Barring an unlikely Bush transformation into the ‘People’s Choice’, the next (2004) President of the United States will be a Democrat. (Or a surprise third Party contender) Who are the potential nominees? Would anyone care to make predictions?
I don’t see the following as potential winning candidates:
Al Gore
Hillary Rodham-Clinton
Perhaps a strong Californian?
I think it is key to pick that new candidate as soon as Gore’s body cools and start selling the candidate and their bi-partisan, uniting agenda now rather than waiting for 2002. The DNC would also do best to drop the attacks and start the healing ASAP, their Party-Loyal will be loyal no matter what happens. It is the centrist majority that they need to attract now. IMHO…
I think your last sentence is wise advice to both sides. The problem in this election was that the middle was split right down the middle. Loyal Dems and Reps backed their man, and the Undecideds, didn’t decide, they went 48/48/2 just as all the polls predeicted.
The name of the game for both sides in the next four years is cooperate, and get things done. The party that does a better job of selling their contribution to ‘getting things done’ will get control in 2002, and the Presidency in 2004.
Only the DNC? There’s blame to go around, but to put it all on the backs of the DNC rather than including Messrs. DeLay, Lott, Barr, Gingrich, Hyde, Watts, in short the entire GOP political leadership of the last 6 years, cannot go uncommented upon.
As for Bush, he promised to be “a healer, a uniter and not a divider” on virtual continuous loop, right up until November 7. Has he looked like he’s doing that in the last few weeks?
Hillary: Unlikely, at best. She’s already promised to serve her entire term, and while we can guffaw at the thought of a generic politician actually fulfilling a promise, I think Hillary has less margin for backtracking than others. In addition, for her to be a serious candidate means assuming: A) she does well as a Senator, B) Bill doesn’t get himself mired in another idiotic scandal over the next four years and C) she doesn’t decide she’s happier in an easier-to-hold Senate seat. I doubt all three will occur. Maybe in '08.
Gore: Gore will either be the major front-runner (“I nearly was president, and I’m very experienced in government!”) or well in the back of the pack (“I spent a lot of backers’ money in order to blow a big lead, and I haven’t done anything of note in four years!”). Given how exposed he’s been over the last year, any negatives he has will be hard to erase, so should he run, look for him to start strong but never gain ground, only lose it.
Lieberman: A strong shot, though he may have trouble trying to explain the differences between Senator Lieberman’s voting record and Vice-Presidential Candidate Lieberman’s stump speeches. But I doubt he has the ‘fire in the belly’ necessary for the primaries; look for him to be the 800-pound gorilla in '04 the same way Cuomo was in '92. And to about the same effect.
Kerry & Kerrey: John and Bob, respectively; John’s a good liberal, and Bob’s kind of conservative. Both have strong records of service in Vietnam and in the Senate. Bob will take Iowa without a problem, and John will take New Hampshire. Both are well-respected and good campaigners; and while John will likely have more direct appeal to Democrats, Bob has run before and should have a better organization. Look for only one of them to run, though- the other one will realize it’s a fool’s game to try and compete with someone whose name is almost interchangable with your own. (“Martha? Which Kerrey was it that you liked?” “I think it was the Vietnam veteran.” “You mean the Senator, or the former Senator?” “Um… the one with sandy gray hair, not the one with dark gray hair.”)
Four to five ‘dwarves’: I have no clue who these guys are, and neither does anyone else. Including their staff. But there will be at least four to five candidates who no one’s ever heard of, and whom no one will ever hear of again, except maybe in '08. (“Tsongas?” “Lamar?”) One will turn out to be an extremely strong candidate, and probably win due to a serious lack of previous exposure. (“He’s new! He’s somewhat charismatic! I haven’t heard over and over again about his scandals! The media hasn’t figured out where to pigeon-hole him yet!”)
Of course, I may be overly cynical about the whole process…
From the rumblings I hear, the DNC will not be backing Al Gore in 2004. AFATC, if he couldn’t run away with the election against what they consider to be as poor an opponent as G.W. Bush, they don’t want to take a chance on him again in the next election.
Boy, John, I think you have just highlighted what is perhaps my longest standing bit of ignorance in the political realm. [Well, others might want to argue for many other ignorances on my part as well. ;)] I don’t think I fully comprehended until now that there are two Senator Kerr(e)y’s floating around there. This does explain my occasionally thinking, “Hmmm…That’s the same Kerr(e)y who just did X…I wouldn’t have expected it from him.” Well, now I know!
bob kerry, democratic senator from my home town and former governor of nebraska is retiring from politics and is to be the president of the new university in new york city. i believe that john kennedy was the last senator elected president, but i do not know who was the last elected from the private sector.
btw: here in nebraska, the kerry you label as conservative, and i have always thought a centrist is considered a flaming leftist liberal, marching in lockstep with mr. clinton.
The last president elected from the private sector was, technically, Ronald Reagan, who hadn’t been governor of California since 1974 (it might have been early 1975, I’m not sure exactly what day we swear in governors out here in CA).
Prior to Reagan, Eisenhower stepped down as NATO High Commander before he started his run for president.
The last major party candidate who came from the private sector without holding any major elective office was Wendell Wilkie in 1940.
Historically, senators have not fared well in running for president. The only sitting senators elected president in the 20th century have been Harding and Kennedy.
As for Gephardt, House members fare even worse. There hasn’t been a sitting House member elected president since Garfield in 1880, aka “The most inconsequential presidential election in history” in a book I read on that contest.
Well, they could try the other Kerry, from my home state of Massachusetts, but I think they’d die of the shock. Sure he looks like a centrist compared to Ted Kennedy, but that’s about it. And with his wife’s $167M Heinz Ketchup inheritance, he certainly meets Gadarene’s requirements. I doubt he’s centrist enough to run for President.
Personally, I’d go for Senator (and former Governor) Evan Bayh from Indiana as an interesting choice. But I don’t see any shining stars out there for the Democrats.
I doubt Gore will be the front-runner for the nomination in 2004. He ran a lackluster campaign this year, and he wouldn’t have done anything in years other than milk the “will of the people” thing for a while.
According to Orvetti.com, which is a very good political site (if a bit brief):
Orvetti.com also has listings of possible candidates for the future:
On those, I don’t know much about Biden.
Bradley couldn’t do it, he wouldn’t have been in office for eight years.
Hillary’s already been ruled out, as she’ll finish her term.
I hope Davis doesn’t run, he’s a centrist. But at least he’s not Pete Wilson.
Feinstein…I listen to Jello Biafra spoken word a lot, and once you do that, you’ll hate Feinstein. I don’t know about her electability.
Gephardt would probably want to keep/try to get a majority in the House (he didn’t consider being Gore’s running mate for that reason), but I wouldn’t rule out him running. He ran in 1988, IIRC.
I agree with John Corrado on the Kerr(e)ys and Lieberman.
It’s not just electricity, although that will have a very big impact, but natural gas which at the California border (inot Calif.) is trading at 15-20 times last years price. It looks very very very bad in California, thanks to a growing economy the sixth largest “country” in the world is living beyond it’s abilities at the moment.
Personally, I would beg Mario Cuomo to run. He has the charisma that Al so sorely lack, just as smart but retains a kind of homeiness that Americans seem to get all gooey for. But he won’t do it. Why? I wish I knew. Best guess? Doesn’t want to deal with the intense scrutiny of his past.
I would love a chance to vote for Barney Frank! (yeah, he’s gay, I’m not, so what?) That guys got more guts than a cliff diver and a pit bulls attitude toward the comfortable and the priveleged. Not a prayer, I know.
One thing to keep in mind (or several, really): This debacle is not going to be repeated. The popular demand for fool-proof voting will not be denied, though you can count on the Forces of Darkness to do their level best to find some acceptable rationale, they will almost certainly fail. The country is moving to the middle/moderate left and the extreme right is doomed. Gingrich has already cratered, and Lott, Armey, et al have merely squeeked by with a reprieve.
Hilary? Why not? Gonna have a female president sooner or later, we could certainly do a lot worse. Be worth it just to hear the dittoheads shreik in agony!
As did Mr. Clinton in his gubenetorial race of (88?), after completing a “listening tour” he managed to conclude that, in fact, the people of Arkansas wanted him to try to gain power s President rather than complete his promise of finishing off his term. People either did not know or failed to care, Hilary could possibly get away with it, but she may be safer off waiting until 2008.
Depends upon who you ask, I would say we are becoming more conservative.
Concepts like free-trade (NAFTA) etc. would have once been considered impossible for liberals, yet now are solidly backed by much of the country.
???
Who is a force of evil?
Acceptable rationale for what?
Fail to do what?
