OT (Politics): Who will be the Democratic Presidential Nominee in 2008?
 

The New York Times had a big article on Marc Warner this weekend, a lot of which talked about how the Democratic establishment is falling into line behind Hillary Clinton already, which I think it a big mistake.

But it got me to thinking, so let's play some early speculation:

Who WILL (not should) be the Democratic Presidential Nominee in 2008?

(Poll to follow)

I personally like her, but I'd rather see Edwards run. Or even Obama.

She is not the best choice.

I like Warner, but Hillary will be hard to beat in the primaries. If she can take almost all the Black vote, which seems likely, nobody else has much of a chance.

I'll vote Bayh, i think the Dems will try to push that whole midwest values spiel, and he seems like a guy that would fit their demographics well. Match him with some lefty VP canidate, and their ticket is pretty appealing. Out of the group that I'd like to see win. probably Warner would be my favorite. He's gonna have to spend a crapload of cash to get his name out there if he wants to have a chance at winning.

Hillary Clinton would be a horrible nomination. I think she's a polarizing figure. I think she'll get people who would normally wouldn't just because they don't like her. Given the current state of U.S. politics almost any presidential election will be ugly and polarized, but I think Hillary would further energize conservatives. Hell, as pathetic as it sounds, I
imagine there would be a not unsiginificant (double negative BABY!) number of people who would get out to vote just to vote against a woman, Hillary not withstanding. Hillary is a polarizing force. It will
not end well.

I kind of like the idea of Gore coming back. People could have sympathy for him because they feel like he was robbed in 2000. From the sound of it he's a bit more personable. I can't say for sure, because I haven't followed him all that closely.

Yup - I think Hillary will ensure the Republicans are funded through the next millenium. Warner seems like the dream candidate -a popular, southern governer, but it seems hard to stop the Hillary train.

I would get wholeheartedly behind Evan Bayh. I've liked him ever since the beginning of his political career. But I have a hard time believing he could get the nomination.

I think Clinton, Edwards, or Gore would be most likely. Obama needs to wait another election or two before giving it a go.

I've always liked Gore. He's a bright guy, if a little wooden. But would the democrats really be willing to give him another chance after losing against a lightweight like Bush?

I think it's pretty much going to be Clinton, and I also think that people should not underestimate her ability to win a fight and the expectation factor. In a presidential campaign, with that much visibility, people are going to see she's not the maniacal baby-eating character she's been portrayed to be. People have had a lot of fun doing to her (myself included) what the left does to Dick Cheney (constantly snarling and angry oooh), but she is not that bad and is actually pretty personable. Depending on the right's nominee I would not be surprised to see her win convincingly, and I think she's at about 80% to be the nominee.

No Dick Gephardt? He's a Dem I'd think about voting for.

Hillary gets the nom, but does not win. The Dems could win with the right canidate, but Hillary guarentees a loss.

The thing is, Hillary is almost equally galvanizing among Democrats as she is polarizing with Republicans. I disagree with the contention that she would spur more Republican voters to vote; the Republic Party has done a good enough job getting out its base through wedge issues like abortion and gay marriage. The Democrats need a candidate who can get out voters who stayed at home in '00 and '04 because Gore and Kerry didn't exactly rally the wagons. Add to that the overpowering fundraising advantage she would have, and it would be an interesting race. If Hillary runs, I don't see how she doesn't get the nomination.

The '08 election is going to be unique. Not since 1952 has the race not included an incumbent president or vice president -- I think conventional wisdom suggests no matter what illusions VP Cheney may harbor, he has no shot at the Republican nomination.

I still think that given the modern political landscape, the only Democrat who would win would have to be southern or midwestern. Bayh seems like a perfect choice, but he is such an unknown to so many voters that I don't know if he can pull it off. The benefit he has is that unless the Republican nominee is McCain, Guiliani or Frist (I give Condi a snowball's chance), the opponent will be equally unknown.

If Hillary ran, I would register and vote so that she wouldn't get elected. Too bad Dubai can't fund her campaign, but maybe they can channel the funds through Bill.

See what I mean?

I think RA would have lots of company in this regard. I just don't see too many people counter-acting this, you know, claiming "If Hillary ran, I would register and vote just so she could be elected."

Northeastern liberals are usually money for the dems - I don't see why you guys have a problem with Hillary running.

Just trying to support your theories. :)

It's greatly appreciated. Keep it up. :)

I don't think Hillary can win the nomination. She's extremely popular with certain segments of the Democratic Party, but I don't believe those segments are wide spread enough for her to win the nomination.

I think the democrats need to stop running senators--it is too easy to criticize, distort, and pick apart a senator's voting records with all of the pork attached to votes.

My top choice would be Wes Clark. I think he is a man of high character that would be unifying and strong on foreign policy. Guys like Richardson, Warner, and Vilsack are probably capable of winning, if they can raise enough money. Richardson is an ideal candidate, in that he has experience as a governor, has experience working in the Clinton White House, is Hispanic, and represents a swing state/region, but he has a couple of negatives. He is not a very good-looking man (will look terrible on TV) and he has a George O'Leary-like lie on his resume (for years, he stated that he had been drafted by a MLB team and it was recently revealed that he was not).

Agreed. Phil Bredesen of Tennessee is another governor that should get a hard look if Democrats care about getting elected. But have fun with that Hillary trainwreck.

2008: Just when you thought with Bush gone its safe to go back in the political waters, along comes an even more polarizing figure.

Wes Clark would be a formidable choice. I think anybody else on that list would be a disaster.

Everyone I've ever heard with personal experiences around Clark describe him either as the most arrogant man ever or a f*ing nutjob. Did his best to start WW3 with Russia in Kosovo.

I think Clark would have the best chance to win, but I think Edwards and Warner would have an outside shot depending on who the Republicans nominated. Otherwise, anyone else I think would be guaranteed losers.

I've listened to Joe Biden talk a few times. I think he'd be an excellent choice. I'd definitely support his candidacy.

If Hillary gets the nomination, I'm voting Republican no matter who they put up. Unless it's Pat Robertson or some equally racist idiot.

There's something just evil about Hillary, and I can't quite place it. I suspect many middle-roaders feel the same way. And there's no question she'll raise money for the Republicans like no one past or present.

Knowing the Democrat leadership, though, they'll support her all the way. I think they like pissing people off more than they like winning elections.

I heard Clark speak during the last round of primaries here in NH. Very unimpressive. I don't think he can win.

I never really felt Biden would make a good candidate. He's too longwinded and seems to get himself in trouble with some controversial sound bites that could kill him during a national election. Of course, any candidate would have to refine their approach for a presidential election.

I don't think that Guiliani would contend on the GOP side and because there is no consensus candidate on the right, the Dems are going to get behind Hilary in the same way that people got behind Bush and even though he was polarizing, it didn't seem to make a different since he beat Kerry when it came down to it.

That said, all this Obama talk is just too premature. But he has sounded more and more like a candidate to me, the more I hear him, which makes me think he wants to be someone's VP pick, though...I am one of those folks who believes America will never have a President or a Veep with a name that no one can pronounce correctly at least not in our lifetime.

I am more interested in seeing how this year's midterm elections play out.

Bayh or Edwards would be a good choice. Democrats who show centrist leanings do well.

Hillary is the only one that makes me cringe at the thought of, as she would ruin us in so many ways. I think a woman President would be fine, but not this one. She has the same look in her eyes that Idi Amin had when he began eating his people.

Swaggs, good analysis on Bill Richardson. He's pretty much openly campaigning for the nomination right now, and from what I can tell he's got about as good a chance as anybody other than Hillary. He's an extremely odd duck - I find him impossible to take seriously as a governor, and think he'd just be pathetic as a presidential candidate.

Yeah, I know some insiders from when I was working in Oregon who were big Edwards people. I could see that train getting steam again, though, I dunno how far he could get.

The real issue is money. Clinton is going to come out of the gate with so much cash -- like Bush in 2000 -- that it seems unlikely that anyone can catch up.

He didn't lose.

I used to think Obama didn't have a chance i n08, but I wonder if he has to run in 08 before he gets too much of a record as a senator?

I have a strange hunch about Obama. Not only do I think he is the best candidate on that list, I think he is the best opporitunity, even in 2008. I would like to think that parts of the party will eventually be smart enough to realize that.

I would really enjoy having a Obama vs McCain race, would be terrific to go into a voting booth with a great amount of respect for both candidates.

Dola, W. Bush paved the way for "Experience" not being a good (enough) attack on a candidate in 08. And frankly, I don't think it really hurt Edwards as much as some think it did.

I can agree with that. Kerry got the nod over the war record and folks thinking that would beat Bush, but it was a miscalculation. I think Edwards would've fared better in those debates against Bush, simply because of his youth. Kerry and his divisive wife and their monied background made it hard for people to relate to them.

Not that Edwards ain't rich...

Anyway...Obama.. I dunno. I just don't think America's ready for a black president. I'd be flabbergasted to see it. And yes, I think people vote that way. Not that he's not qualified and hearing him on CBS Meet the press knockoff on Sunday told me that he's got something special. And that he'd better do something with it sooner than later.

But...I just dunno if I really can believe we're there yet. Especially with Hillary stockpiling money like China has political prisoners.

I think it will be Hillary. Probably the worst candidate the Dems could select. Personally, I can't stand the carpet-bagging woman, and I'm not entirely sure why she is so popular with the Dems. She certainly has none of the charisma Bill had. You knew Bill was dirty, but at least he was a charmer. Hillary just comes across as dirty political whore. She's also got a ton of baggage (both old and new) that will certainly be dredged up during a campaign -- not the least of which is how she condemned the UAE port deal while her hubby was essentially an "unofficial" paid consultant trying to help get the deal done.

Somewhere along the line, "longwinded" became the approved political synonym for "thoughtful."

The public seems to prefer shallow soundbyte candidates like Edwards. Makes me sick every four years. We're in Iraq because all the truly gifted leaders are eliminated long before the elections begin.

Warner, I think, will pull it out. All the big money is on Hillary, true, but at this stage in the game, Phil Gramm was leading the money chase back in '95. It ain't over yet is all I'm saying.

I completely agree. I really don't like the way elections are decided today based on 30 second spots shown on FoxNews and CNN Headline News. Under these conditions, I think it really eliminates some candidates (from both sides) that would make very good presidents.

I was wondering about this. After Kerry lost, I went and did some digging and found out that only 2 sitting senators have ever been elected to President (JFK and someone else), and really only a handful of other Presidents were senators at one point. The vast majority of Presidents were either Governors or came from the Military.

And with everyone coming out and yelling "He voted this many times against tax cuts", "He voted this many times for bigger government", "he voted this many times for higher spending" (with the amount of bills that go through the senate and the amount of different things in each bill, the numbers are extremely inflated and can be used in just any way possible, yet still technically correct)....I'm not sure a sitting senator can be elected to President anymore.

dola,

And if the Democrats want to complete their apparent plan to completly destroy their party, they'll nominate Hilary Clinton.

Im hoping for the Edwards/Feingold ticket.

See, I think this is a big misconception. To win the nomination, a candidate needs the Democratic machine to get out their votes in the various primaries. Clinton has the support of much of the democratic establishment, who will be key in making this happen.

Plus, according to election law, she can roll any money she raises for her next Senate campaign straight into her Presidential campaign, while folks like Warner & Clark can't use their PAC money for their own campaign. Right now Clinton has $17 million in her warchest and some estimates show that she'll have upwards of $75 million available by the time the primary season starts.

I do think it will be Clinton who gets the nomination. Insider support + massive fundraising = nomination. And then she'll lose, unless the Republicans run someone completely and utterly useless.

This article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11726289 believes that Hillary will have $100 million by Fall 2007.

JFK & Warren Harding are the only two senators do go directly to the White House, though I believe seven Presidents in all were senators (LBJ, for one).

I think that you all underestimate the unifying power of Trout McFishy.

That is a great point.

No idea who the dem nominee will be, though. I really hope it's not Hillary.

McFishy is clearly a contender here. :)

I think the Democrats should try Russ Feingold. He's very liberal, so that makes their core happy. Happy core = campaign workers and dollars. He is also very respected by politicos, which shows he knows how to work the system. Even when bashing Bush's nominees, he was much more respectful, cordial, and logical than many of his fellow liberal senators. He's a liberal who makes sense. There are not a lot of those in this country, with its moderate, slightly right populace. The democrats would be foolish not to give him a hard look.

-Anxiety

Dola -

Of course, personally, I thought Joe Lieberman should have been the democratic choice last time. He was the only candidate who could have beatnen Bush, in part because Bush had painted himself too conservative and not moderate enough, but Lieberman has a solid moderate record and rep. I think Joe could have grabbed the moderate vote fom Bush and won.

-Anxiety