FWIW I’d vote for Gore. I think he’d be unbeatable in '08. I’m not convinced he’ll seriously run though, the man gained 50 lbs., a beard, and a ton of stress following the 2000 election. I think he may be at a place in his life where he is happy to use is political capital as a private citizen, testifying before Congress, fighting for causes he believes in without having to jump through all the hoops that a President by nature has to in order to get things done.
As an aside, I think one reason a lot of people are uneasy with Clinton and (to a lesser degree-although more prominently seen by New Yorkers) Giuliani as President because they are both perceived as wanting it too much.
One might wonder how that perception comes about, I mean, they’re in a field of people who have raised and spent millions and millions of dollars and almost every waking hour of their life for two years in order to win the White House, it’s hard to argue any of them don’t “want it too much.” But still, I think the perception is there.
It’s often said the best Presidents are the people who don’t want the role. I think we inherit that sympathy from Washington, and whether or not it is true, being perceived as really hungry for the office has a habit of turning people off the candidate.
Also, while I’ve refrained from making a prediction. I think the Dems have a 51% chance of winning the White House. Which is to say I believe their chances right now are better than the Republicans. But I also firmly believe these sorts of discussions are best viewed as “for fun”, we shouldn’t fool ourselves into thinking we can make meaningful predictions over a year before election day.
Do you feel the same way about Fred Thompson, who is even more inexperienced compared to the group he’d be runing against than Obama is to his?
Why is Thompson viewed as the great hope of the Republican party when his entire political career is two years longer than Obama’s (when the election comes around)? Is Hollywood a great place to gain experience for running the country?
I think there’s a significant portion of one issue voters on both sides of the aisle. Abortion and gay marriage are big for “one issue voters.” People will go to the ballot box to stop gay marriage or to stop a pro-life or pro-choice candidate from getting elected (depending on the stance of the voter)–if both candidates are mostly moderate on gay marriage/abortion (ie more or less not talking about it and willing to let the status quo be as it is) a lot of those one issue voters won’t care and will stay home.
Fred Thompson hasn’t even declared. I’ve liked Fred in several of his roles.
Not really sure he’s a serious candidate. We have guys like him every election cycle (see: Wesley Clark) who look awesome on paper, everyone begs them to run, and then they do and are mostly non-issues.
Also, Thompson served in the Senate for 8 years (December 1994-January 2003) Obama in November of 08 will have been in the Senate for slightly under 4 years (47 months, Thompson was in for around 97 months, that’s a 50 month difference, or 4 years and 2 months.)
Just what it says…I’m dubious he WILL run. Its unfortunate (I’m actually coming to like and respect the man), but facts must be faced…he’s not going to run BG.
I also take the ultra-bold position of believing that it’s too early to guess with any certainty whatsoever. However, I laugh at the estimates of a 10% chance of a Republican win. I think it’s almost a universal belief – I’m required to say “almost” because of Ann Coulter and, apparently, Shagnasty – that the Democratic field is far stronger than the Republican. However, in my opinion, the media must have a close election to get solid ratings, and so I see them all, i.e., not just Fox News, reflexively pushing stories that make the Democratic favorite look bad and burying stories that make the Republican underdog look bad. As preliminary evidence, I offer the stink by the Right Wing Noise Machine about how Edwards’ campaign hired two potty-mouthed bloggers, and the lack of any national coverage outside of the blogosphere about Guiliani and his dissing of the not-quite-rich Iowa farm couple.
Therefore, given the leveling effect of the media coverage, it’s going to be another horse race. Optimist that I am, I’ll give the edge to the Democrats and predict that John Edwards is our next president over, oh, I don’t know, Mitt Romney, by 52-48% popular vote margin (and a somewhat larger electoral vote differential). The Southern liberal trumps the Northern conservative in a wacky case of role reversal and hilarious hijinks.
P.S. I also think that the media will strongly push the role of a “savior” candidate, such as Fred Thompson, because it’s a great storyline, but I don’t think it’ll play out. Analogies to Wes Clark from the last election seem apt. Doesn’t anyone remember how out of his element the general looked when he was in those primary debates? Thompson’s Hollywood experience aside, I predict he’ll seem similarly inept.
As a former reporter I can tell you, if the media do that, it won’t be because a close race means better ratings. (They might do it as a matter of sticking up for the underdog on general principles; journalists are funny that way, though the suits they work for are not.)
The media loves sensationalism and the guys who own media outlets love making money. There’s been a few journalists on these forums who act like it isn’t so, but facts are facts. All the way back to Pulitzer and Hearst, who actually created an overwhelming swelling of support for a war by publishing tons of sensationalist, vaguely true stuff.
Sure he could win California in the general. He’s a Democrat. He could also win his home state, and states in the northeast.
But he’s a black, liberal, Democrat. I cannot see him winning the south, nor the lesser important west & southwest. I just can’t see it.
But it’s a moot point, in my opinion, as he won’t survive the primaries. I use Howard Dean as my cite. From late 2002-February, 2004 all I read about was Howard Dean. Howard Dean. Howard Dean. Howard Dean.
Come the primary he fell flat on his face. Why? Because Dem voters picked the man they thought could win (and they were almost right). And Howard Dean was not that man. And neither will Obama be.
All of this is, of course, opinion. We’ll have to wait 9 months and see.
Personally I’ve never really observed that a persons vote is swung one way or another by the VP candidate. But I’d bet THIS would prove me wrong and go down harder than Fritz N Geri!
That is an excellent point. It relates back earlier to my point about irrelevant voter populations which everyone seems to acknowledge and most seem to quickly forget. Most of us live in irrelevant states that are already decided for all practical purposes. It isn’t even worth considering those or what might or might not motivate the voters in say, Illinois or New York. With our electoral college system, getting out extra black voters in Illinois and New York does nothing to further a candidate’s cause.
Apples and oranges, I believe. The approval rating of Congress necessarily also includes the approval rating of Democrats AND Republicans, and the Republicans have stunk the place up big time over the last few years. Think “Abramov” just for starters. And that Pubbie Congressman with a thing for male pages. The only fair way to evaluate the Dem’s popularity is to poll the constituents of the Dems’ voters in each district.