The first poll for 2008! And, Bush's post-election bounce (or lack of a bounce): http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm
Any chance that they'd ammend the Constitution re: term limits? I'm sure some wouldn't mind taking the shot of W. having another term, nor would the Dems. be against Clinton running again. Possible? Yes. Probable? Absolutely not. I don't know who'd have the bigger mess in their pants over a W v. Bill race, Alex or Dan.
Not that this poll means much now, but Hillary's number is nothing short of shocking to me. I guess that Ian isn't barking up as wrong of a tree as he usually does.
That is the 25 she has hadm does have and always will have...the rest is up to her to earn because she pretty much polarizes the rest to hate her or not really like her. I find it ironic that both parties have people named Unsure and both are winning so far!
If either of the top 2 Democratic vote-getters from that poll gets the nomination, the GOP could run an actual elephant and still win in a landslide.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/NV/P/00/index.html Actually in the only state where he got enough signatures to be on the ballot he finished a disappointing fourth. Apparently he just couldn't energize his large base.
Just as I don't see Kerry or either Clinton as a viable candidate, I can't see Rice or Powell running. And I think Obama will play AAA ball until he gets his callup for 2012. Now, does Vilsack or Bayh stand a chance in 2008?
If the Democrats were smart, they'd nominate Bayh, who'd be a tough candidate. But, they're not smart, they're dumb and will nominate either Hillary, the odds-on favorite, or bring back a retread like Gore or Kerry. Say hello to President Jeb.
Personally, I want to see some combination of Tommy Franks and John McCain, with Rudy Giuliani and JC Watts a possibility for the VP slot (Giuliani is too liberal to and Watts to inexperienced to be ideal Presidential candidates IMO). Franks is a guy that is never mentioned as a possibility, but he'd be a great choice IMO...there's the question of whether or not he'd want the job, but the fact that he spoke at the RNC indicates he might have some political ambition. I'd especially love to see him run against Hillary, if she gets the Dem nomination. Now, as I said, the GOP could run an actual elephant against Hillary and win, but I'd love to utterly humiliate and crush her so badly that she'd be knocked out of public office forever...running against any combination of guys I mentioned earlier...she'd be lucky to get 100 electoral votes. It'd be a great day for America.
To me, Bayh seems like the answer for the democrats, a very uncontroversial moderate from a midwestern red-state.
No political junkie has never heard of Evan Bayh. His father was Birch Bayh, a long-time famous Senator (and an author of 2 or 3 US Constitutional amendments) for many years. Birch Bayh was defeated in a huge upset by Dan Quayle.
Along with Bayh, I think Mark Warner of Virginia would make a strong candidate. A moderate Dem who has a track record of working well with both parties to solve some tough budget issues. The only problem is that he is term limited so he is out after 2005 and while he could fight George Allan for the senate seat he might not see it worth his time if he is serious about launching a White House bid.
I'm wondering how many people had heard of Bill Clinton in late 1988 (other than his disastrous speech at the '88 Democratic convention).
Should also mention Bill Richardson. I don't know if being Hispanic will help or hurt him in 2008. Speaking of which, what's happened to George P. Bush? Weren't they grooming him to be the Next Big Thing back in 2000 (though I understand he won't turn 35 until 2011)?
It was open-ended. At least 3% of Democrats don't know about that term limit thingy. And at least the 2% of Republicans who voted for Ahnold.
Gore got higher numbers in 2000 post-election, if I recall correctly. These numbers mean exactly diddly-squat.
I like Evan Bayh. He's a popular Democrat in a very red state (which isn't why I like him, but it's a bonus), he's smart and, at least in interviews I've heard from him, knows what he stands for.
He comes from a well-like and well-respected political family in Indiana (my family is from there). He could (almost) make Indiana a swing state.
Good point. I will tell you that I first heard of him in the summer of 1991 when the Dems were holding some meetings in Tampa. My friend told me that he liked him, but I had never heard of him and considered him a nobody. Do you compare the two in political aspects, too? Or, just the fact that they were not know nationally? Clinton is a political stud, regardless of my personal feelings about the person. My original point was that I live next door to this guy in Ohio. You would at least think some news from Indiana would filter to Ohio, right? This guy isn't on the regional map, not the national map and I doubt has the political prowess of a Bill Clinton. What is worse is that I may have very well known of this guy, was so underwhelmed that I forgot I knew of him.