Anyone think that Howard Dean may decide to run again in'08? Or do you think because of his infamous "scream" that was totally blown out of proportion, he is d.o.a. What about Gore again?
Howard was my first choice this year, as he took a stance on Iraq, the right one in my opinion, and stuck with it. Plus he put so much energy into the Democrats this year before anybody else...

No.


There's no way.


The 2008 race is going to be interesting. So far the 'pundits' have labeled several, including Hillary Clinton and Arnold being the 'stars' to be running. However, I don't see either being successful.

Hillary is just someone that appeals to a lot of people.....but also does not appeal to many people as well. I think there would be a lot of backlash on her popularity. On the other hand, she would probably do very well with the democratic base (which in the end didn't seem to be too into Kerry) and with women, who are usually the deciding factor in elections. I think if she didn't move to NY and stayed in Arkansas, she would have a much easier time. She will have to deal with the 'NE liberal' tag.

As for the Republicans, Arnold will seem like a liberal after 8 years of Bush. Bush likes to use him for his popularity, but the 2 hardly agree on anything! From abortion, the environment, stem cell research, gays, etc. Arnold is VERY moderate, but does a good job staying away from being labeled that by bashing Democrats, even though he seems to have more Democratic stances than Republican! I just can't see the hardcore Republicans getting into him after 8 years of Bush doing some pretty extreme Republican makeovers.

Arnold? You really think they're going to get through a constitutional amendment just for him?

Also, unless there's a total schism in the Republican party, I just don't see any pro-choice candidate having a prayer of getting the nomination.

[ November 05, 2004, 01:13 PM: Message edited by: JC ]

Arnold won't be a candidate. The Constitution prevents him from being president.

Hillary will likely be the Democratic nominee and probably face either McCain or Giuliani

Dean may run, but it's doubtful he'll get anywhere. He got a lot of support because of his strong anti-war views, but I can't see that being such a large issue in '08. Of course, I've been wrong before....

Arnold would have to amend the constitution to be able to run. He's not even a remote possibility as far as I'm concerned. Hillary will never win, so let's hope she doesn't even try.

Dean is actively campaigning to be the next DNC Chair, replacing Terry McAuliffe (who was reportedly last seen Wednesday morning high-tailing it out of Washington).

Dean is probably the only candidate who would do as badly nationwide as Hillary Clinton. Republicans would like nothing better than to have either of them on a national ballot.

Arnold can't run - he wasn't born in the US.

Edwards is from the right part of the country, but he left no footprint on this past campaign - he could not make a single Southern state, even his own, competitive. I think the Democrats would be wise to remember that.

One name I hear nothing of, but who I think might be a wise choice, is Evan Bayh of Indiana. He's the former Governor, just reelected to a second Senate term, young, photogenic, comes from a political family (the son of Birch and Marvella Bayh), and has been a proven vote-getter in one of the most Republican of states. I think with Bayh the Dems could hold the Northeast and West Coast again, but would also solidify their base in the Upper Midwest/Great Lakes region where they barely held off the Republicans this time. Doing that would enable them to focus on some of the "border" states like Virginia, Missouri and Ohio that W won this time but that are probably winnable with the right candidate and message.

McCain's time has come and gone. He'd be 72 if elected in 2008 -- 3 years older than Reagan when Reagan was first elected as an old coot. Too old.

Can Arnold get the Constitution amended by 2008? Doubt it. And both he and Guliani would be beaten in the primaries by some pro-life, anti-gay wingnut. The big question: which wingnut will it be?

The Dems have 4 years to figure it out, but I don't think Hillary can get elected nationally. We'll see how Dean and Edwards position themselves. They'll both have to figure out how to stay in the public eye to some degree, now that neither one is an elected official. At least Kerry has that going for him. Kerry could turn himself into the national opposition leader. There certainly will be plenty to oppose. And although I don't totally love his style, you can't beat Kerry on character (voting against DOMA; rejecting Clinton's advice to support the anti-marriage ballot initiatives). Gotta love that guy. Couldn't pander if he tried.

Mark Warner of Virginia for the DNC...Giuliani for the RNC. Warner has been highly effective in Virginia, even getting taxes raised through the republican controlled house and senate. He has the highest approval rating of any Virginia Governor and is known for caring for Virginia and its citizens.

Basically I think the current short list is as follows...

Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano

Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius

Missouri Governor Bob Holden

New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson

North Carolina Governor Michael F. Easley

Oklahoma Governor Brad Henry

Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski

Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen

Virginia Governor Mark Warner

Washington Governor Gary Locke

West Virginia Governor Bob Wise

Former Veermont Governor Howard Dean

Rob

Great list. Napolitano is too butch, GOP-leaning men won't vote for a Dem woman for pres yet.

Sebelius, see above (no woman pres).

Holden lost IN HIS PRIMARY. He's D.O.A.

Richardson is Latino, would win the Kerry states & New Mexico, but not red-leaning central states.

Easley could do it; I don't know anything him, but he's Southern, white, male. Is he too smart? I think he's also made anti-gay statements, so maybe he might win.

Henry, don't know much about him. Could he carry his own state in a national election? I mean, this is the same state that elected a psychotic to the Senate.

Kulongoski I like a lot, but he might not win Ohio, Iowa, etc. He would carry his own state.

Bredesen maybe, white, male, esp. if not too smart; could he carry his own state in a presidential election?

Warner is popular, but I ask: is he too rich? The GOP runs rich candidates, they get away with it, yet they slam rich Dems. Any scandals? Please, Lord, I hope not.

Locke, love him. But he's Chinese American. He'd win the Kerry states, but not more.

Wise--could he even carry his own state?

Dean, no chance, not at all.

In the interim we definitly need to get Barak out there speaking and drumming up support. His background and eloquence are invaluable. I think I may be in love. And coke use jokes should fall like bricks considering...

Easley tries too hard to be everything to everyone. Besides, he doesn't strike me as being sufficiently ambitious to go for the big enchilada. In NC, he basically worked his way up the chain food.

I like Bill Richardson. I think he could clean up in the southwest (aside from Utah, of course), and I still have faith that the people of Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin will stick with the dems. He wouldn't do much in the south, but maybe he could pick up Florida?

Evan Bayh of Indiana I think would be a great choice. I know when his name came up in VP race, a poll in Indiana showed he wouldn't get Indiana still. But that's VP. Bayh would definitely be solid in the Midwest.....including Iowa/Ohio/Wisconsin/Michigan and could very well take Missouri too. Stick in a northeast Democrat and bam, you've got a solid voter block to win.

I think Hillary would do best as VP choice if anything. It's one of those situations where you have people voting against her just cause they don't like her. But it could work both ways.....she's very popular too.


Yes, I know Arnold would have to get that amendment through. It's already been brought up in the Senate and could happen.

I don't believe the country is anywhere near ready to elect a woman President. Heck we haven't even had a female VP yet and only one has ever even been on a ticket. That would eliminate the Arizona and Kansas Governors, IMO.

As for Hillary, the nation just this past week decided it didn't want a rich, priveledged, snooty (perceived anyway) MAN from the liberal hotbed of the northeast. The Repulicans would have to put up a gay, black serial killing dwarf with three arms to lose to Hillary and I bet even that might be too close to call.

What the hell do you think they got under that egotistical aw shucks southern bible thumper put on?

I think Richardson could take the West Coast, Florida, Louisianna, Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado - when paired with a smart white female from the NE who has the academic credentials?

I think Warner could pull VA, WV,PA, DE, NC, maybe??? SC plus the Blue states and maybe??? a couple of Mid West states. The question is would an increasinly older conservative population vote for someone who will only be 52? The upside would be if he could position himself as a new young broom - in touch with modern America (ala Clinton in '92) sweeping clean... if he paired with someone like Jim Doyle (WI) or better yet Jennifer Granholm (MI)...???

Rob

Okay, please--BARACK OBAMA. (I do agree with you, Gobar.) Obama actually can preachify when he wants to.

Warner and Bayh might be a winning combination. I wish the Democrats would pick someone from Washington, Oregon, or California, though. Aren't there any viable youngish Democrats in the Golden State?

Granholm can't run because she wasn't born here. I'm telling you all, this country has gone backwards. A woman or a latino at the top of the Democratic ticket just won't work. BUT, the Republicans could probably field a black woman (Condoleezza Rice) as the VP, and win.

[ November 05, 2004, 09:33 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

It's all about perception. In reality Bush is probably every bit as priveleged and snooty (if not more!) as Kerry. But he is able to relate to the common man much better than Kerry.

There is a large enough segment of the population, especially in the red states, that is not about to cast a vote for ANY woman (short of the Virgin Mary herself), let alone Hillary Clinton.

I've also read others here suggest Barack Obama. Don't know much about him. But consider that we've yet to even have a black Presidential major party nominee, VP or VP nominee and I think that tells you that America isn't going to elect a black President as soon as 2008.

By the 2010 census (projections based on census data)White caucasians will no longer be the Majority of the US Population due to significant increases in the Black and Hispanic population.

Therefore, I think someone like Richardson might be a possibility, especially drawing hispanics to the ticket as a VP contender.

If not HC, then I think a respected woman Gov. from the midwest or west could be viable as a VP candidate - which in the minds of most bigots would be less objectionable than a Pres candidate. What about Janet Napolitano from AZ?

So...

Warner - Richardson? or ....

Rob

[ November 06, 2004, 10:42 AM: Message edited by: ITJock ]

I think it's pointless trying to find a leader based on census stuff--the more Dems try to focus group a candidate, the more they'll end up with an electable-on-paper Kerry. It's really all about who the individual is and how the public thinks of him. George Bush is, on paper, not exactly an across-the-spectrum candidate, but it's his personal qualities that make him appeal to the majority of Americans. There's a reason even low income Hispanics vote for George Bush, and it's not because he's of x race, went to x schools, and held x job and will further their interests. It's all about the way he carries himself, the way he speaks, and the way ordinary, non-elites can relate to him.

Dems need someone with charisma and the common touch. It would help if the person's a southerner since the south apparently favors its own. But beyond that, it's all about how the person connects with the public. Kerry's patrician, and we get it, but he was a nutso choice given the broad popular appeal of who he was running against. A military background would help. And he has to look right too. Wes Clark seemed good at first, but he's too skinny and doesn't look commanding. Dems basically need a man's man. Bush wasn't when he started out, but he learned to fake it. All those photo ops of him at the ranch (did he really buy it for his first campaign?), the cowboy imagery, the tough guy talk, his mangled diction, it all worked. Women didn't buy it all that much, but men did (some say it's the testosterone-challenged who genuflect to this kind of posturing, and that the comfortably masculine see through it, but whatever).

There is absolutely no way in hell that the democrats will nominate Hillary , or Dean for that matter,in 2008. Not after this fiasco, no way in hell. There is no way a NE libereal will be nominated.
I echo what others have said about Evan Bayh. However, I have seen him on tv and he is a bit lacking on charisma but has many other things going for him.
Also lest not forget Barak Obama that was elected to the Senate from Illinois. Though in 2008 he will only be 46 so he has lots of time to run. He is a definetly an up and comer on the national scene. Alss, perhaps, one to consider is the other Illinois Senator--Dick Durbin who just got elected minority whip for the democrats.
For both Obama and Durbin to be elected in Illinois they had to master speaking to and kowing the issues of rural and urban voters.That kind of skill would come in handy in a national campaign.
Another one that would not surprise me if he ran again would be Wesley Clark. He is from the south so that has appeal, his military experience would have appeal too. However, I dont quite know how well he would do on a national level. Though he did gain some experience this year in his brief campaign.
Some how I dont totally dismiss him either.
It will be interesting.

[ November 06, 2004, 12:27 PM: Message edited by: billybob ]

The candidate's gotta be a Midwest guy. I don't think a western person will do anything, especially from California.

I think it's less about the messenger than it is the message my Democratic party presents. Keep in mind that Kerry garnered smaller percentages of the vote in California, NY, Florida, etc than Gore four year ago. Our message was too amorphous and diffused while the Republican ones (all security all the time & "traditional family") resonated with millions. What struck me in the last couple of days is the number of times Bush spoke to the religious right (starting in '86, when he was assigned to work on getting their vote for Bush the Elder--even though Pat Robertson was in that race, too) and often tells his audience "Thank you for your prayers." It's simple, direct & speaks to any number of their concerns, without promising them anything in return for their vote.

As for Hilary--earlier in this thread I wrote of how much I admire her & how I doubt she'll run (too savvy; knows how divisive she is; like Cuomo before her likes being thought the hero on the white horse.) Important to keep in mind she's got her own race in '06 and the Republicans are going to target her--as they did Daschle this year--so she has to stay focused on her own Senate seat; if she loses there, she's got no shot for the future but if she wins a second term--defeating Rudy G. or George P.--she ends their political ambitions.

~Adam

BARACK. BARACK OBAMA.

Granholm will not be available- she was born in Canada and lived there for several years... she falls into the Arnold category.

However, I do see Granholm transitioning into Carl Levin's Senatorial position once he resigns.

What about Ed Rendell? He's popular, charismatic, and experienced. He isn't out of the question, is he?

Al Sharpton '08!!!!

Oprah!!!

Oprah/Sharpton vs. Keyes/Condi

Even hearing Barrak Obama's name mentioned tells me some folks still haven't gotten it. In 2008 he'll only be partway through his first Senate term, he'll be only 46 years old, and he'll still be African-American. Look for him in 2016 at the earliest.

He's Jewish, so the evangelicals in charge will never allow it. He's even said himself that he'd have no chance of winning if he ran.

I like the Choice of Sharpton, too.

However, you cannot advance a Prez candidate based on how they will do in the general election. The nominee of each party will be a person who attracts the activists that vote in the earliest primaries. Moderates have not done well lately in either parties presidential nominating processes because they do not appeal to the motivated voter. John McCain in 2000 was a good example in this-a lot of people thought he would have made a great GOP Prez candidate, but he could not get his party's nomination.

DEMs-Billary, DEM activist 'appear' to love them- at least now. I think she would have no problem raising money and may suck all the money from the other possible candidates. Unless Edwards can stay in the limilight somehow, I don't see him being a serious contender. I could see Dorgan (?) of Illinois or possibly Bayh. But I don't see anyone commiting until they hear what Billary is going to do. Could any DEM really compete with Bill and Hillary on the campaign trail?

GOP-I forgot how old McCain was-I would have said him, but agree 72 is probably too old. Don't even think Arnold-can't change the Constitution that fast and too moderate to win nomination. Guiliani-too moderate. I see Frist, possibly Hagel (although he appears to moderate too). I don't see Jeb Bush either-2 Bush's in the white house is enough for awhile.

Oy ve! (and I'm not even Jewish!)

Do not say Frist will be next in line for the GOP! Unfortunately he would get the evangelicals out for the vote just as much as Georgie- how scary would the right spectrum be if he was next?

Speaking of the evangelical vote kick-did you see that your post was number 666.

Rendell's Jewish? Jeez, I always thought he was Italian...

Scary thought:

GOP: PA's very own ultra-conservative senator, Rick Santorum.

Quickly...somebody give me a reason why I might be wrong! eek!

Santorum strikes me as more plausible than either Giuliani or Schwarzenagger. Unless there's a major fall-off in the power of the religious right in the next four years, there's no way a pro-choice candidate will be elected. I'm not even sure these moderates would win for the Republicans--would all these people who cited "moral values" as the most important issue in the election even bother coming out to vote?

I really think the only reason Giuliani and Hillary Clinton are being mentioned as candidates is because of the New York media. Neither one will be on top of the ticket in 2008.

I still say Hillary would be much more likely a nominee than Guiliani. From what I have read, she is popular with the money people in the DEM party and the activists who are most likely to vote in the primaries. The majority of DEMs may support someone else, but those people would need the money to run and the support of those people that will vote in the earliest primaries. BIll CLinton is still the rock star of the DEM party, can you really see anyone competing against him to raise money and draw attention for his wife? Hillary is very disciplined. The two of them will make a very formidable team. Who do you think the national press would rather cover-an event with Hillary and Bill or an event with John Edwards or Howard Dean?

Why even mention Arnold? He can't run, end of story. Guiliani is too moderate for the average GOP primary voter-I don't give him much chance at all.

John McCain can tell you that, although the majority of national voters(and even the majority of GOP voters) wanted him as the GOP nominee, it was the voters in New Hampshire, Iowa, South Carolina that decided who the GOP nominees was. McCain might have made a better and more moderate nominee than Bush-but the moderates are not motivated to vote in most GOP/DEM primaries.

There was a great NY Times article on Richardson last year, when we still thought there was mystery as to whom Kerry would select as VP. Richardson is invaluable to the Dems, but not as a candidate; he's far too ruff and tumble.

We need to stop getting Hillary's hopes up. Unless the Dems put forward Condi, Hillary has no chance. My mom wants Hillary to run, and I told her this morning, "Ma, I'm afraid if Hillary or Barack runs, they'd get a bullet in the head"

Based on this election, I just don't see a woman or a black man being considered seriously, unless McCain recruits Powell to restore dignity to the Republican party, or unless a super-conservative Republican woman is put up, in the early rounds, at least, to take away some heat from Hillary.

Word on the street is that Bayh has fantastic political skills; my lesbian friends in Indy say he leans conservative, but is pretty good on LGBT issues, and magically effective in working with Republicans.

Oregon is a lovely state, but it's broke. Just a year or two ago, schools were having blood drives to raise $$$ for teacher salaries. Off the list.

Howard Dean has spent his political capital but would be grrrreat as the DNC chairman. Let's talk about THAT some more.

Otherwise, I kinda think McCain is too old for this bullshit; thing is, I actually like him. I'd prefer him - we should all prefer him - to Santorum, who really can't seriously considered. Can he?

It ain't gonna be Condi-I have not heard that she has any political aspirations at all.

Just because someone is conservative does not mean they are undignified. I could say the same for all the loony liberals--oooooppps.

I think Bayh would be a formidable candidate. He is very popular in a pretty conservative state. He knows how to work with GOP and DEMs.

Conservatives claim the "pro-life" and "man and a woman" political platform, which make me bristle...so, yeah, I "judge" them. That said, what I meant in my comments about Bayh and a female candidate aren't as much bristly as,well, just what I think. Indiana lesbians told me Bayh can lean conservative, but there is no judgement intended really in that assessment. Just what some self-proclaimed Indiana dykes told me.

Anyway, the reason I came back to the thread was to link Dean's Democracy for America site:
http://www.democracyforamerica.com/

Gotta love Howie: there are thought pieces about "faith abuse," increased diversity now in both the senate and the house, and, interestingly, an analysis of election results saying - suprise! - we need to target more moderates... The Washington Post is suggesting Bush edged Kerry in votes cast by "Hispanics" (a term created by white politicians, ugh) and white women.

From the site:

It's the Moderates, Stupid
Mark J. Penn of The Washington Post believes that the election was won and lost, not primarily by who turned out the base, but who best appealed to moderate voters.

Two key groups -- Hispanics and married white women -- voted more strongly for Bush and are the reason he edged out Kerry. The hype of this election -- that it would be about a huge new youth turnout, or that it was all about the religious right -- was not borne out by the numbers.

Penn cites key movements in both groups. In 2000, Bush received 35% of the Hispanic vote and 49% of the women's vote. In 2004, the numbers rose to 44% and 55%, respectively. Given those numbers, it seems quite plausible that the Hispanic and women's vote decided this election.

When the party that stands for equal pay, better-funded education, and a woman's right to choose can't win the women's vote, you know it's going to be a tough day.


So, yeah, blah blah blah, check out Democracy for America, formerly Dean for America, for news and opinion from the now cute again Gov.

[ November 07, 2004, 03:33 PM: Message edited by: The B Man ]

No Dean, no way. We cannot put up another New Englander in the next election, drawing comparisons to elections losers Dukakis and Kerry.

I think it needs to be a Midwestern or Southern governer, as reflected in ITJock's list above. Richardson with Obama as VP would be my choice, setting Obama up for a win in 2016.

As religious as Oklahoma is, Dems shouldn't count the state out as a possible win with someone like Richardson. They did, after all, elect Governer Henry over the fanatical evangelical and football hero (which is important in OK) Steve Largent. I was so proud of my home state for that.

I live in Kansas, but the TV and print media in KC gives a lot more attention to MO than KS, so I know very little about Governer Sebelius except that she seems agressively dedicated to fiscal responsibility and to improving education policy and funding. Someone said the AZ governer is "too butch", and I think Sebelius is possibly too femme for the average voter.

What about a Bayh/Richardson ticket?

Midwest and Southwestern influences...

hehehe- just two more years to find out

While Bayh was perfectly acceptable as a Governor, can we please limit the '08 potential Nominees to actual Democrats? Bayh tends to vote based upon polling results and his politics are clearly to the Right of Bill Clinton. As for the Constitutional Marriage Amendment, the last I heard, he had not yet made up his mind. I know the Democrats want to win, but let's not overreact.

Hannity was rooting for Bayh last night, which gives me moment to pause... And Richardson, I tell you he's already been portrayed as maybe too abrasive. The NY Times take is that he doesn't want it.

Since the Times predicted Daschle's upset months and months and months ago, I wonder if they're not onto something with Richardson, too...

I heard on FoxNews recently (yes, I watch it for its humor value) that Bill Frist of Tennessee was considered a potential GOP nominee in 2008. He's already in a position of incredible influence and was hand-picked by the Bush camp. He could easily get the right-wing conservative vote based on his pro-life, anti-gay positions and would be more acceptable to the mainstream Republicans than Santorum. (scary thought)
For the Democrats, although I would support Howard Dean, he probably doesn't have much chance of winning the general election. I'll echo others suggestions of Evan Bayh as a strong candidate and would also like to see Wesley Clark run again.

To follow up on the possibility of Bill Frist being the top choice for the republicans in '08, Karl Rove has (supposedly, per Washingtonian Magazine) indicated he will work for Frist's campaign.

~Adam

My "100% Accurate" ™ prediction(s) for 2008:

Dem frontrunners will be Mark Warner (VA), Evan Bayh (IN), and Tom Vilsack (IA). The nominee will be Vilsack and his running mate will be Bill Nelson (FL). The Dem convention will be in New Orleans.

GOP frontrunners will be Bill Frist, Mitt Romney, and Chris Cox (CA). The nominee will be Frist and his running mate will be Romney. The GOP convention will be in Miami.

Count on it. wink

After losing the moral/family value voters in 2004, I doubt the Democrats would go to the Big Easy with its reputation for debauchery and sleaze in 2008. They will need to be seen in a more wholesome, middle America setting in a battleground state. St. Louis, Orlando....Cleveland ???