|
|
Post by rockysigman on Dec 12, 2006 19:56:02 GMT -5
I suspect that if he is running for re-election in 2010, his opposition will be someone stronger than Alan Keyes. But you're totally right -- unless something drastically changes his image before then, I can't see the Republican Party focusing too much of their effort on that particular Senate seat, as it's probably untouchable. So it will be a run for Prez or Veep that will be his first strong challenge. In that regard, waiting until 2012 won't really make much of a difference.
|
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Dec 12, 2006 20:10:22 GMT -5
I see your point about Obama being able to control his image better without having a long record, Ken. That definately makes sense, although I still think that that will be an area in which he's likely to be attacked. Sure but repeating "he doesn't have enough experience" is likely to be less effective then if he had a long record they use against him. The simple fact is without a record to paint as liberal or a flip flopper or weak on this or that all he really has to do is stay likable and seem like he has good ideas, which I don't think will be that hard for him. |
|
|
|
Post by Kensterberg on Dec 12, 2006 20:11:57 GMT -5
I see your point about Obama being able to control his image better without having a long record, Ken. That definately makes sense, although I still think that that will be an area in which he's likely to be attacked. Sure but repeating "he doesn't have enough experience" is likely to be less effective then if he had a long record they use against him. The simple fact is without a record to paint as liberal or a flip flopper or weak on this or that all he really has to do is stay likable and seem like he has good ideas, which I don't think will be that hard for him. This is exactly what Dubya did to beat Anne Richards for the Texas governorship, and again against Gore. I tell ya, a long record is more of a liability than a plus today. |
|
|
|
Post by phil on Dec 27, 2006 10:43:42 GMT -5
Someone should start a "2008 Presidential Election" board ...
John Edwards Kicks Off His Campaign Tour?
(12/26/06 -- CHAPEL HILL) - John Edwards, the former North Carolina Senator, will likely make a White House run and the announcement is expected to come in just two days.
According to published reports, Edwards is scheduled to travel to New Orleans to make the announcement. He will appear in the Katrina ravaged ninth ward where recovery efforts continue more than a year later.
Edwards has been rumored as a candidate since 2004 when he made his first White House attempt. He is considered one of the top democratic candidates along with New York Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Eyewitness News will be on the road with John Edwards when he makes his announcement in New Orleans. Look for live reports this Thursday right here on eyewitness news.
The campaign kickoff tour will continue through the weekend and Edwards has rallies planned in Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina. The tour will end here in Chapel Hill at his campaign office at Southern Village Green.
******
Forget Hillary ! The only Crat ticket
that got any chance of beating McCain
is Gore/Obama ...
|
|
|
|
Post by rockysigman on Dec 27, 2006 11:37:12 GMT -5
Forget Hillary ! The only Crat ticket that got any chance of beating McCain is Gore/Obama ... What makes you think that Gore would beat McCain? Gore cannot be elected at this point. I think he'd make a fine President, but he will never hold the office. And I'm not so certain McCain can get the Republican nomination either. |
|
|
|
Post by Kensterberg on Dec 27, 2006 11:48:49 GMT -5
If Gore got seriously interested in running and got back on the campaign trail, I think he could win. His views have been shown to be at least less obviously wrong than the conservative Republican ones that Dubya ran on (and at least governed partially on). And this time around he'd be able to unabashadly campaign on Clinton's legacy, which is looking very good indeed right now.
I'm going out on a limb here and going to predict that McCain will not even win the Republican nomination. He's flipped on a bunch of issues over the past six years, the right wing doesn't feel entirely comfortable with him, and there is no more "moderate" Republican block. He'll be outflanked on the right in the primaries, and if he does get the nom, his flips and unpopular positions on things like the war in Iraq will give the crucial swing-vote in the middle of the electorate to the Dems. I'm not sure if McCain could (after a hard-fought campaign) beat any of the likely Democratic contenders. He'd have his best shot against Hillary, as each would lose their own parties "core" constituancy (Hillary having lost tons of cred with the more liberal Dems and McCain out of favor with the religious right), and he'd be more likely to win the mushy middle.
But Jesus H. Christ, it's only Dec. 2006! I predict that there will be some pretty significant goings on in the next Congress that will have a huge impact on the shape of the next Presidential race. If any of the allegations of high level misconduct within the Bush administration are substantiated, it will be very hard for anyone who has been a loyal Republican (as McCain has) to overcome that taint of association. It would be ironic if McCain -- who so successfully embodied the anti-Dubya in 2000 -- was thwarted in his political ambitions by the compromises he's engaged in with his own party. He probably would have been better off if he'd distanced himself from Bush, or even became on independent, following the 2000 election. He'd have a lot more credibility, and a lot fewer flip-flops to explain away.
|
|
|
|
Post by phil on Dec 27, 2006 12:06:52 GMT -5
But Jesus H. Christ, it's only Dec. 2006!
HÉ! Blame the Média and their speculations ...
I'm not the one talking about 2008
but the "candidates" testing the water !!
(although Baby Bush departure will not come soon enough)
|
|
|
|
Post by kmc on Dec 27, 2006 12:36:45 GMT -5
Not that it matters, but any Republican that gets put up would lose to Obama in the debates. I'm just saying.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kensterberg on Dec 27, 2006 12:38:39 GMT -5
And you're right, Kenny.
|
|
|
|
Post by rockysigman on Dec 27, 2006 12:43:14 GMT -5
The debates don't matter all that much (see: 2004).
|
|
|
|
Post by kmc on Dec 27, 2006 12:45:23 GMT -5
It's true. It's more important to show your commitment to killing Arabs.
|
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Dec 27, 2006 12:45:36 GMT -5
The GOP is going to force McCain to run as someone's VP, my money's still on Romney to pick up the nomination.
|
|
|
|
Post by rockysigman on Dec 27, 2006 12:49:12 GMT -5
Isn't Romney pro-choice though? That could turn off the religious right to him. And the fact that he's a Mormon could turn off the rest of America.
|
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Dec 27, 2006 13:01:31 GMT -5
He's strict pro-lifer, only in cases of rape or incest, which will still be a sticky point but he's anti-gay marriage. Both parties are going to have to run someone closer to the center then in the last few election. The GOP can't go crazy right just pick the religious right back up or they lose the rest of the country. I don't know how much his being Mormon will effect things...I know he uses the long "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" instead of "Mormon", a lot will figure as long as he believes in Jesus he's ok.
|
|
|
|
Post by rockysigman on Dec 27, 2006 13:07:47 GMT -5
Okay, I just skimmed Wikipedia to clear up my confusion, because I was certain that he was pro-choice.
When he ran for governor in 2002, his official platfom said, "As Governor, Mitt Romney would protect the current pro-choice status quo in Massachusetts. No law would change. The choice to have an abortion is a deeply personal one. Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not the government's."
So in that instance he sounds pro-choice.
Since then, however, he's changed his views and now claims to be anti-choice. He says that the stem cell debate swayed him over.
So...kind of hard to guess what his actual views are. Both viewpoints seem politically expedient (being pro-choice is probably helpful for a Republican trying to get elected in Massachusetts, but being anti-choice sure helps a Republican trying to set himself up to run for President). I don't know if the flip-flop will hurt him when he's running. Probably not.
|
|
