conservatism: 2008 USA Presidential Candidates

Colorado Russ (

russj) wrote in

conservatism,
@ 2006-12-02 22:43:00

2008 USA Presidential Candidates
Now that the midterm elections are over, and President Bush is term-limited, the 2008 Presidential Campaign is starting.
The Associated Press has compiled a roster of likely candidates.
So who do you favor, and why? What do you know about these candidates?

**2008 USA Presidential Candidates**
Republicans	Democrats
Newt Gingrich (former House Speaker)	Senator Chris Dodd, Conn.
Governor George Pataki, N.Y.	Senator Joe Biden, Del.
Rudy Giuliana (former New York Mayor)	Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, N.Y.
Governor Mitt Romney, Mass.	Senator John Kerry, Mass.
Governor Mike Huckabee, Ark.	John Edwards, N.C. (former Senator)
Tommy Thompson (former Governor of Wis.)	Retired General Wesley Clark
Senator Chuck Hagel, Neb.	Senator Evan Bayh, Ind.
Senator Sam Brownback, Kan.	Senator Barack Obama, Ill.
Congressman Tom Tancredo, Colo.	Governor Tom Vilsack, Iowa
Senator John McCain, Ariz.	Governor Bill Richardson, N.M.
Congressman Duncan Hunter, Calif.

(Post a new comment)

	ccnuggie 2006-12-03 06:45 am UTC (link)
	I want hilary or barack to get the nomination for the dems...no way will a non white male win the presidency... /Yeah, I said it...anyone care to disagree, or will you just call me a racist, sexist pig? (Reply to this)(Thread)

smashingjoker
2006-12-03 06:52 am UTC (link)

I think Hillary wouldn't win but I don't think it's because she's a woman. It's more because people don't like Hillary.

As for Obama, I think he has a pretty good shot. He's been a politician for years and years so the whole lack of experience thing is pretty bogus.

But more importantly, he'd probably swing states like Ohio and Florida into the blue column (and maybe Nevada and Colorado and other mountain west states as well).

Regardless of how you feel about his politics, he has the celebrity personality factor, which has been what has won pretty much every election since 1980 aside from 1988 maybe.

Furthermore, the man is brilliant. When he speaks, he doesn't patronize you like most politicians of both parties do. He challenges your intellect and makes you really rethink your stances. It's incredible. I saw him most Thursday mornings for a good 3 months and was blown away every time.

He also has the religious thing going for him. Big plus in this country.

I wasn't sold on him until recently, but I think he's probably the best chance we have now that Warner's out.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

	wik 2006-12-03 03:27 pm UTC (link)
	As the previous commenter said, there's a metric shitload of stuff to hate about Hillary without touching on the fact that she's a woman. I think the nation is ready for a female president, just not her. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	princedisciple 2006-12-03 08:01 pm UTC (link)
	Not only will 95-98% of the country vote for a women or an African-American, but the 2-5% who wouldn't probably aren't going Democrat anyway. It wouldn't be much of a net loss. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	fallingangels 2006-12-04 05:44 am UTC (link)
	Hi, it's 2006. Welcome to the 21st century. Look around. It is quite nice here. It is time to leave the 1950's and live with us in the now. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) -

throwingstardna, 2006-12-04 05:54 pm UTC

	throwingstardna 2006-12-04 05:53 pm UTC (link)
	I agree. I don't think it's racist or sexist in the slightest to point out how unlikely such a result is at this point in time. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	dreadnaught_x 2006-12-03 06:45 am UTC (link)
	I would like to see Tancredo run, however, the chances of that are pretty slim, methinks. I can't say that I know a whole lot about him, except his strong stance against amnesty and immigration in general. Though I think the chances are slim, now I know there's a possibility that he'll be on the ballot, I guess I should start looking into his policies a bit more :) (Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) -

squidb0i, 2006-12-03 07:28 am UTC

(no subject) -

dreadnaught_x, 2006-12-03 07:29 am UTC

(no subject) -

squidb0i, 2006-12-03 07:36 am UTC

(no subject) -

dreadnaught_x, 2006-12-03 08:40 am UTC

(no subject) -

republicat, 2006-12-03 10:58 am UTC

(no subject) -

dreadnaught_x, 2006-12-03 11:11 am UTC

One of my favorite quotes... -

republicat, 2006-12-03 11:19 am UTC

Re: One of my favorite quotes... -

dreadnaught_x, 2006-12-03 10:23 pm UTC

Re: One of my favorite quotes... -

republicat, 2006-12-03 10:36 pm UTC

Re: One of my favorite quotes... -

dreadnaught_x, 2006-12-03 10:40 pm UTC

Re: One of my favorite quotes... -

republicat, 2006-12-03 10:58 pm UTC

Re: One of my favorite quotes... -

dreadnaught_x, 2006-12-03 11:03 pm UTC

(no subject) -

wik, 2006-12-03 03:29 pm UTC

	smashingjoker 2006-12-03 06:47 am UTC (link)
	I think the GOP would be better off if Tancredo doesn't run. He would be an issue candidate rather than a serious contender, which is fine, but he comes across as such a racist that he'll turn off lots of people from the party. (Reply to this)

Republicans

smashingjoker
2006-12-03 07:01 am UTC (link)

George Pataki

He might be an interesting dark horse candidate. He might be able to pick off states like New Hampshire or Maine and maybe even one of the Midwest swing states (Wisconsin, Minnesota), but when faced with a choice between him or other governors like Thompson or Huckabee, I don't think he'll get the nomination

Giuliani

Although everyone is worried about his social stances - pro choice, pro gay rights - he's incredibly popular amongst conservatives in this country, and is one of the most requested speakers at Republican events in the nation. However, he might be stepping into the fray a little too late. 9/11 has been overshadowed by Iraq in terms of the weighty foreign policy issue, so his moment in the sun might be gone. If he gets the nomination, look for a religious conservative to mount a 3rd party candidacy and maybe win a couple bible belt states. I don't see him getting the nomination, and if he does, I don't see him winning the election.

Romney

Big M word. That'll keep him from winning southern primaries. He's also not gonna convert any blue states.

Huckabee

Can't say I know a ton about this guy. From what I've heard his record is a bit indistinguished, but so was Clinton when he ran the same state. Isn't gonna win any former blue states, and might turn off northern and midwestern swings

Tommy Thompson

Too connected to the current President.

Hagel

If McCain fouls up, he could be this year's McCain. He's got the whole "wild card" thing going for him, and he truly seems to be an independant thinker. I could easily imagine him getting the nomination, and if he does, I'm worried for us Democrats

Brownback

I have lots of respect for this guy. I agree with him on very little, but he is extremely principled. However, I think he falls into the too conservative category.

Tancredo

An issue candidate at best. Comes across as too racist to be taken seriously.

McCain

800 pound gorilla. His age and health might be a factor. The recurrance rate for the cancer he has is really high. But he's a non-Bushie Republican in a year when Republicans are going to be running against the administration, not with it. It's no secret that he's the man to beat.

Hunter

It's hard to take any representative seriously as a candidate, and this guy isn't really any sort of exception. They're generally issue candidates.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

Re: Republicans -

chainkill, 2006-12-04 01:26 am UTC

Re: Republicans -

smashingjoker, 2006-12-04 03:15 am UTC

Re: Republicans -

chainkill, 2006-12-04 03:58 am UTC

smashingjoker
2006-12-03 07:10 am UTC (link)

Biden

Although he's smart and is putting himself out on the line with his plan for Iraq, I think he's too much of a Senator for the job. He has a long voting record, and he'll get hammered for the same old things. He'll be this year's Kerry, but he won't get the nomination. We learned our lesson, I think.

Clinton

She'll be subject to so much character assassination, it'll make swift boating look like children's play. Too divisive, and every Democrat I know acknowledges this fact.

Kerry

ha. . . ha . . . ha.

Edwards

Being unemployed for 4 years isn't a good way to go into an election. He won't do much.

Clark

If he gets started earlier, he might be a legit candidate. He could win some midwest and southwest states, and I like the idea of a President who knows what they're doing in terms of foreign policy, especially after four years of the Bush administration. He seems to be a moderate liberal. His big mistake last time was waiting too long to throw his hat into the ring. He could be a legit contender in my mind.

Bayh

A lack of name recognition can help if you're a "Washington Outsider" like a Clinton or a Carter, but if you're an insider and no one knows who you are, you're not going to do much in the primaries.

Obama

(cut and pasted from above)
I think he has a pretty good shot. He's been a politician for years and years so the whole lack of experience thing is pretty bogus. On the flip side however, he hasn't cast a lot of controversial votes that he can be hammered on. But more importantly, he'd probably swing states like Ohio and Florida into the blue column (and maybe Nevada and Colorado and other mountain west states as well). Regardless of how you feel about his politics, he has the celebrity personality factor, which has been what has won pretty much every election since 1980 aside from 1988 maybe. Furthermore, the man is brilliant. When he speaks, he doesn't patronize you like most politicians of both parties do. He challenges your intellect and makes you really rethink your stances. It's incredible. I saw him most Thursday mornings for a good 3 months and was blown away every time. He also has the religious thing going for him. Big plus in this country. I wasn't sold on him until recently, but I think he's probably the best chance we have now that Warner's out.

Vilsack

Could be a Clinton-esque outsider. I think he's #3 on my list, after Obama and Clark. Popular, plainspoken, all that stuff. Might win some midwest and mountain states away from the Republicans.

Richardson

Too much of a record to run on, health issues, and he's a Latino. He could swing states like Colorado, Nevada, Arizona, and New Mexico though. I don't see him winning many primaries but if he does, he might pull some suprising victories.

My vote goes to Obama.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) -

squidb0i, 2006-12-03 07:31 am UTC

(no subject) -

stardance, 2006-12-03 09:34 am UTC

(no subject) -

politikitty, 2006-12-03 04:02 pm UTC

(no subject) -

smashingjoker, 2006-12-03 07:13 pm UTC

(no subject) -

politikitty, 2006-12-03 09:01 pm UTC

	chad_etc 2006-12-03 07:11 am UTC (link)
	Obama or Edwards (or both on one ticket) all the way. And looking at the GOP candidates just makes me sad. It's like a list of terribleness. You guys better hope for someone better to come along (Clinton 92 style) or you're in some serious trouble. (Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) -

mstical1, 2006-12-03 01:34 pm UTC

	hunterkirk 2006-12-03 07:25 am UTC (link)
	Too early and they missed a few. But right now the field is mostly wide open. I dont think the most known people interested will have a easy run of it, as being well known they have been targeted for information and weakness hunting for years now. I suspect a Governor will have the best shot as they tend to have records that are harder to track then Senators do. (Reply to this)

republicat
2006-12-03 11:10 am UTC (link)

I like Chuck Hagel and/or John McCain for the Republican nod - sure, I'd love to see Tom "Bomb Mecca" Tancredo get it, but he wouldn't win even with the whole party and every grassroots Republican party in the nation gunnin' for him. So - more moderate it is.

As for the Dems, I'd love to see Gore run - but too many people know about him now... I could see people voting for Edwards(not so much Kerry again). But Bayh could really appeal to both Dems and Repubs with his 'tax cut' attitude and moderate values.

Wes Clark is sort of a joke around here - I =really= don't see that happening.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) -

malasadas, 2006-12-03 01:43 pm UTC

I love it, too. -

republicat, 2006-12-03 05:23 pm UTC

	annemarie 2006-12-03 11:42 am UTC (link)
	Why isn't Newt on the list? (Reply to this)(Thread)

Oops! -

russj, 2006-12-03 12:31 pm UTC

(no subject) -

mstical1, 2006-12-03 08:22 pm UTC

(no subject) -

hunterkirk, 2006-12-04 02:22 am UTC

	ccnuggie 2006-12-03 12:38 pm UTC (link)
	JEB (Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) -

malasadas, 2006-12-03 01:46 pm UTC

(no subject) -

wik, 2006-12-03 03:33 pm UTC

(no subject) -

carl_sagan, 2006-12-03 06:24 pm UTC

(no subject) -

ccnuggie, 2006-12-03 08:30 pm UTC

(no subject) -

carl_sagan, 2006-12-04 01:05 am UTC

(no subject) -

smashingjoker, 2006-12-03 09:14 pm UTC

(no subject) -

throwingstardna, 2006-12-04 05:58 pm UTC

	malasadas 2006-12-03 01:45 pm UTC (link)
	If Hillary runs and wins the nomination that will mean that there will not have been a Presidential election in the U.S. without either a Clinton or a Bush either at the top or the bottom of the ticket since 1980. For that reason alone, I don't want her or Jeb Bush to run. For the love of G-d, can we have some NEW people running for President? (Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) -

robert_johnson, 2006-12-03 02:42 pm UTC

(no subject) -

malasadas, 2006-12-03 04:26 pm UTC

(no subject) -

chainkill, 2006-12-04 01:42 am UTC

(no subject) -

warrioreowyn, 2006-12-04 02:32 am UTC

(no subject) -

chainkill, 2006-12-04 02:33 am UTC

(no subject) -

malasadas, 2006-12-04 10:16 am UTC

sasha_davidovna
2006-12-03 02:34 pm UTC (link)

Man, I need to start reading up on more of these guys. Based on my current limited knowledge, I'd like to see Hagel on the Republican side. He's from my state and despite the allegations of voting fraud around him and his frustrating tendency to have the guts to ask the awkward questions but not to actually vote against the party line, I've been pretty impressed with him overall. I'd also be interested in seeing McCain or Giuliani as the top candidate.

On the Democratic side, I really hope Clinton doesn't run. She's much too divisive and I haven't been overly impressed with her record since she became a senator. She's too much of a politician, but without the charm and charisma that makes you overlook the same trait in Bill. I am also not convinced that this country is ready to elect a woman President. :(

Or a black president, for that matter, but I have liked what I've seen of Obama and think he has a better chance than most blacks would. It's not like the sorts of people who voted against McCain in the primaries leading up to 2000 because of the "black baby" incident would be voting for a Democrat anyway.

I liked Edwards a fair bit too, but if Kerry tries to run again, someone should probably put him out of his misery. That said, a year ago I would have said the same of Gore, but his performance in An Inconvenient Truth was impressive enough that if he could keep up that level of charisma on a campaign, he might actually have a fighting chance.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) -

robert_johnson, 2006-12-03 02:41 pm UTC

	robert_johnson 2006-12-03 02:40 pm UTC (link)
	I'd say Newt. If a Republican is going to win it and turn the tables on the current flip to Liberals masquerading as Republicans it would be him. Giuliani as well wouldn't be bad. (Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) -

10000_promises, 2006-12-04 02:42 am UTC

	milleniumrex 2006-12-03 02:45 pm UTC (link)
	My top five are McCain, Giuliani, Bayh, Huckabee, and Vilsack. I like Newt too, but I think he might have too much baggage to win. My philosophy is anyone but Hillary and Hagel. (Reply to this)

	Dream Ballot ofbg 2006-12-03 03:35 pm UTC (link)
	Hillary vs Newt. Hillary would energize most Republicans to vote against her except the religious right who would stay home for many of the "mods". Newt would bring out the far right to complete the landslide. (Reply to this)

	carl_sagan 2006-12-03 06:25 pm UTC (link)
	Rudy>Obama>Clark (though he does not have a chance in hell) (Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) -

smashingjoker, 2006-12-04 03:13 am UTC

(no subject) -

carl_sagan, 2006-12-04 09:13 am UTC

chainkill
2006-12-04 01:38 am UTC (link)

I want McCain to win... but then, that's what I said in high school when Bush II won and went on to win his first term. Now I really want McCain to win, to bring the Grande Olde Party (which is what GOP stands for, remember?) back to its Grande Olde roots of a big tent we can all live under, with freedom and justice for all. I'm sick of all these neo-con ideologues; give me someone who votes rational sense any day of the week.

That gang of fourteen thing really did it for me.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) -

panhellenios, 2006-12-04 02:11 am UTC

(no subject) -

chainkill, 2006-12-04 02:19 am UTC

(no subject) -

panhellenios, 2006-12-04 02:36 am UTC

(no subject) -

smashingjoker, 2006-12-04 03:13 am UTC

(no subject) -

panhellenios, 2006-12-04 03:29 am UTC

(no subject) -

chainkill, 2006-12-04 03:52 am UTC

	stupify_me 2006-12-04 09:24 am UTC (link)
	I support Rudy I disagree with him on a few things but I think he is the only chance the Republicans have in 08 (Reply to this)

montanaisaleg
2006-12-04 05:40 pm UTC (link)

I don't really have any preferences at this point (though I do have some preferences as to who I'd like to NOT get the nominations), but I do have a thought about Obama. Ignoring any potential major scandals, etc over the next two years, I think he's got a very good chance of getting the VP nomination, unless Clinton or Richardson is nominated for president. In both of their cases, adding Obama as VP would mean either a woman/minority ticket or a minority/minority ticket (Richardson being Latino). The same is true for Clinton and Richardson if Obama gets the prez nom. Any of these scenarios would seem too much like a gimmick, and I don't think people would go for it. My prediction is that if any of these three gets the prez nom, the VP nom will be a standard white-guy-politician type, but if none of these three get the prez nom, at least one of them (Obama) has a very good chance of getting the VP nom. Of course, if McCain is the repub prez candidate, Richardson will never get the VP nomination.

Of course, Obama's from Illinois, a state that will almost definitely go democratic no matter who the candidates are, so maybe I'm completely wrong about him being a likely VP candidate. Guess we'll just have to wait and see.

And let's not forget that Barack's middle name is "Hussein," and his last name sounds like "Osama." All we've got to do is get someone named "Kim" on the ticket with him and we'll have the names of three of America's top Bad Guys on ballots. That would be funny.

(Reply to this)

chipuni
2006-12-04 11:27 pm UTC (link)

Nothing can stop Clinton or Obama from running -- and probably winning -- the Democratic nomination. In exactly the same way, nothing can stop John McCain (or maybe Hagel or Brownback) from winning the Republican nomination. Clinton and McCain are savvy, Washington insiders with vast fundraising skills; Obama has star power.

And, equally certainly, if Clinton, Obama, or McCain gain their party's nomination, they will lose.

This has nothing to do with their politics, gender, or race. Americans don't choose Presidents who have only been in Congress. Americans choose Presidents who have been governors.

If you want a woman for President, support Janet Napolitano, M. Jodi Rell, Ruth Ann Minner, Linda Lingle, Kathleen Sebelius, Kathleen Blanco, Jennifer Granholm, or Christine Gregoire. The country could rally around any of these governors.

In my opinion, the best candidates are Gov. Bill Richardson (D - N.M.) and Gov. George Pataki (R. - NY). They're both governors from the minority party of their state; both have shown that they can reach across the aisle.

(Reply to this)

Username:		Create an Account Forgot your login? Login w/ OpenID
Password:
	Remember Me
	English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…

About

Help

Get Involved

Legal

Store

LJ Labs