|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Feb 20, 2005 23:10:49 GMT -5
sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/02/20/DEMOS.TMPJust thought I'd post something for my fellow Dems who are out in the wilderness right now and the Republicans on the board who are interested in politics/campaigns. The 2008 campaign has started already on both sides of the aisle. I see McCain and Giuliani as the people to beat on the Republican side at this time and an open field on the left of the spectrum. I am paying very close attention to Gov. Warner in VA because I think he can compete on values, although he has done some things to violate the idea that raising taxes is always wrong, which is an interesting fiscal policy, but always is a political winner. None of the other Democrats excite me at this time. On the Republican side, Giuliani is very beatable in a national campaign (we can discuss reasons for this if people are interested). If McCain wins the nomination, I am willing to bet that it is lights out on the 2008 campaign, unless something happens between now and 2008 that brings the Republicans out of favor. Anyway, discuss...
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Feb 21, 2005 15:20:08 GMT -5
I agree that Guillani is weak nationally, and it seems to me, not really qualified. Going from Mayor to President seems like a big leap, even if it is mayor of NYC. Definately a hurdle he'd have to overcome.
McCain definately seems to be the early favorite, but I wonder if the "base" will support him or find a candidate more to their liking in the next couple of years.
The only thing I have to say about the other side of the aisle is that if Hillary runs, the Republican base won't be a factor, as they'll come out solely to vote against her. I don't think she'd be a good Pres. precisely for that reason-there's way to much animosity towards her from the right. Her term would be a lot like these last two except the Repubs and Dems would be switching spots-one in full attack mode, unwilling to admit even the slightest positive about the Pres., the other in full circle the wagons mode. Not something the country needs for another 4 years.
|
|
nychoya3
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,674
|
Post by nychoya3 on Feb 21, 2005 15:47:55 GMT -5
Just a tad early, doncha think? Bush was an undistiguished governer trading on his family name in 1996. No one was talking president.
Awww...who am I kidding? I love this crap. Rudy and McCain are both huge names (and I actually like McCain, but Rudy is a rat). No way Rudy gets past the religious right in the primaries. Here's a guy who publicly cheated on his wife, lived for a year with a single gay man, is pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, and liberal on most every other social issue out there. He would be absolutely anathema to the evangelical movements that have twice gotten President Bush elected with their staggering turnouts.
Dems...I hope Edwards emerges from the pack. Warner is an interesting politician as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Feb 21, 2005 19:10:34 GMT -5
Just a tad early, doncha think? Bush was an undistiguished governer trading on his family name in 1996. No one was talking president. Awww...who am I kidding? I love this crap. Rudy and McCain are both huge names (and I actually like McCain, but Rudy is a rat). No way Rudy gets past the religious right in the primaries. Here's a guy who publicly cheated on his wife, lived for a year with a single gay man, is pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, and liberal on most every other social issue out there. He would be absolutely anathema to the evangelical movements that have twice gotten President Bush elected with their staggering turnouts. Dems...I hope Edwards emerges from the pack. Warner is an interesting politician as well. It is early, but I am with you. Who cares? This stuff is great. I agree about Rudy and McCain. Rudy has a ton of skeletons in his closet, and I don't think his 9/11 work, which was admirable, can cover it up. Still on the Edwards bandwagon? I liked him to some extent, but he showed poorly on the general election trail. He is going to have trouble in the primaries, especially if its a crowded field for that very reason. I'm going to favor a Warner/Nunn or Warner/Biden ticket at this time. I think Biden's negatives can be buried in the VP slot. |
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,303
|
Post by Cambridge on Feb 22, 2005 16:51:14 GMT -5
Check out the article in New York magazine on Hillary. Very interesting stats. She has the highest ratings in the field in "who would you vote for?" polls nationwide notably beating out McCain (by 1) and Kerry (by a lot). She is a very different politician these days and I've kinda turned the corner on her. Would I vote for her in the primary? No. But would I be horrified, like I would have been before? No. www.newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/politics/national/features/11082/ |
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,303
|
Post by Cambridge on Feb 22, 2005 16:53:32 GMT -5
As a Virginian, I like the idea of Warner, but he doesn't have the star power to beat a McCain or a Jeb Bush or a Giulianni. He's solid, but it's not happening. You need someone with real cache name wise otherwise its just one long comeback to even get competitive.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Feb 22, 2005 17:13:59 GMT -5
As a Virginian, I like the idea of Warner, but he doesn't have the star power to beat a McCain or a Jeb Bush or a Giulianni. He's solid, but it's not happening. You need someone with real cache name wise otherwise its just one long comeback to even get competitive. If that's true, then the Dems are in trouble, b/c they don't have any big names that aren't seriously flawed, such as Hillary. The big names problems are at least equal to the problem of lack of name recognition. Also, name recognition can be built up in the next couple of years for anyone planning on making a run. Also, another name I've heard for the Repubs. is my governor, Tim Pawlenty. I feel like he's a little too inexperienced (and there are too many big names) to make a run at the Presidential nomination, but I wouldn't be surprised to see him as a VP, especially considering that MN is a battleground state now, instead of solidly Democratic. |
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Feb 22, 2005 18:53:57 GMT -5
As a Virginian, I like the idea of Warner, but he doesn't have the star power to beat a McCain or a Jeb Bush or a Giulianni. He's solid, but it's not happening. You need someone with real cache name wise otherwise its just one long comeback to even get competitive. I don't think Jeb Bush will run. Then again, it wouldn't be the first time a Bush has flip-flopped. Name recognition helps, but Jimmy Carter & Bill Clinton? To a lesser extent, Howard Dean? The real key is to start early and often. The electorate doesn't tune in until primary season, although that is minimal at best. |
|
|
|
Post by showcase on Feb 23, 2005 9:53:01 GMT -5
I agree with both TBird and JH34, in that both are important at different times. In an open contest where there is no incumbent, a succesful candidate needs name recognition to distinguish himself from the pack.
On the other hand, it's my opinion that the Presidency is more and more about personality and less and less about resume or name recognition per se. Dubya won in 2000 because he was less dislikable. Clinton won in '92 because people believed he could 'feel [their] pain' (and 'cause Perot was running).
My feeling at this point is that the Dems need to put forward someone with the right people skills and a resume that will make him acceptable in the South. If he can talk a good game, I believe he will pass muster with the majority of people in most states elsewhere in the Union. But in the South, it's my impression (after 5+ years here) is that people look to see which candidate can be a "leader" first, and that they then consider the candidate's platform in that context.
Obviously, that's a gross exaggeration, and there are plenty of people whose allegiance is dictated by charisma first elsewhere in the country. It's just that it seems like there's a more significant segment of such people here in the South.
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,303
|
Post by Cambridge on Feb 23, 2005 11:27:55 GMT -5
I think the checklist is as follows:
1) Governor -- senators have a pretty dismal record of winning Presidential elections, too many votes that can be brought up to tarnish or question stances on issues
2) Regionality -- need a leg up here, so preferably from a stereotypically red state
3) Personality & Charisma-- nothing can seem "crafted" about this person, they must have their own identity
4) Name Recognition -- to take on a Giuliani or McCain they need to have people know who they are already. Not only that, but this is the key to fund raising. Without a big name, they will be behind in the money dept from the get go. This is where Hillary really has an advantage because she has the foot soldiers, celebrity and network to raise a record amount of cash.
5) Moderate "reformer" -- has to have a pragmatic reputation (cannot be labelled a MA liberal) but firm ideas on how to change things for the better without being dogmatic
6) Public Presence -- has to be able to deliver the goods in speeches and appearances
I'm not sure if anyone really fulfills most of these, but I think these are the keys.
|
|
|
|
Post by WilsonBlvdHoya on Feb 23, 2005 12:16:18 GMT -5
I think the checklist is as follows: 1) Governor -- senators have a pretty dismal record of winning Presidential elections, too many votes that can be brought up to tarnish or question stances on issues 2) Regionality -- need a leg up here, so preferably from a stereotypically red state 3) Personality & Charisma-- nothing can seem "crafted" about this person, they must have their own identity 4) Name Recognition -- to take on a Giuliani or McCain they need to have people know who they are already. Not only that, but this is the key to fund raising. Without a big name, they will be behind in the money dept from the get go. This is where Hillary really has an advantage because she has the foot soldiers, celebrity and network to raise a record amount of cash. 5) Moderate "reformer" -- has to have a pragmatic reputation (cannot be labelled a MA liberal) but firm ideas on how to change things for the better without being dogmatic 6) Public Presence -- has to be able to deliver the goods in speeches and appearances I'm not sure if anyone really fulfills most of these, but I think these are the keys. Warner does reasonably well on all of these; he needs to work on 3,4 and 6. And as for 2, he is governor of a southern state but he's originally from the north. This Virginia resident thinks he's got a shot. I don't buy the NY polls; Hillary may have done a great job modifying her image in NYC, Albany and upstate but her national baggage cannot be underestimated!! Of course, what do I know--I thought Kerry would surely beat "All Hat, No Cattle" but he ended up performing a marvelous Dukakis imitation...... |
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,303
|
Post by Cambridge on Feb 23, 2005 14:13:52 GMT -5
I agree that Warner fulfills many of my criteria. I guess I'm just worried, because Virginia is VERY split over him. He basically rode into office on the support of Northern Virginia despite heavy opposition in coastal (READ Military) and rural VA...makes me wonder about his national chances. Looking even further forward (2012/2016)...I love the idea of Warner as it would certainly open up a bunch of opportunities for a my favorite future candidate and a good family friend (shameless plug) -- former mayor of Richmond and current Lt. Gov. Tim Kaine. I will put money on him as a future candidate. He will end up as governor after Warner. He is very charismatic, southern and has a bio to die for... www.ltgov.virginia.gov/NEWLtGov/abouttim.cfm |
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Feb 23, 2005 15:11:44 GMT -5
I agree that Warner fulfills many of my criteria. I guess I'm just worried, because Virginia is VERY split over him. He basically rode into office on the support of Northern Virginia despite heavy opposition in coastal (READ Military) and rural VA...makes me wonder about his national chances. FWIW, Warner is currently polling ahead of Sen. Allen in a race for the Senate. That is nothing to discount considering Allen's own popularity and possible '08 aspirations. |
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,303
|
Post by Cambridge on Feb 23, 2005 15:51:52 GMT -5
True, very true indeed.
Funny that Allen was often viewed as an outsider by the Virginia bluebloods when he ran for Gov. He was born in California and ironically he often campaigned in the early days in cowboy boots. That might seem apropos these days --with the cowboy ethos of the current ruling party-- but at the time it rustled quite a few feathers and he stopped after a polite word or two was whispered to him on the sly.
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,754
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Feb 23, 2005 20:22:38 GMT -5
2008 marks the first election cycle in 56 years where there is no sitting president or VP running for office. Both sides would do well to pick new people and not just the same old folks.
Here 's a Democratic name that gets some buzz ourtside the Beltway: Bill Richardson. A former Congressman, a former Cabinet secretary, a former U.N. diplomat, currently the Governor of New Mexico. Has a foreign service education (at Tufts, not Georgetown) and knows who the good guys and the bad guys are out there in world affairs.
More a progressive than a liberal, he would be the first Hispanic nominee from either political party... at least until George P. Bush runs in a few years.
And as for the Republicans, look to folks like a Mitt Romney, Bill Owens, or Bill Frist , but no more names from the past.
|
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Feb 23, 2005 21:43:08 GMT -5
2008 marks the first election cycle in 56 years where there is no sitting president or VP running for office. Both sides would do well to pick new people and not just the same old folks. Here 's a Democratic name that gets some buzz ourtside the Beltway: Bill Richardson. A former Congressman, a former Cabinet secretary, a former U.N. diplomat, currently the Governor of New Mexico. Has a foreign service education (at Tufts, not Georgetown) and knows who the good guys and the bad guys are out there in world affairs. More a progressive than a liberal, he would be the first Hispanic nominee from either political party... at least until George P. Bush runs in a few years. And as for the Republicans, look to folks like a Mitt Romney, Bill Owens, or Bill Frist , but no more names from the past. I liked Richardson as a VP candidate in 2004 and voted as such in a thread that I started. I liked him there because he has a reputation for being a good "hatchet man." While he has an impressive set of credentials for the top job, I don't think he could get past the image of his partisanship in a race for the presidency. Another issue here is that his resume may not have bipartisan appeal. Many Republicans do not care for the UN or "diplomats," although it may come as a breath of fresh air to my fellow blue staters. For the Republicans, I do not see Romney as viable simply because of partisan prejudices regarding Massachusetts. I don't know much about Owens, and I think Frist will be too tied to the thorn in Dubya's side, which is the US Senate. When all is said and done, the greatest challenge to McCain and Giuliani is the presence of too many moderates in the race. They'll split that vote and leave the door open to Sam Brownback or a like-minded individual. |
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Mar 2, 2005 22:40:48 GMT -5
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Apr 7, 2005 12:55:40 GMT -5
Look for George Allen (VA) to be running. A former governor and current senator. He may have to beat Warner for the Senate to make his case. Has more charisma than Warner but Warner is pretty popular as a governor.
|
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Apr 7, 2005 13:48:58 GMT -5
I've seen Allen's name thrown around as well. He did a good job for the Republican's national senate organization. Sam Brownback is another name that keeps coming up, and he'd most likely represent folks in the Republican wing of the Republican Party, if you get my drift.
|
|
TigerHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,808
|
Post by TigerHoya on Apr 9, 2005 21:53:35 GMT -5
SC Gov. Mark Sanford (R) has supposedly downplayed the chances he might run in '08 but that means little since he's trying to run for gubernatorial re-election in '06.
I also heard over the past few days of an allegedly Machiavellian machination that would put Thomas or Scalia as Chief Justice and then Bill Clinton as Associate Justice appointed by Bush in an attempt to hurt Hillary's Presidential chances.
|
|
