Whittle down the field for 08. Then post your list of final contenders.

Of 300 million or so U.S. citizens, likely the next president will be one of only 30 or 40 individuals.

The list of 30-40 people, alphabetized, would likely include:

DEMOCRATS

1. Sen. Evan Bayh
2. Sen. Joe Biden
3. Sen. Barbara Boxer
4. Sen. Bill Bradley
5. General Wesley Clark
6. Sen. Hillary Clinton
7. Congressman Randy Crow
8. Congressman Lloyd Doggett
9. Sen. Dick Durbin
10. Sen. John Edwards
11. Sen. Russ Feingold
12. Vice President Al Gore
13. Sen. Mike Gravel
14. Sen. John Kerry
15. Congressman Dennis Kucinich
16. Sen. Mary Landrieu
17. Sen. Blanche Lincoln
18. Sen. Barrack Obama
19. Gov. Bill Richardson
20. Gov. Kathleen Sebelius
21. Gov. Brian Schweitzer
22. Rev. Al Sharpton
23. Gov. Tom Vilsack
24. Gov. Mark Warner

REPUBLICANS

1. Sen. George "Cement Head" Allen
2. Gov. Haley Barbour "Yeah, I jammed your damn phones. So what"
3. Michael Bloomberg
4. Sen. Sam "Christokook" Brownback
5. Gov. Jeb Bush
6. Sen. Bill Frist, THE CAT BUTCHER
7. Congressman Newt Gingrich
8. Mayor Rudy Giuliani
9. Sen. Chuck Hagel
10. Sen. John McCain
11. Gov. George Pataki
12. Gov. Bill Owen
13. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice
14. Gov. Mitt Romney
15. Congressman Tom Tancredo

I've probably forgotten some people -- fill me in on who those are, please -- and some here have said they aren't interested in the job but could change their minds later and jump in.

You can do your own personal disqualifying -- whittling down -- and come up with a list of only ten people within a realistic shot of the White House.

A summons to the urgency of the 2006 midterms is almost obligatory in DU posts, and please know I am very actively engaged in two 06 Congressional Democratic campaigns in my state and offer no apologies whatsoever for multi-tasking in speculative politics. A peripheral vision is handy.

Dark horses and consensus candidates can emerge out of crowded fields, but of 300 million U.S. citizens, I believe that only one of these few dozen people will be our next president.

Please add to or subtract from this list and post your dozen-or-so true contenders.

___
This notion came to me reading and posting in DUer killerbush's excellent thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2637861

--in which Bush was slammed as the worst president ever.

Go for it!!!

to make a "final" contenders list, in case you want to do that. It's ok if you don't.

Gore and Feingold? I expect their names to be very prominent in the next year and a half leading up to the caucus/primary season.

for oh, so many reasons.

She's such a charmer!

You may need to get out more.

out her influence on U.S. foreign policy.

I think she's a frightening, unstable soul.

It's regrettable that she is one of 30-40 people who could become president.

I've only had the chance to listen to him about 5 times, but I've been very impressed each time. I know, he's already said he's not interested, but I'm hoping he'll change his mind.

hostile territory. There are a lot of rancher Republicans in Montana and yet he's makin' it happen for the Democrats out there.

Credit where it's due, and his name will be mentiond over the next year and a half as talk of our ticket starts to steamroll after November 06.

when the voters want to turn out the corrupt bums and bring in an entirely new face from outside Washington, then a successful, plain talking one term governor from a very red state might be just the anwer to our prayers.

It came at a time when George Wallace was still the model for "southern governors," and when Wallace lost to Carter in Florida, that was the end of that model of southern governors.

Bill Clinton is not from the Wallace model at all.

We have Warner and Sebelius (Kansas is "kinda" southern), and a handful of well-known senators from the South.

And Gov. Schweitzer in Montana. Way up on the high plains, and real folksy and ballsy, too.

We have a deep bench.

I think the Republicans are going to have their hands full. We're going to match them in ticket appeal, cash raised, and sheer fervor.

sorry for the lack of analysis

a post that included Hagel as the GOP nominee at about the same time.

I think he has a real chance and maybe a better chance than Frist, Allen, Giuliani, Romney, and -- maybe -- McCain.

A Gore - Hagel race would be a thriller.

Say he shrinks McCain down to size inside 1 or 2 weeks in winter of 08.

Say he goes on without serious challenge to be the GOP nominee.

And say also that he chooses Thad Cochran as his running mate.

Hagel-Cochran.

Not insisting this WILL happen, only suggesting that it is among the possibilities. Our ticket is going to have to be comprised of an attractive-enough duo to match their best nominees.

Picking our nominee years ahead. Let's see, he is against Anwar, but he drives an SUV. He's out.

He voted against the war, but then he was pro-Alito. Gone.

He is pro-immigration, but he can't sing La Bamba. Vamoose

Gore was chosen because he was the Veep of a popular President. Then we found out he ran away from that and then the enviorment.

Kerry was chosen because he went to war and argued against the war. Got to confusing so middle of the roaders fell for the 9/11 BS.

So why not wait for the primary and then choose the most passionate, the most focused, and the most balls out ass kicker that understands there are real problems in this Country.

I don't give a rat's ass if it's it's a lesbian, senator in a blue state, devil worshipping, halliburton stock holding, cousin of Charles Manson, dope smoking, girlfriend of Ann Coulter.

That is what we vote for.

But since it is the weekend and I guess real issues aren't important.

Feingold, Gore. Great Clinton, flip flopper. Clark. Too military

Rest of them, got a long way to go.

DEMOCRATS

1. Sen. Evan Bayh
2. Sen. Hillary Clinton
3. Sen. John Edwards
4. Sen. Russ Feingold
5. Vice President Al Gore

REPUBLICANS

1. Sen. George "Cement Head" Allen
2. Sen. Sam "Christokook" Brownback
3. Sen. Chuck Hagel
4. Sen. John McCain
5. Gov. Mitt Romney

I sure don't. 2 or 3.... maybe ... but not all 5.

shifting and unpredictable variables.

One of the most sure-footed Democrats might fall flat on his or her face in a pile of pig doo-doo in Iowa, two days before the caucus meetings. Maybe figuratively, maybe literally. How can we know that?

Labor got behind Dick Gephardt in the 2004 Iowa caucus. Didn't do 'im a lick of good. He was buried alive ith 11%.

We aren't sure of McCain's health. I wish any human good health and true energy, but there has been a question about McCain's skin cancer and other possible afflictions. He's a big name, high-profile front-runner right now, but skin cancer trumps tv apperances every time. Without McCain as frontrunner, the GOP will claw itself to death for his supporters, even as Allen, Barbour, Brownback, and Huckabee claw each other over the fundie vote. Not to mention Frist, THE CAT BUTCHER.

The primary debates are always interesting, and I really think a lot of the 08 primary debate points will be decided in the 06 congressional campaigns.

course of the debates.

would favor Kerry, Gore, and (if she ran) Barbara Boxer.

Bayh falters in that debate, not on points, but on style. He can't speak to an audience without sounding as if he's memorized his words. I'm sorry to have to say so. I don't hate him at all, and can defend him on isolated points, but he can't speak to an audience worth a damn.

Warner's worse. Love his position on capital punishment but I just slip into a coma whenever he's talking. Sorry, all you Warner fans out there, but your guy is a snoozer. A decent, intelligent snoozer, but a snoozer just the same.

Senator Clinton is not a bad debater but she is not in the Kerry/Gore/Boxer league, IMO.

John Edwards is going to be formidable. He's a trial lawyer, and his many successes are not an accident.

Sharpton is a great stage presence, but he will be reduced, possibly, to "the other New Yorker in the race" if Sen. Clinton runs.

Biden could be good, but he may only have one chance in Iowa.

General Clark carries a lot of weight and I think he has some clear advantages in foreign policy over most of the others.

I don't know how good Richardson, Vilsack and others will be in the debate format. I imagine they'll hold their own.

Top vote getters listed first:

Repug:
Allen
McCain
Frist
Hagel
Huckabee

Dem:
Hillary
Kerry
Biden
Edwards
Clark

Eventual nominees: Allen vs Hillary

It's going to be a rough and tumble primary season coming up, isn't it.

are wide open. Lots of debates, posturing, ads and no doubt, dirty tricks. **smacking lips**

parties being more open this time than in the past.

I don't think the mainstream media agree but we don't care what they think anyway!

Dems tend to make their ultimate decision after debates. It's the GOPs who ignore debates and go with the master plan.

I think you and I have had this discussion before, and my thoughts are that on the Dem side, especially if we wish to actually win, it will be an outsider. Your list is thoughtful and comprehensive. My final three on either side of the aisle would be:

Repubs

McCain
Guiliani
Allen


Dems

Schweitzer
Warner
Richardson


IMHO, Rudy would be by far the toughest to beat on the Republican side. Romney or Allen will emerge as the alternative to McCain and Rudy and capture the rightwing vote during the primaries.

As for the Dems, either Warner or Schweitzer will emerge as the darkhorse alternative to Hillary and will end her chances, hopefully. Either of them would be a far stronger candidate. If Richardson runs, he may very well get the Veep slot. I don't think Feingold will break out in the primaries, but I think Edwards has a shot at recapturing some momentum.

I'm very happy with any combination of Schweitzer, Warner, Edwards and Feingold. I would prefer to see either of the two governors at the top of the ticket.

If anyone has not heard him speak, make an effort to.

He's quick witted, plain talking and blunt. He's the exact opposite of a Washington insider.

and then came down and read your post here on Schweitzer.

You're right again: he's definitely worth listening to and considering. I don't think it would be far-flung at all to have a Westerner on our ticket, and a successful Dem governor of a pretty red state would be kind of thrilling, actually.

I'd sure tune in to that convention speech, wouldn't you?

I think Schweitzer is a huge plus for Democrats and I hope his name is in the mix in a lot of party initiatives.

The problem with him running is that seeking a presidential nomination is almost a two year commitment now. It would be political suicide to go start hanging out in Iowa and New Hampshire after only serving as Governor for half a term.

It wasn't always like this. The process used to only run mostly through the actual primary season. Bobby Kennedy entered the race after the New Hampshire primary.

It's a shame too, because Schweitzer is definately presidential.

Sen. Evan Bayh (Will run and do well)
Sen. Joe Biden (Will run- but be a Lieberman like candidate)
3. Sen. Barbara Boxer (won't run)
4. Sen. Bill Bradley (won't run)
5. General Wesley Clark (Has a shot, will likely be the Sec of State)
6. Sen. Hillary Clinton (Has a shot won't win)
7. Congressman Randy Crow (He's not a Congressman, just a weirdo)
8. Congressman Lloyd Doggett (Who?)
9. Sen. Dick Durbin (Won't Run)
10. Sen. John Edwards (Will run for Gov. of NC in 08 instead)
11. Sen. Russ Feingold (Will Run be a darkhorse end with VP)
12. Vice President Al Gore (Will Run and win the nom)
13. Sen. Mike Gravel (No shot)
14. Sen. John Kerry (Will Run, won't do as well as 04)
15. Congressman Dennis Kucinich (Won't run, will back Russ)
16. Sen. Mary Landrieu (Won't run she has to worry about 08 re-election)
17. Sen. Blanche Lincoln (Won't Run)
18. Sen. Barrack Obama (Too young)
19. Gov. Bill Richardson (Will run will do well will lose, and will get a VP consideration as well as Sec of State consideration)
20. Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (Won't run)
21. Gov. Brian Schweitzer (Won't run)
22. Rev. Al Sharpton (No shot)
23. Gov. Tom Vilsack (Will run and won't do well. Sec of Agriculture maybe?)
24. Gov. Mark Warner (Will run Most of his vote will go Gore instead, maybe run for Senate?)

1. Sen. George "Cement Head" Allen (Will run and get Nom)
2. Gov. Haley Barbour "Yeah, I jammed your damn phones. So what" (Won't run)
3. Michael Bloomberg (If he runs it will be as a Dem or an Inde)
4. Sen. Sam "Christokook" Brownback (Will run and won't do well)
5. Gov. Jeb Bush (Won't run, will wait for VP nom)
6. Sen. Bill Frist, THE CAT BUTCHER (Will run and won't do well)
7. Congressman Newt Gingrich (Won't run)
8. Mayor Rudy Giuliani (Run will do well, but not Conservative enough)
9. Sen. Chuck Hagel (Run will do ok)
10. Sen. John McCain (Run will come in 2nd)
11. Gov. George Pataki (won't run, hopes for VP)
12. Gov. Bill Owen (Will run, will be like Vilsack)
13. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice (Won't run)
14. Gov. Mitt Romney (Will do Really bad)
15. Congressman Tom Tancredo (One issue, anit enough)

My Dozen:
1. Sen. Evan Bayh
5. General Wesley Clark
6. Sen. Hillary Clinton
11. Sen. Russ Feingold
12. Vice President Al Gore
14. Sen. John Kerry
19. Gov. Bill Richardson
24. Gov. Mark Warner
1. Sen. George "Cement Head" Allen
8. Mayor Rudy Giuliani
9. Sen. Chuck Hagel
10. Sen. John McCain

Noms: Gore and Feingold vs. Allen and John Thune (Senator-SD)

And with that comment I'd like to say thanks to you for giving it the level of attention you did. Much appreciated, and damned interesting to read, too.

I was struck by several things -- Bloomberg as a possible Dem or Ind candidacy (I knew he used to be a Democrat) and also your thought that Edwards might seek the gubernatorial nod in NC in 08 instead.

Hadn't heard either of those takes before, and think they're invigorating.

And then John Thune as veep nom for the Rethugs! That's a headline in and of itself.

Really thorough & interesting post for the thread, NJ Democrats. Thank you.

Politically speaking, I think that the best person for the number 2 spot that the GOP can find is Mel Martinez. Helps swing Florida and get the hispanic vote.

Gore's film and appearance in Cannes this past week seems to have done him a world of good.

The buzz is loud about him making the decision to run.

ABC's The Note quotes a few big-time party activists who say Gore's candidacy would be met with approval far and wide. (I'd link here, but they want people to subscribe. It's free, though.)

He's a candidate most agree on, plus he so deserves another shot.

guess that a lot of progressives have first-tier choices of candidates they could vote for enthusiastically, then maybe a second tier group of candidates they'd support enthusiastically but not AS enthusiastically as the first group, and then a third-tier of people they'd vote for because the GOP alternative would be unthinkably bad.

I can't prove one syllable of what I just typed, but that's my guess.

And of all those 1st, 2nd and 3rd tier voters, I agree with you that Al Gore could emerge as a consensus candidate. Would Feingold's people be ok with Gore if Feingold didn't get the nomination? Or Kerry's people? Or Clark's people? And so on.

Unless we nominate Zell Miller, I'm voting in the blue column no matter the candidate, but in the last several weeks, Al Gore's name DOES keep popping up.

The Clinton campaign staff must be keeping a watchful eye out the window.

Whittling down the contenders to those that have a realistic shot at my vote, in no particular order:

3. Sen. Barbara Boxer
11. Sen. Russ Feingold
12. Vice President Al Gore
15. Congressman Dennis Kucinich
21. Gov. Brian Schweitzer
22. Rev. Al Sharpton

they were members of the next & soon Democratic administration.

An awful lot of good talent and energy there.

Probably Warner v Huckabee, both rated highly as state managers.

Though would love to support an Edwards/Feingold ticket :patriot:

I've heard it mentioned, and it has a real plausibility.

Needless to say, I'd go for Warner over the far-right Huckabee, and I'd go for your ticket choice there over either one.

in a republican/fundie onion patch, my ears are wide open. Afterall, I live in Pat Robertson's voting precinct :silly:

The local "buzz" is no sitting member in Congress, everybody's looking to great state managers outside the beltway, on both sides of the aisle and with great crossover appeal. Professional politicians need not apply.

Reporting from the trenches, over and out :hi:

like your "lonely petunia in a GOP onion patch" phrase, and please accept a hearty thanks from the rest of us for fighting the good fight against long odds. I'm in a similar district but you have it REALLY bad if Pat Robertson is nearabouts.

I don't know what factors will weigh more in whittling the field down. We have a long list of talented people and it seems a shame they can't all be called to serve in some very official capacity.

But it does feel like a strong blue vote in November and maybe onward into 08.

district too. Whew. I'm just picking my battles now and :hug: for the lovely support, as always OC !

For me it would begin with Warner's brave position on the death penalty.

I personally feel it's barbaric and honor his opposition to it.

He stood by that position in red Virginia, the Old Dominion, and still commanded the governor's office nicely.

I've only heard one Huckabee speech and didn't think much of his artificial self-effacing style. It sounded like a guy at a backyard barbecue instead of a potential presidential candidate on the issues.

I have a feeling that he will not get past the primary with that around his neck.

DEMOCRATS
SENATOR EVAN BAYH
Will run and will most likely do quite well –he has the potential to do well in the primaries and may even secure the nomination. I can’t help feeling, however, that he’ll probably end up as a potential VP nominee

SENATOR JOE BIDEN
Essentially yesterday’s man. Biden’s big chance of winning the nomination was during the 1988 Democratic presidential primaries –in the aftermath of his excellent work as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee in vetoing some of Reagan’s key judicial appointments and when his profile was at its highest –and he blew his bid big time. He hasn’t had a high profile since Republicans took control of Congress and he doesn’t really have that much appeal to the core constituencies of the Democratic Party. I expect him be like Gephardt –his candidacy will fizzle out early in the campaign season

SENATOR BARBARA BOXER
Won’t run. I’ve read that she was actually intending to retire from the Senate in 2004 but reconsidered and ran for another term. I think she’d actually do much better than many people expect if she did run but I’m pretty sure she won’t

EX-SEN BILL BRADLEY
Won’t run unfortunately

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK
Most likely will run and definitely has a chance of winning. I think his chances of securing the nomination depend on (1) whether he runs a better campaign than he did in 2004 and (2) the national security situation we are in during the immediate prelude to and during the course of the election year. If the quagmire in Iraq continues and/or * gets us into a mess with Iran/North Korea/Syria/whoever else he can antagonize, I definitely see Clark as having a very serious chance of gaining the nomination. I also see him as a possible Sec of Defence in a future Democratic Administration if he doesn’t win.

SENATOR HILLARY CLINTON
Will probably run and has a good chance of winning. I think her prospects may depend on whether the early momentum for her campaign and her status as the frontrunner hurts or hinders her during the primary season and whether she can build up a viable candidacy.

CONGRESSMAN RANDY CROW
Whoever he is, I don’t see him having much of a chance of winning unless it’s a Jimmy Carter sort of year where an unknown emerges in front

CONGRESSMAN LLOYD DOGETT
See Randy Crow

SENATOR DICK DURBIN
Won’t run and will probably be overshadowed by speculation surrounding Obama

SENATOR JOHN EDWARDS
Will run and will definitely win a few primaries. I think he has a good chance of winning the nomination

SENATOR RUSS FEINGOLD
Dark horse. I think he’ll do very well in the primaries and has a very outside chance of securing the nomination –particularly if McCain is doing well in the Republican primaries

AL GORE
I don’t think he’ll run but, should he decide to do so, I see him having a very real chance of winning the nomination

SENATOR MIKE GRAVEL
(See Randy Crow)

SENATOR JOHN KERRY
Will most likely run but I don’t think he’ll get the nomination. His big chance was in ‘04’ –when he actually had the nomination –and I think that he’ll be unlikely to gain as much support as he did then. Having said that, I do think he’ll perform well in some of the primaries

DENNIS KUCINICH
May run but will only do as well as he did in ‘04’

SEN MARY LANDRIEU
Won’t run. Even picking her as VP would be problematic because of her senate race –although perhaps we can get Mitch Landrieu to replace her in the Senate

SEN BLANCHE LINCOLN
Won’t run. An outside chance for VP

JANET NAPOLITANO
Won’t run. A very possible VP choice though

SEN BARACK OBAMA
Possible VP pick but won’t run

GOV BILL RICHARDSON
Will run but I actually don’t think he’s in serious contention for the nomination –controversy seems to engulf him wherever he goes. I see him as a future Secretary of State though

GOV KATHLEEN SEBELIUS
Won’t run but may be a potential VP candidate. Perhaps the Democrats should field her as Brownback’s senate replacement in 2010

GOV BRIAN SCHWEITZER
Won’t run and even a VP pick would be problematic because it coincides with re-election year in Montana. I think his chances are much more likely in 2012 if the Democrats lose in 2008 (and I’m desperately hoping they won’t)

REV AL SHARPTON
May be under pressure to defer to Hillary. Even if he does run, he won’t come anywhere close to what Jesse Jackson did

GOV TOM VILSACK
May very well decide to run and may win in Iowa but I don’t see him gaining the nomination

GOV MARK WARNER
Will most probably run and I see him as the most likely to gain the nomination.

Republicans
SEN GEORGE ALLEN
In with a serious chance for the nomination unfortunately. I think he’ll almost certainly run

GOV BARBOUR
Not inconceivable that he will run. Dark horse but I don’t think he’ll come close to gaining the nomination. Possible VP pick

MICHAEL BLOOMBERG
A former Democrat who has a somewhat liberal reputation and is Mayor of one of the most liberal cities in America? Forget it. Won’t run and, if he did, he’d have no chance of gaining the nomination

SEN SAM BROWNBACK
Will run and won’t do well

GOV JEB BUSH
Probably won’t run but too early to tell. I think he’d be crazy to run immediately after his brother was President and particularly since his brother hasn’t been a particularly good President (and I don’t see this changing over the next two years). Possible VP pick but my guess is that * will have become even more of an embarrassment than he is now and the new Republican nominee won’t want to be tied too extensively to the * legacy

NORM COLEMAN
Hopefully he’ll face too competitive a senate race to run but I think he wants to run for the White House and he’s such an expedient opportunist that I think he’ll probably do quite well.

ELIZABETH DOLE
May run but I doubt she’ll win.

SEN BILL FRIST
Will run and will engage in enough dirty tricks to be considered as a serious contender for the nomination.

NEWT GINGRICH
Will run but his ego exceeds his popularity. Besides he’s like Biden –his day has long gone.

RUDY GULIANI
Will run. Has the potential to do well but won’t win the nomination

CHUCK HAGEL
Will possibly run. Will not do well in the Republican primaries but may do better if he runs as an Independent. Possible VP pick if McCain wins

MIKE HUCKABEE
Will run and has a good chance of being either presidential or VP nominee

JOHN MCCAIN
Will run and will be a serious contender for the nomination. But despite all his slavish devotion to * over the last six years, I get the impression that it won’t pay off and that the White House will be working behind the scenes to undermine his candidacy

GOV GEORGE PATAKI
Will run and may do well in isolated primaries in the Northeast but nowhere else

TIM PAWLENTY
More likely a VP choice


GOV BILL OWEN
Will probably run but I think his momentum is fading. Nevertheless he still has a shot of winning the nomination

CONDOLEEZA RICE
Probably *’s choice but I don’t see her winning the nomination even with White House support. There are too many Trent Lott types in the White House

MITT ROMNEY
I’ll spare you my personal opinion of this guy but I think he may actually do much better than expected among moderate GOP voters. I don’t expect him to win the nomination but I do consider him a potential VP

TOM TANCREDO
Will do well here and there on his anti-immigration platform but has no hope of winning either the presidential or VP nomination

My top 5 most likely for the Democratic nomination are:
1. Mark Warner
2. Evan Bayh
3. John Edwards
4. Hillary Clinton
5. Al Gore (if he runs)

Republicans are:
1. George Allen
2. Bill Frist
3. Mike Huckabee
4. John McCain
5. Mitt Romney

I see a Warner-Bayh ticket most likely on the Democratic side and perhaps an Allen-Coleman ticket on the Repug side. Or perhaps an Allen-Huckabee ticket or vice versa. Either way :puke: :puke:

front of us here. Thank you for that.

Thanks also for adding a few names I had overlooked. I appreciate it.

Norm Coleman? The political logic of that for the GOP is clear, as Minnesota is a purple battleground these days. I hope Dems can hold Mark Dayton's seat, but it doesn't look like a sure thing by any means. Putting Coleman on the bottom of a national 008 ticket for them would be very strategic, and I could definitely see it happening.

Hell -- after Dan Quayle, I could see them putting just about anybody on their ticket.

I love your summary of Gingrich -- that his ego exceeds popularity. Yes.

Also agree on many others, especially on Biden. Smart guy but comes across as somehow misdirected & occasionally befuddled. Not quite sure what to make of him.

I also see Evan Bayh as a contender, and more-than-50-50 a VP nominee.

Thanks for a very good post.

for re-election if Al Franken runs against him.

I almost want to move to Minnesota to vote against Norm Coleman. The man registers a 9.6 or higher on the Yuck Index.

Federal law requires that the Def. Sec. be out of active military service for 10 years. Clark will only have been out eight in 2008.

President or Secretary of State are my picks, in that order.

Democrats
1. Hillary Clinton <even>
2. Mark Warner <3/1>
3. Russ Feingold <20/1>
4. John Edwards <12/1>
5. Bill Richardson <25/1>

(If Gore announces, he immediately goes to number 2.)

Republicans
1. George Allen <4/1>
2. Mitt Romney <9/1>
3. John McCain <3/2>
4. Mike Huckabee <50/1>
5. Haley Barbour <100/1>

<Brackets indicate TradeSports.com Power Rankings>

There you have it folks. Bookmark this post and get back to me in 2008.

It will be interesting to look at this in the future.

it's not my original idea -- the buzz on that new film is that it has helped Gore's profile.

I don't know the man and can't guess his inspirations and wishes, but I think he becomes exactly as you say he does if he jumps in this race.

A lot of people would see him as a contender against Sen. Clinton for the "frontrunner" position, and they would both be putting the nomination on the line if they competed in Iowa.

But it could happen.

I'm saving this whole thread in Bookmarks to re-visit it during primary season. Lots of people here have put up some great info & predictions.

looking at, why my favorite link, of course:

http://nationaljournal.com/racerankings/wh08/

The only good one on that list is Feingold - and I don't imagine him winning (sadly - because of his divorces).

Hillary can't win, Edwards is too fluffy for whatever war we'll be in at the time, Richardson has too many skeletons and Warner is a corporate lackey.

I'm glad sports fans don't know much about politics.

your comment, "sadly." I took it to mean that you felt he would be unfairly judged by too many voters owing to the divorce record, and that that kind of prejudice would be disproportional to voters who are drawn to Feingold because he is a genuine public servant deserving of acclaim.

Reagan was also divorced, and the fundies just can't get enough of him. He's their marquee legend guy and they somehow just overlook HIS divorce.

Not to mention the death squads he presided over in Central America. Call me old-fashioned, but I just don't LIKE it when agents of my government engineer and finance death squads.

It makes me UNEASY.

Anyway, Clark2008, I wanted to say I appreciate that comment there about Feingold. We have to stick up for people, whether they're married, or not, or divorced, or not, or what have you.

Democrats: Kerry, Clinton, Bayh, Edwards, Feingold (Warner I see as more likely VP) Many eliminated because CW is they can't raise the money. Bayh is boring, but he has been a Governor and, unlike Warner, a Senator - and he's raised a lot of money. If I could cheat and have 2 more, I'd add Gore (if he gets done with the Hamlet phase by end of 2006) and Clark. (The biggest problem I see with Clark is I agree with the logic of a Hillary/anti-Hillary and Clark has been in line with the party leaders on Iraq - in fact he articulated their plan. I know Bayh has the same problem, but as he's less known he can more easily shift his position.)

Republicans: McCain, Hagel, Brownback, Allen, Bloomberg Bloomberg I put in as a surprise candidate - like a Guilliani without the sleazy divorces. He's actually a Democrat.

he's like Giuliani without the sleazy divorces.

Now THAT would be a terrific campaign slogan for the Bloomberg team, wouldn't it?

"Vote for Mike Bloomberg -- like Giuliani without the sleazy divorces."

And I think you're right about Bayh -- he's been both a governor and a senator and has already raised some serious dollars. His father did pretty well in the Iowa caucus some years ago, and Evan may be a real contender there in 08.

On Gore: I like your description (Hamlet phase ending by 06). Perfect.

I've enjoyed your comments on my list and other lists more than anything else on this thread.

The other thing I found on the thread was that it was tough to limit the Democrats to 5 - really suggesting that 1) it's early and 2) there are many credible candidates.

Democrat 'round about now. It's no fun watching Bush shred the Constitution, of course, but it is inspiring to be party of a purposeful, polic-directed party.

He advised the idiot Dems in Congress NOT to go, for Pete's sake.

:eyes:

which should be obvious from my sentence. In terms of 2008, his position of what to do going forward is more significant. I recognize that the differences now may be shifted and changed by 2008.

REPUG candidates: Who cares! (All the same brain-chip implants.)

Well, SOME of them are brain-chip implants. For others, no brain could be found to plant a chip in! Brownback. Allen. Frist. You know the story.

Your response adds that caveat about whether Al Gore is persuaded to jump in. Lots of time to decide, but right now he is looking pretty darn viable as a candidate. And I know he has some support out there.

It's going to be an exciting year and a half, isn't it.

DEMOCRATS

Sen. Evan Bayh
Sen. Hillary Clinton
Sen. John Edwards
Vice President Al Gore
Sen. John Kerry

REPUBLICANS

Sen. George "Cement Head" Allen
Sen. Sam "Christokook" Brownback
Gov. Jeb Bush
Sen. Chuck Hagel
Sen. John McCain

FINAL TWO

Oh, I have no idea. Probably Clinton v. McCain...or Bush, unless the fundies get their way and then they may settle for Allen if Brownback's judged too nutso.

BEST CASE SCENARIO (from the above 10)

Edwards v. Hagel...with Edwards winning of course and Hagel seems the lesser of all those other evils.

IN MY VERY PERFECT WORLD (perhaps otherwise known as la-la land)

Feingold v. Hagel...with Feingold winning.

and Hagel.

Partisan politics puts me firmly in Feingold's fold on that match-up, but my own politics aside, I'd admit that a Feingold-Hagel debate would be civil, intelligent, and genuinely useful to the electorate.

Gore did HIS part in 2000. Kerry did HIS part in 2004. But there was no reciprocal level of skill or usefulness on Dubya's part. He sloughed his way through the debates, hoping to kill the clock and get out of there.

With Feingold and Hagel, you'd have both parties extremely ably represented.

also, if the worst were to happen and Feingold were to lose, I don't think I'd be quite as scared living under President Hagel as I would say, President Brownback or Allen...and I do use that title with dread!

I do agree completely that a Feingold-Hagel debate would be much more useful than the run of the mill presidential debate. I think in my perfect world it would also not be so unlikely that they might even shrug off the canned ham speeches in response to the questions and it would be almost like the "West Wing" debate between Santos and Vinnick.

That would be nice.

And I do hope it is more than a dream.

:puke: - a list of mostly corporate lackeys, DLCers and fluff (Gore not included).

too obsessed with the Congressional races for 06. On one hand, that's not a bad obsession, because I really do want John Conyers to be the Chair of the House Judiciary Committee, and so forth. The more Democrats there are in the House, the less likely the Constitution will be shredded, and we would have a far better chance to restore the parts Dubya and his crew have already decimated.

So that's one level of things for the politically-involved volunteer and staff worker. The criticism was accurate and telling, and revealed another point: each time any of us volunteers, we build the party -- and not just for a primary or caucus but the November election in 06 and the next presidential election and so forth. It's all the same election, in other words, from the point of view of building a party and maintaining the links of the chain to keep it strong.

What I was gunning for here is for posters to "whittle down" the list of maybe 30 or 40 U.S. citizens, on the notion that only one of them is going to be the next president. Maybe Senator Clinton will surprise me and win the Iowa caucus, but personally, I do not believe she will. Maybe Chuck Hagel will win in Iowa and also in New Hampshire, even though John McCain cleaned Dubya's clock in New Hampshire in 2000.

I learn from others' speculative politics here, and the result is that when I show up for my volunteer work for two Congressional candidates, the currency I enjoy with my co-volunteers and staff is much richer and more rewarding. Also more entertaining -- Democrats have a GREAT sense of humor.

But there are dozens of thousands of us on DU alone, and what's the best case scenario for one poster might not be as attractive to the next poster. Then ten or a hundred others will post still different scenarios. I'm going for the broad range and getting it from a lot of people in this thread, and I really appreciate what people are contributing.

I hope no Mike Gravel supporters are reading this thread, though. He's not scoring that highly, doesn't look like.

criticize? You seem to have criticized everyone else.

Who would be on your list? Clark, I'm sure. And that's just fine. He would have been #6 on my list.

But the OP asked for realistic chances of winning, and that is what I posted.

By the way, I'm not up on DLC membership lists and corporate lackeys...do you happen to have any details you could elaborate on regarding my list of corporate lackeys, DLCers and fluff? I'd really like to hear your reasoning.

Thanks

on our side and

Allen, Jeb, Hagel, McCain, Guiliani from their side. I strongly suspect the next president will be one of those people.

A wildly popular R gov in a solid blue state. :hi:

He's a Mormon.

..go figure. Guess it's that Olympic "thang" :shrug:

My focus group of one, my Masshole native husband, likes him and Bush.

other MA people.

:crazy:

but how the heck did he get elected in MA ? The Dem must've really been awful :shrug:

He is following 3 other Republican governors because many people do not want all the powers in the hands of one party.

However, Romney is so unpopular that he is not running for a second term and that his Lt Gov, who is running for his seat, is losing against the 3 Democratic candidates in the polls.

Keep us updated, sounds like another state to watch in '06. Who are you supporting, and how can we help you :hug:

Here's what I found out from Sabato:

Massachusetts
Outlook: Toss-up


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Latest Update:

Incredibly, Democrats are trying to blow it again in their safest state. Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly had an embarrassing choice for lt. governor--someone who had not paid her taxes and had to quickly withdraw from the race, and the other Democrat, ex-Deputy U.S. Attorney General Deval Patrick, is quite liberal. At the same time, Republican Lt. Governor Kerry Healey does not appear to have the heft of prior Republican winners Bill Weld, Paul Cellucci and Mitt Romney.

The entry of Christy Mihos as an independent complicates the picture. While the wealthy Mihos seems to be taking votes from both sides, he is almost certainly hurting Healey more. The Democrats may well win this in the end, and it's probably time for them to take over the statehouse in the Bay State, but there not making it easy on themselves or the voters.

Background

Republicans have controlled the governorship of the nation's most liberal state consistently since 1991. This would be the equivalent of a two-decade run for Democrats in Utah! (There was precisely this kind of Utah Democratic domination from 1965 to 1985. But those were very different times.)

The latest GOP chief executive is the unlikeliest of all, a Mormon and former resident of Utah, Mitt Romney. Despite social views that are culturally more conservative than most residents of the Bay State, Romney won in 2002 for essentially the same reason his three immediate GOP predecessors had triumphed: Voters were unimpressed with the Democratic nominees and probably feared complete Democratic hegemony. After all, Democrats have virtually a one-party state legislature, and they have captured every single U.S. Senate and House seat in Massachusetts--the largest totally Democratic delegation in the Congress.

Republicans will have to aim to make it four consecutive GOP governors in 2006, because Romney has already said he's not running for re-election. His lieutenant governor, Kerry Healey, will be his likely replacement for the GOP nomination.

Healey will have her work cut out in the fall, assuming state Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly, is the Democratic nominee. He is moderate enough to win the general election, assuming that he can overcome the challenge of liberals such as ex-Deputy U.S. Attorney General Deval Patrick, a fellow Democrat. Sooner or later, Massachusetts will revert to form and elect a Democrat for this vital post, too, so the GOP can take nothing for granted in 2006, or ever.

Candidates

Deval Patrick - Democrat - former assistant U.S. Attorney General and Coca Cola executive
Website

Thomas Reilly - Democrat - current Massachusetts Attorney General and former practicing attorney
Website

Kerry Healey - Republican - current Lt. Governor
Website

Christy Mihos - Independent - convenience store magnate, former Massachusetts Turnpike Authority member
Website

Gary Lee - Republican - selectman of Norwood, MA and attorney


http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/2006/governor/?view

On the Democratic side; whomever has the most money; the media and party insiders will follow.
On the Republican side; whomever the party insider get behind; the money and media will follow.

ops of these two big parties.

Plus it's a plausible way to think about how candidates rise to prominence.

Any calls? Do you think General Clark is a top contender? There's a possible scenario that would pit Clark against Chuck Hagel in the general election.

And in that general election, I think the General would win!

the General would win!"

trust me. But you're "half" right :D

can take a hike into tomrrrow and not come back!!

Edwards would be the compliment to either Gore & Feingold... very progressive, but hardly labeled a Liberal! I'm a liberal myself, but find Edwards superb!

I could not only vote for any of them, but I would work like a slave for them, too.

I thought Kerry-Edwards deserved the backing of the electorate last time, and consider their "defeat" at the hands of Bush-Cheney to be a triumph of cheating, low-down dirty side-winding shit-slinging skullduggerous CRAP from Rove and all the right-wing Christokooks who lined up FOR HOURS IN THE RAIN to vote for a fake cowboy and nasty Uncle Dick.

And I definitely endorse your long hike with no return ticket for the Rethugs. Bye-bye for good to Cement-Head Allen and the Cat Butcher and slobberin' Jeb.

mind! My mind that is almost delirious because of how we are getting screwed and how they are manipulating our lives!!

Truly sickening!!

-- and I bet you were, too -- that cheating is wrong.

Just a basic concept we were likely taught as kids. In the dodgeball game at recess, you play by the rules. Same for basketball or tennis or a swim meet -- whatever it is. Most kids are taught and generally understand that the rules ensure fairness, and that fairness has to guide the game.

It's not that I don't realize politics is a rough sport. It can get mighty low-down. But there just seems to be ZERO honor and integrity in the Bush-Cheney administration.

Gore-Lieberman won and Kerry-Edwards won. Bush-Cheney cheated.

them. I live down here with Cruella as my Rep., and I don't think even SHE won last time out. No matter that this is one of the reddest of red counties. She isn't well liked, and I campaigned for Schneider and Kerry/Edwards too! She didn't seem to get very many "honk your horns" around here, but lo and behold, come election night.... some funny stuff went on... right about 11:00 PM!!

I watched a big dump into her column of about 40,000 votes at one time.... just before they called Florida for The Idiot because they KNEW they were having a problem in Ohio!

I will have to see it written in blood before I will believe that 2004 was fair EITHER!

Katherine Harris' district. She is a strange sort of predatory creature. Almost certainly inhuman, and very likely extra-terrestrial.

I think Jan Schneider is outSTANDING and I hope she kicks Buchanon's butt all over the place down there. He's strictly bad news. Do whatever you can! And a lot of us will be rooting for you and Jan to pull through down there.

That should be oneof the House seats that flips blue. I hope so, anyway.

By the way, I LOVE the Goodwill shop there at the turn of U.S. 41 near Nokomis.

I'm across the street and a LITTLE south of Goodwill on the Gulf side! It would take me about 3 to 4 minutes to walk to the store, maybe less. Since I don't know where you live, you are either a Snow-bird or maybe you live in Florida. You can PM me if you want. Small world!

Thanks for your sympathies, but we have a bit of a problem with Jan this time out. Too many groups are backing Jennings her Democratic opponent. And from what I can tell, she is losing the support because they think Jennings is a more attractive candidate and by the I DO mean her appearance. Not that Jennings is more informed or would even make a better candidate. I think Jan has it all over Jennings when it comes to issues! I think it's absolutely ridiculous and I'm going with Schneider myself. The local FDA was supporting Jennings the last I heard, I didn't go to several meetings, so that's the last I heard. Some feel Schneider had her chance and are now looking for new blood.

Just like the Senate race here, Brian Moore filed as NPA against Nelson. I DON'T like Nelson, and I would rather vote for Moore, but I won't because that means little Miss DipShit Witch will have a better chance. So I will have to hold my nose and vote for Nelson, UNLESS there is some HUGE group that will back Moore. Moore is more of my kind of Democrat and I don't know why he didn't just challenge Nelson in a Primary. I need to do some digging into this. Moore doesn't have the name recognition that Nelson does and that could be the reason, but Nelson is pretty wishy-washy if you ask me.

And I LIKE that Goodwill Store too! But Garage sales are even better!

I'm kinda heartsick to hear this. I got a chance to meet her when she was campaigning one evening in front of the van Wesel (sp?) center -- down by the waterfront in Sarasota. She was with her dad; I was with my mom.

Let me tell you. I spoke with Jan for a moment about the campaign and how bad things were with Bush, etc., and about what a horrible soul Katherine Harris is. My MOTHER and Jan's FATHER were flirting up a storm. I thought they were going to duck behind one of the bushes there for a moment. Talk about electricity!

Anyway, I pried my mother from Jan's father and got her back into the car.

I really like Jan Schneider and hope she can somehow triumph in that primary. But your information updates my file, and so I'm going to have to keep an eye out for things now. I hope Buchanon, at the very least, is swallowed by alligators in one of the nearby lagoons. It doesn't matter to me WHICH lagoon or WHICH alligator. Any hungry ol' alligator will be fine.

I live up north but am often there to look in on my mother, who's getting on. Yet she's still a feisty Democrat (with a keen eye for MALE Democrats!)

Hey, you're right on garage sales. Lots of fun. You never know what you're going to run into on those picnic tables.

DEMOCRATS

Sen. Evan Bayh
Sen. Hillary Clinton
Sen. Russ Feingold
Vice President Al Gore
Sen. John Kerry

Sen. Dick Durbin (I doubt he runs, but if he did, he would be my favorite by far).

REPUBLICANS (this list is frightening in itself. The idea that any of these guys could win should push us to fight as hard as possible whoever the nominee is).

Sen. George Allen
Michael Bloomberg
Sen. Coburn (I know, very unlikely and I certainly would be worried if he won, but I see him as somebody trying to raise his profile on one single issue: budget deficit , and who knows where Republicans will stand on these issues in 2008).
Sen. Chuck Hagel
Mayor Rudy Giuliani
Sen. John McCain

effective on the floor of the Senate. Wouldn't bother me one bit if he were my senator.

Tom Coburn. You froze my blood with that suggestion. If he is anywhere NEAR the office of the presidency, whether as veep or the presidential nominee, I am moving to Bolivia.

In fact, if you can recommend a good travel agent, I might as well keep the number handy, just in case.

Tom Coburn on the GOP ticket in 08? Forbid it, Almighty God.

Yes, I see why you'd include him. Agree too that he's raising his profile and trying to gain "respectability." That fundie 33% is a mighty block of real live raw votes. But still. What a frightening scenario there with Coburn.

Dem: Biden, Clark, Clinton or Warner

Rep: Giuliani or McCain

Note that this is not necessarily who I <i>want</i> to be president. Only who I think <i>will</i> be president

puts Biden and Rudy Giuliani up as possible ticket-toppers.

A bold move, and yet I could see events shifting to make it happen. I think it would be tricky, but still possible.

I tend to overlook Biden, but I admit that's probably not smart strategically. He's a smart cookie and will be loads better prepared than his last run.

Giuliani will have to make a few strange promises to win fundie support, but if McCain keeps drifting to the Right, Giuliani could sweep up a chunk of independents from McCain.

A match-up of any two from each party from your list would be damned interesting to watch.

I think that C.W. can only be taken so far. Generally, we expect the primary elections to result in a selection of the more liberal or conservative candidate, because, it is thought, the hardcore base shows up to these primaries. But this C.W., while correct to some extent, cannot be taken to its logical extreme -- that the most leftwing or rightwing candidate with nail the election. This has been proven time and again -- were it otherwise, the 2004 election would have been Kucinich v. Bush, not Kerry v. Bush. What one CAN expect out of a primary is more-informed candidates who will vote for a long-time member of the party. I think Biden could pull it off in that sense, and also becuase I believe there's a whole swath of Democrats that aren't really represented here at DU -- the sort of centrist types that tend to be freaked out by firebomb-throwing leftists like us here at DU :evilgrin:

But those Democrats certainly show up to vote in the primaries, and I think a lot of them will go to Biden.

As far as the Giuliani thing goes, one can't discount the man's cult of personality in the GOP -- most of them still see him as America's Mayor and all that. And as with Dems., there's a large amount of centrist Republicans that aren't as represented on the Internet as the lunatic fringe over at Free Republic. A lot of those people will like Giuliani. And people from all points of view in the GOP will like the Giuliani of myth. Call it the Schwarzenegger Effect.

I know a state committee chairperson who says she will support Biden if he runs. I think the loyalty there may go back at least a generation, not sure. Anyway, what you say has resonance for me after conversations like that. And again, I have tended to underestimate Biden's organizational punch. I may have to update my file.

And Giuliani is definitely going to ride that bullhorn-in-the-rubble image as far as it will go. My personal hope is that he is upended early on, but as you say, a lot of less strident GOP voters may be pulled toward him who ordinarily would prefer a GOP "moderate" to some bile-spewing lunatic like Sam Brownback.

This thread is one I'm going to bookmark to look at for winter of 2008. There are a lot of very thoughtful posts in it by a lot of people, yours among them. Thank you.

I think ALOT of DUers are forgetting about the debates and don't understand how honed one's chops need to be.

theorizing about a recipe without ever having tried it or tasted it.

I know some of the people mentioned on the Democrat side, so it's
difficult to be completely objective. I know none of the Republicans, and so can only go on their appearances on TV--not
the best reference--or their votes, if in COngress, or in their positions if not.

After spending a long weekend with Evan Bayh at a thing I attend in South Carolina every New Year's, I told him I expected to see him on a national ticket one day. He told me I was very brave to even speculate that. He seemed reasonable then, maybe a bit too conscious of the large right-leaning population of his state, but if he weren't, he wouldn't be a Senator at all, so I can't fault him or that. Senators are supposed to represent their constituencies, after all. In the meantime, he has not really made enough noise for me to get excited. One asset: his wife is as bright as he is (or more so) without Hillary's prominence. She would be a REAL plus.

Bottom line--someone's second choice for VP.

Tom Vilsack--smart, even says "frankly, I don't know" when it's the case, but a bit too parochial. Like someone said before: sec. of Agriculture.

Hillary--a towering intellect, makes some bad calls (flag-burning, Iraq) and needs to either apologize for them and get herself straight with the party's core (if there is such a thing) or settle for being a Senator. She may nake majority leader if she stays in the Senate and doesn't run--a choice she might take a more serious look at if things look difficult. If she gets some overpowering victory in her re-election race this fall, say 70%, she'll probably think she can overcome anything (wrong!) and run. If so, I give her a 50% chance at the nomination and it's anyone's guess at the election--that depends on her opponent.

Gore--he says he is out. For now I believe him. If he decides he does want it, and not too late, it's his for the asking. The line for VP will be longer than the line for the first showing of "Spider-Man Meets Obi-Wan Kenobi."

Mark Warner--big question mark. He was/is a successful businessman who used his knowhow well in Virginia, and wants to do the same with the country. It's not the first time: Bush used his business knowhow to do a lousy job in Texas, and then a lousy job on the country. I don't know if the country is ready for a "new and improved" version. He's smart, but really does come across like a CEO giving his boardroom a pep talk. I like the guy, I'm just not sure I want to have him hustling the likes of Vladimir Putin. Warner wouldn't look into his soul, but I'm not sure he could sell him on our foreign policy either. If he manages to polish his public act, he will be a serious contender. Otherwise, he'll just have to hope people will flock to him for what he isn't--not the best reason to support a guy for president.

Wes Clark--I think he could probably do the job as well as any of them, but I'm not sure he could get himself elected. He just doesn't have the polish in public. This is a real shame, because he is as smart as any of them, and a good deal braver than any of the Republicans. One time, when he was NATO commander, he and his driver were on the road somewhere in Yugoslavia. They came upon the scene of an accident where a jeep had gone over the side of a cliff. As General, Clark had only to issue orders, but instead he was the first man to scramble out and down the side of the cliff to check for survivors. And he'll probably be the last one to tell you about it, too. By the way, in a one on one, he is as personable and smart as Hillary. If he gets his public persona in order, watch out, but if not, his best qualities will probably remain hidden.

I like what I have seen of John Edwards, but don't think he'll go for it. Same for Kerry, although he may yet try for it in the initial phases.

I don't know any of the other Democratic candidates, including the most important one of all: the BIG UNKNOWN, just like Jimmy Carter was in 1974, or Bill Clinton was in 1990. I don't know if the BIG UNKNOWN will even run, but if so, he or she should never be excluded from consideration.

Now to our nasty opposition: I don't know much of George Allen other than that he is another right-wing horror story. John Thune as VP--another nightmare. Giuliani wants it, but I don't think the South will go for a moderate who has had woman problems and lisps with a Noo Yawk accent. Frist is close to having used up his 15 minutes--forget it. McCain will be haunted, and rightly so, for his embrace (figuratively) of Falwell, and his embrace (literally) of Bush Lite. He will make noise, but I think his star will fade before the nomination unless the rest of them deliver mutual knockout punches. If the Republicans are smart, they'll nominate Hagel, even though his Senate seat was due an upset victory attributed to Diebold-like electronic voting machines that HE HIMSELF MADE, and this will be brought up during the campaign--if not by his primary opponents, then by the blogs during the elction campaign.

Rice is a non-starter, and frankly, I think, so are the others,
except for the right-wing version of THE BIG UNKNOWN.

I haven't covered everybody, but hey, it's 2 years from now.
I work for a living, and I've got time.

He is seen as a moderate for his stance on the war. He is a corporatist first and foremost. He's not much for family values and doesn't even fake it really. That might be his drawback: I'm not sure he can get out the fundy vote. I know he can suck up the independent votes though and can definitely get the "true conservative" vote and the corporate money. By 2008, anti-bush could be a requirement for repubs and give him the edge over the rest of the field. He's not perfect, but a very strong candidate.

On our side, I don't think you are giving Edwards enough credit. I think he has the ability to fire up the grass-roots, sounds intelligent on TV, has a clean cut family man image, some strong ideas on policy and can also play the moderate.

I think you raise a key issue about Chuck Hagel. The electronic voting machine issue is not going to go away and in the face of hot fire against Diebold & other such companies, Hagel could lose serious ground. At the same time I think you are right about his possible appeal.

Also appreciated the GOP version of the Unknown Candidate you raise. I had forgotten that in my initial perceptions, and you prompt me to realize that it's a definite possibility. With Frist looking so weak and McCain pandering all over the country, it might even HAVE to be an unknown for their side. Very good point.

My sense is that both Kerry and Edwards want the job, but as you say, it's still early and we don't really know yet.

Loved your line about the veep hopeful line being real long if Al Gore jumps in the race. Sounds about right to me.

...what you say about Edwards, or his qualities or qualifications, but so far,
I haven't seen any noises from him that he wants to go for it. I have no
recent information on his wife's cancer, either, and my bet is that he
won't even consider it until her medical situation is under control. My
wife had cancer and went through the whole deal with chemo and radiation,
and I know that I would have tossed any political campaign in the trash if
she had been going though this at the time. I'm sure that he will go for it
if his wife is up to it, and he thinks he has a shot. If Gore says he is in,
my guess is that Edwards will stay out of it, and settle for a cabinet position,
possibly Sec. of Labor, for which he is overqualified, if anything. He may choose
to stay right where he is, too.

In politics, two years is a geological age. Look at two years back, for example!

imperative and not his political ambitions. I have the sense that she would respond the same way if she were the one who might have to interrupt her destiny if he fell ill. I get the feeling about those two that they are a tremendous partnership. Never met either one, but they just seem like their stars are aligned just right.

Edwards would be unbelievably good as Sec. of Labor. That is a corridor of U.S life that desperately needs re-invigorating, and he is "overqualified" to do it, as you put it. That's totally right-on.

money each has. Bill Richardson comes along at a time when a lot of Democrats want a governor to run instead of a Congressional person, plus he is bilingual in Spanish and English in a time when Immigration is a hot controversy in need of a solution, and not least, he knows a thing or two about Energy from his Clinton years.

I'd throw in one more plus for him: he is the administrator of a Western state, a region Dems need to develop footholds in. The New Mexico vote was perilously close last time and it's possible that Richardson on the ticket could push it from narrowly red to more comfortably blue.

Bayh is on your list, and that makes sense to me. I still am not hogwild about his speaking skills, having heard several of his addresses live and in person since 1980, but I concede that he is going to be a force to be reckoned with. Right now he has money to match Senator Clinton's warchest and a pretty good staff to boot.

dynamic. Reporters would have their hands full, too. (It's about time some of them earned their keep anyway!)

And not least, a Clark-McCain race would bring people to the polls. Very provocative, with a lot of voters' loyalties "on the line."

Democrats:
Clark
Bayh
Warner
Clinton
Biden

Republicans:
Gingrich
Hagel
McCain
Allen
Owen

(Mind you, these aren't lists of all I most WANT to see make it, just who might, the way it looks to me now.)

Owen on the GOP list, and I think that's interesting. The Democrats have a shot at Colorado in 08, especially if our 06 gains there are impressive. The GOP could counter by throwing Owen on their ticket.

The dirty rats.

I notice your Dems list is a fairly centrist bunch. And I appreciate your reiterating that these are folks you believe may have a shot at it as things look now, distinct from your own personal choices. The list has some very plausible names on it, needless to say. And it's a list well-connected to serious cash, too.

Only differences are I would include Romney on the GOP side instead of Owen, because he got a health care plan put in place to run on, and if Gore does decide to run, which I currently lean thinking he won't, out goes Biden for the Dems.

I do expect Bayh to pick up some steam, and I think he and Warner both appealing as new faces with Clinton also in the race will make it hard for the guys we ran last time to make a strong enough impression early on, which will reinforce the conventional thinking that they got their shot last time. The reason why I think Clark makes it through the first screen is because he offers Democrats something fairly unique, major league Security creds (plus some net appeal). Once Clark gets through that first screen, he may pick up energy from those who didn't. Clinton doesn't need help from the media and Warner will get it because he is the designated new Democratic face, carrying the coveted "Southern Democratic Governor" title. I think Feingold will fall short, though he is one of my favorites.

corrupt politicians in the White House? The only one on your list that has fought for liberals is Russ Feingold. Why don't we start looking at Governors? Better yet, let's get 2006 out of the way fist. :boring:

belong to it after we flip the House in November and we kick the GOP's butt in 2008.

The lists I posted in this thread are not "my" list; they are public domain observance of national political life. I'm a politics junkie, and that's the way it is.

and who doesn't) my top three are Wes Clark, Al Gore, and Russ Feingold. Wes has my support if he decides to run, hands down over anyone else. But, as long as Gore stays away from the DLC, he's my second choice, and Feingold is my third.

Run, Wes, run!

TC

some trouble running against.

Frist loses to all 3 of your guys. So do the psychotic Sam Brownback, Ruthless Rudy Giuliani, and that puke Mitt Romney.

McCain may run stronger but I'm not sure he is a sure winner. He could give any ticket we have a stronger race than most of his GOP competition. Maybe the same with Allen, but I hope not, since I hate Allen!

all three of them are winners in my book! And, I think any ticket that includes Wes CLark will beat any ticket with McCain on it, too.

TC

Dems:

Clinton
Warner
Bayh
Feingold
Edwards

GOP:

Allen
McCain
Romney
Huckabee
Frist


It'll be McCain, Allen, or Romney for the GOP, and Clinton, Warner, or Bayh for the Democrats.

In that order.

Don't really see anybody else with near the footing of this six.

GOP

Frist, Allen, and Owens all lack political skills. Allen, in particular, is dumb as a post. McCain and Gingrich will both smack the shit out of these three in the debates. Hagel, Brownback, and Romney may enter the race but my guess is that they will be overshadowed by all of the others. Giuliani and Jeb Bush both have far too much personal baggage to stand a chance. Giuliani, in particular, has declined like 4 opportunities to run for higher office. Haley Barbour has said that he's not running, and Tom Tancredo said that if he does run he's only doing it to prove a point. I admit, that I have to admire Tancredo for admitting that he's too short, too fat, and too bald to be president.

The real darkhorse in all of this, and I know some will call me crazy, is Santorum. If Santorum somehow manages to win his senate race (and that is a BIG if), he will run for president. He's a good campaigner and a better speaker than Frist, Allen, and Owens. Of course, I'm pretty much discounting him because it is highly unlikely that he will be re-elected to the senate.

Dems

Here are, in my opinion, the serious possible contenders.

Gore
Hillary
Clark
Dodd
Biden
Warner
Feingold
Bayh
Richardson
Vilsack

I'm already tempted to place some of these guys in the second teir, but I won't because I think that it's too early to do this. Also, there is the possibility of that dark horse.

BTW, I like the idea of Mike Gravel except that he needs to be about 20-30 years younger.