Discussion in 'Elections' started by zverskiy yobar, Nov 3, 2004.
No to mention coming from sturdy Rabbinical stock, five generations of Rabbis no less.
I think he's a major player, and could be a appealing candidate.
Jeb? Are you kidding? I don't think Jeb could ever be anything more than a Governor at this point. Way too much bad blood towards him.
Frist, McCain, and Giuliani are the front runners.
Of course Jeb. He's next in line in the dynasty. If they could figure out how to get Neil in, they would.
As for McCain, he's done. He's too moderate for the fundamentalists in charge of the party.
And a divorced Italian Roman Catholic from New York City has about as much chance of winning the Republican nomination as I do. The fundamentalists in charge of the party are as anti-Catholic as they are anti-Muslim and anti-Jew.
Only if Gephardt is his veep choice.
Well, if the party allows it.
Point taken, but I think as much as people are making this election about the Christian fundamentalists, the country IMHO is moving more to the left. Maybe these results don't show that, but if the Republicans want to remain in power in '08 (maybe '12) they're going to have to become more moderate just as people think the Dems need to move to the center. McCain and Giuliani do that. Both are well respected on the other side of the aisle.
It comes down to more of a lack of a third party, something that unfortunately isn't visible in the American political landscape. Instead of both parties pandering to their extremes, I think moderate candidates are the way to go for the next election.
Thats just my 2 cents anyway.
I say..."four more years!"
P.S. McCain's conservative creditials are unquestioned IMHO... I am a Bush Supporter who would easily support McCain.
And Jeb Bush has a 74 percent approval rating in the State of Florida...
I wouldn't mind at all if Evan Bayh ran, I really like him. But Wesley Clark is a political peon.
And Hillary is going to run, that much is assured, whether she has a "can't win the general election" vis-a-vis Howard Dean fallout in the Dem. primary is another story.
Giuliani will be running for the Republicans, and Schwarzenegger if they can pass that constitutional amendment, which is a bit of a long shot.
McCain has the unenviable position of having a harder race in the Reep. primary than he would in the general election. He's going to be too old in '08 to muster another Presidential run IMO.
Not a peon. A novice. He's got 4 years to stay in the spotlight with speaking engagements and punditry and whatnot. And then he'd make an awesome VP.
One name to keep in mind for the Reps in 08 is Mitt Romney, the Gov of Mass.
I think you are seriously overstating the vitriol of the Christian Right within the Republican party. From a few people I know that are close with pupeteers behind Bush (Rove), Giuliani has all but been annoited to run in '08 with Schwarzenegger at his side if they amend the constitution.
Can you imagine the landslide with which a Schwarzenegger-Giuliani ticket would win in the electoral college? They'd have a very good shot at taking NY and CA, in addition to the majority of the Red States.
They would lose a certain amount of the far-right fervent pro-life support from within the party (but if the choice for president for one of those people was between Giuliani and someone like H. Clinton, whose circle do you think they'll be filling in?), even Sean Hannity said he would vote for Giuliani.
Maybe you're right, I just don't see it. One of the big mistakes I think Kerry made was not selecting a VP candidate that could bring home the bacon in a Red State, it could've gotten him the election. I don't really see Clark being able to sway a large amount of Red State voters, which they'll need in '08.
I don't know much about Bayh, except that he's a moderate and lots of people like him. Interest group ratings look pretty good, although maybe a little centrist for Dem primary voters.
Clark is still something of an outsider, but he's got good name recognition, gave a pretty high profile convention speech, comes from a red state that he could win, raised a lot of money fast last time around, and has already been through the rigors of a primary. Supposedly, he's improved a lot as a speaker and campaigner. His best asset remains his resume, which probably won't be getting any worse between now and 2008. It depends on what he does between now and then, and what sort of profile the Dems and the public are looking for in four years, but I think he might have a decent shot at the nomination, if he wanted it.
I would highly doubt that any democrat whose last name isn't Clinton is winning Arkansas. But like I said previously, I think the Dems need a bigger Red State dem in '08 who has a better chance of delivering than Edwards did. Aren't there any good OH or FL dems out there?
Bush won 54-45, in a year in which the religious right apparently turned out to vote for him in droves. According to the exit poll, voters identified themselves as 41% Democrats, 31% GOP, and 29% independent. Assuming that same breakdown in 2008, a Dem candidate could win just by getting 90% of the Democratic vote and half of the independents. And, having an Arkansan as candidate would probably bring more self-identified Democrats out to the polls. Arkansas also currently has two Democratic senators. I think Clark would have no problem taking the state.
Even after his party actually managed to lose seats in the state legislature in spite of a high cost, high profile initiative that Romney himself spearheaded?
There were some quotes in this morning's Globe that made it sound as though he's not even certain he can win re-election in 06.
I don't doubt that the current GOP leadership would like to see Giulani run. I assumed that's why he turned into a Bush hand puppet for this campaign. Anybody with serious ambitions to run as a Republican in 2008 has to be on the good side of the Bushies or it'll be over before it begins.
But do you really think the Sun Belt social conservatives will warm to him when he has so little in common with them?
Mark Warner is a popular Democrat governor in a red state (VA). He has managed to work with the Republican assembly to accomplish some of his agenda (mainly a much needed tax increase). I'm not sure if his ambitions reach the Presidential level though.
Yeah, that vowel at the end of his name will make him oh so welcome.
I do remember that the Lt. Gov of Maryland was saying that his party was so inclusive at the Reep convention. I suppose we'll see if Giuliani has what it takes.
Re: On Clark
Remember, Clinton fired this guy.
He strikes me as an arrogant loose cannon.
He lost my respect forever when he used his position as a CNN analyst to critcize the President and the conduct of the war, knowing full well that he was going to run for president.
I remember when CNN asked David Grange what he thought of Clark and his chances. He initially refused to answer, put when pressed on whether or not he would vote for Clark said:
'No. He lacks basic integrity."
In short, I defintely think you should pair him up with Hillary.
They won't, but it's unlikely they would be voting for the Democrat either. If Giuliani or Schwarzenegger promised to leave social issues for the states I think they would still win most of the south and all of the west while picking up a lot of moderates.
Pataki is another possibility, maybe a middle ground between Giuliani and Bush. But Schumer may run for governor in 2006, and Pataki would probably lose which could hurt his chances.
Again - Bayh would play really well in states like Missourah and and Ohio.
I've been thinking the same thing. If he runs against George Allen in 2006 and wins, I think he would make a great candidate on either spot on the ticket. The Dems need somebody with executive expierence and Warner has that (self made millionare and a governor, much like the Shrub).
Good luck with that. I don't think that there are 38 states out there that will vote to amend the Constitution just to let Ah-nold run for President as a Reep. Or for Vice-President, for that matter.
In fact, the only way that part of the Constitution ever gets amended is if nobody has anyone in particular "in mind" when it comes up.