Campaign 2008

[Jobber of the Week 0]

True.

 

Some dude on the IMDB forums is saying that it's been created by some "online community called General Mayhem" or something like that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

GenMay is apparently a Counter-Strike forum or something. A dedicated group of gaming nitwits who think that they're the most entertaining thing on Earth.

 

I've collided with people from that board online before, and I would sooner read Ann Coulter's political opinions before that zoo's.

[bobobrazil1984 0]

I'm going to break with the wisdom here and say this: If Hillary runs I believe she will win. Elections are all about name recognition, stardom, and popularity. Sorry its true. Bush and Gore were both big recognizable names, Bush cause of his Pres Bush Sr and Gore b/c of the clinton adminstration, and it was really close.

some people already dont like her and i think thats coloring their viewpoint. while i do have a negative opinion of her, its the same kinda negative opinion i have of most politicians. YOU may laugh at her attempts to jump to the center, but her approvals and "moderate appeal" and all that has jumnped like 10 full points since she started the whole center thing last year. she's actually convinced some republicans to publicly say 'shes not that bad', think about htat, that takes some skill for a lefti-antichrist like Hill. Her popularity among women is actually shockingly high. It doesn't matter if every woman you know claims to hate her.

 

The other things is the polarization factor can be an advantage. Plus, the extreme hatred for her will serve her the same way it did others, like bush and bubba. it will make her sympathetic, like she's unfairly being dumped on, the same way the ravings of the far left and the really lefty hollywoods makes middle america back away slowly. Sure YOU may think the hatred's justified based on "truth", but so what? YOu're not everybody. I'm sure senn penn thinks his ravings are justified too. Just like Bush, she's not very good and not perfect and has quite a few things to criticize, but the hatred will be so irrational to general folks that it will OVERSHADOW the actual negative things about her. Only this time, when they try to explain in their minds whats drawing this "irrational" hatred, one thing will come to their mind, regardless of its true or not. I'll give you a hint. starts with a "w". Hey if more sexual attacks come on her in the heart of the election, like that book recently, speculating she was a lesbian and was raped by BIll to give birth to CHelsea, you honestly think millions of women AREN'T going to sympathize with her??? Yeah right.

 

Unless the Republicans can find someone with charisma who can Criticize WITHOUT SOUNDING MEAN OR VINDICATIVE (something Bill Clinton was aces at, hell one of the only democrats who can do it), imo they are sunk.

[Danville_Wrestling 0]

Hillary doesn't CONNECT with people like Bill did. Therefore, the Dems are going to hit the same roadblock they hit with Gore and Kerry of not being able to make the American people believe they care about them. Hillary doesn't have the charisma Bill does either. In other words, Bill was like JFK while Hillary is like a version of Richard Nixon (Nixon even said as much when he visited the White House upon invitation shortly before his death).

 

Also, Hillary can't criticize without sounding mean or vindictive either (b/c she's not her husband), just listen to some of her speeches @ rallies and the like. Thus, meanness will tend to cancel itself out.

 

Furthermore, Hillary will have the "Howard Dean syndrome" in the primaries if she runs b/c everyone will know that she is the top dog and will gang up on her collectively to eliminate her from the race. Also, if your the top dog during the early stages you get more media attention, which can open the door for small things to be blown out of proportion and make you look bad.

 

If the Democrats want to win they need to go to the South in some form and a Mark Warner/Joe Biden team might not be a bad place to start. Hillary won't win a SINGLE southern state (she won't win Arkansas b/c they didn't like her when she was first lady down there even though they loved Bill) and will have to depend on winning Ohio, which may be complicated in a general election depending on turnout.

 

I think if Gore doesn't run (which people have argued well that he won't) a big challenge could come from Bill Richardson. I was skeptical on this guy when he was head of the Dept. of Energy, but he did a good job @ the UN and has the proven track record that he can lead. Hell, he's one of the few people who's noticing the crisis on our border and I give him major props for that.

 

The Democrats have a BIG chance to win my vote in 2008, but if they nominate Hillary or another far left-winger they'll blow it much like they did this last time around, which will be unfortunate.

[SuperJerk 0]

Let me add that her speech during the 2004 DNC (as well as every other speech of her I've ever heard) was so boring and horribly delivered she made Bob Dole look like JFK. When you can't match Bob Dole for oratory talent, you've got a problem.

[bobobrazil1984 0]

Furthermore, Hillary will have the "Howard Dean syndrome" in the primaries if she runs b/c everyone will know that she is the top dog and will gang up on her collectively to eliminate her from the race.  Also, if your the top dog during the early stages you get more media attention, which can open the door for small things to be blown out of proportion and make you look bad.

 

They will try, but it won't work. hillary has already gone through much worse than Dean ever will. I think she'll win the primeries EASILY, even ifshe loses the general.

 

however you do have a good point about her not connecting the way Bill did.

[Danville_Wrestling 0]

Good point made above about her 2004 DNC speech. I didn't comment on it b/c I figured I was bias when I saw it (since I don't like Hillary, anyway). Good to know someone agreed with me. Dole was a terrible candidate in 1996, wasn't he? I digress.

 

Yes, I respect the comment that Hillary can probably fend off a unified onslaught in the primaries (probably due to her fundraising capabilities), but it may still weaken her "war chest" to some degree. Anyone remember her comments about Gandhi working at a gas station that were made last year? With increased media attention something like that could be DEATH in a presidential race, but with Hillary being a Democrat it may not be as bad as if a Republican said it. Eh, who knows.

 

Aside from the regular arguements, though, about her connecting ability/fundraising, I think a feeling of "patronage" may come back to bite her. I think I said somewhere earlier in this thread that by 2008 we'll have been living in a country that would've been run by a Bush or a Clinton for a total of TWENTY YEARS (nearly my entire life interestingly enough). I think Americans might have a hard time voting to go Bush 41-Bill Clinton-George W.-Hillary and possibly end up with another Clinton dynasty. Add Jeb Bush to the mix by 2012 or 2016 and I could be pulling my hair out.

 

My biggest thing against Hillary is that I simply don't trust her (and I trusted Bill until the whole Lewinsky thing). I have no clue what she stands for on a lot of key issues either b/c she confuses me on flops to the center. All I know is she cares about "women and children" and healthcare, but her healthcare plan was so badly advised and put together that she couldn't get it through a Democratically controlled Congress (which Dick Morris says cost the Dems the 1994 midterms). It just seems to me that she's running more on reputation than anything else and that can be a little scary, but alas Americans can be a fickle people @ the polls (if they even go at all).

 

However, all of this aside Hillary could win in 2008 b/c the GOP can't seem to get a message established right now and have no clue who will run. Guiliani can't play outside of the Northeast so he shouldn't get the nomination, Frist is too much like Al Gore on the stump, Cheney has health problems and isn't that charismatic (although he is experienced and might be pressured to run), Santorum is too conservative, McCain is a good choice versus Hillary but won't survive the primaries unless the GOP experiences an internal revolt, etc. Sort of troubling when you think about it. Either way, I expect a NASTY campaign in 2008, probably one of the worst in years, BUT I HOPE that we have a clear winner that everyone can be content with so we don't have a polarized country of legal challenges, recounts, etc. where people try to paint the winner as being illegitimate (ex. Dems this past time after Bush won Ohio by over 100,000 votes).

 

*Prays*

[Stephen Joseph 0]

The answer is simple: New Blood. The Democrats need another Bill Clinton in terms of a likeable, moderate candidate... preferably southern. Take New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson for example. Here's a guy who is a well liked, respected, and successful legislator. I believe that he'll likely run, and if he doesn't get the nomination you can bet a year's salary that he'll be the front runner for the VP spot. He's also hispanic, which will be a huge political advantage for him, as well as the potential nominee.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I was saying that last year. He is indeed their best hope. On this we agree

[Stephen Joseph 0]

I'll pony up 10 bucks right here to say that if the Dems nominate Hillary as their savior, they will lose.

 

I don't even care who the republicans run.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The same could have been said about W. in 1998. He had no credentials for a national race and so many question marks/faults. He did pretty good in national races though.

 

I dont think Hillary should be the candidate but to say she has no chance is to say youre retarded.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'm retarded to say she has no chance? Do you electoral math son, and get back to be. She's unelectable given the political landscape of the US.

Unless something insanely unexpected happens, the political landscape ain't changing, so ANY Democract nominated out of New York or California has about as much chance to win as 27 offsuit against pocket aces.

Edited August 24, 2005 by Stephen Joseph

[Stephen Joseph 0]

Warner is gearing to run, and as a resident of his state for the last two years, I can see he hasn't mucked it up too much. I like that, seems moderate. A Warner/Richardson Combo would be deadly to the republican party, because it would take away 18 electoral votes form the republican party immediately (Virginia and New Mexico both went with Bush in 04.

 

18 electoral votes changes the balance of the election. I mean, if we assume colorado goes with new mexico, Richardson/Warner wins with comfort to spare.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

Virginia - Weak Bush

New Mexico - Barely Bush

 

Bush 286 Kerry 251

new total

Repub 268 Warner/Richardson 269

[A Happy Medium 0]

Every time I see the 2004 map, I chuckle at the D.C. voting.

[Danville_Wrestling 0]

Warner is gearing to run, and as a resident of his state for the last two years, I can see he hasn't mucked it up too much.  I like that, seems moderate.  A Warner/Richardson Combo would be deadly to the republican party, because it would take away 18 electoral votes form the republican party immediately (Virginia and New Mexico both went with Bush in 04.

 

18 electoral votes changes the balance of the election.  I mean, if we assume colorado goes with new mexico, Richardson/Warner wins with comfort to spare.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

Virginia - Weak Bush

New Mexico - Barely Bush

 

Bush 286 Kerry 251

new total

Repub 268 Warner/Richardson 269

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'd totally vote for a Warner-Richardson combo. They both seem to be pretty straight up guys and I'd trust them to run the country.

 

HOWEVER, there is a problem with your electoral math. You need 270 electoral votes to win the presidency. In the event of a 269-268 split there might be a bit of a Constitutional crisis because the Supreme Court would likely have to rule whether a president could be elected with a majority of electoral votes as opposed to the 270 total.

 

If the Supreme Court ruled that 269 wasn't enough electoral votes to win the presidency (which depending on its political slant of strict constructionists is possible) then the election would get thrown into the House of Representatives for the first time since 1824 (the whole John Q. Adams-Andrew Jackson-Henry Clay fiasco) with each state delegation receiving one vote. Thus, if the GOP still had control of the House after the 2008 elections they could elect their guy. That could be pretty nasty.

 

However, the Senate would vote for the vice-president so it's possible you could end up with a crazy John McCain (if he got the nomination)-Bill Richardson administration. Sort of like John Adams-Thomas Jefferson back in 1798 before a 12th amendment to the constitution was passed.

 

Good ol' politics!

[SuperJerk 0]

I'm drawing a blank on who Warner is.

[Vampiro69 0]

Every time I see the 2004 map, I chuckle at the D.C. voting.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Why are you suprised? The District always votes Democrat. I don't think I have ever seen a time recently were it didn't vote democrat.

 

If that is not what you meant, would you care to elaborate?

[Dandy 0]

I for one cannot wait until Barack Obama runs, whenever that may be. He will probably be the first non-white male president (I don't see Hilary winning or anyone else who has a shot), but Colin Powell should have ran a few years back and we would have already had a minority president.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

Warner is gearing to run, and as a resident of his state for the last two years, I can see he hasn't mucked it up too much.  I like that, seems moderate.  A Warner/Richardson Combo would be deadly to the republican party, because it would take away 18 electoral votes form the republican party immediately (Virginia and New Mexico both went with Bush in 04.

 

18 electoral votes changes the balance of the election.  I mean, if we assume colorado goes with new mexico, Richardson/Warner wins with comfort to spare.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

Virginia - Weak Bush

New Mexico - Barely Bush

 

Bush 286 Kerry 251

new total

Repub 268 Warner/Richardson 269

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'd totally vote for a Warner-Richardson combo. They both seem to be pretty straight up guys and I'd trust them to run the country.

 

HOWEVER, there is a problem with your electoral math. You need 270 electoral votes to win the presidency. In the event of a 269-268 split there might be a bit of a Constitutional crisis because the Supreme Court would likely have to rule whether a president could be elected with a majority of electoral votes as opposed to the 270 total.

 

If the Supreme Court ruled that 269 wasn't enough electoral votes to win the presidency (which depending on its political slant of strict constructionists is possible) then the election would get thrown into the House of Representatives for the first time since 1824 (the whole John Q. Adams-Andrew Jackson-Henry Clay fiasco) with each state delegation receiving one vote. Thus, if the GOP still had control of the House after the 2008 elections they could elect their guy. That could be pretty nasty.

 

However, the Senate would vote for the vice-president so it's possible you could end up with a crazy John McCain (if he got the nomination)-Bill Richardson administration. Sort of like John Adams-Thomas Jefferson back in 1798 before a 12th amendment to the constitution was passed.

 

Good ol' politics!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Problem with my math? I said colorado goes Democrat, which gets them over the 269 hump

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

I'm drawing a blank on who Warner is.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Governor of Virginia. Centrist Democrat. Chiseled jawline.

 

[Danville_Wrestling 0]

Warner is gearing to run, and as a resident of his state for the last two years, I can see he hasn't mucked it up too much.  I like that, seems moderate.  A Warner/Richardson Combo would be deadly to the republican party, because it would take away 18 electoral votes form the republican party immediately (Virginia and New Mexico both went with Bush in 04.

 

18 electoral votes changes the balance of the election.  I mean, if we assume colorado goes with new mexico, Richardson/Warner wins with comfort to spare.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

Virginia - Weak Bush

New Mexico - Barely Bush

 

Bush 286 Kerry 251

new total

Repub 268 Warner/Richardson 269

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'd totally vote for a Warner-Richardson combo. They both seem to be pretty straight up guys and I'd trust them to run the country.

 

HOWEVER, there is a problem with your electoral math. You need 270 electoral votes to win the presidency. In the event of a 269-268 split there might be a bit of a Constitutional crisis because the Supreme Court would likely have to rule whether a president could be elected with a majority of electoral votes as opposed to the 270 total.

 

If the Supreme Court ruled that 269 wasn't enough electoral votes to win the presidency (which depending on its political slant of strict constructionists is possible) then the election would get thrown into the House of Representatives for the first time since 1824 (the whole John Q. Adams-Andrew Jackson-Henry Clay fiasco) with each state delegation receiving one vote. Thus, if the GOP still had control of the House after the 2008 elections they could elect their guy. That could be pretty nasty.

 

However, the Senate would vote for the vice-president so it's possible you could end up with a crazy John McCain (if he got the nomination)-Bill Richardson administration. Sort of like John Adams-Thomas Jefferson back in 1798 before a 12th amendment to the constitution was passed.

 

Good ol' politics!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Problem with my math? I said colorado goes Democrat, which gets them over the 269 hump

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Oops, my bad. I just looked at your total of 269-268 and didn't see your arguement about Colorado.

[Lil' Bitch 0]

I'd like to see McCain Vs. Dean as the 2008 Presidential race. I'd vote for either guy.

 

Trett Lott said he was thinking about running on The Daily Show last night.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

BUMP.

 

If 2008 turns out to be anything other than Bayh vs. Frist, I'm going to be fucking shocked.

 

You sticking by this?

 

Civil War: I'm still with Feingold. Then Wes Clark. Then maybe Mark Warner.

[Guest Felonies!]

Go Hillary. It's the only way the Republicans can win.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

It's the only way the Republicans can win.

 

I think McCain or Guiliani could both beat a lot of the potential D nominees fairly handily.

[SuperJerk 0]

If 2008 turns out to be anything other than Bayh vs. Frist, I'm going to be fucking shocked.

 

You sticking by this?

 

No, because I really have no idea who the Republicans will nominate.

 

They're a smart party, and realize they have to be able to appeal to people beyond their base. There's no early favorite who both the conservatives like and that the party can sell to the public at large. It could still be Frist, but I think the one-two punch of Terry Shiavo and the Bush Medicare Plan have crippled his chances with the public at large, and the party knows it. The problem with McCain and Guliniani is that they appeal to the mainstream, but not to the conservatives. Guiliani's too liberal for them, and McCain's recent movement to the right is a transparent campaign move.

 

The Democrats are hungry for a win. The even the liberals are willing to put winning ahead of ideology at this point, because they absolutely don't want another Republican. Now, if they win back the Congress in the midterms, that hunger might subside a bit.

 

If it doesn't, Bayh's the smart choice. He has an extremely impressive record as a governor he can use, and his time as a senator gives him foriegn policy experience. It'll also help him beat Hillary in the primaries (even though I still don't think she'll run) if he picks a woman as his running mate early (something Kerry absolutely should have done instead of picking Edwards...a move I still don't understand, by the way).

 

Here's my potential candidate by candidate breakdown:

 

Possible Republicans

John McCain- Conservatives think he's the devil, and is just pandering to their issues.

Rudolph Giuliani- Won't run, and won't appeal to many conservatives even if he did.

Mitt Romney- Depends on how far he can divorce himself from his pro-choice past.

Newt Gingrich- About as popular as cancer.

Bill Frist- Shiavo, Medicare, etc.

George Pataki- too liberal.

George Allen- Has an excellent resume, but party of Lincoln is too smart to nominate a Confederate sympathizer.

Sam Brownback- No appeal at all beyond the party's base.

Chuck Hagel- His anti-war views will kill his candidacy.

Mike Huckabee- See Vilsack.

 

Possible Democrats

Hillary Clinton- Her negatives are too high outside the party, and the party knows it. The American people won't want or accept the first female president to be a woman who repeatedly let her husband fool around on her.

Al Gore- Not running.

John Kerry- Already had his chance, and will be urged by the party to not even make the attempt.

Joe Biden- The plagarism charges that derailed his 1988 campaign are long forgotten (especially since the charges were weak to begin with), but the fact that he's been very pro-Iraq War and his long career in the Senate a strong weaknesses.

Tom Vilsack- Iowa a pretty small state, and he has no foriegn policy experience, which a bigger deal since 9/11.

Mark Warner- Can easily be painted as inexperienced.

Russ Feingold- His candidacy might have legs if he makes the war a focus of his campaign, but he's really just a one-isue candidate.

Wesley Clark- People see him more as Sec. of State or Defense material, given he has no background in domestic affairs (the Democrats' bread and butter).

John Edwards- He did nothing for the 2004 ticket, so no. Plus, like in 2004, he has no record to run on. He'll look particularly bizarre running if Kerry runs.

Evan Bayh- My pick to win the nomination, as long as the liberals don't scream too loud.

[Vyce 0]

I'm drawing a blank on who Warner is.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Governor of Virginia. Centrist Democrat. Chiseled jawline.

 

 

And he's the Democrats BEST chance of winning back the White House. It ain't Hillary. It's Warner.

 

A Warner / Richardson ticket could be a solid winner. Frankly, if the Republicans do something stupid like nominate McCain, a Warner ticket might get my vote, supposing that the V.P. candidate doesn't suck.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

I'm trying to figure out why I like Mark Warner but don't like Evan Bayh.

[SuperJerk 0]

Warner has the least amount of governmental experience of anyone in the field. He served one term as a governor.

 

He has no military experience, and he has zero foriegn policy experence at a time when the #1 issue is foriegn policy.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Boo-urns.

 

The next Democrat, whether it's me or Sen. Clinton or John Kerry

 

Double boo-urns.

[SuperJerk 0]

Biden also criticized Democrats for their sometimes patronizing approach to religion, saying believers of different faiths don't expect everyone to join them.

 

"They just want to know we respect them," he said. "If we can't negotiate the faith issue, forget it, we won't win."

 

Yeah, unless you're a member of the Christian Right, and you have a set list of litmus tests a candidate must pass in order to gain your vote.

[SuperJerk 0]

They showed the clip on Fox News Sunday this morning of Hillary getting booed for saying it'd be a mistake for America to set an arbitrary deadline to get out of Iraq, and Kerry being cheered for saying he should've never voted for the war resolution and America should get out ASAP. This is obviously a 180 degree reversal from 2004, and I never thought I'd be closer to voting for Hillary Clinton than for John Kerry.

 

The 2008 primaries are going to be a battle between the "get out of Iraq now" faction and the "we must stay and help fix Iraq" factions of the Democratic Party. I don't think any other issue is going to matter, and the division may be enough to kill their chances in the general election.

[Art Sandusky 0]

Warner has the least amount of governmental experience of anyone in the field. He served one term as a governor.

 

He has no military experience, and he has zero foriegn policy experence at a time when the #1 issue is foriegn policy.

I sense a white Barack Obama. "I know fuck-all about what he stands for, but he looks like a guy I wanna vote for!"

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Three for 2008: Hill, Russ, and Mark

 

We know, we know, the race for the White House is a long way off. But there is already a growing buzz on the Democratic side that there are just three worthy candidates likely to end up in a pitted primary battle starting in 19 months: New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold, and one-term ex-Virginia Gov. Mark Warner. Here's the 411 from a top Democratic maven: Clinton is the, well, elephant in the room, the "uber" candidate; Warner gets the mainstream moderates; and progressive Feingold is attractive to the activists who seem to be taking over the party.

 

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/whis...26whisplead.htm