I think the 2008 Presidential race will be very different from '04

I'm speaking of the issues. 2004 was so close to 9/11 and the Bush administration had made Terrorism the top issue that it was bound to overshadow domestic issues, that usually favor the Democrats.

However, in 2008, for the first time in many election cycles no president or vice president (assuming Cheney doesn't run) will be on the national ticket. In a sense the presidency is an "open seat." I think that the political climate will also be a marked change.

We are already seeing the seeds being planted--The I word is coming back--Inflation. The great domestic issue of the mid to late 70's which had a hand in defeating Ford in '76 and certainly Carter in '80. It isn't only Energy prices but other core rates of inflation are going higher, and the energy prices will ultimately lead to higher costs in other areas being passed on to the consumers.

This will ultimately lead to higher interest rates (already it is) as the FED, like they did in the 70's and early 80's will try to use higher interest rates as a way to slow inflation.

Ultimately this could lead to a recession as it did in 1979-80 and 82-83. While recession may level off inflation and interest rates it will cause higher unemployment.

I think the political pendulum is beginning to turn--unfortunately the reckless fiscal policies of the Bush Administration will lead to more misery for everyone, but if there is a silver lining, it will probably benefit Democrats in 2008, and probably as soon as 2006.

For example, Bush will not be running.

There is a consitutional amendment about it.

H.J.RES.9
Title: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.
Sponsor: Rep Serrano, Jose E. (introduced 1/4/2005) Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 3/2/2005 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution.

Just keeping track.

Many say it won't benefit the Lunatic, maybe not. But things are very different in this post 911 US. Many things we believed were true in America are no longer true now.

Who would have ever dreamed that the Constitution and Bill of Rights would end up just so much toilet paper?!!

Just a thought.

Given the dynastic nature of US politics, it wouldn't amaze me if Jeb or that nephew (George P?) was to run either in 2008 or later.

NOONE from the GOP can pull off teh hick cowboy, hey wanna beer!?, good ol boy persona Bush had. There is just NO WAY they can market anyone from the GOP like Bush did, which means there wont be any of this touchy feely crap. I HOPE THEY RUN FRIST.

and the only way I think McCain could be defeated is if the country truly is in a malaise and wants a change from the policies of the Republican party.

Roosevelt, Kennedy, Carter, Clinton. Republicans screw everything up and people get tired of the economic "malaise" and vote Democrat. Democrats fix everything, and the dumbass Americans get dollar signs in their eyes and vote in Republicans. Insanity at its finest.

I've definietly have noticed that. Hopefully that'll happen with 2008. People are slowly starting to get tired of the neocons and now days it's hard to know a neocon from a republican.

If anybody I think it might be McCain. He's the only other person I think who could pull it off. He is a war veteran and pow even so he could run on that. We can definietly run on tons of issues for 2008. It's all about playing your cards right I think.

They'll pick someone else and demonize McCain the way they have everyone else. They already started the process in 2000.

How the HELL did he get elected 'Govenator' of one of the bluest states in the country?

He would be a real threat, unless Americans became eduacted on the issues and really looked into candidates instead of just voting on 'feel'. Ok, so he IS a real threat.

think... 1932

Suspended elections due to "National Security"

:scared: More years of W. I wonder if people would handle that.

the (s)election in 2008 is a moot point!

Because I don't think that the Republicans nor it's media will let go of the Terror/War card as easily as you might want to predict. It's like a trump card to them, and they are not about to let it go because WE would like to reason that they should.

It's should be as you say, but alas, those with the most control over events as we near both the 2006 and 2008 elections will be the White House ran by Neo-Cons...not Democrats and their activists.

So it would be nice to think that one can predict what the issues will be, but just like the issues were not those we thought they would be in 2002 (the IWR was the issue driven by the GOP). Just like Kerry and Edwards tried to steer the issue to be about economics, and failed in 2004, I'd rather not go there.

Instead, we must be a full service party who can address all and any issue that will surface. That's how we win.

We must work now to be prepared on all fronts, and we can't do that by underestimating or attempting to second guess what future elections in four years will be about. That is an unwise move, IMO (seeing our past track record in second guessing wrong).

As the minority party, we just do not set the agenda, and the media pretty much has a lock on what issues get airplay.

If we think the ball will be in our court, we will be caught flat footed AGAIN.

It's an optimistic position to think that election issues will be those that Democrats are the strongest on. It's actual wishful thinking, but wishing won't necessarily make it so.

I agree with the original poster that economic factors should be the issue, and we will be broker and in sadder shape than we are now by then...but I also realize that Dems will not be handed the microphone, and unless we address issues about voting apparatus and attempt to prepare ourselves to be as strong as can be IN ALL AREAS, we can end up easily setting ourselves up to lose AGAIN. I don't think that I could deal with another defeat, and I hope we don't try to roll the dice and hope for the best.

will also be seriously undermined. I don't think we were flat footed in 2004, we had a military hero as a candidate and someone with extensive fp experience. His problem was that he didn't dispute some erroneous claims by the Bush team early enough. Had he done that he might be president today.

instead, Kerry, Vietnam Hero of years gone by, selected Edwards (a known populist) as VP and started the campaign on an economic message. However, once his poll numbers dropped (after the tidy bowl campaign)and he did (at that point) start addressing Bush's competence in Iraq....this is when he started to go up again.

Certainly, I do believe that Kerry most likely won anyways....but just not by enough. That's why Electoral machinery reform and being prepared on all fronts is the way to go.

You and I can argue all day long about what MIGHT be. The real question should be How do we prepare ourselves for anything and everything? You see, neither one of our crystal ball is so clear that we can AFFORD to start excluding certain issues. We would be much wiser and pragmatic if we would concentrate on including all possibilities as issues in future elections, since we most likely won't control (to any real extent) which way things are likely to go.

My bottomline point--Your plan A is certainly possible, but what about plan B, C, D, etc...? Following your logic, it almost sounds like we can call it a day, and simply await victory in 2008. It's seems like a classic case of having a passive plan to me. We need to be on the offense on as many fronts as we can be, including National Security.

Congressman Kucinich re-launched his web site (kucinich.us) today.
Check it out!
http://www.kucinich.us/

There won't be ANYONE working in this country the way things are going. :mad:

And 2008 will only matter if the electronic voting mess is cleared up. Otherwise, the election will be for show only.

THE VOTE IS RIGGED!!! WE CANNOT WIN!!!

to the Repubs.

Just like the Dems need a 50 state strategy, they need Domestic Issues, & International issues strategies.

To become THE majority party again, you cannot give away half of the issues facing the country.

On domestic issues, they cite "moral values." Never mind that they have none.

On foreign policy, they cite "strength." Never mind that they have none.

On fiscal issues affecting BOTH, they cite "it's your money." Never mind that it's Japan's and China's money at this point, we're so in debt.

Economic problems? They'll sell tax cuts. Energy prices? They'll sell oil drilling. Interest rates? They'll sell whatever's booming (something's going well when interest rates are raised). Recession, depression, flat-out crash? It was 9/11 -- they'll sell fighting the scary Arabs.

On sound policy affecting all voters, Democrats have had the right answers since 2000, and before. It's been SO obvious to most of us, and I think we keep hoping voters will GET it before we all fall off a cliff. But they just listen to the rhetoric, and if they're not looped in by "Clinton was immoral" they're looped in by "Al Gore is a liar" or "Kerry threw his medals;" If they're not looped in by "the wealthy paid in so much they need tax cuts too" they're looped in by "it's your money, you overpaid" or talk of "smaller government;" If they're not looped in by "we can't fight the bad guys with spitballs" they're looped in by "sanctity of marriage" or "sanctity of life" or "Christian values" or whatever...

In other words, they've mastered the shell game. On the facts, in truth, we win hands down already.

Candidate wise.

I expect there to be little difference between the 2 major party candidates (Kerry was what was the most different than the norm , he was slightly left of our 1992-2000 candidates).The GOP always nominates the dame old stuff.For at least the last 50-70 years.

The 2 partys are blending closer and closer into one.WE always know where the GOP will stand.Its getting that way with Democratic candidates as well.And assuming 2004 was a road bump (I hope it WAS NOT and would prefer to think its a beginning trend in a new direction)then I assume us Democrats will nominate a near GOP clone a seems to be the trend overall.