Who Do You Think Will Be The Democratic Nominee In 2008?

Not who you want to be the nominee but who you think will be the nominee...


I am starting this thread because I think everything about the Schiavo case has been said and no minds will be changed..


on edit-grammar -:)

With Jerry Brown back in politics, I looking forwards to a Kucinich-Brown ticket.

I will vote for whoever it is like I always do.

I was asking folks to approach this like oddsmakers...

:P

and it is usually decided before it reaches my state.

I do believe Hillary has already won the nomination if she wants it though.

Once she announces, the media will be on 24 hour Hillary watch, and no other candidate will get an ounce of air time after that.

Ronny K. Marshall

Bow to me !!! I am your future!!!

first name....Stephen? That guy could win. But not sure the Dems will make the right choice next time.

I'm not automatically voting Dem. next time. Depends on who they select.

because (as I've said elsewhere) US imperialism will continue to be on the march, with sabers rattling and permanent bases in place all across Iraq (where the US death toll will continue to bleed us daily)and militarism being Topic #1 to divert the US public from the horrific mess our economy will be in.

Someone new and different, with military credentials and lacking Beltway baggage, will be our best bet.

Today, that guy is Wes Clark. I'm just guessing that he'll still be our only candidate that fills those criteria thirty months from now.

which were the other three rigged elections, pray tell?

Especially if things come out about voter fraud. I think Kerry will be the nominee in 2008.

Although I'd like Boxer or Clark.

I suspect it will be someone who didn't even run in 2004.

eom

;)

I don't see them around here very much any more.

we had to read posts about how Bush was going to declare martial law ands cancel the elections. Hopefully those posts aren't starting again already four years before the election.

Hillary Clinton will be the frontrunner throuout 2007, but then there will be an electability backlash within the party against her. What will happen is that DLC types will join forces with liberals in the party who have been losing patience with Hillary's increasingly hawkish and centrist rhetoric.

Richardson has good centrist credentials, he can deliver a needed red state and while the party's base is not thrilled with him, he has not antagonized the base of the party the way Hillary has. He might have a hard time in Iowa and New Hampshire, but he could clean up in primaries in New York, Texas, Arizona, Colorado, California and Florida. Richardson being a Hispanic could get the Democratic percentages among Latinos back up to Clinton era levels (+70%). He has foreign policy experience, executive experience and an inspiring life story. I'm sure he would also be a good fund raiser.

I think he will be hard to beat if he runs again in the primaries.

If people focus on what he's done, and not what was done to him, they'll see was the right man for the job in '04 and will be in '08.
There's not much for the Republicans to sling at him. It's all been said. If the Repubs smell fresh meat, they'll do a 2004 on whoever else we might nominate, and we'll be screwed the same way next time around.
I can see President Kerry. He looks like a damn good choice to me.

to make themselves stand out in the minds of Democratic primary voters. It is unknowable at this point who that somebody will be. At this point in 2001, no one could have predicted that 9/11 would happen or that we would be in a pointless war in Iraq. It is likely that events beyond our present ability to see will also determine who the nominee is in 2008.

Any prediction right now is worthless. I have a favorite. But, anything can happen between now and the midterms in Nov 2006, much less between now and Iowa or New Hampshire in early 2008. (And if Gov. Vilsack of Iowa runs, then Iowa becomes les important anyway because of the favorite son candidate. Does this make NH more important or will that state have a near favorite son? Who knows.) It's simply too early for any serious discussion of this. (Unless you have a specific candidate that you are backing. In which case, good luck. It's going to be a long four years.)

I'm sure Dean or Clark would have won this poll back in the day, and we see how that turned out.

My money is on Hillary.

She won't flip any red states and she may lose a couple of blue ones.

I'm tired of the media picking my candidates.

He has totally changed and become more assertive with his views. I think he deserve to be given the opportunity to show the rePIGs that he truely won in 2000.

Of course if it were Who do I WANT it would be Clark but if nothing changes by '08 I imagine we will once again have the choice that the Corporate controlled leaders of the 2 major parties shove down our throats...

For this poll - no vote because my biggest fear is they'll hand us Hillary but I'm not willing to accept that yet.

;)

N'sea tonto tuanis! :D

Espero que bien!

:hi:

:hi: "¡La ostia!" :D ... la novia (de Madrid) de mi hermano está visitando aquí. ;) ... y vos?

Espero que disfrutés hablar español con la tía, ostia! ;) :hi:

Voted for Clark, though.

I think both come across as plain spoken, but not stupid.

Things could change..duh! Anyway, right after Ickes endorsed Dean for DNC chair, a million dollars left the DNC coffers and went to the NY state party. Three days later, Kerry sent the DNC... you guessed it, one million dollars. About a week after the Dean election, the head of Hillary's PAC, Ickes, takes over at ACT. Last week it was reported that several of Hillary's top people were brought on at the DNC.

Connect the dots.

Hillary is running and on Friday's CrossFire, Brazile instructed us: "All Democrats better get behind her."

Hillary will have all the money, all the endorsements (see ACT) all the airtime. Period.

I'm done playing their games; tired, real tired of losing; but more than that, extra tired of voting for Democrats who sell me out (IWR, Patriot's Act, NCLB).

Why would Kerry pass a mil to NY via DNC, if I am reading you correctly?

J.

Something is going on behind closed doors and it has little to do with what matters to the people of this country.

I agree with the next poster: I too like Feingold--one of the few "straight up" politicians.

edit: I forgot to say that the first million was given by Terry Mac, the second million was given to the DNC under Dean.

but why? Why would Kerry pass a mil to Hilary - that's what I am trying to understand.

J.

but that is just speculation. One should never assume. But the movement of money is curious, and the entire matter tells me that it will be the party that decides who the nominee will be.

Rabbit hole time.

but i'd like to see Russ Feingold in the mix, even as veep...

I doubt I'd even vote for Hillary if she gets the nomination - there's no point in it - she'd only garner about 38 percent in my state, anyway.
I might as well vote for an independent of some stripe.

But, you're right, Donna - I'm VERY tired of voting for Dems who sell out, lie, play games and 'politic' with the party instead of the people.

You left out the money that went to VA, to Warner's state. That was a lot more than million, I think.

Besides Karen Finney, who incidentally worked for Elizabeth Edwards as well....who else are you saying are Hilary's people?

Do you mean Tom McMahon? I wish you would be more clear. Dean has some of the people loyal to a lot of other democrats on board. He has Nugen from Lieberman's campaign, and many others. Tom was in the Clinton whitehouse, but he was exec director of the Dean Campaign and DFA. He and brother Steve have been with Dean for years while he was governor. He was also working with Gore.

I guess I am so stunned at the assumptions in your post that I don't even know what to say.

So we have already been sold out? Is that what you are saying?

He can not do that. While I would prefer someone other than her, I would be irate if the DNC chair tried to "dump" her.

I fully realize that deals go on, but Donna's assumptions were a little over the line IMHO.

But, I think his point is valid.
I truly believe - living in the region of the country in which I live - that if Hillary is the nominee for the Dems, Frist is our next president.
:scared:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64226-2005Jan10.html

I have no opinion one way or the other. Just FYI

I don't like having folks shoved down my throat.

"All Democrats better get behind her" indeed. Why do we need to do that Donna? We still have a democracy in this country... sorta... and I'll get behind whoever I damn well please.

I'm keeping Edwards in my corner, but I've gotta say that I'd enthusiastically back Wes clark in a heartbeat.

On edit: But it's incredibly early in the game. 2008 will be wide-open, and anything could happen in the next two-three years, when campaigning gets seriously under way.

Evan Bayh - Dem from Indiana - he knows what it takes to win in mega-repub areas. I personally would vote for any Dem, but I think we have the best chance of winning with Bayh or Clark - Dems from moderate areas of our nation who can lead well.

thought Kerry would be the nominee, even just a few weeks (days?) before he won Iowa.

Politics is a strange business.

Why not?

Sorry for the oversight...

You left off the best candidate!!!!

Clinton=winner.... Chelsea could run and get the nomination.

We have got to have a Congress that is willing to fight for our values. A Congress who understands that they are there for checks and balances; for advise and consent. Not to be a rubber stamp.

So I don't think we need to jump the gun to the 2008 Presidential election. Three years is like an eternity in politics, where circumstances and fortunes changes so fast.

Let's get the Congress back into the right hands first.