2008 Candidate Watch

  • Thread starter Arwin
  • 18 comments
  • 551 views
2,093
I thought I could make this a thread where we can watch out for potential 2008 presidential candidates and keep an eye on them, on what they did before now and what they do over the next four years. That way we can get to know them before all the slandering and bickering of the next election circus show starts.

Potential Democrat Candidates
- Barack Obama
- Hillary Clinton
- John Edwards

Potential Republican Candidates
- Rudy Giuliani
- Condoleezza Rice

Feel free to suggest people for the watch list and post comments.
 
Dick Chenny will most likely not be able health wise to run. obama would never be nominated never mind elected its just too soon in his career, hilary is a pipe dream , just wont happen and Edwards has been exposed as a lite weight with no record so he may be a liability to the Dems.
 
Dude, Dick Cheney has said he will not run for president nor did he ever say he would. This election will be his last in any political office.

Rudi Giuliani is the obvious Republican candidate. Then again, if Arnold gets his Constitution amendment, he would be the favorite.
 
I see Kerry running again next time. I honestly have a bit more respect for the guy after he conceded instead of drawing the election out. It was a good call. Hopefully next time, he'll get some guys that actually know how to campaign.

As for the republican vote, its a toss up. We wont know for a good while.
James-
 
Arnold can't run, and neither can Kerry.

The best choice for Republicans is Giuliani. No idea who the democrats will choose, but I'd bet money that nobody would vote for Edwards or Hilary, and I've never even heard of the other guy until yesterday.

Why are we talking about something that's not going to happen for four years, anyway?
 
Ghost C
Why are we talking about something that's not going to happen for four years, anyway?

Maybe hes just interested in what other people think and their opinion on who would run for president in 4 years as the topics states? :boggled: Anyway I dont think Cheney will run as well not only due to the statements but due to his health. How can Kerry not run? Is he not allowed to? Is there a rule that he cannot? Not trying to be smart-ass or anything but I just want to know if there is some sort of law/rule that indicates such.
 
Anaconda
How can Kerry not run? Is he not allowed to? Is there a rule that he cannot? Not trying to be smart-ass or anything but I just want to know if there is some sort of law/rule that indicates such.

I'm fairly certain there is. But I don't know.

No way. Condi is a far better choice from just about every aspect. What do you base this on?

How many female presidents have we had? None. How many black presidents? None. What happens when you put those two together? You get a candidate that's destined to fail miserably. She could be the best pick for president by a long shot and would still fail. (Just to make sure nobody confuses my words, I'm not prejudice, this is just my opinion of what would happen.)

Plus, I like Giuliani better. He's proven that he works well in the most stressful situations, and can handle any challenge thrown at him.
 
How many female presidents have we had? None. How many black presidents? None. What happens when you put those two together? You get a candidate that's destined to fail miserably.

Comon. She'd pick up the female vote in a big way because she's female. She'd pick up the black vote in a big way because she's black (yea you might think that's racist and sexist but it's what I think would happen). The female vote and the black vote is a huge chunk of what the democratic party stands on. But she'd also have the republican vote because she's a republican.

She'd totally dominate an election.
 
Guiliani would make an excellent candidate. He's extremely popular, he's seen as a hero in the eyes of millions of Americans, and he would likely break the Democratic hold on the state of New York. If the republicans ran with Guiliani, the democrats would not have a single hope at winning the election.
 
danoff
Comon. She'd pick up the female vote in a big way because she's female. She'd pick up the black vote in a big way because she's black (yea you might think that's racist and sexist but it's what I think would happen). The female vote and the black vote is a huge chunk of what the democratic party stands on. But she'd also have the republican vote because she's a republican.

She'd totally dominate an election.

I'd see us having an independant president if it came down between Clinton and Rice for democrats and republicans.

The republicans I know would vote for a democrat or independant before they voted for a republican woman. I guess that's what comes with being conservative?
 
Actually, if Clinton and Rice ran against eachother, and voters did not like either of them, I could see a third party come to the mainstream.
 
The republicans I know would vote for a democrat or independant before they voted for a republican woman. I guess that's what comes with being conservative?

I just don't believe there's that much anti-female sexism. I believe there is more pro-female sexism that the whole thing would go the opposite direction.
 
You freaking people are idiots.

Barack Obama? His FIRST TERM won't even be over. Jesus Christ, what is he, thirty? Yes, he won - to a guy registered in another state - and not even a border state!. He couldn't even vote for himself! And he was a replacement candidate, for Christ's sake! Anything other than an 80-20 victory would've been a disappointment for Obama.

And Arnold as the favorite? Even if the rules are changed, he's a loser with an unbelievably checkered past. And he's stupid as hell. And he's too moderate. Viper Zero, didn't you learn ANYTHING when John McCain ran in 2000? He wouldn't make enough Democrats cross over and he wouldn't be Conservative enough for most Republicans. I'm starting to think you look only at the trendy side of issues.

John Edwards was part of a LOSING TICKET, and in the last century no-one who's ever lost the popular presidential vote has come back and won (Nixon won the popular vote. And if he lost, it's only because Kennedy cheated. Yes, Kennedy cheated). Hillary Clinton is the PRIME example of the direction the party cannot continue to trend towards, say ALL the Democratic strategists. My God!

The Republicans will nominate either Bill Frist, Bill Owens, or Rudy Giuliani, period. Bill Owens is a longshot, but he kicks ass. Who knows about the Democrats, but I'm thinking Tom Harkin or Harry Reid. I'm not educated enough about state governors to make any more Democrat predictions.
 
Ev0
Guiliani would make an excellent candidate. He's extremely popular, he's seen as a hero in the eyes of millions of Americans, and he would likely break the Democratic hold on the state of New York. If the republicans ran with Guiliani, the democrats would not have a single hope at winning the election.
He would be a great candidate. Maybe not swinging the hardcore Liberal, but more centralist Democrats would be swung.

A Giuliani/Rice ticket sounds good to me.
 
A Giuliani/Rice ticket sounds good to me.

Okay, look past the Bush cabinent and your trendy leaders for FIVE SECONDS to see Bill Frist, an unbelievably intelligent medical doctor (he went to Princeton and actually
got in under his own power), involved in various African programs which consist of him flying out there and operating on Africans every couple of years. He's soft-spoken, devoid of scandal, and sure to lock up the heart of stupidity (ie the 'Soild South'), being from Tennessee. He's also your party leader in the Senate, and he's shown he can work with both sides, even if he did break the unspoken rule and campaign for JT in South Dakota. Bill Owens is cool too...
 
Back