2004 US Presidential Elections

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Assuming Bush will be the Republican candidate in 2004, who do you think his opponent from the Democrats might be?

Is Gore likely to seek nomination again, and if he does would Joe Lieberman challenge him or stand down and hope to be Gore's running mate?

Or do you think it's more likely to be a politician who didn't stand in 2000? John Kerry? Gephardt? Joe Biden? Hillary Clinton? Someone else?

 

[diamond]

umm.
I hope The Democrats can come up w someone decent.
I really do

DB9
:idea:

 

[joyfulgirl]

I haven't a clue. But I'll be paying attention to whatever third party candidate the progressive left can come up with, assuming the democrats will continue in their recent lame pattern.

 

[sulawesigirl4]

If all goes according to plan, I will be stuck somewhere in the middle of nowhere with the Peace Corps. I hope I'm able to get enough information to make an informed long-distance vote.

 

[Like someone to blame]

If Gore runs in the Democratic primary...he'll get the party's nomination. I just saw a poll that had him at 54% support amongst Democrats...anytime you are over 50% that is a good sign...especially in the primary. Also, I believe there is this feeling amongst most Democrats that they'd like to see Gore get another chance against Bush...especially since he garnered some 500,000 more popular votes than W and because of the Florida vote debacle.

That said...I'd personally like to see another Democrat emerge as the candidate. I don't like Lieberman...he acts more like a Republican than he should...I do like John Kerry, Joe Biden, and John Edwards. Edwards is the least known of them all...yet Bill Clinton was an unknown as well. Edwards is from a southern state...which could help the Democrats chances in the bible belt should he be the nominee. Kerry is probably my first choice but I acknowledge that he would probably have to moderate his views somewhat to garner mass appeal...the Vietnam War hero thing certainly helps him...and Joe Biden...just a no-nonsense guy whom I respect.

This much is clear...I truly believe the next election will be a close one...especially if the Dems don't have to deal with a third party candidate like Nader. Look at the electoral map...The Dems have California and the entire Northeast locked up already (possible exception NH). The Republicans have most of the mid-west and deep south locked up...so the battle grounds will more than likely be the same as '00-Florida, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, Michigan...whoever wins those states probably wins the election again. For this reason it is imperative that the Dems can nominate a candidate capable of winning at least 2 of these toss up states. I believe they can do it...we'll just have to see.

 

[Lemonite]

Ah Yes.. If Gore wanted it.. he would have it.. To the dismay of the party.. But I will be interested to see who emerges... I think Lieberman would be the choice, but that lies primarily on his stances on the War.. A Stance which many liberals would heed well to follow.

But what I think will also be interesting would be W's VP choice?.. Still Cheney?.. Rudy Giuliani (sp)?..

L. Unplugged

 

[madonna's child]

Kerry wants it bad. I'd sooner see him then Gore. But, I agree, Gore could easily win the nomination. But I don't think Gore could beat Bush. Not unless Bush screws up big time. And I mean BIG.

I hope Bush gets rid of Cheney. I don't like Bush, but Cheney down right scares me. He's too conservative for anyone's good.

Of course, I'm really routing for a dark horse to come out of no where. But that's not going to happen.

 

[Lemonite]

I find it funny that someone can just slam someone who has been in politics and been doing a good job longer than a critic has been alive, and has nothing but a good reputation among other politicians and government officials... And Just because he's a 'conservative'. That's nice. It's very amusing.. The Pom'Pasity' of it all.

L.Unplugged

 

[Zooropa]

I haven't a clue who the Dems will run against Bush, but at this point in time, I believe Bush controls his own destiny. His Approval ratings are still sky high (in the low 80's), so he really is the only person capable of beting himself. Only time will tell though...

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

i hope they pick someone good...so i can vote for them.

 

[madonna's child]

Lemonite, you talking to me?

I'm not saying Cheney is doing a bad job. But I don't think a president should be too far right OR too far left. Cheney is extremely conservative, I don't think he would best represent the entire country. Likewise, I wouldn't want someone who's extremely liberal for president.

This is why I don't come to Free Your Mind often. I always feel insulted.

 

[joyfulgirl]

If all goes according to plan, I will be stuck somewhere in the middle of nowhere with the Peace Corps. I hope I'm able to get enough information to make an informed long-distance vote.

Don't worry, sula--I can always help you make an informed decision.

 

[z edge]

I really cannot make an educated guess as to who the democrats would pick other than Gore/Lieberman for the party's nomination. That is of course, assuming the two run together again. In looking at some of the others mentioned, they seem the most qualified to me. And as Lemonite and Someone said, Lieberman is favorable in my opinion because of his stance on the war effort.

However, Al Gore keeps testing the water to both warm up to the democrats that are supporting the war and Bush and the liberals who are vehemently aginst the whole thing. After the war began Gore was making speeches to promote the Axis of Evil philosophy and to seemingly support Bush. Yet more recently he has been making speeches condeming Bush's handling of the war and anything else he can think of.

Still Lieberman has not changed his views, to my knowledge. If Lieberman does not run with Mr. Gore or anyone else then perhaps we ( the GOP) could trade for him with John McStain, a wolf in sheep's skin
(thanks to Bama and Lemonite for helping me see this)

As for the rest of the Democratic Party, the thought of DICK Gephardt getting the nomination makes me violently ill. And please, nobody else use the name of Hillary Clinton in the same sentence with "candidate" or "nomination" again. I'm begging you for GOD's sake

Having said this, whomever gets the nod I will vote against in favor of Bush/Cheney (or Bush/Guiliani?????? ). Should Bush ask Guiliani to be VP (and they win) then I think we won't have to worry about terrorism for at least another 12 years and beyond. Something tells me Rudy would passionately eradicate this filth from the planet, wiping the Twin Towers' dust off of his jacket once and for all

However, if the Democrats win the Presidental election in 2004, then my President and Commander in Chief will be a Democrat and I will support them. Like Diamond stated, I hope they get someone (not just decent) great in the event they win.

Good thread btw!

 

[Foxxern]

Something tells me Rudy would passionately eradicate this filth from the planet, wiping the Twin Towers' dust off of his jacket once and for all

Um, what exactly is this "something" that tells you that Rudy Guiliani can do in four years what the rest of Western society has been trying to do for over 50 years? I don't see how simply placing him into the vice-presidency will stop the spread of terrorism and general anti-American sentiment. That's something that will take a very long time, if it ever happens.

If the economy stays the way it is, I don't think I'll have much choice but to vote against Bush. I mean, I'm tired of the "economic stimulus" plans that haven't worked, I'm tired of hearing "I hope the economy will get better". I graduate from college in one year, and none of my friends are very optimistic about our opportunities in the job market.

Additionally, I still see the War on Terrorism as a failure. They have done little to nothing to ease anti-American feelings, and as long as there is hate, there will be people who want to take down America. I don't think they've addressed that problem at all, and therefore I don't see any real progress being made to protect us from terrorism.

But we'll see what happens. There is still lots of time, and anything can happen between now and then. Sure we could talk about who we're voting for, but its not November 2004 yet, and frankly we just can't make good decisions at this point about something that will happen then.

And please, nobody else use the name of Hillary Clinton in the same sentence with "candidate" or "nomination" again. I'm begging you for GOD's sake

Ah yes, something for us to agree on. Seriously folks, a first-term senator running for president? Use your brains for like half a second here. Not gonna happen.

 

[Lilly]

well, that will be my first vote in a presidential election, so i'm hoping there will be someone i will be able to really stand behind.

to me, 2 years in advance is a bit early to be thinking about who i will be voting for, since that i expect my life to change a bit before i am 20.

i am told that kerry will be a good candidate...but i'll have to look into it more deeply.

 

[z edge]

Um, what exactly is this "something" that tells you that Rudy Guiliani can do in four years what the rest of Western society has been trying to do for over 50 years? I don't see how simply placing him into the vice-presidency will stop the spread of terrorism and general anti-American sentiment. That's something that will take a very long time, if it ever happens.

a bit presumptiously perhaps, but I suggested he (Rudy) do this in 12 years. In other words, he comes on as the VP in 2004 and they win the election. Then he runs for President in 2008 and 2012, winning both times. And since this man was there for NYC during all of this, with his hands in the rubble I feel he might have the proper determination coupled with Bush's as well to carry on in the legacy to eradicate terrorism.

If the economy stays the way it is, I don't think I'll have much choice but to vote against Bush. I mean, I'm tired of the "economic stimulus" plans that haven't worked, I'm tired of hearing "I hope the economy will get better". I graduate from college in one year, and none of my friends are very optimistic about our opportunities in the job market.

Electing a Democrat isn't gonna make the sun shine on you immediately. The economy has its ups and downs, and the President in office can often gain from an economy that he really didn't create. The economy was well on it's way down before we even knew who would get the party nominations in 2000.

Additionally, I still see the War on Terrorism as a failure. They have done little to nothing to ease anti-American feelings, and as long as there is hate, there will be people who want to take down America. I don't think they've addressed that problem at all, and therefore I don't see any real progress being made to protect us from terrorism.

As long as there is America, there will be hatred of America.
It has nothing to do with us "changing our ways" to molly-coddle sensitive fanatics.

Which is why we have to accept and support a military that will be able to protect us from those who are jealous and ignorant.

As our President told us from the beginning, the War on Terror is going to take years and years, and we will not know or see all of the details. This is for the safety of our troops abroad as much as it is for the safety of those here living and working in the next possible target area.

But we'll see what happens. There is still lots of time, and anything can happen between now and then. Sure we could talk about who we're voting for, but its not November 2004 yet, and frankly we just can't make good decisions at this point about something that will happen then.

fair enough

Ah yes, something for us to agree on. Seriously folks, a first-term senator running for president? Use your brains for like half a second here. Not gonna happen.

I could give more reasons than that..........

 

[Like someone to blame]

A few more observations:

Re: Richard Gephardt...I wouldn't underestimate his ability to capture the Democratic nomination...primaries are won by those candidates who appeal to the "activists" and "base" of the party, in this case the liberal base for Democrats. Gephardt certainly appeals to this constituency, he has considerable name recognition within and outside of his party, and has been raising a ton of money for the upcoming congressional elections which translates into I.O.U.'s from those he helps get elected. If he runs he'll be a strong candidate in the Democratic primary.

Re: Hillary Clinton...She's not going to run this time around. Democratic polls, however, indicate that if she were to seek the nomination this time around she'd give Gore a run for his money. I can't support a Hillary run if she did change her mind, because I don't believe she is electable nationally. She is too much of a polarizing figure-she is like the Dallas Cowboys...you either love her or you hate her...in her case I think it leans towards the latter more than the former.

Re: Lieberman...I can understand why some conservatives wouldn't be overly upset if Joe got the nomination and actually WON the Presidential election...basically because he is exceptionally moderate in his social views and fiscally conservative. It is for these reasons that I believe he has no shot at the nomination if he runs...the liberal base will reject him as to conservative and Joe is a regular supporter of big business. Joe is a Democrat in name only, imo. Independent with a slight lean to the left maybe-but far from progressive or liberal.

Re: G W Bush/Cheney...I'll say this much. The smartest thing Bush could do to ensure himself of NOT suffering his father's fate is to dump Cheney and select Giuliani. If he does that I'm sorry to say that my Dems might as well pack it in for '04...they have no chance. NY state will, overnight, swing to the Republican column in the electoral college. PA & NJ probably as well. No Dem (except maybe Bill Clinton himself) would be able to overcome those odds. If Bush retains Cheney than this should make Republicans if not nervous than at least uneasy...because this really provides the Dems their best chance at regaining the White House...a Bush/Cheney ticket is beatable in '04...but a Bush/Giuliani ticket is not in my opinion.

Re: Giuliani. I would disagree that if Bush selects Giuliani as his running mate in '04 that this would make Giuliani a slam dunk in the '08 & '12 Presidential elections as I think z edge commented. Historically, VP's have had a tough time emerging from the shadows of their predecessor...recently best illustrated by Gore-who failed to win the general election despite 8 years of peace, prosperity, and the advantage of incumbancy. Also, the electorate are fickle-not likely to keep the same party in power in the White House for 4 or 5 consecutive terms. Also, one week in politics is a long time-4 years is an eternity. Giuliani is considered a hero by many and revered in many places...but much can happen between now and then. Somebody else in this country may emerge as the next hero...just may happen to be a Democratic governor or the like. Voters tend to have a short memory...so the 9/11 thing will only bring Rudy so far. The post 9/11 lull is already settling in...by the time Rudy gets around to running on his own (if he chooses to) 9/11 will seem like a distant memory to most voters...and they will focus instead on the current issues of the day. Short term the 9/11 tragedy helps Rudy...long term I think it becomes a non-factor.

 

[Peaseblossom]

As long as there is America, there will be hatred of America.
It has nothing to do with us "changing our ways" to molly-coddle sensitive fanatics.

Which is why we have to accept and support a military that will be able to protect us from those who are jealous and ignorant.

As our President told us from the beginning, the War on Terror is going to take years and years, and we will not know or see all of the details. This is for the safety of our troops abroad as much as it is for the safety of those here living and working in the next possible target area.

Well said.

I'm really looking forward to the 2004 election, as it will be my first as a voting republican citizen (my absentee ballot didn't show up last time!).

 

[Diemen]

I don't like Liebermann...he acts more like a Republican than he should...

That's gotta be the weirdest justification for not liking someone I've ever seen.

 

[z edge]

A few more observations:

Re: Richard Gephardt...

Please I just ate...

Re: Hillary Clinton.... She is too much of a polarizing figure-she is like the Dallas Cowboys...you either love her or you hate her...in her case I think it leans towards the latter more than the former.

Now thats just not right..
I just ate for one, then you compare her to my favorite football team????

Re: Giuliani. ...so the 9/11 thing will only bring Rudy so far

You could be right on this, but don't overlook the fact that if elected he might just be a good VP and President too..

 

[Mike P]

Well, there are lots of options for the Dems in '04....

Gore is polling well, but many people want him to not run. He had his shot, it didn't happen, and he should let someone else have a go. He does have the name recognition-thing going on, though.

Kerry seems like a really good candidate, but he's not polling well at all right now! I met him last week, and while it could have been just good politics, I liked him. I've met politicians before, but he was very good....

Anyways.

Lieberman has the name-recognition-thing also. He's also the democrat most likely to be dragged down with the whole corporate-responsibilty thing. He's got the Connecticut-Insurance company connection there.

Biden is a real stand-up guy, and I like him, but he's from Delaware, and there's really hardly a chance of him getting enough support.

Howard Dean, Governor of Vermont is also in the race, but unfortunately he has little chance, either. See "Biden".

Edwards seems to be the newest "Golden Boy" of the Democratic party. He's young, and popular, but that could work against him in trying to gain national support, because young ususally equals poor name recognition.

The short version of this is that the field is wide open. Add to that a president with sky-high approval ratings, and it should be an interesting campaign all around.

-MIke

 

[Danospano]

Al Gore will have a tougher time getting the nomination. I think Gephardt will be his greatest competitor, but Gore should run on the idea that he should have won and is setting the record straight.

I think it be a rematch of sorts....with the candidates being:

Rep: George W. Bush
Dem: Albert Gore
Green: Ralph Nader
Lib: Harry Browne
Reform: Ross Perot (just to feed his ego, mind you)

 

[pax]

President in '04?

Come on, we all know who the best man for the job would be.

<------------

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

President in '04?

Come on, we all know who the best man for the job would be.

it's a shame he can't be president, cuz i think he might be able to do a good job. unfortunately, he wasn't born in america or any american territories. however, he could be vice president...

 

[z edge]

it's a shame he can't be president, cuz i think he might be able to do a good job. unfortunately, he wasn't born in america or any american territories. however, he could be vice president...

I really hope you all are kidding. I couldn't do without the concerts and new albums. And I don't think he would like the pay cut / smaller house.

 

[verte76]

I'm an independent and not big into politics, but I am a registered voter. I think the Democrats *should* go with a clean break with the Clinton Administration. I don't care what you think of Clinton, he's just too damned controversial, and Gore was his veep. Bush will have to screw up big time to lose. But the American electorate tends to be pretty darn fickle, we'll just have to see how this cookie crumbles. I don't have a crystal ball.
OK, back to PLEBA!!!

 

[verte76]

it's a shame he can't be president, cuz i think he might be able to do a good job. unfortunately, he wasn't born in america or any american territories. however, he could be vice president...

Actually, no he can't. All of the laws that cover U.S. presidential candidates also apply to vice-presidential candidates. One more thing before I beat it back to PLEBA--I think that law is stupid. If someone is a U.S. citizen and very capable but was born somewhere else I don't see why they can't run for president. Heck, maybe we can get choicer candidates that way....I'm stealing Vaclav Havel from the Czechs.
JOKE! JOKE! I'd vote for Havel if he decided to run here, however----he might make a cool prez.

 

[Achtung Bubba]

A stupid rule? Possibly. But like the electoral college, it would take a contstitutional amendment to change the rules.

 

[verte76]

A stupid rule? Possibly. But like the electoral college, it would take a contstitutional amendment to change the rules.

Would it take a constitutional amendment to change the U.S.-born rule? Gosh, I wasn't aware of that. I guess so. Otherwise Congress probably would have changed it. After all some of those people were born somewhere else. I just don't care for that rule. It keeps out qualified people IMHO. Hey, there's not a law that says I have to like it!

 

[Achtung Bubba]

Would it take a constitutional amendment to change the U.S.-born rule? Gosh, I wasn't aware of that. I guess so. Otherwise Congress probably would have changed it. After all some of those people were born somewhere else. I just don't care for that rule. It keeps out qualified people IMHO. Hey, there's not a law that says I have to like it!

True, you don't have to like it.

But, yeah, it's in the Constitution: Article II, Section 1, fifth paragraph.