candidates who will get nowhere in 2008

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

McCain: He'll get nowhere because he won't run. He'll be 72. He has skin cancer. Some pics of him just look horrible. His wife has suffered a stroke (and she's only about 50), and he'll be very sickly and in no condition to run a campaign. Neither will she. He said after 2000 it's very unlikely he'll ever run again, and there's no way I can see him doing so in 2008.

Dean: I doubt he'll run either, but if he does he's old news. Plus he got all his momentum from an anti-war campaign. He won't be able to do that in 2008. What's he going to run on, he had one of the most commanding leads in primary history and still lost? Look at him to seek some Dem leadership post, or possibly the Senate seat in 2006 if Jeffords retires. But for anything else, he's out.

Giuliani: I'm not even convinced he'll run (he has yet to say anything of the sort, and prior to 9/11 a run from him would be considered a joke), but if he got in the Religious Right would sink him fast. He dumped his wife and moved in with a gay couple. His position on abortion is as liberal as Kerry's. You think Robertson and Falwell will tolerate this? His anti-gun record is huge, the NRA aren't going to deal with that either, and the primary process favors conservative states. He might have a chance in NH, but Iowa and South Carolina are big flops, and there's too many other pro-gun states early. If McCain was too liberal, he definately is.

Pataki: The only candidate who's even mentioned a possibility of a run so far in this, he also has the same problem of Guiliani of being too socially liberal for the primary electorate (the most conservative of the GOP), not to mention he's now very unpopular in NY and very likely to lose in 2006.

Hagel: McCain part II. Too much of a maverick, too hated by the party elites, too easy to take down.

Edwards: Remember Gary Hart and Ed Muskie? Plus he's going to have to justify doing nothing for 4 years.

Also, I'm not convinced Hillary will run, she has yet to say she has any intentions of such, and until I see some actual evidence that she has any (no, what Dick Morris says doesn't count), I will not consider her definately in.

[Hermit]

John Kerry.

Also, I think Giuliani's run is dependant on how good or bad the next four years go. If Bush does terribly and the Democrats look like they have a good chance, the Republicans may run a more center candidate.

[Ben.]

McCain: He'll get nowhere because he won't run. He'll be 72. He has skin cancer. Some pics of him just look horrible. His wife has suffered a stroke (and she's only about 50), and he'll be very sickly and in no condition to run a campaign. Neither will she. He said after 2000 it's very unlikely he'll ever run again, and there's no way I can see him doing so in 2008.

Disagree, McCain has about a quarter of the Republican Party who hate him and would be dead set against him, that said he’s about the only political who could more that make up for that in support from Independents and Democrats in a general election. He doesn’t look like he’s in his late sixties and where he to be elected I think there would be no guarantee he’d seek a second term. In short if he runs and can get the Republican nomination, and with the 2008 contest looking wide open he could well, then it would take a truly exceptional Democrat to beat him and a sacrificial lamb like Dodd, Richardson or even Kerry (that said Kerry would never run against McCain) would probably get the nod.
    

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I’d say that Dean will either run or back someone like Feingold as the Liberal “standard bearer” either way he (or Feingold would not get the nomination) but he could have an important impact on the primaries. It would be interesting if he ran for the senate, I think Jeffords might well not run for re-election and while I disagree strongly with Dean on many issues it would be interesting to see how he behaved if he reached the Senate.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

He could well beat Hillary or even replace Pataki, but I’d agree that Giuliani just would not get the GOP nomination, while his stance on crime and terrorism would normally make him a lock, with his position on abortion and guns he’d get killed in the GOP primaries.      

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Disagree, Pataki could get the nomination, he has been very careful not to get drawn on issues such as abortion and gun ownership and that places him in a much better position than Rudy. Added to this Pataki has a very good record as Governor and has put in a lot of effort over the last few years in preparing the way for a presidential run and ingratiating himself with the Republican leadership, however despite all of this he would proably lose out to someone who was more ostensibly socially conservative.      

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Disagree (again), Hagel has been less circumspect than McCain, sure he’s a moderate but he much more careful about which issues to disagree with the party on, he’s a veteran and a foreign policy hawk and while he’s not an ultra-conservative on social issues he remains pretty close to the GOP mainstream on social issues. So he’s got a better shot than Pataki I would argue.          

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I’d agree, Edwards would be uncompetitive next time around, as I’ve been saying a fair bit over the last few days if he stil wants to be president he’s got to take the long term view and do what FDR did… go back to NC, network for four years, shake off the “liberal tag”, associate himself with the Blue Dog Coalition and get ready for a run for Governor in 2008 and then look to make a presidential run in 2012 or 2016.    

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don’t know what Hillary’s going to do, I hope she doesn’t run but she may and if she does she’ll lose because the right and centre of the party will see her as “too leftwing” and the left will be looking for an “antiestablishment Dean II” so she wouldn’t win even if she ran, for the simple reason most people within the party wouldn’t see her as

[12th Doctor]

McCain: He'll get nowhere because he won't run. He'll be 72. He has skin cancer. Some pics of him just look horrible. His wife has suffered a stroke (and she's only about 50), and he'll be very sickly and in no condition to run a campaign. Neither will she. He said after 2000 it's very unlikely he'll ever run again, and there's no way I can see him doing so in 2008.

Dean: I doubt he'll run either, but if he does he's old news. Plus he got all his momentum from an anti-war campaign. He won't be able to do that in 2008. What's he going to run on, he had one of the most commanding leads in primary history and still lost? Look at him to seek some Dem leadership post, or possibly the Senate seat in 2006 if Jeffords retires. But for anything else, he's out.

Giuliani: I'm not even convinced he'll run (he has yet to say anything of the sort, and prior to 9/11 a run from him would be considered a joke), but if he got in the Religious Right would sink him fast. He dumped his wife and moved in with a gay couple. His position on abortion is as liberal as Kerry's. You think Robertson and Falwell will tolerate this? His anti-gun record is huge, the NRA aren't going to deal with that either, and the primary process favors conservative states. He might have a chance in NH, but Iowa and South Carolina are big flops, and there's too many other pro-gun states early. If McCain was too liberal, he definately is.

Pataki: The only candidate who's even mentioned a possibility of a run so far in this, he also has the same problem of Guiliani of being too socially liberal for the primary electorate (the most conservative of the GOP), not to mention he's now very unpopular in NY and very likely to lose in 2006.

Hagel: McCain part II. Too much of a maverick, too hated by the party elites, too easy to take down.

Edwards: Remember Gary Hart and Ed Muskie? Plus he's going to have to justify doing nothing for 4 years.

Also, I'm not convinced Hillary will run, she has yet to say she has any intentions of such, and until I see some actual evidence that she has any (no, what Dick Morris says doesn't count), I will not consider her definately in.

For the most part, I agree with you, except on Pataki.

The difference between Pataki and Giuliani is that Rudy is a true social liberal (just admit it, he is) except when it comes to law and order.  Pataki is far more moderate.  He would probably lose in a lot of southern states, but win most everywhere else if social issues become a major focus.

If for some reason terrorism or North Korea/Iran becomes the main focus again then all bets are off.  Pataki would do rather well and even Rudy would have a 70% chance of getting into at least the late primaries.

[Sarnstrom]

John McCain will never be President. Here's why he was not born in the U.S. He was born in Panama, which was once U.S. territory but no longer is. CNN's Inside Politics did a story on this a couple of weeks ago and stated that had McCain been the GOP candidate in 2000, the Supreme Court likely would have had two cases to deal with. First who won the election and second is McCain constitutionally eligible to become President. They also stated that a McCain 2008 run would be to controversial because of this.

[Ben.]

John McCain will never be President. Here's why he was not born in the U.S. He was born in Panama, which was once U.S. territory but no longer is. CNN's Inside Politics did a story on this a couple of weeks ago and stated that had McCain been the GOP candidate in 2000, the Supreme Court likely would have had two cases to deal with. First who won the election and second is McCain constitutionally eligible to become President. They also stated that a McCain 2008 run would be to controversial because of this.

That means jack... it doesn't matter if you where born outside of the United States, what matters is if you are born a citizen or become one, McCain most certainly was born a United States Citizen.

[Hermit]

John McCain will never be President. Here's why he was not born in the U.S. He was born in Panama, which was once U.S. territory but no longer is. CNN's Inside Politics did a story on this a couple of weeks ago and stated that had McCain been the GOP candidate in 2000, the Supreme Court likely would have had two cases to deal with. First who won the election and second is McCain constitutionally eligible to become President. They also stated that a McCain 2008 run would be to controversial because of this.

McCain was born an American citizen to two Americans in American territory. This isn't an issue.

[Erc]

Goldwater had the same problem.  So what.

Until everyone started mentioning him within the last month, I was convinced (as a resident of New York) that Pataki was the archetypical "state governor"--ie one who goes, serves as state governor for eons, and doesn't go on from there.  The very fact that he will run surprises me, and I remain convinced that he will not take the nomination (barring a dearth of other reasonable candidates).  Plus, a Rudy v. Pataki run would just be weird.


I think we can all agree that Bill Frist's campaign will be the major flop of '08.  He's the most active out of the gate, but I doubt he'll even last to the DC straw poll.

[12th Doctor]

I think we can all agree that Bill Frist's campaign will be the major flop of '08.  He's the most active out of the gate, but I doubt he'll even last to the DC straw poll.

I agree.  I don't think Frist will go anywhere.  I still have money on Pataki though.

[Alcon]

First who won the election and second is McCain constitutionally eligible to become President. They also stated that a McCain 2008 run would be to controversial because of this.

McCain would have squashed Gore flatter than a pancake if he ran in 2000, that would not be an issue.

Yes, and he would have been an excellent President. It's a shame that Bush crushed the hell out of him in the primaries with a smear campaign.

[??????????]

Santorum/Bush '08!

[Ben.]

Santorum/Bush '08!

Won't happen states, Jeb (who despite all the bile some Dems like to pour over him) is a guy i like but he doesn't seem interested and it wouldn't be good for the country to have a brother following straight on froma brother... just too weird.

The top contenders as i see it at the moment for the GOP are, McCain (if he ever got the GOP nomination the Dems should just give up), Pataki, Allen, Hagel, Owens and Frist… Santorum (assuming he wins re-election and knowing Rick he probably will) may run but he won’t get the nomination he is just way too stridently conservative for the country at large, I hasen to add that it more a question of style and attitude than he actual polices… the most likely contender would be Owens he socially conservative and fiscally responsible with a solid record from his time as Governor of Colorado and would be competitive in a presidential race, that said if McCain can win the primaries and selects someone like Allen as his running mate then he’d win hands down but I’m conflicted over what the mood is within the Republican party over nominating McCain, some love him and some hate him and others seem to have been won round when he slapped down Kerry’s offer of the VP spot and was the key note speaker at the RNC… that was a damn fine speech though.

As for the Democrats, if McCain runs then the Dems would be best of with a sacrificial lamb, Dodd, Richardson, Vilsack etc…  if someone like Owens or Allen gets the nod then the race will be very competitive but a solid candidate will be need with plenty of experience so Bayh, Rendell, Lincoln or perhaps Nelson… if Santorum gets the nod take a risk and nominate Warner with Bayh as his VP, but my guess would be that Allen or Owens will get it and Warner is best of looking to either take on Allen in 2006 or look for John Warner to retire in 2008.

As for Hillary, hmmm… GO HOME! And Edwards? I like the guy but he’s not going to be competitive in the slightest by the time of 2008 if he cares about his state and ever wants to be president he should go back to NC network for four years get plenty of publicity, distance himself from his 2004 vp run and then look to run for Governor in 2008 with an eye to the 2012 or 2016 contest. 

[Hitchabrut]

Who seriously thinks Clinton could beat Giuliania in Alabama or Mississippi?

[Ben.]

Who seriously thinks Clinton could beat Giuliania in Alabama or Mississippi?

Moore would probably run (and he’d ratchet up a fair few votes in the south in a contest between a liberal republican and a very liberal Democrat) , but anyone given the choice between Rudy and Hillary is going to go for Rudy... well most people. 

[Hermit]

Santorum/Bush '08!

You're quite right; neither of them will get anywhere in 2008.

[Gustaf]

The Republicans won't nominate a moderate, not a chance. They don't think they have to. They're getting used to running conservatives like Reagan and Bush and winning. One of the few things I see favouring the Democrats in the future is the over-confidence of Republicans. They're STILL congratulating themselves on winning Rural White Social Conservatives, especially in the South, and forgetting that this is a shrinking group. The Democrats on the other hand have learned the hard way to adapt and hide their true believes. When things change around, as they always do, this will come back and hurt the GOP. I expect the conservative elements to make sure that a conservative candidate is nominated in 2008.