So, who takes the DEM nomination?

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!


Both Hillary and Barack have announced that they are running for the Dem presidential nomination. Who do you think will get the nomination, and why?


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[mrbiggs]

You forgot Vilsack!

[Inquartata]

I think Richardson has the best qualifications and the best chance of winning, but the Clinton political machine is too strong and she will get the nomination if nothing damaging comes out to sabotage her. Obama is too young and inexperienced and will probably get co-opted by Clinto somewhere along the way, in return for support for a future run.

[dcmdale]

Awfully early to make hard and fast predictions, but assuming current trajectories (i.e., no meltdowns, major disruptors, or sudden acquisition of wisdom), one has to think that Clinton is pretty much a lock. Democratic strategists seem like they want a firm decision before the primary season to avoid a lot of in-fighting. (IMHO--The GOP seems to be more willing to let the candidates fight it out.) I would not be surprised at a Clinton-Obama ticket. Obama is not ready for the top of the ticket, but could provide some real excitement at #2. I think that a lot of Democratic strategists would consider that a dream ticket.

I consider it unfortunate. I think that the Democrats are looking for someone who will pull together the party when they should be looking for someone who will pull together the country.

[jBirch]

The Dem nomination isn't that interesting as it'll be whomever is likely to be safest between Clinton and Obama.

What is interesting is who will oppose them from the Repub side... Condi?

James.

[jeff]

Putting aside the question of whether or not Clinton would be a good president, I wonder if she doesn't carry too much baggage (history and strong negatives) to be successful in the general elections.

[dcmdale]

Originally Posted by jeff

Putting aside the question of whether or not Clinton would be a good president, I wonder if she doesn't carry too much baggage (history and strong negatives) to be successful in the general elections.

Absolutely agree. McCain over Clinton, 68% to 32%.

Negatives hurt more than positives help.

Conservatives within the Republican party will fight hard to keep McCain out because of his perceived anti-religious attitudes, but I think that he has been building up too much capital within the party. In the general election, if he has any smarts, he is all about, "Partisanship, on both sides, over the last 20 years has been bad for the country. Look at my record at being able to put aside partisanship. Shoot... Kerry invited me to be his VP. My opponent, on the other hand, represents the essence of the polarization."

With anyone other than Clinton, McCain's candidacy would send conservatives to the sidelines, but they hate Clinton too much to not vote against her.

[Inquartata]

Yes, I also think Hillary will not succeed in the general. But then, IMO neither will McCain. Aside from all of his other baggage, it's been decades since a Senator was elected President. People value executive experience, such as governorships, which neither Clinton nor McCain has had. Which is why I think Richardson and maybe Giuliani would be better choices in terms of pure electability...

[jeff]

(Dare I say it) I think Guiliani dramatically over-rated. A lot of his performance for crime reduction in NYC was actually the work of the police commissioner (who I think is trying to fix LA now). Rudy was divisive, frequently rubbed people the wrong way, and charmless (and the last few elections tell me there's quite a premium on being the guy you'd like to hang out at your barbecue). Besides that, he's an ethnic, urban, northeasterner, and the socially liberal policies he has (such as gay rights) and his adultery followed by divorce will alienate him from the Republican core. So, he's got problems from the left ("It's Guiliani time!") and right.

McCain already suffers from problems in that area, where several social conservatives have already rejected despite his recent attempts to pander to them, but McCain will win them over much more easily than Guiliani (and, as pointed out, a Clinton candidacy will bring them out to the polling booths in swarms).

I know too little about Richardson to opine, but I imagine his PR people will try to fix that. Hm, if he starts without negatives, and is from the Southwest, he may already have an advantage

[OROD]

I dont think Al Gore will run, but if he did I'd vote for him. He's one of the only Democrats that I think would make a good President.

I really have no idea why Hilary and Osama (errr, I meant Obama) are so popular. Especially with Obama, that fact that the press cant stop talking about him shows the sad state of American politics and political media coverage.

.

[PeterGustafsson]

Originally Posted by dcmdale

Democratic strategists seem like they want a firm decision before the primary season to avoid a lot of in-fighting. (IMHO--The GOP seems to be more willing to let the candidates fight it out.)

The democrat reasoning I understand - why bleed yourself dry among yourselves before going up against your main enemy? However, what is the logic behind the GOP reasoning? What do they stand to win, as a party, on a long and protracted primary?

Originally Posted by dcmdale

I think that the Democrats are looking for someone who will pull together the party when they should be looking for someone who will pull together the country.

See it from the Dem perspective - first things first! Also, If they think that they can win with a candidate with such strong negatives as Clinton, why would they want to bring together the country? Don´t you think that that they have gotten the feeling that the Bush Jr. administrations have gotten out of their way to make dems suffer, and that a bit of their own medicine is in order?


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Yes, I also think Hillary will not succeed in the general. But then, IMO neither will McCain. Aside from all of his other baggage, it's been decades since a Senator was elected President.

In the perfectly possible event that the matchup becomes Clinton-McCain, one prediction will fail, and a Senator will become President.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[dcmdale]

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

The democrat reasoning I understand - why bleed yourself dry among yourselves before going up against your main enemy? However, what is the logic behind the GOP reasoning? What do they stand to win, as a party, on a long and protracted primary?

There are several things that a party can get out of the primary process:

• often primary candidates have not been tested at a national level, primaries give an indication of how well a candidate might fare (Howard Dean, if you recall, was who the insiders wanted originally in 2004).
• presidential elections usually involve a lot more scrutiny of the candidates, history indicates that the primaries often bring things out that would be problematic in the general election (Kerry's service record might have gotten more scrutiny before nomination had the primary process been completely respected).
• it gives the rank and file an input on who they want to see. (That is why we have primaries in the first place)
• it keeps that party's race in the news during the primary period.

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

See it from the Dem perspective - first things first! Also, If they think that they can win with a candidate with such strong negatives as Clinton, why would they want to bring together the country? Don´t you think that that they have gotten the feeling that the Bush Jr. administrations have gotten out of their way to make dems suffer, and that a bit of their own medicine is in order?

"Payback Time!" is certainly not a foreign concept in party politics.

A "motivate the party base" approach is risky if the competition is using a "win the center" strategy.

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by OROD

I really have no idea why Hilary and Osama (errr, I meant Obama) are so popular. Especially with Obama, that fact that the press cant stop talking about him shows the sad state of American politics and political media coverage.

.

Obama is good because the democrats have had a very long string of fairly boring, uncharismatic candidates broken only by Bill Clinton.

However, I don't think he'll be nominated because he has nearly zero experience.

[Inquartata]

Kerry has announced that he will NOT run. Finally, signs of common sense from him.

Richardson is a governor, has been an agency head under Clinton and an ambassador. He speaks Spanish fluently ( not like Bush's pidgin version ) and so will probably get a large percentage of the Hispanic vote despite his stand on illegal immigration. And with the change in primary election date in Nevada that may be more important than it would otherwise have been.

As for Giuliani, Jeff, you may be right; but "Under the cloak of a great reputation it is possible to hide a whole wardrobe of follies".

[fences_like_a_lemur]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Kerry has announced that he will NOT run. Finally, signs of common sense from him.

I can't believe that he actually did something smart...wow


My personal opinion is that we hang them all and defenestrate the entire government and live in a self ruled utopia of chaos...

Just look at the lemurs in Madagascar; they don't have any political problems what-so-ever. We should learn from lemurs...

[introspective]

I wanted a list of Dems and Republicans - well you did the work for me.
Obama won't make it, he is physically weak every time he talks he yanks his head around. Hillary does not turn me on, she picked a beer guzzler husband who whored around in the blue room right under everyone's nose -[ rank]- no - I like Al Gore

[I know that sounds just horrible - but it inconvenienced all of us.

Al,
Al
AL
ALL for AL!

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by fences_like_a_lemur

My personal opinion is that we hang them all and defenestrate the entire government and live in a self ruled utopia of chaos...

Or an anarcho-syndicalist commune, where we'd take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week...

ok at the lemurs in Madagascar; they don't have any political problems what-so-ever. We should learn from lemurs...

But who would protect them from predatory Inquartatas?

[dcmdale]

Originally Posted by dcmdale

"Payback Time!" is certainly not a foreign concept in party politics.

A "motivate the party base" approach is risky if the competition is using a "win the center" strategy.

Beating the dead horse some more...

I think the strength of a McCain run is that he is tapping into a popular anger with both parties. Both parties have gotten so wrapped up in payback and partisanship that they have forgotten about good government. The last few elections and the political oneupmanship between them have taken the nation through the wringer.

Rightly or wrongly, McCain is seen as someone who is outside that mold. I don't think that I could find a candidate more divisive than Clinton. (Well, ok, Cheney or Pat Robertson). She is the perfect foil for McCain to run an anti-partisan, anti-insider, anti-retribution-as-usual campaign.