NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, George Weasel Bush will only be President for four more years. That's the good news. Whoever is elected in 2008 it won't be him.

But who will be elected?

Well, George Weasel Bush will only be President for four more years. That's the good news. Whoever is elected in 2008 it won't be him.

But who will be elected?
Hillary Roddam Clinton in 2008. Running mate um... Dean because he was cool and the media was just biased against him.
Playing that scream and exaggerating it and all.

Depends a lot on who the candidates are.

Hillary vs. a well-known moderate (McCain, Guiliani), she would probably lose.

Hillary vs. a lesser-known conservative (such as Frist), she would probably win.

I think we might have our first independent President in 08.

Jesse Ventura. :)

My projection:

GWB will make an unsuccessful attack on the 22nd Amendment. It will damage his approval rating, just as Iraq will once it turns into another Iran.

Neither party will act as though they are going to nominate a well-known candidate...the Dems will nominate someone lesser-known, and the GOP will do the same after planning to nominate Jeb. Jeb backs out after his brother's 22nd Amendment assault, thinking that running now is a way to lose for sure.

The GOP continues to play dirtier than the Dems and wins.

Well, that depends on who you ask. The only problem with the independants never winning was cuz they would a) have to run as their own party, b) never get the votes of the extremes lefts and rights, and c) have to be flip-floppy like Kerry was in order to get the votes.

Hillary 2k8!

It all depends on the parties choices.

If the Republicans can shake off the Christians, they'll get McCain or Guiliani. A McCain/Guliani ticket would draw enough moderate Democrats to win. Guiliani/? would be a harder sell, but probably a winner over anyone the Democrats could field. More likely would be Bill Frist or Bill Owens, as they could get the Christian right more easily.

A number of Democrats seem hell bent on a suicidal Hillary Clinton ticket - a sure loser (she claims she'll never run (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001-04-06-hillary.htm), but I don't believe it). Honestly, the only possible candidate put forth by Democrats at the moment, that I see as having any chance, is Bill Richardson. Another candidate capable of winning may come forth, but is not visible now....

I'm predicting a GOP win in 2008 unless the Democrats can get their act together and find (and more importantly nominate) an electable candidate. :(

2012 should be more interesting - that's when I'm expecting a strong moderate/libertarian 3rd party to push the GOP back away from the Christian right towards real (Libeertarian) conservatism....

I think we might have our first independent President in 08.

Jesse Ventura. :)

I think we'll have to wait for the libertarian wing of the GOP to get thouroughly pissed off before we see that - maybe 2012 or 2016.

I'd vote for Jesse way fast! :D

It all depends on the parties choices.

If the Republicans can shake off the Christians, they'll get McCain or Guiliani. A McCain/Guliani ticket would draw enough moderate Democrats to win. Guiliani/? would be a harder sell, but probably a winner over anyone the Democrats could field. More likely would be Bill Frist or Bill Owens, as they could get the Christian right more easily.

A number of Democrats seem hell bent on a suicidal Hillary Clinton ticket - a sure loser (she claims she'll never run (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001-04-06-hillary.htm), but I don't believe it). Honestly, the only possible candidate put forth by Democrats at the moment, that I see as having any chance, is Bill Richardson. Another candidate capable of winning may come forth, but is not visible now....

I'm predicting a GOP win in 2008 unless the Democrats can get their act together and find (and more importantly nominate) an electable candidate. :(

2012 should be more interesting - that's when I'm expecting a strong moderate/libertarian 3rd party to push the GOP back away from the Christian right towards real (Libeertarian) conservatism....

Sorry, the Republicans are far too dug in to lose the religious right.

They will not change now after Bush won. If Bush had lost then they might have shifted because they would have learned that it doesn't work, but that boat that sailed.

For the most part, these forums are a horrible place to ask a political question like this. The Liberals greatly outnumber moderates and conservatives, usually resorting to petty insults to drive the mods and conservatives away.

Daistallia 2104 basically gave the best view on the situation. If they try to put a Liberal extremist in there, the Democrats WILL lose.

Hillary Roddam Clinton in 2008. Running mate um... Dean because he was cool and the media was just biased against him.
Playing that scream and exaggerating it and all.

That would be a Mondalesque loosing ticket.

Those who want Hillary for the ticket underestimate the pure hatred she inspires, not just among the extremists, but even among the average Republicans (and even a fair number of Democrats). She'd be the GOPs wet dream opponent in 2008...

The farther we get away from when the Clinton administration was in, the more the Clintons are out of the limelight, however, I would not be surprised in the least bit if Hillary Clinton would run in '08.

As far as the opposing party, I don't know. Perhaps if we can do a Constitutional amendment, she can run against Arnold Schwarzenegger. That would be a race to watch!

Sorry, the Republicans are far too dug in to lose the religious right.

They will not change now after Bush won. If Bush had lost then they might have shifted because they would have learned that it doesn't work, but that boat that sailed.

That's why I think it's up in the air. If the Democrats can put up an electable candidate, they can beatthe GOP. But there isn't an electable Democrat out there right now. So it's most it's most likely that a GOP authoritarian Christian's going to win. If so, look for a libertarian/moderate party split off from both parties in 2012 or 2016. However, there are 4 more years and someone electable could arise...

Well, that depends on who you ask. The only problem with the independants never winning was cuz they would a) have to run as their own party, b) never get the votes of the extremes lefts and rights, and c) have to be flip-floppy like Kerry was in order to get the votes.

Hillary 2k8!

Independents no. 3rd parties yes. (Republicans in 1860, anyone?)
A third party may be viable in 2012 as the Democrats have driven away so many voters , and the Christian right wing of the GOP is driving out the moderates and libertarians. A middle ground 3rd party with someone like McCain (he probably won't be viable then) could quite possibly get in.

Hillary Roddam Clinton in 2008. Running mate um... Dean because he was cool and the media was just biased against him.
Playing that scream and exaggerating it and all.

Clinton can't win. And I suspect that she knows it. Why? It comes back to simple math: Kerry in 04, Gore in 00, and even the Clinton victories: the Democrats have been exceptionally weak in the South since Jimmy Carter, and not really strong in the West (the coast excepted) either.

Sure, they've got California and New York in the bag. But the rest is a toss up, and they're just not going to win if they keep nominating "New England Liberals" on the ticket!

!

That and im sure the Republicans would have no problem attacking a woman over her suitability as a 'commander in chief' I dunno she might possibly make a good President but I doubt shed win. The Dems best hope is if Bush messes up then they nominate Jed for the Presidency. That dog wont hunt...

That's why I think it's up in the air. If the Democrats can put up an electable candidate, they can beatthe GOP. But there isn't an electable Democrat out there right now. So it's most it's most likely that a GOP authoritarian Christian's going to win. If so, look for a libertarian/moderate party split off from both parties in 2012 or 2016. However, there are 4 more years and someone electable could arise...

What about Barack Obama and Evan Bayh? I could see those two Democrats as electable.

If so, look for a libertarian/moderate party split off from both parties in 2012 or 2016.

Oh. Hell. Yeah. I'm looking forward to that...

Well, with the Republicans controlling the Presidency and both houses of Congress, I think any unpopular government action in the next 4 (or at least 2) years will reflect badly on the party, which could make it easier for a Deomcrat victory in 2008. Then again, if the Democratic nominations go like they did this year, I think they will miss their chance.

Although I probably would vote for McCain if he ran, he'll be in his 70's for the next election. Some supporters think he lost his chance to Bush in 2000.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election%2C_2008 Lists some suspected candidates for 2008, put as much or a little faith in it as you want.

I don't think the Terminator will run in 2008 because I don't see the amendment passing any time soon.

A number of Democrats seem hell bent on a suicidal Hillary Clinton ticket - a sure loser (she claims she'll never run, but I don't believe it). Honestly, the only possible candidate put forth by Democrats at the moment, that I see as having any chance, is Bill Richardson. Another candidate capable of winning may come forth, but is not visible now....

I'm predicting a GOP win in 2008 unless the Democrats can get their act together and find (and more importantly nominate) an electable candidate.

There's two ways to win the presidency...you appeal to the moderates, independants, swing voters, undecideds, etc...OR you just swell your base beyond all possible opposition.

Bill Clinton won with the former, Bush won with the latter.

Those who want Hillary for the ticket underestimate the pure hatred she inspires, not just among the extremists, but even among the average Republicans (and even a fair number of Democrats).
As if Bush doesn't inspire his fair share of hatred. But as we saw, hatred alone is not enough to win.

I think Hillary can win by drumming up massive support among both single and married women (married women vote much more conservatively, usually). And women comprised 54% of all votes this time, not to be discounted.

If she can sweep the female vote (which is likely to be even higher than 54%, given the interest in a female candidate), the male vote might not be enough to stop her.

However, this is conditional upon the Republicans running a lesser-known conservative. If they run a popular well known moderate, even I dont think Hillary has much chance. HOWEVER, I'm not sure the modern GOP could tolerate McCain, Giuliani, et al.

This coming election is going to be a turning point for the Republican party, either they return to their old small-government ideals, or they press onward into the grip of the religious right.

Oh, and Hillary is definately running. That link you gave is 3 years old. Hillary's campaign is already starting. http://politicalwire.com/archives/2004/11/06/hillary_gears_up.html

As well, Barack Obama and Jeb Bush have both recently told the media they are definately not running in 2008.

As well, Swarzenegger has zero chance of winning the GOP primary. ZERO chance. There's no way he could get his amendment passed, the Democrats wouldn't tolerate it, and the Republicans aren't as friendly to immigrants. And of course, the religious right wouldn't stand for Arnie. Just google around you can find actual videos of him in orgies and doing drugs. Bush's DUI surprise is NOTHING to what can be dug up on him. :p

Evan Bayh will probably run for the Dem nomination, he comes from a red state, Indiana, which would be helpful to bring into the Democrat column. Probably more appeal across the swing states.

Also, Bill Frist is definately running for the GOP nomination. He's conservative enough to get it probably. And he has less charisma than Kerry. I hope they choose him. :p

That and im sure the Republicans would have no problem attacking a woman over her suitability as a 'commander in chief' I dunno she might possibly make a good President but I doubt shed win. The Dems best hope is if Bush messes up then they nominate Jed for the Presidency. That dog wont hunt...


Don’t forget those who don’t care if she is female but dislike her as a person :)

It does happen you know

All dislike is not based on sex

Like I stated elsewhere OBAMA for 2008!

What about Barack Obama and Evan Bayh? I could see those two Democrats as electable.

Obama's too fresh. Bayh might be a good candidate, but the party needs to get his name out there in the public eye right now.

Oh. Hell. Yeah. I'm looking forward to that...

You, me, and a whole mess of people.

There's two ways to win the presidency...you appeal to the moderates, independants, swing voters, undecideds, etc...OR you just swell your base beyond all possible opposition.

Bill Clinton won with the former, Bush won with the latter.

But you have to have a candidate who can bring in those moderates and swings. The Democrats just haven't been able to do it in the last two elections. IMHO, it was only the rightist push from the reform party that made Clinton move far enough rght that he could win.

As if Bush doesn't inspire his fair share of hatred. But as we saw, hatred alone is not enough to win.

Certainly he does, but not where it counts, in the "red states".

I think Hillary can win by drumming up massive support among both single and married women (married women vote much more conservatively, usually). And women comprised 54% of all votes this time, not to be discounted.

If she can sweep the female vote (which is likely to be even higher than 54%, given the interest in a female candidate), the male vote might not be enough to stop her.

However, this is conditional upon the Republicans running a lesser-known conservative. If they run a popular well known moderate, even I dont think Hillary has much chance.

She simply cannot win the red states. No way, no how. The Democrats need a candidate who can pick up enough of the red states to win, and Hillary just is not it.

HOWEVER, I'm not sure the modern GOP could tolerate McCain, Giuliani, et al.

This coming election is going to be a turning point for the Republican party, either they return to their old small-government ideals, or they press onward into the grip of the religious right.

Thus the predicted split in 2012 or 2016.

Oh, and Hillary is definately running. That link you gave is 3 years old. Hillary's campaign is already starting. http://politicalwire.com/archives/2...y_gears_up.html

Oops, missed the date on that - got it from the wiki above...

Clinton can't win. And I suspect that she knows it. Why? It comes back to simple math: Kerry in 04, Gore in 00, and even the Clinton victories: the Democrats have been exceptionally weak in the South since Jimmy Carter, and not really strong in the West (the coast excepted) either.

Sure, they've got California and New York in the bag. But the rest is a toss up, and they're just not going to win if they keep nominating "New England Liberals" on the ticket!
They've got more than Cali and NY in the bag. They have the entire New England in the bag. New Hampshire and Maine, usually considered the conservative states of the Northeast, have moved further towards the Democrats even as Bush did better nationally this year. Bush spent the most time and money in Pennsylvania, and he couldn't even swing that more than a percent from 2000. As well, Oregon and Washington have moved out of tossup status into solid blue states. Michigan and Minnesota are close as always, but it's reasonable to think the Dems can hold them in the near future. Already we're up to 221 solid votes. Then there's Wisconsin and Iowa. These two are going to be battlegrounds again in 2008. Expect Ohio and it's 20 votes to decide the 2008 election as well...considering it was much closer this year than 2000, the Dems have a reasonable chance here.

Basically, the Dems don't need the South or the Rocky Mountain/Plains states to win if they take the upper Midwest.

Governor Bill Owens of Colorado is seen as a front-runner for the Republican ticket. He's fiscally and socially conservative, and has been very successful in his state. He is best known for instituting a revenue cap, which caps the dollar amount of taxes that can be collected by the Colorodo state government. If they collect more than the cap, the taxpayers get a refund. The cap is tied to the rate of inflation and population growth. As a result, Colorado weathered the last recession better than most, and budget crunches there were much less severe.

It's mostly about demographics. The South and Western states have decided every election since 1960 and will again in 2008. The Dems could win but would have to nominate a more conservative candidate from that area.

The nation's population center did not cross the Mississippi until the 1980 Census. Today it is in Phelps County, Mo., heading southwest, away from the Democratic Party.

The Democrats would do well to listen to the Democratic Leadership Council chaired by Evan Bayh. If another Northeastern liberal is nominated (Hillary) they will go down in flames.

If the North stays in the union, the Democrats will most definetly win.

However, I predict that the nation will go to civil war and disolve, the North will probably either:
a) If part of Canada, vote the Liberals or NDP to office.
b) If they become their own nation, pobably some social democratic party.

The South will probably not have elections, rather abolishing the legislature and replacing it with representatives from the Southern Baptist Congregation.

It's mostly about demographics. The South and Western states have decided every election since 1960 and will again in 2008. The Dems could win but would have to nominate a more conservative candidate from that area.

The nation's population center did not cross the Mississippi until the 1980 Census. Today it is in Phelps County, Mo., heading southwest, away from the Democratic Party.

The Democrats would do well to listen to the Democratic Leadership Council chaired by Evan Bayh. If another Northeastern liberal is nominated (Hillary) they will go down in flames.
But as the population center moves that way, many of those areas start to become more urban, favoring the Dems.

Don’t forget those who don’t care if she is female but dislike her as a person :)

It does happen you know

All dislike is not based on sex

Like I stated elsewhere OBAMA for 2008!

Are you serious? A Junior 1st time Senator? Never. In 2016, maybe. But there is no way he'll be ready after serving 2/3rds of a Senate post for the Presidency. Case in point: Edwards. For all his youth and good ideas, he just couldn't win in the primaries.

They've got more than Cali and NY in the bag. They have the entire New England in the bag. New Hampshire and Maine, usually considered the conservative states of the Northeast, have moved further towards the Democrats even as Bush did better nationally this year. Bush spent the most time and money in Pennsylvania, and he couldn't even swing that more than a percent from 2000. As well, Oregon and Washington have moved out of tossup status into solid blue states. Michigan and Minnesota are close as always, but it's reasonable to think the Dems can hold them in the near future. Already we're up to 221 solid votes. Then there's Wisconsin and Iowa. These two are going to be battlegrounds again in 2008. Expect Ohio and it's 20 votes to decide the 2008 election as well...considering it was much closer this year than 2000, the Dems have a reasonable chance here.

Basically, the Dems don't need the South or the Rocky Mountain/Plains states to win if they take the upper Midwest.

Connecticut has been 50/50 since WW2 (it voted for Reagan twice and Bush Sr). And in every state (including MA!), Bush did significantly better than in 2000. I'm not saying the DEMs don't have a big advantage, but New England does not always vote the party line.

I agree with the rest of your synopsis, but remember that they are indeed tossup states. :)

Hillary Roddam Clinton in 2008. Running mate um... Dean because he was cool and the media was just biased against him.
Playing that scream and exaggerating it and all.

Hillary as president... for the sake of my own sanity, I'm going to bury any thoughts of that.

It's mostly about demographics. The South and Western states have decided every election since 1960 and will again in 2008. The Dems could win but would have to nominate a more conservative candidate from that area.

The nation's population center did not cross the Mississippi until the 1980 Census. Today it is in Phelps County, Mo., heading southwest, away from the Democratic Party.

The Democrats would do well to listen to the Democratic Leadership Council chaired by Evan Bayh. If another Northeastern liberal is nominated (Hillary) they will go down in flames.

I'm guessing you didn't read my post first. That's almost verbatim! :)

If anything serious goes wrong with this country...
If we enter a serious depression...
If we are quagmired at war...
If we see a rise in hate crime...
etc...

...the Republicans will no longer be able to blame the Democrats.

On another note, I believe that a minority president will be elected before a woman will be. Trying to run Hillary Clinton would be a very pathetic idea.

I am sorry but you know i am really mad that GWB won. He had didn't deserve to win. I am hoping that americans will open up their minds and vote for a republican. I will still be to young next election by the matter of two months. If it this was b4 election time i would certainly be debating on this thing. I promice u that. and whoever voted for bush (excuse me if i offend nebody) are not all there in the head.

Also, Bill Frist is definately running for the GOP nomination. He's conservative enough to get it probably. And he has less charisma than Kerry. I hope they choose him. :p
It is reasoning like this that gets us into the trouble we've had with the presidental election as of late. "Let's get the opposing party to run with the worst possible canidate" is just plain stupid. Quite frankly, I'd like to have a couple of capable choices for Prez rather than two idiots, but if people keep thinking like this all we're getting is idiots to run. Let's get people to run that are capable leaders rather then the worst choice or the choice most likely to win because he's this or that.

I hope Barack Obama runs for president in 2008 and I hope he wins

Dick Cheney for President in 2008!! ;)

Dick Cheney for President in 2008!! ;)

Believe it or not, I think he might do okay. Though the Republicans will probably want someone more photogenic as a Presidential candidate. Meh.

Go Hillary! :D

Dick Cheney for President in 2008!! ;)

The Republicans would want someone healthier. My guess is that he will retire during these four years to be replaced with a younger guy. The younger incumbent will then have a slightly better chance than Cheney at being elected.

Dick Cheney for President in 2008!! ;)
Why, so war corpratism can be even furthered?

More than likely Hillary will be asked to be a running mate, just like back in 84 with Geraldine Ferraro and Walter Mondale.

Hillary won't help the Democrats with an election victory because there are too many people that just can't stand her.

Since launching her bid to become New York's senator, Hillary Clinton says she's been booed by crowds so many times that she's now gotten used to it.

I am not saying he would do very bad, I was just assuming that the crowd of this site thinks of him as an evil monstrous mastermind.

I think that a Dem can win in 08' because if Bush screws up and gets us into anymore ruts like Iraq people will be driven away from the GOP. Now this may just be wishful thinking on my part, but I really do think that if Bush goes loose because it's his second term and he doesn't have to worry about getting re-elected he could make the more moderate voters sour on the GOP. Now if the Dems decide to nominate Hillary then they would probably lose. I like Hillary Clinton but so many republicans absoulutly hate her that if she ran she would have to be up against an equally hated Republican (hated by Dems) for her to win. Now a canidate that I really think could win would be Barack Obama, he's an amazing speaker, he's black and he appeals to moderates.

Just clearing some things up...

Dick Cheney, Jeb Bush, and Barack Obama have all said in no uncertain terms they are not running in 2008.


BTW, if the Dems go with Evan Bayh, add Kerry's states, plus Indiana, plus a likely Iowa reversal, and bam, 270 electoral votes.

We don't even need Ohio, New Mexico, or Florida.

Florida Republican Governor Jeb Bush.

He is a popular Florida Governor,
from Miami, the Cubans like him, oh-well
no one is perfect,he
speaks perfect fluent spanish,
is married to a Mexican, his son looks
100 percent hispanic, and speaks perfect fluent spanish,
the unemployment rate is 4.5 percent one of the lowest
in the nation, and leads the nation in job growth.
That is a good resume in relating to the hispanic vote nationaly,
George W Bush increased his share of the votes, won in New Mexico
a state with a democratic mexican governor.

That would be a Mondalesque loosing ticket.


Mondale only lost by a couple of million votes. Sure it seems like a lot, but it really wasn't considering who he was running against.

The Dems could have given the nomination to Jesus and he would have still lost to Reagan in 1984.

Now and Obama/H. Clinton ticket would be nice.

It would be very interesting. The first African-American and first woman in office at the same time.

It's about time that America do that.

Republicans won't win...because I predict that Iraq will sour (it already is beginning to) and we're going to attack Iran. People will be fed up with the religious right and their idiotic, archaic ideas.

Oh, oops. I forgot. We still have the south and Midwest who all believe "If it ain't white, it ain't right" and "women belong in the house barefoot and pregnant."

We've got a nice Senator from South Carolina who believes gays shouldn't teach, because he thinks they're sexual deviants and homosexuals recruit young children to be gay. He also thinks that single women shouldn't teach (although, the men who knocked up the women are fine.) This man won with over 55% of the vote.

It's late...if this doesn't make sense, forgive me. I'm tired.

That would be a Mondalesque loosing ticket.

Those who want Hillary for the ticket underestimate the pure hatred she inspires, not just among the extremists, but even among the average Republicans (and even a fair number of Democrats). She'd be the GOPs wet dream opponent in 2008...

I think if there's one thing we learned from this year's election, it's that we shouldn't overestimate the effectiveness of hate as a motivating factor.

Mondale only lost by a couple of million votes. Sure it seems like a lot, but it really wasn't considering who he was running against.

The Dems could have given the nomination to Jesus and he would have still lost to Reagan in 1984.
It was closer to 17 million.
Reagan vs Mondale (http://www.presidentelect.org/e1984.html) was a 58.8% to 40.5%, 525 to 13 electoral vote blowout. Mondale won Minnesota and DC only.
If the Democrats ran Hillary against a good candidate, thats the kind of numbers we'd see in 2008. Even running her against an OK candidate would be a loser. The GOP would need to run an awfully bad candidate for Hillary to be a winner. She might could beat Cheney or Roy Moore, for example.

It was closer to 17 million.
Reagan vs Mondale (http://www.presidentelect.org/e1984.html) was a 58.8% to 40.5%, 525 to 13 electoral vote blowout. Mondale won Minnesota and DC only.


Oh! lol ... I completely looked at the numbers wrong. My bad. :D

I agree that right now Hillary would be a bad candidate. I do not believe she will run in 2008, though, so I'm not too worried about it. I like the idea of Evan Bayh or possibly Sheila Jackson Lee. I have a few years to think about it, though.