Early polls for 2008 POTUS elections

[lawrocket 3]

According to a poll, 25 percent of Democrats polled said they wanted Hillary Clinton to be their next nominee. 15 percent chose John Kerry. 7 percent chose John Edwards. Obama and Gore together got 5 percent.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20041116/pl_afp/us_vote_2008_clinton

Thus, it appears that the shock has not yet worn off. In a Presidential election, Hillary Clinton could probably take New York, Cali, Illinois, and New England. Maybe Hawaii, Oregon and Washington, too. Possibly Arky.

But, I think Kerry has a broader geographic appeal that Hillary. IF this is what the dems are lookign at going in, expect another Republican victory in 2008. The Dems better freaking find someone who can get the "flyover country" vote. The issue is, "will they be looking for it?" Heck, who wants to be the one to tell Hillary, "We are looking for a candidate that is most like your husband." I'd probably hear her conniption from here.

Sadly, I do not expect the Dems to find someone who can take some of the flyover states. I do not believe that these can compete with the party establishment, i.e., do what Clinton and Carter did.

As an aside, you've got Republican frontrunners (acording to the poll) in Giuliani and McCain. Amazingly, both have cross-party appeal. Of course, they were tied at 10 percent each of voters. But, I can see plenty of Dems voting for either of those two, and for Powell. The Dems just don't have those sorts of people.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[PhillyKev 0]

Bah...The majority of democrats never even heard of most of the candidates in the primary this year. Trying to guess who will be the nominee in 4 years is silly.

Funny thing is, I live in a Blue state in a very very blue area of the blue state that makes the state blue even though the rest of the state is red. And I don't know anyone that wants Hillary.

[Tink1717 2]

I'd love to vote for McCain. I just don't see the churches getting behind him, due to his pro-choice stance. Hillary has less than zero chance. There is too much leftover hatred of Bill for her to have even a snowballs chance in hell.

OTOH, the dems are done, finished over and out. They are professional losers. The only hope is that they will fold fast and a new, more worthy party will take their place.

Skydivers don't knock on Death's door. They ring the bell and runaway... It really pisses him off.
-The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!)
AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS#8808 Swooo 1717

[quade 4]

Nope. I'll predict right now, 3 years in advance, that Hillary won't even be seriously considered.

I think there is going to be (well, needs to be) a fundamental change in strategy. (and yes that was a pun.)

I think what they need to find is the absolute most centrist candidate they can find from somewhere inside of one of the red states, preferably the south. He's going to need to be a clean-cut, all American that could appeal to the widest section of the middle of the country. Somebody that everyone is going to look at and say, "he's a reasonable guy." Maybe not Collin Powell, but somebody with that sort of appeal.

I -still- think Clark would be a viable choice. I absolutely think he's exactly what I just described.

http://www.clark04.com/americanson/

That said, I doubt he'll run.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[lawrocket 3]

Here's the problem, Kev. Moderates cannot get a democratic nomination.

My theory? I believe that in the last 40 years, this country's population has moved to a more left-wing viewpoint. The country is left leaning already.

The Dems will put out candidates more to the left than society. Republicans will put out candidates more to the right than society. When the country is at a 7 (on a scale of 1-10, with ten being most liberal, 1 being most reactionary), then the democratic candidate will be an 8 or a 9. The Republican candidate is maybe a 4 or a 5 (look at Bush's economic policies and government growth and tell me he's a reactionary).

The Republicans have a built in advantage. In order for the Dems to be successful, they have to either move to the right, or move the voter population to the right. Far right-wingers like Buchanon (who is maybe a 2) are not seriously considered. Far left candidates like Hillary or Kerry (probably a 9 or 8) are considered.

Democratic candidates are more liberal than Republicans are conservative. Thus, Republicans are perceived as more moderate.

The Dems need to fix it. They were too successful over the past 50 years....

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[quade 4]

Quote

I believe that in the last 40 years, this country's population has moved to a more left-wing viewpoint. The country is left leaning already.

How can you say that when GWB got 51% of the vote?

GWB is definately NOT middle of the road and some of his advisors are (were?) about as far right as it gets.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[PhillyKev 0]

See, I see myself between Kerry and Bush with the two of them being equally and respectively to the left and right of me. Both of them sucked as choices.

Clinton was a moderate (don't even try to claim he wasn't), and he got the democratic nomination.

In actuality, I think that Bush winning the election this year is the best thing that could have happened to the dems for 08. Because whether Kerry or Bush won, the next president has a shit load of trash to clean up domestically that hasn't even materialized yet. If Kerry had won, he would be getting the blame. But since Bush did, it will be rightfully attributed to him.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

I believe that in the last 40 years, this country's population has moved to a more left-wing viewpoint. The country is left leaning already.

How can you say that when GWB got 51% of the vote?

GWB is definately NOT middle of the road and some of his advisors are (were?) about as far right as it gets.

I think the only reason GWB only got 51% is because many of the votes Kerry got were not for Kerry, but against GWB. I belive that had there been no Iraq War for the Dems to incite hatred over that GWB would have won by a greater margin.

[wmw999 2,600]

Quote

I belive that had there been no Iraq War for the Dems to incite hatred over that GWB would have won by a greater margin

Kind of like the one he got in 2000?

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[quade 4]

Which I believe only further supports my argument that lawrocket is wrong in his assertion that the country leans left.

The country, in my opinion leans to the right. Not far enough right to swing a repeal of Roe v Wade or gain approval of a U.S. Constitutional anti gay marriage Amendment, but certainly to the right of center.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

I -still- think Clark would be a viable choice. I absolutely think he's exactly what I just described.
That said, I doubt he'll run.

God, I hope he doesn't. It would take a lot for me to vote for Clark.

In three years Obama may have the political capital to run.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[quade 4]

Interesting . . . I guess I'll have to go back and try to figure out what you have against him.

I think if they had put Clark up this time it would have killed a LOT of the negative strategy Rove came up with to attack Kerry. No Swifties, no 1969 Congressional testimony, no making fun of him whenever he got close to a gun, no perceived flip-flop Senatorial voting record . . .

I'm certain they would have come up with -something-, but Clark's success in Bosnia would have been pretty hard to argue with -- I thought.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

I belive that had there been no Iraq War for the Dems to incite hatred over that GWB would have won by a greater margin.

And I believe that had gay marriage and other social issues not been pushed to the forefront for the Reps to incite hatred of anyone different, then Kerry would have won.

So I guess we're even

Truth be told, Bush got quite a chunk of anti-Kerry votes, and scared of terrorists votes.

What weren't the issues in the election for those who voted Bush?
-Environment
-Health Care
-Economy
-Education


What were?

-Terror
-Gays doing icky things.

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

Interesting . . . I guess I'll have to go back and try to figure out what you have against him.

In his book he says he would secularize the entire middle east starting with Saudia Arabia. While I am not enjoying the forced religious rule of GW, I would not want the complete opposite either.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

I belive that had there been no Iraq War for the Dems to incite hatred over that GWB would have won by a greater margin

Kind of like the one he got in 2000?

Wendy W.

I don't see the comparison. In 2000, we had a Vice-President who had 8 years to convince Americans he was the best choice. He had almost 8 years of a relatively robust economy to claim credit for and still he lost to a man who was somewhat of an unknown to Americans.

In 2004, the Dems ran a Senator with 20 years of service, a former Vietnam war hero, against a President who started an unpopular war, supposedly under false intel and he too lost. The reason is that the vote wasn't for him, but against the incumbent.

The question is how great a margin GWB would have gotten had their been no war? My opinion is it would have been around 62%. Something the Dems better think about in 2008. Hillary Clinton can't win, but the latest poll shows her to be the leading candidate for the nomination in 2008. I know thats a long way off and many things can and will change before then, but if the Dems want to have any chance of winning, they are going to have to re-evaluate their entire philosophy. I would also suggest they take into consideration they lost more than the Presidential Election, but lost 4 more Senate seats and a few more Congressional seats. They need to understand the erosion over the last 10 years and get the focus off how their loses are only by a few electoral votes in the Presidetial race. It's more systemic than that.

[lawrocket 3]

It's how I perceive it, quade. And probably how 51 percent of the country perceive it, too.

Clinton wore moderate clothes. An educated good ole boy. Clinton maintained himself as a moderate through his extensive floating of trial balloons. People thought he was a moderate, they voted for him, and in his first year and a half managed to so infuriate the American people with his socialist policies that Congress was handed over to the Republicans for the first time in 40 years.

Clinton is an example of what the Democrats need. Someone who makes mistakes, identifies them, then comes up with a solution to them and works the problem. Clinton's lesson? "Dont' think you know what the American voter wants. Float a trial balloon, and if the polls support it, do it. If not, do not."

Saying Bush's advisors indicated that he is not middle of the road can also be applied to Clinton. Robert Reich? A Socialist. Succeeded by alexis Herman.

Ron Brown? Pretty left-wing. Jocelyn Elders? Pretty far left. Donna Shalala? Could have been Dukakis. Janet Reno? Left-leaning, but I don't have so many problems with her. Albright? Left leaning.

How about Adrew Cuomo, Secretary of HUD? One of Gore's closest friends, married to a Kennedy, son of Mario.

Transportation Sec. Federico Pena? Ask Denverites what kinda guy he is.

Bill Daley, Secretary of Commerce. Son of Rishard Daley of the Chicago Political Machine.

Treaury Secretary, 1993 - lloyd Benson

Defense secretary 1993- the left-leaning and extremely cerebral Les Aspin.

Fortunately for Clinton, he could distance himself from them.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

think if they had put Clark up this time it would have killed a LOT of the negative strategy Rove came up with to attack Kerry

Easy, quade. Simple. Wanna destroy a lot of the Democratic vote? "Wesley Clark - fired by Bill Clinton. Can America afford to hire him?"

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[TheAnvil 0]

Such condescending outlooks toward the majority of the people in this country is why sKerry and pals LOST the past election.

Please, left wingers - keep it up!

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

and in his first year and a half managed to so infuriate the American people with his socialist policies

What were those? Nafta? Deficit reduction budget? Anti-crime bill? Welfare reform?

[PhillyKev 0]

How exactly is that condescending? It's based on the exit polls about what people stated as their major issues. If you find facts to be condescending, maybe you should re-evaluate the side you're on.

[TheAnvil 0]

I think not. Socialism holds no allure for me. Neither does racial discrimination for that matter.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

What weren't the issues in the election for those who voted Bush?
-Environment
-Health Care
-Economy
-Education

Excellent points. Environment not an issue. Not for those who voted for Bush. This is true. Other things on the minds of the electorate.

Health care - The Dems have bitched about it since Harris Wofford, who made it a key issue when he took Heinz's place (remember that, Kev?). Health Care for all is not an issue that worked for the Dems before, mainly because they do not have a solution to it that doesn't mean socializing.

Economy - That would be a spin war. Dems: "Economy is bad". Repubs - "It's better than 1996 under Clinton, and he didn't have the Twin Towers crashing down, nor the bursting of a bubble economy he encouraged

Education? Yeah, Repubs didn't push the voucher system. The electorate isn't too keen on that just yet.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Which I believe only further supports my argument that lawrocket is wrong in his assertion that the country leans left.

The country, in my opinion leans to the right. Not far enough right to swing a repeal of Roe v Wade or gain approval of a U.S. Constitutional anti gay marriage Amendment, but certainly to the right of center.

It's obviously a matter of perspective. I believe the country leans left. Forgetting the moral issues for a second, you'd have to agree that economic/social issues like govt. provided healthcare have made their way into the mainstream of politics. It was only 10 years ago the country rejected "Hillarycare" as too liberal, yet here we are today on the verge of accepting it. I believe the left has done a very good job of moving the center on this and other issues like prescription drug benefits, Social Security as a retirement plan, acceptance of homosexual lifestyles etc.

Most conservatives I know do not care for Bush or many of his policies because they are too liberal. We reject the insane spending spree he's been on, his position on many social issues (btw, I am against the death penalty and I'm anti-abortion but I don't believe the govt has the right to legislate it.) and we don't like the hold the religious right has on the Republican Party.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


and in his first year and a half managed to so infuriate the American people with his socialist policies

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


What were those? Nafta? Deficit reduction budget? Anti-crime bill? Welfare reform?

Health Care reform, Kev. The behind-closed-doors, no-oversight planned socialization of 1/8 of the US economy. Unchecked power did it, Kev.

Saying, "What others" is like saying, "Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?"

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Health Care for all is not an issue that worked for the Dems before, mainly because they do not have a solution to it that doesn't mean socializing.

That statement tells me that you have no idea what Kerry's proposed health care plan was, probably because it wasn't an issue for you. It had nothing to do with socializing or changing anything about health care for anyone who already has insurance or can afford it.