|
|
#41
11-10-2006, 10:43 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: The 2008 Campaign has begun
[ QUOTE ]
Is Schumer a viable presidential candidate? [/ QUOTE ] He's got tons and tons of money, and then more on top of that. Like Sen. Clinton, the benefits of being a Senator from New York mean seemingly limitless fund-raising capabilities. But as questions of race surround the viability of an Obama candidacy (is America ready for a black President?) and questions of gender surround the viability of a Clinton candidacy (is America ready for a woman President?), so would questions of religion surround a Schumer candidacy (is America ready for a Jewish President?). It's hard enough for Christian northeastern liberals to stay viable in national elections. You could say the same concerns will haunt a Feingold bid for the nomination, but at least he's: 1) from the Midwest and 2) a populist. The same for Joe Lieberman -- despite being Jewish and from the northeast, he's moderate enough to entertain thoughts of a practicable national campaign. I'm skeptical Schumer could accomplish the same. As it stands now, he's shown absolutely no interest in running and it's getting late in the game to start an '08 run. 
|
|
#43
11-10-2006, 12:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The 2008 Campaign has begun
[ QUOTE ]
Whoever runs for the democrat nomination should realize that any repub nominee, especially McCain or Giuliani, is not going to defend Bush's record totally, so will have to be able to matchup against whatever platform that repub uses. Also, someone like Obama or Hillary is coming from a home state almost assured of going democrat regardless of who the candidate is, so that is kind of a negative unless they have a VP from a swing or southern state. If I were a democrat, I would be wanting Evan Bayh to be the candidate. [/ QUOTE ] I have to disagree here. Presidential elections are more about personality than policy. People vote for the candidate whom they find more intelligent, trustworthy, dynamic, attractive, and whatever other adjective you want to use. I'll present this without offering any sort of proof, although it's worth noting that the swing in the popular vote in presidential elections is much larger from cycle to cycle than the swing in congressional elections, which suggests that voters are doing more than simply going with their partisan allegiances. I don't think a party does very well for itself by nominating a "focus group candidate". I define a "focus group candidate" as someone who is triangulated to offend the fewest people, rather than someone who inspires/motivates the most people to vote for him. I think this label applies pretty clearly to Bayh and Edwards on the Dem side, and probably Huckabee and Romney on the Republican side. These guys make great vice presedential nominees. They don't make any kind of presdential nominees, because they're almost invariably selected out in the primary process. That leaves open the question of just which Democrat would have the best prospects in the general election. My guess is that Gore would be a couple of percentage points better than Obama, and Obama would be a couple of percentage points better than Clinton, and Clinton would be a couple of percentage points better than Edwards. But I don't think there's anything resembling the situation you have on the Republican side, where the party's chance to control the White House would drop precipitously if McCain is not the nominee.
|
|
#44
11-10-2006, 01:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Poll numbers from Rasmussen
Dem Primary if held today: Clinton 29%, Obama 22%, Gore 13%, Edwards 10%, Kerry 4%.
Article Rep. Primary: Giuliani 24%, Rice 18%, McCain 17%, Romney 9%. Of interesting note, half of Rice's supporters would support Guiliani if she didn't run. Article Presidential Election: Clinton (43%) vs. McCain (48%). Clinton (46%) vs. Giuliani (46%). Article
|
|
#45
11-10-2006, 02:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Poll numbers from Rasmussen
How many of those 24% (plus half of Rice's 18%) realize that Guiliani is pro abortion, pro gun control, and pro gay marriage?
Guiliani has absolutely no chance of getting the Republican nomination.
|
|
#46
11-10-2006, 02:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Poll numbers from Rasmussen
The right wing blogs are big upping Pawlenty right now. He might be an option. Gingrich/Pawlenty is possible. I think people are still not giving Brownback and Huckabee a look as possible. Also people forget that Frist is locking down tons of operatives, will have plenty of free time, money and support.
|
|
#47
11-10-2006, 02:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Poll numbers from Rasmussen
[ QUOTE ]
How many of those 24% (plus half of Rice's 18%) realize that Guiliani is pro abortion, pro gun control, and pro gay marriage? Guiliani has absolutely no chance of getting the Republican nomination. [/ QUOTE ] Even if he gets the nomination the Christian Right will find a socially conservative third party candidate that will steal a far from trivial amount of votes from him. Conservative Christians will never, ever accept a pro-choice candidate, even as the lesser of two evils.
|
|
#48
11-10-2006, 03:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Poll numbers from Rasmussen
I really hope the Dems don't nominate Hillary. She's too unelectable. Moderates view her quite unfavorably, with no justification, but that doesn't matter. What matters is that they won't vote for her.
39% of people would "definately not vote for her"
|
|
#49
11-10-2006, 04:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Poll numbers from Rasmussen
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] How many of those 24% (plus half of Rice's 18%) realize that Guiliani is pro abortion, pro gun control, and pro gay marriage? Guiliani has absolutely no chance of getting the Republican nomination. [/ QUOTE ] Even if he gets the nomination the Christian Right will find a socially conservative third party candidate that will steal a far from trivial amount of votes from him. Conservative Christians will never, ever accept a pro-choice candidate, even as the lesser of two evils. [/ QUOTE ] Hasn't Pat Robertson already come out and said he would support Giuliani?
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
