Goodie! No Frist means we're less likely to get another extremist on the right wing. I wonder why he retired from the Senate if he didn't want to make a run, though.... Edit: Oh, he only wanted to stay two terms. Makes sense.
I personally want Clark to get the nomination for the Dems, but it probably won't happen.
On Clark I'd point you to my recent diary entry that covers the various media hints he's given that he'll get in early enough (if he gets in) to have a chance.
For Republicans I think it'll likely be McCain either with Giuliani to try and preserve his moderate image or a religious fella' to stimulate the base. As for a crazy on the right, however, you've still got Huckabee and Brownback and Romney... And that's just religious crazy's, let alone Gingrich or (if he doesn't drop out for some reason, given he lost his Senate race he likely will) Allen.
Gore might be interesting. I wonder how many people might "give" it to him. "Gee, sorry for electing tweedle-dee over you. Heres your presidency back."
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from Cochese »
Do threads in this forum ever not get hijacked by the magical invisible hand of the market guys?
If that were going to happen in large numbers, I'd think Kerry would have done a bit better than he did. Really, most of the people who are angry at Bush are the ones who didn't vote him the first time. Besides, unlike in '04, Bush is out no matter who you vote for. So I don't anticipate much of a sympathy vote for Gore. In fact, I imagine nominating Gore or Kerry would be a bad move for a Democratic Party that's still trying to revitalize itself; they reek of the past.
Kerry had and has no business being a candidate, I agree. But I think Gore, given how attitudes on alternative energy, global warming, and Clinton era economic policy has shifted towards the positive he might be very easy to sell as "Don't you want the world back to how it was before Bush?"
either with Giuliani to try and preserve his moderate image
More than likely.
or a religious fella' to stimulate the base.
God, I hope not. People are getting weary of this game that the Republicans are playing, catering to both religion and business, which are seemingly incompatible.
As for a crazy on the right, however, you've still got Huckabee
I know nothing about him.
and Brownback
*Shudders* I doubt the Republicans want to further dig themselves into a hole by taking a chance with this wingnut.
and Romney...
Isn't he a moderate? I know he's the one who invoked that obscure marriage law to keep gay marriage an in-state affair, and he wanted to reinstate the death penalty, but... maybe he isn't one. The fact that he's a Mormon gives him no chance.
Gingrich
He's running purely on delusions of grandeur.
Allen.
He effectively has no shot.
I'm thinking it's going to be either McCain or Giuliani for the Republicans. If the wrong candidate wins the Democratic nomination (Kerry) then I might just vote Giuliani, but I wouldn't vote for McCain under any circumstances. I've lost all faith in that guy, since the last couple of years has shown that he's not above pandering to the powers that be. The Democrats are another story. Ideally I want Obama, but that's a long shot. Edwards could have a shot, though a small one. Gore seems to have a lot more charisma than during his anemic 2000 campaign. Although I'm trying not to think about it, I believe I'd be kidding myself if I deny Clinton not winning the nom.
Isn't he a moderate? I know he's the one who invoked that obscure marriage law to keep gay marriage an in-state affair, and he wanted to reinstate the death penalty, but... maybe he isn't one. The fact that he's a Mormon gives him no chance.
He's moderate by Republican standards, but he's the governor of freaking Massachussetts, so it's not surprising they don't have a wingnut. He's way too Mormon with way too little actually ability for my taste, and definetly tries to court the religious vote.
He's running purely on delusions of grandeur.
Given his past you sure it's just grandeur?
He effectively has no shot.
Absolutely 100% agree, just figured I'd mention him since he was a big name mentioned pre-Nov 7th and hasn't dropped officially yet AFAIK.
I'm thinking it's going to be either McCain or Giuliani for the Republicans. If the wrong candidate wins the Democratic nomination (Kerry) then I might just vote Giuliani, but I wouldn't vote for McCain under any circumstances. I've lost all faith in that guy, since the last couple of years has shown that he's not above pandering to the powers that be. The Democrats are another story. Ideally I want Obama, but that's a long shot. Edwards could have a shot, though a small one. Gore seems to have a lot more charisma than during his anemic 2000 campaign. Although I'm trying not to think about it, I believe I'd be kidding myself if I deny Clinton not winning the nom.
I agree. I could vote for Giuliani against the wrong Democrat, meaning basically Kerry thusfar, but not for McCain. Courting primary voters ruined his "moderate" and "maverick" images for me pretty quick, but the Military Commissions Bill being the FRUITS of his labor supposedly AGAINST the administration is pathetic. The man was tortured in a POW camp for half a decade, spent a life of civil service working against it, then back-door legalizes (in that prisoners cannot bring Geneva violations before any court under MC2006) torture in the United States basically to try and make primary voters in South Carolina happy? Screw him and the ship that brought him back from Vietnam.
I could vote for (from my current list of Democratic candidates) basically anyone but Kerry (I wouldn't like voting for Edwards much, but at least he's good on poverty issues), and I could see voting for Giuliani or Pataki were there up against Kerry (which they won't be). I doubt I could vote for a Republican though, given what I've seen of the party at large of late (sort of a Lincoln Chaffee situation. He's not so bad, but he empowers horrible people).
I'm a Canadian looking in, but I think a Giuliani vs. Clinton race would be pretty interesting.
Yes, but unlikely to happen. In fact, IMO Giuliani/Pataki vs. Clinton are the least interesting of the Giuliani/Pataki races. I say this because Giuliani/Pataki's geographic advantage (not so much Pataki) is Republican popularity in New York, forcing Dems to spend money on a usually safe state. This was the theory (faulty) behind Edwards and the theory (more likely) behind Clark and Arkansas. Giuliani/Pataki wouldn't win New York in most cases, but force Dems to blow way too much money on a state they should win easily in expensive media markets. Clinton is big enough in New York I think she'd large offset them.a
Republicans: I could vote for McCain, Guiliani, or (yes) Romney. I tend to sympathise with the moderate Republicans more than I do with moderate Democrats. Speaking of whom:
Democrats: Clark, I could get behind. I could also see myself supporting Biden. I've met him (and smoked with him ) and he seems to follow my line of thinking on several issues (which might be a turn off for many right there).
There are no candidates about whom I can become really excited, or whom I would particularly desire as president, which worries me. We'll see how it pans out.
So far I´ve met Warner (he dropped out only a few days after he came to my high school) and Biden, and I´m going to see Vilsack tomorrow and Obama a week from Sunday. Biden seemed like a guy who knew what he was talking about, and Obama seems pretty good, too.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Warning: All info in this user's sig and profile may be woefully out of date.
500 character limit! Latest [499] Thread
Thanks to Ye Olde Sig and Avatar Shoppe (Nex3 & R&Doom) for avatar enhancements and banner creation.
So far I´ve met Warner (he dropped out only a few days after he came to my high school) and Biden, and I´m going to see Vilsack tomorrow and Obama a week from Sunday. Biden seemed like a guy who knew what he was talking about, and Obama seems pretty good, too.
The only candidates I've met are Clark and Dodd (Dodd not really all that much). You really should try to meet Clark, he'll convince you to vote for him even if he's not talking about elections.
I think what it comes down to is that we have all these candidates that are vying for the vote and i don't know how particularly stable either party is. I'm finding it an even race, more so for republicans than democrats though.
I think in the Democratic, it's going to come down to Gore vs. Clinton, both have been making some huge waves lately (Gore's Environmental Movie and Clinton's "Woman Uprising"...) and the democratic party is going to try and put some bigger names out there (that aren't incredibly stupid i.e. Kerry) to sway the nonvoters into voting for something they have actually heard of.
I'm almost positive that the republicans will have McCain with a religious running partner (haven't done that much research to find one I would like along with McCain) to stamp in the conservative vote.
Most of all, campaigning is going to come down to how many nonvoters can be swayed to vote and who is putting out the effort (party wise) to get those votes. Electoral college is going to do what its told by the popular vote and nonvoters are the place to get.
I agree with your premise, americanskater, but disagree with the names. Gore is percieved as liberal enough, has been out of office long enough, etc that I think he'd be a darkhorse even if he does decide to run (my fave theory I've heard is that he'll announce at the Academy Awards if he wins for Best Documentary. :p). I think the Democrats are likely going to come down to Obama versus Clinton (by current traits, though I hope Clark gets in early and effectively enough to be in there) with Vilsack buzzing around to ensure Iowa is dead in the hopes Hillary wins and he gets a sexy position in her administration (maybe even the VP nod).
Republicans I think are much more likely to pull for Giuliani for VP than for a base-energizer. I guess given the recent trends with religious voters finally realizing the GOP was just using them they might like that, but I think they like a running mate as popular as Giuliani who makes Democrats spend money in New York more (the only ways I don't think Giuliani gets it are if his personal life becomes a REALLY big thing during the presidential campaign, thus tarring him, or possibly if Hillary's on the other side, somewhat nullifying his effect on New York).
Well, we got our first speech by Vislack, and he stressed the need for a plan in Iraq and easily accessible health care. He's used to being the underdog (he had to overcome a lot to become governor of Iowa), but I think he's under insurmountable odds in the presidential race since he's an unknown outside of his state. Personally I think that it'll be a tough go for him to get even the vice presidential spot.
As for McCain's running partner (let's face it, he's practically got this in the bag already), I'll bet it's gonna be a moderate like Giuliani. The evangelicals are starting to get disillusioned by recent breaches of ethics by the Republicans.
Well, we got our first speech by Vislack, and he stressed the need for a plan in Iraq and easily accessible health care. He's used to being the underdog (he had to overcome a lot to become governor of Iowa), but I think he's under insurmountable odds in the presidential race since he's an unknown outside of his state. Personally I think that it'll be a tough go for him to get even the vice presidential spot.
That's strange. I thought the speech I just got back from was the first one and he stressed the need for energy independence in it (although he did talk about Iraq and health care, too). I asked him about what I heard about ethanol taking more energy to produce than it gives off and he gave a good enough answer. The general consensus afterwards was that he had the right answers but not enough energy or charisma. I wouldn't count him out just yet.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Warning: All info in this user's sig and profile may be woefully out of date.
500 character limit! Latest [499] Thread
Thanks to Ye Olde Sig and Avatar Shoppe (Nex3 & R&Doom) for avatar enhancements and banner creation.
The evangelicals are starting to get disillusioned by recent breaches of ethics by the Republicans.
But therein lies the interesting part of the Republican nomination. Will they choose to cut their losses and nominate a moderate like Giuliani, whose basically a big "screw you" to evangelicals, or will they nominate a Brownback type to try and play to them (or, the more I think about it, someone like Romney whose known as quite religious yet is also seen as moderate)
I can't see either McCain or Clinton getting the nominations of their respective parties. McCain is perennially unpopular with the Evangelical base of the party, which would make it easier for someone like Brownback (a Catholic, interestingly) or Romney to take the nomination from him. And Clinton, for all of her money, has an image that is just a bit too negative--and particularly among the people who tend to vote in primaries.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sing lustily and with good courage.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
Being a 100% democrat I would actually consider voting for Guiliani he was amazing in 9/11 and I have a lot of respect for him. Yeah Gore is probably a no chance just due to a previous fail on the prior run. Speaking of which has anyone ever ran and lost then ran again and won. I can't remember anyone pulling that off lol.
Clinton has a good platform and can pull in a lot of votes due to being a woman so I think shes a very likely canidate. But id say any republican canidtate will be a hard sell with how bad things went for the republicans this year.
McCain I think might be a bad choice of being really old. I mean for his time he is as old as Bob Dole was when he ran roughly. I think older presidents have a tougher time especially if the younger crowd are actually voting now. Should be an intresting election though with democrat turnouts so high this year might be a very tough win for the Republicans.
Being a 100% democrat I would actually consider voting for Guiliani he was amazing in 9/11 and I have a lot of respect for him. Yeah Gore is probably a no chance just due to a previous fail on the prior run. Speaking of which has anyone ever ran and lost then ran again and won. I can't remember anyone pulling that off lol
Lots of people have run, lost, and run again. Richard Nixon was the last vice president to run, lose, then run later and win again (actually, coincidentally, 8 years later for him too). Gore would also be (if he got reelected) the 2nd guy (after Nixon) to get elected twice to both the presidency and vice presidency.
McCain I think might be a bad choice of being really old. I mean for his time he is as old as Bob Dole was when he ran roughly. I think older presidents have a tougher time especially if the younger crowd are actually voting now. Should be an intresting election though with democrat turnouts so high this year might be a very tough win for the Republicans.
On the other hand, the younger crowd seem to like McCain more than most of the old farts in Congress. I think his rebel persona speaks to the nonconformism-is-intrinsically-good aesthetic as much as any conservative can.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
So far unless something major happens picks are going to be
Clinton if she runs
and Giuliani
as for rudy he is starting to develop a more moderate conservative stance than before. whether this is just for show or not remains to be seen.
He i think however is the best republican canadite for the job. He is intelligent a good business man and is pretty much well liked.
Something that is going to be a key player in the 08 election is what the democrats do while they have control of the house and senate.
Also the american people didn't vote democrat they voted anti-republican. just like in the 04 election people voted anti-bush not for kerry.
the dems have a long way to go to prove they can do better. they keep saying they can and they have 2 years to do it. if they can't then you will see another republican controlled congress and whitehouse again.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
mystery... You do realize that the House flip was way to big to get reversed by 08, the Senate picture is far negative for Republicans (the 06 cycle was actually the toughest for the Dems and they pulled it out) and Republican primary voters don't vote in the most electable candidate, right? If they did we'd have a President McCain or Gore right now.
I had a talk about the future Republican presidential race with some of the people that I went with to some pro-Israel rally (probably the wrong word) of sorts. Basically they disagreed that Giuliani or McCain would get the nomination because they'd be too busy sniping at each other. Someone said McCain would go over all of the stuff "that New Yorkers hated [Giuliani] for before 9/11" (somebody else's quote, not mine) and Giuliani would dig up the stuff that Bush used during 2000. Then this person said that somebody like Romney or Brownback would come to the forefront. He used the 1992 Democratic presidential primaries as an example, saying that the three big candidates attacked each other so much that Clinton sneaked away with the nomination. Personally I think his argument is flawed.
I had a talk about the future Republican presidential race with some of the people that I went with to some pro-Israel rally (probably the wrong word) of sorts. Basically they disagreed that Giuliani or McCain would get the nomination because they'd be too busy sniping at each other. Someone said McCain would go over all of the stuff "that New Yorkers hated [Giuliani] for before 9/11" (somebody else's quote, not mine) and Giuliani would dig up the stuff that Bush used during 2000. Then this person said that somebody like Romney or Brownback would come to the forefront. He used the 1992 Democratic presidential primaries as an example, saying that the three big candidates attacked each other so much that Clinton sneaked away with the nomination. Personally I think his argument is flawed.
Yes, especially since the Clinton nomination was a lot less about Clinton and more about Bush seeming unbeatable come primary time, so the Democratic field was generally weak (no one wants to be a loser, especially after watching the beatings Reagan handed out before Bush) so Clinton's dark-horse candidacy was far less dark-horse'y.
Now, it's very much possible that McCain won't be able to win over the base, but he was doing a decent job in 2000 when he was still a full-blown "maverick" before Rove and his push poll. Come 2008, with him becoming more openly conservative, he could pull it out. But being the frontrunner this far out can be very dangerous.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Warner, OUT
Feingold, OUT
and most recently Frist, OUT
So for Republicans you've got:
McCain
Giuliani
Brownback
Gingrich
Hagel
Huckabee
Tancredo
Pataki
Romney
Thompson
For Democrats you've got:
Obama
Clinton
(Gore) [pure rumor thusfar]
Clark
Dodd
Vilsack
Biden
Bayh
Edwards
Kerry
Richardson
Discuss!
I personally want Clark to get the nomination for the Dems, but it probably won't happen.
For Republicans I think it'll likely be McCain either with Giuliani to try and preserve his moderate image or a religious fella' to stimulate the base. As for a crazy on the right, however, you've still got Huckabee and Brownback and Romney... And that's just religious crazy's, let alone Gingrich or (if he doesn't drop out for some reason, given he lost his Senate race he likely will) Allen.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Agreed.
More than likely.
God, I hope not. People are getting weary of this game that the Republicans are playing, catering to both religion and business, which are seemingly incompatible.
I know nothing about him.
*Shudders* I doubt the Republicans want to further dig themselves into a hole by taking a chance with this wingnut.
Isn't he a moderate? I know he's the one who invoked that obscure marriage law to keep gay marriage an in-state affair, and he wanted to reinstate the death penalty, but... maybe he isn't one. The fact that he's a Mormon gives him no chance.
He's running purely on delusions of grandeur.
He effectively has no shot.
I'm thinking it's going to be either McCain or Giuliani for the Republicans. If the wrong candidate wins the Democratic nomination (Kerry) then I might just vote Giuliani, but I wouldn't vote for McCain under any circumstances. I've lost all faith in that guy, since the last couple of years has shown that he's not above pandering to the powers that be. The Democrats are another story. Ideally I want Obama, but that's a long shot. Edwards could have a shot, though a small one. Gore seems to have a lot more charisma than during his anemic 2000 campaign. Although I'm trying not to think about it, I believe I'd be kidding myself if I deny Clinton not winning the nom.
He's moderate by Republican standards, but he's the governor of freaking Massachussetts, so it's not surprising they don't have a wingnut. He's way too Mormon with way too little actually ability for my taste, and definetly tries to court the religious vote.
Given his past you sure it's just grandeur?
Absolutely 100% agree, just figured I'd mention him since he was a big name mentioned pre-Nov 7th and hasn't dropped officially yet AFAIK.
I agree. I could vote for Giuliani against the wrong Democrat, meaning basically Kerry thusfar, but not for McCain. Courting primary voters ruined his "moderate" and "maverick" images for me pretty quick, but the Military Commissions Bill being the FRUITS of his labor supposedly AGAINST the administration is pathetic. The man was tortured in a POW camp for half a decade, spent a life of civil service working against it, then back-door legalizes (in that prisoners cannot bring Geneva violations before any court under MC2006) torture in the United States basically to try and make primary voters in South Carolina happy? Screw him and the ship that brought him back from Vietnam.
I could vote for (from my current list of Democratic candidates) basically anyone but Kerry (I wouldn't like voting for Edwards much, but at least he's good on poverty issues), and I could see voting for Giuliani or Pataki were there up against Kerry (which they won't be). I doubt I could vote for a Republican though, given what I've seen of the party at large of late (sort of a Lincoln Chaffee situation. He's not so bad, but he empowers horrible people).
Yes, but unlikely to happen. In fact, IMO Giuliani/Pataki vs. Clinton are the least interesting of the Giuliani/Pataki races. I say this because Giuliani/Pataki's geographic advantage (not so much Pataki) is Republican popularity in New York, forcing Dems to spend money on a usually safe state. This was the theory (faulty) behind Edwards and the theory (more likely) behind Clark and Arkansas. Giuliani/Pataki wouldn't win New York in most cases, but force Dems to blow way too much money on a state they should win easily in expensive media markets. Clinton is big enough in New York I think she'd large offset them.a
Democrats: Clark, I could get behind. I could also see myself supporting Biden. I've met him (and smoked with him ) and he seems to follow my line of thinking on several issues (which might be a turn off for many right there).
There are no candidates about whom I can become really excited, or whom I would particularly desire as president, which worries me. We'll see how it pans out.
500 character limit!
Latest [499] Thread
Thanks to Ye Olde Sig and Avatar Shoppe (Nex3 & R&Doom) for avatar enhancements and banner creation.
The only candidates I've met are Clark and Dodd (Dodd not really all that much). You really should try to meet Clark, he'll convince you to vote for him even if he's not talking about elections.
I think in the Democratic, it's going to come down to Gore vs. Clinton, both have been making some huge waves lately (Gore's Environmental Movie and Clinton's "Woman Uprising"...) and the democratic party is going to try and put some bigger names out there (that aren't incredibly stupid i.e. Kerry) to sway the nonvoters into voting for something they have actually heard of.
I'm almost positive that the republicans will have McCain with a religious running partner (haven't done that much research to find one I would like along with McCain) to stamp in the conservative vote.
Most of all, campaigning is going to come down to how many nonvoters can be swayed to vote and who is putting out the effort (party wise) to get those votes. Electoral college is going to do what its told by the popular vote and nonvoters are the place to get.
Republicans I think are much more likely to pull for Giuliani for VP than for a base-energizer. I guess given the recent trends with religious voters finally realizing the GOP was just using them they might like that, but I think they like a running mate as popular as Giuliani who makes Democrats spend money in New York more (the only ways I don't think Giuliani gets it are if his personal life becomes a REALLY big thing during the presidential campaign, thus tarring him, or possibly if Hillary's on the other side, somewhat nullifying his effect on New York).
As for McCain's running partner (let's face it, he's practically got this in the bag already), I'll bet it's gonna be a moderate like Giuliani. The evangelicals are starting to get disillusioned by recent breaches of ethics by the Republicans.
500 character limit!
Latest [499] Thread
Thanks to Ye Olde Sig and Avatar Shoppe (Nex3 & R&Doom) for avatar enhancements and banner creation.
But therein lies the interesting part of the Republican nomination. Will they choose to cut their losses and nominate a moderate like Giuliani, whose basically a big "screw you" to evangelicals, or will they nominate a Brownback type to try and play to them (or, the more I think about it, someone like Romney whose known as quite religious yet is also seen as moderate)
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
Clinton has a good platform and can pull in a lot of votes due to being a woman so I think shes a very likely canidate. But id say any republican canidtate will be a hard sell with how bad things went for the republicans this year.
McCain I think might be a bad choice of being really old. I mean for his time he is as old as Bob Dole was when he ran roughly. I think older presidents have a tougher time especially if the younger crowd are actually voting now. Should be an intresting election though with democrat turnouts so high this year might be a very tough win for the Republicans.
Feel free to bid on my cards here!
Lots of people have run, lost, and run again. Richard Nixon was the last vice president to run, lose, then run later and win again (actually, coincidentally, 8 years later for him too). Gore would also be (if he got reelected) the 2nd guy (after Nixon) to get elected twice to both the presidency and vice presidency.
On the other hand, the younger crowd seem to like McCain more than most of the old farts in Congress. I think his rebel persona speaks to the nonconformism-is-intrinsically-good aesthetic as much as any conservative can.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Clinton if she runs
and Giuliani
as for rudy he is starting to develop a more moderate conservative stance than before. whether this is just for show or not remains to be seen.
He i think however is the best republican canadite for the job. He is intelligent a good business man and is pretty much well liked.
Something that is going to be a key player in the 08 election is what the democrats do while they have control of the house and senate.
Also the american people didn't vote democrat they voted anti-republican. just like in the 04 election people voted anti-bush not for kerry.
the dems have a long way to go to prove they can do better. they keep saying they can and they have 2 years to do it. if they can't then you will see another republican controlled congress and whitehouse again.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
Yes, especially since the Clinton nomination was a lot less about Clinton and more about Bush seeming unbeatable come primary time, so the Democratic field was generally weak (no one wants to be a loser, especially after watching the beatings Reagan handed out before Bush) so Clinton's dark-horse candidacy was far less dark-horse'y.
Now, it's very much possible that McCain won't be able to win over the base, but he was doing a decent job in 2000 when he was still a full-blown "maverick" before Rove and his push poll. Come 2008, with him becoming more openly conservative, he could pull it out. But being the frontrunner this far out can be very dangerous.