main
side
curve
  1. In Memory of LAJ_FETT: Please share your remembrances and condolences HERE

US Elections 2008 - Speculation and Analysis (Future Election Discussion)

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by Darth Mischievous, Mar 4, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Fluke_Groundrunner

    Fluke_Groundrunner Jedi Grand Master star 4

    Registered:
    Jun 1, 2001
    Does anyone else think that Al Gore would be a very good choice for the Dems in 2008? He wouldn't have to say that he was wrong about the war like some of the other potential nominees. If fact, he could run on the grounds that he stuck to his guns and was correct all along.
     
  2. Vaderize03

    Vaderize03 Manager Emeritus star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Oct 25, 1999
    Romney is not going to peel off any northeastern states, DM, because he has swung to the far-right on social issues.

    He went 180 degrees on stem-cell research and abortion rights; this alone would probably cost him his home state.

    I definitely agree with you however that Hillary would be a disaster.

    I would like to see Mark Warner get some name recognition. He symbolizes the best chance for the dems in '08, IMHO.

    Peace,

    V-03
     
  3. Darth Mischievous

    Darth Mischievous Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Oct 12, 1999
    You're underestimating him, V03. If the citizens of Massachusetts could put him in the Governor's mansion, what makes you think they wouldn't vote for a hometown candidate? He's an attractive guy (in the modern television age, this is important), and he would have nationwide appeal. He has also demonstrated the ability to compromise on social issues.

    There are other States as well in the Northeast that could be peeled off, but there are absolutely none in the South that would go for Hillary.

     
  4. heels1785

    heels1785 Skywalker Saga + JCC Manager / Finally Won A Draft star 10 Staff Member Manager

    Registered:
    Dec 10, 2003
    Gore has been far too controversial and pouty since he lost in 2000, and I don't think the Democrats would go with someone so far out in left field--Clinton or a more central character would work much better for them, IMO.
     
  5. Fire_Ice_Death

    Fire_Ice_Death Force Ghost star 7

    Registered:
    Feb 15, 2001

    There's a difference between who your state puts into the governor's house and who it votes for nationally. Maryland voted for a Republican governor, but the state swung democratic nationally.
     
  6. Darth Mischievous

    Darth Mischievous Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Oct 12, 1999
    Not always true, F_I_D.

    See: California and Ronald Reagan
     
  7. Jabbadabbado

    Jabbadabbado Manager Emeritus star 7 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Mar 19, 1999
    I've now officially lost track of the number of my democrat friends/acquaintances who've told me they'd support a McCain candidacy. I've never voted Republican in a presidential election, but McCain would tempt me.
     
  8. Obi-Wan McCartney

    Obi-Wan McCartney Jedi Grand Master star 5

    Registered:
    Aug 17, 1999
    Yeah, but DM, back then, California wasn't the Democratic stronghold it is today. If you recall, Nixon won California all three times he ran. They went with Ford in '76. When Reagan won his home state of Calfornia, they had voted for Republicans in 6 out the last 7 elections, until Slick came on the national stage, the Republicans had won California had won 9 out of the 10 previous elections! In the sixties, Johnson brought home Texas in three elections for the Democrats, as Humphrey still took in the state in 68, and Carter still took the state in 76.

    So the idea that California is a blue state and Texas is a red state, giving each party a huge electoral block right off the bat, is not really true. But the point is, Reagan winning California is nothign special, not like Romney winning Massachusetts.
     
  9. Jediflyer

    Jediflyer Jedi Grand Master star 5

    Registered:
    Dec 5, 2001
    I don't understand why people like McCain so much.
     
  10. Jabbadabbado

    Jabbadabbado Manager Emeritus star 7 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Mar 19, 1999
    Well, he's a war hero. He stood up to the Bush administration on the issue of state-sponsored torture. He's a leader on campaign finance reform. and recently he was one of the few politicians who had a level-headed response to the Dubai ports issue that wasn't flat-out pandering to the reactionary race-driven fear of his own constituents.
     
  11. Jediflyer

    Jediflyer Jedi Grand Master star 5

    Registered:
    Dec 5, 2001
    He stood up to the Bush administration on the issue of state-sponsored torture.

    And then subsequently backed down, letting Bush get away with his signing statement stunt and recently telling Republican party members that they need to rally around Bush.

    He's a leader on campaign finance reform.

    And how well has that worked? Campaign finance reform is inherently unworkable from the direction they are pursuing. When done constitutionally, it leaves all kinds of loopholes. If it tries to close those loopholes, it is not Constitutional. Unless we are talking about public financing of races, campaign finance reform is just as likely to make the situation worse, not better.
     
  12. Kimball_Kinnison

    Kimball_Kinnison Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Oct 28, 2001
    More and more, I've become convinced that many Democrats claim to support McCain because they see it as a win-win situation.

    For one thing, he has pissed off a lot of people in the Republican party. That suggests that there are some people among the Republican base who would stay home, rather than vote for McCain. Since most presidential elections boil down to who can energize their base the best, that could be a key factor in a Democtartic victory.

    At the same time, he's seen by some as a "Democrat-lite", so it would not be seen as some great disaster if he happened to win.

    Finally, even among Democrats who say that they would vote for him, I honestly doubt that would be the case in a good number of them. Too many people have become so partisan in recent years, that I would be willing to bet you almost anything that when push comes to shove, they would still vote according to their parties.

    Kimball Kinnison
     
  13. Fire_Ice_Death

    Fire_Ice_Death Force Ghost star 7

    Registered:
    Feb 15, 2001
    McCain has lost all of my respect after that straw poll. Now he's just GWB's political tool, emphasis on the tool part.
     
  14. Obi-Wan McCartney

    Obi-Wan McCartney Jedi Grand Master star 5

    Registered:
    Aug 17, 1999
    I for one don't really care for McCain. I'm actually starting to like GWB as a charecter, I disagree with so many of his policies it's not even funny, but for some reason I find him a likeable guy.

    Democrats supporting McCain is like Republicans supporting Lieberman. BS.
     
  15. Jediflyer

    Jediflyer Jedi Grand Master star 5

    Registered:
    Dec 5, 2001
    Well Lieberman is a closet Republican. McCain is not even close to being a closet Democrat. He is a conservative Republican, stepping away from the typical Republican politician only on campaign finance reform and personal integrity.

     
  16. Darth Mischievous

    Darth Mischievous Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Oct 12, 1999
    IMHO, OWM's sentiment is what is so wrong with the politic these days.

    What is wrong with Democrats or Republicans switching over to support the other Party's guy, if the other Party's guy is best qualified for the job?

    Reagan was very successful at doing that, and so is McCain.

    Why is that?

    It is because both Reagan and McCain give the other Party consideration and respect. Leiberman does this as well.

    Those men aren't blind ideologues who tote the line just because they're in the club.
     
  17. heels1785

    heels1785 Skywalker Saga + JCC Manager / Finally Won A Draft star 10 Staff Member Manager

    Registered:
    Dec 10, 2003
    Keep an eye on Evan Bayh, I can see him emerging as a dark horse, he doesn't have the catty rep that many affiliate with Hillary, and has been said to have the likability similar to John Edwards. He is brilliant, and has been working in the background, solidly building his base up--he's a great speaker, heard him on CSPAN a few times. Could spell nightmare for the GOP.

    I'm thinking its gonna be Allen coming out of the Republican party, I pray its not Frist, and, while I don't mind McCain, I don't think he'll be able to solidify the party and get the nomination. I don't know much about Allen, but perhaps he's alright, although I can see myself supporting a Democratic nominee if they give me a good one that makes sense and isn't an idiot, I think John Edwards has been the only Dem in the past few years I would have considered voting for.

    And Biden's running? [face_laugh]

    I just laughed so hard my face fell off.
     
  18. DeathStar1977

    DeathStar1977 Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Jan 31, 2003
    Right off the bat I?ll say I wouldn?t vote for McCain. When all is said and done, he could be a good President, but since he has taken residence up Bush?s ass the past few years, I sincerely doubt his ?straight talk??he?s just as much a politician as everyone else.

    Before his Bush lovefeast, he was admired because he wouldn?t suck up to the establishment so much. He was a bit of a maverick, unlike most of the rest of the Republican party. Now he reeks of political opportunism.

    And I agree KK, when push comes to shove, most Democrats will probably not vote for McCain, and there is the danger that the conservative base would stay home.

    The popularity of politicians like Lieberman in the opposing party, especially the base, stems mainly because they provide them with political cover. We often hear how Republicans love Lieberman, but it is also the same Lieberman who goes on Fox or in the WSJ to bash Democrats, and the same Lieberman who agrees with them on Iraq. How often do we hear statements like ?Lieberman is the only Democrat who is strong on foreign policy?? Bottom line a statement like this is merely self-serving because all it is saying is ?only those who agree with us care about national security?. Strong criticism, well, then one is just another partisan hack, regardless of the content of what they are saying. John Murtha is a perfect example?someone who has extensive experience in foreign affairs, well-known within the Pentagon, decorated veteran, respected by both sides of the aisle (until recently)?all qualifications that blow Lieberman out of the water?but as soon as he proposed a strategy that was at odds with the administration and became a critic, he became a pariah. So its not about being respectful, its about being agreeable and an unwillingness to question the status quo.

    Truth is, there are many politicians (Bill Nelson, Ben Nelson, John Warner, Mark Pryor, Mike Dewine) who are true moderates who go off the reservation from time to time who, unlike the McCain/Lieberman variety, don?t feel the need to advertise it to everyone. Which isn?t to say moderation is always the way to go. Reagan and Tip O?neill got along well. Ted Kennedy and Orrin Hatch get along. Yet they all still tended to identify with one end of the political spectrum.

    So I?d say?to thine own self be true, and respect may follow.
     
  19. Jabbadabbado

    Jabbadabbado Manager Emeritus star 7 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Mar 19, 1999
    Keep an eye on Evan Bayh, I can see him emerging as a dark horse.

    I met Evan Bayh when he was governor of Indiana. Having talked to him for all of about 2 minutes, I can only say that he seems to be hugely charismatic and he had a youthful energy that was extremely impressive. I'm pretty sure he was still in his thirties when I met him. He was positively Clintonesque in how young he looked relative to the fact that he was in charge of an entire state. Maybe he's mellowed somewhat now that he has kids and is in his forties, but I hope not.

    [Edit: he may actually already be 50. Time flies]
     
  20. QuanarReg

    QuanarReg Jedi Youngling star 3

    Registered:
    Aug 17, 2002

    No, no, no, no! That's all I can say about Carl Levin. I've had to see his face here in Michigan for far too long! I think I would cry if he became President...

    But, back to the regular discussion. It really seams interesting, this upcoming Presidential election.

    As far as the candidates go, the only one I have met personally was Mitt Romney. I got to speak to him for a short time when he was on Mackinac Island last fall. Really great political speaker.

    It seems lately I've heard a lot of people trying to find a candidate is the anti-McCain. This worries me. I've hears some say that if Hillary runs in 08 it doen'st matter what Republican is against her, she will loose. I have very warry of such concepts. I give this warning for all Republicans... the day you believe that Hillary is completely incapable of winning the White House is the day we are going to loose it....

    Run a candidate that you think can strongly beat her, no matter how unelectable you might think she is.



    Hey I haven't been here in a while, maybe I should post more agian.
     
  21. Darth Mischievous

    Darth Mischievous Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Oct 12, 1999
    DS77: Murtha didn't become a pariah because of anything remotely associated with Leiberman's politic or likability. He became such because the far-left has tried to make him a poster child for their cause, and he is also such because his advocacy of immediate and complete withdrawal is asinine. Not even Hillary Clinton and John Kerry think that we should exit Iraq immediately.

    McCain is truly a moderate, but he - like everyone else in Washington - is a politician as well. He must try to please the base at this time a bit to secure the nomination.

    Did you not know that Warner is currently associating with far-left groups to solidify his support from the Democratic base? It's all very predictable, really. They have to gain support from the activist bases to get nominated.

    The reason Reagan and O'Neill got along well is because the political climate wasn't so poisoned at the time by these fringe pressure groups. They were able to debate, and be friends afterwards. Now, there is much hate and vitriol for the other side, simply because of political disagreements.

    Edit: By the way, you guys who think McCain wouldn't really gain that many votes from Democrats are making a mistake - depending on who runs against him (that is, if he is even able to get nominated by the GOP). I would wager that many conservative and some moderate Democrats will vote for McCain over Hillary Clinton. Unless you don't want at least another 4 years of a GOP administration, then I would advise all Democrats to not nominate Hillary on their ticket for President. Nominate a centrist or a center-leftist like Bill Clinton, not a Kerry or a Hillary.
     
  22. Jabbadabbado

    Jabbadabbado Manager Emeritus star 7 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Mar 19, 1999
    I have trouble thinking of Hillary as anything but a centrist. Hillary's politics have never been the issue. The objections always seem to arise over her personal credibility and authenticity.
     
  23. DeathStar1977

    DeathStar1977 Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Jan 31, 2003
    Murtha didn't become a pariah because of anything remotely associated with Leiberman's politic or likability. He became such because the far-left has tried to make him a poster child for their cause, and he is also such because his advocacy of immediate and complete withdrawal is asinine.

    He became a pariah, in the eyes of the right-wing, because he came up with a plan at odds with the Bush administration, ipso facto he was immediately demonized?before he supposedly became a ?poster boy?. Even if he did, it would be silly to blame him if certain fringe groups supposedly supported him. He?s a good man with a good pedigree who advocated a staged withdrawal over six months. Certainly people are free to disagree with him, but the immediate demonization of him further shows that if one disagrees with the Bush administration, then they are dealt with accordingly. To them, its not about ideas, its about ideology.

    Not even Hillary Clinton and John Kerry think that we should exit Iraq immediately.

    Even if they did, I?d be interested to hear their opinions as to why. I don?t see how current policies are going so swimmingly that we shouldn?t entertain other possibilities.

    Did you not know that Warner is currently associating with far-left groups to solidify his support from the Democratic base? It's all very predictable, really. They have to gain support from the activist bases to get nominated.

    All of them do, this is nothing new. See how Guiliani, Frist, McCain et al are doing the same thing.

    The reason Reagan and O'Neill got along well is because the political climate wasn't so poisoned at the time by these fringe pressure groups. They were able to debate, and be friends afterwards. Now, there is much hate and vitriol for the other side, simply because of political disagreements.

    They also had friendly personalities, or so the story goes.

    Sure there is a lot of hate and vitrol, but a lot of it IMO is trumped up by the media and the shouters.

    Nominate a centrist or a center-leftist like Bill Clinton, not a Kerry or a Hillary.

    You continue to act as if Bush won a Reaganesque landslide. John Kerry won a substantial portion of the popular and electoral vote against a wartime incumbent President.

    On paper at least, a Warner/Byah ticket could be strong. Both are young and likable, and could win in states like Ohio, Colorado, Missouri, Nevada and New Mexico while holding the blue states.

    And McCain certainly has the potential to be an unbeatable candidate, but I don?t see it nearly as a forgone conclusion.
     
  24. Vaderize03

    Vaderize03 Manager Emeritus star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Oct 25, 1999
    For the record, DM, the Romney who ran for governor of Massachusetts is not the same man who wishes to run for president of the United States.

    He needs to appeal to social conservatives and has altered his stance on hot-button social issues accordingly. This was done to dispel early any efforts to label him as a "northerner" and thus, a liberal in sheep's clothing.

    Voters tend to see right through this, and I would be willing to bet his turn-around would cost him his home state, as well as the more left-leaning northeast.

    Peace,

    V-03
     
  25. Darth Mischievous

    Darth Mischievous Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Oct 12, 1999
    One never knows, V03, and anything is likely to happen before 2008. Of course, that is unless your party puts up Hillary. Then, it's pretty much a guarantee for the GOP, barring they nominate a complete dud.

    The GOP is showing the same signs of fracture that the Dems are experiencing now. The immigration issue and federal fiscal policy are at the forefront of this infighting, but the Iraq situation is creeping up to split the ranks.

    There is an appropriate saying going around the political circuit, which is kind of appropriate in my view at this time:

    Do you want the clueless or the spineless in power at this time?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.