President Giuliani

Pazaz 21

Rudy Guiliani, former mayor of New York during the 9/11 attacks, is rumoured to be running for Presient in 2008.

I think he would be a great choice as he was able to handle the post 9/11 situation in New York with great competence maybe somone like him in the white house could change the country around.

Through he is probably two left-wing for the bible belt, but he may surprise us.

Dave!

hmmm, I don't know too much about his policies... Does he support the Iraq war or nay?

flogen

Guiliani would be destroyed; he's really a right wing dem rather than a left wing rep.
And think of the dirt you could bring up on him; he used to be a democrat and he married his second cousin in the 60's... I'm not saying either of those things are wrong, that's not my place, but there's no doubt they'd be used against him

I think Jeb Bush is a better bet, but I don't think either of them will win the caucuses, I think it might be a bit of an outsider (some fresh blood in political terms).

I'm interested to see what happens in November; the Dems still haven't named a contender for the New York Senate seat, currently held by Hilary Clinton; if she doesn't go forward it means she's 99% likely to be going for President (edit: actually, I think she is running in the senate, anyone able to clarify?)... she's open to a lot of abuse too though (couldn't keep control of her husband, what's she going to do with our country? )

Pazaz 21

Think of the dirt that was dug up on Bush, the drinking, the stupidity, the dodging of military service, that didn't seem to hamper him too much, did it.

AFAIK according to Newsweek "Jeb Bush isn't running to succeed his brother".

He's a pro-choice, pro-gay rights new york republican, what could go wrong ?

flogen

I suppose Rudy does have a centrist position which is a must to get the popular vote; he's also well known and well liked; I think Rice would beat him though (imagine if Republicans managed to get the double word score of a black and female president!!!)

The problem with the dirt throwing is that the Republicans are too good and the Dems are too bad... either the Republicans need to clean up their act (yeah right) or the Dems need to get their hands dirty, fast. I think it's a no brainer to say that if the Dems put forward a recovering alchoholic draft-dodger with a criminal record of DUI and an admittance (basically) to doing drugs at some point before he was 29 the Republicans would only need to put out 1 statement and it would all be over; they're just better at it

gilroyb

Giuliani is well liked by everyone, in the same way puppies are well liked. I presume he's running but I don't see him getting through the primaries. If he does get through he'll be too close (geographically and values) to Clinton to beat her without a large struggle. She's had everything thrown at her already so I don't think the campaign is going to sink her (ie no swiftboats type incident). I'd say on the whole people who like Giuliani will prefer Clinton more by the time of the election.

I'd say that while McCain may have trouble getting through the primaries, if he does get selected then he could take any democrat. He has strong positions and makes sure to pick fights he can win. He would have Bush's backing if he wants it, and is admired by many Democrats for his work on Campaign finance and restricting lobbyists.

While Giuliani may seem to be strongly supported now, I'd say that McCain will be seen as the 'centre ground' Republican, despite the fact he supports the war in Iraqi and is pro-life.


As for Rice, she's not running. She has strong reasons to want to keep her private life private.

Sand

If hes running on his Rep-Lite credentials then hell be fighting for the Democrat vote wholl be painting him as someone who probably owns a slave plantation. Meanwhile the religious crazies will be demonising him as the servant of satan, and more than possibly running their own 3rd party candidate against him - they wont need the Reps once they get control of the Supreme Court afterall.

Basically all the factors that count against John McCain will count against him. Both the Dem and Rep candidate will be products of a polarised political landscape, and who will be president will be decided on the basis of a few pre-selected issues like abortion, gay marraige, even their sheer presentation - Bush actually isnt stupid, he just pretends to be an everyday gimp who knows nothing about politics. Because it works. He lost his first Texas election campaign by being portrayed as an out of town, academic, upper class college boy. He even admitted to have never been on a farm whilst on the campaign trail. Now he owns a ranch and is widely portrayed as a moron despite winning two presidential campaigns. Kerry last time out was portrayed as being indecisive and a fence sitter. The Dems on the other hand couldnt really shake Bushs portrayal of himself as Commander in Chief.

hmmm, I don't know too much about his policies... Does he support the Iraq war or nay?

What difference does it make? Even if Kerry was President the realities of Iraq wouldnt change.

flogen

flogen wrote:

I think Jeb Bush is a better bet, but I don't think either of them will win the caucuses, I think it might be a bit of an outsider (some fresh blood in political terms).

Actually Jeb Bush is a Roman catholic (unlike his brother) which mightnt go down well in the bible thumping south either.

LostinBlanch

gilroyb wrote:

As for Rice, she's not running. She has strong reasons to want to keep her private life private.

Go on do tell, you've got me intrigued now.

elurhs

If the Democrats pick Hillary Clinton, they haven't a hope. She's hated by Republicans, and a lot of Democrats dislike her too.

metrovelvet

Guiliani - no!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hes not as liked by NYers as everyone thinks. And he screwed the firemen who were the real heroes of 911 whereas he worked the cameras. Hes an over controlling micro managing Creon of a leader.

He will never win. Hes Catholic. Hes divorced. And hes too ethnic. He also alienates a large part of the republican party by his indifference to abortion.

gilroyb

elurhs wrote:

If the Democrats pick Hillary Clinton, they haven't a hope. She's hated by Republicans, and a lot of Democrats dislike her too.

People say that, but she's still a large figure on the scene. If she was as disliked as people presume she is, she would have disappeared long ago. I think that when it comes to the primary season, she will be able to use it to gain support, for the others it's an attempt not to put a foot wrong. If she's up against a right wing Republican there is a lot of room for her to gain votes. She has strong scores among most of the groups that supported Kerry, and also is well liked by Latinos and other minority groups that Kerry just didn't get. I don't think she's a shoe-in by any means, but I think she has a greater chance that a lot of comentators give her.

metrovelvet

But

1. Shes a woman

2. A lof of people hate Clinton, including dems, and dont want him near the white house again. Do you really think America will go for a first husband?

3. The is the biggest favour the dems can do for the republican party is to let her win the dem primary. They will have a feast day.

4. The rest of the country hates NY. They wont vote for a senator from NY. Its nearly as bad as Massachusettes.

5. Latino men will never vote for a woman - not at a presidential level. Cubans will never vote democrat.

The dems need to wise up and fast.

Snickers Man

Wasn't it Mario Cuomo who said that America wasn't ready to have a president whose surname ended in a vowel? Guiliani would have the same problem. As well as the pecker in his pants, or rather out of his pants, issue.

Just as the heir to the British throne must marry a virgin to produce offspring that are certifiably the product of she and her husband (Boy that one really worked!!) so the president of the USA can not have sex with more than one woman. Ever.

That's mad Ted, but that 's the way them Yanks are.

gilroyb

Snickers Man wrote:

so the president of the USA can not have sex with more than one woman. Ever.

See? Hillary is perfect. She just about fits this requirement.

Diorraing

Pazaz 21 wrote:

He's a pro-choice republican...what could go wrong ?

You've actually just answered your question.
I heard that Newt Gingrich was a possibility, no way will Giuliani get the support of the bible-bashing baptists that the republicans are now so dependant upon.

Hobbes

Doesn't everyone know it goes Bush - Clinton - Bush - Clinton - Bush.

You've actually just answered your question.

Well lets say they get another hard core anti-choice on the supreme court then he can run on pro-choice as there is sod all he can do on the matter.

Manic Moran

Unfortunately (Or fortunately, depending on how cynical you are), none of the commonly touted names are really in with a decent shot.

Jeb Bush won't get it: Not so much because the left hates the Bush name, but as much because the right aren't too keen on dynasties. Father/son is OK, but when you start getting the whole family involved, the right gets worried.

Hillary isn't going to do any better. There was an article in the San Francisco Chronicle (Left wing paper) about a month ago which basically pointed out that other than the name, there's not very much appealing about her to anyone. Plus she's seen as something of an opportunist. "Yes, I've got absolutely no connections with New York whatsoever, but I'll go move there and become a senator. I can do that because I'm left wing, and New York is left wing, so they'll vote for me, and it'll give me a leg up for my own shot at the Big Job." And for whatever have happened with Giuliani and the firefighters, I don't believe he was ever booed offstage in twenty seconds flat like Hillary was from the 9-11 "Heroes concert" in Oct 01. Hillary is far too polarising.

Similarly polarising are a lot of the leaders of the different parties, such as Nancy Pelosi, also from my Great State of California. She's a poster child for the left wing, but there's nothing moderate about her. If you're not absolutely stereotypical left wing (American definition), you're not going to like her. Feinstein isn't much closer. On the other hand, a lot of the Republican leadership isn't viewed much better by the left or moderates.

And when you do have someone who might be more acceptable, for example Colin Powell, there are calls that he's a RINO/DINO (Republican/Democrat in Name Only), so they'll have cross-party support, but they won't win their own party nominations to get to the Big Election in the first place.

Who knows, maybe we'll actually have an independent with a chance this time?

NTM

Hobbes

Manic Moran wrote:

Who knows, maybe we'll actually have an independent with a chance this time?

NTM

lol.. Heres hoping it is Gary Coleman.

If someone is planning to run they would want to start making waves now. Anyway even if the list you mentioned are not liked odds on one of them will get in based on the two party electorial college system. You have a huge core of Repub/Demo that will not vote anything other then thier party.

The independants are just for wasting votes on the two parties (or seen that way). For example, afair the right were funding left wing independants that had no chance of getting in just to pull votes away from Kerry.

flogen

Hobbes wrote:

The independants are just for wasting votes on the two parties (or seen that way). For example, afair the right were funding left wing independants that had no chance of getting in just to pull votes away from Kerry.

Yeah, a tried and tested tactic as before that Nader was seen to have cost Gore the 2000 election (of course, it wasn't Gore himself who snatched defeat from the jaws of victory IMO).

I very much doubt it will be a political nobody; I imagine a number of Bush's high-ups will put their hat in the ring, a few nobodies maybe (who will drop off quickly).
Democrats probably don't have quite as many chances as the Republicans, but if approval rating stays the same or gets worse for Bush, and if Iraq is still an issue (I'm sure it will be), then it shouldn't be too hard to mount a good anti-rep/war campaign... not with Clinton though...!

gilroyb

flogen wrote:

Democrats probably don't have quite as many chances as the Republicans, but if approval rating stays the same or gets worse for Bush, and if Iraq is still an issue (I'm sure it will be), then it shouldn't be too hard to mount a good anti-rep/war campaign... not with Clinton though...!

Unless Iraq really gets a lot worse, (and it's hard to see how that can happen), then an anti war candidate will sound like they don't support the troops. Even though a majority of Americans may want to get out of Iraq, when a possible leader says it then it sounds like retreat. A candidate will have to run on wanting to get out of there when the job is done rather than just wanting to get out of there.

Giuliani is a centerist, but is pro-choice. McCain is centerist but pro-life. I think when it comes to the primaries McCain beats Giuliani; that is if he's still alive at that stage.

Manic Moran

Quite true. That's one mistake that Kerry did not make. Ultimately, a 'Troops out now' policy is bad for the US, and no realistic candidate will run on it.

A lot of sites, to include Democraticunderground have pointed out that if the Democrats ever put forward a pro-gun candidate, they'd handily win as it's got probably the largest 'single issue swing voter' demographic after, probably abortion. (Can you say "Al Gore losing home state?") Unfortunately, most Democrats who are in a position to run are anti-gun. (Then again, a pro-choice Republican would be an interesting counterpoint)

NTM

metrovelvet

Thats Americas version of "not a real republican." The mistake dems have made since Clinton is swinging their allegiances away from the underdogs of white ethnic immigrants to making it all about gender/sexuality issues. They have alienated most of the country. The south will never vote democrat again after Clinton. And the Kennedys are losing the stronghold of Irish America which used to vote primarily democrat, but is also still very Catholic and religious, traditional. Whether they like it or not the US is religious and the gay population is tiny. The dems need to get in touch with their consitutuencies and rebuild. Or they will just keep losing.

SteveS

Most of Giuliani's good reputation came from his leadership, post 9/11. If you put up his name prior to 9/11 as a possible candidate, most people would not want him. I don't think he is a viable candidate.

The problem with the dirt throwing is that the Republicans are too good and the Dems are too bad... either the Republicans need to clean up their act (yeah right) or the Dems need to get their hands dirty, fast.

I would respectfully disagree. Both parties can be equally nasty and I am sure once the election gets closer, we will see the attack ads every time we turn on the TV.

A lot of sites, to include Democraticunderground have pointed out that if the Democrats ever put forward a pro-gun candidate, they'd handily win as it's got probably the largest 'single issue swing voter' demographic after, probably abortion.

I don't think it is quite as simple as this, but I think you are close. If the dems put forth someone that was pro-gun and wanted to make a serious effort at balancing the budget and controlling spending, I am sure that theat person would win easily. The republican party is certainly not the smaller government, lower spending party that it claims to be.

I am sure that McCain will run. Another person that will likely run is Mitt Romney, the governor of Mass. He is pretty moderate, though anti-gun, so I am not sure how he will do with some core republicans. He is also Mormon, which, in my opinion, doesn't make that big of a difference. If you look oat the exit surveys from the last election, the religious beliefs of the candidate made very little of an impact.

Mark

What is Barack Obamas political status like these days?

metrovelvet

I dont know so much that is so much pro- gun as anti-gun control, in that if it becoms over regulated you push it underground and then give a whole new business and profit margin to the various mafia/gangsters which operate in the US.

gilroyb

Mark wrote:

What is Barack Obamas political status like these days?

Still flying high it seems, but he wouldn't be a presidential candidate next time out. He had a bit of a spat with McCain over lobbyist reform, but doesn't seem to have come to much.

There might be a chance for him as a vice president, but obviously not with Hillary, Woman-blackman ticket seems a bit too out there. If the presidential candidate is a standard candidate then he can bring something to the ticket. Whether he wants to tie himself to a losing candidate is another question. He might be safer staying out of 2008 and setting himself up for 2012 as a top of the ticket candidate if he can.

flogen

gilroyb wrote:

Unless Iraq really gets a lot worse, (and it's hard to see how that can happen), then an anti war candidate will sound like they don't support the troops. Even though a majority of Americans may want to get out of Iraq, when a possible leader says it then it sounds like retreat. A candidate will have to run on wanting to get out of there when the job is done rather than just wanting to get out of there.

Giuliani is a centerist, but is pro-choice. McCain is centerist but pro-life. I think when it comes to the primaries McCain beats Giuliani; that is if he's still alive at that stage.

Nah; as we all know someone who is anti-Iraq war doesn't have to be anti-troop; Kerry was destroyed for criticising the war after he voted for it, if the dems can balance it right they can have a candidate who says, and has always said that the war was wrong, that America now has an obligation to protect the Iraqi people regardless of this fact and that the troops are doing a great job BUT there should be something done to ensure that our troops, whom we love so much, never have to die fighting a war with no real reason.

Manic Moran

metrovelvet wrote:

I dont know so much that is so much pro- gun as anti-gun control, in that if it becoms over regulated you push it underground and then give a whole new business and profit margin to the various mafia/gangsters which operate in the US.

I don't think it's quite that. Worrying about it going underground is more a case of viewing it as the lesser of two evils, similar to repealing Prohibition or legalising soft drugs or prostitution. "It's bad, but if it's in the open, at least we can keep an eye on things". What the gun lobby are afraid of is not greater illegal trade in arms, it's the lack of the legal trade and their ability to hold firearms.

There was a great post on DU a few months ago by an Oklahoma Democrat trying to get the Flyover Country point of view across to the urban-type Democrats (who tend to be in the majority of the two). He points out that the core Democrats can't figure out why the gun lobby would object to "reasonable gun control laws" because they don't recognise that in the eyes of firearms owners "reasonable laws" already exist, sometimes too much so. That's why when the 'we won't take hunter's guns away, only the 'bad guns' argument has been tried by Democrats in the past, including by both Gore and Kerry, the firearms-issue-voters soundly voted against them. On the other hand, Montana, which is almost as flyover-country as you can get, has a governor with "More guns than I need, but not as many as I want": A Democrat. It may not have been the deciding factor, but Montana is definitely a firearms-friendly state, had Schwietzer been anti-gun, I doubt he would have been elected.

There is hope for the Democrats though, they're slowly figuring it out. The NRA has more than doubled the percentage of its donations that it gives to Democrats in the last four years. (Though going from 6% to 14% isn't really saying much). There's a common misconception that the NRA is a Republican powerbase, set against the Democrats, complete with arguments that the Republicans listen to the NRA and does what the NRA tells them. It's not, in fact, it's quite the opposite: The NRA a single-issue body, which almost exclusively supports Republicans because the Republican candidates tend to be more pro-gun. It's a very large powerbase which could be quite easy for the Democrats to harness, if they can bring themselves to do it.

NTM

Manic Moran

flogen wrote:

Kerry was destroyed for criticising the war after he voted for it

Where the troops are concerned, supported or otherwise, Kerry destroyed himself by trying to shove his war record down our necks, with a little exaggeration.

NTM

bonkey

flogen wrote:

if the dems can balance it right they can have a candidate who says, and has always said that the war was wrong

I think they'd struggle to find a single established-name politician who's taken that stance up to now.

I'd also be surprised if they could find one such who the Reps wouldn't savage as being just a rabid anti-Republican rather than someone with a reasoned view capable of being entrusted with the future of the nation.

jc

metrovelvet

Manic Moran wrote:

Where the troops are concerned, supported or otherwise, Kerry destroyed himself by trying to shove his war record down our necks, with a little exaggeration.

NTM

Plus the fact that he just looks like a rich boy who lives of his wifes money [money she inherited from her republican dead husband] . A Catholic who supports abortion. A "war hero" who cant make up his mind about Iraq... how oh how did he win the primary? What were they thinking?