Could NC become a swing state?

[cranberries]

Mark Warner lacks the necessary experience to be President. He's only a one-term Governor with ZERO foreign policy experience. In my opinion, he's jumping the gun and cutting in line. He should run for Senate. He stands a good chance of beating John Warner, who may be retiring anyway, and George Allen. In fact, in a poll taken a few months back he was shown as beating Allen for his Senate seat.

Warner could possibly could win the Senate seat. But by those standards mentioned, Bush wasn't either. He had ZERO foreign policy experience and was only governor.

However, Demo's have to get a candidate that is likeable so people actually want him/her to be president. Tired of candidates from either side trying to play the center of the road and not standing up for what they believe in... covering up for the other side. Don't we all sometimes want to pick 'none of the above' !

[RaleighLover]

Warner could possibly could win the Senate seat. But by those standards mentioned, Bush wasn't either. He had ZERO foreign policy experience and was only governor.

However, Demo's have to get a candidate that is likeable so people actually want him/her to be president. Tired of candidates from either side trying to play the center of the road and not standing up for what they believe in... covering up for the other side. Don't we all sometimes want to pick 'none of the above' !

And Bush has worked out so well, hasn't he?

Yes, Bush was a Governor, but lets remember he was elected before 9/11. Times have changed. Now, whether you believe anything REALLY changed after 9/11 (I personally don't) the fact is our perception and politics did. It'll matter more than ever in 2008.

If you want a candidate like Warner who can both get elected and has the experience to boot check out Evan Bayh.

Warner is a bad direction for the Democratic Party. He's too conservative. They're mistaking unsuccessful public image on their part for unpopular policies.

Republicans appeal more to their core constituents. Democrats certainly could, but they haven't for quite a long time, and the result is that these people are leaving the party and giving up on politics in many cases.

We need someone who is willing to make government more accountible, and roll back the measures taken by this current administration to bypass civil liberties. An environmentalist. Someone fiscally responsible. Someone who at least knows a decent amount of economic and governmental theory, instead of writing his own as he goes along.

They ran with a pair of moderates in the last election; they played the safest hand they possibly could, and it failed in the face of one of the most unsuccessful presidents ever. It doesn't matter what the policies on the card are, the media will portray him as the darkest shade of dark blue, and the most wretched type of traitor to the 'american way of life', whatever he is, whomever he is.

I disagree, mostly because I am a Conservative Democrat. I want the party to move more towards the center and not be dominated by the Moveon.org/Dean left wing.

[MR-2]

And Bush has worked out so well, hasn't he?

Yes, Bush was a Governor, but lets remember he was elected before 9/11. Times have changed. Now, whether you believe anything REALLY changed after 9/11 (I personally don't) the fact is our perception and politics did. It'll matter more than ever in 2008.

If you want a candidate like Warner who can both get elected and has the experience to boot check out Evan Bayh.

I disagree, mostly because I am a Conservative Democrat. I want the party to move more towards the center and not be dominated by the Moveon.org/Dean left wing.

That's fine for you maybe. I would prefer to have more than one major party in control of government personally. Ideally, we would have several, but for now...

This is one of the problems we get. Our policies are completely different, and we have a completely different view of how government should be run, yet we both might have voted for the same people in 2004. There's only two people representing everybody in the presidential race, so everybody has to make concessions. It's a bad system, and implementing a better system will take a long time, since the people who generally do well politically want to preserve the mechanism that got them there.

[cranberries]

And Bush has worked out so well, hasn't he?

Yes, Bush was a Governor, but lets remember he was elected before 9/11. Times have changed. Now, whether you believe anything REALLY changed after 9/11 (I personally don't) the fact is our perception and politics did. It'll matter more than ever in 2008.

If you want a candidate like Warner who can both get elected and has the experience to boot check out Evan Bayh.

I disagree, mostly because I am a Conservative Democrat. I want the party to move more towards the center and not be dominated by the Moveon.org/Dean left wing.

I am democrat - Conservative on wasting money on fat cats, liberal on social issues.

I don't believe in corporate welfare (tax breaks for corps like walmart, exxon,etc) let them pay their share and the individual people won't have to pay as much.

I will look at Evan Bayh to see what he is about. I am not stuck on any one person. Sometimes it may be nice to have someone that is really for the people!

And Bush is a complete idiot and disaster. Everyone hates us and we know why. I don't blame them at all.

[RaleighLover]

I am democrat - Conservative on wasting money on fat cats, liberal on social issues.

I don't believe in corporate welfare (tax breaks for corps like walmart, exxon,etc) let them pay their share and the individual people won't have to pay as much.

I will look at Evan Bayh to see what he is about. I am not stuck on any one person. Sometimes it may be nice to have someone that is really for the people!

And Bush is a complete idiot and disaster. Everyone hates us and we know why. I don't blame them at all.

You sound close to me except I'm probably more moderate on social issues, but judging by this it sounds like Bayh would be a great fit for you.

Some sites:

www.allamericapac.com

www.bayhpartisan.com

[cranberries]

You sound close to me except I'm probably more moderate on social issues, but judging by this it sounds like Bayh would be a great fit for you.

Some sites:

www.allamericapac.com

www.bayhpartisan.com

Thanks for the link.

I looked at this site and will have to view it further. It really seems interesting.

I want to know where he voted on the Iraq war thing... will Repub's hold it against him as well.

Any Senator will be under the gun on that one. However, from a numbers perspective, he is from Illinois, that state going into the blue column would be a big incentive because it usually goes red. That state is currently 11 votes - which is a 22 point margin if pulled.

I would like to know where he stands on some issues. Will check the site throughly to see if it is there.

NC may just go blue with a few other states. I saw a bumper sticker that had the "w" logo for Bush on it and the remainder had "orst"...(Worst). I thought Ouch.

[voyager12]

This proud ultraleft winger would love for NC to go blue but I highly doubt that will occur anytime soon. We have a better chance of becoming a swing state in the future. If only Asheville and the liberal parts of the Triangle were larger:ph34r: who knows what NC could have been....

[cinco]

^ mecklenburg county is currently blue as well.... and i believe the next closest blue county to mecklenburg was anson. i found that very intriguing as it's a typical semi-rural NC county, that's surrounded by red counties.

as far as the earlier post stating a presidential canidate should be more than just a 1 term governor - it should be noted that 4 out of the last 5 presidents came from the governor seat. IMO, the reason governors tend to do better than a senator or career politician, is the percieved disconnect from big washington politics, by the voter. even though, thats a joke.

the democrats need to get it together. last election i really felt strong about wesley clark. retired general, finance degree in investment banking, vast foreign policy experience and from the south. these are huge credentials... but, when it came down to debating others - he wasn't the actor the others were. it is a shame that if you not an amazing orator or thespian you will never make it as a politician. i think it's why gore didn't win in 2000 and kerry in 2004. both men, i feel were better suited for the presidency than bush... which is an extremely low aspiration, but none the less - the way the people wanted it. BTW, i think clark will be back. i saw himin an interview the other day... he seemed recharged, renewed, and wouldn't speculate about 2008.

overall, i feel it's a shame that we are just talking about red and blue. if nothing else the 2 parties have managed to agree on one thing... stonewalling other parties from REALLY participating in the elections. ever since ross perot (which probably effected repube votes) both parties have agreed in shutting out others. i think it's an insult to our democracry and will ultimately be detrimental. as much as ralph nader was lambasted and hailed as a charlatan, he still decided to face that criticism, qualify for the ballot, and run for office... he should have been given the right to participate in the debates. we as citizens should demand nothing less or we will continue to witness the homogenizing of our political system.

psychadelic furs had a song about it, "president gas".

[MR-2]

I always thought a concerted effort among 3rd party and independents to pool votes for the same candidate (who just ran on the policies they all agreed on), would be able to pull a big chunk out of the popular vote.

If a candidate ran solely on fixing the electoral process: equal television coverage for candidates that receive enough prelim votes, eliminating the electoral college, setting up a single-transferrable vote system for the National elections, and establishing spending limits for parties campaigning, I think any 3rd party would support that. I think a lot of major party members could get behind that, and if they chose a good election, with two really lackluster major party candidates, they could pull it off.

It would require a massive internet campaign though, culminating in a television and newspaper campaign. It would literally need everyone on board to work. Getting a precise electoral policy that everyone can agree on is tricky, even when they all want a similar type of reform.

It seems this year's Unity.08 is similar to that concept, but they take sides on a lot of domestic and foreign issues, and don't accomplish much with their electoral reform policies to be a worthwhile vote.

[cranberries]

^ mecklenburg county is currently blue as well.... and i believe the next closest blue county to mecklenburg was anson. i found that very intriguing as it's a typical semi-rural NC county, that's surrounded by red counties.

as far as the earlier post stating a presidential canidate should be more than just a 1 term governor - it should be noted that 4 out of the last 5 presidents came from the governor seat. IMO, the reason governors tend to do better than a senator or career politician, is the percieved disconnect from big washington politics, by the voter. even though, thats a joke.

the democrats need to get it together. last election i really felt strong about wesley clark. retired general, finance degree in investment banking, vast foreign policy experience and from the south. these are huge credentials... but, when it came down to debating others - he wasn't the actor the others were. it is a shame that if you not an amazing orator or thespian you will never make it as a politician. i think it's why gore didn't win in 2000 and kerry in 2004. both men, i feel were better suited for the presidency than bush... which is an extremely low aspiration, but none the less - the way the people wanted it. BTW, i think clark will be back. i saw himin an interview the other day... he seemed recharged, renewed, and wouldn't speculate about 2008.

overall, i feel it's a shame that we are just talking about red and blue. if nothing else the 2 parties have managed to agree on one thing... stonewalling other parties from REALLY participating in the elections. ever since ross perot (which probably effected repube votes) both parties have agreed in shutting out others. i think it's an insult to our democracry and will ultimately be detrimental. as much as ralph nader was lambasted and hailed as a charlatan, he still decided to face that criticism, qualify for the ballot, and run for office... he should have been given the right to participate in the debates. we as citizens should demand nothing less or we will continue to witness the homogenizing of our political system.

psychadelic furs had a song about it, "president gas".

Is anyone else tired of the way we elect the primaries?

Shouldn't the election be for everyone. By the time it comes our turn to vote, most of the players have dropped out because of money. Iowa and New Hampshire seemed to decide who became Democrat runner last time. I would like to see everyone vote on the same day, just like in November... or anyother race for that matter. What is up with 'section' voting. No wonder people don't care about voting as much anymore.

I didn't vote for Kerry in the primaries.

But back to the red/blue... given the insurge of people to charlotte from other states, well we might be in for something exciting. Add that to the discontent of the people for the past few years and who knows. My parents are strongly Republican and they said they regretted voting for Bush and may vote Democratic next time. I believe that there may be more of that sentiment out there.