so ... Mitt Romney.

[Irvine511]

at this very, very, very early stage, i'm going to go with Romney as the nominee, and he'll get creamed by whomever the Democrat is -- HRC or Obama or Gore.

[Dreadsox]

Based on last night...Mitt will be the republican nominee.

[coemgen]

I can see that, too.

but Gore?

[deep]

you could be right

08 is a good year for the Dems

Romney's best outcome would be have a good showing
and not be the V P nom

One might recall Reagan's presidentail runs

[Dreadsox]

Originally posted by coemgen
I can see that, too.

but Gore?

If Gore runs I will vote for him.

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by Dreadsox


If Gore runs I will vote for him.

i probably would too.

perhaps "inconvenient truth" was just a really effective campaign ad, but he does strike me as very thoughtful, very passionate, and he's dripping with experience.

i missed the 2000 election season as i was abroad, but from what i saw, he's not a great candidate. in some ways, i would like us to move beyond the us vs. them mentality of the Baby Boomers -- and get someone removed from surnames Bush and Clinton in the WH -- and turn the page in politics, and Obama is certainly that candidate. but i do worry about his experience -- how is he going to deal with Putin?

still, i wonder if Gore hasn't built up so much cred with the 45% who don't vote -- on the basis of his environmentalism -- that he'd inspire them to get off the couch and go to the polls. and Gore does not inspire the same, often irrational (and, imho, sexist) hatred that HRC does.

my dream ticket, from the dems who might run, would probably be Gore/Obama.

but we'll see.

i also think McCain looked better than he has in a while, and he did himself some good by bashing Bush as much as possible on the stupefying incompetence that has defined Iraq. he's still linked himself too much to the "surge," though he has no choice, and i can't see him being able to get away from the greatest foreign policy disaster since Vietnam.

Romney can spout patriotic platitudes yet not be held accountable. in many ways, after Bush, Iraq is McCain's war.

[deep]

I just don't see how Gore gets in.


also, I don't see how Fred Thompson gets in.


This is just wishful thinking by their supporters.


There is a chance (dare, I say fair chance) Iraq could firm up a bit and we could be drawing down troops in fall 08

I don't think Iraq alone keeps McCain from winning, it is his biggest liability though.

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by deep
IThere is a chance (dare, I say fair chance) Iraq could firm up a bit and we could be drawing down troops in fall 08

the war has been almost purely political from the start, so i would imagine that troops will start to come home in '08, no matter the circumstance on the ground, and the R's and D's will do their best to take credit for it.

[STING2]

Originally posted by deep
I found Tommy Thomson's "ok, to fire a gay" bizarre.

I wish they had taken that question down the line.




I don't expect to be voting for the GOP candidate in 08

"What do you dislike most about America?"

I wonder what any candidate would say?

Also, the question, "Aside from yourself, who do you think is the best candidate?"

Was a dumb question.

The General election always only comes down to choice A or B.

I think the Dems can beat McCain the easiest, I also think they can beat Giuliani.

Everyone that says Hillary can't win is wrong.

It does not look like he will get the GOP nomination.

If he does got the nomination, it is hard to say what would happen.

On paper, it did not make sense that Romney could win the Governorship in Mass.

The Dems toughest candidate is still going to be John McCain given the wide disparity between his life experience, Knowledge, and understanding of the most important challenges facing the United States today. . McCain's only difficulty is the current unpopularity of the Iraq war, but according to the latest gallup poll 40% of Americans are against any sort of a pullout, with only 57% supporting one. Those numbers could easily shift over the next 18 months if conditions in Iraq were to improve at a more rapid rate. The vast majority of Republicans still support Bush as well as his policies on Iraq and McCain will of course benefit from that. Rudy can't win the nomination because the Republicans are not going to nominate a pro-choice candidate. As for Romney, even Obama now is ahead of him as far as having substance on issues.

Like everyone has expected for some time now, the race will come down to Hillary and McCain. If public perceptions about the war in Iraq remain where they are today, its likely that Hillary will win, but if improvements in Iraq change the public's perception about the war, plus the reminder of the threat of abandoning Iraq to Al Quada sinks in, then its likely McCain will win.

[diamond]

Originally posted by STING2




Like everyone has expected for some time now, the race will come down to Hillary and McCain. If public perceptions about the war in Iraq remain where they are today, its likely that Hillary will win, but if improvements in Iraq change the public's perception about the war, plus the reminder of the threat of abandoning Iraq to Al Quada sinks in, then its likely McCain will win.

Professor Sting,

Can we quote you on that?

dbs

[Earnie Shavers]

I think if Gore ran he'd win easily. Not just the nomination, but the whole thing. IMO the only thing he lacked against Bush was personality/charisma. In those debates, if you actually read transcripts he *shock* answers questions intelligently and based on facts and figures, while Bush just talks complete shit. But then you watch them and Bush beats him around the block personality wise, while just doing what he has done forever since: Say nothing of substance, just give the same rehearsed soundbites over and over, wrapped up in a kind of folksy jockish personality that, apparently, more people relate to. He beat the nerd! But I think with his enviro campaigning Gore has gained that all important 'personality', or at least more people know him a bit better now in a way that will make his more 'intellectual' approach to these things come across a lot better. Just imagine putting him up against Bush now. People would be ready, and wanting, to hear someone try and debate Bush in that way. He'd kill him now with the exact same approach, with them both playing the same roles. People want to see if Bush is just the trained monkey, or if the guy actually has any knowledge or understanding about, well, anything. I think that will stretch into this election - people WILL want to hear the substance behind the soundbite. I think in 2000 personality was more important, but in 2008 people will desperately want to hear a detailed, intelligent opinion on a bunch of topics. It will be important this time around, and thats advantage Gore moreso than any of the other Democrat candidates, and likely more than any of the Republican ones, perhaps except McCain who seems to have a bit of both substance and soundbite. There would also be a strong sense of righting a wrong, kinda re-writing history in a way, and I think plenty of people would vote for him for no reason other than as a retroactive revenge vote - the wrong thing to do, but still, it would be a factor for sure.

[diamond]

Ahem:

Romney leads NH both w Hillary leading on her side.

http://wbztv.com/racenh/local_story_127103629.html

This isn't necessarily good news because Pat B I think won it one year and later got trounced. McCain won it one year and later got trounced by Bush.

It seems that NH although an interesting place isn't an accurate indiactor of what the USA ends up voting for.

dbs

[kellyahern]

Originally posted by MrsSpringsteen
The funniest thing was when he said he's more like Elmer Fudd than Teddy Roosevelt. He was talking about hunting, but...

I thought the funniest thing he said was that his favorite novel was "Battlefield Earth."

[diamond]

quit
knocking
my
boy

ladies

[LyricalDrug]

Originally posted by diamond
Tommy was hard on the eyes, but Mitt = el charismo

Even though Diamond bet me $50 that Giuliani would beat Hillary in the 2008 election, he is now unsure of his earlier pick and is backing off it, and seems to be gravitating towards yet another hopeless GOP candidate.

Yessssssssssssssssss

[BVS]

Flip Flopper!

[diamond]

The bet is still on.

And that bet was that Hillary will not win against any Republican.

That's how I remember the details, however if I'm wrong or my memory is skewed please remind me of what I committed to.

dbs

[2861U2]

I was watching some news show the other night, and a viewer sent an email saying "If the Democrats want to lose in 2008, all they have to do is nominate Obama or Clinton." One of the most correct statements I've heard in a long time.

Also, I heard it put that the Democrats are the strong party right now, but the Republicans have the stronger candidates. That seems strange, but I would have to agree.

[Irvine511]

Mitt: the

consistent pro-lifer

.

this was from 2002.

[may]

I really don't care if Romney is Mormon. I wouldn't vote for him anyway, he's ultra conservative. Does anyone want another President Bush? Certainly not I. I think Obama is the better choice out of all of them. I stated on another site that I hope everyone can see past his skin color and vote for him. He's both elequent (sp?) and intelligent. Considering what we've experienced for the last six years or so with Bush, we have to think, really, how much experience does a person need to be President? Is it possible to have enough experience? We need someone who will give this country what it needs--growth, unity, and respect. I think Obama can deliver in that sense. I don't live in Illinois, so if there is anyone from IL who can give their opinion about his ability as a Senator, I would love to hear it. In addition, there is a former Congressman from TN by the name of Harold Ford, Jr. who supports Obama; he happens to be a very intelligent person and I highly respect his opinions. You can still catch him on Bill Mahr from this week.