2008: Arnold vs. Hillary

[Neon_Chaos]

Hey, it could happen.

If they finally ammend the constitution to allow Arnold to run for President.

[Bomber]

I'm thinking Jeb Bush attempts to extend the Bush Dynasty.

[Neon_Chaos]

Jeb's a weak candidate, IMHO. The stigma of the Florida debacle will forever stick on him like a postit.

[stevew]

I would think that it would take a considerable amount of time to amend the constitiution, because states would have to ratify it. A traditionally democratic state would most likely not vote for this cause it would help the Republicans.

If they are gonna do anything to amend the constitution, they should look to remove the 2 terms or 10 years clause for presidential term limits.

[stevew]

Arnold is the type of canidate that would likely split the republican party.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by Neon_Chaos

Hey, it could happen.

And monkeys might fly out of my butt.

[SunDancer]

Originally Posted by sabotai

And monkeys might fly out of my butt.

[Dutch]

We don't need to change the constitution because Arnold wants to run for President. Just like we don't need to change the constitution so Al Gore could have been president in 2000.

[Joe]

we need to have Condi vs. Hillary in 2008

[MJ4H]

Im hoping for RUDY 08

[Swaggs]

I think Arnold and Rudy could win the general election, but would have trouble getting the Republican bid against a polished conservative nominee.

[JPhillips]

I'm not convinced either Rudy or Arnold could win the general election. I would be shocked if they didn't provoke a challenger from the right in the general election. Having to deal with their own Nader would make it extremely difficult to win.

[Buccaneer]

According to an article in the paper today, many of the Dems strategists and operatives would not allow Clinton to run in 2008. They are thinking (and rightly so) that a Northeast liberal Democrat will not be a successful candidate. The names they are throwing out are Warner, Edwards and Bayh since such a candidate would HAVE to appeal to Southern voters while holding the Midwest.

[GoldenEagle]

McCain for the Repubs in 2008.

[Joe]

won't it be difficult for Edwards to stay in the public mind until then, though?

[Cringer]

hell, i would consider voting for Arnold if he was able to run, that has to mean a lot of Republicans would not like him....

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I'm not convinced either Rudy or Arnold could win the general election. I would be shocked if they didn't provoke a challenger from the right in the general election. Having to deal with their own Nader would make it extremely difficult to win.

I think people are way overreacting to the so-called "right-wing conservative" votes in this past election. It would have been very close to the same results with a more "moderate" candidate because either way, it was going up against an elitist liberal Democrat. In other words, a moderate Rep vs a liberal Dem would still sweep the same Southern, Plains and Western states. Where the results would be different if it were a centrist, charismatic Dem candidate. Look at the polls in 1992 of the "moral" votes where Clinton got much more of those, as well as in 1996.

[Senator]

Some guy who you never heard of but is or will soon be a governor will be a candidate.

[Joe]

Originally Posted by Senator

Some guy who you never heard of but is or will soon be a governor will be a candidate.

Pataki or Pawlenty for the Repubs?

[Peregrine]

McCain - There's a lot of speculation that he may not run in 2008 because he'll be too old. If he does run he'll face a lot of intra-party opposition. He has a lot of baggage from the old days (savings and loan scandal, etc) that could be dredged up, and he's not very popular with the Republican party "machine."

Schwarzenegger - Beyond the Constititional issues, is extremely liberal for a Republican (as some Republican strategists noted during the recall campaign, he's more liberal than Gray Davis on some issues.) Popular but he might be viewed as too much of a loose cannon, just like he is in California. Basically he's rich, powerful, and popular, neither party can put any pressure on him.

Giuliani - I could see him as a Vice Presidential nominee, but maybe not as President. Again, like the others, he's extremely popular but may be viewed as too liberal. I disagree with Bucc's comment in one respect, the outcome may not have been different with a moderate Republican but I think he is ignoring the fact that powerful forces in the Republican party are working against political moderates. They would be hard to appease through Giuliani, who despite his 9/11 popularity, is pro-choice, pro-gun control, etc.

Jeb Bush - I think it's likely he'll make a strong run, he has the Bush family name and has gubernatorial experience. There may be issues from the 2000 election but I don't think people will care too much about that. Plus if he can carry Florida easily coming in that might be reason enough to have him run.

Condi Rice - She may be popular, but no one's going to elect a President who's never held elected office before. If, as many people suggest, the GOP wants to groom her for the future, she should probably try to run for House or Senate ASAP.

[General Mike]

Originally Posted by GoldenEagle

McCain for the Repubs in 2008.

I like McCain and would like to see him make a run for the Presidency but he'll be pushing, if not over, 70 in '08.

[Crapshoot]

I think both parties might support this - the Democrats have their own potential candidate (the Michigan Gov- born in Canada). It seems entirely reasonable- and the reasons behind its initial standing in the constitution seem ridiculous.

[duckman]

Originally Posted by Peregrine

Jeb Bush - I think it's likely he'll make a strong run, he has the Bush family name and has gubernatorial experience. There may be issues from the 2000 election but I don't think people will care too much about that. Plus if he can carry Florida easily coming in that might be reason enough to have him run.

Jeb is a very unlikely candidate due to his wife's troubles. If memory serves me correctly, she was caught writing prescriptions to herself and was forced to give up her medical license to avoid prosecution. The ordeal put a huge dent in his popularity for some time, but he did managed to recover and win re-election. It could be a real possibility that this could hamper him in the general election.

[sterlingice]

If the Dems are stupid enough to run Hillary in 2008...

SI

[Cringer]

i think the question is, how long until Jeb's kid runs for President?

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

I dont think Rudy or Obama will run in '08. Both will probably never do well in a general elections because well of their ethnic names. I hate to say it but most Americans wont pic ''ethnic candidates.''

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by Cringer

i think the question is, how long until Jeb's kid runs for President?

He seems pretty charismatic and I'm sure would procure a huge portion of the Hispanic vote

[stevew]

Republican Senator George Allen from Virginia would make an excellent canidate, although he is pretty conservative. He served as governor for 4 years as well, giving him some executive experience.

IMO John Edwards wont be able to make any inroads in the south for the democrats, and would be a bad choice.

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by George W Bush

Pataki or Pawlenty for the Repubs?

Pawlenty would be good.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

A candidate that willhopefully run for the dems is Harry Reid (Sen-NV). He's in his mid 60's but he is as good a choice as any. Seems that the dems need to groom a starter for 08.

[Danny]

Originally Posted by mckerney

Pawlenty would be good.

Does he have Pawlenty of experience?

[stevew]

Frist of Tennessee(S/TN) could also make a push for the nomination. It will probably depend on how the next few years go in the senate.

[Kodos]

I vote for Bill Maher.

[Sharpieman]

Originally Posted by GoldenEagle

McCain for the Repubs in 2008.

I think he would be a great canidate, I really wish he would run, this is coming from a liberal.

[Sharpieman]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

I think people are way overreacting to the so-called "right-wing conservative" votes in this past election. It would have been very close to the same results with a more "moderate" candidate because either way, it was going up against an elitist liberal Democrat. In other words, a moderate Rep vs a liberal Dem would still sweep the same Southern, Plains and Western states. Where the results would be different if it were a centrist, charismatic Dem candidate. Look at the polls in 1992 of the "moral" votes where Clinton got much more of those, as well as in 1996.

Lol...ELITIST liberal Democrat. If George W. Bush isn't an elitist Republican then I don't know what constitutes elitist.

[JPhillips]

Buc: I'm not sure that analysis is correct. A moderat, really pro-choice and pro-gay unions, candidate facing a challenge from the right, say Sam Brownback, would have lost a lot of votes in Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, and Arizona. They of course would have peeled off some Dem votes, but that may not have offset.

I agree that the "values" voters are getting too much credit this election, after all they didn't vote any more for Bush than four years ago. They do represent a large chunk of the Repub base and losing them to a challenger on the right would make it very difficult to win a general election.

On Rudy, don't forget that he slept around and even had the other woman live with him before he was divorced. He did a good job as mayor of NYC, but his dalliances go beyond what even Clinton did.

[Subby]

There is zero chance that the Democratic party is going to put another northeastern liberal career politician-type out there again. I really think the best approach for the Dems is to find a southerner or midwesterner that has never stepped foot in Washington. Virginia Governor Mark Warner fits the bill there.

John Edwards would probably be a viable candidate if he could do something meaningful in the next four years - although I think his attacking, negative style may have put some people off in the months leading up to the election.

[Subby]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Buc: I'm not sure that analysis is correct. A moderat, really pro-choice and pro-gay unions, candidate facing a challenge from the right, say Sam Brownback, would have lost a lot of votes in Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, and Arizona.

Great Jumpin' Jehosaphat! They have their own unions? Next thing you know they'll want their own bath houses! And that can only lead to....MARRIAGE AND THEN ADOPTION!!!!!

[QuikSand]

Two thoughts...

(1) What are the chances that the GOP nominee in 2008 is pro-choice? Set aside any of the specific individuals who might seem like intriguing candidates, and start your focus here. Is there any meaningful likelihood that the nominee can be anything but pretty aggressively pro-life on abortion?

(2) Yes, we can all probably agree that Hillary Clinton is a polarizing figure. (Though I wonder if this isn't overstated -- how many of the ardent Hillary-haters out there are even open to voting for other Democrats anyway?) And that she has flaws in her political resume that are more visible than those of someone else who might be less...well... visible. But one thing is undeniable -- Hillary is an articulate and intelligent advocate for the causes that the Democratic party is supposedly all about. When she gets up on the stump to speak to people, she is very effective and persuasive -- and that's a really important trait for winning votes among the party faithful, which is how you become a party nominee. I agree that she might be difficult to elect for other reasons, but I judge it to be unlikely that anyone from the D side is going to outshine her in a debate or discussion of whatever issues are on the plate for the next election... and that's not to be ignored.

[Flasch186]

I think that Hillary Clinton (With Bill at her side) is the only person, via energizing speeches and debate that can save the Democratic party. this past election left the party infighting and in shambles without an identity. They cant throw any "reach" candidate out there and have a shot in hell. They'll put Hillary up there and tell the rest of the dem. nominees not to destroy her in the primaries and then throw her up against The plethora of Republican candidates that will ride the Right's wave.

The Rights candidate and the party in general, Im afraid will latch onto this religious movement and expand on that in the next 4 years and thereinafter. Perhaps thats the direction they should go since their base came out in favor of a "moral right." Regardless it limits their choices as well. They wont be able to put out a pro choice candidate, or a candidate not ardently against gay marriage rights. Thus Im not sure Arnold can be their choice (natural born ammendment aside).

[Buccaneer]

Sharpie: That wasn't the point. Dems have portrayed themselves as an Everyman, caring (in words, not deeds) for the little people and here you have a snobby Beacon Hiller trying to reach out to the good-ol-boys of the South, Plains and West.

JP: I have an opinion that it's the same for the Reps as the Dems in that they would vote for the wrong guy in their own party before giving an election to a liberal guy in the other party. The "values" voters can see the lesser of two evils just as well. There have been some rhetoric about 'I would rather vote on principles and lose than vote for...'. I think has been exaggerated.

By the way, when do we start about viable Libertarian candidates?

[Ryan S]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

On Rudy, don't forget that he slept around and even had the other woman live with him before he was divorced. He did a good job as mayor of NYC, but his dalliances go beyond what even Clinton did.

I don't know if Rudy is going to run in 2008, but I think his actions as Mayor of NYC in the days after 9/11 pretty much overshadow any previous controversies. I think it would be very hard for the Democrats to campaign negatively against him without losing a ton of votes.

[Cuckoo]

Does it seem to anyone else like John McCain has been being a really good boy for the last four years? You can almost just see him biting his lip every time he praises Dubya. Makes me wonder if there was a bit of bartering going on.

"Who wants to be the Republican nominee in 2008, Mr. McCain? You? Oh... well... then we need to talk about a few things..."

[Warhammer]

As much as I would like to see the Libertarians as a viable party, I am not sure about their foreign policy, which I consider to be one of the main factors in electing a President.

I think the Libertarians need to concentrate on Congress first, then they can focus on the Big House!

[JPhillips]

Buc: When Libertarian leaning Repubs stop holding their nose and voting for W and start voting for the Libertarian!

Ryan: I'd agree with you if this was 2002, but enough time has passed that he most certainly can be criticized. Remember he had pretty poor approval ratings in the summer of 2001. His marriage/divorce was a major scandal and his political future looked dim. It took 9/11 to send him out on a high note, deservingly so IMO.

A presidential run will leave him open to a lot of attacks about his morality. He'd have a hard time keeping the religious vote mobilized. They may not vote against him, but they may not vote at all. I also think he'd have some problem in middle America when the fact that he kicked his wife out and had his mistress move in gets played daily. My guess is a lot of suburban moms wouldn't be happy with that.

[Warhammer]

A presidential run will leave him open to a lot of attacks about his morality. He'd have a hard time keeping the religious vote mobilized. They may not vote against him, but they may not vote at all. I also think he'd have some problem in middle America when the fact that he kicked his wife out and had his mistress move in gets played daily. My guess is a lot of suburban moms wouldn't be happy with that.

Would that play out any worse than Clinton?

[JPhillips]

Hard to say. Clinton was a uniquely gifted politician. Is Rudy that good? We just don't know at this time.

[Swaggs]

The fact that Rudy is pro-choice, pro-gay rights, and has had some bumps in his family life through the years does not mean he is unelectable, but it does mean he would require a different electorate than the current GOP gameplan calls for. I think a conservative candidate in the GOP primary (such as Bush in 2000) would be able to defeat Giuliani if they choose to attack him.

Buc, I'm curious about the Libertarians, as well. I knew two people I'm friends with and, I believe, 2-3 other people I know through FOFC/OOTP leagues that had planned on voting for Badnarik, but decided on Bush in the last few days. Going into the election, I honestly thought that the polls underestimating Badnarik was going to be a surprise factor that swung the election. I understand he was not the ideal Libertarian, but I was surprised that the concept itself did not garner more of the vote.

[rkmsuf]

I can't believe this is a topic already.

[tategter]

Colin Powell

There is no way he would run, but I would vote for him if he did.