Discussion in 'Elections' started by zverskiy yobar, Nov 3, 2004.
Uh, self made millionaire? Shrub? What?
Mark Warner Pres.
Bill Richardson VP.
Warner is a real moderate, and doesn't have to pretend to be one. He won the governor spot in a red state (virginia). It is impossible to label him as a liberal, but that won't matter to democrats because they would be so desparate for a win that they would all vote for him.
Richardson is very popular with Hispanics, and would help bring back the numbers that Gore enjoyed.
Rudy was too scared to run against Hillary.
Richardson is "popular" with Hispanics by default. Who else do we really have?
If he was such a badass, New Mexico would have gone to Pres Gore last election and would have been decided by now in 2004.
Nice resume, but what has he done? His Spanish isn't even that good.
But yes, two Latinos Senators have been elected, one dem in Colorado and one GOP in Florida. Latinos will play a bigger role if you can pick one with from a needed state, as VP.
i'm not so sure about this. remember, 54% of the electorate are women. this election George W friggin Bush got 48% of the women vote. how he did that I have no clue.
i think you are underestimating Hillary's ability to sweep this category like no presidential candidate ever has. if Hillary ran against, say Giuliani, think about the vast strategical possibilities Democrats would have. You would have a cheating philanderer running against, of all people, a WOMAN! and to top that, a woman who has been cheated on before! i think Carville & Co. could have a field day with that one and could really play it well even in the south if done right.
you all say Hillary is so polarizing now, but think about this: Kerry still got 48% of the vote. All Hillary would theoretically have to do would be to keep those votes and find a way to cut into GWB's electorate -- somewhere. and IMHO, HRC could feasilbly carry 60-65% of the female vote, and that may well be enough to tip the scales in some of the closer states, and her southern ties would definitely help her in picking up states like Arkansas and Missouri (which Kerry foolishly gave up on -- I say this as a MO resident).
again i'm not so sure who the DEMs best candidate would be, but i urge you all to not be so pre-emptive in rejecting HRC. remember in 4 years you are going to have 40-some percent of the electorate that will be so pissed off they'll vote for anyone. the DNC just needs to figure out a way to cut into GWBs lead...
Yeah, I wasn't typing what I was thinking...I meant a guy who had run a business, except Warner was successful at it. What I was going for is that Warner has expierence as a executive in both the public and private sectors.
Rudy had a little problem called "Cancer" to deal with at the time. Plus his marriage break up and the controversy about his relationship with Judy Nathan was happening in 2000.
I voted for Kerry but I for one would never vote for Hil. I would even ...dare I say it...vote for dubya over her.
wow, i appreciate your honesty. really do. but if i may analyze that line of thinking, as it presupposes one of two points:
(1) you would (hypothetically) think Dubya would do a better job than Hilary. or...
(2) you detest Bush, but dislike Hillary so much that you would vote for Bush just to spite her.
now, as far as (1) is concerned, that's probably the least likely of the two. you noted that you voted for kerry, so i would guess that you're not all that enamoured with Bush's policies and prowess as president. furthermore, just the mere fact of you voting for the challenger against a wartime incumbent shows you really are not enamoured with Dubya as a president. with that, i would have to reject premise one as invalid.
on to (2), voting for Dubya just to spite Hillary ... well, this type of irrationality in a democratic state is quite counterproductive. this is why we frequently elect candidates that only disappoint us, because we go to the voting booth and let our emotions lead. this is why the more charismatic of the two presidential candidates almost always wins (see: 2004, 2000, 1996, 1992 ....). honestly, voting against your own better interests just out of spite, well there's no way to characterize that other than 'insanely idiotic.'
in conclusion, i thoroughly reject both premises and sincerely hope that this type of illogical and unsound voting practice represents a hefty minority in this country, but then again, how else can you explain tuesday's results.
There is something to be said about the concept that in 40 years no Democrat has ever been elected President who didn't hail from the South. Is it reasonable to assume that Hillary's womanhood would be enough to pry the requisite number of Jesusland wives from their Bibles? I think, in a battle between the Bible and Gender, the Bible wins in this case. Though the race would be an interesting thing to see, a Hillary nomination for the Dem Pres Candidate sounds like suicide to me.
Half the nation voted on values and you're looking at "illogical and unsound voting practices"?
a good point...but allow me, if you will, a few counterpoints:
(1) she doesn't have to get every woman in every red state to win. focus on a few states like missouri, arkansas, ohio. i heard Dick Morris tonight (who absolutely DETESTS the clintons) say that Hillary would have a real shot to win all three of the states I mentioned. and if he said that, then the possibility can't be that far off. remember Morris hates the Clintons more than anyone in the contiguous 48 states. so let's not make it seem like she has to carry all these states like Mississippi, Georgia, and Alabama. actually, come to think of it, if she turns the tide in Ohio alone she's at 270 right there.
(2) we're not talking about prying evangelical fundamentalist wives away from their Bibles to vote for Hillary. that won't happen (and if they do, they won't tell their husbands ) but remember, she is Southern Baptist (i believe) and from Arkansas, although not a native. I like those odds to play better in the south more than a pro-abortion, Roman Catholic from New York or a pro gay rights Austrian from California...were not talking about converting Mabel, we're talking about mobilizing women who didn't like Dubya or Kerry enough to get out and vote. the fact that 48% of women supported GWB tells me simply that not enough women voted. you can't tell me that half our country's women find Bush/Cheney appealing. no, kerry dropped the ball -- clearly. run her with Wes Clark and you have another in in the south...
(3) the argument that if she runs, it mobilizes the far-right, Neocon base 100fold, not so sure if that's true. sure, it will mobilize southern evangelical men, but every single one of these guys voted this time. there aren't any left to get new votes. the far-right numbers were way up this time and, if i were to prognosticate a bit, I would guess that Bush's 2nd term will do little to inspire new supporters, just because there aren't many to be had in the south. again, we're talking about getting the politically disinterested woman out to vote if for no other reason than the novelty of electing the first woman to the oval office. is that a frighteningly shallow reason to vote for a commander-in-chief? heck yeah, but we'll take it. in fact, I'd gladly take that irrationality over someone with no job, no health care, who sends his kids to an immensely underfunded public school, but who votes for Bush because he can't stomach the idea of two men being able to marry...talk about voting against your own best interest...
Hillary is a horrible candidate. Her base doesn't like her enough, and everyone else HATES her. Awful, terrible choice.
Speaking as a Catholic Republican, Giuliani's supposed Romanism is not the reason that the religious right would not stand for his nomination. It has everything to do with abortion. Somehow, he's managed to compromise his religious beliefs in favor of his politcal. If a pro-choice candidate ever managed to get the nomination, Democrats would be doing back flips because that would fracture the Republican Party.
because USAToday polled 3,000 delegates at this summer's Democratic National Convention as to who they wanted to run in 2008 (should Kerry lose to Bush) and guess who won? I'll give you a hint: the name rhymes with Shmillary...
Hillary came in first with 26%, Edwards had 17% and Dean had 3.5%...
but I guess I'll take your word for it over a reputable Gannett publication...
The hypothetical numbers of Hillary supporters would have to show to a person, because I have no doubt that the Reds will be frothing at the mouth to keep her from the Presidency, and will turn out in full force. Furthermore, we have to take into account the very real possibility that some of the people who voted for Kerry won't do the same for Hillary.
Me too, and run a gov not another Senator.
I first read this as "compromise his religious beliefs in favor of his pecker", which I suppose is also true.
In any case, this thread is totally worthless. We've got three years to see a candidate shake out of the box. Better to wait.
I think you are misunderstanding the point here.
Hillary will have a base (be it small or large, your choice) that will support her.
Where she will fail miserably is that so many others out right hate her (warrented or not). These voters will form a campaign against her that will make Moore's hatchet job of Bush look like a preschool fashion show.
I don't think people real appreciate just how many women hate her.
She could set the democratic party back almost a decade if she turns out to the be the chosen one.
If the party doesn't start to groom a candidate for '08 TODAY, we will lose again.
I'm surprised noone has mentioned Gore. I wonder if he has any political life left. Also, the Dems have to not nominate a senator. And not a Northeasterner. Last person to win who was a senator and also happened to be was JFK. It's gotta be some southern governer or someone who is not currently a senator. It's too easy for the republicans to look at his voting record and poke holes at it. I think the repubicans continual replaying of "he voted for the war" hurt Kerry big time.
I don't think Hillary Clinton will be all that divisive or hated by 2008 - eight years is a long time in politics. However, she'll still be a bad candidate.
1. I don't think a lot of people would consider Hillary "Hailing from the South"
2. No Christian Conservative in their right mind would ever vote for Hillary Clinton, even if the other person on the ballot was Judas.
There's a good reason for that.