MyDD :: Party Insiders Polled on 2008

Party Insiders Polled on 2008

by Chris Bowers, Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 05:46:51 PM EST

This always excellent Political Wire, which I visit several times a day, has the scoop:

National Journal poll to be released tomorrow of "congressional and political insiders" finds Sen. George Allen (R-VA) ranked first among 2008 GOP presidential candidates and Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) ranked first among Democrats. Each of 215 insiders were asked to rank their top five choices.

On the Republican side, Allen finished with 229 combined points, while Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) finished second with 217, Sen. Bill Frist (R-TN) third with 184, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani fourth with 129 and Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney fifth with 109 points.

On the Democratic side, Clinton led all Democrats with 388 points, followed by former Sen. John Edwards (D-NC) with 192, Virginia Gov. Mark Warner with 166, Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) with 125 and Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) with 90.

This is as good subject for a poll as any. If those were the Democratic choices, who would you choose?

Tags: General 2008 (all tags)

Permalink :: 76 Comments :: Post a Comment

I don't listen to the party elites ... (3.00 / 1)

These are the same people that kept on repeating that Howard Dean couldn't win ... until his campaign finally destructed.

While I would fully support Hillary were she to win the nomination, I really don't appreciate the party coalescing behind her that way. I still have not forgiven her husband for signing Welfare Repeal, as well as a whole other litany of betrayals.

Hillary has the "liberal" baggage -- wihtout really being a liberal. And what she's doing right now (holding press conferences with Rick Santorum on the value of prayer) is downright pandering that will get her nowhere.

I don't have a clear favorite -- but of those choices, I would go with John Edwards. But still ... I really hope that Russ Feingold finally enters the race this time.

by Paul Hogarth on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 06:36:11 PM EST

Lets not pick anybody.. (none / 0)

Why give the GOP attack dogs a head start on their usual character assassination tactics?

In fact.. why not just pick names at random, or make them up, when asked these polls?

Seriously...

by ultraworld on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 11:26:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

None of the above! No insider candidates (none / 0)

Brian Schweitzer!

Alas, I think Feingold removed himself from consideration with his divorce. Even if it was a clean, amicable breakup, it will be made to seem otherwise.

by quoi on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 06:41:23 PM EST

I don't think so (none / 0)

Feingold is currently in the area where a loud "Draft Me" movement would change his mind. Basically, he hasn't decided for sure one way or the other yet, and I doubt he will until after the November 06 elections.

by Geotpf on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 07:31:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

From those choices, Kerry. But Clark will run too (none / 0)

and I'd back him before Kerry.

by Raenelle on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 06:49:45 PM EST

Re: From those choices, (none / 0)

i would chose Clark over Kerry or Edwards

by fightingLadyinblue on Fri Apr 29, 2005 at 02:05:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't trust any polls this early. (3.00 / 1)

Any poll at this point in time in 2001 would not have included Howard Dean.

Case closed.

by craverguy on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 06:56:10 PM EST

Re: I don't trust any polls this early. (none / 0)

A poll at this time in 2001 would have had John Kerry as the overwhelming frontrunner.

Q.E.D.

3.39/-3.27 * Save the Moderates

by ChetEdModerate on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 10:34:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't trust any polls this early. (3.00 / 1)

Nope,it would have been Al Gore.

by craverguy on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 10:40:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Correct (none / 0)

Here's two polls in May, 2001:

Zogby America Poll. Latest: May 28-30, 2001. N=393 likely Democratic voters nationwide.
.

Preference for Democratic Presidential Nominee:
2/01
5/01 With
Clinton Without
Clinton
% % %
Al Gore 45 44 53
Hillary Clinton 19 20 n/a
Bill Bradley 7 n/a n/a
Richard Gephardt 3 7 12
John Kerry 3 3 2
Joseph Biden 2 3 5
Bob Kerrey 2 2 2
Evan Bayh 1 2 2
Gray Davis 1 2 2
Al Sharpton 1 n/a n/a
John Edwards - 1 1
Undecided 16 11 17
Jesse Jackson n/a 5 4

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Time/CNN Poll conducted by Yankelovich Partners. May 23-24, 2001. N=1,031 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.1 (total sample).
.

Preference for Democratic Presidential Nominee:
ALL Demo-
crats
% %
Former Vice President Al Gore 28 44
New York Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton 14 21
Connecticut Senator Joseph Lieberman 9 6
Massachusetts Senator John Kerry 7 5
North Carolina Senator John Edwards 5 4
Delaware Senator Joe Biden 3 3
Indiana Senator Evan Bayh 3 2
Reverend Al Sharpton 2 3
None (vol.) 18 4
Undecided 11 8

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04dem2.htm

by Geotpf on Fri Apr 29, 2005 at 09:04:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't trust any polls this early. (none / 0)

you're right. but how often does this happen that a Howard Dean candidate pops-up and really shakes the political landscape ? What happended in 2004 in an Exception to the rule.
we are not going to see another Howard Dean for many years to come.

That's probably once every 40 years. for some of the younger people in this site, they've never seen a howard dean type of crusade in their lifetime until last year.

by fightingLadyinblue on Fri Apr 29, 2005 at 01:38:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't trust any polls this early. (none / 0)

Actually, it happens just about every four years. In 1968, it was both McCarthy and RFK. In 1872, it was McGovern. In 1976, it was Jerry Brown. In 1980, it was Kennedy (different one). In 1984, it was Hart. In 1988, it was Jackson. In 1992, it was Brown again (but for different reasons). In 1996, there was no one, because Clinton was unopposed. In 2000, there was none because Gore and Bradley were about as inspirational as dirt. And, in 2004, there was Dean.

by craverguy on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 12:49:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't trust any polls this early. (none / 0)

I would count Edwards as well in 2004.
He really came out of nowhere (really a joke candidate in the eyes of many when he started who seemed to be over his head) to basically finish 2nd in the Democratic Primary season and snag the VP nomination.

As for 1992, it would be Bill Clinton in my book, not Jerry Brown. A governor from a small state came out of nowhere to knock the Republican noise machine down with a breath of fresh air.

As for 1976, it would be Jimmy Carter in my book, not Jerry Brown. A relatively obscure farmer, 1-term governor also came out nowhere to win the big prize.

As for the common thread between Bill and Jimmy?
Winning!

by v2aggie2 on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 01:11:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't trust any polls this early. (none / 0)

In 1992, Brown's slogan was "Take Back America." Dean's slogan was "Take Back America."

Brown raised money in unusual ways (1-800 number). Dean raised money in unusual ways (the internet).

Brown was expected to come in last out of all the candidates, but eventually came in second to Clinton. Dean was expected to come in next-t-last out of all the candidates, but ended up coming in second to Kerry.

Brown was known for going after the other Democrats just as hard as he went after Bush. Dean was known for going after other Democrats just as hard as he went after Bush.

Brown ran far to the left of how he governed. Dean ran far to the left of how he governed.

Clinton was 1992's versions of John Kerry: the insider who was supposed to win, was threatened by a hard-hitting, liberal outsider, and eventually won anyway.

by craverguy on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 01:36:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't trust any polls this early. (none / 0)

How is the governor of a small state like Arkansas an insider?

How is the governor of a large state like California, and the son of a former governor, an outsider?

Brown couldn't even win his own state.
The only reason he finished 2nd is because everybody else had the good sense get out when it became apparent that Clinton was going to be the nominee. Brown just hung around.

by v2aggie2 on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 02:22:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't trust any polls this early. (none / 0)

Clinton was thoroughly an insider. Why do you think half of Washington endorsed him before the New Hampshire primary?

As for Brown, he was an ex-governor, another similarity with Dean. He hadn't been governor since 1982. And I really can't think of a candidate from the past twenty years, with the possible exception of Jesse Jackson, who was as much of an outsider as Brown was in 1992.

Read this speech and tell me that the speaker was an "insider." Key phrases include "bought-and-paid-for politicians" and "the Incumbent Party up in Washington."

Also, he won the Maine caucus a week after the New Hampshire primary and the Colorado primary a week after that, when everyone else was still in the race.

by craverguy on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 03:05:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't trust any polls this early. (none / 0)

Clinton railed against Washington.
Governors can do that.

Hell, even Bush did. Does this make him an outsider?

Look, I like Jerry Brown, and I do think he had good points during the 1992 campaign.

But if he was an outsider, it was only because he couldn't win higher office besides governor. He lost the presidency twice and the US Senate in 1982 to a fairly mediocre Pete Wilson.

Winning does matter.

by v2aggie2 on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 12:39:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Off topic - announcement from Angelides (none / 0)

Phil Lockyer dropped out of the California Governor race today to run for Angelides former Treasurer's office. Phil just sent an email calling for party unity. This is a power play to clear the primary field and keep his powder dry for The Ahnold. Pretty damned good one too.

by Gary Boatwright on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 06:57:34 PM EST

Good, good (none / 0)

I approve of this. Angelides was the better canidate (in both electability and the actual man) anyways, IMHO.

by Geotpf on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 07:32:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good, good (none / 0)

No biggie to me. I'd like to see a robust primary to get Angelides tuned up for the general. Anglelides probably thinks he's already tuned up. I happen to think a Democratic primary with a series of debates would allow the candidate that emerged to establish his identity before The Ahnold's slime machine started explaining what he "really" stood for.

A primary with debates is the best free press a party can get. It puts their names and issues in front of the voters without the shouting match from the other side.

Westley is a long shot who I suspect is running to establish his place in the pecking order and increase his name recognition. It would take a near miracle to overcome Angelides' advantages.

by Gary Boatwright on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 09:48:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

None of their choices (none / 0)

Bill Richardson or Russ Feingold

by mandyky on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 07:08:35 PM EST

Re: None of their choices (none / 0)

Feingold dropped out, but Richardson looks good. I think there are going to be a couple of additions to this list and a couple on the list will not run.

by Gary Boatwright on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 07:22:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

When did he drop out? (3.00 / 1)

by Drew on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 07:23:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yeah, exactly (none / 0)

His stance on the presidency so far has been, "It's too fucking early!" (while registering Feingold08 websites and starting up a leadership PAC to pay for his travel across the country). That is, he's making super-preminary plans for a run, without making a decision yet.

I don't believe his divorce has changed this, at least not yet.

by Geotpf on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 07:35:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

George Allen?! (3.00 / 1)

wow. Obviously these 'insiders' are skeptical about a non-bolshevik Republican having a chance in '08.

But I have to think McCain is the guy: he's just as wingnutty as the others, but normal Americans aren't afraid of him (at least if they don't follow politics closely).

I have little or no opinion on our guys; the worst among them (i.e., Lieberman) would be Abe Lincoln compared to Bush or whoever they run next.

by ktheintz on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 07:31:10 PM EST

Re: George Allen?! (none / 0)

Do not underestimate George Allen. He was way behind Mary Sue Terry early in his Gubernatorial win, and he stormed back and killed her. Then he sliced and diced Chuck Robb. He is an electoral bad-ass. He is the Republican I most fear in all of this.

Only charisma can beat him... he will wax the floor with Hillary or Mark Warner or John Kerry. There's some hope for Bayh because he's a centrist and has rural/Red State appeal. Edwards could match him smarmy smile for smarmy smile, but has weaknesses that Allen doesn't have.

I think Bayh is the best matchup for Allen.

I'm no Allen lover, but I've seen him operate in Virginia and like I said, no one should underestimate him.

by redsoxkangaroo on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 09:10:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: George Allen?! (none / 0)

I am not a Hillary supporter, but to say she lacks charisma is simply not true. She isn't her husband, but I have seen her speak and was impressed with her everytime. Still not voting for her in the primary but to compare her charisma to Kerry's really isn't a fair comparison. Also, if charisma is a worry, Bayh is not the guy to pick.

by yitbos96bb on Fri Apr 29, 2005 at 12:23:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: charisma?? (none / 0)

I'm surprised that you find Hillary's public speaking to be charismatic. I heard her only once, but it was the opposite of charisma. I found her to be monotonous, uninspired, trite, hectoring, tedious, egotistical, and generally loathesome. As for any telegenic qualities, never have I seen/heard any clips of her speaking when she's inspired any desire in me to go on listening to her. My automatic response to her voice is to reach for the remote. I'm not at all sure that, were she nominated, I could force myself to vote for her. I'm pretty sure she stands for nothing at all, and would sell out nearly anything I hold dear should she ever deem it expedient. From almost any perspective, a disastrous person to nominate.

by smintheus on Fri Apr 29, 2005 at 09:36:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: charisma?? (none / 0)

I have seen her several times... She isn't Bill but she is engaging. It seems your dislike for her might cloud some of what you are saying, but no big deal.

by yitbos96bb on Mon May 02, 2005 at 10:03:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: George Allen?! (none / 0)

i think Allen would be a stronger candidate for Republicans than Frist. McCain would be the strongest but the christian coalition will not support him.

among the choices mentioned, i agree with you that Bayh may be the best matchup against Allen because of his red state/rural appeal .

Warner needs more political experience under his belt to show.

that's why I hope Mark Warner challenges Allen in 2006. that would be a heavyweight battle. If Warner pulls it off, Allen can kiss '08 good bye.

by fightingLadyinblue on Fri Apr 29, 2005 at 02:00:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

McCain?! (3.00 / 1)

McCain will never make it out of a Republican primary.

by Gary Boatwright on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 09:43:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

All things are possible. (none / 0)

If the Dems do their job right, and the Christine Todd Whitmans and Colin Powells out there do their duty to their country, Red America could be fed up enough to back a perceived maverick moderate in 2008.

Of course, that's an awful big bag of if. But it's possible.

Yeah, I'm cynical.

by catastrophile on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 09:50:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: McCain?! (none / 0)

i agree! McCain will never get the nod of the right wing of the party. He & Guiliani are in the same predicament as far as the Far right is concerned.

by fightingLadyinblue on Fri Apr 29, 2005 at 02:02:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Mc Cain is pathetic.. He has lost his spine... (none / 0)

And Arizonans have the most regressive tax system in the nation.. the poor subsidize the rich on a massive scale.. see
http://www.ctj.org

by ultraworld on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 11:29:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: George Allen?! (none / 0)

I wouldn't call McCain a wingnut. He is a republican no doubt about it, but he is no Delay or Bill Frist.

by yitbos96bb on Fri Apr 29, 2005 at 12:24:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

There will be a 3 way race in 08 (none / 0)

McCain/Lieberman is the obvious UNITY TICKET.Thats another reason Lieberman must be taken out in 06.

by ctkeith on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 07:36:03 PM EST

I think there may be a three way race with McCain (none / 0)

But he's not going to pick Lieberman as Veep. Dunno who, though.

by Geotpf on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 07:37:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Who better (none / 0)

In case you haven't heard the biggest rumor in both DC and Hartford is that Lieberman has been Promised Sec.of Defense when Rummy Resigns(late summer at the latest).

Lieberman says,"my good freind John McCain" a minimum of 10 times a day.Do the Math.

by ctkeith on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 08:20:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Who better (none / 0)

If there was a Unity ticket I would love to see McCain/Feingold or Feingold/McCain. Even if they were opponents, I think it would be the most enjoyable election in years.

by yitbos96bb on Fri Apr 29, 2005 at 12:27:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

At this point it's just academic (none / 0)

If it would get me a free iPod Mini, :-) I'd say Mark Warner for the Dems.

If it's George Allen for the Repubs, I'd be looking for jobs overseas. The man is a first-class asshole.

by KimPossible on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 08:11:10 PM EST

That's what I was going to say (none / 0)

If George Allen so much as wins a primary somewhere (besides maybe here in Virginia) I'm heading back to Europe for good. He'd be Bush without the comic relief.

by spandrel on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 08:40:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That's what I was going to say (none / 0)

Oh, he'll win stuff all right. It's him v. Frist for the southern primaries, and he'll KILL Frist. He's dangerous, dangerous, dangerous. He's a great campaigner and he's a very partisan Republican.

by redsoxkangaroo on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 09:28:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That's what I was going to say (none / 0)

Yeah, then we'll see a big-ass Confederate Flag hanging in the Oval Office, along with stuffed animal heads and pictures of his dad.

by KimPossible on Fri Apr 29, 2005 at 09:15:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

If these were my choices, (none / 0)

I'd vote for McCain.

All right, probably not. But I'd think about it!

Yeah, I'm cynical.

by catastrophile on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 08:26:41 PM EST

Re: If these were my choices, (none / 0)

I don't think I could support Kerry or Bayh. I'd probably move to a third party alternative.

by Gary Boatwright on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 09:51:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Now that I think about it, (none / 0)

I probably would vote for McCain. I'm in the decline-to-state party. We can vote in the primary of our choice in California, right? Or is that just the Dems?

Yeah, I'm cynical.

by catastrophile on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 10:03:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Governors (none / 0)

Given the clear preference of the electorate for governors, it 's surprising that only 1 governor makes it on each side (Warner and Romney). The Rick Perry/Kay Bailey Hutchinson winner would seem to be a higher possible than Romney as would Jeb on the Republican side.

Starting in 76. Govs have won in 76, 80, 84, 92,96.2000 amd 2004. And a gov was the losing candidate in 88.

by David Kowalski on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 08:38:43 PM EST

Re: Governors (none / 0)

I agree. I would hope we would nominate a Governor.

We have some very solid Governors out there, folks with great records and leadership skills. The last thing we need is another Senator who lives, breathes, and talks in DC-talk.

My preferences would be Warner, Richardson, or Bredeson.

by thelastdem on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 10:20:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Governors (none / 0)

I am sure you all know this but Bayh was Gov. of Indiana before he went to the Senate.

by comotion on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 10:23:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Governors (none / 0)

It doesn't surprise me, actually. To me this appears to be a "poll" of insiders, by insiders, for insiders.

Except in rare instances, insiders (especially Senators) are about the worst possible choice for a presidential nominee. If this list is all we have to choose from for our Presidential timber, may a merciful God save the Democratic Party.

by Big River Bandido on Fri Apr 29, 2005 at 12:32:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Governors (none / 0)

Wow, that was misleading. Calling Reagan a governor in 84 is not fair. Calling him one in 80 isn't fair either since he was not in office then, although I can live with it given that that was his last office held. Nor is calling Clinton a Governor in 96 or Bush in 2004. Yes they served as governors but were not in office as that when they won their second term. That is a really bad comparison.

by yitbos96bb on Fri Apr 29, 2005 at 12:31:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Governors (none / 0)

Even if this is misleading, we have 1976, 1980, 1992, 2000 for governors and 1988 for non-governors.

This is 4-1, in favor of governors.

And 3 of the 4 got re-elected. The 1 did not.

by v2aggie2 on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 12:45:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Governors (none / 0)

Perry is a non-factor for president.
Hutchinson would beat him quite easily in my view for governor. She is more popular and established

Perry is being threatened for a reason.
His style has pissed off everybody, including other Republicans.

Basically, Slick Rick is a major asshole.
He's even worse than Bush as a governor.
And that's saying A LOT!

by v2aggie2 on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 01:17:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Bush dissed Frist tonight (none / 0)

He said he didn't think the Dems were blocking nominees on religious grounds but on ideological grounds. We're not atheists, we're communists! But still, the slight to Frist will not be overlooked, and his stock is going to start tanking.

The bad news is that I'd love to see the R's nominate that wimp. It's Allen that scares me. McCain and Giuliani will be ripped up by the right...

by redsoxkangaroo on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 10:10:23 PM EST

Re: Bush dissed Frist tonight (none / 0)

I'm afraid of Allen, too. But I disagree with you about McCain; he's actually very conservative, just in the Goldwater sense. I think he might have trouble against the religious right in a primary (especially if someone like Brownback jumps in and pushes everyone to the right), but the party would unite around him if he got the nomination. As it is, he's incredibely popular with almost everyone; a few internet conservatives will bitch and moan about him, but they will with anyone to the left of Gary Bauer.

by PantslessYoda1 on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 10:31:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Good to see Governor Warner and Sen. Bayh (none / 0)

being recognized as solid candidates.

Warner/Lincoln... Sounds like a winner to me.

by nickshepDEM on Fri Apr 29, 2005 at 02:14:40 AM EST

Re: Good to see Governor Warner and Sen. Bayh (none / 0)

Which Lincoln?

by v2aggie2 on Fri Apr 29, 2005 at 02:44:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good to see Governor Warner and Sen. Bayh (none / 0)

Abe... We are gonna dig him up and run that as a Unity ticket ;-)

by yitbos96bb on Fri Apr 29, 2005 at 12:33:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good to see Governor Warner and Sen. Bayh (none / 0)

Blanche Lincoln. Senantor from Arkansas.

by nickshepDEM on Fri Apr 29, 2005 at 06:58:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good to see Governor Warner and Sen. Bayh (none / 0)

That's who I thought you meant.

I worked on the 2004 Arkansas Coordinated Campaign. I can safely say that Blanche is very popular. A good number of people who voted for Bush liked Blanche A LOT as well, and voted for her. We saw this in phone banking and canvassing as well. The Republicans targeted her seat, but she still won easily by 12 points in 2004. It was never really a race.

Just curious...what factors do you see that would indicate that Lincoln could be a VP Candidate in 2008?

by v2aggie2 on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 12:39:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good to see Governor Warner and Sen. Bayh (3.00 / 1)

In short, Blanche Lincoln seems like a strong, independent, southern, woman. But at the same time she gives of this motherly homemaker vibe. In 2004 Kerry won the Female vote by 3%. With Sen. Lincoln on the ticket that number is bound to skyrocket. I believe her southern style, values, and appearance would playout extremley well in the south, midwest, and west. On top of that she would go over very well with married women, a demographic that Bush dominated. She needs to be on the ticket in 2008.

by nickshepDEM on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 11:22:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good to see Governor Warner and Sen. Bayh (none / 0)

What if the Repubs nominate a woman for VP? One possibility - Condi Rice is a two-fer (black and female). She's weak but could pull a few percentage points away from the Democratic black vote and Dem female vote.

by dwightmc on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 08:12:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good to see Governor Warner and Sen. Bayh (none / 0)

We always talk about VP's, and with good reason.
But the question is, how much difference do they really make in the results? Maybe a little. But Dan Quayle became VP, so it can be overrated.
Just an casual observation

I don't think Condi gets selected.
Pro-Choice and a complete lack of stage presence will do her in , I think.

by v2aggie2 on Sun May 01, 2005 at 12:41:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

None of those candidates.. (3.00 / 0)

...appeal to me. Just more of the same, establishment, insider, non-reform folks. No new ideas. Generally, no ideas at all.

Now, a Russ Feingold, a Gary Hart, a rejuvenated Howard Dean, those are names I could get excited about.

---------------- "Decisions are made by those who show up"

by rich kolker on Fri Apr 29, 2005 at 09:07:29 AM EST

If it's McCain (none / 0)

1) Hilary will look very female by comparison & lose on gender, pure and simple.

2)Clark, who I'd support happily, risks looking more like a newbie by comparison.

Thing is, it's too early for all this. Primarily because a lot depends on '06, where I've got my time and attention. At the rate Chimpy McWhacko is going, we stand a solid chance of taking back the Congress-- and that will prime the pump for '08 more than anything else.

The economy's going to tank any minute. That matters. If the D's do well in '06 and the economy really hits the skids, how much of the blame for that can be spun?

And so on. The variables make one dizzy.

One thing I know for sure-- if the Chimperor's popularity holds at all, we're looking at Jeb running in '08 no matter what he says now. If Chimpy turns out to be, as I think he will, anathema, the Warren Harding of the 21st C, then Jeb will stay back, McCain will flounder -- & I fear Bill-ary can't lose.

by tulip on Fri Apr 29, 2005 at 09:31:41 AM EST

It's not going to be McCain (none / 0)

During 2000, he burned way to many bridges with the wingnuts.

They will remember, and they control the fucking Republican party now.

I will repeat my earlier prediction:

Feingold vs. Frist, Feingold winning 49 states (he loses Utah). :-P

by Geotpf on Fri Apr 29, 2005 at 09:13:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Choose? (none / 0)

I'm not thrilled with any of the so called choices.
Maybe a new face will come foward that I can fall in love with. All of the insider's choices are Politics as usual.

by Destiny on Fri Apr 29, 2005 at 10:37:07 AM EST

Warner (none / 0)

Now I REALLY want Warner to take down Allen. That would slit his throat for 2008. I am surprised he beat out Frist.

by yitbos96bb on Fri Apr 29, 2005 at 11:22:05 AM EST

Re: Warner (none / 0)

From what I've read, Warner has his sights set on 2008. If I'm Warner, I do the same thing because if he loses to Allen in 2006, he can kiss '08 goodbye.

by falcon4e on Fri Apr 29, 2005 at 12:42:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

OT: Polls on Filibuster (none / 0)

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/index.htm

Now I was under the impression that Americans were against getting rid of the Filibuster, yet Rasmussen claims 57% are in favor. Am I mistaken or is Rasmussen just crap?

by yitbos96bb on Fri Apr 29, 2005 at 11:27:59 AM EST

Re: OT: Polls on Filibuster (none / 0)

I never liked Rasmussen, although he was accurate in '04.

by falcon4e on Fri Apr 29, 2005 at 12:42:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What about Santorum? (none / 0)

I am surprised that Rick Santorum, Senator in PA, is not on the list. He has risen very quickly in the GOP, currently holding the position of Chair of the Senate Republican Conference. Despite his extreme right wing views he has won two elections in a Democratic state.

Recently a media firm that runs his campaign has registered domain names for a 2008 Presidential bid. He scares me more than any of the Republican candidates that might run!

In regards to Mrs. Clinton, she has the name recognition and the financial backing, but she is fearful of using internet and online strategies. Bush was able to win in 2004 because his site enabled his supporters to engage other supporters and bring out the vote...if Clinton fails to do this there is no way she will win in 2008.

by elipschultz on Fri Apr 29, 2005 at 12:50:13 PM EST

Edwards (none / 0)

I'd pick Edwards, with maybe an also young (female?) governor. Fresh-ish faces, youth, charm, etc.

Hillary has been so demonized for so long that too many voters have already written her off. And the way the Repubs keep pushing her for 08 is weird, to say the least.

If we don't run against their corruption, extremism and radical overreaching (they want to run our lives according to their beliefs, etc), we're sunk. Hillary is bending over backwards the wrong way.

by amberglow on Fri Apr 29, 2005 at 04:24:51 PM EST

Who to choose? (none / 0)

Man, that is an uninspiring list.

by Kimmitt on Fri Apr 29, 2005 at 04:25:41 PM EST

Re: Who to choose? (none / 0)

Who would you like to see?

by v2aggie2 on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 12:49:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Who to choose? (none / 0)

Somebody who didn't vote for the War.

by Kimmitt on Sun May 08, 2005 at 01:07:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.