Cheney 2008

[qwerty]

Cheney has said he will never run for president, but assuming he is re-elected as Veep, and over the next four years his image improves and he is no longer seen as a "dark" man, how do you think he would do?

[© tweed]

He won't run, and if he did, he would get slapped.

[YRABNNRM]

I hope not. After GWB, The GOP has to move towards the MIDDLE not the far-right.

[zachman]

His health and man-behind-the-mask image will always supercede his dark vision. I do believe that if Bush is reelected Iraq will be such a quagmire that Bush will be cheered away from the Presidency, but Humphrey still did pretty well, so anything could happen.

Cheney wouldn't do too well both because of my incubus that Bush's support will split two-fold in a single term, and Cheney's image as an old war horse. It would be similar to Ted Kennedy running in 2000.

[Reaganfan]

He will not run, if he did he would win.

[lidaker]

He would probably lose big. He's very conservative and his approval ratings are negative.

[PBrunsel]

He would probably lose big. He's very conservative and his approval ratings are negative.

I agree. I like Richard B. Cheney, but he seems like a man who would be good as a cabinet official, again, or Governor of Wyoming.

[opebo]

I don't think he'll run, but I think you're all much mistaken about him losing in 2008.  Four years from now we'll be in that 'sweet spot' economically again, like we were in the late nineties.  In other words unemployment will be so low wages will be bid up.  If Bush squeeks through this time round, even Cheney could win in 08 (though it will be Jeb).  Or if Kerry wins he'll win re-election easily.

[zachman]

I don't think Jeb will run in '08. It's a bad idea for him to succeed his brother... it just wouldn't look good. I would support his run anytime after 2008, though.

The Bush dynasty will be crushed by then.

[zachman]

I do think the nephew will still go on to a high office.

[qwerty]

George P. Bush will go far.

[The Duke]

Cheney would win, and here's why.

The Demcorats will nominate one of two people.  The first is Hilalry Clinton, and if you think Cheney's negatives are high, take a look at Hillary's.  Then there is John Edwards.  Edwards has a big following among political junkies, but no one else likes him, hence he wins only one primary (South Carolina, the state he was born in) and would not win re-election to the Senate.

Two ridiculous candidates, either one of whom would put Cheney in for four years, much as the atrocious Kerry campaign will be unable to capitalize on a weak incumbent in 2004.

[Michael Z]

Cheney would win, and here's why.

The Demcorats will nominate one of two people.  The first is Hilalry Clinton, and if you think Cheney's negatives are high, take a look at Hillary's.  Then there is John Edwards.  Edwards has a big following among political junkies, but no one else likes him, hence he wins only one primary (South Carolina, the state he was born in) and would not win re-election to the Senate.

Two ridiculous candidates, either one of whom would put Cheney in for four years, much as the atrocious Kerry campaign will be unable to capitalize on a weak incumbent in 2004.

Democrats aren't stupid enough to nominate Hillary, just as they weren't stupid enough to nominate Dean. Neither is Edwards just liked by political junkies. An Edwards/Harold Ford ticket could whoop Cheney's behind any time.

Anyway, I think it's too early to say whether Cheney would or wouldn't stand a chance in 2008. He doesn't look electable now, but most people in the mid-70s would have laughed you out of the shop had you said Ronald Reagan could become President.

[© tweed]

Anyway, I think it's too early to say whether Cheney would or wouldn't stand a chance in 2008. He doesn't look electable now, but most people in the mid-70s would have laughed you out of the shop had you said Ronald Reagan could become President.

Reagan was very charismatic and convincing.  I even started to like him before I stopped myself.  Cheney is neither.

[The Duke]

Yes, the Democrats are dumb enough to send up Hillary.  Don't kid yourself.

And Edwards IS only liked by political junkies.  That's why half the Democrats here have him in their signature, but he can't get people to vote for him in actual elections.  I think Harold Ford has a similar effect on people.  Those two are too smooth for their own good.

[opebo]

Yes, the Democrats are dumb enough to send up Hillary.  Don't kid yourself.

And Edwards IS only liked by political junkies.  That's why half the Democrats here have him in their signature, but he can't get people to vote for him in actual elections.  I think Harold Ford has a similar effect on people.  Those two are too smooth for their own good.

Good point about Edwards - he's never been a big winner.. barely got elected in North Carolina.  And Harold Ford is obviously not electorally beneficial to a Democratic ticket.

[Michael Z]

Yes, the Democrats are dumb enough to send up Hillary.  Don't kid yourself.

And you base this on... ?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

For the moment Edwards is virtually unknown on the national scene, obviously only political junkies are aware of him. Notwithstanding that he has the charisma and populist views which could appeal to a widescale audience. Besides, 2nd altogether in the Democratic primaries isn't exactly a case of people not voting for him.

Btw, are you trying to argue a point, or do you just want to irritate people who don't agree with you? I just want to know whether you are being deliberately condescending or not.

[The Duke]

Yes, the Democrats are dumb enough to send up Hillary.  Don't kid yourself.

And you base this on... ?

In a survey of 500 Democrats and Democrat-leanining Independents, pollster Frank Luntz pitted Clinton against Kerry in a head-to-head match-up. 47%said they'd dump Kerry if the former first lady would agree to be their standard bearer. Only 44%  said they'd stand by their man.

Democrats love Hillary.

And Edwards IS only liked by political junkies.  That's why half the Democrats here have him in their signature, but he can't get people to vote for him in actual elections. I think Harold Ford has a similar effect on people.  Those two are too smooth for their own good.

For the moment Edwards is virtually unknown on the national scene, obviously only political junkies are aware of him. Notwithstanding that he has the charisma and populist views which could appeal to a widescale audience. Besides, 2nd altogether in the Democratic primaries isn't exactly a case of people not voting for him.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The same could be said of John Kerry during the primaries.  Edwards lost to Kerry.  His populist appeal seems to be based on bashing free trade, which couldn't even help him win the Michigan caucus and Ohio primary, two places where you would expect a populist to do well.  You can't argue that primary voters didn't know who Edwards was, and he lost to Kerry.

You also can't argue that North Carolina doesn't know who he is, and he would not likely win re-election to the Senate.  Polls have shown this quite consistently.

Btw, are you trying to argue a point, or do you just want to irritate people who don't agree with you? I just want to know whether you are being deliberately condescending or not.

I am not being condescending at all, and I do really believe that Edwards and Ford are overrated politicians.  I also really do think Hillary is a shoe-in for the 2008 nomination unless Rudy or Pataki can beat her in 2006 (and Pataki can't beat her, even if he might try).

[StevenNick]

Democrats aren't stupid enough to nominate Hillary

You might be surprised at just how stupid the democratic party can be.

[Lunar]

Edwards didn't do badly in a primary with 9 people.  The reason why Edwards lost was because he lost Iowa, it's that simple.  By the time Michigan and others started rolling around, he simply couldn't pick up the momentum.  The reason why North Carolina barely voted for him was because the guy was already out of the race.

Look to me in the eyes and tell me that Clinton would do better than Edwards in the Iowa primary.  There is a reason why Dean lost big, it was because he was painted as a far left liberal by the media and the commen consensus.  Clinton is already painted like that, no chance.

[The Duke]

Lunar, if Edwards couldn't beat John Kerry in Iowa, how will he beat Hillary?  Of course Hillary could beat Edwards, after all, Kerry did.

[© tweed]

If the Iowa Caucuses were held on January 23rd instead of January 19th, Edwards would be the next president of the United States.

Sad...

[andrewa]

If the Iowa Caucuses were held on January 23rd instead of January 19th, Edwards would be the next president of the United States.

Sad...

Even if immediately Wes Clark went out.
Clark was invented to stop Dean; but Dean stopped himself.
Then Clark staying in race was a great damage for Edwards,
separating the South. Clark really stopped Edwards.    

[© tweed]

Even if immediately Wes Clark went out.
Clark was invented to stop Dean; but Dean stopped himself.
Then Clark staying in race was a great damage for Edwards,
separating the South. Clark really stopped Edwards.    

Well, if Clark was out, Edwards would have Taken 50% in SC and won OK on Feb 3.

On Feb 10, Kerry wins VA, Edwards wins TN.

Edwards wins Wisconsin.

Super tuesday becomes competitive...Edwards wins GA and OH and MN, and maybe even Maryland and New York...

He sweeps southern Tuesday

Illinois on March 16th is an epic battlle.

[KEmperor]

He would never run.  Despite what the general public believes, VPs are not that common in suceeding their Presidents.