Who should it be?? (Next U.S. President) [ed. title]

Great Debates
21

On the Democratic side it’s shaping up to be a big battle between Hillary and Obama. I don’t figure that anyone else can be a major presense in the campaign.

Biden is old and comes from the not-very-important state of Deleware. Besides he comes up lacking in the charisma department and he’s not an impressive speaker. He’d be Kerry all over again.

Feingold is out.

Bayh comes from Indiana, which is looking much more swing now than it did in '04. Nevertheless, I can’t see him winning. His long Senate career probably gives him a lot of potential mudslinging targets, and he has no outstanding achievements to his name.

Richardson I don’t think is running. He’d be making more noise right now if he really wanted a shot.

What’s-his-face from Iowa doesn’t have the name recognition, though if Congress’ approval ratings remain in the toilet he might make an outside move as Clinton did in '92.

To me the Republican side looks more interesting. The party heads didn’t use the midterm defeat to annoint a candidate the way they did for Dubya in '98. No clear front-runner emerges from the field. They’ll certainly want a strong campaigner after last week’s elections.

McCain
Advantages: old, experienced, wildly popular, has cred on financial issues
Disadvantages: old, connected to various scandals, infuriated the Ann Coulter wing of the party by rejecting conservative values (torture)

Frist
Advantages: rich, southern, good-looking, right age range
Disadvantages: just screwed up what should have been a sure-fire Senate campaign, wishy-washy on stem cells

Jeb
Advantages: rich, comes from an important swing state, great name recognition, lots of fundraising potential
Disadvantages: is named “Bush”, probably not running

Romeny
Advantages: popular with the James Dobson crowd
Disadvantages: Mormon, from Massachuesetts, lousy name recognition

Hagel
Advantages: old, respected
Disadvantages: old, we all remember what happened the last time the GOP nominated a Senator from a Plains state.

Tancredo
Advantages: none
Disadvantages: insane, racist

Guiliani
He’s been mentioned a lot lately, probably because certain Republicans think he could help the GOP win back its support in the Northeast. But of course he barely agrees with the 'Pubs on any issues. His only claim to fame is as ‘hero of 9/11’, but that’s just a way of saying that he happened to be Mayor of New York of 9/11.

Gingrich
Advantages: great name recognition, cred on financial issues
Disadvantages: is Newt Gingrich, formerly of the 23% approval rating, long list of scandals, probably not running

Condi
Advantages: black, female, foreign policy experience
Disadvantages: Iraq, not running

My predictions: The Obama/Richardson ticket beats the McCain/Rich White Guy ticket by 6 percent.

22

No, you are talking about that. The OP and most of the rest of us are talking about:

Empahsis added.

23

No, but we can separate it from the question of who has a real shot at winning, as well as from the question of who is likely to consider running. (See, e.g., the current thread on Bill Gates, who has never expressed any political ambitions AFAIK). I doubt Sanders will ever consider running – under our present system, he’d only be a spoiler for the Dem nominee’s chances – but he would still make the best POTUS we’ve had since FDR. America needs a socialist* president for once.
*Sanders is a small-d democrat and a small-s socialist – that is, he is a member neither of the Democratic Party nor the Socialist Party. Strictly NFA independent. He’s not even affiliated with the Vermont Progressive Party. I’ve always wondered why not – his politics seem to accord with theirs. In any case, Sanders is a non-revolutionary democratic socialist – I doubt he is even a Marxist of any kind.

24

Sorry, I meant NPA – No Party Affiliation. You might have seen that on ballots – some candidates are Republicrats, some third-party nominees, and some NPA.

25

Said it before, sayin’ it again – Michael Moore, just to give a lot of conservatives a well-deserved brain aneuryism. :wink:

26

But Sanders would do that just as well, and he’s an actual veteran politician!

Nader would make a good Prez too – but I would much, much rather have him as U.S. Attorney General! Learn the meaning of fear, corrupt corporate bloodsuckers! It’ll be like Enron was nuttin’! :smiley:

27

Ralph Nader is what the system really needs.

28

This last sentence shows you know nothing about the man. He made NYC a safe place for “tourists” such as yourself. He’s stood up to organized crime many times and lives to tell the tale. He’d be a formidable president.

If he’s the GOP nominee, then those who voted for Bush will likely vote for him over Hillary or Obama even if some of the party members feel they’ll have to hold their nose because of many of his liberal social views.

Remember, for the Democratic Party to win it has to take states it didn’t get before. Hillary or Obama are not going to get you GOP states.

29

This doesn’t hold water for me. We know that over the past 6 years, Bush and other Pub leaders in Washington have pushed the gay marriage amendment, fought hard for social conservative judges, eliminated federal funding for groups supporting birth control, preached abstinence only sex ed, endorsed intelligent design in public schools, waged ‘war on porn’, and so forth. We seem to generally agree that this didn’t emerge from deep-seated moral beliefs, but rather was part of a strategy to bring in Evangelical voters. Now if these voters are willing to ‘hold their nose’ and vote for a guy who marches in gay pride parades, then what was the point of all that rightward stepping? Plainly Karl Rove believed those things were necessary to get the Bible-thumping voting block. And it worked…in’02 and '04. (Guiliani one saving grace for those folks might be that he started his own little war on porn in New York. Last time I visited, however, it looked like porn was winning.)

30

Eh. Put him up against O’Reilly, and I bet Bill would win.

31

What does it need him for?

32

The Donald is clearly what this nation needs. Mr. Trump may well hold a varied enough set of positions to make both sides despise him (well, if they could get over his celebrity and into his political views: he’s been quoted at various times as anti-immigration, pro-choice, pro-universal health care, pro-military spending, anti-welfare, and any number of other strong and potentially controversial stands)… but I can guarantee you he realizes that spending spectacularly more money than you’re bringing in in revenue is A Bad Thing.

Maybe we could have him fire Congress members for slipping pork into bills or something. It’d be entertaining at the least!

33

Hm? Stood up to organized crime? Details?

And how is NYC any safer for tourists now than it was before Giulani took office? (I’m sincerely curious here, I haven’t visited NYC since about 1990.)

“Liberal social views”? What are these, exactly? I was listening to a local public-radio talk show just yesterday, discussing the possibility of a Giuliani candidacy. Both the liberal and the conservative commentator agreed that when Giuliani was mayor, liberal New Yorkers absolutely despised him, and so did most people of color. He was associated (fairly or unfairly) with the Abner Luima case and a lot of other bad shit that happened on his watch, pre-9/11. To this day, mentioning his name in any liberal gathering just invites sneers and derision.

34

I’ll take that bet!

Getting back to the actual thread topic, I hope no one here has the slightest doubt that, irrespective of electability, Moore would make an immeasurably better prez than O’Reilly. Even those who call Moore a liar would have to concede he’s an honest man compared to Bill.

35

Not if you’ve got a golden parachute, dude! :wink:

(And presidents always do . . .)

36

Pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-gun control.

37

But whaddaya expect?! He’s a New Yorker! You have to make allowances for that. If he didn’t espouse those views he would never have stood a chance of getting elected mayor!

38

So? Many people not in NY are then going to have “hold their nose[s]”, as the earlier poster said, and vote from him if they indeed decide to do so.

39

Looking in as a foreigner, it seems that both sides have a wealth of talent. I don’t think Hillary Clinton is electable as POTUS, but I think she’d be a formidable VP. She has experience of the Senate, a wealth of foreign expertise, and enough of a reputation as a bitch to be effective as the one the President sends to do his or her dirty work.

40

I agree, and that’s why I haven’t really given my choice. I can think of dozens of politicians who “should” be president, and there isn’t any one in particular who stands out.