Who will succeed Bush?

whatalanger

There is already some talk about Jeb Bush running next time round. John Edwards didn't do his reputation any harm and will probably be the Democrats candidate unless Mrs. Clinton decides to run. Any thoughts?

OfflerCrocGod

whatalanger wrote:

Any thoughts?

Yes. Please stop, my head is about to explode. You'd swear we are Americans. 4 Years from now we could all be controlled by Giant Ants.

sceptre

Jeb said he wouldn't run in 2008 on October 17. Mind you he would say that wouldn't he

therecklessone

My one hope is that the Republicans tie themselves in knots over the next four years trying to outdo each other in an attempt to secure backing for a 2008 Presidential campaign. I expect there to be a lot of Congressional and Senate Republicans making themselves more visible, and possibly clashing with the White House in the process.

Let them tear each other apart, then the Dems sneak in for a 2008 win says I...

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

therecklessone

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

I can't see them allowing it TBH, can you see the Christian Right supporting a tolerant Republican?

Seriously, I wish McCain had survived the character assassination from the Bush campaigh four years ago and got to stand against Gore in 2000. That would have been an interesting election...

ixoy

I'd imagine Guilliani is indeed too liberal for the Republicans. Also, even if there was a Constitutional change, I can't ever see Arnie running - he's "liberal" (eww! spit!) enough to be a Democrat. Wouldn't it be fun if they ran Condoleeza Rice against Hilary Clinton? Battle of the iron-willed bitches!

Simi

Can Arnie run? I thought you had to be born in America to run for president. Hopefully Hilary Clinton will be next.

ixoy

Simi wrote:

Can Arnie run? I thought you had to be born in America to run for president.

No he can't. That's why I said "even if there's a Constitutional change" which, by the way, I doubt Republicans would let happen. Can we see them letting Johnny Foreigner have say in the ruling of the greatest country in the world?

BuffyBot

AFAIK, Arnie can't run for president. Not sure that I'd call Guilliani a "moderate" either.

steviec

Can't see it being Jeb Bush at all. He's not particularly prominent apart from being the brother of George. Rudy would be a good choice for Republicans, I think he's on record as saying that he feels he's too old, but if he's willing to accept it he's the obvious candidate, and I think most people would welcome him.

On the democrat side it really is hard to look past Hillary, but four years can be a long time.

Cork

If Jeb Bush ran - I would not be surprised.

Hillary Clinton will not be the next President of the US. The Democrats need to get somebody from Mid America.

Hillary Clinton has geography aganist her. The democrats could do worse than starting the search.

Zaph

Hillary Clinton has more than just geography against her - her surname is Clinton far starters and thats like a red rag to a bull as far as Republicans are concerned. The election just gone was one of the most divisive ever, but it would be the epitome of civilised behaviour in comparison to what will happen in 2008 if the Democrats put Hillary up.

BattleBoar

zaph wrote:

Hillary Clinton has more than just geography against her - her surname is Clinton far starters and thats like a red rag to a bull as far as Republicans are concerned. The election just gone was one of the most divisive ever, but it would be the epitome of civilised behaviour in comparison to what will happen in 2008 if the Democrats put Hillary up.

I actually think as far as geography is concerned, Mark Warner, governor of Virginia, would be a great choice. I have to say, however, I haven't heard him mentioned in any Democratic circles. I would also be very happy with either McCain or Giuliani.

Captain Trips

BuffyBot wrote:

AFAIK, Arnie can't run for president.

True, but things change. There is a motion to repeal that requirement.

Schwarznegger vs. Clinton 2008/12!!!

tovalee

I've heard lots of rumors about Hillary running in 2008. There also seems to be lot of buzz about Barack Obama ,the senator from illinois. He's still relatively young,(43?) but I cant help but wonder if the dems are grooming him to be the first black president.He can sure put on a pretty speech anyway.

Redleslie2

After having a chat with a friend of mine from Chicago tonight I can see the Dems going for an Edwards/Obama president/vice-president thing. Edwards was impressive (in an above mediocre kind of way) in the election and has the southern working class background that's needed to connect with the south. Plus he has better hair than any previous president. They'll walk in with "We're taking the smoking ruined wasteland back" type slogans. Then again, Obama would probably be wasted as vp cos it's a bit of a crappy job.

SkepticOne

Captain Trips wrote:

True, but things change. There is a motion to repeal that requirement.

Schwarznegger vs. Clinton 2008/12!!!

Now that would be an interesting election contest.

SkepticOne

Redleslie2 wrote:

Plus he has better hair than any previous president.

I though the Dems had it wrapped up this time with Kerry (tall) and Edwards (good hair), but it seems like irrational religious issues dominated the debate.

Redleslie2

SkepticOne wrote:

I though the Dems had it wrapped up this time with Kerry (tall) and Edwards (good hair), but it seems like irrational religious issues dominated the debate.

In addition to vote rigging and nobody caring about military records.

Zaph

I've spoken with some Americans I know, the majority of whom are Republican, and they've told me that in their view Barack Obama would be a very good candidate for the Democrats next time round. He seems to be well regarded by both sides, although I suspect his relative youth might go against him.

Redleslie2

zaph wrote:

I've spoken with some Americans I know, the majority of whom are Republican, and they've told me that in their view Barack Obama would be a very good candidate for the Democrats next time round. He seems to be well regarded by both sides, although I suspect his relative youth might go against him.

He'll be 47 in 2008, the same age Clinton was when he won. It's his skin colour that will go against him, not his age.

Victor

zaph wrote:

I've spoken with some Americans I know, the majority of whom are Republican, and they've told me that in their view Barack Obama would be a very good candidate for the Democrats next time round.

But would they vote for him?

Redleslie2 wrote:

He'll be 47 in 2008, the same age Clinton was when he won.

I think the trend will be towards younger presidents (& prime ministers etc.). The old warriors won't get the job anymore.

It's his skin colour that will go against him, not his age.

Indeed, but perhaps this is why he's slated for VP, not the real job, so as to test the water.

As the old fogeys said about the slip of a lass in the short skirt "If she gets the job there'll be no work done here."

Zaph

Originally posted by Redleslie2

He'll be 47 in 2008, the same age Clinton was when he won.

Dunno why, but for some reaso I thought he was younger than that.

Originally posted by Victor

But would they vote for him?

Unlikely, they are Republicans after all, but I got the impression that his candidacy wouldn't galvanise the conservative vote in the same way thet Kerry's did.

pork99

There will be no successor to Bush for the day of rapture is at hand with the elect being gathered up onto heaven and the unrighteous (that's you, boardsters btw) being cast down even onto the fiery pit.

For truly Bush is the tool of the Lord!

SkepticOne

Say it brother!

steviec

Obama would make a great candidate and he will probably be a future President, but I think the next election might be a little early for him. It's not that he's young specifically, but he does looke young and has only appeared in the public eye very recently. I really can't see race being an issue with anything but a tiny percentage of voters.

SkepticOne

I think Arnie will very likely to be the Republican's next candidate given his popularity in CA. There is just the constitutional issue to sort out.

bonkey

zaph wrote:

I've spoken with some Americans I know, the majority of whom are Republican, and they've told me that in their view Barack Obama would be a very good candidate for the Democrats next time round.

Yeah, but when the Democrat Primaries were on this time round, an awful lot of Republicans had an awful lot of nice things to say about why Kerry was the best choice for the Dems, with Edwards as a credible second.

Once the actual ticket was written, the tone changed, and all of a sudden, Kerry was the biggest joke of a candidate that could possibly have been chosen, and Edwards was one step short of an insult as a running-mate.

Now, I understand game-theory as well as the next applied mathematician, but whenever someone from one of two polarised parties tells me that X is a good choice for the other party....I'm suspicious.

jc

steviec

bonkey wrote:

Yeah, but when the Democrat Primaries were on this time round, an awful lot of Republicans had an awful lot of nice things to say about why Kerry was the best choice for the Dems, with Edwards as a credible second.

Once the actual ticket was written, the tone changed, and all of a sudden, Kerry was the biggest joke of a candidate that could possibly have been chosen, and Edwards was one step short of an insult as a running-mate.

Now, I understand game-theory as well as the next applied mathematician, but whenever someone from one of two polarised parties tells me that X is a good choice for the other party....I'm suspicious.

jc

Weren't Joe Lieberman and Dick Gephard the two candidates Republicans had favourable opinions of? Far as I can remember they were, but Kerry was considered a reasonable choice thanks to 'anyone but Dean' attitudes.
Obviously both parties will criticise the opposing candidate at whatever opportunity they get, that doesn't mean ordinary people who consider themselves republican are suddenly going to start hating a candidate because their party tells them to.

Justin Barrett

The Second Coming will be in about three years. I'll give you lot one guess as to who will lead the free world in four years time.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

OfflerCrocGod

Justin Barrett wrote:

The Second Coming will be in about three years. I'll give you lot one guess as to who will lead the free world in four years time.

You scare me. Is this really your web-site? Are you a real politician and are those your real opinions? On one hand you attack immigration...and on the other you worry about the low birth rates in Europe.....ummm what's wrong with having immigration boost our population?

therecklessone

Redleslie2 wrote:

Then again, Obama would probably be wasted as vp cos it's a bit of a crappy job.

Dick Cheney's enjoying himself at the moment...

BattleBoar

therecklessone wrote:

Dick Cheney's enjoying himself at the moment...

I think Obama would be a fine choice, provided he votes somewhat moderately during his tenure as a senator. He is able to connect to people when he speaks and he is very likeable from what I've seen. I still think that a governor from a more conservative red-blue border state (like Mark Warner of Virginia) would be the best choice of all.

One of the biggest problems with Hillary is that compared to her, John Kerry is a very personable, likable guy.

pork99

BattleBoar wrote:

I think Obama would be a fine choice, provided he votes somewhat moderately during his tenure as a senator. He is able to connect to people when he speaks and he is very likeable from what I've seen.

He's being interviewed on CNBC Europe as I'm writing this and he comes over very well and I agree he would be a fine choice - he'd get my vote anyway if I was a US voter.

However I think he's a bit of a none-starter as a presidential candidate because too many stupid rednecks would get "Obama" confused with "Osama"

Essey

ixoy wrote:

I'd imagine Guilliani is indeed too liberal for the Republicans. Also, even if there was a Constitutional change, I can't ever see Arnie running - he's "liberal" (eww! spit!) enough to be a Democrat. Wouldn't it be fun if they ran Condoleeza Rice against Hilary Clinton? Battle of the iron-willed bitches!

Wow your the 3rd person I've heard say Condie and Hilary! Hilary will almost surely run, probably John Edwards also. Arnie cant - he is a foreigner, Guilliani and Mc Cain. I'd put my money on Guilliani.

blobert

Arnie vs Hilary would be very interesting/entertaining.

bonkey

With the "Traditional Christian Values" brigade having thoroughly thumped the "use the Internet" brigade in this election.....

Why do people think the Dem's are going to suddenly turn all radical in 4 years and make a play for the first female president? I mean...seriously...isn't that just asking for another stomping?

jc

Hobbes

Yea.. Despite the US claiming its equality for all (Hah!) I can't see a black, female or jewish president in the whitehouse in my lifetime.

Memnoch

Hobbes wrote:

Yea.. Despite the US claiming its equality for all (Hah!) I can't see a black, female or jewish president in the whitehouse in my lifetime.

its equality for all white men don't you know

pickarooney

If the Dems put a female/black/gay/jewish candidate forward, they'd have a good chance of winning back the voters who were borderline but voted Bush because Kerry didn't represent anything in their eyes. Not just a token non-white-male either, a serious candidate with concrete issues.
There's no point trying to win the bible-basher vote, it'll go to Bush either way. Winning back the centre and motivating the youth has to be their priority.

bonkey

pickarooney wrote:

If the Dems put a female/black/gay/jewish candidate forward, they'd have a good chance of winning back the voters who were borderline but voted Bush because Kerry didn't represent anything in their eyes.

It also gives them a good change of losing any voters who stand against whatever platform they choose.

The chauvinists won't vote for women, the anti-Semites won't vote for Jews, the racists won't vote for non-caucasian....and so on.

Now...I'm not saying that these people make up a large percentage of the vote...I'm just saying they exist and cannot be discounted. Almost every strategy to win votes also costs votes (e.g. if I was a War-supporting Republican, Bush's Christian Values-focussed platform would have made me not vote for him*). Talking about winning back votes only makes sense when you look at the costs and conclude that there will still be a net gain.....a level of detail I haven't seen a single Hilary-supporter go to yet.

jc

*cue cries of me being anti-Christian, or something...