Talk Elections

Until we get a good few years into the next....(expletive)...Bush presidency, Atlas Forum will not have a 2008 board for a while. Now- let's be realistic. Both Dems and Reps will have to field a fresh new candidate in 4 years time....with the motion set in just 3 years time. Who will run, who do you want to run? And what about independents? My signature picture gives my choice away...:)

I want a very popular and well known business man, perferrably on an independent or 3rd party ticket.  I haven't scouted out the field yet, but I have some ideas (and no, not Donald Trump or Bill Gates).  We need someone with proven business experience, especially in the executive levels, to streamline our nation and make it extremely competitive in the global market.  This includes cutting unnecessary expenses as well as boosting our income (foreign investments).

I say I want him/her on the independent or 3rd party ticket just so he/she won't be a part of the typical partisan BS that goes on. 

Yeesh...a little early, eh?  I remember right after Al Gore conceded in 2000 that commentators immediately began talking about who was going to run in 2004.  John Kerry was nowhere on their radars.

This is important for the Libertarian and the other 3rd parties.  They must start forming and advertising by June 2005 if they are to get some serious coverage in 2008.

Add onto that the fact that all the 3rd parties need to combine together and petition for campaign reform to allow the dominant 3rd parties access to and consideration for the 2008 campaign events/coverage.

Fielding some good candidates for the House in 2006 would help immensely.  Even if your men don't win, if they are competitive they'll bring the Libertarians coverage.

There are days where I consider signing up as a Libertarian (even though they do not match my ideals) just to increase their "base" so they have more muscle to force themselves into the 2-party dominated environment.  My cousin has, and campaigns in NC as a Libertarian (though he has yet to win).

Well, I pegged Craig Benson for '08, but he pulled a Barnes and lost.

So,

Pawlenty-Rounds '08!

() ()

I've looked into Pawlenty a bit and he seems alright. I don't think he'll run though.

LIKELY RUNNERS

George Pataki
Rudy Giuliani
Mitt Romney

TICKET I WANT::::

Giuliani/Rice

I have to admit, the Republicans may field a conservtive governor from Massachusettes for 2008...Mitt Romney looks quite appealing.

I would also add Rudy Giuliani, George Pataki and Chuck Hagel also look to be formidable.

What will be so exciting is the open primaries at the same time.  No incumbents, even playing field and no 'Rose Garden' Strategy.

I have to say, from the way things look now, the Republicans have a much stronger field of candidates than Democrats.

On the Dem side, I would say Hillary is the top choice as of now, but who knows what happens in the future.  She still has a Senate run in 2006, and with stiff opposition (if there is), will she want to run again on the heels of a Senate campaign?  Other Democrats come to mind, but they don't seem to have a broad appeal..Evan Bayh, John Edwards and perhaps Howard Dean again.

I think the Democrats in 2008 will be better than in 2004. Ed Rendell of Pennslyvania would be interesting, and I really think Bill Richardson is their best chance to win Florida, aside from running Nelson.

The best thing that the parties can do in 2008 is move to the center, there is no doubt about that.

The GOP should nominate someone along the line of Governor Romney, Senator Hagel, Governor Pataki, Mayor Giuliani(who of course is least likely to get the nomination out of these).

The Democrats should move into the south east and midwest and nominate people like Senator Bayh, Governor Warner, Governor Richardson and perhaps even Vilsak.

Of course none of this matters now, it's not like the day after 2000 we knew Kerry was the '04 nominee.

The midterm elections are key for many of our prospective candidates...if Hillary loses to, say, Rudy in '06, her chances are getting the nomination are slim [as much as I might like to draw the 1858 IL Senate comparison].

Republican Candidates:

Rudy--especially if he takes Clinton's senate seat, he's a very strong possibility.  However, his views are not in line with the base of the Republican party, which is doing the voting.  However, since he is so universally loved, it will be hard for any other candidate to attack him, so it's going to take some expendable candidate to throw the first punch.

Pataki--will be up for re-election as governor in '06.  (Nice, exciting election season for me in two years...).  Whether he'll run for a fourth term (against Spitzer, presumably), or bow out in order to organize a campaign of his own, I can't say.  But he's definitely making a bid for it.  Again, like Rudy, he's a bit liberal in certain areas, which could hurt him.  Not as liberal as Rudy, but I don't think he'll have enough support to take it.  Possibly the Gephardt of 2008.

Frist--definitely making a run for it, but his voice is on par with Lincoln's and he's a cat-killer.  I don't give him much of a chance.

Romney--looks more and more like he'll be making a run for it.  Again, it depends on what happens to him in '06.  He's likely to do well in New Hampshire (for reasons of propinquity).  Perhaps a good compromise candidate.

McCain--very popular amongst independents--not so much among the Bush base.  He'll have a strong showing if he chooses to run, but he will be older than Reagan by the time of his inauguration.  Again, a solid candidate if he chooses to run.

Chuck Hagel--Eh, I don't think so.

Bill Owens--a nice, conservative Governor and Washington outsider.  Depending on how things go the next four years, he could be a good candidate--if he can overcome the popularity gap that separates him from Rudy & McCain.  Of course, he also has to win reelection in '06, but I doubt he'll have much of a problem.

Jeb Bush--has supposedly denied an interest in running, but you never know.  Popular governor in a big swing state, attracts Hispanics--he's the perfect candidate, except for his last name.  If he's going to have a shot, he needs to be able to separate himself from his brother and take advantage of the fact that he is actually articulate.  Everyone I've talked to about Jeb says "Ugh.  Another Bush???"--even though they know nothing about Jeb himself.  Could have a better shot if Hillary appears to be the front-runner for the Dems.  But he already has my vote.

Tommy Thompson--a bit of an unknown outside of Wisconsin, he could have a shot at it, depending on what he chooses to do in the '06 elections.  An upper-midwest candidate would pretty much guarantee the Republicans the Little Three.

Owens-Giuliani :-)

This could be fun to look back upon and see if anybody gets this right.

Erc, I like your analysis except Owens is barred from a 3rd term which would be good because it gives him more time to organize a campaign and increase is visibility in Iowa and New Hampshire.  I think he's the strongest candidate I see right now.

My Dream 2008 ticket:
()()
CLINTON-WARNER 2008!

Reps. I would support
McCain-has set himself up at the rnc with unabashed bush support and he gets all misty eyed when asked the question,(hehe i get the local coverage here about it)
Owens-colorado conservative gov with a strong backbone in the state, very similar to bush but without the speech issues
Dole-a longshot due to being a woman, yet she tried in 2000

reps i wouldnt support
Guiliani and Pataki-too liberal on social issues, great leaders, but other reps are great leaders too
Romney-although hes conservative, i just dont know if hes a.ready, b.electable in the south, he doesnt have that same connection

dem i would support over any rep candidate
evan bayh-comes from indiana, and is really conservative for a dem, i used to live in indiana and he really did a good job as governor and is doing a good job reaching across the way in the senate, and kind of bites his lip supporting kerry

dems i wont support-
clinton-shady, but she loves polls and popularity, has centered and hawked herself on national security, i see this as john kerry campaign all over again

richardson-another shady dem, plus the guys creepy when he wears that black judgeish outfit in social outings, do like that western governors are becoming powerful

napalitano-why run for senate when she could make a crack at president, shes (sadly) popular here in az and gets a lot of pro business conservatives on her side

Amen...

America would be a better place if the likes of Bayh, Pataki, Warner, Hagel, Lieberman etc… lead their respective party’s it might bring an end to the bitter partisanship that been a feature of American politics sine the late 1980’s.

Sadly I’m pretty certain that Dean will throw himself into the nomination battle an while he’ll probably lose he’ll force the other candidates to do little more than hurl abuse at the Republicans.. the same is possible with the likely entry of Rick Santorum into the GOP nomination battle…. [sighs… gets up from his computer and walks out of the house and into the fall countryside where there might as well have never been any presidential election].       

With the defeat of Kerry, Tradesports has now opened betting on the Democratic nomination.

The candidates include the obvious field:

Hillary
Dean
Edwards
Gore
Richardson (he's up for reelection in 06, right?)
Obama (although I don't think he'll make a bid)

Plus a couple names which I haven't seen thrown around yet:

Wesley Clark (I assumed his political career had a lifespan of eight months)--unless foreign policy becomes even more important, I don't think he'll have a chance.  Or run.

Lieberman (after the trouncing in '04, you wouldn't think he'd come back.  But you never know...he could be the flag-bearer of the conservative wing if Warner doesn't run and Edwards self-destructs).

Pat Leahy--the Democratic Party will likely give him much the same response Cheney did.
Chris Dodd--if he can't become Minority leader...


Republican candidates there that haven't been discussed yet (well, at least by me):

Powell:  He ain't gonna last the whole term, let alone run for President.  '96 was the year for Powell, had he wanted to.

Senator George Allen, VA:  Interesting only if the Democrats pick Warner...

Tom Ridge:  In a dead-end job.

Schwarzenegger:  I doubt that enough Democrats in the House and senate would allow the Ahnuld Amendment to pass--and even then it's not likely to get through in time.  Plus many Republican senators may oppose on the grounds they'd rather not have Arnold as President.

Maybe in 2012...

Please. We've just finished the last one and you're talking about the next.

I'll seriously focus on 2008 once we get past the mid-terms.

Allen vs Warner . . . VA all over again!  :)

I don't think Allen will be able to run on the "End the car tax" platform this time though.  :)

Lincoln/Rendell 08!



()

()

I would be willing to bet serious money that not only will Guiliani run, but that he will change his position on abortion within the next four years.

How  conservative can Mitt Romney be in Massachusetts to get elected

We could use a northeastern Republican. We can't get locked into this red state, blue state crap.

My thoughts:
I'm hoping right now for Mark Warner to win. He is a governor and that will continue to be an advantage as Bush will set up trap votes for the congress. I would however like Jim Nelson to be VP.

For the Republicans:

It is clear that Bill Frist has Presidential ambitions. He will get slewn in NH to a Romney (who will be voted out of office in 2006) type and the Republicans will start the process of getting rid of NH as the first in the nation primary and NH will move to the political status of Maine.

Warner would lose his home state. I don't see him running for president. If he runs for the U.S. Senate, he'll lose.

New Hampshire doesn't like tax-and-spend liberals. I think these people wanted deadlock more than anything else.

Romney will win in 06, and if he doesn't, his Prez ambitions are over.

I agree. I'm not sure he'll win, but I mean on the second part.

The Republicans should be grooming a Latino/Latina V.P. candidate for 2008.  Exit polls have shown that Republicans have done much better with Hispanic voters this time but they need to do more.  Demographics are clear that the white population is shrinking in proportion.  The Republicans have failed to make any inroads in the balck community and we cannot let that happen with the hispanic poulation.

Any ideas on a specific person Patrick?  I can't think of one offhand.  Maybe Mel Martinez but he'll only be in the Senate for 4 years by 2008.

No one really comes to mind and I think that is a problem.  There are just not that many Hispanic Republicans in prominent positions.  Henry Bonilla is one.  Republicans have been making efforts and in-roads and they should continue. 

Martinez was born in Cuba; he isn't eligible.

I didn't know he was born there, thanks for pointing that out J.J.

Wasn't Cuba a U.S. territory for a while?

Following the Spanish-American war in 1898, the US occupied the country of Cuba until the US turned over control in 1902.  In 1903, the Cuban-American treaty set up the framework for relations between the two countries, including the ceding of Guantanamo Bay to the US as a military base to protect the island nation.

Just as throughout the history of the US, we turn over nations we occupy following the end of a war.  Just think, if we haven't, the US would also include nations such as the Philippines (I could actually use my Tagalog more) and Germany. 

rarely does the early front runner actually win the nomination.  we should be focusing on the darkhorse candidates.

george allen is a real darkhorse that could be a very viable candidate in the republican primaries.

Wrong. Howard Dean was the Democratic nominee this year, and it was like a horrific slow-motion repeat of 1972... ;-)

Seriously now... you're right about that. I like the idea of President Finegold... probably a pipe dream though :-(

Guiliani already changed his position on abortion.  Early on in his career when he was considering running for mayor he wanted to overturn roe vs. wade and was pretty pro-life.  Of course being mayor of a big city it doesnt really matter what ones position on abortion is.  However once Rudy started running for the Senate he changed his position on abortion and became pro-choice because he didnt want Hillary to take away votes from him.  I think he might make a compromise with abortion such as supporting a partial birth abortion ban yet still supporting some abortions.

1) all Gop candidates seem better (for me) than W. But maybe less effective to attract the Gop base, the decisive factor in the last election.

2)Cheney was not a better VP than Edwards. The fact is the VP doesn't count (for this election).

3)For the dem ticket, my wish goes to Edwards/clinton or Edwards/Dean (the best ticket for this year). But latinos are important and I am considering a "latino candidate" on the ticket: Rochardson has the lead but why not Salazar? or a new senator 06? (hence Edwards/richardson)

Moreover, Obama on the ticket would seem good to mobilize the black people but I think that he will have the same problem than Edwards: he will be attached.

Harry Reid is a possibility on the Democratic side.  If, as minority leader, he can pull strings and get party activists on his side, he could take Iowa.

I guess that shots a hole in Shira's rant that Cheney was actually running the country for the last 4 years.  hahaha

     "Among the Democrats who have been mentioned as possible candidates in 2004 are Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, Mr. Gore's running mate, and Senators John Edwards of North Carolina, John Kerry of Massachusetts, Bob Kerrey of Nebraska, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Biden, Mr. Gephardt, Mr. Daschle, Gov. Gray Davis of California, and Gov. Tom Vilsack of Iowa.

     "And no one seems to be ruling out Mr. Gore."

--The New York Times, Dec. 17, 2000

The Religious Right will never approve Giuliani

Al Gore could pull a Nixon and run again in 2008. I don't see him winning the nomination, though.

Well your wishes have been completely fulfilled now.