Handicapping '08

[Tigermike 3,055]

Since AlGore has said he is not running, I guess that opens the door for all the rest.

As far as Hillary, it seems to me she would be very polarizing. Also there are some on the left who have already been talking down about her moderate voting record and her support of the war.

As for the Republicans, it's hard to say McCain has good name recognition, but there are some who don't look too favorably toward him. Rudy has issues as well. But a McCain/Giuliani ticket sounds pretty strong.

What do you think? Who would be your pick for the Republicans & Democrats? Better still who do you think will be the candidates for each party?

June 10, 2006

Handicapping '08

By Charlie Cook

As fascinating as the 2006 midterm elections are for political aficionados, there is nothing like the 2008 presidential election to get their juices flowing. With strong personalities such as Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and John McCain starting off as front-runners for their parties' nominations, there is little chance of apathy among voters.

A Cook Political Report/RT Strategies poll, conducted June 1-4 among 874 registered voters nationwide, serves as a useful benchmark of where the nomination battles stand. Among Republicans and independents who lean toward the GOP, McCain led with 29 percent. Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani landed in second place with 24 percent, and Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney came in third with 8 percent. Rounding out the field were former House Speaker Newt Gingrich of Georgia with 6 percent, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee with 5 percent, Gov. George Pataki of New York with 4 percent, and Sen. George Allen of Virginia and Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado with 3 percent each. Sens. Sam Brownback of Kansas and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska got 1 percent each.

It strikes me as extremely unlikely that the GOP will nominate someone who favors abortion rights and supported gay-rights and gun-control measures as New York's mayor. Therefore, it is doubtful that Giuliani will run. With Hizzoner out of the mix, McCain jumped to 37 percent, Romney came in second with 10 percent, Gingrich got 9 percent, Pataki climbed to 6 percent, Frist and Allen each had 5 percent, Tancredo still had 3 percent, and Brownback trailed with 2 percent.

A May 13 National Journal Insiders Poll of 103 members of the Republican establishment had 63 picking the senator from Arizona as the most likely nominee, 20 choosing Allen, and 10 opting for Romney. The results are quite different from those of the Cook/RT Strategies poll, though a survey at this point is heavily influenced by name recognition, while the Insiders Poll shows where the "smart money" is inclined to place a bet. It was also a marked shift from the December Insiders Poll that had Allen and McCain neck and neck with 39 and 38 votes, respectively, and Giuliani with 7.

One explanation is that Allen, as the most Bush-like candidate, has been badly hurt by the president's popularity plunge, while the nomination of maverick McCain was always more likely to be based on electability, or perhaps desperation, than on his being the first choice of conservatives and the party establishment. McCain's chances have long appeared to be in direct proportion to the perceptions within the GOP that Clinton would be the Democratic nominee and that McCain would have the best chance of beating her. If a less polarizing Democrat were likely to win the nomination, say a Bayh, a Vilsack, or a Warner, McCain's stock might fall a bit.

On the other side, Clinton led among Democrats and Democratic- leaning independents in the Cook/RT Strategies poll with 37 percent. Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts held second place with 20 percent, and former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina landed in third with 12 percent. In the second tier, Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware ran fourth with 5 percent, and there was a three-way tie for third between retired Gen. Wesley Clark of Arkansas, Sen. Russell Feingold of Wisconsin, and former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner, each with 3 percent. Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana had 2 percent, and Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, the latest to throw his hat toward the ring, had 1 percent. Clinton's strongholds were women (45 percent), nonwhites (50 percent), Northeast voters (51 percent), those with some college education (47 percent), and those ages 35 to 49 (44 percent).

In the NJ poll of 108 Democratic insiders, 73 picked Clinton as the most likely nominee, 10 picked Warner, and seven chose former Vice President Gore, who all but swore off the race last week.

When the front-runners were matched up in the poll, McCain led Clinton by 7 points, 47 percent to 40 percent. McCain carried Republicans by 86 percent to 6 percent; Clinton dominated Democrats 78 to 16 percent. McCain held an 11-point lead among independents, 45 to 34 percent, while Clinton edged him among women, 45 to 43 percent. The Republican prevailed among men by 19 points.

Charlie Cook is a weekly columnist for National Journal magazine and the founder and publisher of the Cook Political Report.

link

[Ranger12 46]

Republican

I would love to see Condi run, but she keeps saying she is not going to do it.

I also like former Congressman JC Watts, but I don't know if he will get back into politics, because got out because he was one of the honest guys that became sick of all the in Washington.

It looks like right now McCain is the best known choice. He is not one of my favorite conservatives, but I do respect the heck out of the man.

Rudi may be another good choice, but I am not sure about him. If he ran his office during his whole term as mayor as smoothly as he did after 9/11, then he would get my consideration, but I would need to research him more.

Democrats

Hilary will be the frontrunner because no matter what the party leaders think of her, the majority of democrats in America think of the Clintons as royalty.

Barack Obama from Illinios is being groomed as a future presidential candidate. 2008 may be too soon since he is still relatively new as a Senator. I liked what he said at the Democratic Convention (he was elected at the time, but not sworn in yet). I actually thought this may be a dem I could vote for as President. His nopartisan talk was fresh and seemed genuine. However, since he was sworn in, in 2005, he has voted the party line on just about every bill, so I have seriously backed off my praise for him.

One democrat I do vote for every time he runs for office is Senator Bud Cramer. Unfortunately, he is not a favorites of the democrat leaders, so he will probably never be given the chance to run for President.

Kerry has been quoted as saying he will run again, which will make his race against Hilary very interesting to watch, to see if they will attack each other to win the nomination.

[TexasTiger 13,029]

Mark Warner (D) v. Mike Huckabee ® with Chuck Hagel possibly as an (I).

[Ranger12 46]

Mark Warner (D) v. Mike Huckabee ® with Chuck Hagel possibly as an (I).

239858[/snapback]

Hagel would be a good republican candidate and has a good chance of getting my vote if Condi did not run. Is there something that makes you think he would break from the republicans and run as an independent or is that wishful thanking on your part to split the republican vote for so the dems can win? I don't Hagel doing that.

[TexasTiger 13,029]

Mark Warner (D) v. Mike Huckabee ® with Chuck Hagel possibly as an (I).

239858[/snapback]

Hagel would be a good republican candidate and has a good chance of getting my vote if Condi did not run. Is there something that makes you think he would break from the republicans and run as an independent or is that wishful thanking on your part to split the republican vote for so the dems can win? I don't Hagel doing that.

239859[/snapback]

I like Hagel and would consider voting for him. We may not agree on much, but up until now, anyway, he has struck me as honest and a straightshooter. I don't see a lot of bi-partisan legislation, but I think he would be decent and respectful to the Democrats. In short, he is easily my favorite Republican.

But I don't see him pandering to the Republican groups one typically needs to win the nomination. If he wants to be President, this may be his only ticket.

There were rumors about this last year. I have no idea if they are true.

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2005/08/...endent_bid.html

[quietfan 233]

I don't know who WILL get the nominations, but I suggest to both parties that they find some relatively unknown darkhorses to nominate because I think all the current frontrunners or "usual suspects" carry too much baggage. Of course, a lot can happen between now and 2008, but as of right now I think Americans are frustrated with Washington in general and looking for someone outside of the Beltway and not currently associated with the status quo of either party. [Okay, technically Giuliani isn't from Washington, but still viewed as part of the status quo by many, IMO.]

Despite what might be the best qualified pair of female candidates in US history--Hillary and Condi--I'm afraid both of them are too closely associated with earlier adminstrations to actually win. Unless things change unbelievably before 2008, I don't see Americans wanting to keep anyone closely associated with this Adminstration, and that rules out Condi. And Hillary? While I think she might actually do a good job once in office, I don't think her history and image will get her elected either.

Barak Obama has already been annointed the "Chosen One" in many Democrats' minds, but won't be ready in 2008. Of course, waiting 'til 2012 or later gives him plenty of time to screw the pooch and acquire his own baggage by then.

McCain, Kerry?...just "same-ol', same-ol'" to most Americans who are looking for something new, IMHO.

No one has mentioned John Edwards, Kerry's running mate last time. Anyone think he has any future beyond what he is now? He does at least have that "young, handsome, charismatic" look about him.

[TexasTiger 13,029]

I don't know who WILL get the nominations, but I suggest to both parties that they find some relatively unknown darkhorses to nominate because I think all the current frontrunners or "usual suspects" carry too much baggage.  Of course, a lot can happen between now and 2008, but as of right now I think Americans are frustrated with Washington in general and looking for someone outside of the Beltway and not currently associated with the status quo of either party.  [Okay, technically Giuliani isn't from Washington, but still viewed as part of the status quo by many, IMO.]

Despite what might be the best qualified pair of female candidates in US history--Hillary and Condi--I'm afraid both of them are too closely associated with earlier adminstrations to actually win.  Unless things change unbelievably before 2008, I don't see Americans wanting to keep anyone closely associated with this Adminstration, and that rules out Condi.  And Hillary?  While I think she might actually do a good job once in office, I don't think her history and image will get her elected either.

Barak Obama has already been annointed the "Chosen One" in many Democrats' minds, but won't be ready in 2008.  Of course, waiting 'til 2012 or later gives him plenty of time to screw the pooch and acquire his own baggage by then.

McCain, Kerry?...just "same-ol', same-ol'" to most Americans who are looking for something new, IMHO.

No one has mentioned John Edwards, Kerry's running mate last time.  Anyone think he has any future beyond what he is now?  He does at least have that "young, handsome, charismatic" look about him.

239896[/snapback]

Edwards currently leads Hillary in Iowa-- new poll out.

Condi and Hillary are lousy politicians, IMHO.

Warner will surprise some folks for the Dems. I think Huckabee will for the Republicans. I'd love to see Rudy get the nod for the Repubs. I don't think he wears well over a long national campaign, but he's another Dem who converted to the Repubs to get a US Attorney position under Reagan. I don't see how the conservatives accept him.

[TexasTiger 13,029]

bump

[channonc 466]

I think '08 will be an interesting year for sure. IF Hillary gets the nom (which I am hoping won't happen), I highly doubt she would win in the general election. It is my opinion (esp seeing how things are in Washington), that politics are still mostly a "man's world." I really don't see Washington, or the rest of the country for that matter, ready for a woman president. I do hope that eventually in our country's history we have a woman president, but I hope its someone that is a tough leader, but yet, has a since of grace-- much like a Margaret Thatcher type character- which neither Hillary or Condi IMO are.

[TexasTiger 13,029]

I think '08 will be an interesting year for sure.  IF Hillary gets the nom (which I am hoping won't happen), I highly doubt she would win in the general election.  It is my opinion (esp seeing how things are in Washington), that politics are still mostly a "man's world."  I really don't see Washington, or the rest of the country for that matter, ready for a woman president.  I do hope that eventually in our country's history we have a woman president, but I hope its someone that is a tough leader, but yet, has a since of grace-- much like a Margaret Thatcher type character-  which neither Hillary or Condi IMO are.

240537[/snapback]

Hillary's numbers are inflated right now, but I don't sense any real enthusiasm for her candidacy. She would be wiser to seek to be the first woman majority leader in the Senate and finish a distinguished Senate career. If she runs for President, she likely loses and is forever diminished. If she does run, her candidacy will collapse-- she will lose in Iowa and be downhill from there.

[Tigermike 3,055]

Kerry has said he plans to run again and has been positioning himself with the anti war folks. Will there be enough support overall from the dems for him to get the nomination again?

Kerry's change of heart

By Joan Vennochi, Globe Columnist  |  June 15, 2006

WHY IS IT so hard to believe John Kerry?

The Massachusetts senator is finally taking the antiwar position that people who know him well expected him to embrace long ago. The position is welcome, if long overdue; unfortunately, it doesn't dispel doubts about the thinking that got him to this place.

Kerry now labels his 2002 vote to authorize the Iraq invasion a mistake and is calling for US troop withdrawal by the end of the year. His position -- for now -- is as crisp today as it was meandering during the last presidential campaign.

Had he taken such a clear stand in 2004, he might be in the White House. Remember, George W. Bush's convictions on war and miscellaneous matters ended up as an advantage on Election Day. Kerry's penchant to finesse everything, especially war, helped create the flip-flopping caricature depicted in the Bush campaign ads.

As he moves toward a second presidential bid, Kerry continues to pay a price for the straddles, calculations, and parsings of 2004. It's going to take time and a lot of plain talking to overcome the excruciating equivocations from his previous performance as presidential nominee.

Overcoming skepticism about Kerry's change of heart on Iraq will be especially challenging. For one thing, it tracks nicely with the general public's change of heart and coincides conveniently with the liberals' search for an antiwar champion. In addition, the antiwar fervor that Kerry displayed this week also coincides with an early poll from Iowa that puts John Edwards in first place with Democrats in that presidential caucus state.

The two former running mates now seem to be vying for the antiwar political left. Edwards, the former senator from North Carolina, flatly labeled his vote for war ``a mistake" in a November 2005 opinion piece for The Washington Post. In October 2005, Kerry expressed regret about the vote, telling an audience at Georgetown University, ``I understand that as much as we might wish it, we can't rewind the tape of history." In that Georgetown speech, Kerry also opted for a middle ground between advocating an immediate drawdown of troops and the Bush administration's refusal to set a timetable: ``The way forward in Iraq isnot to pull out precipitously or merely promise to stay `as long as it takes.' We must instead simultaneously pursue both a political settlement and the withdrawal of American combat forces," he said then.

Kerry has moved further left since that time, along with one wing of the Democratic Party. At the ``Take Back America" conference in Washington this week, liberal activists cheered him for setting a deadline for troop withdrawal. They booed Senator Hillary Clinton of New York for arguing against it.

American voters once accepted the concept of a ``new Nixon," sending Richard M. Nixon to the White House in 1968 after rejecting him narrowly in 1960. So it's possible that voters could embrace a ``new Kerry," although the memory of the old one is still fresh enough to raise questions in a voter's mind.

The new Kerry's problem isn't a change of heart on the Iraq invasion. Public sentiment reflects a similar shift and a desire to focus on ending the conflict, not endlessly second-guessing the decision to start it.

The new Kerry's problem is the need to overcome skepticism about his motives from the very start.

Did he vote to authorize the Iraq invasion in the first place because he did not want to run for president in 2004 as an antiwar candidate? Is he repudiating the vote and war now because he wants to run as an antiwar candidate in 2008?

On one hand, you want to believe in the Vietnam veteran who testified famously in 1971 before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, asking, ``How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" On the other hand, it's hard to imagine that veteran taking so long to call the current war a mistake. What was he thinking back in 2002 when he cast a vote to send American troops to die, again, for a mistake? Did he forget about them because he was thinking only of himself and what he believed the voters wanted to hear? Hillary Clinton faces a version of the same question.

Kerry's painful repositioning on Iraq raises some tough political questions: Is this too little, too late -- or better late than never?

But the toughest question Kerry faces isn't about war, it's about credibility.

Joan Vennochi's e-mail address is vennochi@globe.com.

link

[Ranger12 46]

I don't think Kerry or Edwards can get enough dem support this time, especially with Hilary running.

I have heard several political experts state that they do not think America is ready for a female president yet. They think the time still is not right. I would have to think that the war on terrorism is the reason for that line of thinking.

Quietfan and I agree about Obama. The dems are really big and him and will push him to eventually run. However, for it to be in 2012, that would mean they would have to basically concede the 2008 election. I agree that I don't think he will be ready for 2008. In the short time he has been in office, he has gotten alot of respect from fellow dems, but I think he would still be too "green" as a Senator to run for president in 2008.

What about Dan Quayle?

[DKW 86 7,441]

I have to applaud the Liberal side for frankness here.

Republicans: I want a Debt reducing nominee first! I think most Conservative are nauseous over the deficit and this will be Job One for us. The war in Iraq will end soon with us winning in about 1-2-3 years. I think all candidates, Rep and Dem, that are in the pipeline will support our staying there anyway.

I would support Watts or Condi of they ran. But I also supported Keys twice as well. I have no problem at all supporting a black candidate for the republican Nominee. The nation needs a female or black president soon.

McCain will likely win the Nom and then the Presidency. He is a good man and I could and would support him. Let him choose a Condi or Watts and now we are talking a historic run for office. I would love to hear him on the Deficit more though.

Frist and rest are just not that warm. They are not ideologic enough to ignite the base. They are not well known enough to get the big bucks to win either. Remember, the Republicans raise most of their money in Ind. contributions. I know you dont hear that much, but google it.

Guiliani would be a great choice but lets be real frank, the Pro-Choice litmus test eliminates him from the Christian Fundamentalists in the Rep Party. He either has to engineer it out (make it go away as an issue) or become Kerry and Flip Flop.

I seriously doubt that the rest are very important at any point in all this. They would need a complete collapse by McCain and Guiliani to even get close. These are seriously only issue candidates for now.

Dems: Please let Cramer run. As strong and Conservative as I am, I would HAPPILY support Cramer and yes I have heard the rumors. PM me and I will expound with a PM.

Gore and Kerry have lower scores than Bush. They have name recognition and it is almost all bad. The real Ideologues cannot forgive them for losing the elections. The growing awareness of global warming may raise Gore's profile but the Conservationists seem to be running away from him at last count. Kerry is still flip flopping. Look at his change in support for the war in Iraq. He is scary in the way he learned nothing after losing the election. Kerry has little if any credibility. I dont know if Gore is even sane.

Bayh: Dems I respect support him. I know almost nothing about him. Little name recognition.

Obama: Be wise and invest in his political future. Unless he implodes on some issue, he should be President one day, say in 2016 or so.

Clinton: This is the new Dean/Kerry candidate. She will activate the core Dems, the money will pour in. She will also massively reinvigorate a somewhat demoralized Republican core to support whoever runs against her. (This is literally just like my distaste for Kerry. She will energize the Rep base like no one else running for office.)

Edwards: He could be the perfect candidate for the Dems. Not THAT Left and he reminds them of Clinton. He is not that polarizing to the Reps as of now. I still dont see him having the gravitas to win however. Too young, too untried. Isnt he only a one term Senator? Who knows, Carter won while being only a one term governor. Edwards needs the stars to align perfectly. He must win the first three primaries and put HRC out of it. I dont see HRC losing NH though.

What do I predict? The Dems will dictate by their choice what the Republican leaders will allow to happen. Give Rove and the rest their due but they do know how to win. The guy the Dems keep turning to has lost so many it is amazing. Shrum?

Dem Side: The nomination fight will be bloody. Kerry thinks it is his turn again. Clinton will have diehards supporting her. Gore is just not acceptable. Edwards, is too lite weight to carry the mail ALL THE WAY! The money will stack against him because he is not extreme Left enough to win the nomination but he is the only candidate the Reps really fear. Clinton, Edwards, and Kerry will hack each other to pieces when it becomes crunch time.

Republican side: I hate to say it but there wont really be much of a fight. Either Rudi gets the Pro-Choice thing off the table early or he fades away fast. McCain is mending fences and seems to be getting all the stars aligned at this point. I really, in all honesty, dont see him losing the nomination. They are both great men though. We could do worse with either of them winning. Rudi has the Pro-Choice, ugly divorce thing over his head however. They are both American heroes though.

Look, The Reps are doggedly set on this thing about "His Turn." When Reagan won, it was literally his turn after the 76 run. 41 won because it was his turn. etc. Seems my party just loves "seniority." This is McCain's election to lose, IMHO. The Dems will again likely run a MoveOn.org candidate that will scare away just enough voters to lose.

The 2008 campaign season will be very expensive and very ugly. The Dems must realize that the Nation needs another triangulation candidate like Bill Clinton to win. Unfortunately for them, the MoveOn.org crowd and all the critical mass money is leaning so far Left it will never happen. Hillary or Kerry are likely to win and that will set the Republican base on fire to defeat them.

[Ranger12 46]

Cramer would be the first dem president I have ever voted for and I would do it without hesitation. That is the first I have heard of any rumors about him running, but will the dem party put his name out there on a national level since he is not one of the "names" you hear alot about. I am afraid he is too conservative to make a real run for the nomination.

If they republicans could get a Watts/Condi ticket, they would be unbeatable.

[DKW 86 7,441]

Cramer would be the first dem president I have ever voted for and I would do it without hesitation. That is the first I have heard of any rumors about him running, but will the dem party put his name out there on a national level since he is not one of the "names" you hear alot about. I am afraid he is too conservative to make a real run for the nomination.

If they republicans could get a Watts/Condi ticket, they would be unbeatable.

240787[/snapback]

I think a McCain and name one of these: Condi, Watts, or Rudi would be unbeatable.

[channonc 466]

I agree with you David (as much as I dislike McCain). However, if McCain gets the R nom, I predict that the far right, makes him pick a very strong conservative. I would be surprised if the R ticket included 2 "moderate" people. Someone like Rick Santorum will be the VP if McCain gets the nom.-- Not necessarily Santorum, but someone with those extreme views though.

[DKW 86 7,441]

I agree with you David (as much as I dislike McCain).  However, if McCain gets the R nom, I predict that the far right, makes him pick a very strong conservative.  I would be surprised if the R ticket included 2 "moderate" people.  Someone like Rick Santorum will be the VP if McCain gets the nom.-- Not necessarily Santorum, but someone with those extreme views though.

240796[/snapback]

Ditto. I would love to see Rudi, Condi, Watts. It will be someone really to the right however. Just get the deficit under control and I will be happy.

[Captain Liger 0]

I like Rudy, I'm sorry. Think about it, a Republican.....who won mayor of NYC.....the largest city in America...........more than once. If he can win a city as diverse as NYC who's to say he couldn't win the entire country. And his leadership in the wake of 911 was spectacular and he didn't step forward so assertively just for show either. I trust him...and I don't trust many yankees.

I think a Rudy/Sessions or Rudy/Cramer ticket would be appealing. You get reps from both North and South (and possibly both parties) which have cultures that reach farther than just those geographical areas. Just seems like a good strategy to me.

I'm all about the budget though. We need someone who is a stickler and will rape it. Too much overhead if you ask me. I'd like to see a politician who DOESN'T have all the answers. That's right. Every election period you get politicians who claim to have ALL the answers and make all these promises and then when they're elected they do a brain dump of everything they said on the campaign trail. I'd be more willing to trust a candidate who has the balls to say "you know what, I don't claim to have all the answers to our nation's problems. We'll tackle each issue one at a time and if we can make headway on at least 3 to 5 major issues a year then that'll be the most progress we've made since we came out of the Depression era."

Just my two cents.

[Tigermike 3,055]

I agree with you David (as much as I dislike McCain).  However, if McCain gets the R nom, I predict that the far right, makes him pick a very strong conservative.  I would be surprised if the R ticket included 2 "moderate" people.  Someone like Rick Santorum will be the VP if McCain gets the nom.-- Not necessarily Santorum, but someone with those extreme views though.

240796[/snapback]

channonc, I am not doubting your assessment of Rick Santorum, I really don't know a lot about him (but I will do the research). But at first glance I have always thought of him as a moderate conservative. What is it about his views that makes him extreme?

Jeff Sessions ® Alabama, is a sharp guy and was a strong Assistant United States Attorney in Mobile. He prosecuted and won several high profile cases (the Mayor of Mobile was one). But for some reason, I don't see him being on a national ticket. He is one the dems would almost go ballistic over, but what else is new. As much as we might hate to admit it, him being from Alabama would be a negative in the eyes of many.

[TexasTiger 13,029]

I agree with you David (as much as I dislike McCain).  However, if McCain gets the R nom, I predict that the far right, makes him pick a very strong conservative.  I would be surprised if the R ticket included 2 "moderate" people.  Someone like Rick Santorum will be the VP if McCain gets the nom.-- Not necessarily Santorum, but someone with those extreme views though.

240796[/snapback]

channonc, I am not doubting your assessment of Rick Santorum, I really don't know a lot about him (but I will do the research). But at first glance I have always thought of him as a moderate conservative. What is it about his views that makes him extreme?

240838[/snapback]

Sincere question-- how do you define a "moderate Republican?"

[TexasTiger 13,029]

Kerry has said he plans to run again and has been positioning himself with the anti war folks.  Will there be enough support overall from the dems for him to get the nomination again?

link

240709[/snapback]

There is NO enthusiasm for Kerry. He got damn lucky last year, squeaking out a win in Iowa and then following up the big Mo with a win in his own back yard the next week. He benefited from a weak field. Kerry will be very embarassed this time around. He would do far better to stay put in the Senate and try to put a shinier gloss on his Senate career.

[DKW 86 7,441]

Kerry has said he plans to run again and has been positioning himself with the anti war folks.  Will there be enough support overall from the dems for him to get the nomination again?

link

240709[/snapback]

There is NO enthusiasm for Kerry. He got damn lucky last year, squeaking out a win in Iowa and then following up the big Mo with a win in his own back yard the next week. He benefited from a weak field. Kerry will be very embarassed this time around. He would do far better to stay put in the Senate and try to put a shinier gloss on his Senate career.

241393[/snapback]

That was an awesomely frank post Tex. I mean that is exactly as I felt about him. He got lucky in Iowa, Dean screamed, next week was in his own back yard and pretty much walked away from then on. A lot of luck in that timeline. Before Iowa, he was not a stand out to anyone.

[TexasTiger 13,029]

I think '08 will be an interesting year for sure.  IF Hillary gets the nom (which I am hoping won't happen), I highly doubt she would win in the general election.  It is my opinion (esp seeing how things are in Washington), that politics are still mostly a "man's world."  I really don't see Washington, or the rest of the country for that matter, ready for a woman president.  I do hope that eventually in our country's history we have a woman president, but I hope its someone that is a tough leader, but yet, has a since of grace-- much like a Margaret Thatcher type character-  which neither Hillary or Condi IMO are.

240537[/snapback]

Hillary's numbers are inflated right now, but I don't sense any real enthusiasm for her candidacy. She would be wiser to seek to be the first woman majority leader in the Senate and finish a distinguished Senate career. If she runs for President, she likely loses and is forever diminished. If she does run, her candidacy will collapse-- she will lose in Iowa and be downhill from there.

Blast from the past.

[Ranger12 46]

All hail the prophet TexasTiger.

The title of this thread was kind of prophetic also. Given that we now know all the candidates on both sides, for the most part "handicapping" was a very appropriate term. I just can't wait to see what we will have to choose between when the primaries are over. I think personally for me it is going to be the toughest "choice of two evils" I have ever made in a presidential election.