Early look at Presidential candidates 2008.
The 2008 election looks like 2000, a wide open affair. Dick Cheney has already stated he will not run. Here are some who may throw their hat in the ring.
Republican candidates:
- Rudy Giuliani, former mayor of New York
- Bill Frist, Senator from Tennessee
- Jeb Bush, Governor of Florida
- John McCain, Senator from Arizona
- Dan Quayle, former Vice-President
- Gary Bauer, conservative activist
- Condoleeza Rice, National Security Advisor
- Donald Trump, businessman
- Tom Ridge, Secretary of Homeland Security and former Governor of Pennsylvania
- George Allen, Senator from Virginia
- Rick Santorum, Senator from Pennsylvania
- Mitt Romney, Governor of Massachusetts
- George Pataki, Governor of New York
Democratic candidates
- Hillary Rodham Clinton, Senator from New York and former First Lady
- Al Gore, former Vice-President
- John Kerry, Senator from Massachusetts
- John Edwards, Senator from North Carolina
- Tom Daschle, Senator from South Dakota
- Joseph Biden, Senator from Delaware
- Bill Bradley, former Senator from New Jersey
- Howard Dean, former Governor of Vermont
- Richard Gephardt, Congressional Represenative from Missouri
- Wesley Clark, former US Army General
- Joseph Lieberman, Senator from Connecticut
- Al Sharpton, liberal activist
- Dennis Kucinich, Congressional Representative from Ohio
- Barack Obama, Senator-elect from Illinois
- Harold Ford, Jr, Congressional representative from Tennessee
- Bob Graham, Senator from Florida
- Bill Richardson, Governor of New Mexico and former US Ambassador to the United Nations
- Evan Bayh, Senator from Indiana
- Gary Hart, former Senator from Colorado
- Mark Warner, Governor of Virginia
- Rod Blagojevich, Governor of Illinois
- Tom Vilsack, Governor of Iowa
Jeb Bush has said he will not run in 2008, but I don’t believe that.
This list will likely change, of course.
November 7th, 2004 at 16:30
Nice list, here’s my 2 cents:
Rudy Giuliani. Yes. Frist, yes, Bush, no. John McCain - the nomination is his to lose (suggested campagin motto: McCain in Eight) Dan Quayle won’t run because he lost before, ditto for Gary Bauer. Rice now wants a private life, not a public one (good vp choice?) Trump’s not really a republican. I doubt he voted for Bush! Schwarzenegger? Not likely because of the law, but he could carry Calif!
As for the dems:
Clinton - crown her the dem nominee now. Al Gore - no way, parties won’t nominate losers in presidential elections - ditto for John Kerry and John Edwards, Gary Hart and Tom Daschle. They’re finished.
Howard Dean, next chair of the DNC, not presidential canadiate. Gephardt, Lieberman, Kucinich have had it. G and L have run many times and lost, they won’t run again.
Wesley Clark, wild card. I think he’s tasted political campaigns and liked it. Al Sharpton, I hope so. Great for material.
Barack Obama, someday. He just got in the Senate. He might wait another cycle. If not, he’s chief Clinton rival. Harold Ford, another waiting his turn. He’s young, so time is on his side. Both Obama and Ford will be tough to beat.
November 27th, 2004 at 12:51
It’s Hillary vs Giuliani
December 1st, 2004 at 10:28
well….intresting,
first the Dems
Hilary Clinton: she may run but she will lose in the end
Barack Obama : he’s great but i think he should until the next elction (providing the dems get in)
John Kerry : i hope so, i think he is Presidential material (or possibly VP?)
John Edwards : he’s a real threat, i think he’s great, i hope we give him another chance.
Ford:No
Kucinich:Hell no!
Clark: maybe,he tried in the last election, maybe it’s his time!
the rest no!
and the Republicans
Bush: it’s got to Be Jeb, i can’t imagine anyone else.
Quale: that would be a huge mistake
Gulliani: Americans won’t want a president with a Italian name (shallow i know)
McCain: like that guy said “it’s his to lose”
Rice: if Hilary won’t get elected there’s no way will she get elected!
as for the rest of the Republican candidates….quit while your ahead.
looks like Kerry vs Bush
Clinton vs Rice
or Clark(or Edwards) vs Gulliani
January 4th, 2005 at 21:52
For the democrats, do not forget North Carolina Governor Mike Easley. He just won his second term by double digit margins and is very popular in NC. He could provide the democratic party with a chance to win big in the independent voting block and even steal some republican votes. Easlet could very well put NC, South Carolina, Virginia, and maybe Indiana and Ohio back into the Democratic win column.
January 6th, 2005 at 15:09
First off, I hope to the good Lord that we’ve moved past the stereotypes of the European Catholics to elect a President with an Italian last name. Now, I think Guiliani has the GOP nomination if he wants it based on his legacy with September 11th. If he ends up running the Dems have not a chance in hell. Plus, how about Mark Warner for the dems. The Governor of Virginia could play nicely for the dems, as he would draw red state votes and still bring home the traditional blue states.
February 17th, 2005 at 14:26
Its gotta be Evan Bayh as VP and Wesley Clark for the Dems. Red State votes will follow a general and a moderate.
For the GOP, it won’t be John McCain. He stil cant win his own party’s primary. I imagine it will be either Bill Frist or Guilliani, with his legacy, as the previous poster stated.
February 28th, 2005 at 03:34
Kucinich for president in 2008! Who else in politics has the wisdome to launch something like the “Free Market Drug Act” which if passed would save our public health system, which is completely ruined right now!!!
March 2nd, 2005 at 15:13
I think Obama should run sooner instead of later. He’s somebody the dems could get excited about, and the longer he stays in the Senate the more damaging his voting record could potentially be. That was one of the things that hurt Kerry.
Gore has a chance only if he suddenly becomes a brilliant speech-giver, which is not impossible but not likely, either. It did happen to Nixon back in the ’60s. If he were to make a comeback, I think a Gore-Obama ticket would be brilliant…political experience teamed with young blood. Only problem is that Gore belongs to the Clinton camp, and they will almost definitely run Hillary.
March 10th, 2005 at 15:11
Fuck Jeb Bush that asshole CAN kiss my ass because he is a fucking cheater mostly his brother fuck those narrow minded conservative assholes I hope they they all eat shit and die and as for Arnold Swarzacantactor he could go back to makin those cheap ass movies and stay the fuck out of presidency that low educated loser I would rather see Hiliary Clinton win the presidency out of all them and Rudy get lost nobody likes you Out.
April 5th, 2005 at 04:45
Robert F Kennedy Jr should be in the frame as well, if not in 2008, def in 2012, the dems should do everything to get RFK on the ticket
April 9th, 2005 at 20:47
GO AL GORE IN 2008. Al Gore would be perfect for president bcuase of his age, his excellent 8 years as Vice President and the fact that he is a southern democrat which means who is more conservative than regular democrats. Plus in the 1960s the same thing happened to Nixon when he lost in 1960 to JFK and layed low for 8 years and then ran and won two terms as president. As for Hillary Clinto, she would make a horrible president.
May 2nd, 2005 at 08:01
I am looking forward to see Edwards/Biden or Edwards/Clark in 08!
May 15th, 2005 at 16:06
Governor Mike Huckabee looks to be feeling out a possible run. I would not rule him out.
May 20th, 2005 at 19:04
One Presidential candidate I don’t see here is Newt Gingrich. I think Giuliani would be the best move, though.
If the democrats are smart Gore and Kerry would be ruled out, but they shouldn’t rule out Edwards. Many VP candidates are elected to the Presidency after losing the Vice Presidency. For example, the Democratic Vice Presidential candidate in 1920 was ass’t sec’y of the navy FDR, who lost, but them became ny governor and the winner of the ‘32 election. Also, in ‘56, JFK ran for VP and lost the primary, whose party went on to lose the general election anyway, but of course, 4 yrs later he beat Nixon. Lastly, Nixon was the only Presidential Candidate to lose one election, but win 8 years later. The democrats ran Bryan 3 times, and Stevenson twice, never to be elected.
June 3rd, 2005 at 22:49
Here are the facts:
- McCain isn’t running, he is too old and knows it.
- Guiliani, Pataki, Romney - none of these are conservative enough to get the nomination. The winner of the South Carolina primary has been the eventual Republican nominee each elections since 1980.
- Frist tried to play to the evangelicals with the filibuster fight, it was his nomination to lose and he did.
- Gov. Huckabee of Arkansas is now the primary voters most likely choice.
- Watch for Richardson to run a nonoffensive campaign like Edwards did to lock up the VP slot. He and the Clintons are close, he is from a Western state and Hispanic. If Hillary is the nominee, he will be her veep.
- Gingrich won’t run unless Hillary missteps before the summer of 2007, he has indicated as much.
- Jeb Bush won’t run even if he wanted to.
June 4th, 2005 at 00:21
One name that was not on the list is Mitt Romney, Gov. of Mass. Remember, the Republicans love electing Governors. One other comment, I don’t feel Guliani is electable. He was only a Mayor, I know, of New york, but still only a Mayor and he has the infidelity issue that the dems would use against him. For the Dems, I think Hillary is a shoe-in for their nominee.
June 5th, 2005 at 18:35
Of course none of the above comments mention that 2008 is after all a long time away, and the world just might change a little bit. Having said that there are some things in here that make sense in regard to the Junior Senator from New York. Hillary Clinton is making a move to the center as her husband did in 92′. Even if she does convince the electorate she is moderate, the Republicans will have a field day. Imagine there ads, a young Hillary Clinton with the big glasses at protests, the feminist look…SMITH COLLEGE! The L-word will be reborn with a new face. Forget her in the general. And don’t tell me ads in elections don’t matter (Swift boat vets for truth) and that Karl Rove will not be involved in 08′.
June 8th, 2005 at 18:41
I’d say Gore/Edwards, or even Kerry/Edwards again
June 8th, 2005 at 19:22
2008 is a long way away. I think hillary clinton will run and will continue to try to ‘appear’ as a moderate. Donald Trump would make an awesome president…but i dont think he will run. There are only a few people who can beat hillary clinton: John McCain….a moderate, but getting old; Condoleeza Rice; an afican-american and a woman; rudy giulliani, moderate but liberal on social issues. Watch out for John Edwards and Barack Obama. Also, take not that John Kerry was way more liberal than Hillary Clinton, and he couldnt take one southern state. you NEED the south to win…and more electoral votes will be going to the southern states eventually, or so they say.
June 12th, 2005 at 05:23
Maybe this might sound like a naive question, but is it out of the realm of possibility the winner of the 2008 election will be someone none of us have ever heard of before?
I believe the time has come for a “nobody” to rise from the electorate, and America is ready to revisit the concept of citizen politician. We the people after all, constitute the true government.
Isn’t it time we gave a qualified citizen that has never before been elected to a public office, the chance to prove they can not only run for president, but actually have the possibility of winning?
I am tired of politicians, and want to embrace the idea that any American with viable ideas for the direction of this nation is qualified to be president, and not just the professional politicians.
I for one, will not longer accept the status quo, and intent to get as active in politics as I am able.
June 14th, 2005 at 11:04
So everybody knows I am a Right Wing Extremist- Often compared to Nixon and Buchanan. As for 2008 I see it like this:
It will be either McCain vs. Gulliani for the Republican nomination.(NOBODY ELSE) Whoever gets it will probably make the loser his V.P. I’m hoping it’s McCain and Gulliani. That is a winning ticket hands down- either way.
Frist, (ONLY IF MCCAIN DOESN’T RUN) is a possiblity and you can’t rule out my man Newt Gingrich (HE’LL RUN EITHER WAY).
For the Liberals I see it like this:
Hillary will either do good or screw up. If she does good, the nomination is hers.
I see Wes Clark (the only Democrat I would vote for if I had to) as the nomination winner if Hillary screws up. He’s the only one who could actually beat Hillary out even if she didnt screw up.
The one person I would love to see as President is my good friend and former Governor Tommy Thompson.
June 14th, 2005 at 16:04
All of this talk about Guiliani is a bit premature. Sure, he’s polling in the upper 20’s and lower 30’s right now (in terms of Republican primary voters), and could grab those kinds of numbers in Iowa and New Hampshire. That’s all it would take to win in those States. However, once the field is narrowed, a true conservative will remain - which one, I’m not yet sure. Whoever is still standing after the first two states will head into the South, reminding voters that Guiliani favors legalized abortion and homosexual rights. How well is that going to play on Super Tuesday? Guiliani will hit a buzz saw when he hits the South. The evangelical conservatives have come too far to just allow someone like that to walk away with the Republican nomination (even though Pat Robertson hypocritically said he thought Rudy would “make a wonderful President” on “Meet the Press”). Those social value issues are the real lreason that the Democrats can’t win in Red Country. I mean, how is Farmer Brown going to swallow voting for someone who not only thinks that abortion should be legal clear through nine months of pregnancy… but also thinks the government should pay for it (Kerry’s position - which he had to face when a young woman asked him about federal funding for abortions during one of the televised debates). The fact of the matter is that the Democrats are just wildly out of touch on that (and the homosexual marriage) issue. Most Americans just can’t tolerate how wildly far left the Democratic nominees are. And, of course, no candidate can win the nomination without taking such extreme positions (or else NARAL will run them out of Dodge).
Ultimately, Guiliani will face the same fate. Some Conservative will end up with the nomination (and it won’t be McCain because the evangelicals don’t trust him either). In the end, someone else will rise (possibly Jeb Bush, George Allen or someone like Chuck Hagel). Then, if, as is likely, the Democrats drink the Kool-aid and nominate Hillary, they’ll lose the saem exact States they lost this time. Let’s face it, Hillary just can’t play in Peoria — and Guiliani can’t play in South Carolina.
June 14th, 2005 at 16:53
If the question is: Who’s the best person on the lists to BE president, given current and anticipated domestic and international circumstances, the answer is easy for me? Gary Hart.
June 15th, 2005 at 09:37
Well MDS,
I can understand what you’re saying about Gulliani. But I disagree 100% with you on McCain.
McCain favors both sides. That is what we need in 2008. I look at it like the both parties looked at it in the ‘52 election. “We need somebody who can bring both sides together, and be able to work together in harmony.”
The Voters found that in Eisenhower. The voters will find that in McCain.
The G.O.P. nomination is, without any doubt going to McCain. I’ve looked at it a thousand different ways, I’ve looked at a countless number of people who could do what needs to be done. And that is McCain.
McCain is the Conservative ticket to the White House in 2008. If it were Jeb Bush vs. Hillary Clinton- the election would be a split. The Republicans would vote for Jeb and the Democrats would vote for Hillary. McCain on the other hand, can bring those Democrat voters over to the Republican side.
He’ll not only be able to carry the blue states, but he’ll carry a majority of the red states too.
As for Gulliani, he won’t win the primarys. But, McCain will ask him on as the V.P. in order to WIN.
When it comes to politics I often refer to the quote from the movie the Mighty Ducks: “IT’S NOT WORTH WINNING IF YOU CAN WIN BIG!”
June 16th, 2005 at 15:17
Senator Hiliary Clinton (Presidency) and Senator Joseph Biden (Vice President) would win in a heartbeat in 2008! I can’t wait to get rid of Bush. I can’t even stand to watch him on TV anymore! I never liked his father and I don’t like him. He’s mad a mess of everything he touches. I hope the American people are smart enough when he talks about changing Social Security.
July 4th, 2005 at 05:15
Hmmmm….interesting!
Im gonna stick to my guns though. Clinton/Edwards or Clinton/Richardson….not Obama!
As for the Repubs…….i personally don’t care! but…….McCain would swing a lot of Dem voters….including my granny! So the Conservatives would be silly not to select him - i can see John McCain choosing Jeb Bush as the V.P
But Hillary would make dog meat out of them
July 5th, 2005 at 09:52
Mickey Mouse stands a sure win against Hillary. She has the wits and the drive, but she does not inspire to many people. Rudy will definantley inspire, but… is he really the right choice. I say Yes. He is Americas mayor. He took a hard hit during 9/11 and turned a bankrupt city around. In 1992 my mother worked in the city and was really frightened several times when she used Port Authority as her bus transfer station to go home in New Jersey. By 1995 Rudy turned the city around and made it a safe place. His plans to turn 42nd and time square into a family sfae tourist area… Amazing. He increased teacher salarys, increased the police and fire department staffing without busting the budget. He is a fiscal genius and true leader. Under any circumstances I dont feel it is the party lines we should be voting towarda nyway. We need to vote by beliefs.
July 10th, 2005 at 19:29
Let’s get real. If Hillary doesn’t mess up before the primaries, she wins the nomination and the general election as well. She will win over even more of the moderate “soccer moms” Bill won, some of who voted with Bush in ‘04 (but were split in ‘00) as the “security moms.” Even slightly conservative middle class women will vote for her to see a woman President, even if partly to spite their more conservative spouses. She doesn’t need to play more to the center to get elected, either (nor did Bill really need to in ‘92). Presidential politics swings like a pendulum and after 8 years of either party, the moderates of the country are ready for change. Some times that can be stretched to 12 years, but without an heir apparant already running, the Republicans can’t do that.
And for the last time, McCain won’t run (he knows he is too old) and the evangelicals won’t give the nomination to Guiliani, impossible.
July 21st, 2005 at 14:48
Mike Pence is the guy people should be watching.
July 29th, 2005 at 18:16
With a wide open Republican field, it’s too early to say who has the most politically feasible route to the party’s nod. A candidate like Pence offers conservatives a someone to rally around, and would offer the general electorate a genuine
contrast with Clinton. While Clinton is doing everything she can to turn around her negatives, Pence is genuinely (and broadly) likeable from the beginning. Pence for president? Absolutely.
July 30th, 2005 at 19:56
I know he’s new but I think John Porter deserves a mention on the Republican list… (www.porterforpresident.com)
August 1st, 2005 at 13:07
Guliani will not recieve the nomination, he has too many skeletons in the closet, especially after his very public divorce from his wife. As much as Guliani is maybe the best candidate in either party, he will not get the nod from the Republican’s. Trump is a total dark horse, Ridge is disliked by most of the country, Quayle’s craeer is over. Look for Frist or more likly, Allen, who is well liked, comes from a Blue state in the last election, and seems like a change from Bush, not not too far.
Democratically, I don’t think Hillary would survive. Biden seems to be reallhy stepping into the spotlight, but his actions will be watched very closely as he harrangues Roberts for the Court.
August 2nd, 2005 at 22:26
First of all you can not have a clinton / biden ticket. Why would two liberal blue states try to face mainstream America. Look, if the democrats want to win……..try Vilsack / Bayh. You have the Governor of Iowa (mid-west)and a Senator from Indiana (pre-dominantly red state). Get away from this hillary talk. Kerry is done. He does not share the same values of middle America. Lieberman, Clark, Gore, Hart, etc. etc. etc. are over. Dean, Boxer, Daschle, etc. have no chance. Look, the democrats need a winning strategy. First, stop crying over the Republican led agenda and form a winning one.
Secondly we come to the Republicans. Newt…..no. Arnold……no. Rice, Jeb, Pataki, Brownback, Quayle, Santorum……no. The Republicans have some new blood and this could get really exciting. It is hard to tell where McCain is. However the excitement lies in Mitt, Mike Huckabe, Bill Owens, Frist, Chuck Hagel (McCain clone) and George Allen. Look, Frist is gearing up for a run, Mike has announced a run, (as has Mitt). The Republicans could take blue state votes away with Mitt or Tom Ridge.
So listen democrats….. Mark Warner / Vilsack or Vilsack/ Feingold or Warner / Ford Jr.
So listen Republicans… Allen / McCain or Allen / Huckabe or Mitt / Owens
The Republicans have set a foundation where it seems they will win in ‘08. The democrats need a direction……..Dean is not the answer, Gore is not the answer. You need a mid-western conservative to step up the lead for your party.
Finally, the democrats have fallen so hard. Bush bashing is at an all time low. Bush won in 2000 by votes, not the Supreme Court decision. democrats need to support Judge Roberts confirmation to take the first step in the right direction. they can make it back to the white house in the future, if they do what is right, not left.
August 22nd, 2005 at 08:45
i am a non american, conservative and i want to advise you republif ican if you want to be in the white house come 2008 be sure to put sister CONDI in the nomination she is the only republican who can defit hillary clinton, she is also tough enough to lead your nation successfully in the war against terror, she is well accepted by a good number of women regardless of their parties- in short she is unassailable!
August 24th, 2005 at 11:19
Unfortunately, I believe Hiliary will win. The Patriot Act and the War in Iraq are sinking the Republicans. 9/11 happened because of government incompetence. We do not need the Patriot Act and Homeland Security. The “war on terror” ends up spying on American citizens and cancels the Bill of Rights. Why are we in Iraq? They have
been fighting over there for 5000 years. We are not going to solve it. And there
were no weapons of mass destruction.
If Hiliary wins, America as we know it is finished. The UN will take over.
Maybe Bill Frist or Colin Powell could turn things around. It looks grim.
September 10th, 2005 at 07:04
First and foremost, our country is not ready to embrace a woman in our most prestigious leadership role. Will
not happen. I agree for the republicans, we need fresh blood but maintaining the simblance as to our current
path will be a necesity. Outlandish strays to the current fro will not fly. McCain is not trusted by
the masses. I look for something of a Frist/Jeb ticket as the more likely winner. Democrates will not
have learned anything from the last election if they choose a north easterner senator. They must begin
grooming a conservative democrat (governor) from the south for them to have a chance. Long Live the
Great Reagan Legacy!!!
September 30th, 2005 at 15:41
ok well im right wing but i think Clark/Obama would be a powerhouse dem ticket…the youth and golden child of the left plus the former general witch would deffinitly steals some votes from red states could be a real threaght…as for the elaphants…MCAIN WONT END UP RUNNING GET OVER IT PEOPLE… Trump/ Bauer…no lol just kidding haha
Frist/Santorum would be the best ticket for the repubs but i regret to say i think 08 is goin blue :(
October 11th, 2005 at 11:04
I think on the Republican side you have Allen and Romney as viable winners and on the Democrat side you have Bayh, Warner,
Richardson, Vilsack and Edwards as viable winners (notice I didn’t say Clinton.)
I think the more interesting talk could surround the vice-presidential candidates as I think Rice or J. Bush would be a smart
chioice for the Republican winner. On the Democrat side, Wesley Clark would make a smart choice as VP for any of the afore
mentioned Democrats.
October 12th, 2005 at 23:03
I think I agree with the Clark/Obama ticket. The general would definitely appeal to swing voters in the red and Obama will get the black and liberal vote. Clinton in ‘08 seems like a bad idea, although I’d love to see another Clinton in the White House.
November 4th, 2005 at 02:07
Knowing at the present time: Hillary Clinton said that she wasnt going to run for president in 08, but was going to go for mayor of NY or something like that. I cant really see Mr Trump in office because of his exposure due to The Apprentice. Kerry will probably be temped to run, again, because he wont have the threats from the other party. Looking at how bush is racking up washington, I think its possible that the next president will be republican. That way he still has power in a way. I dont think that people would vote for Howard Dean, mostly because he scares everyone with the Dean Scream.
I think that a good person to run for president would be John Stewart. Because he cuts all the —- and gets to buisness!
November 4th, 2005 at 20:19
Being a staunch Republican Conservative, I am going to sound very biased…actually, I am.
If the Liberals want to win, send in Clinton and Obama. Or Clinton and Richardson. They probably would win no , matter what.
Conservatives should send in McCain, Santorum, or Frist. Perhaps Condi, although if its Hilary/Condi who knows what will happen.
November 5th, 2005 at 10:42
This race is going to be Hillary vs McCain not a doubt in my mind. And McCain is gonna slay her because McCain will get Republican votes and Democratic wons as well Hillary will get alot of Democrats, all of the Liberals and maybe some Republican women to.
November 7th, 2005 at 14:02
Very interesting to read all of the opinions on here. I’ll be the first to admit that I don’t follow politics nearly as close as I should. 2008 will be the first election that I vote in, and I wandered in here because I wanted to read up more on Evan Bayh (being from Indiana and hearing the buzz about his possible nomination.)
I saw someone post something about Colin Powell in a previous post - how come he is not an option? His decision not to run? I think he would be fabulous Presidential material.
November 15th, 2005 at 11:58
Republican Dream ticket is Patacki/Guliani/Satorum or Ridge, They are all players from Blue states in the last election, swing NY and Penn and you have 30+ crititcal votes. The position is interchangeable, I would prefer to see Guiliani as President and Santorum as VP, but those have to be the candidates to keep the Presidency where it should be. Powell wants to run, but the wife says no, she doesn’t like the spotlight, plus, maybe some skeletons in the closet?
December 4th, 2005 at 13:44
The 2008 election is coming up quickly. As we all know, the one’s to run for office ar laying it on the line to win.
Clinton VS Guiliani is exactly what I think will take place. Who ever they choose as their running mate makes little difference. We could even have a Clinton/Clinton ticket. It wouldn’t be wise for Hilary to choose Bill as a running mate but it could happen.
December 18th, 2005 at 13:03
Randy D:
Please, it’s painful to read Long live the Great Reagan Legacy anywhere at all. Take a look at what part he had to play in Guatemala and I hope you’ll realize that any legacy of his is anything but great.
December 19th, 2005 at 09:25
Ok,
it’s been a year. Still in my mind, Clinton/Edwards or Clinton/Obama vs McCain/Pataki
I think that would be a moutwatering race
December 20th, 2005 at 18:50
Sarah, you point to Guatemala, we point to winning the cold war, passing tax breaks that sparked the economy and making Americans proud to be Americans. Reagan is a top 3 modern President and its time to face fact. His legacy lives on today in the Neoconservative movement.
Even with the addition of Mitt Romney into the race officially for the Republicans,I now think the ticket is something like Pataki, Guliani, or Santorum/McCain. McCain is going to be in the running only because he is from another part of the country other than the East Coast. He will be there to balance the ticket geographically. Still, I think the perfect matchup would be Guliani/Santorum, because swinging those blue states would equal a landslide.
Further, the Democrats have not properly groomed anybody, their last 2 winners have been Southern Governors, you’d think they’d learn by now. Watch them shoor themselves in the foot with an Edwards/Bayh or Richardson ticket.
The reason republicans win is simple “strategery.” They have candidates from blue states that are majorly popular there, republicans have learned to groom good candidates, while democrats still think running the “smartest” candidate will win, maybe they will learn this lesson soon…
January 7th, 2006 at 17:07
Ok,
RUSS FEINGOLD - remember the name! he is the Democratic Senator from Wisconsin. And for me, the fav for the Dems!
February 6th, 2006 at 14:36
Personnally, for the Dems I’m thinking Feingold/Clark or Feingold/Kerry….Clinton has too much baggage
(her name alone will make some vote the other way simply on principle). Obama has made a commitment not
to run in ‘08 and Ford looks too young.
The other democratic contenders are Richardson and Warner and Biden (even if they tried to smear Biden
because of the Alito hearings)
I don’t know anything about Vilsack or Blagojevich…you’d think they’d be “out there” if they were
going to make a serious run.
The rest of the democratic list is a virtual list of “has-beens”….eh, no….besides, Lieberman is a
“Democrat in name only.”…NO NO NO.
Ultimately, the Dems need someone that will not fall victim to the propaganda
flung by the Right (by sources such as Fox News…they hope that Clinton runs).
As for the Republicans…
Bush…everyone in their right mind is sick of Bush’s…a third would enlighten the dulled masses to the
oligarchy that already exists.
Rice, Ridge, and Quayle….Bushies….For Condie…”I believe it said Bin Laden determined to strike within the
United States” says enough…it’s a “no.” And as for Ridge, he did squat as the Director of Homeland security…do you feel safer, I don’t…it’s a “no.” And for Quayle…”Potatoe”….NO.
Allen and Santorum are both “hollier than thou”…I don’t trust them and neither will the American public…
It’s a “no.”
Newt or Frist…don’t we already have a problem with ethics in Washington…besides, we don’t know where
the Frist investigation is going to lead.
Bauer…eh, no.
That leaves Guiliani, McCain, Rommney, and Pataki….of which I like McCain/Romney. But, as a registered
Republican…I gotta tell ya…I’m disgusted with the whole party…they’ve gotten the “P”s mixed-up…
It should be “People before Party” not “Party before People”
February 7th, 2006 at 12:23
If you look at history, you can start to figure out who might possibly win this thing.
There are a few things to consider:
1. No sitting United States Senator or Representative has won a presidential election since 1960.
2. Every United States President since then has had some executive branch experience, i.e. as
a governor or vice-president.
3. Democrats who have been president since 1964 have been from the south. (Johnson, Texas; Carter, Georgia;
Clinton, Arkansas)
4. Republicans who have won since 1964 have been from the largest states (Nixon, California; Regan, California;
both Bushes, Texas)
So what does that leave us?
Democrats
Mark Warner, Governor of VA
Bill Richardson, Governor of NM
Mike Easley, Governor of NC
Republicans
Rudy Guliani, Former Mayor of NYC (technically an executive branch position)
Jeb Bush, Governor of FL
George Pataki, Governor of NY
Now these are not the people I am saying will win their nominations, I am suggesting that given
the history of presidential politics over the last 50+ years, that these seem to be tbe candidates
most likely to win a general election.
February 12th, 2006 at 17:37
Lynn, I agree with most of what you said (except the part about the “propogandA” of Fox News, they are just giving the rare right-wing opinion) but I think your conclusion is way off. First of all, McCain is far too old to be running for President, I know you are thinking Regan was older, but America needs to see strength, he is looking quite old lately. Pataki is well in the race, could even swing New York to the Red, but Santorum and Allen are both in the race. McCain makes a great geographic choice as a VP because he will balance the ticket. The nomination would go to Allen or Pataki for President, with McCain a shoe in for VP. Republicans will run a candidate from a blue state no matter what, personally I prefer Santorum, Pennsylvania has been on the borderline for two elections now and it would be huge to swing it.
Nice call on the Executive Branch analysis Dave, its brilliant!
February 16th, 2006 at 08:15
Jeff,
Rick Santorum has about as much a chance of getting elected President as I do. Being from Pennsylvania, and a registered Republican,
would not vote for him if my life depended on it. As it stands, he is likely to lose his seat in the Senate to Bob Casey Jr,
the son of the late PA governor, who actually ran for President as a Pro-life Catholic Democrat. Obviously, he didn’t get far, but he
ran to make the statement that the Democractic party was not completely pro-choice.
Pennsylvania is an amazing microcosm of U.S. national politics. The extreme east and west of the state, anchored by Philly and
Scranton in the east and Pittsburgh and Erie in the west, tend to be more urban, liberal and secular. The center, especially the
south-central, part of the state tends to be rural. Does that sound familiar? The U.S. is very similar of course, with the east and
west coasts tending to be more urban, liberal and secular, with the central part of the nations, especially the south, tending towards
the rural, conservative and religious.
Santorum is a worst case scenario for the Republicans. The largest single bloc in the party is the religious right wing. They are
not a majority, but they a group that tends to vote as a whole. Santorum could have a shot at the nomination, but his self-righteous,
holier-than-thou persona would galvanize the left and the center against him, much as they galvanized for Bill Clinton. And
given the Democrats track record of presidential nominees in the last two elections, that could be scary.
conserative and religious.
May 23rd, 2006 at 15:36
Connecticut Senator Christopher Dodd is now poised to run.
http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-dodd-run-0522,0,1790154.story
May 24th, 2006 at 08:49
To quote Josh Lyman speaking to Leo McGarry in “The West Wing”
“The Democrats aren’t gonna nominate another liberal academic former governor from New England. I mean, we’re dumb, but we’re not that dumb.”
OK, so it doesn’t fit exactly in relation to Dodd, but I think its still funny. Even better was Leo’s response:
“Nah, I think we’re exactly that dumb”
I don’t think Dodd has much of a chance, especially with his fundraising levels being so miniscule right now. But, stranger things have happened.
May 24th, 2006 at 09:02
Is Al Gore poised to pull a Richard Nixon? He is rapidly becoming relevant again with his global warming movie and the parallels between him now and Nixon in 1967-68 are facinating.
Nixon was a two-term VP that lost a very controversial election in 1960 to JFK.
Gore was a two-term VP that lost a very controversial election to George W in 2000.
Nixon disappeared from politics not long after the 60 election, losing a race in California.
Gore disappeared, not choosing to run in 2004, despite winning the popular vote in 2000.
The nation faced a critical time in its history in the mid-to-late 1960s, including the Civil Rights movement and Vietnam.
The nation faces a critical time in its history now with 9/11 and the Iraqi War.
The two term (well 1.5 term) president (LBJ) had a very high disapproval rating near the end of his term.
The two term president (W) faces a very high disapproval rating as his second term enters the last two years.
Nixon came along in 1968 and united the Republican Party and swept to victory over a Democratic party devistated by the assassination of RFK.
Can Al Gore come along and unite the Democracts? Can he overcome the juggarnaut that is Hillary? Will he even run?
I think it would a very interesting race.
December 31st, 2006 at 12:32
Where is Joe Biden in the mix. I see him as having the most experience in foreign affairs. He has the tyalent intellect, and upbeat compasion that we need in this office. We need someone to draw us together not divide us further. Obama is exciting but needs grooming, Hillary is great but unfortunely un-electable (because people will either say the love haer or hate her) When asked why they hate her they are stumped. Gulliani would be great and so would McCain but they are in the wrong party. Republicans will never embrace someone who is pro-choice and pro-gay rights likr Gulliani and I agree They don’t trust McCain
January 12th, 2007 at 17:06
I like Joe Biden, but he just doesn’t have the juice to make a serious run. As a multi-term senator, he’s too Washington for a lot of people’s taste. The taint of his 1988 withdrawal from the Democratic race over a plagurize speach would also be fodder for his opponents. Sure, it turned out some junior staffer made the mistake, but it marks him.
I think John McCain is looking at the George Dubbya playbook from 2000. He is cozying up to the religious right wing, trying to make himself their choice.
Guiliani’s moderate stance on gay rights and his own marital infidelity will undo him in the south.
Mitt Romney is an interesting candidate. A Republican governor from Massachusetts. I wonder how his Mormon faith will play in the bible belt though.