Democrats for 08

[eastcoaster782]

Edwards, Obama, Clinton and more (oh my!)

Wow, it's only January 07 and things are already heating up in the political world. Don't know who I'd vote for yet, but I will say that this group of Democrats look good. If only there was a way to bottle them all up into one super-candidate... ;):

[yankeeyosh]

The 08 election season is looking like it will be a classic...

[grneyedmustang]

I'm getting the popcorn ready. This election should be VERY interesting!

[yankeeyosh]

I'm getting the popcorn ready. This election should be VERY interesting!

I'll bring the booze :)

[sondra_finchley]

Anything interesting on the Republican side? I thought I saw Brownback enter today as well. Just curious- I used to be on the fence about Hilary, but now Im liking the idea of an Edwards/Obama (or vice versa) ticket. We need young and forward thinking in this country, damnit! :P

[arrow]

Anything interesting on the Republican side? I thought I saw Brownback enter today as well. Just curious- I used to be on the fence about Hilary, but now Im liking the idea of an Edwards/Obama (or vice versa) ticket. We need young and forward thinking in this country, damnit! :P

The only one I know about on the Republican side (who is actually a viable candidate) is McCaine, and he's losing credibility with both the extreme right (to whom he's been pandering lately) and the moderates (who he's alienating by pandering to the extreme right). Even so, he's taken on a pretty dirty PR team that could turn things around for him. Blech.

I like both Obama and Edwards, but I think Edwards has a better shot. They both appear to be great options at this point, but I am kind of cynical about presidential politics these days (thanks to the infamous 2000 and 2004 elections). 2006 gave me some hope, but I'm still wary.

[PenforPrez]

I'm concerned about the Electoral College geography. Kerry was one big state away from getting there. But the Democrats lost Iowa and West Virginia in '04, and both of those are fairly Democratic at the state level. We have to start winning more battleground states.

WV I understand. Bush is staunchly for more coal mining, and that's about all WV has. That and a lot of rugged mountains and chemical plants. So that made SOME sense. I think WV will go Democratic in '08; the Sago mine disaster is leaving a bitter taste in many mouths on unregulated coal mining. But that's only five electoral votes. We need more.

Ohio and Missouri are what I'm curious about. Ohio was a wholesale, bloody slaughter of Republicans in 2006. Many of the high-level state and Congressional Republicans were kicked out or defeated. The problem with Ohio is what will dominate their '08 thinking: Their social conservatism or their pro-union economic liberalism? Ohio is 20 or 21 electoral votes.

My beloved home of Missouri is a harder question. We made our best Democratic gains this decade in '06 with the election of Claire McCaskill to the Senate, and a lot of Democrats won local offices. We also have a VERY unpopular Republican incumbent governor here; so much so that Matt Blunt has a good chance of losing the Republican primary.

As far as Missouri's Presidential vote, it depends on who the Democrats nominate. John Edwards would be the best chance in MO; a Southern moderate will always be competitive. Hillary is a guaranteed loser. Obama would be a big question mark, but I wouldn't bet against him here. MO has 11 electoral votes.

I'm also looking at Arkansas; the Democrats are coming back there. The same in Colorado, but I don't think CO is quite there yet. I wish I felt better about Nevada, Tennessee and Florida, but I don't. Or Virginia or Arizona.

Paul

[PenforPrez]

The only one I know about on the Republican side (who is actually a viable candidate) is McCaine, and he's losing credibility with both the extreme right (to whom he's been pandering lately) and the moderates (who he's alienating by pandering to the extreme right). Even so, he's taken on a pretty dirty PR team that could turn things around for him. Blech.

McCain will never be President for the same reason he would win in a landslide. He plays his own tune -- most of the time.

I'm still laughing at Rudy Giuliani trying to impress Southern conservatives. Nice try! But that's NEVER going to work.

Sam Brownback is still my pick for the GOP nomination. He's likeable, he's experienced, he's far-right Christian conservative and he's not a polarizing lightning rod yet.

I'm worried about Tom Tancredo making ANY traction. He's a thinly-veiled racist, plain and simple. Tancredo has next to no chance at the nomination. That's not why he's running anyway. He wants to make immigration (or his sick view thereof) a central issue. What I worry about is the possibility of Tancredo in the VP slot.

I like both Obama and Edwards, but I think Edwards has a better shot. They both appear to be great options at this point, but I am kind of cynical about presidential politics these days (thanks to the infamous 2000 and 2004 elections). 2006 gave me some hope, but I'm still wary.

Edwards does have the better shot. I just cannot stomach how bursting full of shit he is. He makes Bill Clinton look like Howard Dean. :eek: This country cannot accept the real deal.

More and more, I suspect NOBODY will win 2008. It will end in a deadlock and we'll have to have a council of greedy lobbyists (a la Tom Noe in Ohio) run the country for four years. :rolleyes:

Paul

[wordsmith]

McCain is the only Republican I'd personally give a moment's worth of notice.

[cheshrcarol]

I like Giuliani and is one of the only people on earth who could convince me to vote republican. I've said before, if he can make the same kind of progress on a national level that he did with NYC, we'll all be better off.

McCain lost me when he suggested sending more troops. Personally, I want us out of there with a competent plan. Not throwing more resources and lives at the problem.

[redav]

McCain lost me when he suggested sending more troops. Personally, I want us out of there with a competent plan. Not throwing more resources and lives at the problem.
The problem arises when no one really knows what a "competent plan" is. What we're doing now isn't working, and simply pulling out won't work either. NOTHING will work unless Maliki gets his govt to do its job. Maybe it's possible to improve things without more troops. That would be ideal. Whichever the govt decides to do, I will support until there is sufficient evidence to disprove the action. I do admire those like McCain & Lieberman for admitting that we need to win and that there will not be an easy or quick way to do it. I hate it when politics becomes more important than doing a job correctly--I think that's one reason we're in such a mess already.

[and1grad]

I think that entire situation IS our politics and no longer about whats right, especially concerning a "needing to win" angle. I still struggle to see why anyone thinks there is, or will be, a solution that yields any form of positive result there. Throwing money & resources at a problem isnt always gonna solve it. To me, McCain's suggestion reeks of a gambler thinking one more hand will turn his luck.

[Jersey_Steve]

It's only January 2007 and the Democrats have already lost the 2008 election.

As much as I would like to believe that we, as a country and a collective whole, have gotten past minor genetic variations like skin tone and gender... we haven't. I see no way that either an African-American man(Obama) or a woman(Clinton) can win the 2008 presidential election. All it can possibly do is further divide the country along Red State-Blue State lines.

And the worst part will be the Obama supporters saying a vote not for him is a vote for racism and the Clinton supporters saying a vote not for her is a vote for sexism.

Good job Dems, I didn't think it was possible to lose an election 18 months before it occurs.

[and1grad]

It's only January 2007 and the Democrats have already lost the 2008 election.

As much as I would like to believe that we, as a country and a collective whole, have gotten past minor genetic variations like skin tone and gender... we haven't. I see no way that either an African-American man(Obama) or a woman(Clinton) can win the 2008 presidential election. All it can possibly do is further divide the country along Red State-Blue State lines.

And the worst part will be the Obama supporters saying a vote not for him is a vote for racism and the Clinton supporters saying a vote not for her is a vote for sexism.

Good job Dems, I didn't think it was possible to lose an election 18 months before it occurs.
Sadly, I cant wholeheartedly disagree with any of that. This country ISNT that progressive.

[yankeeyosh]

Sadly, I cant wholeheartedly disagree with any of that. This country ISNT that progressive.

I think Obama can win...I don't think Hillary can.

[Jersey_Steve]

I think Obama can win...I don't think Hillary can.

I think Obama has the better chance mostly because he isn't saddled with the baggage that Hillary is. But if Obama gets the Democratic nod... his race will be brought up by the mass media, and that will polarize people.

Like I said, the Red State-Blue State division will be more clear in this election. The liberal leaning states will go strongly Obama and the conservative leaning states will go strongly Republican. No need to worry about recounts at least.

[eastcoaster782]

If the Dems stay positive and focus on the issues that matter most to us, I think any one of them can win.

[and1grad]

If the Dems stay positive and focus on the issues that matter most to us, I think any one of them can win.
LOL!! Seriously!?!? Ask Kerry how well that worked.

[yankeeyosh]

I think Obama has the better chance mostly because he isn't saddled with the baggage that Hillary is. But if Obama gets the Democratic nod... his race will be brought up by the mass media, and that will polarize people.

Like I said, the Red State-Blue State division will be more clear in this election. The liberal leaning states will go strongly Obama and the conservative leaning states will go strongly Republican. No need to worry about recounts at least.

I don't think race will be much of an issue if the Bu$h administration continues to do its shenanigans. I would not be surprised if even Miss. goes Democrat because it is already 40% African American, and thus would only need about 20% of the white vote to win (and whites have actually voted for African-Americans in Miss. believe it or not).

[Jersey_Steve]

I don't think race will be much of an issue if the Bu$h administration continues to do its shenanigans. I would not be surprised if even Miss. goes Democrat because it is already 40% African American, and thus would only need about 20% of the white vote to win (and whites have actually voted for African-Americans in Miss. believe it or not).

I believe you, and in a small scale it might work. But on such a large scale, I don't think you're going to get the results you hope for. They said a similar thing about Kerry in '04, how our generation would rise up and vote Democrat and landslide Kerry into the White House. That didn't work out so well if I recall.

[and1grad]

Race is ALWAYS an issue. There's NO WAY it doesnt come to the forefront.

[yankeeyosh]

I believe you, and in a small scale it might work. But on such a large scale, I don't think you're going to get the results you hope for. They said a similar thing about Kerry in '04, how our generation would rise up and vote Democrat and landslide Kerry into the White House. That didn't work out so well if I recall.

Yes...the thing is African Americans historically voted in lower numbers than whites in the South. That might be vestiges of the pharaohic system of poll taxes, literacy tests, and downright intimidation and violence that was in place until the Sixties, and in some places, well into the Seventies. So the key is that African Americans have to come out in droves. I suspect that this might be the year.

Our gen actually did a pretty good job in 04, btw...there was a rather sharp upswing in the vote.

[eastcoaster782]

LOL!! Seriously!?!? Ask Kerry how well that worked.

That's the kind of attitude that gets us nowhere.

I work in politics and we're not like the "beltway Dems." The organization I work supported candidates this past election cycle that the DSCC or DCCC either ignored or gave little support to (i.e. Jerry McNearny in CA). And you know what, these candidates pulled it off and won in areas that have been "red" for years. We are changing the politics for the better and we're going to make sure the best candidate wins the nomination.