2004/2008 US presidential elections

Dis · May 3, 2003, 03:37

Well it seems to me democrats may be conceding the 2004 elections. Who is going to run? I do not know yet. They seem to be banking on Hillary in 2008, which pretty much means they have to give up 2004 right? Because if a democrat wins next year, they will run again in 2008 and hillary cannot run. Plus there really aren't any good candidates to run next year anyways.

Although it would be a mistake to assume Bush will win in 2004. I always felt like Bush would lose, as he was never elected president of the U.S. in 2000. I figured people wouldn't make the same mistake twice. But Bush is doing pretty good right now. But so was his father after the first gulf war. If Bush jr. doesn't improve the economy and unemployment situation he could be gone. But he is a much stronger president than his father, and I believe the american public realizes this.

Now we come to 2008. Hillary Clinton. I do believe she has a great chance at winning the election. Mainly because there will be no good republican to run against her. The republicans will have the same problem the democrats have now. No good leaders.

The republicans best bet may be with Condoleeza Rice. So it is important she runs for VP next year (we already discussed this in an ealier thread). So this leaves us with 2 females running in 2008. This would lead to a much lower chance of Hillary becomeing elected. Condoleeza will sway some of the women who may vote for Hillary just because she is a woman.

It may be very well possible the U.S. gets its first female president in 2008.

Now people probably think I'm scared to have Hillary in office. Well I go with the flow. If she comes into office I will embrace her socialist ideas. They could work. And if they don't, she will be laughed out of office. I will be happy either way

.

Frozzy · May 3, 2003, 03:40

You've become very left-wing recently Dissident.

In answer to your question, no.

The average US voter thinks the democrats are washed up and Bush has done a lot on the world stage. The US will be a right-wing state for a while yet, my friend

Imran Siddiqui · May 3, 2003, 03:40

Bored, Diss?

Hillary will never win. Her negatives are the highest of any potential candidate. People just don't like her left-leaning ways. She may get a few more votes than Wellstone would have, if he had lived, but not too much more.

Dis · May 3, 2003, 03:45

me left wing? not likely. I'm independant, and fairly middle of the road. Although many posters here probably think I'm right wing with my support of the war on Iraq and anti-socialism stance.

Just for reference I listen to the Bill O'Reilly show (radio and tv). Many lefties consider him a right-winger.

This is where I'm going with this Hillary business. Bill has been going on about Hillary a lot lately. He was attacked for calling Hillary ruthless. He believes Hillary already has 40% of the vote locked up. That's a pretty good number.

But I do have doubts with Bill on this one. She only has 50% approval rating in a very liberal state. That's not very good.

Inverse Icarus · May 3, 2003, 04:47

Clinton only won in NY because the minorities decided to go vote for once.

luckily, enough of the other states hate her to overshadow our little problem.

The Mad Monk · May 3, 2003, 04:53

...what was the question?

Giancarlo · May 3, 2003, 09:47

Hillary Clinton is a ***** and she will not win in 2008. I am sorry diss, but she will never win anything outside of New York.

I am hoping the US does get their first female president.. but I am not betting on that evil Hillary now or ever.. I am betting on Condi Rice, a republican.

You are looking at the US which will be republican at least in the executive branch of government, based on my predictions, for the next two presidental elections.

Aro · May 3, 2003, 10:11

Condoleezza? Condi?

Well, she has nice legs...

VJ · May 3, 2003, 10:22

Quote:

I am hoping the US does get their first female president.. but I am not betting on that evil Hillary now or ever.. I am betting on Condi Rice, a republican.

Quote:

she has nice legs...

Sigh.

Giancarlo · May 3, 2003, 10:24

LOL... is that all you can say, aro?

There was an email floating around about the accomplishments of members of the Bush adminstration...

Here:

Quote:

National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice: Earned her Bachelor's Degree in Political Science, *** Laude and Phi Beta Kappa, from the University of Denver in 1974; her Master's from the University of Notre Dame in 1975; and her Ph.D. from the Graduate School of International Studies at the University of Denver in 1981. (Note: Rice enrolled at the
University of Denver at the age of 15, graduating at 19 with a Bachelor's Degree
in Political Science (*** Laude). She earned a Master's Degree at the University of Notre Dame and a Doctorate from the University of Denver's Graduate School of International Studies. Both of her advanced degrees are also in Political Science.) She is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and has been awarded Honorary Doctorates from
Morehouse College in 1991, the University of Alabama in 1994, and the University of Notre Dame in 1995. At Stanford, she has been a member of the Center for International Security and Arms Control, a Senior Fellow of the Institute for International Studies, and a Fellow (by courtesy) of the Hoover ! Institution. Her books include Germany Unified and Europe
Transformed (1995) with Philip Zelikow, The Gorbachev Era (1986) with Alexander Dallin, and Uncertain Allegiance: The Soviet Union and the Czechoslovak Army (1984). She also has written numerous articles on Soviet and East European foreign and defense policy, and has addressed audiences in settings ranging from the U.S. Ambassador's Residence in Moscow to the Commonwealth Club to the 1992 and 2000 Republican National Conventions. From 1989 through March 1991, the period of German reunification and the final days of the Soviet Union, she served in the Bush Administration as Director, and then Senior Director, of Soviet and East European Affairs in the National Security Council, and a Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. In 1986, while an international affairs fellow of the Council on Foreign Relations, she served as Special Assistant to the Director of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In 1997, she served on the Federal Advisory Committee on Gender -- Integrated Training in the Military. She was a member of the boards of directors for the Chevron Corporation, the Charles Schwab Corporation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the University of Notre Dame, the International Advisory Council of J.P. Morgan and the San Francisco Symphony Board of Governors. She was a Founding Board member of the Center for a New Generation, an educational support fund for schools in East Palo Alto and East Menlo Park, California and was Vice President of the Boys and Girls Club of the Peninsula. In addition, her past board service has encompassed such organizations as Transamerica Corporation, Hewlett Packard, the Carnegie Corporation, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, The Rand Corporation, the National Council for Soviet and East European Studies, the Mid-Peninsula Urban Coalition and KQED, public broadcasting for San Francisco. Born November 14, 1954 in Birmingham, Alabama, she resides in Washington, D.C.

Far more credible and a better choice than that stupid ***** Hillary.

VJ · May 3, 2003, 10:28

Quote:

*** Laude

Giancarlo · May 3, 2003, 10:29

Stupid forum censors... I am not using it in that context!

Boris Godunov · May 3, 2003, 10:51

Quote:

Originally posted by UberKruX
Clinton only won in NY because the minorities decided to go vote for once.

luckily, enough of the other states hate her to overshadow our little problem.

Categorically not true. Hillary won because she ran a good campaign, and Lazio ran a pathetically bad campaign. You're forgetting that she won in a landslide, and in historically Republican bastions she did far better than most Democrats do.

monkspider · May 3, 2003, 11:01

She could never win, she is hated on the right, and there aren't many on the left who are too stuck on her either. Anyway, I see Bush being Pres for three terms or more.

Aro · May 3, 2003, 11:05

Quote:

Originally posted by Fez
LOL... is that all you can say, aro?

No... But that's all I want to say about her. Ok, a little more: She's a female Hawk... Her legs serve to a purpose. Change your cable TV from Fox to Animal Planet, Discovery or something, and you'll know for what are the legs of this kind of predator. Mortal... Poor Pigeons!

Boris Godunov · May 3, 2003, 11:05

Quote:

Originally posted by monkspider
Anyway, I see Bush being Pres for three terms or more.

Uh, you seem to be forgetting the Constitution there, buddy...

Saying Bush is a shoo-in for re-election is dubious. Remember where his dad stood at this point in 1991. Everyone thought he was going to win in a walk, and then things imploded for him real fast.

Considering the malaise of the economy, Bush had better start paying attention to the domestic agenda soon or he could find himself in the same position.

monkspider · May 3, 2003, 11:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

Uh, you seem to be forgetting the Constitution there, buddy...

Saying Bush is a shoo-in for re-election is dubious. Remember where his dad stood at this point in 1991. Everyone thought he was going to win in a walk, and then things imploded for him real fast.

Considering the malaise of the economy, Bush had better start paying attention to the domestic agenda soon or he could find himself in the same position.

Well I think those laws would easily be repealed in the name of "national urgency", especially if the Republican-controlled congress continues to hold it's majority.

I wouldn't say that Bush is a shoo-in, but I think America's destiny has fundamentally changed and that Bush represents this new destiny.

oedo · May 3, 2003, 11:11

Quote:

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

Uh, you seem to be forgetting the Constitution there, buddy...

Saying Bush is a shoo-in for re-election is dubious. Remember where his dad stood at this point in 1991. Everyone thought he was going to win in a walk, and then things imploded for him real fast.

Considering the malaise of the economy, Bush had better start paying attention to the domestic agenda soon or he could find himself in the same position.

Jeb Bush can become the next president in 2008. hopefully the family Bush is not that much larger so we will still livewhen the Bush dynasty is over.

and what about FDR? he also was elected three times, wasn´t he?

Boris Godunov · May 3, 2003, 11:12

The Republicans would need far more than a majority, they'd need 67 votes in the senate, and then the states would have to ratify it. Not going to happen.

Boris Godunov · May 3, 2003, 11:13

Quote:

Originally posted by oedo

Jeb Bush can become the next president in 2008. hopefully the family Bush is not that much larger so we will still livewhen the Bush dynasty is over.

and what about FDR? he also was elected three times, wasn´t he?

FDR was elected 4 times, but that was before the Constitution was ammended to limit a President to two terms.

Giancarlo · May 3, 2003, 11:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Aro

No... But that's all I want to say about her. Ok, a little more: She's a female Hawk... Her legs serve to a purpose. Change your cable TV from Fox to Animal Planet, Discovery or something, and you'll know for what are the legs of this kind of predator. Mortal... Poor Pigeons!

Now if I were straight, that is my type of woman.

Boris, face it. The democrats are not fielding anybody half decent. Bush will win in 2004. So you can quit lying to yourself. It will be like the 1984 elections. Reagan was headed to victory because the democrats put up Walter Mondale

as their candidate. He was a weak candidate for a fractured party. The democratic party today is in complete disarray.

monkspider · May 3, 2003, 11:24

I don't know Boris, you maybe right. Then again, it is possible that Bush may argue that it is necessary and proper to run again, in the name of "national security".

Trumping any laws that may be on the books.

Giancarlo · May 3, 2003, 11:26

Well Monkspider, I think Bush will leave the 2008 nomination to his brother, Jeb.

monkspider · May 3, 2003, 11:28

Fez- That could actually be likely. Bush is pretty much a just a figurehead, a placeholder for the people with the real power. As such, he is probably interchangeable.But the advantage to G.W Bush is that the people will probably see him as a war hero and if we are in the midst of a large-scale war by 2008, they may very well want to keep him in.

Boris Godunov · May 3, 2003, 11:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Fez
Boris, face it. The democrats are not fielding anybody half decent. Bush will win in 2004. So you can quit lying to yourself. It will be like the 1984 elections. Reagan was headed to victory because the democrats put up Walter Mondale

as their candidate. He was a weak candidate for a fractured party. The democratic party today is in complete disarray.

And again, you're a fool to say this. While I don't discount that Bush may get re-elected, I certainly don't think it's a done deal. You seem to be blissfully ignoring 1991. You think the Democratic candidates are weak, but people said the same thing in 1991. You don't know jack **** about the Democrats running, I wager, so I'm thinking this is just more BAMing.

I know you desperatley want Bush to win, but that doesn't necessarily mean it will happen, kiddo. You should prepare for a possible loss, as it will make it easier on you should he indeed lose. I'd hate to see you cry.

Giancarlo · May 3, 2003, 11:36

Do you have anything original to say Boris besides trying to gloat on behalf of a broken political party?

Quote:

You don't know jack **** about the Democrats running

**** off.

Zkribbler · May 3, 2003, 11:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Dissident
Well it seems to me democrats may be conceding the 2004 elections. Who is going to run? I do not know yet. They seem to be banking on Hillary in 2008 . . .

What the heck have you been smoking??

Every well-known Democrat except Hillary and Daschule is running in 2004! That doesn't sound like conceding to me.

And if Hillary is the Democratic nominee in 2008, I'm voting Republican.

Giancarlo · May 3, 2003, 11:51

Quote:

And if Hillary is the Democratic nominee in 2008, I'm voting Republican.

Based upon what I been reading in your posts, I must come to the conclusion, you must hate Hillary more than me to vote republican.

Boris Godunov · May 3, 2003, 11:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Fez
Do you have anything original to say Boris besides trying to gloat on behalf of a broken political party?

Do you understand what "gloat" means? If you did, you'd see it is you who are gloating, and doing so prematurely. All I'm doing is saying that nothing is decided.

Quote:

**** off.

Very mature, little boy.

Giancarlo · May 3, 2003, 11:58

Quote:

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

Do you understand what "gloat" means? If you did, you'd see it is you who are gloating, and doing so prematurely. All I'm doing is saying that nothing is decided.

Hypocrite.

Quote:

Very mature, little boy.

And it is like this more mature:

"You don't know jack **** about the Democrats running, I wager, so I'm thinking this is just more BAMing."

You don't ever ****ing say "BAMing" because that is what you are famous for. You did to me about my painting, and in many other occasions.