2008 Predications

[Ryan]

Here's what I predict:

Republican Primary (possible):
Jeb Bush (FL)
Bill Frist (TN)
Rudolph W. Giuliani -or, not both- George E. Pataki (NY)
Condoleezza Rice (CA)

Democratic Primary:
Hillary Rodham Clinton (NY)

I think, if this is the way it is, Giuliani or Bush would win (although my vote would go to Frist).

Giuliani v. Clinton=Giuliani win.
Bush v. Clinton=Toss up.

Well as to who COULD  run, the list is endless on both sides.
The conventional wisdom right now is that either Hillary Clinton or Al Gore or both would run and that one of them would be the eventual nominee.
As to the others I really dont know where to start and end. Basically just go through the list of the well known and reasonably ambitious  Governors like Bill Richardson (also Hispanic), Senators like Evan Bayh etc etc. And of course of you get into the "Al Sharpton" category it just goes on and on.

On the GOP side as you said Frist and Bush are the well-known names who are considered near-certain to run. Others could include Sen. Allen of Va., Gov. Bill Owens of Colorado, hell if a little constitutional amendment occurs it may even be Gov. Swarzenegger of California

Basically its a truly huge list but as U say GWB, no harm and a lot of fun in speculating.

Cheers,
Ryan.

[Ryan]

I doubt either Pataki or Giuliani could win the GOP nomination. How would you conservatives on this board feel personally about Pataki or Giuliani as the nominee, given their liberal views on social issues? I'm curious as to what the GOP base would think about this.

Well for starters I admit I may be a bit more moderate than a majority of GOP voters but I would definitely jump for Guiliani.
Even speaking as a neutral observer, his tough-guy image could go a long way to neutralizing his socially liberal attitude as regards GOP primary voters. In any event if he starts considering a run, he is smart enough to shift right; enough to take the primary.

Pataki is out nationally and he knows it! He may consider a vice-presidency but most probably I feel he would want to round up his career in the Senate.

Among all the names so far mentioned I would go for Guiliani in the primary.

[Ryan]

Well for starters I admit I may be a bit more moderate than a majority of GOP voters but I would definitely jump for Guiliani.
Even speaking as a neutral observer, his tough-guy image could go a long way to neutralizing his socially liberal attitude as regards GOP primary voters. In any event if he starts considering a run, he is smart enough to shift right; enough to take the primary.

Pataki is out nationally and he knows it! He may consider a vice-presidency but most probably I feel he would want to round up his career in the Senate.

Among all the names so far mentioned I would go for Guiliani in the primary.

I think only one of the two (Pataki, Giuliani) would run, not both.  If Pataki gets Giuliani to run for governor in 2006, as some say he's trying to do, then Pataki will go on to run for president.  If not, then Giuliani is free to run for the presidency and Pataki won't challenge him.  Whatever happens, I don't think they'll both run in the primary.  I wouldn't be to keen on a Pataki run...I just don't see him as good as the others...but I'd love to see Giuliani.  He'd beat the Democrat easily, and that's always fun to watch.

Pataki couldnt win a national republican primary season! not in a million years! Rockefeller stood a better chance in his day than Pataki does not.

Rudy is a different story. There are factors to overcome conservatives distaste for his social liberalism- strong factors

Yes if he were to get the nomination I just dont see a democratic scenario for winning YAY

[Ryan]

Someone mentioned Bill Owens (CO) as a possibility.  I've heard rumblings about him before.  At first it was for possible replacements for Cheney in Bush's reelection campaign.  But since Cheney's staying (much to my dismay), we'll see if Owens makes a run in 2008.  I can't wait!  

I too wish Cheney were not on the ticket! No disrespect but now that conservatives have no qualms about GWB his usefulness is ended.

However my nominee would have been Tom Ridge. He appeals to independent moderates and they are the danger group in 2004 not eh base.

Also he would bring Pennslyavannia along and thats half the electoral battle won as far as 2004 goes

[Ryan]

Well, we all seem to agree about the potential frontrunners for the Republican and Democratic nominations.  Now here's something else fun to disucss.  Who might win in possible match-ups?  Obviously, if Hillary runs, she gets the nomination.  So let's assume she's the Democratic candidate.  Who would have the best chance against her?  Here are my predictions:

Bill Frist v. Hillary=Toss-up.
Pataki v. Hillary=Hillary
Condoleezza Rice v. Hillary=Hillary
Jeb Bush v. Hillary=Toss-up; leans Hillary
Giuliani v. Hillary=Giuliani
Powell v. Hillary=Toss-up; leans Hillary
Bill Owens v. Hillary=Toss-up; leans Hillary
Cheney v. Hillary=Hillary
Elizabeth Dole v. Hillary=Toss-up; leans Hillary

I know, I know.  In the end, all that we're discussing here doesn't matter.  But what the heck?  It's fun!

WHERE would all these winning electoral votes for Hillary come from??? She would be wiped out in the South, Mountain West and much of the midwest just cause she is seen as too liberal. You would need a VERY conservative republican opponent like Cheney to balance that off. \Otherwise any decent moderate would win against her.

[Ryan]

Well, I do agree with you that (some) southern voters, as also others are not too keen to elect a black man/woman to the White House. They are plenty here in Louisiana as I know there are in your home state of Ga.. However I would disagree with you that they would automatically elect his/her white opponent.

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.

[Ryan]

As for Hillary don't underestimate her unpopularity among right-of-center voters of all stripes. Those voters are quite likely to be solidly GOP if she was the opponent. And if the GOP candidate was moderate enough he could technically win enough votes from people who may not hate Hillary but may not want to vote for such a liberal candidate anyway!! (remember she has such a liberal senate record she wont be able to hide it)

Of course if we were stupid enough to put up someone like Cheney (again I don't dislike the man, but he is not electable nationally) then those moderate voters could go to either of the extremes- whichever runs a better campaign and yes that would be likely to be Hillary.
Still I just don't think we are that stupid

[Ryan]

Demrep I agree with you that Jeb Bush's chances of being elected in 2008 and whether he will even run would depend on his brother losing in 2004. Ironic isnt it??

[Ryan]

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.

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 He won in a pretty conservative state and remains very popular there while impressing a lot of moderates; like me 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

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.

[Ryan]

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

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.

[Ryan]

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?

err U guys are joking right? Sorry I'm being a bit dull right now.......its 4am