March 16, 200521 yr I don't want Hillary to run simply because it seems more of a way to avoid term limits. :plain I want someone new in 2008, not another Bush or Clinton. 711231[/snapback] lol. I'll admit that was funny.
March 16, 200521 yr I dont think the dems want hillary to win. Theres too much dirt to dig up on her and her senatorial leaning to the right wont be seen as favorable. Lets see what happens during bush's presidency, because heres the wayi see it: Bush was a very weak candidate, and kerry lost the election (bush didnt win it, kerry lost it). If Bush improves upon his first term, which isnt necessarily a tough thing to do, the republicans will have a lot of momentum going into 2008. For exmaple time heals wounds. the economy works in cycles, it is improving and will improve for a few more years, the situaiton in iraq is improving and will improve. Barring any sucidial actions (politically), whoever runs in 08 for the republicans has a good shot. The reps prob wont run mccain, b/c they dont have to and the base doesnt really like him. I would look more at someone like Frist, b/c guiliani has too many skeletons, condi is a black woman, and jeb is a bush. So if this were to happen the dems need to counter with a true moderate. Fiscally and socially. A compromiser hwo can get things done with persuasiveness and charisma (sounds like bill clinton). Who the dems have like that now i have no clue. I dont know enough about warner to say he should run in 08.
March 16, 200521 yr As for a democratic candidate, I would love to see junior senator of Indiana, Evan Bayh. From the time I've spent in Indiana with my relatives, he seems like a pretty popular guy, and I think the midwest is a good area for the Dems to pull candidates out of (not the south, John Edwards did nothing, and not the northeast, Kerry did little).
March 18, 200521 yr Sure I'd like to see her run. Best way to keep the Dems out of the White House another 4 years. :mischief
March 18, 200521 yr As for a democratic candidate, I would love to see junior senator of Indiana, Evan Bayh. From the time I've spent in Indiana with my relatives, he seems like a pretty popular guy, and I think the midwest is a good area for the Dems to pull candidates out of (not the south, John Edwards did nothing, and not the northeast, Kerry did little). 712226[/snapback] I dont really agree. I think the only way the Dems win is with a real southern guy. John Edwards didnt come across as a southern man. Bill Clinton came across as a southern man and appealed to the south. The south is where the Dems need to concentrate if they want the White House again.
March 18, 200521 yr People are putting too much important on region and not enough on ideology. When Clinton won in 92 he was helped by the fact that he was a moderate and the fact that his opponent GHW Bush had to fight buchanan in a primary, even though he was an incumbent and then Ross Perot also took away votes from him just like Nader did to Gore in 2000 (although perot took more votes). For the dems to regain the white house they need a mix of ideology and luck. However, if Bush finishes this term strong (which isnt hard to do considering his first term), it wont matter much who the dems throw out
March 19, 200521 yr Author People are putting too much important on region and not enough on ideology. When Clinton won in 92 he was helped by the fact that he was a moderate and the fact that his opponent GHW Bush had to fight buchanan in a primary, even though he was an incumbent and then Ross Perot also took away votes from him just like Nader did to Gore in 2000 (although perot took more votes). For the dems to regain the white house they need a mix of ideology and luck. However, if Bush finishes this term strong (which isnt hard to do considering his first term), it wont matter much who the dems throw out 714084[/snapback] I dont think popularity of a previous leader necessarily has a major affect. Look at Gore in 2000. And before you say impeachment hurting Clinton, just look to his approval ratings. Plus a new nominee cant link himself to Bush the way a VP could. Despite the implication, I dont think Dems lose because they put a dem up there and Republicans lose because they put a Republican up there. Anything can happen.
March 19, 200521 yr The Dems better go with a midwest or southern candidate, such as the gentleman that Mordy suggested, or possibly Warner. As for Republicans, like Leg of Cangelosi mentioned earlier, Rudy has too much baggage. I still like Owens, although recent controversy in Colorado may prove problematic.
March 21, 200521 yr People are putting too much important on region and not enough on ideology. When Clinton won in 92 he was helped by the fact that he was a moderate and the fact that his opponent GHW Bush had to fight buchanan in a primary, even though he was an incumbent and then Ross Perot also took away votes from him just like Nader did to Gore in 2000 (although perot took more votes). For the dems to regain the white house they need a mix of ideology and luck. However, if Bush finishes this term strong (which isnt hard to do considering his first term), it wont matter much who the dems throw out 714084[/snapback] I dont think popularity of a previous leader necessarily has a major affect. Look at Gore in 2000. And before you say impeachment hurting Clinton, just look to his approval ratings. Plus a new nominee cant link himself to Bush the way a VP could. Despite the implication, I dont think Dems lose because they put a dem up there and Republicans lose because they put a Republican up there. Anything can happen. 715521[/snapback] The gore election went down to the wire, and gore made a hude mistake by trying to diatrnce himself from clinton rather han embracing his proximity to a popuklar president
March 21, 200521 yr Author Both fields will be extremelly competitive with some really good candidates. For the first time in more than 30 years, the democratic party is facing a totally open field with no inherent challenge. Remember that when the dem campaigning started, people who should have run did not because they assumed Bush was unstoppable and so it wouldnt be worth it not realizing how things would change over the next year. No incumbent. No VP connected to a popular incumbent to go up against. This might be the best opportunity to go for it. I think youll see a lot of moderate governers who are very tough to beat in elections.
March 21, 200521 yr Both fields will be extremelly competitive with some really good candidates. For the first time in more than 30 years, the democratic party is facing a totally open field with no inherent challenge. Remember that when the dem campaigning started, people who should have run did not because they assumed Bush was unstoppable and so it wouldnt be worth it not realizing how things would change over the next year. No incumbent. No VP connected to a popular incumbent to go up against. This might be the best opportunity to go for it. I think youll see a lot of moderate governers who are very tough to beat in elections. 716288[/snapback] How do you say that? I don't get that at all. The Dems were in that situation in 2000.
March 22, 200521 yr Dodge, back in 2000 Mccain and Bush were very popular candidates. Also I think hes saying theres no clear cut frontliner on the GOP. Personally, Id vote for John in a second over anyone in the democratic party, but his age might be a liability. Giuliani would be an easy target IMO for Dems, they can pull 1000 skeletons out his closet. Jeb has been a mediocre state governor at best. I think Mccain can become an ultra popular president with his straightshooting and awesome personality.
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.