2008 Presidential Candidates?

I'm gonna vote for Geroge Bush III:D
Truthfully noone has mentioned anyone that i would vote for, I hope the republicans have a stick hiding in the bushes. Reckon we could get Jessie Ventura nominated?
 
Niether John McCain nor Hillary Clinton will be candidates in the 2008 Presidential Election. In their respective primaries, yes, of course. But neither of them will get the nomination. And for the same reason. The activist base of both parties desipises them. Hillary has triangulated herself out of a lot of support in the Democratic base, and her stand on the war was the nail in the coffin. Plus, Democratic primary voters, (who tend to me more politically aware, in both parties), know that the Republicans are salivating over the prospect of her running. McCain will never satisfy the Social Right (mostly religiously motivated, but not all). He'll get clobbered in the South and probably on the West side of the Mississippi as well.

For the D's, you can bet on a governor, probably from a Western state. Bill Richardson looks strong right now, and Mark Warner has gotten some support. After Lieberman and Kerry and Edwards, whoever gets the nod in '08 will not be coming out of the Senate. Gore was a flyer, but Bill Clinton won that election. His choice of running mate didn't matter politically. It was win-or-lose on him.

I'm not as up on the R side, although it's a sure bet that Bill Frist will run. He's the only name I've heard that seems like a possible primary winner for the Republicans. I think he'd be clobbered in the general, but I'm guessing. Gingrich is a fantasy candidate. Mostly his own fantasy. Sorry, Newt, but two heartbeats is as close as you'll ever get. Condi won't run, and wouldn't win, unless Iraq turns out far, far better than it looks like it will. Which would change the political dynamics for everyone, not just her.

Beyond that, who has really expressed an interest, and who (from your own party, not "I'd like to run against...") do you folks like?

--Shannon

PS No matter where you're comming from, 2008 will be in interesting year in politics. No incumbents, no clear favorite yet. Pass the popcorn and beer!!
 
Niether John McCain nor Hillary Clinton will be candidates in the 2008 Presidential Election.


Not sure where you are baseing this from but here are some current polls nationally:










Many other names are already beginning to appear as potential candidates. While this information will most likely undergo changes as new public opinion data becomes available, the present anticipated frontrunners for the major political parties in America are as follows:

[edit]
Recent polls
Diageo/Hotline Poll - July 20-23, 2006

Polls %
John McCain (R) 49%
Hillary Clinton (D) 37%

Diageo/Hotline Poll - June 21-25, 2006

Polls %
John McCain (R) 49%
John Edwards (D) 36%
[edit]
 
1 huge factor could be Guiliani if he wins the nomination. He would carry most of the same red states vs Hillary----BUT the huge pick up would be NY and all its Delegates. He would easily defeat Hillary in a National Election.
 
and as you said, he is the best of the rest on the 2nd.

I hope you are not talking to me, because I said nothing of the sort.

Our first amendment rights aren't going anywhere

What about "ALREADY GONE??!"

Supports ban on certain assault weapons. (Aug 1999)

Again I'll repeat----HE would never be proactive(unlike Hillary) in the banning of guns. Again--NOT PROACTIVE.

:confused: WTF??? :confused:

I would be interested to know how you know your friend would "never be proactive." Do you know the man? You've already admitted he's a gun-banner. How is that different from Hillary? Just because he'd have to go against the majority of his own party in a vote? Oh wait, he's already done that - he voted FOR the last bill that would've reauthorized another 10-year ban on so-called assault weapons, S.1805 in March 2004!!
http://www.vote-smart.org/

As we know, that piece of trash bill failed after the most anti-gun Senators in America tried to attach the AWB to it, but McCain voted for it anyway. Rest assured, EVERY gun-banner will be proactive in attempting to ban more guns. Some may just wait until is politically expedient for them to do so. Yes, even John McCain.
 
You pointed out that he is a C+ rated by the NRA--I would say he rates well above Hillary. If you look at his record on guns he is NOT a complete Anti like Hillary-if he was he wouldn't be FOR carrying a concealed weapon. Good luck getting Hillary on board for that 1. Same for lawsuits vs gun makers(Hillary opposite), same for the Brady Bill and assualt weapons--Hillary was for both. Take a closer look at their posted records--McCain is much softer then Hillary's NO tolerance whatsoever.
 
MoW, do you have a link to the details of that poll? Where was it taken, and what were the actual questions asked.

At this point, the head-to-head, "who would you vote for" polls are worse than useless, because they're asking the wrong question. What matters is, who are the party-affiliated voters in each state supporting, out of the list of announced candidates, and how many delegates do those staes represent. Even that data's not worth much in the middle of 2006, but at least the question is relevant.

McCain I'm a little less confident of, but I'd bet dinner against Hillary getting the nomination. McCain, I'd bet lunch.

--Shannon
 
I'll vote one of the 3rd parties.

And if it's constitution or libertarian, you'll be helping to elect a liberal democrat. Remember Ross Perot, the guy who gave us eight years of William Clinton?

JT
 
And if it's constitution or libertarian, you'll be helping to elect a liberal democrat. Remember Ross Perot, the guy who gave us eight years of William Clinton?

That's why it's MY vote - so I can cast it how I want. Clearly, if you were allowed to vote for me you'd do something different.

And I suppose a liberal Democrat is somehow different from what we've got now? Get real.
 
And if it's constitution or libertarian, you'll be helping to elect a liberal democrat. Remember Ross Perot, the guy who gave us eight years of William Clinton?

No, the eight years of Clinton were given to us by the Republicans' inability to convince enough people to vote for their candidate, not by the people who voted for Perot. The folks who voted third-party didn't "owe" their vote to the Republicans. Furthermore, your position assumes that the Perot voters would have voted Republican if Perot hadn't been in the race.

If the Republicans want my vote, they will have to earn it. It is not owed to them, and if they fail to attract enough people to not have to rely on my itty-bitty third party vote, then they are to blame for their election loss.
 
It's amazing what a difference four years makes.

That long ago, I believed as jacobtowne does, that a vote for a third party by someone who would have held their nose and voted republican would result in a win by the liberals.

After the last four year of GWB, I'm in rick_reno's camp. What's the difference?

A politician's stance on gun rights has always been a litmus test for me. If they're pro 2nd Amendment, they're probably okay with me on other issues as well. I will grant you that Bush has done much better at preserving our 2A rights than Kerry would have but he has failed us in many other ways, and it isn't possible to ignore them anymore.

The only logical course of action for a true conservative at this point is to vote for a third party (specifically, Libertarian or Constitution). Both major parties must be shown unequivocally that there is a large bloc of disaffected conservative voters who are so angry with the state of their government that THEY JUST DON'T CARE WHO WINS! Only if this happens will either party have any reason to change.

Why would the dems change if they get elected?
Because they'll know that this large conservative bloc of voters will eagerly move to the major party that embraces true conservative values of limited constitutional government, personal freedom and personal responsibility. If they don't change, the republicans will and they'll be assured of victory in the next election.

Aren't we at this point now?
No. Take a look at this chart:
attachment.php

Because the republicans are spending faster than any administration in the past 30 years, they obviously feel that they have that "true conservative" bloc sewn up. They need to be shown that they don't. If that means that a democrat gets elected president in '08, that's a tactical loss I'm willing to take for the greater victory my children will realize.

What's the down side?
Obviously, the four (or eight) years it takes to get true conservatives firmly in the third-party camp. A lot can happen in that time, but we need to have eyes for the long road. The short road we're on now will lead to the untimely collapse of our government under its own weight. We want to preserve our government and our American way of life by making the difficult decision now - rather than leaving our kids with a government they can't pay for and that can no longer function for them.

-Dave
 

Attachments

  • 040624_spending.gif
    040624_spending.gif
    31.1 KB · Views: 100
That's why it's MY vote - so I can cast it how I want. Clearly, if you were allowed to vote for me you'd do something different

Vote however you want---just know the potential/likely consequences of your actions:rolleyes: . It is either going to be a Democrat or Republican that gets elected-you know and I know it. Deny it all u want but it is a fact. Now that said, sometimes you are FORCED to make a decision that isn't good either way(Liver or Frog legs for me:p ).
So in this example you will have to choose knowing that your 3rd party vote WILL help either the Democrat or Republican candidate. Rest assured it will come down to 2. So go ahead and vote how YOU want, but know that IF the 1 party that you really don't want to get elected----gets elected---then your "wasted" vote will have contributed. I know it su cks but it's the way it is.:(
 
I think that until people stop believing they are throwing their vote away by voting third party,we will never get some one in the White house/Congress who really does care about the Constitution and our Country.
 
the only choices that Republicans have is to either vote for the Libertarian candidate

Oh, yeah, right. A key issue that has us pubbies in an uproar is the open borders mess which threatens to destroy the infrastructure of America. And you suggest we vote Libertarian?!

Libertarian, the party that believes in open borders?

I don't think so.
 
MoW said:
IF the 1 party that you really don't want to get elected----gets elected---then your "wasted" vote will have contributed.
The only wasted votes are those which are not cast.

How can you say I am wasting my vote if I am voting for the person whom I want to win?
 
TheBluesMan,

The only wasted votes are those which are not cast.


Completely false---a vote for a 3rd party candidate who has 0 chance of winning is actually WORSE then someone who doesn't vote because you are actually hurting/helping 1 party or the other to win.

How can you say I am wasting my vote if I am voting for the person whom I want to win?

Simple math---in the last election Bush got 62 million votes, Kerry 59 million and Independent Peroutka 144 thousand!:eek: Let's do a simple example for instance. If you had 2 candidates in a classroom of 50 and you didn't like either so you and 2 other students vote for a 3rd person. Now even though you didn't like either of the 2 major candidates---you REALLY didn't want 1 of them to win(Candidate A). So the vote goes:
Candidate A---24 votes
Candidate B---23 votes
3rd party write in----3 votes
So now because you "wasted" your votes on a 3rd party write in who had no shot, the direct result ended up in the 1 candidate that you REALLY didn't want to win----to win. Had you used your vote on Candidate B(even though you didn't really like him either)then Candidate A ends up winning. So your wasted vote actually helped A where as someone who might not vote helps neither.
 
On Principle I understand your sentiment----BUT we are talking about reality and the voting process here.
 
Back
Top