Having lived in the 7th, I think they would go for a progressive candidate, but s/he must be a viable candidate.  From my friends who still live in the district, I have heard that our 06 candidate was not viable and obviously from the fundraising numbers here could not raise money.

I find the author's analysis very weak. There are no tests for significance (a simple t-test comparing average change in contested districts with field organizers versus all other contested would be possible), which would be fairly easy with a stats program like SPSS. Either the author has purposely omitted significance tests or has no understanding of social science research.  That is not to say that I think Dean's 50-state strategy has not beeen successful, I would just wait for research that was not quite so amateurish.    

I would actually coordinate my literature with whatever the campaign's press team is emphasizing (they've probably conducted a poll and are emphasizing issues that are most important to their key demographics).  For example, if the campaign is pushing education right now, hit the incumbent on No Child Left Behind, which he probably voted for. It's better to have a degree of coordination and repetition.

"I don't like typing that, but I sometimes have to wonder what else is holding Ford back."

Ford's strengths: he can easily outraise all of his competitors, a crowded and late (early august) republican primary, and he is an excellent orator, one of the best I've ever seen.

Weaknesses (what's holding him back): an uncle recently brought down for bribery charges (the TN Waltz), a father who was not the cleanest politician in DC.  He and his campaign also suffer from being politically inept.  The ineptitude is mostly manifested in small ways: a campaign ad blasting gas prices with Ford filling up an SUV, telling a room full of Democrats he supports vouchers (although no one asked if he did), not showing up to events, etc.

Also, those of us who have actually examined his voting record in detail aren't excited about him. In fact, the ONLY reason I will vote for him is because if he wins, we're one step closer to taking back the senate.

my permanent city of residence is Jonesboro.  What nonprofit do you manage?

They'll all get at least some kind of contribution if this pick a progressive patriot round is anything like the last one.

Don't know if Russ could ever be vice president. He's just too independent. He obviously wants to lead, and I think he might have some trouble having to take policy orders from anyone.

That game was way too close. TN's defense was horrendous.

Jenkins finally retires. It had been rumored before 04 that he might retire because he was sick... As a TN-01 voter let me just say, it's good to see him go. he was a waste of space.

AP article: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/ 2006-02-15-feingold-patriot-act_x.htm

Really, you're comparing Eisenhower's run in 1952 to a Clark run today?

I like Wes Clark, but he's not Ike. He is not seen as the military force that won a world war. He was not heavily courted by both parties to run for President (Truman attempted to get Ike to run as a Dem). He does not have the name recognition that Ike had in 1952 nor is he revered like Ike was by vets (and virtually every voting male was a vet by then).

In short, the ONLY thing Clark and Ike have in common is that they are both generals.
 

I have to disagree. Richardson is a possible (not necessarily probable) VP choice. He has scandal experience from his time at the DoE.

Warner is not telegenic. He was a very effective governor for VA, but he is not media savvy, charismatic, or inspirational. He is a Kerryesque, good on paper candidate without the foreign policy credentials.

Clark didnt win the first time and won't win this time. He is from the South but has never held office in the South. He does not have a strong campaign structure for any one state and I would be very surprised if he actually won a southern state in a hypothetical general election where he was the nominee.