Who do you think will be the democrat opponent in 2004?

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
You can find my platform here.

As to who will run for the Democrats, I think Hillary.

i think shes more of an ought-eight hopeful

I think shes more of a no chance in hell she'll ever get the nomination let alone win.

If she ran I would vote Bush.

 

[Moonbeam]

I got a bulit if you also want to shoot yourself in the foot, Carb. How can you be so smart and yet so 'tupid.

 

[Zebo]

It's not the woman thing if that's what you think. She all politicain, seems like a real bitch and basically grates on my nerves when she speaks like Bush.

Plus she could'nt even satisfy Bill, how you think she can satisfy the country:Q:Q ahh taht was a bad joke.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: HJD1

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
You can find my platform here.

As to who will run for the Democrats, I think Hillary.

You must shed more light on this platform.

You didn't click on the java "Let There Be More Light" link?



CkG

 

[Moonbeam]

I can't wait to hear your cirticism of her Presidency. "She grates on my nerves." Ever ask why?

 

[Zebo]

She seems arrogant and like a cold fish emotionally. Also think she's riding on Bills Coat tails like Bush jr but worse.

Then you have that whole sham of a marriage. Seems to show lack of character to stay with Bill thoough his many incursions into extrcurriclar labito. Again I feel for her own pride and personal gain.

 

[chowderhead]

I think that if the Democrats want to win the presidency, they need to think strategically. I will preface by saying that a lot of unknown things could happen between now and the emergence of the eventual democratic nominee. My analysis is of the so-called "top-tiered" candidates who have announced :

Kerry has appeal and may neutralize the military issue with his Vietnam service. He has a lot of personal wealth from his marriage and he may have the presidential stature and is very knowledgeable on many issues. I could see him being the nominee. Minuses, he is from Massachusetts. Regardless of what you think about Taxachusetts, strategically, if a Democrat cannot carry most/all of New England and especially Massachusetts without spending a dime there, then it is over for the Democrats in 2004. Kerry would not add anything strategically to be on the ticket and may be a Dukakis Redux.

Gephardt is good and he is from the battleground state of Missouri. Winning this state would be very good sign for the Democrats. His strong labor ties and his probable win in first in the Union Iowa Caucus will give him troops on the ground and first momentum towards winning the nomination. However, I think he is too liberal and his health care plan is WAY too expensive for me. He ran once before and I wasn't too impressed. It sounded like he ran for president because there was nothing more he could do as Minority Leader. Still, if he consolidates the liberal bloc in the democratic primary, he could win the nomination.

Lieberman- he is a moderate, strong family values, morals, and higher name exposure. He has lots of experience and is on a commitee that can make headlines with its investigative abilities. I just can't really see him as a Presidental nominee ... he just doesn't have the "stature" He cannot campaign on Saturdays as an orthodox Jew and he will not be able to raise money from Liberals or hollywood types because of some of his value stances. He is from Connecticut so again a New England state that will normally swing Democratic.

I will include John Edwards in this list because he has raised the most money of all the Democrats. He is young, energetic and charismatic. He has some personal wealth and he is from North Carolina. All Democratic presidents since LBJ have come from the South. If he could somehow (doubtful) win North Carolina, that alone would be a plus. He has a great story to tell and would be a great foil to GWB. His minuses are that has very limited experience and little legislative accomplishments and he was a personal injury lawyer who didn't vote in many of the elections prior to winning his Senate seat in 1998. He would have to win on energy and charisma and some luck.

I think of all of them, I would gamble with Edwards. He is the non-conventional choice. Al Gore nearly picked him (a 2 year senator in 2000 as his choice for VP). I have heard him speak and he connects with people the same way Clinton did.
I wished that Edwards had not decided to run because the North Carolina Senate seat will probably flip to the Republicans.
I truly believe that because Edwards is such an unknown with a lot of energy and charisma, that the white house is most cautious about him.


So, my ideal ticket would be John Edwards (Dem from NC) and Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana [the Democrats need to win one large Southern state (in a relatively close race) to couple with California, NY, most of the rust belt, all of New England and the Pacific Coast and hopefully one of the midwest states like Missouri. That would get them pass 271. Sen. Graham of Florida or Sen. Nelson (former astronaut) of Florida for VP may help win Florida but it's hard to say.]

I know I am writing a lot about geographic strategy and it may not be as important as it used to be. But Clinton Gore won Tennesee and Arkansas twice and Louisiana and Missouri once. I know Bush is going to be very tough to beat in 2004. They are very good at lowering expectations and having others/media do the same. But, the right person from the right area with the right VP and a fair amount of luck CAN beat GWB. I know it.

 

[dmcowen674]

Each month the Economy continues to sag downward increases the likelyhood of any Candidate from the other party having a good shot at getting the Presidency. History repeating itself again, "It's the Economy stupid." It doesn't matter who gets the Covention Nod to go against GWB, it would simply be shear numbers.