So who will it be 2004?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Fez
So you democrats are still looking for somebody? Try Hillary. That is all your party has left. The worst of the worst. Hillary Clinton, Lieber(liar)man, Al "I invented the internet" Gore... wow... you got a real selection there.

What lies did Leiberman tell? Stop talking out of your ass.

And Gore never said he invented the internet, that's a perfect example of a comment taken out of context and twisted to represent something it doesn't.

And you don't know jack **** about the other candidates, I bet. Just because you're misinformed doesn't make things the way you say it does.

Imran,

Being pro-life and pro-police aren't necessarily conservative positions. More young people are also pro-gay rights, pro-social welfare and pro-minority rights than ever before. They are more and more in favor of nationalized healthcare, too.

[jdd2007]

Originally posted by Hobbes


Yeah, and Creed is a good band

there ya go!

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Imran,

Being pro-life and pro-police aren't necessarily conservative positions. More young people are also pro-gay rights, pro-social welfare and pro-minority rights than ever before. They are more and more in favor of nationalized healthcare, too.

Additionally, we Democrates don't have a lot of litmus tests. For example, moi...I am anti-gun but pro-Dean. You have to look at a person's overall approach to politics.

[Boris Godunov]

Same here, Zkribbler. I'm pro-gun control but also am really liking Dean.

[Shi Huangdi]

There was an article in the Washington Post a while back that youth today are adopting conservative values, unfortunately I couldn't seem to find it on the WP website. My textbook for Freshman Orientation at college also said more people my age were adopting conservative values, although as I said on some issues such as the environment and gay rights they take a more liberal viewpoint.

[Imran Siddiqui]

But if ideology and charisma mattered more than money, Jesse Jackson would have been the nominee in '88; he was both mor charismatic than Dukakis and more ideologically in tune with the average Dem primary voter (who tends to be way to the left of the average Dem voter in a general election).

Ideology means the 'correct' ideology. Jackson is very, very left, and many Dems realized that that ideology would lead to him getting creamed in a general election.

Being pro-life and pro-police aren't necessarily conservative positions.

Um... actually they are.

More young people are also pro-gay rights, pro-social welfare and pro-minority rights than ever before. They are more and more in favor of nationalized healthcare, too.

Pro-minority rights and pro-social welfare isn't necessarily liberal issues.

Additionally, we Democrates don't have a lot of litmus tests.

You don't actually believe this do you?

In the 1988 nomination, Pennsylvania's Governor Casey was supposed to speak but was bumped off. Why? Because he was pro-life. The Dems had no room for those people. Shi will know what I'm talking about.

Also the national Dem party is getting more and more anti-gun, which is why Dean won't have a chance.

I mean, really, there are plenty of pro-choice Republicans, but the national party isn't that receptive to it (though we ALMOST had a pro-choice Republican Veep - Tom Ridge).

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
we ALMOST had a pro-choice Republican Veep - Tom Ridge).

Yeah? And we almost had a Democratic President - Al Gore. "Almost" doesn't count except in hand grenades and tactical nuclear weapons.

[Capt Dizle]

And horseshoes. Don't forget horseshoes.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yeah? And we almost had a Democratic President - Al Gore. "Almost" doesn't count except in hand grenades and tactical nuclear weapons.

Well you were saying that the Republicans would never have a pro-choice Veep. Saying that Ridge almost got it, proves you wrong.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

Being pro-life and pro-police aren't necessarily conservative positions.

Um... actually they are.

Not true. I know many staunchly liberal Catholics who of course are pro-life. And I'm pretty pro-police in most regards, and I'm leftist as well. The stereotype of leftists thinking of cops as authoritarian monsters is really stale.

Pro-minority rights and pro-social welfare isn't necessarily liberal issues.

Can't have it both ways, Immy. Show me a major conservative who is pro-welfare and pro-gay rights. It's certainly quite a rarity in the GOP.

And as for the gun issue, I think you're wrong here. One of the things Gore realized was that the gun issue was killing the Democrats in rural areas, which is why he didn't make gun control a prominent issue in his campaign. The Democrats have been beaten with that cudgel many times, and I don't see any evidence they are becoming more leftist on the issue.

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

But if ideology and charisma mattered more than money, Jesse Jackson would have been the nominee in '88; he was both mor charismatic than Dukakis and more ideologically in tune with the average Dem primary voter (who tends to be way to the left of the average Dem voter in a general election).

Ideology means the 'correct' ideology. Jackson is very, very left, and many Dems realized that that ideology would lead to him getting creamed in a general election.

Jackson is not very left, he is pro black period. Most of you guy are to young to remember when he started the Rainbow thing. He did not include anyone that was not black until some woman, Latinos and other started to b!tch, then he said that he did not mean to exclude them. I have watch Jackson since 68 and he could care less about non black people.

[Drake Tungsten]

Show me a major conservative who is pro-welfare and pro-gay rights. It's certainly quite a rarity in the GOP.

What about the Log Cabin Republicans? Or Fez? Both are conservative and flaming at the same time...

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Quote:

Show me a major conservative who is pro-welfare and pro-gay rights. It's certainly quite a rarity in the GOP.

What about the Log Cabin Republicans? Or Fez? Both are conservative and flaming at the same time...

Neither are significant nor pro-welfare.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Well you were saying that the Republicans would never have a pro-choice Veep. Saying that Ridge almost got it, proves you wrong.

I never said the Republicans would never have a pro-choice Veep! And if I had, my full quote would have been: The Republicans will never have a pro-choice Veep until they grow a brain.

BTW Imran, how's law school going?

Oh yeah, and horseshoes. Of course, horseshoes, horseshoes, horseshoes.

[Drake Tungsten]

Neither are significant nor pro-welfare.

Why would they be pro-welfare? Being gay doesn't make one an idiot...

Speaking about the Log Cabin Republicans and not Fez, or course. He's the exception that proves the rule...

[Joseph]

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Anyway, a very wise decision by Gore. He'll run in 2008 and win. Especially if his VP candidate is Hillary Clinton.

That will never happen, unless Gore tell her, he will resign one or two days after taking office. She want the top job and is biting her time until she get a so call mandate from the people to run.
She said I will not run in 04, however you guy just wait, if there is a dog fight between the other candidates with no clear winner, she will give her name as a peace maker and claim that the people wanted her to be their candidate for President.

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by Joseph
Jackson is not very left, he is pro black period. Most of you guy are to young to remember when he started the Rainbow thing. He did not include anyone that was not black until some woman, Latinos and other started to b!tch, then he said that he did not mean to exclude them. I have watch Jackson since 68 and he could care less about non black people.

Jesse Jackson don't give a **** about black people either. He just exploits them for his own political gain.

[The Vagabond]

Republicans have a pro-choice Secretary of State. Colin Powell is pro-choice, isn't he?

[The Vagabond]

Anyway, whoever of the guys/gals included in the poll runs in 2004, he is doomed to defeat. That is because Bush is doomed to victory. Well, unless there is a major f***-up in Iraq. The 2004 elections will be similar to 1984 and 1996.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Show me a major conservative who is pro-welfare and pro-gay rights. It's certainly quite a rarity in the GOP.

Show me a major liberal who is pro-life and pro-police (and btw, pro-police means being against Miranda warnings and for giving the police more rights to search people if you weren't aware).

It's quite a rarity in the Dems .

Plenty of pro-welfare Republicans: Olympia Snow, Arlen Spector, Dennis Hastert, and even *gasp* President Bush . I don't recall a single Republican saying welfare should be reversed.

Furthermore, outside of the Northeast and California there aren't many DEMOCRATS who are pro-gay rights, not saying anything about Republicans.

Remember the 'Defense of Marriage Act' passed by a wide margin.

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by Joseph
That will never happen, unless Gore tell her, he will resign one or two days after taking office. She want the top job and is biting her time until she get a so call mandate from the people to run.
She said I will not run in 04, however you guy just wait, if there is a dog fight between the other candidates with no clear winner, she will give her name as a peace maker and claim that the people wanted her to be their candidate for President.

Hillary is a clever lady. Much as she may want the job, she will realize she has no chance. The most she can hope for is to become the first ever female VP.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by The Vagabond


Hillary is a clever lady. Much as she may want the job, she will realize she has no chance. The most she can hope for is to become the first ever female VP.

Am I the only one here who thinks that the Dems would never, ever, ever nominate Hillary for either post? She's one of the most polarizing, alienating figures in politics, and among the people she alienates are Republican women, whom the Dems count on for cross-over votes. I suspect the Senate is it for her.

[Ned]

I voted for Hilary in the poll. However, I have no idea who Edwards is. Can someone fill me in?

Regardless, the guy who wins a is most often a general or governor. Who are the really attractive Democrat governors?

I General Franks a Democrat?

[Sikander]

Those who pray for a knight in shining armor to end the Bush scourge are going to have to wait until 2008 unless Bush's numbers start tanking in a hurry. Few strong candidates are willing to risk their one shot at the presidency taking on a popular incumbent. And the clock is ticking, there isn't all that much time to get a presidential run organized in time for the primaries.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I have no idea who Edwards is. Can someone fill me in?

He is the young, moderate Senator of North Carolina. The strike against him is that he is in his first term, so he's still young and has only had to deal with the electorate in a big time election once.

edit: Senator, not Governor.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Ned
I voted for Hilary in the poll. However, I have no idea who Edwards is. Can someone fill me in?

Regardless, the guy who wins a is most often a general or governor. Who are the really attractive Democrat governors?

I General Franks a Democrat?

Edwards is a young (by Senate standards) centrist/conservative Senator from NC who endeared himself to Dems by unseating incumbent uber-conservative Lauch Faircloth a few years back. Especially with Gore gone, but even without, he would be the DLC candidate.

In the 20th century, most presidents who were initially elected (as opposed to ascending on death or resignation) have indeed come up from governorships (Wilson, FDR, Reagan, Carter, Clinton, Bush II), followed by the Senate (McKinley, Harding, Kennedy), theh Cabinet (Taft, Hoover), and then the Vice Presidency (Bush I). Tied for last with the Veeps, only Eisenhower was a general; I think that route is more 19th-century.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Deleted once Imran edited.

[Imran Siddiqui]

n the 20th century, most presidents who were initially elected (as opposed to ascending on death or resignation) have indeed come up from governorships

Yep, which makes the Republicans unseating of Democrat Governors in Georgia and South Carolina unsettling to Democrat hopes in 2004. If Governor Barnes of Georgia won his reelection big, he would have been a GOOD choice: moderate Dem, Southern governor. Could have given Bush a run for his money... but he lost.

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by Kepler


I bet you it's lower than you think, but they're all conservative anyway so it doesn't matter.

...you mean like the followers of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakan, and Khalid Muhammed?

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

n the 20th century, most presidents who were initially elected (as opposed to ascending on death or resignation) have indeed come up from governorships

Yep, which makes the Republicans unseating of Democrat Governors in Georgia and South Carolina unsettling to Democrat hopes in 2004. If Governor Barnes of Georgia won his reelection big, he would have been a GOOD choice: moderate Dem, Southern governor. Could have given Bush a run for his money... but he lost.

Yep, except for Gray Davis, they don't have a single gov with potential national visibility. It's' a real problem.