POLL: Looking Ahead to 2008

Remove all ads!

Who do you think the nominees will be in 2008? Remember that Bush cannot run for a 3rd term, and Cheney has already stated he will not run for president. Also, it is extremely for a canidate to lose an election and then run again. As a result, I have not included Kerry in the poll. So, I'm listing the likely suspects from both sides. Feel free to add one of your own if you think he/she is likely.

Poll Information
This poll contains 2 question(s). 36 user(s) have voted.
You may not view the results of this poll without voting.

Poll Results: Looking Ahead to 2008 (36 votes.)

Who will be the Republican (conservative) canidate? (Choose 1)
* Frist - 6% (2)
* Gulliani - 56% (20)
* McCain - 39% (14)

Who will be the Democratic (liberal) canidate? (Choose 1)
* Clinton (Hillary, not Bill) - 61% (22)
* Edwards - 17% (6)
* Dean - 14% (5)
* Biden - 6% (2)
* Obama - 3% (1)

 

Who is Frist? You are quite optimistic if you think McCain or Guiliani would ever be on a republican ballot, no way, they are way too moderate.

I sadly think it will be Jeb Bush, you are seeing the start of a dynasty. The democratic nominee will be some unknown lap dog but seeing as the democratic party will be so marginalized in four years it doesnt really matter.

It would be nice if Oboma had created a sufficient power base to run. Not that I know much of the man but every American seems to drool and scream out in pure pleasure by the sheer mention of his name.

 

@ dmc

Who do you think will run in that case?

The Republicans will be in charge for a while, but I truly believe in the next 10 years it will be they, and not the Democrats who will have to redefine the party. It is no understatement to say that the Republicans represent white, Christian America as their power base. It is a base that shrinks a little bit more every year, with the growth of minority groups, most notably Hispanics. Within 10 years I believe that minorities will represent enough of a group in the country to really have the Republicans on the ropes. Honestly, there are enough of them already, but with turnout rates for voting about 30% for those groups, they aren't showing up at the polls in large enough numbers yet.

My personal belief is that we will see the southwestern US be the first to start favoring the Democratic party, with it spreading to places like Missouri, Arkansas, and Iowa. The only places I see remaining firmly in Republican command for years to come is the deep south (with the exception of Florida and thier large Latino population). I can't see anything making Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and the Carolinas turn Democrat any time soon.

@ joacqin

Frist is the Republican Congressional Leader. Seems like the most likely choice to me. Jeb Bush is a possibility that should have been included.

There are really problems with all of these canidates. Hillary Clinton lacks a Y Chromosome. Edwards didn't really do anything in this campaign. Dean and Biden may be too far to the left. Oboma may be too inexperienced, and the fact that he's biracial may play against him too. Joacqin is right in saying that everyone is salivating over him in the Democratic party, but he is a relative newcomer and has accomplished very little up to this point. Of those five choices, I don't really see a "safe" option there.

For the Republicans, McCain and Guliani may both be too old. McCain will be 72 in 2008, and Guliani has to be right around the same age as well. Jeb Bush might get the nod based on name alone, and Frist as joacqin points out (albeit inadvertently) is relatively unknown. The "safe" picks for the Republicans would be Bush or Frist. McCain is more of a centrist, but depending on what the political atmosphere is a few years from now, the country may look more towards a centrist.

 

I don't think the Republicans would dare to nominate Jeb Bush. It would carry the dynasty thing too far and it would backfire on them.

 

To add my 2 cents: I don't necessarily think that a female president is out of the question. There has already been a female VP candidate, and IIRC her gender wasn't at all the major factor in the defeat of that ticket. The reasons for her unelectability, I think, are only partially tied to her gender, to the extent that she was portrayed for 8 years by the right as Clinton's Lady MacBeth. While Bill, like W, seemed to always outlast his challengers through charisma and likeability, Hillary doesn't have these skills. She's totally electable as a senator from New York, but in most of the country she would be radioactive, and you simply have to talk to a random conservative to see the near visceral hatred she would elicit in the red states.

Giuliani has a snowball's chance in hell of getting the nomination. Sure, he seemed leader-like on his post-9/11 tv spots, but he's otherwise a thoroughly unpleasant guy with a rather spotty tabloid-smeared past: fine as a law and order mayor, but not ready for primetime.

I thought Frist for the Repub (though Jeb should have been surveyed): he looks like a statesman, he's old money (the Princeton student center is named after his family), he plays well to conservatives and the south, and he's being groomed for it in his leadership role in the legislature. McCain has been turned into an almost symbolic, mythic figure, consulted like an oracle, but he's considered too much of a loose cannon for the Repubs to be comfortable.

I took Obama for the Dems, but 2008 is probably far to early for him. At the level of his political career, Edwards probably lost any chance he might have had to become president at a later date by running as a VP this time around, as many Americans now think of him as the Breck girl.

Even if the Iraq war totally blows up in our faces, Dean won't really have a chance, as, typically, no one will want to remember that he told as so.

What about Gephardt? Probably would have guessed him for the Dem ticket at this stage...

[ November 04, 2004, 20:50: Message edited by: Bion ]

 

A female president is most definitely out of the question. You wouldn't believe the number of people I've spoken with here in CALIFORNIA who have said flat out they would never vote for a woman.

That's California. Southern. Y'know, one of the most liberal areas in the country?

 

You're talking about Mondale and Ferraro in 1984. You're right about Ferraro - her gender wasn't a major factor. But then again, Mondale wasn't a major factor in that election either. That was the year Reagan got elected to a second term - it was a landslide with Reagan winning 49 out of the 50 states.

I did not include Gephardt because he got creamed in the primaries for this election. He did not run for re-election into Congress, and I think it's a safe bet that his political career is over.

 

Obama says forget it

"I'm going to be spending the first several months of my career in the U.S. Senate looking for the washroom and trying to figure out how the phones work."

I like him already.

And now for my David-Letterman-hosting-the-Oscars impression:
Obama, Osama. Osama, Obama.

 

Well, certainly (and unfortunately) gender is a factor for many people. The anger against Hillary in some quarters is, however, way above and beyond her gender alone. Listen to Limbaugh sometime: Hillary is maybe one step below Satan. This is partially resentment of strong women (and preference for the demure Laura Bush stay-at-home type), partially Hillary's rather abrasive manner and mercenary reputation (she is a lawyer afterall), and partially years and years of constant rightwing attack. So she's radioactive in the red states.

 

Giuliani vs Clinton seems the most likely combination as of now, but things will undoubtedly change.

 

We may see a big change...think Schwartzenegger....

 

How about Georgie re-writing the constitution and going for another term?

 

Wait: they'll argue that FDR did it during WW2. And hey, the War on Terror is *way* more scary than that old war!

 

Jeb Bush said that he is not interested but he does have 4 years to change his mind...

This is from big M.Moore:

Dear Friends,

Ok, it sucks. Really sucks. But before you go and cash it all in, let's, in
the words of Monty Python, 'always look on the bright side of life!' There
IS some good news from Tuesday's election.

Here are 17 reasons not to slit your wrists:

1. It is against the law for George W. Bush to run for president again.

2. Bush's victory was the NARROWEST win for a sitting president since
Woodrow Wilson in 1916.

3. The only age group in which the majority voted for Kerry was young adults
(Kerry: 54%, Bush: 44%), proving once again that your parents are always
wrong and you should never listen to them.

4. In spite of Bush's win, the majority of Americans still think the
country is headed in the wrong direction (56%), think the war wasn't worth fighting (51%), and don't approve of the job George W. Bush is doing (52%). (Note to foreigners: Don't try to figure this one out. It's an American thing, like Pop Tarts.)

5. The Republicans will not have a filibuster-proof 60-seat majority in the
Senate. If the Democrats do their job, Bush won't be able to pack the
Supreme Court with right-wing ideologues. Did I say "if the Democrats do
their job?" Um, maybe better to scratch this one.

6. Michigan voted for Kerry! So did the entire Northeast, the birthplace of
our democracy. So did 6 of the 8 Great Lakes States. And the whole West
Coast! Plus Hawaii. Ok, that's a start. We've got most of the fresh water,
all of Broadway, and Mt. St. Helens. We can dehydrate them or bury them in
lava. And no more show tunes!

7. Once again we are reminded that the buckeye is a nut, and not just any
old nut -- a poisonous nut. A great nation was felled by a poisonous nut.
May Ohio State pay dearly this Saturday when it faces Michigan.

8. 88% of Bush's support came from white voters. In 50 years, America will
no longer have a white majority. Hey, 50 years isn't such a long time! If
you're ten years old and reading this, your golden years will be truly
golden and you will be well cared for in your old age.

9. Gays, thanks to the ballot measures passed on Tuesday, cannot get married
in 11 new states. Thank God. Just think of all those wedding gifts we won't
have to buy now.

10. Five more African Americans were elected as members of Congress,
including the return of Cynthia McKinney of Georgia. It's always good to
have more blacks in there fighting for us and doing the job our candidates
can't.

11. The CEO of Coors was defeated for Senate in Colorado. Drink up!

12. Admit it: We like the Bush twins and we don't want them to go away.

13. At the state legislative level, Democrats picked up a net of at least 3
chambers in Tuesday's elections. Of the 98 partisan-controlled state
legislative chambers (house/assembly and senate), Democrats went into the
2004 elections in control of 44 chambers, Republicans controlled 53
chambers, and 1 chamber was tied. After Tuesday, Democrats now control 47
chambers, Republicans control 49 chambers, 1 chamber is tied and 1 chamber
(Montana House) is still undecided.

14. Bush is now a lame duck president. He will have no greater moment than
the one he's having this week. It's all downhill for him from here on out --
and, more significantly, he's just not going to want to do all the hard work
that will be expected of him. It'll be like everyone's last month in 12th
grade -- you've already made it, so it's party time! Perhaps he'll treat the
next four years like a permanent Friday, spending even more time at the
ranch or in Kennebunkport. And why shouldn't he? He's already proved his
point, avenged his father and kicked our ass.

15. Should Bush decide to show up to work and take this country down a very
dark road, it is also just as likely that either of the following two
scenarios will happen: a) Now that he doesn't ever need to pander to the
Christian conservatives again to get elected, someone may whisper in his ear
that he should spend these last four years building "a legacy" so that
history will render a kinder verdict on him and thus he will not push for
too aggressive a right-wing agenda; or b) He will become so cocky and
arrogant -- and thus, reckless -- that he will commit a blunder of such
major proportions that even his own party will have to remove him from
office.

16. There are nearly 300 million Americans -- 200 million of them of voting
age. We only lost by three and a half million! That's not a landslide -- it
means we're almost there. Imagine losing by 20 million. If you had 58 yards
to go before you reached the goal line and then you barreled down 55 of
those yards, would you stop on the three yard line, pick up the ball and go
home crying -- especially when you get to start the next down on the three
yard line? Of course not! Buck up! Have hope! More sports analogies are
coming!!!

17. Finally and most importantly, over 55 million Americans voted for the
candidate dubbed "The #1 Liberal in the Senate." That's more than the total
number of voters who voted for either Reagan, Bush I, Clinton or Gore.
Again, more people voted for Kerry than Reagan. If the media are looking for
a trend it should be this -- that so many Americans were, for the first time
since Kennedy, willing to vote for an out-and-out liberal. The country has
always been filled with evangelicals -- that is not news. What IS news is
that so many people have shifted toward a Massachusetts liberal. In fact,
that's BIG news. Which means, don't expect the mainstream media, the ones
who brought you the Iraq War, to ever report the real truth about November
2, 2004. In fact, it's better that they don't. We'll need the element of
surprise in 2008.

Feeling better? I hope so. As my friend Mort wrote me yesterday, "My
Romanian grandfather used to say to me, 'Remember, Morton, this is such a
wonderful country -- it doesn't even need a president!'"

 

In order to amend the Constitution, you need to do two things:

1. Get a 2/3 majority in both the House of Representatives and the Senate.

2. Have the amendment ratified by 3/4 of the states.

Seeing as how the Republicans do not have a 2/3 majority in either the House or Senate, and seeing as how 3/4 of the states aren't Republican leaning, there's no way that the amendment is going to happen.

That was completely different, because at the time there was no Constitutional amendment stating that a president could not serve more than two terms. It was the very fact that FDR was elected to four consecutive terms that the amendment was passed to limit future presidents to a maximum of two terms. Before that amendment was passed, there was no requirement to only served two, but all the other presidents followed the example set by Washington, who served only two terms.

 

Yeah. My birthday then will of course be less great, since I'll turn 22 then. A pity.
As for the new president. Thank the gods for competence in WWE.