed at our own candidates (esp whoever is in the lead on any given month)...and the frequent assertions that anyone who admits to less than idealistic or absolutist positions is some form of sellout...I need to ask the DU community to clarify a couple things for me.

Assuming all 4-5 democratic candidates (however you want to count it) could get elected (thereby removing the concept of electability)...hell assume the Supreme Court is going to appoint whoever DU tells them to....

But republicans continue to control the house and senate...(because by all indications they will).

In the next 4 years...who would be the most effective President? Key word *Effective*.

Knowing they still have to work with the supreme court, still have to appeal to the people, and have to get their bills thru congress and avoid having their Veto's overridden...

Who would be most to least successful in:

Placing progressive supreme court (and other federal court) judges.
Helping to regain seats for democrats in the Congress
Advancing the cause of Healthcare Coverage for all Americans
Increasing primary education support and funding
Increasing access and funding for higher education
Slowing or stopping the Offshoring of American Jobs
Improving our standing in the International Community
Reducing violence in the ME
Increasing the average wage for workers
Increasing empoyment rates/decrease unemployment
Providing for/protect retirement/social security for the elderly
Reducing the impact of corporate contributions on elections
Getting re-elected in 4 years
more...

I'm really focused on the terms effective and successful because I'm seeing so much debate between idealism and electability that I think we sometimes lose sight of what is actually going to happen after the election. Do we want a one hit wonder? Do we want a democrat to serve one term that re-polarizes the right to the extent that Bush has polarized the left? Or are we looking for someone who can get in and keep us in a position for positive change for more than 4 years? And if so...what does it really take to get that? How well must we be able to play with others?

Just curious how the DU veterans view it.

:D

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. Dennis, but he'd need a progressive congress to back him up

Same for the other candidates.

[Protagoras]

2. So what are you basing that on?

Has Dennis had a good track record of swinging votes in congress? Has he got a great record of his bills passing? I understand his positions are attractive but what is it about him that makes me think he'll be able to be successful as president?

I'm not asking this to bash Dennis. I would ask the same for anyone named in this away.

The electability issue aside (which is the point of this thread)..What is supposed to make me believe that candidate X has the kind of charisma/appeal/political savy that will be required to get progressive things done in a hostile congress and with a country split nearly 50/50 along party lines?

you qualify it by saying "he'd need a progress congress" but that's part of the reality we are going to need to address...who has the best chance of creating a progressive congress?

Who could survive the current congress? Why? What qualities are they going to need in order to survive? And if they survive what will it take for them to actually achieve anything in office that we desire?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

3. I say Kerry

Placing progressive supreme court (and other federal court) judges

He has a longer legislative memory for perusing the available pool of judges concerning those issues closest to us and remembering the battles on which ground was lost in environmental and commerce issues

Helping to regain seats for democrats in the Congress
Since the south has been trending more and more Republican/conserative Democrat in their elections, it makes much more sense to go to the liberal and northern states to try and pic off Repubs in place of Democrats. A Democrat in the south who votes like Breaux on ecological issues does us no real good.

Advancing the cause of Healthcare Coverage for all Americans

Again, his plan is the easiest to implement, he has stated HOW it can be paid for and increasing coverage for MORE Americans means less strain on other programs for desperate Americans.

Increasing access and funding for higher education
His plan on his site adresses this well

Slowing or stopping the Offshoring of American Jobs

By removing incentives locally for employers to go elsewhere by limiting government contracts, he goes a long way to stem this.

Improving our standing in the International Community

This is where I believe he will be able to do the MOST repair, especially since he already has had relationships with many of these countries from his past work.

Reducing violence in the ME
See above


Increasing the average wage for workers
Increasing empoyment rates/decrease unemployment

Both items are truly more contingent on the will of congress than most of the other items, but I suggest if he fails at first he will keep coming back to it until the political will is there..i.e. the point when congress needs to start covering their ass with their own constituents.

Providing for/protect retirement/social security for the elderly

This is going to be a tough job now no matter who gets in....Halliburton spent our retirement.

Reducing the impact of corporate contributions on elections

He's already done that far better than most.

Getting re-elected in 4 years

IMpossible to prognosticate.

[Protagoras]

4. Thanks NSMA, This was what I was looking for.

Wish other supporters would actually walk through a comparitive discussion of their candidates in as direct a manner.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

5. There are some who will so I am kicking this back up

[Guaranteed]

6. Dean has the most executive experience, and was also

very successful. I'd go with him.

[katieforeman]

7. John Edwards is best for our causes in the long run.

John Edwards can do for Democrats what Reagan did for Republicans- articulate a coherent philosophy of government and define a vision that inspires. Reagan had his "Shining City on a Hill." John Edwards has the dream of merging "Two Americas" into "One America." Kerry and Edwards both have some very good policy ideas, but John Edwards is the only one whose policies are part of a larger vision. For the past twenty years, Reagan's conservative vision has defined the political life of this country. Edward puts fourth a powerful competing vision that will define the next twenty years of the political debate in this country if he is our next President.

John Edwards has all of the hallmarks of a very popular President. His coattails will likely be longer. Because he is so articulate and likeable, John Edwards is the candidate best able to make effective use of the bully pulpit. Furthermore, a popular President has much more leverage with Congress and is more effective at pushing his agenda. Remember how cowed Democrats were when Bush was riding high.

John Edwards has a future-oriented, positive vision. If he is the nominee, the Progressive vision will be at the center of the national political debate. If John "bring it on" Kerry is the nominee, the debate will be framed around divisive issues of the past like Kerry's voting record and Vietnam.


GO Edwards!