Election 2008

[snuffbox 0]

Anyone considering Gore or Kerry as Dem possibilities?

No. Losing candidates seldom are successful later. And, Gore would be laughed at if he tried to run, after his moveon speeches.

-=Mike

Kinda like how Nixon was laughed at after his 'Kickaround Speech' in '62?...

Nixon is the rare exception to the rule. That's why I said "seldom succeed" not "never succeed". Nixon had a wipe-open field with LBJ withdrawing and RFK's assassination.

 

Look at it this way: In what possible way can Gore or Kerry have BETTER opportunities to win when they both lost their respective races?

 

A lot of Dems feel that they were weak candidates (a true comment if ever there was one) and won't take a second chance on them.

-=Mike

Personally, I dont think Kerry will (nor should) run again. i was genuinely surprised to read a few days ago that he might actually be contemplating such an idea.

 

Gore, however, wouldnt be as big a surprise to me.

 

Both guys have the national notoriety thing working for them...but any chances of victory would obviously hinder on their own campaign overhauls and whoever their opponent would be.

 

People running again after losing isnt too rare, though success certainly is. Both Thomas Dewey and Adlai Stevenson tried twice and lost twice. Nixon won. Gore and Kerry should at least be considered as possibilities, but their chances of winning would be slim.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Bob Wise of WV didn't seek re-election and was replaced by another Democrat, Joe Manchin. That changes the list to:

 

Tom Vilsack -- IA

Bill Richardson -- NM

Michael Easley -- NC

Brad Henry -- OK

Phil Bredesen -- TN

Mark Warner -- VA

Joe Manchin -- WV

Dave Freudenthal -- WY

[EricMM 0]

For whomever said that Guiliani wouldn't have enough conservatism to win the south states, who do you think would? DEMOCRATS!?

 

LOL!

 

Believe me, the only way Dems ever win is if America changes and becomes more leftist.

 

If the Dems become more centrist, the liberals in our party just vote Green/Indy and the Reps just get more wins.

 

Ugh.

[The Czech Republic 0]

For whomever said that Guiliani wouldn't have enough conservatism to win the south states, who do you think would? DEMOCRATS!?

Well certainly not in a Republican primary.

[Guest MikeSC]

For whomever said that Guiliani wouldn't have enough conservatism to win the south states, who do you think would?  DEMOCRATS!?

Well certainly not in a Republican primary.

But that would be interesting. Having Dennis Kucinich win a Republican primary in CT would be comedy gold.

-=Mike

[EricMM 0]

Oops, I forgot about that whole 'process'.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Brian Schweitzer won the governorship in Montana, which puts him on this list as well.

 

Tom Vilsack -- IA

Bill Richardson -- NM

Michael Easley -- NC

Brad Henry -- OK

Phil Bredesen -- TN

Mark Warner -- VA

Joe Manchin -- WV

Dave Freudenthal -- WY

 

However, then again, I think we cut him immediately due to lack of electoral experience. He's not likely to jump straight to the White House after one turn in office.

 

Okay, so let's getinto issues. Let's cut anyone of these who are in favor of gay marriage (not Civil Unions, which is a different story)

 

Tom Vilsack -- IA (anti-gay marriage, anti-FMA)

Bill Richardson -- NM (pro-civil unions, anti-gay marriage, anti-FMA)

Michael Easley -- NC (no statements)

Brad Henry -- OK (undecided, based on vote-smart.org's test given to him. No public statements)

Phil Bredesen -- TN (no public statements)

Mark Warner -- VA (anti-gay marriage, pro-FMA)

Joe Manchin -- WV (no public statements)

Dave Freudenthal -- WY (anti-civil unions, anti gay marriage)

 

Well, that didn't help any. I won't cut any with no statements on the issues. Richardson comes closest to the standard, but still doesn't go too far on the issue.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Anyone else wanna cut someone for a specific reason?

[The Czech Republic 0]

Anyone else wanna cut someone for a specific reason?

I cut Iowa's governor with "haha, you said sack."

[snuffbox 0]

I dont think Freudenthal will be a contender in 08...but thats not based on a whole lot.

 

Those Southern governors might deserve some closer looks though...

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Looking at Henry's NPAT on vote-smart.org, Rob E's choice looks pretty good. Quite moderate and isn't a political novice, yet has issues that primary voters would like.

[snuffbox 0]

Whats the odds on Dick Cheney giving it a go in '08 if hes still alive/healthy?

 

He would certainly have a chance of winning the presidency, but 'alive/healthy' is a huge intangible here. And I dont think hes shown any interest, but he might if 2007 rolls around and he somehow feels upto it...

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Slim to none.

[snuffbox 0]

Id put him at the Buster Douglas betting odds...42:1...

 

Are there any Kennedy offspring on the horizon?

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

See.. I do know how to pick em.. there's only one thing that can stop Brad Henry-mania.. and that's defeat in 2006.

 

Environmental Issues

 

2001  On the votes that the Oklahoma Sierra Club considered to be the most important in 2001, Governor Henry voted their preferred position 10 percent of the time.

 

Gun Issues

 

2000  Based on lifetime voting records on gun issues and the results of a questionnaire sent to all state legislative candidates in 2000, the National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund assigned Governor Henry a grade of A (with grades ranging from a high of A+ to a low of F).

 

It'll all depend on the primary schedule.

 

I suspect that the Midwestern and Southern candidates will fare well in Iowa. Unless there's a massive ad war (such as Gephardt/Dean). Then whoever has the momentum will do well in New Hampshire.

 

A good candidate would keep enough reserves for some runs in Texas and Florida. Both of them have a lot of delegates. California would be expensive as hell to run much in. Just find ways to get cheaper ad-time in Reno, Nevada (or somewhere non-CA that's seen in CA)

 

Random Brad Henry statement:

 

It is a paradox that far too few Americans participate in the wonderful ritual of democracy that we call Election Day. That's a shame, especially since so many people across the globe do not enjoy the same privilege. No matter where you stand politically-even if you're unsure of what your political ideology is - it is important to take part in the process of shaping our government.

 

That certainly holds true as we fast approach the Nov. 2 presidential election. To cast a ballot in that race, you must be registered to vote by Friday, Oct. 8.

 

The upcoming elections are critical to our state and country. Not only will we choose the nation's president for the next four years, but Oklahomans will select a successor to U.S. Sen. Don Nickles, who is retiring from after having served six terms in office.

 

In addition, Oklahomans will select their representatives to the U.S. Congress and the state Legislature. Nine state questions on the ballot will cover a number of issues vital to the future of Oklahoma.

 

But the right to vote comes with a responsibility. Make sure you are informed about the candidates and their stands on the issues. Seek out information in the news media. Check out campaign literature. Ask questions.

 

The 2000 presidential election drew 55 percent of Oklahoma's eligible voters. Although that isn't a poor percentage - about 51 percent of eligible voters nationally turned out for that year's federal elections-we can do better. This election year, let us Oklahomans prove how much we cherish democracy by turning out at the polls.

[snuffbox 0]

And lets not forget that old darkhorse, Jesse Ventura....

[Styles 0]

Cross off Ruth Ann Minner. Her own state hates that bitch, we just REALLY hated Bill Lee more than her.

 

Lots of Democrats turned on her and voted third party. She was a total monster and if she runs then the Democrats might as well concede.

Hey, speak for yourself! I campaigned for the Judge and he was just a geninely nice guy every time I spoke to him. Minner is indeed a monster, and I'm shocked she was re-elected (even by the slim margin she was). Ok, enough Delaware politics since we alienate 99.9% of the board.

 

I was telling everyone during the primaries and most Dems laughed at me. If the Democrats had any shot of beating Bush, they should have gotten behind Joe Lieberman. He could match Bush on every security and terrorism issue, never waivered on his support of the Iraq war, is proudly religious and endorses those "moral vaules" everyone loves talking about, but at the same time is more moderate than Bush on social and domestic issues which he could have hammered him on. Plus he nearly was elected Vice President by about 500 votes so he'd have the credibility. But the Dems were stupid, they ran far to the left, partied with Dean, slept with Kerry, got engaged with Edwards or whatever stupidity they say.

 

It's a shame too, because I would mention Liberman for '08, but after losing 2 times, his stock is likely too low, and he probably wouldn't want to run again. I even heard a rumor that in an effort to be bi-partisan, Bush could appoint him the new Secretary of Homeland Security if Tom Ridge steps down.

 

Anyway, I agree although she'll give it a run, she'll be the "Dean of 08" in that Hilary will have a lot of early excitement, but by the primaries Dems will be like "wait, we're not that stupid". I think she'll be chosen as the Vp though.

 

Bill Richardson, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, Evan Bayhe and Tom Vilsack will likely be the top candidates.

 

On the Republican side, I feel bad for Jeb Bush who simply can't run for obvious reasons. He's a popular governor and capable candidate. Maybe if he gives the country a break from Bush's he could come back in 2016 and run.

 

The list of probables includes: Bill Frist, George Pataki, Rudy Guilliani, John McCain and Rick Perry (gov. of Texas).

 

 

I'll go ahead and make my way too early predictions for the 08 race:

 

Bill Frist/Rudy Guilliani vs. Bill Richardson/Hillary Clinton

[Guest Brian]

Has Giuliani done anything other than being a mayor? Honest question, I have no idea. And was he always a popular figure in NY politics?

[teke184 0]

Has Giuliani done anything other than being a mayor? Honest question, I have no idea. And was he always a popular figure in NY politics?

Giuliani made his name as the District Attorney who sent a lot of the New York Mafia chiefs to prison in the 1980s and 1990s.

 

 

Even if he doesn't make it to the White House, he's a lock for Attorney General under a Republican president if he ever wants it.

[Styles 0]

Has Giuliani done anything other than being a mayor? Honest question, I have no idea. And was he always a popular figure in NY politics?

He was a succesful District attorney in New York and prosecuted some white collar criminals and Mafia bosses. He was seen as a tough but effective mayor that gets a lot of credit for cleaning up the city from crime and graffitti. His reputation took a hit in 2000 though when it came out that he was having an affair, and then divorced his wife to marry his girlfriend. Of course his reputation shot way up after September 11th when he took such an active leadership role during the crisis and was Time's Man Of The Year for 2001. I'm suprised he wasn't named the new US Attorney General as that could have given him more legitimacy for a Presidential run in 08, but its a tough job I guess. Keep in mind being mayor of New York is more difficult than being the governor for many smaller and less populated states. I think he'll give it a run in 08, but ultimately will drop out do to questions of his qualifications and some of his "liberal" positions, but will be the likely candidate for the VP spot where he can be a popular addition to the ticket, appealling to moderates and New Yorkers.

 

Here is a brief synopsis of his career:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudy_Giuliani

[Guest Brian]

I know it's a harder city to govern, but I just thought that it would be hard to run on that qualification.

[The Czech Republic 0]

Hilary will have a lot of early excitement, but by the primaries Dems will be like "wait, we're not that stupid".

Oh will they.

[Styles 0]

Hilary will have a lot of early excitement, but by the primaries Dems will be like "wait, we're not that stupid".

Oh will they.

Sort of. They'll still want her on the ticket as well as THE BILL~! and his fundraising and allies, so she'll be the VP candidate.

[Vyce 0]

I don't see Warner getting anywhere if he runs for President.

 

Hell, word I hear is that he wants to run for the Senate against Allen, and I can't see him even winning THAT.

[The Czech Republic 0]

Hilary will have a lot of early excitement, but by the primaries Dems will be like "wait, we're not that stupid".

Oh will they.

Sort of. They'll still want her on the ticket as well as THE BILL~! and his fundraising and allies, so she'll be the VP candidate.

In that case, Geraldine Ferraro II: Electric Boogaloo

[teke184 0]

Hilary will have a lot of early excitement, but by the primaries Dems will be like "wait, we're not that stupid".

Oh will they.

Sort of. They'll still want her on the ticket as well as THE BILL~! and his fundraising and allies, so she'll be the VP candidate.

In that case, Geraldine Ferraro II: Electric Boogaloo

Funny thing about Ferraro...

 

My grandfather was a straight-ticket Democrat for decades because he was a union electrician and the only time I know of that he voted Republican was when Ferraro was Mondale's VP candidate.

[Vern Gagne 0]

You can dismiss Brad Henry for 2008. He's only 41 years old, and basically tied Steve Largent in 2002. He needs a truely decisive win next election, and more experience.

 

My personal favorite is Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota. It's not likely he'll even run, more likely he'll run against Mark Dayton in 2006. There's also the fact he'd only be 48 in 2008, and can't even guarantee to carry his own state.

[2GOLD 0]

So the only viable option is Gore, Edwards, Kerry again or Hilary....

What the HELL happened to this party?!?!?!

 

That's like a B team of politics.

[AndrewTS 0]

So the only viable option is Gore, Edwards, Kerry again or Hilary....

What the HELL happened to this party?!?!?!

 

That's like a B team of politics.

Maybe Al can revert back to Goreson Welles mode and take a shot that way.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

You can dismiss Brad Henry for 2008. He's only 41 years old, and basically tied Steve Largent in 2002. He needs a truely decisive win next election, and more experience.

 

Steve Largent is also a popular figure with extremely high name ID. You're completely discounting the power of political machinery in terms of creating a candidate. Henry's age may not even be an issue.

 

Just wait and see.