Democratic candidate in 2004???

jmpeter316 · 08-06-2003, 02:12 PM

So who does everyone think will get Mr. Bush a good run at the 2004 election??? I would like to see Hillary Clinton in there, but I think she will wait 'til 2008...

What do all think???

Peace.

Jay

JerryLove · 08-06-2003, 02:16 PM

Ehh. No one I'd really like will be running... I expect 4 more years

.

MisterAgreeable · 08-06-2003, 02:21 PM

I don't know a lot about his beliefs, and this stuff may be entirely untrue, but I really liked this article about John Edwards:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2084686/

jmpeter316 · 08-06-2003, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MisterAgreeable

I don't know a lot about his beliefs, and this stuff may be entirely untrue, but I really liked this article about John Edwards:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2084686/

Very interesting. He sounds so conservative at times, but is sooo anti-Bush...this guy is worth me looking into a little more...

Peace.

Jay

Than · 08-06-2003, 09:40 PM

I'm just happy Hillary Clinton isn't running this year. She's the senator for my state, and not someone I'd like to see in any political office. She had a plan for practically socializing healthcare when her husband was president, and is staunchly pro-abortion.

jmpeter316 · 08-07-2003, 08:52 AM

Whether you make like it or not people, Hillary Clinton will be the first woman US President within the next 8-12 years. It's obvious she'll run, she'll get a huge majority of the womens' vote. She'll win the big states like California, Illinois, New York, etc.

I'm not going to debate issues with you, as I am obviously pretty far left. (I'm a bleeding heart social worker who works in the inner-city of Chicago). But you have to know that she has your whole Republican party scared out their pants...

Peace.

Jay

Luke · 08-07-2003, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmpeter316

Whether you make like it or not people, Hillary Clinton will be the first woman US President within the next 8-12 years. It's obvious she'll run, she'll get a huge majority of the womens' vote. She'll win the big states like California, Illinois, New York, etc.

Except for the glaring obvious fact that a huge load of women don't like her. She won't get a significantly higher majority of womens' vote than any other Democratic candidate would, and she'll have a lot less of the men's vote. She'll also have to deal with Bill's legacy.

Honestly, I doubt that the Democratic Party will be stupid enough to run her. If they do, they will lose. Badly.

Let's think about this. She barely won New York, (49%-47%), which is an incredibly liberal state. The only reason she did win it is because Lazio got off to a late start on his campaign and pissed a good number of people off (a significant number of people said they were voting against him more than for her).

You can take California, Illinois, and New York, and lose an election. Gore did.

Quote:

But you have to know that she has your whole Republican party scared out their pants...

No, she really doesn't.

Grace & Peace
Luke

jmpeter316 · 08-07-2003, 11:35 AM

We'll see about that....

I think you are dead wrong about the woman vote. There are hundreds of thousands of woman and minorities that haven't voted in years past that would register and vote for her... A minority running for president that would have a decent chance (woman, black, hispanic, etc...) would have a huge impact on lots and lots of unregistered voters...They would come out of the woodwork and vote in huge numbers. Note that this would also happen in Texas, with a huge Mexican population (hugely Democratic). Florida has a large Latino population as well...

Why haven't they voted in years past, you ask??? Because all they see running for president is a bunch of wealthy white males. Believe me, they would vote for anyone that isn't white and male...They would probably vote Colin Powell in because he is black, even though he's Republican.

Peace.

jay

Yojimbo · 08-07-2003, 12:58 PM

Uhhh...not every woman likes Hillary and what they perceive as her radical leftwing notions. I'd say there are also many women who would be inspired to register for the purpose of voting *against* Hillary.

As someone who would consider voting Democrat if the winds were right, I think Hillary is a very bad choice. She has way too much negative baggage...basically, all the scandals she and Bill were involved in, and I'm not talking about Monicagate. Nor am I impressed with her very glossy autobiography. But I have to give her props for winning New York despite being cynically transplanted into that state.

And I really don't see how a minority will have a great chance of winning, using your theory. How many blacks are voting for Al Sharpton? Or how many voted for the very cool Alan Keyes (he blew everyone away at the Iowa straw poll, IMO). There may be more and more minorities these days, but they aren't concentrated in such a fashion that they could win electorial votes. Unless the courts decide to redraw state lines like they redraw district lines.

**+Donny** · 08-07-2003, 01:09 PM

I don't see any possibility of Bush being beaten in 2004. As has been said, Hilary is an idiot and a good portion of the population knows it. Yes, she will draw most of her votes from the women, but her history and her lack of political experience will probably kill her.

Sharpton, hopefully, will get about as many votes as if I ran. Really, if he was the Democratic nominee, Bush wouldn't even need to campaign.

Howard Dean is from Vermont, and therefore so ridiculous liberal he should be shot. I went up to Vermont last summer to see some friends and family and they all told us not to vote for him if he ran for president.

Frankly, I don't see the democrats having a chance until 2008. Bush has done a good job and the Democrats simply don't have a ringleader. They have done all they could to destroy Bush and have failed miserably. Thank God that they will be out of office at least until 2008.

jmpeter316 · 08-07-2003, 01:27 PM

Yeah, Bush is pretty much a sinch in 2004...there are no really good democratic candidates out there right now...

The majority of people who vote on the border (the middle class who want to keep it that way) don't really care what the personal lives of the candidates. I'm pretty sure if Bill Clinton was allowed to run in 2000, he would have won. Why?? Not because people forget about the whole Monica thing, but because the middle class was happy in the 90's (Clinton era) and they wanted to keep it that way. I know this is what Gore was running on, and he did win the majority of American votes (by a narrow margin). If Bill would (and could) have ran, he would have won. Bush didn't win because of the morality issue. He won because his campaign was better.

The reason Alan Keyes didn't get any black votes is because is way too far to the right. African Americans are mainly all democratic. Colin Powell is Republican but is extremely close to the border.

You need to know that the vast majority of unregistered voters are democratic. If they like a candidate that has a chance, they will register. Let's face it, Alan Keyes never had a chance. Colin Powell would though. I am a democrat, but I would vote for Powell just to see a minority as president. But Keyes is too far to the right.

If you think Hillary isn't a serious threat, than you may want to start thinking about who will run for the Republicans in 2008. You don't see too many future Republican candidates on Jay Leno and Letterman do you??? Hillary has money, she's popular, she's a minority, people were happy when Bill was in office, etc... They won't care about her scandals if they know they can get a good job, their kids are safe, and that their kids are in good schools...This is what Hillary will run with and why she will be a really serious threat.

Peace.

Jay

**+Donny** · 08-07-2003, 01:33 PM

I hardly think being on Leno or Letterman will matter much.

Quote:

They won't care about her scandals if they know they can get a good job, their kids are safe, and that their kids are in good schools

They don't know that, they think that. She will make everything worse. Now that I think of it, it may be better if she wins in '08 so she screws the country up so bad that people will start having second thoughts about liberalism. Of course, that is assuming people think logically, which they don't. The Democrats would just find some way to blaim it on the Republicans.

You are right, the republicans don't have much for '08 yet, but that is still four years away. That will be a tought election for the republicans and I don't know who will win, but I do know '04 will go to the good guys.

MisterAgreeable · 08-07-2003, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmpeter316

The reason Alan Keyes didn't get any black votes is because is way too far to the right. African Americans are mainly all democratic. Colin Powell is Republican but is extremely close to the border.

Alan Keyes.

As a rule, I hate everything Michael Moore does. He's one of the least profound or clever political satirists/humorists around. However, he did this one thing that I loved on his show "The Awful Truth."

He went to various election 2000 presidential candidates and told them he'd given them free airtime on his show - all they had to do was dive onto this mosh pit he had set up on a flatbed truck.

He asked most of the candidates and they all said no. Except Alan Keys. Imagine Alan Keys, in a leather trenchcoat jumping onto a crowd moshing to Rage Against the Machine. It was brilliant. I wanted to cry.

jmpeter316 · 08-07-2003, 04:17 PM

Yeah, Alan Keyes is a pretty cool guy, I don't agree with his political views, but he's really cool...

About the Letterman/Leno thing...people didn't think much of Bill Clinton 'til he started playing saxophone on late night television...never doubt the power that publicity has...

Obviously I'll argue that Hillary will do good, and you will aruge that Hillary will do a bad job...etc...

Actually, this country will continue to go further and further left as the years progress. The MTV generation is full of young, eager people who want to see social equality. The Republican party has already started its leftward swing to gain young voters in previous elections. It is a certainty... You're right, the good guys will win (the dems). For social and economic justice can never be achieved through a Republican regime. And that is what young Americans want. We may argue now, but the future is coming when your party will be a lot further left than you would ever want it...Sorry.

Peace.

jay

Than · 08-07-2003, 10:08 PM

Please. A strong economy = a stable gov't. Bill Clinton was so popular because the economy was booming during his presidency, even though he had nothing to do with it, ironically enough. Pres. Bush is an extremely dynamic president, which makes up for the faltering economy.