Who will run in 2008???

crdean1

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Feb 14, 2005
675
1
Texas
I know that many of you on these boards don't like Bush and didn't necessarily like Kerry either.

1. Who do you think will run in 2008?

Possible D List: http://www.politics1.com/p2008-dems.htm
Possible R List: http://www.politics1.com/p2008-gop.htm

2. Who would you like to see run?

Me? Condi & Hillary!

CRD
______________________________________________
FYI - I looked for a thread like this and didn't find anything. Please delete this and point me in the right direction if there is one already.
 

solvs

macrumors 603
Jun 25, 2002
5,693
1
LaLaLand, CA
crdean1 said:
Condi & Hillary!
The only people who want Hillary to run are Neocons. The Libs would never elect her because she could never win. Same with Condi. Though the real reasons are a lot sadder than that. Since I don't like either of them, and it has nothing to do with their gender or race, I'd rather move to Canada. If it came down to the 2 of them, I'd rather move to Iraq.

Some moderate, but boring Dem who probably sucks and some holier than thou Repub. A douche bag and a crap sandwich. Yay Democracy.
 

Xtremehkr

macrumors 68000
Jul 4, 2004
1,897
0
I think Hillary could win. The only reason Democrats have doubted her is because the conservatives have been so vehement about her. But, if you don't consider what they are saying, she doesn't sounds half bad.

I have a feeling Kerry and Edwards may run again, maybe even Gore.

I don't know if Condi realistically has a chance, she is just presented as a foil for Hillary. Hillary at least has Bill on her side.
 

crdean1

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Feb 14, 2005
675
1
Texas
Hillary has gotten everywhere because of Bill, partner at her firm, first lady, arguably senator.

Condi has gotten everywhere on her own.

I don't think that is who will run, but I would like to see them run. I don't necessarily agree with either one on some issues. I agree that with what we have to choose from, I may move to Canada as well.
 

Sayhey

macrumors 68000
May 22, 2003
1,690
2
San Francisco
crdean1 said:
Hillary has gotten everywhere because of Bill, partner at her firm, first lady, arguably senator.

Condi has gotten everywhere on her own.

I don't think that is who will run, but I would like to see them run. I don't necessarily agree with either one on some issues. I agree that with what we have to choose from, I may move to Canada as well.
Of course one could look at it from the perspective that Bill got everywhere he did with the help of Hillary and Condi only got where she did with the help of the Bush family.

I don't think this will be the matchup either - Condi is not going to run. Her role in 9-11 screw ups make her too vulnerable. It will be McCain or some one with the blessing of the religious right (Brownback, Allen, etc.) for the GOP.
 

Sun Baked

macrumors G5
May 19, 2002
14,874
57
Sayhey said:
It will be McCain or some one with the blessing of the religious right (Brownback, Allen, etc.) for the GOP.
All depends on how much McCain pisses off his own party over the next couple years.
 

yg17

macrumors G5
Aug 1, 2004
14,888
2,480
St. Louis, MO
While I would never vote for McCain (Unless someone like Al Sharpton won the Dem primaries, but that would never happen, so....), I still hope he gets the GOP nomination. Because if unfortunatley a Dem lost the presidental election, I could tolerate McCain as president, unlike some of the other republicants who may run.
 

atszyman

macrumors 68020
Sep 16, 2003
2,442
1
The Dallas 'burbs
Sun Baked said:
All depends on how much McCain pisses off his own party over the next couple years.
Which could actually be a good thing. If Bush keeps on with his current track record/approval trend, the Republicans are going to need to run someone who can distance themselves from Bush or risk a landslide defeat. If McCain keeps it up he might be their only choice in 2008 because of his opposition.
 

mactastic

macrumors 68040
Apr 24, 2003
3,647
661
Colly-fornia
I'd like to see Russ Feingold against Rick Santorum.

Or Wes Clark against Sam Brownback

Or a dead cat against Bill Frist.

Or Rush Limbaugh versus a bottle of OxyContin

Or Madonna against Brittany Spears.... oh wait this isn't Celebrity Deathmatch.
 

jelloshotsrule

macrumors G3
Feb 7, 2002
9,591
3
serendipity
scem0 said:
It's all about Dennis Kuccinich.

_Emerson
he will never win. why? he's too honest and awesome

saw the last half of his speech at the green festival a few weeks ago. damn he was inspiring. he described himself as a "green democrat", trying to change the party from within. he was getting people fired up (admittedly, these people are already the activist type) and talking about how important involvement at the local level is... very cool

one time i had to deliver a letter from ralph to dennis at the house building where his office is.... needless to say, dumpy looking me was denied by security twice because i said i had a delivery and they don't accept deliveries... meanwhile any old person can enter there for tours, etc. it pissed me off, and i had to call down someone in the office to come get it. i felt dumb.


looking over that list of dem hopefuls, i am frightened. edwards would be ok, but he's still too corporate, too pro war, too globalizing for me. dean is a bit of a phony to me (having sold out his strong opposition to the corporate dems, only to staunchly and blindly support them later). gore has been awesome lately, and i'd get excited to see him run. assuming he maintained that inspiration and passion that he lost in his tenure as senator/vp/pres candidate. hillary doesn't do much for me. she's great on some things, but then still wastes time on dumb **** like video game ratings, etc. lieberman... goodness, may as well elect a republican. wes clark- felt ok about him at one point, but have since been scared off him a bit. hmm... why is al sharpton bad exactly? sure, he's a bit hard to take seriously because he's always making jokes and comments that are harsher and more truthful than most candidates trying to sell themselves would really say. but i love that he stands up for what he believes in. if kerry, gore, etc. got as passionate as sharpton is when they were running, things might be different. edwards is pretty good in that respect, i just disagree with many of his views..

blah
 

IJ Reilly

macrumors P6
Jul 16, 2002
17,915
1,466
Palookaville
mactastic said:
I'd like to see Russ Feingold against Rick Santorum.

Or Wes Clark against Sam Brownback

Or a dead cat against Bill Frist.

Or Rush Limbaugh versus a bottle of OxyContin

Or Madonna against Brittany Spears.... oh wait this isn't Celebrity Deathmatch.
"Dead Cat for President"

I'm on board!

The Republican party will never nominate John McCain. It's statistically impossible. The party leadership has pretty well fixed the match in favor of a social conservative. And considering his advancing age, I question whether McCain would even run.

The Democrats could nominate Hillary Clinton, but I hope to hell they don't. I no more want a second president named Clinton than I wanted a second one named Bush. Look to the statehouses -- this is where some of the strongest national candidates often come from. Bill Richardson is a name that keeps popping up on the D-side.

The dynamics of the 2008 presidential election will be strongly influenced by the results of next year's midterm election. If the Republicans take a drubbing, a number of the currently anointed in the party will fall rapidly from grace.
 

Nickygoat

macrumors 6502a
Dec 11, 2004
992
0
London
solvs said:
The only people who want Hillary to run are Neocons. The Libs would never elect her because she could never win. Same with Condi. Though the real reasons are a lot sadder than that. Since I don't like either of them, and it has nothing to do with their gender or race, I'd rather move to Canada. If it came down to the 2 of them, I'd rather move to Iraq.

Some moderate, but boring Dem who probably sucks and some holier than thou Repub. A douche bag and a crap sandwich. Yay Democracy.
Why could neither of them win? Obviously not against each other - one would have to win :p - but alone?
The UK Sunday Times has an interesting article about it. Basically saying that Condi would prefer a VP slot in 2008, meaning a hard right Presidential candidate.
I'm not too hot on US politics so any explanation would be welcome :D
 

IJ Reilly

macrumors P6
Jul 16, 2002
17,915
1,466
Palookaville
Nickygoat said:
Why could neither of them win? Obviously not against each other - one would have to win :p - but alone?
The UK Sunday Times has an interesting article about it. Basically saying that Condi would prefer a VP slot in 2008, meaning a hard right Presidential candidate.
I'm not too hot on US politics so any explanation would be welcome :D
Too much baggage, for both of them. Further, Rice is actually a quite poor public speaker. Dull, grating, with an obvious edge of unease. As for Hillary Clinton, she's becoming a formidable politician, but the number of people who just plain hate the Clintons is legion. As you can see from these boards, the main advocates for her nomination are Republicans, who'd love to run an election against Monica Lewinsky.
 

Nickygoat

macrumors 6502a
Dec 11, 2004
992
0
London
IJ Reilly said:
Too much baggage, for both of them. Further, Rice is actually a quite poor public speaker. Dull, grating, with an obvious edge of unease. As for Hillary Clinton, she's becoming a formidable politician, but the number of people who just plain hate the Clintons is legion. As you can see from these boards, the main advocates for her nomination are Republicans, who'd love to run an election against Monica Lewinsky.
Granted they have too much baggage but don't the others on crdean1's list? Joe Biden will be 65 in 2008, Evan Bayh seems too closely aligned to the Clintons, Wes Clark (at least from this side of the pond) a bit wishy washy, Feingold seems to have shot himself in the foot and who would vote for Kerry again?
As for the GOP - Guiliani is too much of a lefty (is he?), Gingrich is a busted flush and most seem too "religious right" - does that leave McCain (too old?), Mitt Romney (from previous threads on here just plain loony :p ) and Bill Frist - the name rings a bell but I can't pin him down to anything.
Not endorsing any of them but I am curious. I know it's far too early to be serious about this but I'd still like to know.
 

leekohler

macrumors G5
Dec 22, 2004
14,162
19
Chicago, Illinois
solvs said:
The only people who want Hillary to run are Neocons. The Libs would never elect her because she could never win. Same with Condi. Though the real reasons are a lot sadder than that. Since I don't like either of them, and it has nothing to do with their gender or race, I'd rather move to Canada. If it came down to the 2 of them, I'd rather move to Iraq.

Some moderate, but boring Dem who probably sucks and some holier than thou Repub. A douche bag and a crap sandwich. Yay Democracy.
I'm with you on this one. Who really wants a leader anyway? What America really seems to want is a dictator. So much easier when someone tells you what to do. That way, you don't have to think! ;)
 

IJ Reilly

macrumors P6
Jul 16, 2002
17,915
1,466
Palookaville
Nickygoat said:
Granted they have too much baggage but don't the others on crdean1's list? Joe Biden will be 65 in 2008, Evan Bayh seems too closely aligned to the Clintons, Wes Clark (at least from this side of the pond) a bit wishy washy, Feingold seems to have shot himself in the foot and who would vote for Kerry again?
As for the GOP - Guiliani is too much of a lefty (is he?), Gingrich is a busted flush and most seem too "religious right" - does that leave McCain (too old?), Mitt Romney (from previous threads on here just plain loony :p ) and Bill Frist - the name rings a bell but I can't pin him down to anything.
Not endorsing any of them but I am curious. I know it's far too early to be serious about this but I'd still like to know.
We shouldn't get too obsessed with the familiar names. As you say, this thing is still a long way off, and a great deal can and probably will happen between now and then, not the least of which is the midterm election, which could change the political landscape considerably if the Democrats manage to gain some ground in Congress. Most of the really interesting candidates tend to come from the wings. Nobody would have handicapped Bill Clinton as a winner before the 1992 primaries.

I can't see either McCain or Guiliani surviving a Republican primary. Neither will satisfy social conservatives and they pretty much own the party now.

Don't know if you're kidding about Frist but he's the majority leader in the Senate. I think he's a dead letter. He's carrying more baggage than a Pullman porter.
 

yg17

macrumors G5
Aug 1, 2004
14,888
2,480
St. Louis, MO
Nickygoat said:
Why could neither of them win? Obviously not against each other - one would have to win :p - but alone?
The UK Sunday Times has an interesting article about it. Basically saying that Condi would prefer a VP slot in 2008, meaning a hard right Presidential candidate.
I'm not too hot on US politics so any explanation would be welcome :D

If it came down to Hillary v.s. Condi, then Nader would have a chance.

It's the sad truth that there are many male chauvanist pigs who would not let a woman be president, and they'd vote for Nader just because he's a male, even if he is the complete opposite of them politically. Sad but true :(
 

Nickygoat

macrumors 6502a
Dec 11, 2004
992
0
London
IJ Reilly said:
We shouldn't get too obsessed with the familiar names. As you say, this thing is still a long way off, and a great deal can and probably will happen between now and then, not the least of which is the midterm election, which could change the political landscape considerably if the Democrats manage to gain some ground in Congress. Most of the really interesting candidates tend to come from the wings. Nobody would have handicapped Bill Clinton as a winner before the 1992 primaries.

I can't see either McCain or Guiliani surviving a Republican primary. Neither will satisfy social conservatives and they pretty much own the party now.

Don't know if you're kidding about Frist but he's the majority leader in the Senate. I think he's a dead letter. He's carrying more baggage than a Pullman porter.
No I wasn't kidding about Frist - just saying that I've read nothing about him that I can place
yg17 said:
It's the sad truth that there are many male chauvanist pigs who would not let a woman be president, and they'd vote for Nader just because he's a male, even if he is the complete opposite of them politically. Sad but true
Females make more than 50% of the voting population so why should chauvinism be a factor? Still idly curious :p
 

Lyle

macrumors 68000
Jun 11, 2003
1,874
0
Madison, Alabama
Nickygoat said:
Females make more than 50% of the voting population so why should chauvinism be a factor?
Don't assume that women would vote in a bloc for a female candidate. I suspect that there are a large number of female chauvinist pigs who aren't ready for a female U.S. president either.

And I agree with IJ; it's a little too early to make predictions about likely candidates for 2008, given the expectations for the 2006 elections. There are some clear divisions emerging in the Republican party (see: the Harriet Miers nomination) and if Democrats indeed win big in 2006, things will get even more shaken up.