PDA

View Full Version : Kerry Again in '08


Amnorix
11-03-2004, 06:13 AM
I just spoke with someone who made a good point -- Kerry may end up as the Democratic candidate again in 2008 for a few good reasons:

1. Money
2. Money
3. More Money
4. Lots o' money

wait, let me think, there was another one

5. oh yeah -- money

I rather desperately hope this is not true as I found Kerry to be a very weak candidate. But FWIW.

KCTitus
11-03-2004, 06:18 AM
I thought '08 was Hillary's year...

Baby Lee
11-03-2004, 06:25 AM
Not a chance on earth. He couldn't win with the vast animosity against Bush in has favor. Cheney is not running in 08. He'll have no chance against a fresh face.

Even his supporters' stance was "he ain't great, but he ain't Bush."

Amnorix
11-03-2004, 06:25 AM
I thought '08 was Hillary's year...

I think she's unelectable, and I think many other Democrats think so too. Whether that means anything by '08, we'll find out.

Amnorix
11-03-2004, 06:26 AM
Not a chance on earth. He couldn't win with the vast animosity against Bush in has favor. Cheney is not running in 08. He'll have no chance against a fresh face.

Even his supporters' stance was "he ain't great, but he ain't Bush."

here's hoping you're right.

mlyonsd
11-03-2004, 06:33 AM
I just spoke with someone who made a good point -- Kerry may end up as the Democratic candidate again in 2008 for a few good reasons:

1. Money
2. Money
3. More Money
4. Lots o' money

wait, let me think, there was another one

5. oh yeah -- money

I rather desperately hope this is not true as I found Kerry to be a very weak candidate. But FWIW.

Without being too cynical here.....

The dems might want to start moving to a little more moderate position on issues. Sure Kerry got 48% of the vote but if you look at the election map there's a whole lot of red states between the coasts. The dems have lost touch with the middle of the country.

For the most part there aren't many truly right wing nuts left on the reps side. IMO this works toward their advantage in the long run. Maybe it's time the dems got rid of the likes of Ted Kennedy.

Amnorix
11-03-2004, 06:35 AM
Without being too cynical here.....

The dems might want to start moving to a little more moderate position on issues. Sure Kerry got 48% of the vote but if you look at the election map there's a whole lot of red states between the coasts. The dems have lost touch with the middle of the country.

For the most part there aren't many truly right wing nuts left on the reps side. IMO this works toward their advantage in the long run. Maybe it's time the dems got rid of the likes of Ted Kennedy.

I have no problem with being moderate. But being moderate isn't going to win any states in the Bible Belt. Those states are going to vote with the socially conservative Republicans, even if Dems are fairly moderate.

Believe me, you have as many nuts on your side as we have on ours. Bush is definitely NOT a moderate. Not even close.

mlyonsd
11-03-2004, 06:43 AM
I have no problem with being moderate. But being moderate isn't going to win any states in the Bible Belt. Those states are going to vote with the socially conservative Republicans, even if Dems are fairly moderate.

Believe me, you have as many nuts on your side as we have on ours. Bush is definitely NOT a moderate. Not even close.

I'm not calling Bush a moderate but I'm just pointing out what I see as the needs of the democratic party to help with the 2/3 of the states Bush won.

Believe me, the midwest is not as full of bible belt people as you suggest, and those that aren't can be pursuaded by a candidate they can relate to. In this election they just couldn't relate enough to Kerry.

I'm not trying to pick a fight here, just pointing to what I see as the democratic party problems.

Ari Chi3fs
11-03-2004, 06:48 AM
AH-Nold gets Bush to change teh Constitution so he can run in 2008.

memyselfI
11-03-2004, 06:51 AM
I just spoke with someone who made a good point -- Kerry may end up as the Democratic candidate again in 2008 for a few good reasons:

1. Money
2. Money
3. More Money
4. Lots o' money

wait, let me think, there was another one

5. oh yeah -- money

I rather desperately hope this is not true as I found Kerry to be a very weak candidate. But FWIW.

There is no way in hell this will happen. His campaign made too many strategic errors EARLY on and he kept them on board, see Marybeth Cahill. She was terrible and yet he kept her in a high profile position and I think it helped sink him.

Ultra Peanut
11-03-2004, 07:49 AM
Kerry or Hillary in 2008 = Even worse result for the Dems than this year.

Ultra Peanut
11-03-2004, 07:51 AM
There is no way in hell this will happen. His campaign made too many strategic errors EARLY on and he kept them on board, see Marybeth Cahill. She was terrible and yet he kept her in a high profile position and I think it helped sink him.That post reminds me of somebody talking about football on the Planet.

Pre-game: "Dude, we are SO going to kick your asses!"
Post-game: "We had so many flaws going into this game that it pretty much knocked us out from the start."

SBK
11-03-2004, 07:53 AM
That post reminds me of somebody talking about football on the Planet.

Pre-game: "Dude, we are SO going to kick your asses!"
Post-game: "We had so many flaws going into this game that it pretty much knocked us out from the start."

:clap:

beavis
11-03-2004, 08:17 AM
AH-Nold gets Bush to change teh Constitution so he can run in 2008.
Some of the asinine posts I read here just amaze me.

But please, run Kerry again. I'd welcome the challenge. ROFL

Cochise
11-03-2004, 08:24 AM
AH-Nold gets Bush to change teh Constitution so he can run in 2008.

ROFL Dubya can change the Constitution huh? ROFL

Go back to civics class.... ROFL ROFL

NewChief
11-03-2004, 08:30 AM
Good lord, let's hope not.

ILChief
11-03-2004, 08:37 AM
Democrats should nominate someone from a state like Missouri or Iowa in 08. Look for Barrack Obama in the future (not 08). He's the kind of guy that could rejuvinate the party

Amnorix
11-03-2004, 08:47 AM
AH-Nold gets Bush to change teh Constitution so he can run in 2008.

Let me help you out here.

There's appproximately a 0.0000000000% chance of this happening.

Baby Lee
11-03-2004, 08:50 AM
Democrats should nominate someone from a state like Missouri or Iowa in 08. Look for Barrack Obama in the future (not 08). He's the kind of guy that could rejuvinate the party
Unless you dig Gephardt up, WhoTF are you gonna get out of Missouri. Carnahan the he is dead, Carnahan the she was a ditz, the outgoing gov was a miserable failure, the gov candidate lost to a teenager. I'd support Nixon, but he has no national profile, and it's yet to be determined if he's a good executive. He's a great AG, but we have precious little to go on outside that.

Amnorix
11-03-2004, 08:58 AM
Unless you dig Gephardt up, WhoTF are you gonna get out of Missouri. Carnahan the he is dead, Carnahan the she was a ditz, the outgoing gov was a miserable failure, the gov candidate lost to a teenager. I'd support Nixon, but he has no national profile, and it's yet to be determined if he's a good executive. He's a great AG, but we have precious little to go on outside that.

IMHO we need a GOVERNOR, not a Senator, to run.

And preferably the governor would be from middle-America (wherever, doesn't matter too much).

Let's avoid Senators like the plague if we can. A Senator hasn't won the WH since '60 (JFK), and prior to that I don't even know who the hell it would be.

NewChief
11-03-2004, 09:01 AM
IMHO we need a GOVERNOR, not a Senator, to run.

And preferably the governor would be from middle-America (wherever, doesn't matter too much).

Let's avoid Senators like the plague if we can. A Senator hasn't won the WH since '60 (JFK), and prior to that I don't even know who the hell it would be.

The only good running a Senator does is put a spotlight on just how screwy our legislative branch is, and it didnt' even accomplish that with Kerry. All it did was make him unelectable.