next election cycle

charles_r51 · Post by **charles_r51** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 11:56 pm

george bush still has another 2 1/2 years before he gets the boot. anyone think this election will be a pre-cursor to the next presidential candidates chances of attaining the office? and who would you like to see as the candidate for the dems? the reps? a possible independent? i think mccain has a fair chance as the rep, but clinton seems an unlikely dem. what about lieberman as a dem, or independent? comments? other choices?:-3

i'm open for suggestions.

Bored_Wombat · Post by **Bored_Wombat** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 2:15 am

If you can manage an independent, that's be funniest.

And best.

charles_r51 · Post by **charles_r51** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 9:52 am

Bored_Wombat wrote: If you can manage an independent, that's be funniest.

And best.

if someone with the quality of ross perot, he may be able to pull in a fair percentage of votes, but i don't see anyone fitting the bill right now. someone may, but i don't see any independent ever getting elected due to the lack of backing by politicalk fundraisers who almost always back a democrat or republican. most independents are hard pressed to get onto all fifty states ballots and even harder pressed to do more than act as the spoiler in any election.

zinkyusa · Post by **zinkyusa** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 9:56 am

I'd like to see McCain and Colin Powell run together, even though Powell has ruled that out.

For the dem's John Edwards is stumping pretty hard. Being a southerner he would do much better nationally than Hillary..

charles_r51 · Post by **charles_r51** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 12:07 pm

zinkyusa wrote: I'd like to see McCain and Colin Powell run together, even though Powell has ruled that out.

For the dem's John Edwards is stumping pretty hard. Being a southerner he would do much better nationally than Hillary..

mccain is a definite possibility, but he may be a bit to far right for many especially after bush which may be to his detriment. as for powell, he would probably sink a republican candidacy due to southern (and even) northern racial sentiments which have never really been overcome.

hillary would be far to leftish to be acceptable in the south, but edwards is a poswsibility. obama would probably be notable, but like powell, color wouldmost likely destroy his chances.

the biggest problem to overcome for the dems is conservatism in so much of the south and farm states. they would have to field someone who would not be concieved as leftish, but conservative which right now appears unlikely to get anyone who could draw the center and some rightist groups. he (or she) would have to have a proven moderate record, while republicans would have to field a real right winger to combat the centrist positions which are more likely to acceptable.

either side could get a number of candidates, but it will probably be a centrist who'll have the best chance in '08. the question seems to be, who'll fit the bill without being to radical in either direction and be a compromise winner?

that's where bush came from, but his agenda was far more rightish than anyone considered and has provewn to be a real detriment in this cycle. his political inexperience has proven to backfire in many areas, but the conservative congress has just followed right along without question and it has shown itself to be a bad idea. while a change in direction is sometimes justified, the changes he made have proven oddly not such a good idea and is having more and more fallout.:-4

zinkyusa · Post by **zinkyusa** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 12:15 pm

charles_r51 wrote: mccain is a definite possibility, but he may be a bit to far right for many especially after bush which may be to his detriment. as for powell, he would probably sink a republican candidacy due to southern (and even) northern racial sentiments which have never really been overcome.

hillary would be far to leftish to be acceptable in the south, but edwards is a poswsibility. obama would probably be notable, but like powell, color wouldmost likely destroy his chances.

the biggest problem to overcome for the dems is conservatism in so much of the south and farm states. they would have to field someone who would not be concieved as leftish, but conservative which right now appears unlikely to get anyone who could draw the center and some rightist groups. he (or she) would have to have a proven moderate record, while republicans would have to field a real right winger to combat the centrist positions which are more likely to acceptable.

either side could get a number of candidates, but it will probably be a centrist who'll have the best chance in '08. the question seems to be, who'll fit the bill without being to radical in either direction and be a compromise winner?

that's where bush came from, but his agenda was far more rightish than anyone considered and has provewn to be a real detriment in this cycle. his political inexperience has proven to backfire in many areas, but the conservative congress has just followed right along without question and it has shown itself to be a bad idea. while a change in direction is sometimes justified, the changes he made have proven oddly not such a good idea and is having more and more fallout.:-4

Don't know about Texas but here in NC Powell is very popular because of his miltary service...McCain would be enough to carry the south IMO even with Powell on the ticket. Powell would bring more of the black vote to repbulicans than they'ev ever seen..It's a mute point though as he is quite clear about not running.

The dems need to find some new faces if they expect to win even with the mess Bush has caused...The same old Kerry, Gore, Gephart have no prayer, nor does Hillary nationally..

We may see some governors emerge from the midwest to run as well..

cherandbuster · Post by **cherandbuster** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 12:16 pm

What do you guys think of Joe Biden? I like him a lot.

zinkyusa · Post by **zinkyusa** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 12:18 pm

cherandbuster wrote: What do you guys think of Joe Biden? I like him a lot.

I think he has to much baggage Cher, with the cheating on the tests etc...

cherandbuster · Post by **cherandbuster** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 12:32 pm

zinkyusa wrote: I think he has to much baggage Cher, with the cheating on the tests etc...

What baggage, Zinkster? Would you inform me?

zinkyusa · Post by **zinkyusa** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 12:37 pm

cherandbuster wrote: What baggage, Zinkster? Would you inform me?

He ran for the White House in 1988, but dropped out after rival Democratic candidate Michael Dukakis distributed a videotape that showed Biden lifted parts of his speeches from remarks made by British Labor Party leader Neil Kinnock. He also was accused of and admitted to cheating and plaigirism during his college years. He was young then of course but those things come out during presidential races..

cherandbuster · Post by **cherandbuster** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 12:37 pm

zinkyusa wrote: He ran for the White House in 1988, but dropped out after rival Democratic candidate Michael Dukakis distributed a videotape that showed Biden lifted parts of his speeches from remarks made by British Labor Party leader Neil Kinnock. He also was accused of and admitted to cheating and plaigirism during his college years. He was young then of course but those things come out during presidential races..

Ah, interesting. Thanks for the info

charles_r51 · Post by **charles_r51** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 1:05 pm

zinkyusa wrote: Don't know about Texas but here in NC Powell is very popular because of his miltary service...McCain would be enough to carry the south IMO even with Powell on the ticket. Powell would bring more of the black vote to repbulicans than they'ev ever seen..It's a mute point though as he is quite clear about not running.

The dems need to find some new faces if they expect to win even with the mess Bush has caused...The same old Kerry, Gore, Gephart have no prayer, nor does Hillary nationally..

We may see some governors emerge from the midwest to run as well..

trhe republicans usually field a governor for president but sometimes they stay in the senate for a candidate. the dems almost always go with a senator, and rarewly field a governor.

obama may be able to pick up some of the southern black voters but powell could probably get more. obama though is too liberal to carry the south with enoght to win. powell may be harder for the northern dems to accept, but some of the pther dems may have a better chance with th female voters if he's a strong middle of the roader on many of the women's issues. i doubt that the republicans would have as good a chance ujnless they re-ignite the far right religious vote after the scandalous repuiblican problems with the loss of delay foley and the abrimoff debacle reaching into th e white house though it hasn't been much publicized with hasstert under intense fire from his own side.

we'll be able to see better when the new cycle starts afdter november.:driving:

charles_r51 · Post by **charles_r51** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 1:10 pm

cherandbuster wrote: Ah, interesting. Thanks for the info

biden would have been a possibility but his past is against him, though that can sometimes be overcome. just remember lincoln. he was cesured by the house for his actions but he won the white house anyway. in this day and age, if an actor and a politically inexperienced former governor can win, who knows. maybe the repubs will change the constitution so arnold can run. he might even have a chance of winning, but he would be hard to understand when he speaks.:-4 :driving:

charles_r51 · Post by **charles_r51** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 1:16 pm

zinkyusa wrote: He ran for the White House in 1988, but dropped out after rival Democratic candidate Michael Dukakis distributed a videotape that showed Biden lifted parts of his speeches from remarks made by British Labor Party leader Neil Kinnock. He also was accused of and admitted to cheating and plaigirism during his college years. He was young then of course but those things come out during presidential races..

failure as a businessman didn't hgurt bush, nor his glorious military service (not) in the national guard which he never finished since he was busy helping some polititian get elected.:driving:

and being a poor actor didn't hjurt reagan though i thought people were smarter than they were when he was running but wound up being wrong about the people being smart because they elected him anyway.

Adam Zapple · Post by **Adam Zapple** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 2:58 pm

Bush, while hawkish on defense, is no conservative. He is a big-government president who is more like Democrats re: government spending, something that has caused his base to desert him on several occasions. Conservatives will be looking for a small-government, tax-reform minded candidate. It's early but I think Romney has a good shot at the nomination. McCain is not too conservative, he is not conservative enough. He will do well with the moderate vote however.

Hillary is taking some heat from the anti-war left but ultimately they would enthusiastically support her in a bid for the White House. Obama is too inexperienced and too liberal. Edwards is a politician to the core. He is for whatever the polls say he should be for. Al Gore is also getting some support from the far left, but I think he has become so extreme in his views that he would get waxed in a general election.

charles_r51 · Post by **charles_r51** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 5:54 pm

Adam Zapple wrote: Bush, while hawkish on defense, is no conservative. He is a big-government president who is more like Democrats re: government spending, something that has caused his base to desert him on several occasions. Conservatives will be looking for a small-government, tax-reform minded candidate. It's early but I think Romney has a good shot at the nomination. McCain is not too conservative, he is not conservative enough. He will do well with the moderate vote however.

Hillary is taking some heat from the anti-war left but ultimately they would enthusiastically support her in a bid for the White House. Obama is too inexperienced and too liberal. Edwards is a politician to the core. He is for whatever the polls say he should be for. Al Gore is also getting some support from the far left, but I think he has become so extreme in his views that he would get waxed in a general election.

don't think that high spending is a democratic trait. it's a political necessity but bush has taken it to the extreme by not at least trying to pay for his and the repuhblican spending record. his championing tax cuts, which benefited only 5% of the wealthiest households with 95% of the tax breaks went well with the conservative base and his pro-family, anti-choiuce, anti-science stances assured him of the religious vote. even the republicans who ran with him benefited by his extremist ideas of how to deal with a non-threat from a nation which was still recovering from a disasterous undertaking while his father was pres.

hillary is championing the only major weakness bush has which is iraq. she ,at least, seems able to understand that iraq is a bottomless money pit which bush doesn't seem to worry about as long as the republicans can exploit 9/11 which is about all they really have left. his continued references are beginning toi wear thin in many parts of the country, not because he was wrong to invade on liesd and doctored intelligence, but because of his continued willingness to keep our troops their through the next decade. had he wanted to win, even though he lied, he shou;ld have gone in with overwhelming force and done so, not pussyfoot around and then keep sending the same people in for their third, fourth and fifth tours to settle a system which could have been dojne fast and sure if he'd committed the military to do the job and get it over with. instead, he's ensuring defeat through an underwhelming, and wasted effort to impose a democratic gove3rnment on a country which cares more about their own religion than their own people.

some of the best people he had supporting him have begun to turn away, maybe just to get re-elected, but some were probably aware that his ignorance of the region and his nearly total ignorance of political reality have made them into weakened and for some total abandoning supporters. unless he wakes up, and fast, he's going to leave under less than honorable conditions. that is if he doesn't face impeachment first, but i doubt the dems would try that unless they have a super majority in both houses, and the time to devote to what may be a lame-duck president.

i guess we'll see how things fare come november.

:-4

Spinner · Post by **Spinner** » Fri Oct 20, 2006 9:11 am

According to the Polls (can't give you the URL until I have submitted the required posts--15??!! that is way too many but-- OK), both parties and the American population are ready for a woman to run.

I think "Hitlerett" will run for the Democrats. She's the poster child for the communist agenda. God help us if she wins!

Not sure who will run for the Republicans. Wouldn't it be a hoot if Condi ran...of course she's just a puppet for the Bush Empire so we're still screwed.

With a Mexican attorney general, who is just one generation removed from illegal aliens (his parents)...there is little hope for America..no matter who wins.