Talk Elections

Ok, after this Euope trip she has done pretty well, if she doesnt screw up anything theres really no reason for her not to run....

But what are the problems she would face?
Would she gain significant ground in the black vote?
Would she lose ground in other areas?

Please don't include you 3rd party nonsense, the angry while conservatives will not go vote for the democrat or a southern third party, so don't even go there, we hate each other far too much today to give the other side any advantage in large amounts...

But go ahead, fire away with what you think, I don't really want to know if you like her or agree with her, just how you think she'd do with the electorate and the campaign.

And god said "let there be maps"

Problems:
Shes Black.
Shes unmarried.
Shes pro-choice.
Uncharismatic.
She has never held elective office.
No campaign experience.

Positives:
Shes black (would help her in some states)
She is extremley intelligent.
Foreign policy experience.


Black vote:
I could see her getting 15-20%, but no more.

She would lose ground in other areas?:
I think she would lose some ground in the south, but not enough to lose states like Mississippi, Alabama, etc...

I don't think much of her chances. An interesting VP possibility, particularly if she pulled a Cheney and renounced politican ambitions of her own.

I agree with AuH20.  Americans don't like to elect someone who hasn't fought it out in the trenches. 

As a Veep candidate, however, she's golden!

it's a joke? I remember a Wapo article wich said that this woman was just... inefficient.

she graduated high school at 15. enough said?

Rice is a joke. She's one of the worst possible GOP nominees.

Wapo article!  The Post is a Democrat Party mouthpiece.  That is what you would expect them to say.  Try reading the Washington Times for REAL news.

And had a doctorate by 24 or something.

Umengus, at what age did you graduate, and when did you get your doctorate?

Condi probably wouldn't be a very good candidate, but I hardly think that you can call her a joke.    However, you could call Kucinich and Sharpton jokes on the Dem side, and Sen. Smith R-NH and Garry Bauer jokes on the GOP side.

 Condi, not hardly.

If she does well coming up, then I would say she would be an excellent VP.

i dont believe she has any interest in being president (in the near future).

she pretty much has her dream job right now.

i could see her running for elective office after the bush presidency.  but any presidential run for her would be 2012 at the earliest.

Her dream job is NFL commissioner.

sorry, I don't consider a propaganda outlet owned by the Moonies to be real news.

I like Condeleeza Rice very much.

I don't favor her as a presidential candidate because:

-She's never held elective office.  Only somebody like Eisenhower can make the presidency his/her first elective office.  Her lack of political experience would put her at a severe disadvantage.

-She has never given the slightest indication that she is interested in elective office.

I think this boom for Rice is produced mainly by the fact that she is female and black.  Republicans are looking to counter Hillary as the potential Democratic nominee.

If Rice were nominated as a Republican, she would surely get my vote.  I don't oppose her in principle.  I just don't think she really wants it, nor do I think it's suitable to make the presidency the first elective office you seek unless you have some MAJOR accomplishment in other areas.  I don't think secretary of state fits the bill.

Dick Morris reckons Condi is about the only chance the GOP has of beating Hillary (he's being a bit presumptive there if you ask me) because she'll tap in to the two main pillars of the Democratic base: Blacks and single women

She might do, but will there be some haemorrhaging from the GOP base? For some, a Condi candidacy will be simply unpalatable

Dave

Dick Morris is a complete fool who is right about nothing. He also said Hillary would be Kerry's running mate.

My problem with the Dr. Rice for President sites - and it's exemplified by the www.rice2008.com site - is where's the policy? What does Dr. Rice think about healthcare? Abortion? Free trade? Education? The people who are founding these sites either don't know or don't care to display it publically. It just feels like they're playing the numbers game and nothing else - they see a black, female Republican candidate in the public eye, and that's all they feel that they need to know.

But that isn't enough, and surely we should demand more of a potential candidate - a compelling personal narrative is part of a candidate's package, of course, but it isn't enough in isolation.

I've seen people online frequently advocating Dr. Rice's candidacy, and they always seem so enthusiastic - What exactly about her attracts them to her as a candidate, I ask them? What policies has she advanced that you feel particularly qualifies her for the Presidency? What do you actually know about Dr. Rice's view's on a wide range of important policy issues? What is Dr. Rice's opinion on Social Security reform? On healthcare? What is Dr. Rice's view on the appropriate relationship between the Federal Government and the States? Does she approve of a Presidential line-item veto, or does she favor the supremacy of Congress in the legislative sphere? What is Dr. Rice's opinion about the trade deficit, how it can be reduced, and what is her view on whether the callue of the yuan should be decoupled from that of the dollar? What steps does Dr. Rice offer in terms of the progress of the next generation of environmentally-friendly technology, and the role of the United States in their development? What is Dr. Rice's solution to the problems of public education and the decline in math and "hard" sciences?

Of course, these are all beyond the ambit of the Secretary of State or the National Security Adviser, but they are most certainly within the ambit of the President. So let us turn to matters that are within Dr. Rice's job descriptions. What is Dr. Rice's view on how best to resolve the China/Taiwan situation, and how would she react to Chinese annexation of Taiwan? What action would a President Rice take should the North Korean government collapse? If such a collapse ocurred, and if China should annex North Korea, what steps would she take? What is her view on the Cuba trade embargo, and how does she differentiate the trade embargo on communist Cuba from the trade free-for-all with communist China? What is Dr. Rice's view on the development of democracy within Saudi Arabia and its extension in Iran? What are Dr. Rice's top five foreign policy goals during her term?

This is a very short list of extremely relevant questions - and thusfar, none of those advocating Dr. Rice's election have answered them, to my knowledge. The only rationale offered is that Dr. Rice is a black female Republican who is well-qualified to be Secretary of State. I support Dr. Rice's elevation to Secretary of State - but to the Presidency?! Neither Dr. Rice nor any of her supporters have yet offered anything that convinces me that she should be given the 2008 nomination.


Now, obviously, these concerns ares exacerbated in my case because I'm very publically backing a candidate with an equally compelling story, and lengthy resume which superbly qualifies her for the Presidency, in my view, to back it up. Namely, US Senator Olympia J. Snowe. While I play the numbers game too, and I would contend that Sen. Snowe's numbers match and better Dr. Rice's, Sen. Snowe backs up those numbers with three decades of public service, focused on the matters of great national import which a President will need to face.

Myself and a small group of volunteers are working as fast as we can to get the "real" website for www.olympiasnowe2008.com (http://www.olympiasnowe2008.com) into production, and it will include a full rundown of Sen. Snowe's views on any given issue. I apologize that it's taking so long to get done, and it's very frustrating to me, because of course, this would be a handy time and place to post it. ;)

Yet, to return to the point at hand, what's interesting to me is that many of the people who will criticize the views of Sen. Snowe that we display on the site will sing Dr. Rice's praises - but while they will be told where Sen. Snowe stands on a given issue by our site, they will not find a similar explanation of the Secretary of State's views on any given issue on any of the Draft Rice sites.

Will Dr. Rice run? It seems perfectly likely. But my view remains that there is a far better candidate, should she be pursuaded to take the field.

~Simon

Why Snowe?  She seems like a back bencher.  While you may like her on the issues, do you really think that she has the leadership qualities necessary to be Prez?

She would lose a lot of southern states...

But if Hilary runs, she might pull a win off.

what southern states would rice lose? and to who?

Yes, I think that she does; I like her record and I like her approach to public service. I don't agree with her on a handfull of issues, but across the broader sweep of public policy, I think she is (or could be) on the right side of the issues that are of gravest concern; I think that she's articulate and engaging, I think that she would win a sweeping victory in a general election (something which further recomends her, as the person who can complete the Republican realignment by winning a sweeping majority across red and blue state lines), and I think that she would be an excellent President.

I also think that when Sen. Snowe speaks of bipartisanship, she means working with both sides, while when this President speaks of bipartisanship, he means "we will work with anyone who will follow our agenda".

Of course, I'm also an optimist, but I think that everyone should be an idealist going into the primary. We should back the candidates we like most going in, and get behind the nominee when the process is done. :)

This is a very brief response, and I apologize for that, but I hope that when the site is available, the content presented there may better (meaning, more comprehensively) answer your question.

Too bad Snowe could never ever win a GOP national primary.

Even if that were necessarily true, I would still say that it's worth the attempt; despite the desparate attempts of the Heritage Foundation and the Club for Growth to say otherwise, there is a wide constuency of moderate Republicans - maybe not quite as wide or loud the combined might of the neocons and theocons (I'm not using these as terms of abuse, I think that both bring unique and valuable gifts to the party), granted - who will respond to a candidate who can engagingly and fluently present issues which resonate with them. I think there is inherent value in the attempt.

However, as I mentioned previously, I think that there are unique circumstances surrouding the 2008 primary, circumstances which turn a Snowe victory from outright impossible to merely highly unlikely. You're right that it's a long shot, but I support Sen. Snowe's agenda strongly, I think that she would play an important role as President, I think that she should run, and I think that she would bring an important voice to the primary, even if she ultimately didn't prevail.

Sure she could - in Maine. ;)
What's her stance on abortion?

Self-described as pro-choice; wants to reduce demand for abortion by addressing the forces which drive demand for abortion and improving sex-ed/contraception availability/reproductive health.

She offered an amendment to the partial-birth abortion ban bill which - in my view - would have rectified that bill's glaring failure (the lack of any provision for cases threatening the life of the mother); the amendment, which failed, might arguably have brought the Act into compliance with Supreme Court rulings and may therefore have precluded the act's failure in the Federal Courts.

"[L]et there be no mistake - I stand here today to reaffirm that no viable fetus should be aborted--by any method--unless it is absolutely necessary to protect the life or health of the mother. Period." - Congressional Record, 10/22/03

"I was a co-sponsor of an amendment to the Late Term Abortion Limitation Act which sought to ban all abortions after viability except in cases where both the attending physician and an independent non-treating physician certify in writing that, in their medical judgment, the continuation of the pregnancy would threaten the mother's life or risk grievous in jury to her physical health. This legislation defined "grievous injury" very narrowly as (1) a severely debilitating disease or impairment caused by or exacerbated by the pregnancy; or (2) an inability to provide necessary treatment for a life threatening condition." - Answer to Project Vote Smart NPAT test (http://www.vote-smart.org/npat.php?can_id=H1630103#0) question

She has several times sponsored bills addressing reproductive health and its impact on abortion:

By establishing the research centers and incentives we propose in our bill, contraception options can be safely expanded: thus improving the lives of millions of American women and families; reducing substantial strains on our society; and, importantly, providing a forum for agreement, rather than acrimony, for those with differing views on abortion." (Congressional Record, 4/25/1990, p.H1695)

My deal is that I'm pro-life, but I find it incompatible for anyone to claim to be pro-life and to support abstinence-only education; that isn't being pro-life, it's being anti-abortion, and it's in outright denial of reality. The reality is that, while teaching abstinence is a great idea, and while abstinence should be taught, it shouldn't be taught in isolation; some people who probably should wait are not going to wait, and if we genuinely want to deal with abortion, if we genuinely want to reduce the numbers killed every day, we have to accept reality. Reality is that provision of sex ed and contraception will bring down the incidence of abortion, and it strikes me as faintly concerning that Dr. Frist seems to have become a convert to treating the symptom not the cause.

Sen. Snowe may not want abortion ever banned, but she wants it reduced, she has a proven track record of introducing measures which will help in that regard, and she has a proven track record of the kind of bipartisan co-operation that is necessary to achieve that goal. She and I share a similar path on abortion; being pro-life (and, I hope, a pragmatic one), I just want to go a little further down that path than she does.

Sounds fine to me.

The problem with that is...if it sounds fine to me, it won't appeal to the Republican base.

We got this one poll here where basically all the pro-choice Dems say they'd vote for a pro-life Dem over a pro-choice Rep...and all the pro-life Reps say exactly the same...which is why I asked my question, actually.

You're almost certainly right - by for my $0.02, if a person refuses to vote for a candidate who will work assiduously to reduce the number of abortions carried out, just because that candidate describe themselves as pro-choice, then that person isn't pro-life, in my opinion. I'm a pragmatist; to borrow Clinton's phrasing, I will work with any takers to make abortion safe - for the mother, at any rate - and rare, and we can argue about the "legal" part once it's "rare". This "all or nothing" approach advocated by some of the more hysterical commentators, which regrettably, the Hon. Sen. Santorum appears to have adopted, smacks of playing politics with the lives of our children.


This is why it's very important to me to draw a very clear line between those who are merely anti-abortion and those who are legitimately pro-life. I stand with the latter group, and although I never thought I'd be going out of my way to support a candidate who is pro-choice, it's a funny old world. Sometimes politics means making choices and compromises that you're not comfortable with because it's what it necessary in the bigger picture.