POLL: Looking Ahead to 2008

I wouldn't vote for Hiliary Clinton. Not because she is a woman but because I do not respect her as a person. On the other hand I wouldn't vote for any Bush. Two is enough, more than enough.

A lot can happen in four years. The state of the economy. If we have a lot of soldiers overseas that will not set well with people. In four years there will be more young people eligible to vote and less of the seniors.

Of course if we get attacked again that will make a big difference.

 

I'd vote for Hilary in 2008, but fat chance of her getting the nomination. I see it going to some republican-lite candidate, which is just going to be depressing.

2004 was a realigning election, and the dems are going to throw every mock republican they have out there to curry the favor of potential voters in the west in 2008. The republicans are probably going to run someone tied to 9/11.

 

Sorry to piss on the blankie, but Hillary will not be the next Democratic nominee for President. It ain't gonna happen. The only people who seem to want it to or think it will happen are people on the right - which should tell you everything you need to know right there. Everyone - well, most - in the Democratic party are aware of how much of a lighting-rod for scorn and criticism she is (some of which is deserved, most of which is absolute idiocy). Most democrats (and anyone who's read a blog) are fully aware that there are enough rabid Hillary-phobes out there (see: Darkwolf) to make a possible nomination for Hillary in 2008 a very poor choice.

The party of the Donkey may have done some stupid things in the last few years...but they ain't suicidal. And Hillary is the presidential hemlock. The only way she has a shot is if Bush screws up badly enough in the next 3 years that it would create a big enough anti-right sentiment that a far-left Hillary would seem like a good idea. But since none of the Bush administrations royal screw-ups of the last 3 years seemed to be enough to hurt him all that much, somehow I doubt that's ever gonna happen. Dubya, apparantly, is infallible.

The reason guys like Dick Morris are insisting that Hillary is going to run is because they so desperately want her to. Because she'd lose. Badly. Any Dem worth his salt knows this, which is why you won't hear "Hillary '08!!" mentioned seriously outside of FOX News.

 

Total agreement with Death Rabbit here, well said. In addition, Dick Morris is a total freakshow, and should always be taken with the proverbial grain of salt...

(OT: Death Rabbit... without... fur... does not... compute.... who is that... little... bald man....)

 

You just can't help yourself can you DR?

Ok smart guy, you have a real habit of sitting on the sidelines and telling everyone else how wrong they are (and then later coming in with a "told you so") without ever sticking your own neck out. So how about you stop being an armchair quarterback and get in the game... why don't you dazzle us with your top 3 Dem candidates for '08?

For the record, I don't think the Democratic Party is going to move to the center. The individuals that control the party at the moment, McAuliffe, Dean, Gore, and Clinton (of the female persuasion) believe that the reason they lost was because they weren't far enough to the left. Clinton is smart enough to realize that a pretend move to the center will endear her to a larger audience, but in the end she will have problems being torn by trying to balance satisfying her left wing base and gaining broader support. IMO, if she loses the nomination it will only be because she tried too hard to position herself as a centrist, as to be able to win the presidency, and lost the support of the diehard Dems and went down in flames in the primaries or hit the silk prior to the primaries because the polls said she would lose.

What is really sad is that the Reps are going to think just the opposite, especially in the realm of social conservatism. They think Bush and those on his tailcoats won because of their "moral stances", when in actuality it was more a case of a distrust of Kerry and the fact that Americans aren't ready for a move to socialism (and I hope we never are). So in the next election look for the Reps to pander to the fundamentalist right, and the Hispanic voters, as the Reps will want to shore up as much of the soon to be largest minority group in the US.

It is unfortunate, but I really don't see us getting a moderate candidate out of either party, as neither will allow a moderate to rise in its ranks. In other words, it will be another US election where most of us will be voting against a candidate instead of for one.

Wouldn’t it be nice to have an election where the majority of us who voted for the losing candidate said, “Oh well, Mr. X will do a decent job anyway”?

Just my 2 cents...

 

This might seem like I am defying Berry here but I really am not.

DW, you are the only one I have seen who voted more against Kerry than for Bush/the GOP. I am sure there are many people who dont want a democratic president no matter who he is but for they are labelled more as pro-Bush than anti-Kerry cause it wouldnt really matter who the dems put forth.

 

Happy New Year all! I am back after a short Christmas vaction - and ready for some political action. And I see there is some red-baiting going on here:

Which is really engaging in this:

Of course, it depends upon how one wishes to define "socialism." Some of us believe that a slim majority of voters moved to the right in 2004, leaving a large minority holding on to the center postion in the ideological game of American politics. Those of us on the left have always been in the small minority, which is fine with us. It was even the likes of Newt, in a speech before congress some years back, who commended the "left wing" for bringing about racial and social equality in the 60s.

I suppose taking up social causes could result in one being labeled a "socialist." But I had always thought that it was defined as an economic system in which the government owned everything and there was not any "private property." So, clearly we will have to define our terms before a proper dialogue can proceed here about the political viability of the candidates for 2008.

There is no doubt that Hilary would like to run in 2008. But she will likely sit that one out as she continues to accumulate some sort of record to run on in the Senate, which will more than likely be a mix of strong defense, since she is on the armed services committee, and strong on social programs (oh, there's the "s" word again). She is on the subcommitte on Emerging Threats and Readiness Management. As a junior member she will be "learning the ropes" from the likes of John McCain and Joe Leiberman on some of the most pressing issues on the so called "War on Terror." In other words, she's engaged in something Shrub never bothered with: she is gathering both knowledge and some real creditials to deal with an issue that a large number of Americans are concerned with before actually becoming prez, rather than getting "on the job training" like the current one. So, she should be able to emerge with a strong postion to debate the issue with the next Shrub-wanna-be. But the last election proved that knowledge on a particular issue does not count for much, since we all saw Kerry clean the floor with Shrub in the debates while he still lost the general and the electoral election (must have been that "socialist thing" again).

But I really think that John McCain will be the next president. He may be a Republican, but he has character, which shrub has not, and the evengelical right is scared to death of him because he has traditional American principles on his mind, rather than a phony religious agenda. Oh, I'd forgotten, it's called "faith-based" now - how quaint.

 

I actually could bring myself to vote for McCain, and I wouldn't mind him being president. However, I think that his political career is all but over. In 2008, he will be 72 years old. IIRC, that's even older than Reagan was when he ran in 1980. Also, with the huge number of baby boomers who now represent not only a huge number of voters, but a large block of people who are LIKELY to vote, I don't see an non-baby boomer winning the White House for at least another 20 years.

 

Yes, he is certainly growing old. But a week after the election McCain was already visting in New Hampshire. When asked about it being a week, he remarked: "yeah, and someone asked me why I waited so long."

I could easily vote for him over a light-weight Dem. But I would rather see Howard Dean or even Hilary instead in 2008. As has been noted they are somewhat to the left, which is a good thing, IMO. But Hilary is already getting a reputation as quite a "hawk" on defense by some Washington insiders.

But it could be that the economy will be the big issue in 2008. The War on Terror may seem a little thing once Americans see the ruins that Bush will leave the national treasury in. He really believes that it's all HIS money, you know.