I thought it might be cool to have a thread where we can share some unconventional, unorthodox, out-of-the-box ideas.
Consider this to be a brianstorming thread.
For example, here's my idea for two Midwest Senate races: Ohio and Missouri.
This idea sprang out of the fact that I'm beginning to think that we might have a hard time finding quality candidates who have a shot at winning those seats in 2006.
OHIO
I'm still hopeful that Sherrod Brown, Ted Strickland, Marcy Kaptur, Tim Ryan, or Michael White (Mayor of Cleveland) will run for this seat. I don't think that Jerry Springer would be an effective voice for us (he's a little too out of the box) and Kucinich would be DOA against DeWine. But if none of them run, here's my unorthodox suggestion:
Draft John Edwards to run in Ohio.
I'm serious, and here's why:
1)Organization: It's fairly well known that the Ohio Democratic party is in a sad, sad state. It hasn't managed to elect a Democrat statewide since 1992, and that fact speaks volumes. Edwards still has a lot of campaign infrastructure and loyalty he could use to build his own field operation outside of the State Party. That in turn, could be a structure that could later be used to rehabilitate the state party and it could have a coattails effect that would bring Michael Coleman into the Governors Office (assuming he is our candidate).
2)Unity: As an outsider, Edwards could have a unifying effect in a state that is split among several different and varied constituencies (Cleveland, Columbus, Cincy, Toledo, and Dayton). From what I've been told, this fracturing of the Democratic party on regional lines has hindered us severely in Ohio.
3)Message: Edwards "work vs. wealth" message is tailor made for a state like Ohio which has been sucking wind economically because of Bushist economic policies over the last few years. He's a self made millionaire, and that is always a story that plays well when times are tough.
4)Money: Edwards doesn't need to build any recognition in the state after the 2004 campaign, which would have the net effect of saving millions of dollars in the general. In addition, I don't believe that Edwards spent any of his own money in the 2004 race, so he's probably got some change that he would be willing to spend some of it. The only concern is that we're already looking at at least two races which are going to cost at least $50 million a piece (PA and MN), and a third is in sight (VA if Warner runs). This one would definitely top $50 million too, and I worry about our resources being spread too thin.
MISSOURI
This once again assumes that Robyn Carnahan, Richard Gephardt, Jay Nixon, or Roger Wilson do not run. Similar idea, but instead of John Edwards, there's a really good Senate candidate that lives right next door in Arkansas. Heck, there's even an organization already in place to draft him for the race. The signs for this one would read:
Wesley Clark for Missouri.
Once again, I'm serious, and here's why:
1)Organization: Same as above, except Clark had an even better presence among the netroots, which would help him immensley with fundraising.
2)Unity: Once again, a state party which has been on the decline of late (but which is nowhere near as bad as Ohio, in fairness). He could bring the St. Louis, KC, and outstate factions together under one banner.
3)Message: If you look at the only federally elected official from Missouri who isn't from KC or St. Louis, you'll find Ike Skelton, who is unbelieveably popular in his rural Missouri district? Why? Because he's a tough SOB who's big on defense issues, which play well in rural and suburban areas. If Clark could win over some of these folks, Talent(less) is headed for defeat.
4)Money: As mentioned, a strong netroots presence which could raise a lot of money quickly. I once again echo the thought that a lot of DSCC money is already being earmarked for PA and MN, so we're going to have to get the money elsewhere. Wes can do that.
So, what do you think? Good? Bad? Ugly? Incredibly stupid? Shortsighted?
Oh, and I'd like to see YOUR unorthodox ideas too.