1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Who Do you Think Are the Front Runners For 2008?

Discussion in 'The OT' started by tommccann, Feb 27, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. tommccann

    tommccann Legend

    Mar 23, 2002

    Average of All Major Polls

    Democrat %
    Hillary Clinton 38%
    John Edwards 16%
    John Kerry 15%
    Joe Biden 6%
    Bill Richardson 3%

    Average of All Major Polls

    Republican %
    Condoleezza Rice 26%
    Rudolph Giuliani 22%
    John McCain 19%
    Newt Gingrich 8%
    George Allen 7%
  2. Cholly

    Cholly Old Guys Rule! DBSTalk Club

    Mar 22, 2004
    This morning, I caught a discussion between Matt Lauer and Tim Russert that addressed this topic. Apparently MSNBC ran an extensive poll, even pairing off potential candidates. They gave the nod to Hillary over Rice, even with Rudy and McCain over Hillary.
    They pointed out that the Dems face a 45% hard line opposition, so they'd have to field a candidate that would appeal to independents.
    Personally, I'd be interested in seeing an Edwards vs. McCain contest.:D
  3. BobMurdoch

    BobMurdoch Hall Of Fame

    Apr 24, 2002
    Rice? Never gonna happen.

    Giuliani? Maybe, a lot of people liked his handling of New York City (especially after the disaster when even his detractors gave him grudging respect).

    McCain? My pick. A strong opinion that doesn't follow one side or the other slavishly. Sometimes I agree with the Republicans, sometimes with the Dems. Moderates rarely have someone they can embrace. McCain may be the closet we get.
  4. Fifty Caliber

    Fifty Caliber Banned User

    Jan 4, 2006
    It's obvious that the race the liberal news media wants to see is Hillary Clinton vs. John McCain. This way they get a realy liberal president reguardless of which party wins. The only problem with this idea is that alot of people don't think John McCain can win the GOP nomination. Also there is speculation that if McCain did get the GOP nomination, most republicans would simply stay at home on election night just like in 1996 when the unexciting candidate Bob Dole ran against Bill Clinton.

    The Republicans are right now where the Democrats were in 1991. In 1991 noone expected Bill Clinton to come out of the woodwork and carry the Democrats to victory. The Democrats were looking to Paul Tsongis, Al Gore, Dick Gepart and a few other Democratic Senators. Right now the Republicans do not have an obvious candidate. Halley Barbor, J.C. Watts, Jeb Bush and Steve Forbes are all good but un-obvious candidates.

    The Democrats have a sure-thing stradegy if they choose to use it. If the Democrats run a candidate who has the endorsement of the National Rifle Association of America, they win. No Republican candidate can win against that. There are at least three candidates for this option, retired Georgia senator Zell Miller, North Carolina Governor Mike Easley, and Oklahoma legislator J.Paul Dunn. There are probably more.
  5. Danny R

    Danny R Goblin the Pug DBSTalk Gold Club

    Jul 5, 2002
    Hillary Clinton vs. John McCain. This way they get a realy liberal president reguardless of which party wins.

    McCain is hardly a "liberal". He's voted rather consistently for pro-life, anti-gay marriage, pro-death penalty, pro-vouchers, pro-guns, privatize SS, hardline against crime, lower taxes for wealthy, more spending for defense, pro-prayer in schools, favor of religions providing state services and plenty of other party line votes.

    But still he's painted as a "liberal" because he's not a hard "religious" conservative and speaks his mind. In the current administration, if you aren't with them, you are of course the enemy, and that means a "liberal".

    And of course McCain is considered a traitor because he's in favor of campaign finance reform, and to most politicians that means he's the enemy who's trying to cut them off from their money.
  6. juan ellitinez

    juan ellitinez Icon/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    Jan 31, 2003
    Look for a dark horse candidate on the democratic side They know they can win with a southern governor. Liberal Senators from the northeast always seem to lose for the dems.
  7. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    Jun 27, 2002
    McCain is in the CLOSET??? Well, it don't bother me, but that's never going to fly with the GOP base!:sure:;)

    Seriously, I like McCain too mostly for his independent streak. I certainly don't agree with him on many issues, but I believe he would give fair hearing to all sides and if confronted with a cogent, coherent argument, is amenable to changing his mind, unlike the current administration. Some won't like this, but I'll compare him to Clinton in that Clinton worked both sides of the aisle and was willing to reasonably compromise for the good of the nation as a whole rather than exclusively his own personal idealogy. I believe McCain would do likewise.

    That said, McCain disappoints in that he shows signs of rebellion and righteous indignation, but then always ends up on the same podium with his arm around GWB. I know, "party unity" and all. But it seems especially ironic considering how many times McCain's been screwed over by Bush and his Rovian political machine, and been lied to and deceived as well.

    It makes you think there's some kind of quid pro quo going on here with the neocons dangling the carrot of support in a McCain '08 Presidential bid. While that would be sad enough in speaking to McCain's character, what may be sadder still is what it says about his judgement and gullibility that they would ever actually follow through on such a pledge. McCain is about the last candidate I can see the neocons wanting to succeed Dubya. And the same goes for the religious right and social conservatives. That leaves independent minded moderate and conservative Republicans(and "liberal" Republicans if there is such an animal:rolleyes: ). So, I don't realistically see how he could get the nomination, although if he did, I believe he'd have a very good chance of winning.:yesman:

    Hillary? Eh!:shrug: I suppose we could do worse. Not that she's my ideal. But Bill is more popular then ever and her candidacy would suggest a return to his Presidency that most of us rightly or wrongly look back on as "better days". However, in her occasional swerves to the center to create the perception she is more moderate, she has created the opportunity for the "flip-flop" charge to be leveled against her. And those same swerves have alienated, or at least distanced her, from some of what should be her base.

    Mostly though, I'm afraid the nation as a whole is not ready for a woman President and come the first Tuesday in November '08, will not be able to pull the trigger. I'm ready, and perhaps it's condescending to believe others aren't, but that's my opinion. I hope I'm wrong. But this is no time for the Democrats to "make a statement!"

    All that is moot of course if the GOP picks Rice. But I don't think that's going to happen either. Despite all their tolerant PC rhetoric and Rice's "credentials, I don't think the neocons, or for that matter their conservative Christian allies, would trust a woman, let alone a black woman, with the gains they have achieved over the last eight years.

    It would certainly be an interesting and unprecedented race. In the end though I believe Hillary would win, although like I said, it ain't gonna happen. Rice is inextricibly tied to Bush and the war. You know the one that looks more and more, day by day, that it will end up in a chaotic and brutal civil war, whether we keep our troops there or not. I hope I'm wrong, but I don't see any way that in two years this adventure will resemble anything but a complete mistake and total failure.

    Personal favorites? I have none. Although Dennis Kucinich is starting to look far more prescient than his other debate partners in '04.:yesman: Someone who had opposed the war and/or voted against the Patriot Act would be good for starters and clear things up a little. But that's a pretty small pool. Who do we got?:icon_cool Russ Feingold and Barak Obama?:dozey:

    I guess Joe Biden's alright. Edwards could do although one term as Senator puts him a little thin on experience. Eight years as governor of Texas was apparently acceptable, but Edward's daddy isn't a former President either.

    I have no idea right now who the Democrats will nominate. But taking the "front-runners", two years out, I'd have to VOTE for Clinton over McCain. Although for the reason I've given, I think McCain would win.
  8. ntexasdude

    ntexasdude Hall Of Fame

    Jan 23, 2005
    Arnold, Ventura or Tonya Harding is where I'm putting my money. Oh wait, I forgot The Donald. Is he running?

    McCain, McCain, McCain
    The Democrats main bane.

    It has a nice ring if you say it fast enough and with the correct syncopation.:hurah:
  9. JM Anthony

    JM Anthony Child of the 60's DBSTalk Gold Club

    Nov 16, 2003
    I suspect another dark horse Democratic governor (or former governor) will emerge from the pack. If we face another economic collapse, either from terrorists or from a flu pandemic, I suspect the D*s could run Elmer Fudd and he'd win. I don't think anyone trusts the existing political establishment, whether it's D*s or R*s that much these days. I know I sure don't.

  10. Danny R

    Danny R Goblin the Pug DBSTalk Gold Club

    Jul 5, 2002
    One thing that people forget is that Hillary might win this election without a single swing vote being thrown her way from the 2004 election tallies. If the republicans pick a person considered too close to Bush (Condi or Jeb), people who have been put off by Bush's hardline tactics might not vote or vote for a 3rd party candidate. We are after all talking about just a few percentage of the vote here to swing the election from one party to the other based on the past two elections.

    In fact, I wonder if 2008 might just be the year for the 3rd party candidate if a strong well known and recognizable candidate runs (and not Nader or a no-name Libertarian nobody has heard of before.)

    If Hillary runs, she might just turn a large number of democrats away... folks who would rather vote for a 3rd party than her but who won't vote republican.

    If someone who is well linked to Bush wins the republican nomination, Bush's screwups will taint them and a large number of "moderate" republicans will likewise bolt to a possible 3rd party rather than going democrat.

    Given two extreme candidates for the main party, a 3rd party might just pick up 34% of the vote and win. Wouldn't that just be something to see. Might do the nation some good too.
  11. Fifty Caliber

    Fifty Caliber Banned User

    Jan 4, 2006
    I don't see the Republicans running a so called "Extreme" candidate this time around. In the past 25 years there have only been two conservatives to win a presidential nomination, Ronald Reagan who was elected and then re-elected, and Bob Dole who wasn't. That's a 50% track record.

    George W. Bush was the guy Republicans rallied around, not because he is a conservative because he is certainly NOT a conservative, but because he could win against Al Gore. Al Gore had the huge advantage of having the liberal news media on his side, and that's always a tough handicap for the Republican candidate.

    Arnold Swartzeneger due to constitutional provisions, cannot run for president as he is not a native citizen. So any of his merrits, or lack there of, are not rellivent at this time.
  12. DonLandis

    DonLandis Hall Of Fame

    Dec 17, 2003
    "Hillary? Eh! I suppose we could do worse."

    I agree with that, the fact that the Democrats could find a worse candidate to run, like Corrine Brown. Hillary is smart, but does not have the interest of the nation at heart. She has her own interests foremost in her plan for world domination. Brown, same but she is too stupid to accomplish anything. Always be cautious of a smart and cunning evil person. jonstad, I think as long as the nitwits in the world ( namely the Holyweird luny left) are in control of the Democrat party, they could do worse.
    How about Zell MIller? He is one who could galvanize many republicans who are ready for a different fresh direction of Republican moderacy.
    As for Republicans, I'd say Rudolph Giuliani would probably be my favorite. Jeb Bush- He has said he does not want the Presidency.

    How about the Green Party- Movie Star? M<ay be what the Green Party needs to shake some votes away from the Democratic Party. You do know that many voting Democrats are really Green fans at heart. Give them a possibility of a charismatic public person and, well, so much for a huge % of Democratic votes!

    Libertarian- I'm sure they will find some unknown who will remain unknown throughout the election. Libertarians have the right idea with no leadership surfacing. Since most Libertarians are natural born leaders maybe its in the Libertarians' destiny to never have one leader of its own. Most of us feel we are quite capable of deciding our own future and don't spend a lot of time worrying over who best to lead us. That is a real conflict in the Party.
  13. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    Jun 27, 2002
    World domination?

    C'mon Don, that's absolutely ludicrious! Or delusional paranoia!

    What is it about a hick boomer power couple from Arkansas that strikes such fear into the hearts of conservatives? Was the nineties THAT bad? Certainly not that bad for conservatives OR the monied.

    Besides, if the Clintons are out for WORLD DOMINATION!:eek: What the hell has Bush been up to the last several years? GALACTIC DOMINATION?

    Get a grip friend. Dubbya has made a hobby out of invading nations and a cottage industry of intimidating and antagonizing the rest! Financed it by letting a lien to foreigners for our grandchildren to pay off, part of the deal encouraging our jobs and industry to "go global", meaning anywhere but here. And now to keep his Arab oil buddies happy, he wants to let petroleum princes who "falcon" with Osama in their leisure time operate our ports! Whatever happened to "We have to be right all the time, the terrorist only have to be right once!"?

    Now I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but either Bush and the neocons have some nefarious dark plot for control of everything, or we've been driven entirely off the rails and are headed for the cliff!

    And you're worried about Hillary???:lol::rotfl:
  14. cdru

    cdru Hall Of Fame

    Dec 4, 2003
    Agreed. I think we will see a female president and or a minority president before we see a female minority president. I'm not saying that she wouldn't make a decent president, rather that the country as a whole wouldn't elect such a person as president.
  15. olgeezer

    olgeezer Guest

    Dec 5, 2003
    Democrat: Barak Obama
    Republican: John McCain
    (Wouldn't it be a novelty to have two candidates who actually give a ****?)
  16. DonLandis

    DonLandis Hall Of Fame

    Dec 17, 2003
    "What is it about a hick boomer power couple... "

    Not surprised, they both sure have you fooled!

    There is good reason Bill is called "slick willie" and Hillary is called actually two nicknames I heard in NY last year- Hitlary and Hellary. A few others but those are not fit for this forum. Remember, I said from NY, actually NYC where the 3rd most common word is abreviated for here- MFing.

    "And you're worried about Hillary???" Absolutely! Bush doing right or wrong has nothing to do with whether that makes her look good. This is the major problem with you and everyone like you method of rebuttal. You have no point! Instead of pointing out specifics to prove Hellary is God's gift to NY and will be his devine miracle for the US as a newly elected dictator, all you can do is point out the bad things Bush is now doing. With that you are preaching to the Choir. Got to listen to Rush for a few minutes and even he is having trouble stuttering and stammering trying hard to defend Bush's recent actions. ut what the heck does all that have to do with Hitlary and what kind of person she is?

    Now, I'll give you this much given a choice between Al Gore, Bill Clinton or even Jimmy Carter, or Hillary, I would vote for any of them over her. How about Corrine Brown? Yes, I would even vote for Corrine "Fredonia" Brown before Hitlary.

    Again, I didn't do bad in the 90's after I lost my job and company in '94 and was out of work for a year. I switched careers and started a business, fought the law and I won! Bill made it loose and fun to go to the strip bars because what's good for the President was good for the nation's menfolk! Right? How could I hate him? Can't. He can even play a pretty mean Sax. Of course, I won't want to depend on him in combat or trust him with my wife, or take is word as a man of character, but he was a fun guy! His wife, well from day one in the WhiteHouse she tried to run the world, then tried to manipulate and control everything. She tried to be a Nancy Reagan but had no grace, nor the respect of her husband. Nancy had both! The world new that. So Bill stripped her of that power takeover in the White House and then she tried to ruin the Nations Health Care system but while BIll left her alone ( I think he was too busy with his own health care needs, aka sex drive at the time), but Bill knew the Congress would humor her and put an end to her nonsense and they did. Now you think she hasn't forgotten all about that? If she takes the throne, she will get her revenge, Vince Foster style! I really believe that.
  17. Tom in TX

    Tom in TX Icon

    Jan 22, 2004
    The Democrats will not nominate Obama. Ted Kennedy can't pronounce his name!
    Even when he's sober!
    Tom in TX
  18. Richard King

    Richard King Hall Of Fame

    Mar 25, 2002
    When was the last time he was sober? :D
  19. pez2002

    pez2002 Hall Of Fame

    Dec 13, 2002
    Hillary Clinton

    but dont be surprised to see jed bush make a run for president
  20. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    Mar 23, 2002
    Tom Vilsack.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page