2008: latest Quinnipiac poll

I still have a feeling that none of the "Big 4" will make it out of the primaries or win a national election.

 

So who are your picks? Edwards vs. ?

 

Ron Paul!!!

 

The Religious Right will not allow Rudy to get the nomination. They will send him through a paper shredder and it will be very ugly if it looks like he has a chance. When ugly skeletons and vicious rumors start leaking out, don't instinctively blame the Democrats. The RR knows that if Rudy is the GOP candidate, their death grip on the party is over and gone. They will not be satisfied with a veep that supposedly tows their line.

 

Agreed on the Dem side. I predict they will go with Edwards, who is their strongest candidate. He would have beaten Bush in 2004 IMO. But the GOP nod is still McCain's to lose. The Republicans prefer early winners and don't want the process to be a free-for-all. If McCain stumbles, I still don't think Rudy will get it.

 

I am saying that is my (very early) guess. They all have the name recognition now but they all also have huge holes.

Hillary - baggage from being the "b****y" First Lady, health care fiasco, and playing the game a little too well as a Senator. She might win the primary but I don't see her winning nationally.

Obama - he is black, has a "Muslim sounding" name, and is considered inexperienced. I think when the primaries come around he could be another Dean when voters try to "go safe".

McCain - despite his sucking up the repeated word is that much of the Republican establishment simply don't like this guy. Much of the "maverick" character that could have garnered him Independant votes has disappeared due to that sucking up.

Guiliani - despite being famous, most people don't really know about him yet and I think his personal life will kill him against a ruthless primary opponent. Add to that his views on abortion, gun control, etc. and he has big holes.

So, yeah, I think the big names will gun each other down and all of them risk not being seen as viable.

TJ - I have no idea. I doubt Edwards because he doesn't seem stronger than he was in '04. I think Gore could potentially do it. He has the advantage of being able to wait until the last minute to declare. His years since '00 have been spent doing things (movie, going on Oprah, growin' a beard) that would seem to give his personality factor a boost and he could be seen as safe since he won the popular vote last time around. Not sure how much losing before hurts, though, because politicians seem to be "one and done" these days.

Republicans - Newt could do some damage. He also has some personal issues but from what I have read he has a very specific overarching stategy with all sorts of caption-grabbing issues simlar to the "Contract with America". He seems to be well liked and has the ability to mobilize well.

As I said, though, I have no real feeling on who the actual candidates will be...I just have a bad feeling about the Big 4. Interesting that the recent electionas seemed to be weak candidates trying to give the other the win wheras this next one has a lot of strong and big name candidates but with strong and big holes and/or issues.

 

Well, I think they would prefer someone who can actually win than someone who can't. Plus, Rudy's 9/11 heroics will make RR look past his "faults".

 

Rudy' bigger challenge will be the perception from the southern states and the rural voters that he's just a big city NY boy. That, and trying to maintain momentum for more than a year and a half.

So far, its the left that's been trying to push him to the shredder. What with his pro-choice stance, gay-rights and some personal (and all so important) dirt under the rug.

Ronnie was an adulter too. I think Nancy was in the family way when they got married. And he dabbled in that debaucherous Hollywood lifestyle.

We don't know who will shine and who will fold under the scrutiny of the upcoming months. But it's going to be a lot more complicated then 'all them Jesus boys is haterz.'

The dem's are itching to watch a good ol' mud fight. But I'm not so sure it's going to happen.

In the early rounds, at least, the Hillary/Obama undercard has been the nastier fight. Wouldn't it be something if those two knock each other out, and the Dem's field yet another uninspiring focus group product of mediocracy. Ugh.

 

I simply love how Hillary gets blamed for the Health care fiasco. She was the freaking first lady! Perhaps she should have championed an all so effective 'just say no' campaign instead of taking on the pharma co's and HMO's?

And she's a 'b****' because she came across as cold when hubby was cheatin' away and lying about it on national TV? And plays the game too well? And is too ambitious/calculating?

Crazy.

I really think many people are quite uncomfortable with her persona because we first saw her as the 'supportive' first lady. The gal beside good ol' Bill. (not to be confused with the one under his desk ). And then, when Billy screwed up (depending, of course, on your definition of 'screwing.') she wasn't the hurt wifey looking for sympathy. She tried to 'damage control' for the party. And we couldn't comfort her or sympathise. She just didn't play the roll right.

And now, as she runs on her own accord, we still see her as Bill's sidekick. Had she emerged, a la Margaret Thatcher, as a strong, calculating, independent woman -- with her successes all clearly her own -- i think our perception of her would be quite different. What we now call cold and calculating -- we would probably see as strong and determined.

She's an amazingly brilliant and strong person. And she's overcome more politically than most candidates could ever hope to. Yet lots of people just don't 'like' her. Beyond policy. Beyond accomplishments / or lack thereof. She's just -- I don't know -- a big meanie.

That, and of couse, it seems that she's been campaigning since 1992 .

 

I really think the next President will come from Arkansas. Clinton vs. Huckabee.

Hillary has no competition on either side in fundraising, connections, and built-in support. I do think Edwards has a chance. He will end up being the pick of the HuffPo's, MoveOn.org's, etc. (After Obama fades.)

Huckabee is a great candidate who very closely matches the average Republican voter's views. Add to that his charm and charisma, and the Republicans will see him as "their Bill Clinton".

 

Hillary's abrasive personality among those she works with is well-known in Washington. The best publicly known incident is her beef with uniformed military in the White House. That being said, I think it helps her. The "powerful woman" stereotype is strong. (See Pelosi, Nancy.) Hillary comes across as the tough woman boss that many of us have had. Bill won on likability. If Hillary wins, it'll be on respect.

 

OK, first of all, what I said was not my opinion of her...it was a listing of her flaws as seen in a national election. Now, to your individual points.

Yes, she gets blamed for health care because she was put in charge of it. Just as she had (successfuly) been in charge of big issues in Arkansas. She and her advisors and reps from the "Big 5" insurance companies hammered it all out without counseling any of the established Washington types and that angered a lot of people. Everyone forgets how anti-Washington the Clintons were when they first got there...especially because their legacy and people became the Democratic party. That the plan bombed upon presentation only fed the fires that were burning because of perceived snubs, etc.. The plan was generally a managed care mess.

The cold b**** part - that does not go back to the Clinton scandals but to her very first days as First Lady when she was interviewd. She came accross very poorly (things such as perceived slights of traditional mothers who want to raise their kids instead of work). It took a while for her to stop making those mistakes and many will not forgive her for that. If she were the Dem nominee her Republican opponent would definitely play that up.

"Plays the game too well" - by that I mean she could be seen as either fake or a sell-out by Democrats. She has snuggled up to many a Republican during her time and has become very popular. She also has never taken on a sticky or big issue - always going for little things. She says it is a big picture/getting things done kind of things where critics have said she is playing it safe to minimize political damage for '08.

Oh yeah, she is a horrible speaker and has the personality/charisma of a wicker chair. Those are big for a national election.

 

I understand your points Rimbaud. And your post was clear about listing perceived faults rather than giving your run down on the candidates.

But I'd disagree with the no big issue bit. What big issues has Obama, Rudy, or McCain taken on lately? Which ones has she backed down on. Beyond what most politicians do.

Hillary has taken a risky position on Iraq. Probably THE most visible issue media-wise. And as she's been clearly pining for the presidency these past dozen years, there's no shortage of material to trump out when the sound bites beckon.

On the health care thing...you're right in many ways. Messed up real good. But if it was just her mess, how come nobody else has been able to address it in a substantial way since?

On charisma / coldness. That's a subject thing. If I recall, many were quite smitten with her originally. Of course that wore off. I see it. I really do. And that may well be her downfall.

At this point, I think any of the big 4 has good potential to be an effective president. I like each of them for different reasons.

But Gore vs Newt? Man I hope you're wrong.

 

As I was reading people's thoughts on Rudy in this thread, it made me think back to the last season of The West Wing. If Rudy got the nomination for the Repubs and Bill Richardson came from behind to take the Dem nomination, that would be earily similar. The GOP candidate would be fairly socially liberal, come from a democratic stronghold, be pro-choice, pay lip service to the religious right. Alda even had a bit of Giuliani's look. The Democrats would be running a hispanic candidate from the southwest that was no higher than third heading into the primary season. Like Smits's character, Richardson is a little to the right of the Dem base on some issues. Obviously there are many differences, but it would be an interesting example of life imitating art.

 

i didn't watch the show, how'd the election turn out?



personally, i'd like to see newt win it. i do agree with rimbaud on this one, as i said in one of the other threads, candidates that declare 18 months before the election usually fade. but, the past few elections haven't been usual.

 

Jimmy Smits won.

 

Well I am not comparing her to the others but obviously that "hole" does depend on who she is facing. Rudy obviously has nothing because he has only been giving motivational speeches for the past few years. Obama - inexperience is also seen as a flaw for him. McCain - he always has his push for campaign finance reform, torture, etc. His star is mitigated by the ass kissing he has done for the last 4 or so years, though.

You really think so? In the beginning she took one of the more supportive positions on ousting Saddam. Her strongest words against the war have only come in the last year or so...where she also has to try to explain away her vote.

Well first you have to realize that the government will not truly address health care until they absolutely have to. It will take the public being so outraged that they have no choice. Americans certainly want a comprehensive plan, but not enough to stop being lazy and really push for it. Insurance companies and their ilk do not want it unless it is all about them (see Hillary care) so they exert much more pressure. Add to that that Clinton could never try again because his term was stigmatized by the failed attempt and then became all about scandals. GWB was never going to try in the first place and then 9/11 happened and made it even more improbable.

Not saying they will be it but that they have the perfect setup as dark horse candidates. But who knows...it will probably end up being two guys who were either declared dead early on or given no real chance to win.

 

I wouldn't count on that. Early on in 2000 McCain seemed like much more of a viable general election candidate than GW Bush and we all know what happened to McCain in 2000.

In this race the winnability is already neutralized since McCain is as widely known as Giuliani and is more in tune with conservatives.