I'm not sure what I think of him. He refused to take an NPAT, and I can't find much information on his stances on the issues.
The article claims he's centrist and gives this much:
quote:He is also known to favour higher spending on health care, education and economic development.
Which really tells me jack. What do you guys think? Anyone know more about his stances on the issues?
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Never heard of the guy. Here's the VoteSmart page on him. Not a whole lot of useful info, unless you want to go through the list of his vetoes and decypher the titles.
Posts: 2149 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doesn't really matter. He's way ahead of the usual timeline for this sort of thing, and he's polling at like 1%, against the huge numbers of Obama and Clinton, he might as well not be running. He has zero name recognition outside his home state, and no one knows his stance on issues.
Announcing early (I think he announced what, a week or two ago?) isn't going to secure him extra funding, people are still waiting to hear from the big names before they commit money, which is precisely why the Virginians (Feingold and the governor whose name I can't recall at the moment, Kaine?) got out of it ahead of time, to free up donations.
He probably thinks he has a chance in the primaries because of Iowa's relatively early position, but one state won't carry him. NH and South Carolina will be dead to him, he won't even place fourth (depending on who runs) and come Super Tuesday his name will be a distant memory.
I'll reserve judgement on him personally until he actually gets his name out there and makes some stump speeches, but I think he's dead in the water before he even starts, unless he has some fairly magicaly tricks up his sleeve.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
But not really a surprise. This primary is going to separate the weak from the strong with fundraising. David Geffen raised more money in a week for Obama than Vilsack managed to raise in months. He was never a real contender, he's only just now realizing it's not worth the effort in a campaign he's so clearly dominated in. His other option would have been to wait until July or August to start campaigning, hoping that the leaders would have fallen and he could jump into a hole.
But Joe Biden, John Edwards and Bill Richardson are waiting in the wings, with much bigger machines behind them, to do the same thing. Vilsack, I'm sad to say, was smart to get out now. Anyone who is going to win without money needs a huge, HUGE grassroots campaign behind them, and Vilsack barely had an Iowa operation going. All of the remaining big names have the machine in place to get them to Super Duper Tuesday, but I think after that, or likely a race or two before that, half will drop out rather fast.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I must admit, when I read the news article, my question was, "Vilsack Who?"
Which shows his campaign had a problem already.
I think we should run Paris Hilton against Britney Spears. They have name recognition, they don't stand for anything, and they have more gravitas than the current candidates.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
