On the off chance that Iraq turns into a thriving democracy by 2008, why not Paul Bremer? If that happens, Bremer will justifiably get much of the credit and he’ll have a great campaign slogan, “I fixed Iraq, I can fix anything!”
good morning friends,
mr. bush will win re-election in 2004. the democratic candidates have already lost.
in 2008, the battle will be between hillary clinton and chuck hagel, (senator from nebraska)
after a second term for mr. bush, the republican national committee will realize it needs to move to towards the center to win in 2008
While I confidently predicted a 2004 victory for Mr. Bush quite some time ago (and backed it up with a wager which only the reasonable Jonathan Chance took, and the rabidly partisan folks here that shall remain nameless inexplicably declined) I think 2008 is too far away to even begin to think about. It’s five years out, and involes two unknowns.
But when Mr. Bush wins next year, I intend to crow “I told you so,” very loudly, since not only did I tell you so, but I put my money (or at least my Scotch) where my mouth was.
- Rick
Powell is out. He’ll simply be too old in '08 even if he had the desire to run. Cheney’s health problems are way too visible for him to run.
I’m still thinking that there’s a 50/50 chance Cheney will step down during Bush’s next term, and the president will nominate some other prominent Republican to take his place. Tom Ridge would be a good bet. It seems absolutely crazy to “waste” the VP slot on someone who won’t be vying for the Whitehouse when the time comes.
Condi is in a bind due to the whole CA recall thing. She’d like to run for governor, but Arnold probably has that locked up in '06. She’s got way to little exective experience to be thinking about the presidency. As much as I’d love to see a Condi/Hillary match-up in '08, I just don’t see her having a chance at the Republican nomination.
And let’s not count out Jeb. I’ve always considered him the smarter of the two brothers, and lord knows he’s a much better public speaker. Look for him to try to make more of a national name for himself in the coming years.
Bricker, the declining of your wager offer is not “inexplicable”, having in fact been explained to you multiple times. Any remaining lack of understanding is your own damn fault.
To all of you feeling comfortable about predicting 2008, please do us the favor of honestly reporting what your 2004 predictions were in late 1999, or 2000’s as of late 1995. Then tell us (again honestly) how confident you are this time.
I can tell you who it won’t be. The Reps won’t nominate Jeb Bush. If he was the nominee, it could hurt the Reps significantly, due to the fact that all but one of the last 6 Republican tickets (7 counting next year) will have had a member of the Bush family on it.
Short answer to the OP: It depends on who wins the 2004 election.
Granted, 2008 is still a long way off, but…
Giuliani.
He’s got star power. He’s got the reputation as the hero of Sept. 11, which will allow Southern voters to overlook his Yankee heritage (especially if he’s running against Hillary).
Moderates appreciate his outlook on social issues like abortion. He represents the “new look” the Republican Party seems to projecting (i.e. marginalizing the fundies).
He’s got the reputation for “cleaning up” NYC and overseeing the city’s Renaissance. (and, IMHO, if you can effectively run NYC, then you can run the nation). He’s a law-and-order guy as illustrated by his history of taking on the mob as a prosecutor.
His reputation as a leader is well established.
His health (prostate cancer) may be an issue at that point, though.
For those who say that his infidelity and divorce from his wife may be an issue, all I can say is that Reagan’s less-than-stellar family history didn’t seem to hurt him too much with conservatives (nor did Schwarzenegger’s groping allegations).
From ElvisL1ves
Well, I for one didn’t take this question SERIOUSLY. I’m not sure how seriously anyone else took it either…just a fun mental game. None of us has a crystal ball. 
-XT
Actually, Bill Richardson is an interesting Democratic choice. He’s always been (sorta) interested. And his latino background (and an anglo name!) would make some astonishingly complicated electoral calculations.
I like the suggestions of Richardson and Chuck Hagel. They are precisely the kinds of people that will rise in prominence between now and 2008.
It’s too bad Richardson isn’t among the Democratic contenders today, because he’d be a very serious candidate. If the Dems are looking for someone who can occupy the center, Richardson’s your man.
But here’s how it’ll go: Bush wins in 2004. Cheney decides not to run in 2008, opening the field for the Republican nomination. Jeb Bush wins, and he’s president until 2016.
In 2010, the Bush twins are elected to Congress. Jenna becomes president in 2016, ushering in “The Party Years”. She will lose office in a drunken scandal in 2020, but by then the public, having known no other presidents but a Bush for the past 20 years, elects Jenna’s sister, who rises to prominence on her slogan, “America needs more Bush”.
Around the same time, the biggest worry in the nation is that “We’re running out of Bushes!”. With no other Bush family candidates ready to take office, the nation panics, a crash research program is undertaken, and in 2028 the clone of George W. Bush is sworn in. The Democrats both scream foul, saying that this is a violation of the 2-term restriction, but the Supreme court overrules this, causing some to claim that the court was rigged ever since Jenna stacked it with the entire membership of the old Backstreet Boys, who turned out to be staunch Republicans. Who knew?
But that’s just a guess.
Tom Ridge has been named twice so far. Turned my stomach both times. 
I’ll cast the dark horse vote and say there won’t be elections in 2008. Ashcroft, Cheney, and Wolfowitz will suspend them for “security reasons” before then. 
shyeah right.
Hillary vs. Jeb in '08.
1.) Spending time in the Senate does not increase name recognition after you’ve already been first lady. If she wanted to run, she would have run in 2000 or 2004.
2.) If her goal was to get credentials for a run in 2008, then she would speak out and garner publicity about the issues that important voting blocks care about (Medicare, Social Security, the federal deficit). She isn’t currently making any great effort to do so.
3.) Many Republicans believe that Hillary will run in 2008. Given what we know about Republicans, this is a good indication that she will not run in 2008.
How about Ed Rendell? Just got elected gov of PA, a swing state (which would make him quite attractive to the Dems.) He has a good reputation as the Mayor of Philly (may be the only person of whom that can be said with a moderately straight face. Thanks Rizzo.)
It depends on who wins in 04, of course. And I’ve been away from PA politics for a while; I don’t know how he’s been doing as gov. Still, 08 would be halfway through his second term as gov, time enough to be established.
I predict that the winner in 2008 will be the same as the winner in 2004.
Assuming of course that he loses in 2004, would he take a chance at recapturing the White House in 2008, especially if things get even worse under the Democrats for four years?
I’m voting for Sharpton.
Myself, I’m voting Denis Miller for 2008. Really, I just want to see him in the debates. Reguardless of the content, it would be a riot to watch.
How about Michael Jackson? A new artificial nose, new hair do…he could be a new man…er, whatever. I’m thinking a double Jackson ticket…Michael and Jessie, together at last!!
-XT
Sam Stone, I just want to say that your vision of the future is odd and scary, yet strangely appealing in a way I can’t figure out…