2008 Predications
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 05:26:30 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2008 Elections
  2008 Predications
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4
Author Topic: 2008 Predications  (Read 23812 times)
Ryan
ryanmasc
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 332


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: November 19, 2003, 02:15:34 PM »

If Giuliani were to run for President, I think he will attempt to take Hillary Clinton's Senate seat in the 2006 election first.

Interesting. A victory here would be an absolute masterstroke for Giuliani since his biggest rival for 2008 would immediately fall by the wayside. Very interesting.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think so. A Senate run would merely be a springboard for a Presidential campaign and he's popular enough to make an impact in 2008. Whether Giuliani will beat Hillary for the Senate in 2006 is another matter, but it's safe to say it would be an extremely close race if it did occur.

Btw, just wondering, but what are people's opinions on Chuck Hagel and Ben N Campbell? Have Hagel's views on Cuba made him too many enemies in the party, or is it realistic to see him as a future President?

Spending time in the Senate may not be good for Guiliani. It would give him time to compile a voting record that would most likely offend the conservative base. It would be better to base his run on his last stint in public office, which the whole country sees positively.

Chuck Hagel is very impressive. He's not as liberal as people say. In fact the word doesn't apply to him at all Smiley He won in a pretty conservative state and remains very popular there while impressing a lot of moderates; like me Smiley so I definitely expect great things from him in the future.

Ben Campbell is a perennial favorite of everybody. Heck! who can hate a proud Indian-American chief who rides a Harley and is an Olympic champion Cheesy

But still I don't see him having what it takes to win the Presidency. I think he's doing the best job for America in his current position and he knows it too.
Logged
NorthernDog
Rookie
**
Posts: 166


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: November 19, 2003, 06:52:55 PM »

Why is it so rare (anymore) for a Senator to win the Presidency?   Isn't JFK the last Senator to be elected?  Maybe people think they are too much a part of the "Inside the Beltway" crowd.  
Logged
Inmate Trump
GWBFan
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,022


Political Matrix
E: -4.39, S: -7.30

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: November 19, 2003, 07:06:25 PM »

If Giuliani were to run for President, I think he will attempt to take Hillary Clinton's Senate seat in the 2006 election first.

Interesting. A victory here would be an absolute masterstroke for Giuliani since his biggest rival for 2008 would immediately fall by the wayside. Very interesting.


Do you think he would wait until 2006 to run for the Senate?  If he did that, and won, that *could* (but probably not) knock Hillardy completely off the Democratic "would-be presidents" list, which is a good thing.  On the other hand, why not run in 2004 against Charles Schumer?  I just saw this new Zogby poll that has Giuliani beating incumbent Senater Schumer 52% to 43%.  What other N.Y. Republican would get those kind of numbers, especially against a popular incumbent?  Go to Zogby.com to see the actual poll yourself.

But if Giuliani can beat Schumer, I almost think he should go for it and forget about Hillary in 2006 where he might not get the same kind of numbers.  Might, but might not--you gotta remember that this IS New York we're talking about here...they love Hillary.

By running and winning a seat in N.Y., Giuliani would still be in a position to launch a presidential campaign in 2008.  Also, he might be able to deliver some more votes for President Bush in N.Y. were he to run for senate in '04; obviously he wouldn't be able to do that in 2006.  I doubt Bush would ever win the state, but still...every extra vote counts, and I think Giuliani could deliver them.
Logged
Demrepdan
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,305


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: November 19, 2003, 07:34:44 PM »

Do you think he would wait until 2006 to run for the Senate?  If he did that, and won, that *could* (but probably not) knock Hillardy completely off the Democratic "would-be presidents" list, which is a good thing.  On the other hand, why not run in 2004 against Charles Schumer?  I just saw this new Zogby poll that has Giuliani beating incumbent Senater Schumer 52% to 43%.  What other N.Y. Republican would get those kind of numbers, especially against a popular incumbent?  Go to Zogby.com to see the actual poll yourself.
I doubt that Giuliani would run for Senate in 2004. One, he has made no announcements of this, and Two, he stated before that he has NO intention of getting back into public office until a "few" years from now, if even then. Which alludes to the 2006 election. I highly doubt he would go against his word like that and say, "Oh ok, you got me! I'll run in 2004!" 2006 will be the earliest year he could run for ANYTHING.
Logged
Wakie
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,767


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: November 20, 2003, 05:50:40 PM »

As of right now here are the people I consider potential 2008 candidates ....

REPUBLICANS
-----------------
*Jeb Bush
*Bill Frist
*Rick Santorum
*Condeleeza Rice
*Roy Moore
*Tommy Thompson
*George Pataki
*Tom Ridge
*John McCain
*Elizabeth Dole

DEMOCRATS
---------------
*The incumbent (assuming they win in 2004)
*Hillary Clinton
*Al Gore
*John Edwards
*Dennis Kucinich
*Al Sharpton
*Evan Bayh
*Gary Locke
*Tom Vilsack
*Bill Bradley
*Russ Feingold

Assuming that Bush wins reelection and nothing dramatic happens to any of these folks ... I honestly think that most likely we will see the Republicans nominate Jeb Bush or John McCain (I doubt Giuliani or Powell will run) and the Democrats nominate Hillary Clinton or Al Gore.
Logged
Inmate Trump
GWBFan
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,022


Political Matrix
E: -4.39, S: -7.30

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: November 20, 2003, 06:16:56 PM »

As of right now here are the people I consider potential 2008 candidates ....

REPUBLICANS
-----------------
*Jeb Bush
*Bill Frist
*Rick Santorum
*Condeleeza Rice
*Roy Moore
*Tommy Thompson
*George Pataki
*Tom Ridge
*John McCain
*Elizabeth Dole

DEMOCRATS
---------------
*The incumbent (assuming they win in 2004)
*Hillary Clinton
*Al Gore
*John Edwards
*Dennis Kucinich
*Al Sharpton
*Evan Bayh
*Gary Locke
*Tom Vilsack
*Bill Bradley
*Russ Feingold

Assuming that Bush wins reelection and nothing dramatic happens to any of these folks ... I honestly think that most likely we will see the Republicans nominate Jeb Bush or John McCain (I doubt Giuliani or Powell will run) and the Democrats nominate Hillary Clinton or Al Gore.

Hm... That would interesting with a McCain campaign for president.  I dunno...I just don't think he could get past the primary--just like in 2000, whoever his closest rival is (assuming this person is more conservative than is McCain) would overwhelmingly beat him.  Even Jeb Bush (though neither of these guys, McCain, Jeb, would go on to win the general election).

I really do think either (but not both) Giuliani or Pataki would get in the race.  Pataki wouldn't win the primary--or the general, if he got that far-but Giuliani has the potential to kill all competition.

Rick Santorum could be interesting.  And he would most likely win his home state of Pennsylvania, which has gone to the Democrats the last few elections.  Hm.....
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,260
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: November 20, 2003, 08:36:41 PM »

Kennedy was the last sitting senator to be elected, yes. Johnson and Nixon have both been elected since then, and they were both Senators, but both had been Vice President first before becoming President.
It's probably no coincidence that Nixon was the last former Senator to be elected, as his administration greatly enhanced cynicism towards Washington politicians.
When Carter was elected, he was the first President elected who had been a Governor since Roosevelt. Clearly Watergate marked a shift in preference among Americans in their Presidents from career Washington politicians towards outside-the-beltway politicians.
Logged
Michael Z
Mike
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,288
Political Matrix
E: -5.88, S: -4.72

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: November 21, 2003, 12:22:26 PM »
« Edited: November 21, 2003, 07:19:45 PM by Michael Zeigermann »

Hm... That would interesting with a McCain campaign for president.  

I originally thought the same (to me he was an obvious choice for 2008) but during a recent interview McCain ruled himself out of any future Presidential contest, on the basis of a) his age, and b) his unpopularity within the Republican mainstream.

Of course a politician's mind is easily changed, but it's very unlikely we'll see another contest involving McCain.
Logged
NorthernDog
Rookie
**
Posts: 166


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: November 21, 2003, 09:01:57 PM »

Hm... That would interesting with a McCain campaign for president.  
Of course a politician's mind is easily changed, but it's very unlikely we'll see another contest involving McCain.
Last time I McCain on TV he didn't look too great-his eyes were puffy and red.  How's his health?
I think people would be reluctant to vote for someone his age if he has health problems.
Logged
dazzleman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,777
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: November 22, 2003, 07:32:21 AM »

This is a very interesting discussion.

I agree with those who say that Gov. Pataki of New York doesn't have a chance in the Republican Party at the national level.  I like him in New York because the alternative there is worse, but I don't think I'd support him on the national level.  He is too weak and wishy-washy for the national party.

Giuliani is a more interesting question.  He's about the only New York City mayor who can speak outside the city without getting stoned.  Generally, NYC mayors are extremely unpopular in the rest of the state, including the close-in suburbs, not to mention other sections of the country.  But Giuliani has a record on crime reduction that made him more popular outside the city than within it.  Not to mention his performance in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks. And he campaigns effectively for Republican candidates around the country.  So he could be a contender despite his New York connections and his liberal positions on social issues.

I think Pataki may run for the Senate against Schumer.  He knows he needs an exit strategy since he's in his third term, and he saw what happened to his predecessor, who turned down other opportunities in order to go for a 4th term as governor, and ended up with nothing.

I would love to see Giuliani knock Hillary out, and I think the Republicans are saving him for that, since she is a greater long-term threat, and far more noxious, than Schumer is.  I don't agree that New Yorkers love her necessarily.  She has strong support from all the various NYC parasite groups of course, but a strong opponent could rally enough suburbanites and upstaters against her to knock her out.  If that happens, she's done in 2008.

Giuliani could also run for governor, but I suspect he won't because after 3 terms in Republican hands, the odds don't favor a Republican for that position.  But in reality, I think he would much rather have an executive job than a legislative one, and if recent history is any guide, a governor's position would position him better for the White House.  The whole thing is a toss-up.

It's very hard to see a scenario where Hillary actually wins the White House.  Even in New York, Hillary ran about 5 points behind Gore in 2000, meaning that some people who supported Gore just couldn't bring themselves to vote for her.  If you play that out nationally, she would probably win at least several fewer states than Gore did in 2000, under close to ideal circumstances (apparent peace and prosperity under the Democrats).  Surely, she would be well behind Gore's performance in Florida and most likely New Mexico, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Iowa and Michigan.  It's hard to see where she could make up those lost states.

Call me crazy, but I think even Condeleeza Rice would beat Hillary in the south.  I can't see southerners voting for Hillary under any circumstances, and Rice's obvious intelligence, well-spokenness and personality could convince southerners that she is the better choice over Hillary.  I think being a woman and/or being black will work in favor of a Republican candidate and against a Democratic candidate because of the political alignment -- virtually all the people who will vote for somebody BECAUSE she's a woman or black are in the Democratic party, and running on the Republican line against a noxious liberal like Hillary would probably ease the doubts of those who may be reluctant to vote for a woman or a black person.  I could be wrong, but I don't believe that Hillary Clinton will ever be president.  I also think that her husband's administration will look worse and worse in retrospect, the more time passes, and that will hurt her.

As far as Cheney goes, I see no chance of him running in 2008.  He barely made it through the 2000 election alive.  I have nothing against him and think he is highly competent, but he adds nothing politically.  I would like to see Bush replace him in 2004 if it can be done without a lot of political fallout.  He is from a 3-electoral vote state that always goes Republican anyway, and Bush could use somebody from the northeast or midwest that might help him pick up some states there.  I don't think the northeast is necessarily a total loss for the Republicans.  In Connecticut and New Jersey, Republicans generally run about 5 points ahead of what Republican get in New York and Massachusetts.  Pennsylvania is also a possiblitity.  It all depends upon the political climate going into the elections.  The challenge in the northeast is for the Republicans to win back relatively affluent suburbanites who have taken to voting Democratic in the last decade as they have become complacent about the longer-term threat posed to them by the Democratic party.  This is also true in midwestern states like Illinois, and even out in California.

I would not like to see Jeb Bush run in 2008 for president unless Pres. Bush loses in 2004, which I think is unlikely.  I think it would hurt the Republicans to create the appearance that they are trying to build a family dynasty.

Candidates like Sharpton are a joke.  I think he's working for the Republicans.  He's effectively blackmailing the Democrats because they're so heavily dependent on receiving such an inordinate share of the black vote, and he really offers them only downside.  He repels more votes than he brings in.  He has no chance of ever getting the nomination, but he could choose to stay around and make trouble, which is what he does best.

It's interesting to think about the possibilities.  Of course, something unforseen could happen to blow all our predictions out of the water, but time will tell.
Logged
Ryan
ryanmasc
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 332


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: November 23, 2003, 01:43:15 PM »

Dazzleman, that was a very good and verrry LONGG analysis Cheesy but I musta done worse Grin

I agree with pretty much everything you said. I especially back up the point about about a black or a minority candidate winning conservative southern votes- especially if he/she is up against Hillary.

We just had a Governor's race where an Indian-American was standing and for White supremacists that's the same as black. He lost by only 48-52%. He took 60% of the white vote and this is inspite of the fact that his white opponent was nearly as conservative as him and he could make no inroads into the black vote. (only 9%-standard fare for a GOP candidate)

A black GOP candidate nationally would be running against a Much more liberal opponent (so even if he wouldn't get certain white voters they might choose to abstain from voting rather than vote for the liberal) and could be expected to draw at least 20% of the black vote to make up for losses in the white vote. So don't count a black GOP candidate out in the south. Smiley
Logged
NorthernDog
Rookie
**
Posts: 166


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: November 23, 2003, 10:13:47 PM »

It's very hard to see a scenario where Hillary actually wins the White House.  Even in New York, Hillary ran about 5 points behind Gore in 2000, meaning that some people who supported Gore just couldn't bring themselves to vote for her.  If you play that out nationally, she would probably win at least several fewer states than Gore did in 2000, under close to ideal circumstances (apparent peace and prosperity under the Democrats).  
I agree, but in poll after poll she is the favored nominee in the Democrat primary.  If Bush wins a 2nd term all the attention shifts to Hillary for '08, unless she loses re-election to the Senate (unlikely).   She and Bill should have kept a low profile since 2001 because a lot of people will get tired of them hovering in the background for years on end.  (Especially if anyone's keeping an eye on his "habits")
Logged
M
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,491


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: November 25, 2003, 05:49:21 PM »

Assuming Bush wins 04 to Dean

GOP

Top Tier:
Rudi Giuliani (VERY strong candidate)
Arnold Schwarzenegger (Also VERY strong, but Orrin Hatch please hurry up with that amendment!)
Condi Rice
JC Watts (If he wins governor or senator next year)

Middle Tier:
Bill Frist
Norm Coleman
Arlen Specter
David Dreier

Bad Chances:
George Pataki
Jeb (Too much of a dynasty)
Colin Powell-too liberal, won't run anyway
Dick Cheney-too old, won't run anyway
Tom Ridge-Too wooden, won't run anyway
Thad Cochrane (He won;t run, bright guy and great senator, but too old and not an executive)
Orrin Hatch (sharp as a nedle but as interesting as watching paint dry. won't run anyway. But hurry up with the Ahnuld amendment.)
John McCain-not running. would be a great Veep, but he won't do it.

Dems

Top Tier:
Hillary
 Al Gore
it'll be one or thee other

Middle Tier:
John Edwards (except that he'll have disappeared by then. People'll search high and low for a replacement. But not really find one.)
Bill Richardson
Harold Ford
Martin Frost (if he can survive)

Low Chances:
Evan Bayh (Great guy, would have the election on a silver platter, except he's doomed in the nomination. Too decent and patriotic.)

Anyone want to play 2008 running mates? Gad, but I love the sound of Giuliani-Shwarzenegger '08..... or Condi-Rudi...
Logged
Demrepdan
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,305


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: November 25, 2003, 06:07:35 PM »
« Edited: November 25, 2003, 06:08:37 PM by Demrepdan »

Maybe if they amend the constitution by 2008, permitting non-naturalized citizens of the United States to run for President, then you'll see Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) and Bruce Willis (R) run for President and Vice President. Their slogan could be something like: "In a world, where politics reign supreme. Two men, must save the world, from complete....and utter....ANNIHILATION!! You've seen them in action movies for the past 20 years! "Terminator"...."Die Hard"..."True Lies" and "Pulp Fiction" Now see them as.....*black screen comes up...words are in red, white and blue* THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH ........Rated "R" coming to a Theater near you...January 20th 2009!”
Logged
M
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,491


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: November 25, 2003, 06:44:12 PM »

I had a similar jole before the recall.

Coming soon to a theatre near you

"Cruz and Bustamante are the twin  terminators of Sacramento..."

An action saga of epic proportions

"I vant to help the people of Kulifornyuh..."

On October 7th, Arnold Schwarzenegger is.....

THE GOVERNOR!

Rated PG-13. Check it out on www.welovearnold.com


Seriously, though, I think it would be really cool of he were nominated. His character in True Lies is exactly what we need right now in the White House!
Logged
CHRISTOPHER MICHAE
Guest
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: November 25, 2003, 06:50:18 PM »

GWBFan,

                    You're right. Open elections are a lot more fun, like the 2000 election. That was exciting. I couldn't bare to leave my T.V. alone for too long, or my Laptop. However, what makes you think that the 08' election will be open? That would only occur if Bush wins a second term. Otherwise, there would be Incumbency. I am a Conservative Democrat who is just sick of the poor choices my party has to offer. Bring back Bill Clinton, now that's entertainment! Who could be as riveting as he is?
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,260
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: November 25, 2003, 08:12:38 PM »

If the "Ahnuld" amendment passes, then maybe we could have a 2008 race in which neither party nominates someone born in the United States. The GOP nominates Schwarzenegger, and the Dems nominate Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm (born in Canada).
Be careful what you wish for, Orrin Hatch! :-)
Logged
CHRISTOPHER MICHAE
Guest
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: November 25, 2003, 08:56:04 PM »

To Nym90,

There should never be a woman president. Men should always hold that high office. That Tradition needs to be upheld. Of course, Brittney Spears would be nice.
Logged
Demrepdan
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,305


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: November 25, 2003, 09:53:27 PM »

There should never be a woman president. Men should always hold that high office. That Tradition needs to be upheld.
LOL!!! Oh my God! It's a good thing we don't have any women registered at this forum (at least I don't think we do). They would be all over that in an instant. That's a horrible sexist comment. However, I don't have room to complain, I once wrote a letter (as a joke, of course) bashing women. Here is an excerpt:
 
You know what a woman should be doing? She should be in the kitchen making something to eat! Or getting her husband a beer. Or making babies and or taking care of them. And giving their husbands lots of SEX. Woman should have no respectable place in society. Men are the dominant sex and for GOOD REASON!
Logged
CHRISTOPHER MICHAE
Guest
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: November 25, 2003, 10:06:36 PM »

There should never be a woman president. Men should always hold that high office. That Tradition needs to be upheld.
LOL!!! Oh my God! It's a good thing we don't have any women registered at this forum (at least I don't think we do). They would be all over that in an instant. That's a horrible sexist comment. However, I don't have room to complain, I once wrote a letter (as a joke, of course) bashing women. Here is an excerpt:
 
You know what a woman should be doing? She should be in the kitchen making something to eat! Or getting her husband a beer. Or making babies and or taking care of them. And giving their husbands lots of SEX. Woman should have no respectable place in society. Men are the dominant sex and for GOOD REASON!

Demrepdan:  Even though your letter was a joke you said, I do believe that Men are the Dominant Sex. However, Women should be placed upon pedestals by their Men.
     To all other Liberal Minded Thinkers and Stinkers, My remarks are NOT Sexist! But, us Men need to draw the line somewhere. Is there anything Sacred anymore?
Logged
NorthernDog
Rookie
**
Posts: 166


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: November 25, 2003, 10:29:08 PM »

Assuming Bush wins 04 to Dean

GOP

Top Tier:
Rudi Giuliani (VERY strong candidate)
Arnold Schwarzenegger (Also VERY strong, but Orrin Hatch please hurry up with that amendment!)
Condi Rice
JC Watts (If he wins governor or senator next year)

 Any thoughts on Rick Santorum (R-PA)?  He'll be 50 years old in'08, is fairly conservative and from a big electoral state.
Logged
Demrepdan
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,305


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: November 25, 2003, 10:29:58 PM »
« Edited: November 25, 2003, 10:35:25 PM by Demrepdan »

    To all other Liberal Minded Thinkers and Stinkers, My remarks are NOT Sexist! But, us Men need to draw the line somewhere. Is there anything Sacred anymore?

    Well, I would agree with you to a certain point. But the thing I would hate to see, is if this country had a choice between a man who may screw everything up (someone like GWB), and a woman who has good plans for the future (not Hillary, but someone) and would more than likely make a good President, this country would rather have the man than the woman, and their decision would be simply based on sex. I'd hate to see that happen.
   I don't see how the Presidency is a SACRED office. This isn't England where we have limitations to who could be the Head of State. This isn't a royal monarch. We elect the President from one of us. The President can be ANYONE, whether they are not a politician, didn't attend college, or don't have any idea what the hell they are doing.
   And I'm certain that not only Liberal Thinkers and Stinkers believe this. There is nothing SACRED about the Presidency in this regard. We don't have to agree with everything the President says, because he isn't the King of America. There are no traditions that need to be followed. The only tradition that should be followed is each successor to the Presidency should do his, or her, job with the best of his abilities.
    If you want tradition to be established for the Presidency, why not set a new amendment? Stating that no woman shall be elected to the office of President, because it's a "sacred" traditon. If you can give me one decent reason, as to why women should never hold the office of President, and the reason has nothing to do with the sacred office that is the Presidency, and the traditon that must be upheld, then maybe I'll agree with you to more of a degree.

Logged
M
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,491


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: November 25, 2003, 11:09:14 PM »

My thoughts on Santorum are that he's probably too conservative and antagonistic. That remark about gay intercourse sounded fairly extreme to me. (I am however a social moderate to liberal so feel free to disagree.) Is he seen as electable w/in the party? I'd say he'd be doomed in a general election. If the GOP is smart, they won't make him their standard bearer. But if we win big in 2004, and, b"h, in 2006, the part might get so cocky as to overestimate it's capabilities and move to the right... ceding the center back to the Dems. That would be nothing short of disastrous.
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,260
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: November 25, 2003, 11:11:29 PM »

I agree that Santorum would be too conservative to win in a general election.
Logged
CHRISTOPHER MICHAE
Guest
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: November 25, 2003, 11:58:31 PM »

Assuming Bush wins 04 to Dean

GOP

Top Tier:
Rudi Giuliani (VERY strong candidate)
Arnold Schwarzenegger (Also VERY strong, but Orrin Hatch please hurry up with that amendment!)
Condi Rice
JC Watts (If he wins governor or senator next year)

Middle Tier:
Bill Frist
Norm Coleman
Arlen Specter
David Dreier

Bad Chances:
George Pataki
Jeb (Too much of a dynasty)
Colin Powell-too liberal, won't run anyway
Dick Cheney-too old, won't run anyway
Tom Ridge-Too wooden, won't run anyway
Thad Cochrane (He won;t run, bright guy and great senator, but too old and not an executive)
Orrin Hatch (sharp as a nedle but as interesting as watching paint dry. won't run anyway. But hurry up with the Ahnuld amendment.)
John McCain-not running. would be a great Veep, but he won't do it.

Dems

Top Tier:
Hillary
 Al Gore
it'll be one or thee other

Middle Tier:
John Edwards (except that he'll have disappeared by then. People'll search high and low for a replacement. But not really find one.)
Bill Richardson
Harold Ford
Martin Frost (if he can survive)

Low Chances:
Evan Bayh (Great guy, would have the election on a silver platter, except he's doomed in the nomination. Too decent and patriotic.)

Anyone want to play 2008 running mates? Gad, but I love the sound of Giuliani-Shwarzenegger '08..... or Condi-Rudi...
I think that Senator Kaye Bailey Hutchison would make a great President or Vice President, she's intelligent and charming. How about Elizabeth Dole as a Running Mate. Two women holding the highest elected offices. Hutchison and Hillary? There's another possibility for 2008.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.054 seconds with 13 queries.