Talk Elections

Politics1 - American Politics, Elections, Candidates & Campaigns

In political news, it is pretty clear that US Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) is going to run for President in 2008. Why else would he be making two trips to NH over the next three weeks! Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney (R) this week made a visit to SC, another early contest state. US Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) also confirmed his interest seeking the White House next time. "I'm sounding it out," said Biden to the San Francisco Chronicle. However, he also conceded that Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) will be "the overwhelming, prohibitive favorite" to win the nomination if she runs. Meanwhile, there is also an active draft group -- DraftRuss.com -- that is operating to encourage my favorite hopeful, Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI), to run for President.

link:  http://www.politics1.com/

Frist is making an awful lot of trips to New Hampshire.  Early bird gets the worm?

Karl Rove might take up Frist as his new client. Frist is right-wing and corrupt enough for the Bushies to be 100% behind him.

jfern,

That's absolutely ludicrous!   Have you been hitting the medical marijuana again?

I like Frist, but he can't win.

Unless we want a repeat of '96, don't vote for Frist.

The only situation in which I'd consider supporting him would be if it was just him v. the McCain/Rudy bunch.  And even then I'd vote for McCain.

Boooooo!

No Frist!

Romney!  Romney!!  Romney!!!!  Romney!!!!!!!!

Frist is coming to my neck of the woods while here:

Saturday, March 19th
Morning meeting – likely to be in the 9:00am +/- time frame
@ Plymouth Senior Center
Cost:  $20

I hope Frist doesn't get the nomination.

Ian,

Why?  A Frist nomination almost guarantees a Dem vicoty in '08

Couldn't agree more. Go Bill, Go!

I agree that Feingold will be the Howard Dean of 2008, but I disagree that Hillary will be the John Kerry.  Democrats united behind Kerry because they believed he was the most elecatable candidate.  If they follow the same suite in 2008 they will unite behind Mark Warner or Evan Bayh.  At least thats what Im hoping.

Well, if last year proved anything, it proved that even if the entire base does turn out, we still cant win.  We need to appeal more to censtrists and moderate republicans.

if that were the case, then how come the Republican Party isn't doing the same?  last year, Bush won in no small part due to the turnout of his base -he didn't dilute his positions to cater to the 'center'.   he merely made it seem like he was more centrist than he really was. 

and since both Mark Warner and Evan Baye are (at least perceived) pro-business Democrats, it will effectively make economically populist voters vote on the basis of family values since there will be no meaningful difference between Republicans and Democrats. 

you have to make a stand sometime, rather than continuously buckling your knees in fear of what the Right would think of your candidate, and choosing the most centrist, mushy candidate with no daylight between him and his Republican rival.  the further right you lurch, the more you validate voters' suspicions that you have no morals or principles to speak of, and therefore have no compelling reason to give them on why they should vote for your candidate.  i mean, what is going to be your message? -hey, vote for me, i'm not quite as bad as the other guy'?!   

i am not going to have a nominee who gives voters the impression that he is ashamed to be a Democrat by running away from the principles that this party stands for, which includes standing up for the average Joe and Jane.  Neither Evan Baye or Mark Warner are what one might call candidates of the people against the establishment.  they are the establishment.  it's reason enough not to vote for them. 

I saw Romney's SC trip on C-SPAN last night. Pretty impressive speaker, I must admit.

Romney, great Speaker.  Sanford, great speaker.

in any case Nick, the point i am trying to make (and which you seem to disagree with, for some reason) is that voters tend to vote for a candidate whom they feel is being up front and honest with them, whom they could respect even if they happen to disagree with some of their ideas.  Bush, for instance, never campaigned to privatize Social Security, or to repeal the progressive income tax and replace it with a national sales tax since he knew most voters did not support him on these ideas, but he never altered his position on them either.  he stuck by his guns, and voters respected that, and rewarded him accordingly.  they at least knew that what they saw would be what they get.  Kerry, on the other hand, never stood up and defended his essentially liberal principles.  he blanched and tried to blur the differences between him and Bush.   no voter is going to respect a candidate they see as blatantly trying to cater to them.  to tell you the truth, i still don't know what his message was -and i voted for him!

 i don't ever want to be faced with this situation again, in having a candidate who has no compelling vision of where he or she wants to take this country, and whose only goal seems to try to present a not-so extreme version of the other candidate. 
 

I agree that a Democrat candidate has to be true to himself, as does a Republican, but I disagree that he/she HAS to be hard-core leftist in order to present an alternative to the other Party. 

Keep in mind that JFK didn't run as the anti-Republican.  He ran as the candidate who could make a good economy-better, a strong America-stronger.

Like it or not, America is basically a center-right nation.  Running hard to the left is a sure fire way to make the Democrat Party irrelevant.