• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

2008

arguuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuug--------oh please don't make us gag---and I am not talking your choice of people----I am just asking for some TIME to wash some of the mud off from the negative campaigning---and start to digest the impact of this election---but the coming election of 08 will be shaped by the events of 07---and we don't even know what kind of battle lines will drawn be yet. Lets wait until at least 3/07 before we start asking these questions!
 
I think that ticket would be very beatable. Edwards just doesn't have the substance to fill the bill. Obama does, but I'm not sure he could win at the top of the ticket yet. Not that I see anybody better on the horizon.
 
Obama could be a VP, but I can't seem him winning a presidential election. Look at the last two Democratic presidents for the kind of profile that is going to get a majority of votes.
 
Who the eff if this Obama guy? He appeared out of nowhere in 2004 and ever since then hes been a walking Orgasmatron© for the Libs.
 
No way...notice we havent heard boo out of Edwards the last two years?

But like others have said...its way too early, and I am sick of the "campaign"

Sure was negative this year here locally. Both Sides.

 
Edwards is a pretty face.
The guy left his Senate office after one term, we would be foolish to elected him President based on one term in the Senate.

BTW: Only two Democrats have won the Presidency since 1964, and both of them did it by running AGAINST the Republican.
Carter won by running against Ford and Watergate
Clinton won by running against the Bush 41 economy.

Bad news in 2008, there is no Republican for them to run against. NO WHERE!
Bush and Cheney are gone, AND Democrats now hold congress, so can't really won against a 'do nothing congress'

This means the Democrats have to win on the power of their ideas... name my the last time Democrats won nationally based on that?

Republicans have won 7 out of the last 10 elections... tough odds to overcome.
 
Originally posted by: CrazyHelloDeli
Who the eff if this Obama guy? He appeared out of nowhere in 2004 and ever since then hes been a walking Orgasmatron© for the Libs.
Click to expand...
He just released a book, a lot of this Obama 2008 is part of him trying to sell that book.
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: CrazyHelloDeli
Who the eff if this Obama guy? He appeared out of nowhere in 2004 and ever since then hes been a walking Orgasmatron© for the Libs.
Click to expand...
He just released a book, a lot of this Obama 2008 is part of him trying to sell that book.
Click to expand...


Yeah I realize that, but he seemed to materialize out of thin air in 2004; complete with written contract with the media to bust a nut over him any chance they have.
 
There is no way Edwards will win the Dem nom. Newt has a better chance of winning the R nom. Reverse that ticket (Obama/Edwards) and you have a slight possibility.

I think Obama will run and finish in the top 3 or 4 candidates. He might even pick up a VP slot. But if he runs it will be a tune up for 2012 or 2016. (Depending on who wins in '08)
 
I think McCain wins in 08, so long as he runs and doesn't screw up somehow (I don't see how he would)...Only thing going against him is age.
 
Osama doesn't have a chance due to his name and he's black and foriegn and liberal. Edwards would be a good neighbor you see once a week but not much between the ears.

I think Hillary is automatic nomination. Too much money. Too much name recognition to overcome. Maybe Warner would have given her a run for her money but he's the only Democrat who stood a chance and he's not running. The Media will give Hillary billions in election coverage for free being first women and wife of Bill.

Reppublicans...

Rudy? Short and Bald does'nt cut it these days with 24/7 news feeds.

Newt? Definity the brightest but 3x divorce looks like a toad and has serious ethical issues to overcome.

McInsane? Best chance in 2008 if he can control himself and crazy rumors.

There's got to be one Republican governor with a damn out there. With looks, brains and no big mistakes.
 
Originally posted by: Zebo
Osama doesn't have a chance due to his name and he's black and foriegn and liberal. Edwards would be a good neighbor you see once a week but not much between the ears.

I think Hillary is automatic nomination. Too much money. Too much name recognition to overcome. Maybe Warner would have given her a run for her money but he's the only Democrat who stood a chance and he's not running.

Reppublicans...

Rudy? Short and Bald does'nt cut it these days with 24/7 news feeds.

Newt? Definity the brightest but 3x divorce looks like a toad and has serious ethical issues to overcome.

McInsane? Best chance in 2008 if he can control himself and crazy rumors.

There's got to be one Republican governor with a damn out there. With looks, brains and no big mistakes.
Click to expand...

Huckabee
Pataki
 
Pataki doesn't have a whiff of a chance at best. I hope he runs for a nomination, he'll be laughed at by everyone. He's a huge tool, and pretty liberal to boot.
 
Originally posted by: Aisengard
Pataki doesn't have a whiff of a chance at best. I hope he runs for a nomination, he'll be laughed at by everyone. He's a huge tool, and pretty liberal to boot.
Click to expand...

 
Originally posted by: ntdz
I think McCain wins in 08, so long as he runs and doesn't screw up somehow (I don't see how he would)...Only thing going against him is age.
Click to expand...

There seems to be great resistance against him in the party. My boss gets Newsmax magazine (don't ask), obviously a neoconservative-oriented publication, and they are constantly lambasting McCain and, curiously, boosting Giuliani as a 2008 candidate.
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Edwards is a pretty face.
The guy left his Senate office after one term, we would be foolish to elected him President based on one term in the Senate.

BTW: Only two Democrats have won the Presidency since 1964, and both of them did it by running AGAINST the Republican.
Carter won by running against Ford and Watergate
Clinton won by running against the Bush 41 economy.

Bad news in 2008, there is no Republican for them to run against. NO WHERE!
Bush and Cheney are gone, AND Democrats now hold congress, so can't really won against a 'do nothing congress'

This means the Democrats have to win on the power of their ideas... name my the last time Democrats won nationally based on that?

Republicans have won 7 out of the last 10 elections... tough odds to overcome.
Click to expand...

Er, what is the basis behind this being "tough odds" besides looking at the last 10 elections. Do you determine odds in playing, oh, blackjack or roulette based on 10 samples (and those are games with a known distribution)?

 
Originally posted by: jman19
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Edwards is a pretty face.
The guy left his Senate office after one term, we would be foolish to elected him President based on one term in the Senate.

BTW: Only two Democrats have won the Presidency since 1964, and both of them did it by running AGAINST the Republican.
Carter won by running against Ford and Watergate
Clinton won by running against the Bush 41 economy.

Bad news in 2008, there is no Republican for them to run against. NO WHERE!
Bush and Cheney are gone, AND Democrats now hold congress, so can't really won against a 'do nothing congress'

This means the Democrats have to win on the power of their ideas... name my the last time Democrats won nationally based on that?

Republicans have won 7 out of the last 10 elections... tough odds to overcome.
Click to expand...

Er, what is the basis behind this being "tough odds" besides looking at the last 10 elections. Do you determine odds in playing, oh, blackjack or roulette based on 10 samples (and those are games with a known distribution)?
Click to expand...

You have to consider who you're dealing with: PJ will find a way to spin anything to favor his party. I will also point out that, by his logic, every Presidential candidate is "running against" the incumbent. Reagan was "running against" the wildly unpopular Carter (and frankly cheated by entering into an illegal agreement with the Iranians to hold our hostages until his inauguration), and Bob Dole and GWB were both running against Clinton and his legacy.
 
Originally posted by: loki8481
no, not really... they're both too young, inexperienced, and left.
Click to expand...
Our youngest president was the one that had other countries happy with us and the best budget we have had in 1/2 a century.

Old men polititions just get cranky and contempt. Then they pull stuff like this current one does, they don't care what bridge they burn either.
 
John Edwards? The guy who looked like a child in thought process and ability to deliver a response in his debate with Cheney?

Sounds like a winner there 😀
 
Originally posted by: Genx87
John Edwards? The guy who looked like a child in thought process and ability to deliver a response in his debate with Cheney?

Sounds like a winner there 😀
Click to expand...

You're really going to use that as an argument considering who's sitting in the oval office right now??? :laugh:
 
Originally posted by: Genx87
John Edwards? The guy who looked like a child in thought process and ability to deliver a response in his debate with Cheney?

Sounds like a winner there 😀
Click to expand...

Uh, we were talking about the vice-presidential debates.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top