2008 Election

[Taro T]

Is this the same Gore who couldn't even take his own state in 2000? 

 

Just checking.

709196[/snapback]

What are you talking about?

 

He carried DC.

 

OH, you meant the state that he was a Senator for.

[/dev/null]

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]

 

if it's 2 families monarchy wouldn't be the right term. maybe duoarchy?

 

anyways that list presented is a pretty sad bunch.

 

If the Dems want to have any chance of winning back the White House they need to change direction and go with someone like Warner who could actually compete in the south and west.

 

Guiliani and McCain would have a hard time getting the Republican nomination. But if they did win the nomination they would be tough for any Democrat to beat in November.

 

Rumor around Virginia is that Allen is considering a run for president. Doubt he'd get the nomination but would be interesting if he and Warner won their party nominations. Wonder when the last time both major candidates came from the same state.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

if it's 2 families monarchy wouldn't be the right term.  maybe duoarchy?

709313[/snapback]

 

But I wasn't suggesting both familes...just give up, and pick one for all eternity.

 

And were that the case...I'd have to go with the Clintons, just because I'd trust Chelsea before I'd trust Barbara or Jenna.

[Bill from NYC]

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.

709150[/snapback]

 

His love life can be characterized as odd indeed, and his stance on guns is also disturbing, but I will say this about Rudy....the man can lead.

I have differed with him on issues from time to time, but he gets things done.

 

I think that many have forgotten just how bad NYC really was before Rudy. There were more than 2,000 murders each year, and the robbery stats were equally alarming. Additionally, he all but wiped out the "Mafia" in NYC. He takes no b.s. from Hucksters such as Sharpton and Jesse, and almost every individual neighborhood in NYC is improved. Bloomberg is wisely folowing his example, although he is a phoney and an ass.

 

As for the "conservatives," perhaps they have just a little too much say in deciding who will lead the repubs, and a little more balance is needed. Much like the left wing wackos and the dems.

 

In summary, I don't look to any politician for a magic cure of sorts, but I think that Rudy can do a better job than others that I see out there.

[boomerjamhead]

From what I have read recently, Christopher Dodd will throw his hat into the ring and Bill Richardson probably will as well.

[Chilly]

If it was today, looking at Democratic poll numbers, I don't think its even close, Hillary wins the Democratic nomination.

 

 

Watch for Hillary to snap up all the top Democratic talent off the bat, much like what Bush did in 2000. I think the only chance for a different democrat to win it is to throw their hat in the ring early, and then go after the best campaign managers the Democrats have.

 

 

I don't think she is as polarizing as everyone thinks within the democratic party. Most of the other top candidates being named (Kerry, Gore) are equally, if not MORE polarizing due to people viewing them as losers, not winners. They wouldn't get the same type of monitary support that they did in their first campaigns. Especially Kerry, who left something like 13 million in the bank rather then spending it in Ohio, which pissed off a lot of the big campaign contributors for the Dems.

 

 

As for the Republicans, I think its a two man race between Rudi Giuliani and McCain if they both run for it. It'll be interesting to see what Rudi does to try and get his name out there, he hasn't been in the news a lot since he left his post as the mayor of NYC. McCain has a good advantage with incumbency in the Senate.

[Gavin in Va Beach]

From what I have read recently, Christopher Dodd will throw his hat into the ring and Bill Richardson probably will as well.

709498[/snapback]

 

Richardson could be formidable, but I fail to see how anyone could take that weasel Dodd's campaign seriously...

[Wacka]

Richardson could be formidable, but I fail to see how anyone could take that weasel Dodd's campaign seriously...

709539[/snapback]

 

They liked the womanizing Bubba. Dodd could mention making waitress sandwiches with Ted Kennedy.

[Adam]

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 think Clinton is completely unelectable- she would lose the southern democrats before the first vote. Kerry is not a leader...he does what the party tells him. Gore's problem is (at least from what democrats tell me) that he tried to act like something he's not last time...if you come off as a different person, that could turn people off.

 

McCain hogs the spotlight too much for my taste, and Gingrich seems somewhat radical.....Guliani is interesting- he has a pretty good public image from what I can tell, but I dont know too much

[JimBob2232]

IF the democrats were smart and serious about winning, Mark Warner would hands down be their guy. He has enough appeal to certainally win Virginia and, assuming the democrats dont lose any other states that would be enough.

 

On the republican side, I personally like George Allen, also from Virginia. I think he is a long shot at this time though. A good VP candidate.

 

My predictions:

Dem: Hillary / Warner

Rep: McCain / Allen.

[Chilly]

IF the democrats were smart and serious about winning, Mark Warner would hands down be their guy.  He has enough appeal to certainally win Virginia and, assuming the democrats dont lose any other states that would be enough.

 

On the republican side, I personally like George Allen, also from Virginia.  I think he is a long shot at this time though.  A good VP candidate. 

 

My predictions:

Dem: Hillary / Warner

Rep: McCain / Allen.

709689[/snapback]

 

It'd be an interesting campaign for sure, and would keep the current Foreign Policy versus Civil Policy debate going.

 

What I mean by that is Kerry tried to portray himself as a fix-America domestically guy, and Bush was the strong Foreign Policy guy with problems at home.

 

I think this potential matchup would be the same way. In my experience looking over polls and election results, independents tend to lean toward democrats on civil issues, and toward republicans on foreign policy (at least since 9/11 anyway, not too sure on the data before that).

 

Bush won because of foreign policy, but is McCain strong is on the issue? I'd think so, given his rep and history.

 

Hillary is a much better speaker then Kerry was, and also can put together more coherent arguments. I also expect her to have a much better campaign team, and line her up in the center of issues without looking like a deuchebag like Kerry. So people's confidence will be stronger in Hillary to be a good leader then Kerry.

 

She's still Hillary though, and would have to win over a Democratic base which typically tends to defect to a different party at higher rates than the Republican base, as well as a base that, while more people identify themselves as Democrats, doesn't show up to the polls as well as the Republican base.

 

Her other challenge would be to win over enough independents to make up for that, something with I don't think she'd be able to do versus McCain.

 

The one thing that might kind of turn the tables a bit would be if the campaigning talent in the Republican Party gets split up between McCain, Guiliani, and Gingrich. If that happens, Hillary might be looking at more money to play with and throw around to try to even it up.

[CosmicBills]

What are the thoughts on Vilsack? He's a darkhorse but campaigns very well.

[Chilly]

What are the thoughts on Vilsack? He's a darkhorse but campaigns very well.

709725[/snapback]

 

Vilsack is an interesting candidate. I think it would take someone like him to dethrone Hillary, and he would have to pull off a couple John Kerry-esque upsets early.

 

He would have to push himself as a moderate of the Democratic party, one who the anti-Hillary crowd could attract. He also would need to focus on campaigning that he is the electable candidate, and that Hillary could never get elected. The Democrats in the last presidential primaries went for Kerry with the #1 polling response being that he seemed to be the most electable to defeat Bush. Vislack would be wise to play off of that, but rather than beat Bush, make it beat the evil Republicans.

 

Vilsack would be able to do it if he could unite New Hampshire, and he has the benefit of Iowa being early. With those two wins under his belt, he would start to get much improved media attention and donations to his campaign, starting a snowball effect to help him through the elections.

 

Tough scenario, but it is a possibility.

[PastaJoe]

I didn't see any mention of John Edwards. He recently won an Iowa poll, even beating Hillary. He has been making the rounds for the past couple of years, and if the Democratic primaries remain the same with Iowa and the South early, he could become an early frontrunner. He could attract the Southern vote, and could pick Bill Richardson to run with him to gain Hispanic and southwest voters.

[Chilly]

I didn't see any mention of John Edwards.  He recently won an Iowa poll, even beating Hillary.  He has been making the rounds for the past couple of years, and if the Democratic primaries remain the same with Iowa and the South early, he could become an early frontrunner.  He could attract the Southern vote, and could pick Bill Richardson to run with him to gain Hispanic and southwest voters.

709734[/snapback]

 

 

I think Edwards is benefiting from it being an extremely early poll, too early to tell anything, without campaigning having started yet.

 

 

Edwards is still fresh in people's minds as the promising young congressman turned VP candidate who at a lot of times looked better then Kerry. He was campaigning in Iowa in 2004.

 

Vilsack hasn't had to campaign since 02, and Clinton's image there is most likely still the one from her first lad days.

 

Its not surprising that Edwards won an early poll, nor would it be surprising to see that change as it gets closer to 08.

[KRC]

I didn't see any mention of John Edwards.  He recently won an Iowa poll, even beating Hillary.  He has been making the rounds for the past couple of years, and if the Democratic primaries remain the same with Iowa and the South early, he could become an early frontrunner.  He could attract the Southern vote, and could pick Bill Richardson to run with him to gain Hispanic and southwest voters.

709734[/snapback]

 

He couldn't attract the southern vote last time, what makes this time any different? He only won South Carolina and lost all of the other primaries (thoughout the country) to either Kerry or Clark (some, by an overwhelming margin).

[SilverNRed]

Edwards is still fresh in people's minds as the promising young congressman turned VP candidate who at a lot of times looked better then Kerry.  He was campaigning in Iowa in 2004.

709738[/snapback]

What was so promising about him? The guy didn't even vote all that much when he was in the Senate.

 

The guy is fresh in my mind for using personal injury lawyer talk in a presidential campaign. Anyone who says "My opponents may care about insurance companies, but we care about people" makes my skin crawl.

[Chilly]

What was so promising about him?  The guy didn't even vote all that much when he was in the Senate.

 

The guy is fresh in my mind for using personal injury lawyer talk in a presidential campaign. Anyone who says "My opponents may care about insurance companies, but we care about people" makes my skin crawl.

709740[/snapback]

 

Not saying that I agree with it, just saying that it was the image that his campaign was using to promote him.

[KD in CA]

What was so promising about him?  The guy didn't even vote all that much when he was in the Senate.

 

 

Which certainly made him more appealing than Kerry!

[Albany,n.y.]

His love life can be characterized as odd indeed, and his stance on guns is also disturbing, but I will say this about Rudy....the man can lead.

I have differed with him on issues from time to time, but he gets things done.

 

I think that many have forgotten just how bad NYC really was before Rudy. There were more than 2,000 murders each year, and the robbery stats were equally alarming. Additionally, he all but wiped out the "Mafia" in NYC. He takes no b.s. from Hucksters such as Sharpton and Jesse, and almost every individual neighborhood in NYC is improved. Bloomberg is wisely folowing his example, although he is a phoney and an ass.

 

As for the "conservatives," perhaps they have just a little too much say in deciding who will lead the repubs, and a little more balance is needed. Much like the left wing wackos and the dems.

 

In summary, I don't look to any politician for a magic cure of sorts, but I think that Rudy can do a better job than others that I see out there.

709349[/snapback]

The perfect solution-Rudy becomes a Democrat and gets the nomination.

 

Here's an example of what's already out there on the web bashing Rudy:

 

Giuliani is completely pro-abortion, and even supports the barbaric practice known as partial birth abortion.

 

But that is just the beginning of his extreme left-wing positions: Giuliani is pro-Sodomite, pro-Third World immigration and anti-Second Amendment.

 

Every year as New York's mayor, Giuliani marched in the Sodomite parade down Fifth Avenue with all of the transvestites, the sadomasochistic freaks wearing Nazi helmets, and the child molesters of the National Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA).

 

 

Rudy Giuliani dresses in drag as JFK/RFK mistress Marilyn Monroe

 

Giuliani himself dressed in "drag" - he wore a dress, a wig, makeup and lipstick - on more than one occasion.

 

Giuliani's sexual escapades are as bad as those of Bill Clinton.

 

Giuliani married his first cousin and then pulled all types of strings to get the marriage annulled by the Catholic Church. (Catholics are not allowed to divorce, and so "annulment" of a marriage is sometimes used to end an unwanted union.)

 

Rudy Giuliani's sexual escapades are as bad as those of Bill Clinton

 

Giuliani then married his second wife, Donna Hanover, who starred in the evil pornographic and child-molesting play, The Vagina Monologues. In the play, a grown woman has a lesbian, child-molesting relationship with a 13-year-old girl.

 

An uncaring mother and a cheating husband made for tabloid fodder during the messy Giuliani-Hanover divorce - Television personality Donna Hanover starred in The Vagina Monologues, a play about lesbian pedophilia, and played Jimmy Carter's sister, Ruth Carter Stapleton, in The People vs. Larry Flynt, a loving cinematic tribute to the infamous porn king, depicted in the film as a “free speech” crusader

 

Giuliani then openly cheated on his second wife, parading around the city with his adulterous mate, Judith Nathan. Giuliani even wanted to bring his adulterous mate into the Mayor's official residence in Gracie Mansion to openly live with him. He did not care that his young son Andrew was living there and would have seen his father together with his adulterous partner every day.

 

A supposed Catholic, the openly unfaithful Rudy Giuliani sought a divorce from his second wife Donna Hanover - He is shown with Hanover meeting Pope John Paul II

 

Finally, Giuliani sought to divorce his second wife. This time, he did not seek an "annulment," he openly sought a divorce.

 

When the Giulianis separated, he moved into the apartment of an AIDS-infected homosexual "couple" whom he had befriended.