13-05-2005 07:03									#31
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

A first term Senator running after 2 years in the spot? Not likely.

Though the good news for the Dems is that Frist is a Senator. And as was pointed out during the Kerry campaign, a sitting Senator hasn't won since Kennedy, mostly because you can make it look like they've flip flopped because of all the riders and amendments attached to various Senate bills. Frist should be easy pickings for the flip flop charge as Kerry was.

	13-05-2005 07:03									#32
	Remove this text

Clark/Obama 08

	13-05-2005 07:05									#33
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Wesley Clark won't win the nomination.

If the Dems are smart, they'd find a popular governor (such as Virginia's Mark Warner). That is the principle that seems to work.

	13-05-2005 07:08									#34
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Frist should be easy pickings for the flip flop charge as Kerry was.

He'll be running against Democrats. They haven't shown any competence at Presidential campaigns for a while.

	13-05-2005 07:08									#35
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Wesley Clark won't win the nomination. If the Dems are smart, they'd find a popular governor (such as Virginia's Mark Warner). That is the principle that seems to work.

Warner would be good. Bill Richardson would be better.

	13-05-2005 07:13									#36
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc He'll be running against Democrats. They haven't shown any competence at Presidential campaigns for a while.

They won the presidency in 1992 and 1996, won the popular vote is 2000, and lost the presidency in 2004 to an incumbent only by 75,000 votes (the number it would have taken to move Ohio to the Kerry column). Compared to the 80s, they're not doing too badly.

Still, you certainly won't go broke by betting on their ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

	13-05-2005 07:14									#37
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

double post

	13-05-2005 07:16									#38
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly Warner would be good. Bill Richardson would be better.

Richardson has said he doesn't want to run in 2008. Then again, it is early.

Mike Easley of North Carolina could be a candidate as well, but it is likely he won't run for that office.

	13-05-2005 07:18									#39
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

It's not so much that I want a Democrat to win. I just don't want any Republicans to win, at least not until the liberals in the GOP can take back some ground.

	13-05-2005 07:25									#40
	Full PM-box? Change here!

I've been hearing rumours that Norm Coleman has presidential ambitions.

Anyway, I think the Dem nominee should be Edwards, Richardson, or Warner. Hillary would be suicide, she is too easy to sling mud at. All northeasterners are out of the question, there hasn't been a Democratic president from the northeast since JFK, they have all been Southerners (LBJ, Carter, Clinton).

	13-05-2005 07:26									#41
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Richardson has said he doesn't want to run in 2008. Then again, it is early.

Yeah, I suspect Richardson's being coy. If he comes out now, he gets scrutinized for 3 years. On the other hand, if he says he's not running, but the prospect of his candidacy keeps Dems like me talking, when he does declare it will look like he's doing so in because there'ss a groundswell of popular support for him.

	13-05-2005 07:43									#42
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Edwards?

If you want to lose you can pick him. He'd be worse than Hillary.

	13-05-2005 07:48									#43
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

I don't think that Warner will run. It's very likely that he'll run against Allen for Senate (he's the only candidate in Virginia who has a chance against Allen). Furthermore, having two senator Warners from Virginia would almost be awesome enough to make up for not having a Democratic presidency.

	13-05-2005 08:11									#44
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Edwards? If you want to lose you can pick him. He'd be worse than Hillary.

Whats so bad about Edwards?

	13-05-2005 08:14									#45
	Support Apolyton

Well, the Foreign relations commitee passed Bolton. Really, what a completely awful choice for ambassador to the UN. With someone of a reputation for bullying being appointed, he will reeally be reinforcing America's image as a bully to the world. If you want someone to spread your message, you ought to send someone who doesn't have such an awful reputation, and who can present that message with tact and diplomacy. What an awful choice.

Left-wing opponents of Bush should take heart. The appointment of Bolton to the UN will make it likely that nothing Bush wants to get done at the UN will be accomplished.

	13-05-2005 08:14									#46
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

He's tainted by the Kerry campaign now. He also showed himself to be not very experienced and got SLAMMED on trial lawyer charges, which mobalized right-wing base.

Best make Edwards into what Quayle did after his vice presidency. Just have him go around and make speeches.

	13-05-2005 08:51									#47
	Put an end to popups!

Edwards would be a bad choice for the Dems. American Presidential Elections are games of States, and Edwards would not be likely to be particularly strong in terms of picking up any specific states. As the VP candidate, the Democrats lost North Carolina by 13 points, and in North Carolina Edwards's approval rating plummted once he became associated with John Kerry. You want someone in there who is strong in a region which has a significant number of contested electoral votes, Edwards is not it. He is also weak in that he is a senator and has a pretty liberal voting record. All of the liberal allegations that stuck to Kerry would stick to Edwards. Edwards also has the problem of being a medical malpractice lawyer.

Warner would be a pretty strong choice. Even though Bush won Virginia by 8 point, Warner is a popular enough Governor that he'd stand a good chance of swinging the State. Virginia i s only 13 Electoral Votes, which isn't enough in itself to give the Democrats an EV majority, but Warner has a strong moderate image and is more moderate on gun rights, and he could be more appealing to moderate voters in battleground States. Add to the fact that he is a Governor and not a Senator and he would be a strong choice.

I think Richardson would likely be the strongest candidate. As a Popular Govenor of a very close state, New Mexico would be in the bag. But more over he is also from the Southwest, and so would give the Democrats a good chance at swinging the Southwest, which other then the Rust Belt/Great Lakes region has the most contested EVs if you count Arizona. If he could carry all of Kerry's States plus NM, as well as Colorado and Nevada both of which were very close, then he would have an EV majority. He'd also stand a reasonable chance at taking Arizona. He'd be particularly strong in the Southwest also because he is a Hispanic, with a large concentration of Hispanic voters. His Hispanic heritage would also help him in Florida, which also has a good number of hispanic voters, although not Mexican voters like himself. He'd also be helped in the many urban centers across the country that have sizable Hispanic populations. My only concern with him would be how strong he would be in the Greats Lake region, which might not be so favorable to an "ethnic" candidate. In Pennsylvania, for instance, there is an unfortunately high amount of racism in the State.

Unfortunately for the Democrats, Hillary Clinton will be tough to beat in the 2008 primary. She has great name recognition, high established popularity among the democratic base, and a great fundraising machine. The fact that she is a woman would also help among the highly female Democratic electorate, and the Clinton name would also probably help greatly among African American voters, with whom Clinton was very popular with. Hillary, I believe, would likely be a weak candidate who would be difficult to sell outside of Blue America.

	13-05-2005 08:54									#48
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I don't think Hillary wins the nomination, but she's surprised me with her political accumen. She has moved her perception to a moderate left Senator instead of the wacky leftist she had after the Health Care Plan. Very savvy. She could be a very good SecState, IMO, under a President Warner or a President Richardson.

	13-05-2005 09:35									#49
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui I don't think Hillary wins the nomination, but she's surprised me with her political accumen. She has moved her perception to a moderate left Senator instead of the wacky leftist she had after the Health Care Plan. Very savvy. She could be a very good SecState, IMO, under a President Warner or a President Richardson.

One advantage of Hillary that a lot of people don't consider is the right wing ire directed against her. One of the failings of the Democrats in the 2004 campaign was being percieved as too angry at Bush, and that of running a basically negative campaign. Republicans would naturally fall into that trap, which could concievably turn against them. I probably won't vote for her in the primary, but it may be interesting to have her run.

	13-05-2005 09:37									#50
	Suffering from ads?

Um . . . . . . .


the Republicans were all about running a negative campaign as well.

	13-05-2005 09:47									#51
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Admiral One advantage of Hillary that a lot of people don't consider is the right wing ire directed against her. One of the failings of the Democrats in the 2004 campaign was being percieved as too angry at Bush, and that of running a basically negative campaign. Republicans would naturally fall into that trap, which could concievably turn against them. I probably won't vote for her in the primary, but it may be interesting to have her run.

Yes, it hurt Kerry that he came to be associated with some of the most vitroilic Bush-haters such as Moore, but I don't think it hurt him quite so much as it helped him, I think people overestimate the damage caused by an angry base. Whatever political damage to him was likely offset by the groundswell of grassroots support behind the Kerry campaign in gaining a huge amount of volunteers and campaign staffers, and getting so many grassroots donations as to actually build up a larger campaign warchest then Bush had.

	13-05-2005 15:26									#52
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Shi Huangdi Edwards would be a bad choice for the Dems. American Presidential Elections are games of States, and Edwards would not be likely to be particularly strong in terms of picking up any specific states. As the VP candidate, the Democrats lost North Carolina by 13 points, and in North Carolina Edwards's approval rating plummted once he became associated with John Kerry. You want someone in there who is strong in a region which has a significant number of contested electoral votes, Edwards is not it. He is also weak in that he is a senator and has a pretty liberal voting record. All of the liberal allegations that stuck to Kerry would stick to Edwards. Edwards also has the problem of being a medical malpractice lawyer. Warner would be a pretty strong choice. Even though Bush won Virginia by 8 point, Warner is a popular enough Governor that he'd stand a good chance of swinging the State. Virginia i s only 13 Electoral Votes, which isn't enough in itself to give the Democrats an EV majority, but Warner has a strong moderate image and is more moderate on gun rights, and he could be more appealing to moderate voters in battleground States. Add to the fact that he is a Governor and not a Senator and he would be a strong choice. I think Richardson would likely be the strongest candidate. As a Popular Govenor of a very close state, New Mexico would be in the bag. But more over he is also from the Southwest, and so would give the Democrats a good chance at swinging the Southwest, which other then the Rust Belt/Great Lakes region has the most contested EVs if you count Arizona. If he could carry all of Kerry's States plus NM, as well as Colorado and Nevada both of which were very close, then he would have an EV majority. He'd also stand a reasonable chance at taking Arizona. He'd be particularly strong in the Southwest also because he is a Hispanic, with a large concentration of Hispanic voters. His Hispanic heritage would also help him in Florida, which also has a good number of hispanic voters, although not Mexican voters like himself. He'd also be helped in the many urban centers across the country that have sizable Hispanic populations. My only concern with him would be how strong he would be in the Greats Lake region, which might not be so favorable to an "ethnic" candidate. In Pennsylvania, for instance, there is an unfortunately high amount of racism in the State. Unfortunately for the Democrats, Hillary Clinton will be tough to beat in the 2008 primary. She has great name recognition, high established popularity among the democratic base, and a great fundraising machine. The fact that she is a woman would also help among the highly female Democratic electorate, and the Clinton name would also probably help greatly among African American voters, with whom Clinton was very popular with. Hillary, I believe, would likely be a weak candidate who would be difficult to sell outside of Blue America.

Good analysis. I would like to point out that while an Hispanic candidate might be looked down upon in some parts of the midwest, states like Illinois, Michigan and Iowa have had good-sized Hispanic populations for a while and I think that generally relations improve between Hispanics and white Americans as they get to know on another, within the context of whites remaining the majority at least. So I don't see Richardson's ethnicity as being a negative factor for much of the midwest.

	13-05-2005 15:29									#53
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Shi Huangdi Yes, it hurt Kerry that he came to be associated with some of the most vitroilic Bush-haters such as Moore, but I don't think it hurt him quite so much as it helped him, I think people overestimate the damage caused by an angry base. Whatever political damage to him was likely offset by the groundswell of grassroots support behind the Kerry campaign in gaining a huge amount of volunteers and campaign staffers, and getting so many grassroots donations as to actually build up a larger campaign warchest then Bush had.

I think in general it does hurt more than it helps, but the last election was exceptional in that the vitriol in the Dem base was at an all time high. It would be a mistake for the Dems to count on the next Repub being so divisive however.

	13-05-2005 20:00									#54
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Sikander I think in general it does hurt more than it helps, but the last election was exceptional in that the vitriol in the Dem base was at an all time high. It would be a mistake for the Dems to count on the next Repub being so divisive however.

It probably also counts who the vitriol is coming from. Much of the anti-Bush vitriol was coming form the Michael Moore crowd. Alot of the anti-Kerry vitriol was from the swiftboat veterans, and Vietnam vets might not have been the worst people to be associated with.