Adam Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 Well, from what I have been hearing, the probable democratic candidate is Gore....no news on the rupublican candidate. Big thing for Gore is to appeal to the southern democrat- he does that, he wins- the northeast will vote for him just because he's stamped a democrat. He has to avoid talking (whining) about 2000.....that is old and tired....and he can't let the democrats run him- that cost RobotoKerry any chance of winning. He was one of the worst candidates ever. Also, the need to cut the garbage about independents hurting them- go out there and win the doggone vote- nobody stole votes from you- you candidate just wasn;t good enough to win those votes. It will be interesiting to see who the Republicans run Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 Well, from what I have been hearing, the probable democratic candidate is Gore....no news on the rupublican candidate. Big thing for Gore is to appeal to the southern democrat- he does that, he wins- the northeast will vote for him just because he's stamped a democrat. He has to avoid talking (whining) about 2000.....that is old and tired....and he can't let the democrats run him- that cost RobotoKerry any chance of winning. He was one of the worst candidates ever. Also, the need to cut the garbage about independents hurting them- go out there and win the doggone vote- nobody stole votes from you- you candidate just wasn;t good enough to win those votes. It will be interesiting to see who the Republicans run 709012[/snapback] It is tough to call who will get the nomination for each party. I see it coming down to three for each: Dems: Hillary Gore Kerry Reps: Gingrich Guliani McCain Both sides look pretty ugly. Hillary would probably win of the three Dems, but it would be close. None of them are real strong for their party. Of the Reps, Guliani is losing ground so it will be between Gingrich and McCain. Gingrich would probably beat McCain. Basically, we are all !@#$ed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 Basically, we are all !@#$ed. 709017[/snapback] Again. Still. The candidate that scares me most is Hillary Clinton. Not just because I loathe her as a candidate...but if she were to be elected, we would have a string of Presidents from 1988 on as Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush, Clinton. A quarter century of being "led" by two families. May as well just cancel all further elections and declare a !@#$ing monarchy in that case... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 It is tough to call who will get the nomination for each party. I see it coming down to three for each: Dems: Hillary Gore Kerry Reps: Gingrich Guliani McCain Both sides look pretty ugly. Hillary would probably win of the three Dems, but it would be close. None of them are real strong for their party. Of the Reps, Guliani is losing ground so it will be between Gingrich and McCain. Gingrich would probably beat McCain. Basically, we are all !@#$ed. 709017[/snapback] I'm surprised you'd see Hillary winning among the Dems. And I don't see Kerry as a serious candidate this time around. The former has been alienating the Democratic base, and the latter is going to be seen as a loser and a non-starter. Gore probably intrigues the most Dems at this point. Of course, the less you are a politician-in-the-game, the better you look -- that's doing a lot for Gore right now. No certainty he'll run yet, though. You also might see an upstart like Warner from Virginia or someone else pop up the way Bill Clinton did in '92. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 I'm surprised you'd see Hillary winning among the Dems. And I don't see Kerry as a serious candidate this time around. The former has been alienating the Democratic base, and the latter is going to be seen as a loser and a non-starter. Gore probably intrigues the most Dems at this point. Of course, the less you are a politician-in-the-game, the better you look -- that's doing a lot for Gore right now. No certainty he'll run yet, though. You also might see an upstart like Warner from Virginia or someone else pop up the way Bill Clinton did in '92. 709029[/snapback] You beat me to it. Gore has already stated on several occassions that he's not running. Kerry won't get the support he got last time, and Hillary is too polarizing, even in the party. Anyway, both are senators, and there hasn't been a senator elected POTUS since JFK. It's still too early for Obama, yet. Warner's starting to get some serious mojo right now. A Warner/Wes Clark ticket would be formidable, I believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 Manbearpig in 2008! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 I'm surprised you'd see Hillary winning among the Dems. And I don't see Kerry as a serious candidate this time around. The former has been alienating the Democratic base, and the latter is going to be seen as a loser and a non-starter. Gore probably intrigues the most Dems at this point. Of course, the less you are a politician-in-the-game, the better you look -- that's doing a lot for Gore right now. No certainty he'll run yet, though. You also might see an upstart like Warner from Virginia or someone else pop up the way Bill Clinton did in '92. 709029[/snapback] Of the three Dems mentioned, Hillary would win. Not by much, mind you. It is just a bad crop of "name" people. As Coli mentioned, Obama is still an election cycle or two away from being a contender. Of course, they might just try Obama as VP to raise his stock for the next presidential election. That would be the smart move, which means that the Dems will probably NOT do it. With Gore, it all depends on the sustainability of his movie. He should have released it later to keep momentum going, if he decides that he wants to run. Frankly, I do not see him getting the nod. While he is not a current pol, he is too far removed from it to win the nomination. He just pops up to bash Bush, then disappears for a while. At least Gingrich keeps himself in front of the cameras, which is why he would do well in the primaries. Warner is a possiility, but I do not think that he has enough to beat out the name candidates. Clinton and Gore would hit him hard with the "lack of experience" angle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 It's still too early for Obama, yet. 709039[/snapback] That's one thing I have been hearing and have to disagree with, though it seems to become a self-fulfilling statement. Politicians have a relatively short shelf-life in which they can really be on the national stage, make an impact, and make a run at the presidency (see: George Bush). 4-to-potentially-8 more years of Senate record for Obama might induce less enthusiasm for him, and will definitely provide enough votes for an opposition to parse and tear apart. Really, IMO, he should run. He has youth, enthusiasm, difference, and is not enough of an insider yet, so he could run offering an outside or different perspective. Of course, he'll have all sorts of establishment against him (Hillary, possibly Gore, possibly Kerry). Exactly the reason to make an anti-establishment run. People are so ready for it. That said, Warner-Clark would be a ticket I could get behind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 Of the three Dems mentioned, Hillary would win. Not by much, mind you. It is just a bad crop of "name" people. As Coli mentioned, Obama is still an election cycle or two away from being a contender. Of course, they might just try Obama as VP to raise his stock for the next presidential election. That would be the smart move, which means that the Dems will probably NOT do it. With Gore, it all depends on the sustainability of his movie. He should have released it later to keep momentum going, if he decides that he wants to run. Frankly, I do not see him getting the nod. While he is not a current pol, he is too far removed from it to win the nomination. He just pops up to bash Bush, then disappears for a while. At least Gingrich keeps himself in front of the cameras, which is why he would do well in the primaries. Warner is a possiility, but I do not think that he has enough to beat out the name candidates. Clinton and Gore would hit him hard with the "lack of experience" angle. 709053[/snapback] Other problem is Gore is not a natural campaigner. It should be a reason for Americans to like him, and if he presented himself the way he did in the movie and in the unreleased Spike Jonze campaign film, he would have won outright in 2000 -- presenting himself as 'outside the charade of the campaign' and here to talk about ideas. Instead it became cause for people to think he had an identity crisis. The people managing his campaign were completely out of their league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 Of the three Dems mentioned, Hillary would win. Not by much, mind you. It is just a bad crop of "name" people. As Coli mentioned, Obama is still an election cycle or two away from being a contender. Of course, they might just try Obama as VP to raise his stock for the next presidential election. That would be the smart move, which means that the Dems will probably NOT do it. With Gore, it all depends on the sustainability of his movie. He should have released it later to keep momentum going, if he decides that he wants to run. Frankly, I do not see him getting the nod. While he is not a current pol, he is too far removed from it to win the nomination. He just pops up to bash Bush, then disappears for a while. At least Gingrich keeps himself in front of the cameras, which is why he would do well in the primaries. Warner is a possiility, but I do not think that he has enough to beat out the name candidates. Clinton and Gore would hit him hard with the "lack of experience" angle. 709053[/snapback] Maybe we should just run Ned Lamont in 2008. The guy's a freaking juggernaut right now. He could run against the GOP's 2008 candidate, Joe Lieberman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 That's one thing I have been hearing and have to disagree with, though it seems to become a self-fulfilling statement. Politicians have a relatively short shelf-life in which they can really be on the national stage, make an impact, and make a run at the presidency (see: George Bush). 4-to-potentially-8 more years of Senate record for Obama might induce less enthusiasm for him, and will definitely provide enough votes for an opposition to parse and tear apart. Really, IMO, he should run. He has youth, enthusiasm, difference, and is not enough of an insider yet, so he could run offering an outside or different perspective. Of course, he'll have all sorts of establishment against him (Hillary, possibly Gore, possibly Kerry). Exactly the reason to make an anti-establishment run. People are so ready for it. That said, Warner-Clark would be a ticket I could get behind. 709063[/snapback] You may get your wish, dude. Chatter about Obama's 2008 plans picks up I could see him as a very good choice for a VP running mate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 It is tough to call who will get the nomination for each party. I see it coming down to three for each: Dems: Hillary Gore Kerry Reps: Gingrich Guliani McCain Both sides look pretty ugly. Hillary would probably win of the three Dems, but it would be close. None of them are real strong for their party. Of the Reps, Guliani is losing ground so it will be between Gingrich and McCain. Gingrich would probably beat McCain. Basically, we are all !@#$ed. 709017[/snapback] What is it that you dislike about Giuliani? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 Again. Still.The candidate that scares me most is Hillary Clinton. Not just because I loathe her as a candidate...but if she were to be elected, we would have a string of Presidents from 1988 on as Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush, Clinton. A quarter century of being "led" by two families. May as well just cancel all further elections and declare a !@#$ing monarchy in that case... 709028[/snapback] But if she was elected to two terms and Jeb followed with two of his own it would go: Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush. Thirty-six years. Makes me shiver. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 What is it that you dislike about Giuliani? 709107[/snapback] I don't think Rudy can get traction among the GOP base due to his moderate social views. I think he'd be buried in the Mid-West primaries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 What is it that you dislike about Giuliani? 709107[/snapback] His stance on guns (only cops should have them), his whole fiasco with the mistriss and the uncertainty of his health (prostate cancer). There are others, but those are the main reasons why I do not like him. These will be problems with conservatives. Conservatives will also not like the pro-choice stance or his stance on gay marriage (liberal tendencies). Personally, I am pro-choice and have no problem with gays legally marrying, so this is not an issue for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 She shouldn't be able to run . She already served two terms. Remember her quote:"We are the President" She was telling Bubba what to do the whole time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cromagnum Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 I think gingrich will make a strong run as the nominee, anyone have an opinion of him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IBTG81 Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 Well, I hope Ken Crippen gets the nod, but... Anyway, Obama rhymes with Osama, so there's no way in hell he's gonna win anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 Well, I hope Ken Crippen gets the nod, but... Anyway, Obama rhymes with Osama, so there's no way in hell he's gonna win anything. 709169[/snapback] Can anyone in the Republican party put that together? Can they recruit Jesse Jackson for that purpose? "Stay out of the Bushes. There's more with Gore!" [/Nightmare from 2000] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 Is this the same Gore who couldn't even take his own state in 2000? Just checking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts