How Democrat is New York? If Guiliani were to run, would he swing that state?
Speaking as an ignorant Brit, Hillary’s a bitch and a cunt, Obama seems rather green but possibly a Tony Blair, and Edwards I recall moderately impressing me last time around.
But you know what really strikes me? They’re all lawyers. The Democrats need a leader, not someone who can quibble the minutiae.
I was very disappointed that Evan Bayh dropped out; he had two very successful gubernatorial terms before becoming a senator, he’s moderate left of center, and best of all, he isn’t from the northeast. I’ve about had it with the DNC thinking the only place we can get decent candidates is New York or Massachusetts. It ends up alienating everyone and we wind up with a candidate who’s lost before a single vote is cast.
Nope. I am the OP - so hijack away…the whole point of this thread is to see who the front runners are at this point. I listed the above as, according to an article I read on MSNBC, those are the ones to look out for at this point in time.
Of course, as has been mentioned, dark horses have often popped up and surprised pundits and gone on to win the Presidency - so if anyone has any inside info, or knows of any other serious, potential Dem candidates, feel free to drop names.
?
2004: Kerry - Massachusetts/Edwards - North Carolina
2000: Gore - Tennessee/Lieberman - Connecticut
1992/1996: B. Clinton - Arkansas/Gore
1988: Dukakis - Massachusetts/Bentsen - Texas
1984: Mondale - Minnesota/Ferraro - New York
1976/1980: Carter - Georgia/Mondale - Minnesota
1972: McGovern - South Dakota/Shriver - Maryland
1968: Humphrey - Minnesota/Muskie - Maine
That’s the last ten elections. Okay, Massachusetts is represented twice and there’s one New Yorker. 
There’d be one more Massachusetts guy if I’d gone back to JFK, but this is hardly domination by the Bay State. There are a lot of Democrats in the northeast, but still, prevailing wisdom for a long time is that you have to at least balance a ticket - if not “the country hates New York and Massachusetts.” The Republicans have candidates from New York (Giuliani) and Massachusetts (Romney) this year, so who cares about that anyway? There are always going to be candidates from the Northeast considering the number of people who live here.
After November’s elections, all of New York’s state offices (Governor, both Senators, Comptroller, Attorney General) are held by Democrats, so the state is as firmly Democratic as it has been in… maybe forever. Giuliani would only take New York in a landslide, I think, in which case New York wouldn’t really matter. He was unpopular at the end of his second term, prior to September 11th.
Most people who go into politics ARE lawyers, so I think that’s kind of silly. Obama does strike me as a leader, and you compared him to Blair, who also has a law degree.
Right, but of those candidates, which were the two that won, and where were they from? Hint: NOT the northeast. For some reason, midwestern Governors seem to do well in the polls specifically because they’re not from the northeast. We need to start expanding our search for likely candidates, and the midwest has some good ones. If we don’t, the 2008 presidential election is going to look just like the 2006 California gubernatorial election. Backing a horse who can’t win.
I understand that, but I’m saying that nobody is confining the search to the Northeast, and that historically, the Democratic Party hasn’t stuck to the area or particularly to New York and Massachusetts.
There are precisely two Northeasterners in the race right now for the Democrats, and nobody believes Kerry has a chance, so I think that cuts it down to one. I think the Democrats have a really diverse, quality field shaping up this year. I wish Warner hadn’t quit, and even though I don’t think Feingold or Bayh were going to do anything, I wish they were still in, too. But there are two candidates with major star power and it’s forcing people to commit or quit early. It’s not as if the '08 ticket is going to be Clinton/Kerry.
I really didn’t like Warner. He had way too many skeletons in his closet & was a smear campaign waiting to happen. Either Feingold or Bayh or a combination of the two would’ve been wonderful, and the Washington Post still holds out hope for Bayh, although I’m not optimistic.
We do have a diverse field that’s shaping up. Unfortunately, it’s a diverse field that doesn’t have any winners in it as far as I can see. Hillary is too universally loathed, even by a lot of Dems. Obama is great, but he doesn’t have the experience.
Dodd (Conn.) seems to be about ready to throw his hat in the ring; I don’t know too much about him. Anyone who can give me the lowdown?
As mentioned, it’s a long way to the '08 election. What I don’t get is the irrational dislike of Hillary. The only ethical challenge I can recall is that she overbilled clients, but that’s not uncommon. She doesn’t have much of a sense of humor, but that’s not uncommon among politicians. She’s pretty stern, but she’s very articulate, so her tough stances are pretty clear.
She’s not charismatic, but neither are the Bushes, unless you’re a redneck.
At this point, remembering it’s very early, I see a Clinto/Edwards, or maybe Obama, ticket. A lot is going to depend on Iraq/Afghanistan and how the Dem. party, as a whole, handles itself in the next year, year and a half.
Feingold never would have had a chance, and I might’ve actually voted for him in the primary under the right conditions. Whether any of those three had a chance, I just want there to be plenty of people in the field so voters have the best possible selection.
Maybe, maybe not - that’s what this process is for.
She’s a woman who dared to be more than just a kindly mother figure who read to homeless kids while she was first lady. Why we still have this silly belief that presidents’ wives shouldn’t have opinions or careers I have no clue, but there ya go.
Giving up on keeping this a poll, and moving thread from IMHO to Great Debates.
If Clinton, Obama, Vilsack and Edwards are what the Dems have to offer, the Reps could run a one-legged leper against them and win handily.
I doubt those will be our only choices in 2008, but it looks like they’re all running, for sure. I think Edwards has the best shot of all of them, provided he puts his money issues behind him. Shouldn’t be too hard, but then, Obama’s candidacy could throw a wrench into that.
I’m not convinced Obama’s the golden boy everyone seems to think he is. I like him, but the fact is he’s never been in a difficult election. I’d like to see him tested first; he’s too much of an unknown quantity. While Obama has only slightly more election experience than Edwards, Edwards did show himself to be a giantkiller when he took down Senator Lauch Faircloth in 1998. I’m not saying that Obama can’t do it; I’m just not convinced that he can. I’m willing to be proven wrong.
Vilsack is probably running for vice president, or maybe he’s just getting his name out there for a future run for Chuck Grassley’s Senate seat. Or maybe he’s angling for a cabinet position; I dunno. I’m just not convinced he’s of sufficient caliber to be elected president.
Clinton will surely run, but she won’t do well enough around the country. As has been stated on this thread already: her negatives outweigh her positives. And considering that everyone knows who she is, the benefit of wide name recognition is at best neutralized by the fact that there are very few people whose minds can be changed about her. Conservatives perpetuate the inaccurate claim that she’s a far-left liberal, and somehow manage to pull off this claim even without providing any evidence to back that up. Liberals, on the other hand, consistently cite her voting record to show why they don’t like her. And, perhaps most importantly, in the vast swath of America that lies between the Appalachians and the Sierra Nevadas, Hillary Clinton is simply not liked. She might have some success in the Northeast, but I can’t see her working magic on the West Coast if she can’t appeal to the Midwest. And the South—she can just forget about the South.
Richardson and Biden are interesting factors in the upcoming election, but whether they can make headway remains to be seen. I think they’ll make it interesting, though they’re longshots… but who knows?
As a confirmed political junkie, I think the only possible dark horse who could come riding up is Al Gore, though I find that dubious at best. I think Edwards is looking best right now.
I also find it interesting that the hypothetical Democratic nominee is getting far more attention than the hypothetical Republican nominee. This seems to reflect the spirit of the electorate and a dampened enthusiasm for the Republican Party. This is probably going to be a big problem for the Republicans, and it’s going to become more apparent over the next year, I imagine. Despite the fact that the Republican primary is as wide-open as the Democratic primary, there’s not much enthusiasm for the Republicans. That’s not good for them.
It’s pretty doubtful that Guiliani could carry New York. Remember that he dropped out of the 2000 senate race against Hillary Clinton, when she was perceived as a pure carpetbagger, and chose not to challenge her this year. He has strong negatives in New York which lived through his mayorality, of which the first term was great (he cleaned up from the entrenched Democratic machine), the first 15/16ths of his second term were dreadful (having acheived all initial objectives, he was purely peevish and without focus), and his last three months in office were superb from a leadership perspective, but left the City with some lingering problems. The general American perspective of the man is from the few months he lead the City after the September 11, 2001 attacks, but New Yorkers have a broader perspective on his history and don’t necessarily see him as a hero. My personal view is that if he challenges for the Republican nomination, his thin skin and tendency toward gaffes will trip him up rather quickly.
On the OP’s question, I am currently reading Barack Obama’s new book, and have recently read his first one. I think he is a very interesting candidate, with a good chance to win the Democratic nomination and then the general election. I like what he has to say and the thoughtfulness with which he says it. Although he is “inexperienced” on a national level, he also lacks the taint of being seen as a Washington insider, but rather seems fresh and down-to-earth. Perhaps more important, I don’t think there are any real skeletons in his closet, and a limited voting record that can be used against him.
One potentail candidate I’d like to learn more about is Bill Richardson.
I sort of like Edwards, and I think he could perhaps pushed the Kerry campaign over the top if he hadn’t been kept hidden in a paper bag. Still, I haven’t seen him do anything in the past two years, he’s almost as inexperienced as Obama, and somehow he doesn’t energize me (perhaps it is the Kerry associatiation dragging him down). I don’t see any real reason why he should be the candidate.
Somewhat to my surprise, I think that Hillary Clinton has been a very good Senator for New York, and I have voted for her twice. But I don’t think she’d be a good Presidential candidate. Though Bush used the phrase and made it a farce, I think we genuinely need someone who is a “uniter, not a divider.” Clinton is much too polarizing figure to improve the dreadfully politicized atmosphere in Washington. I think that Obama, for one, has the chance to make a difference there, particularly when the Republicans are in disarray. Hillary as candidate, on the other hand, will immediately reunify the Republicans, at least in their hatred of all things Clinton.
Vilsack who?
Sounds like you’re blaming her for being hated, not the hatemongers for stirring it up. The true “polarizing figures” are most prominently found hosting on Fox and on Limbaugh’s show, and writing WSJ editorials - and they’ll do their best against *whoever * the Dems nominate, or look like they might, B. Hussein Osa-, er, Obama most certainly not excepted. Hell, it’s happening *already * for him. But you can’t let *them * decide who *you * support.
1975: Carter who? 1991: Clinton who?
I like Obama, but he needs more experience before he takes the helm of the executive branch. He might try governor of IL as a way to get some executive experience. I’m not a big HRC fan, but I wouldn’t have much problem with her being president. I think she’d be a lot better than many of the Democratic hopefulls (like Edwards). As for the Democratic primary, I’d vote in the follwoing order:
Clinton
Obama
Edwards
Vilsack
Edwards is pretty much as inexperienced as Obama, and he will have been out of the loop for 4 years come 2008. And I like Obama’s rhetoric much more than Edwards’. Hillary would be a competent, if unexciting prez. After Bush, I’d take that anyday. However, I don’t think either of those 4 could beat McCain in the general (no matter what the current polls say).
I would’ve included Biden in the list, if I had been the OP, since he’s almost certain to run. I’d put him in a toss-up with HRC, maybe slightly ahead.
Has everyone forgotten where the real candidates were two years before an election?
Was anyone taking Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton seriously? Or McGovern or Kerry?
Two years is two lifetimes in politics.
Can a Republican play? At least one who’s damned sure not going to vote Republican in 2008 (unless I’ve been wrong all these years and the Second Coming happens, with Lincoln taking the Republican nomination)?
My own personal first priority isn’t the candidates’ stand on any particular hot button issue or what their home state might be. I have no interest in beginning a dynasty for either party, and I couldn’t give a crap whether they smoked pot in college. As a refreshing change, I’m betting that a lot of other disgusted moderates are more interested in voting for who they’d perceive as competent as President, rather than who’d be the best flag waver for whatever party.
Yeah, perception is everything here, but give me Clinton right now. Hell, OK, I’d vote for Obama if he was the choice. Wasn’t Kennedy derided as a pretty-boy candidate with little experience in his day?
You have a point, but we have to face the reality that Hillary has a built in hatred and polarization factor that most other Democrats do not. Yes, the right-wing talk show hosts will froth over whoever the Democrats nominate, but they won’t be starting out with years of being seen as a raging demoness. I would imagine that the average Republican would be willing to at least consider taking a look at and possibly voting for Obama or Richardson or Edwards or Vilsack, but with Clinton, the mind is already made up.
Also, if Obama or the others go with a theme of reducing destructive partisanship, it will blunt the attacks of the right-wing ragemiesters. Clinton is just not in a position to do that. Moreover, I have no doubt that those who make fun of Obama’s name will be seen as engaging in fourth-grade arguments, particularly if he responds with in an amused, light-hearted way rather than getting bent out of shape.
True, but I believe the question is asked about what you think today. Obviously this will change if and when one of the major candidates implodes or if a dark horse surges out of the pack.
Kennedy’s record prior to 1960:
WWII (certified, genuine, war HEE-RO)
6 years in the US House of Rep (first elected 1946)
8 years in the US Senate (first elected 1952)
Obama’s resume pales in comparison, although he clearly has a bright career ahead. He’d make an excellent VP candidate this time if he wants to go that route.