Further problemitization of Bolton as diplomat

[Imran Siddiqui]

He's tainted by the Kerry campaign now. He also showed himself to be not very experienced and got SLAMMED on trial lawyer charges, which mobalized right-wing base.

Best make Edwards into what Quayle did after his vice presidency. Just have him go around and make speeches.

[Shi Huangdi]

Edwards would be a bad choice for the Dems. American Presidential Elections are games of States, and Edwards would not be likely to be particularly strong in terms of picking up any specific states. As the VP candidate, the Democrats lost North Carolina by 13 points, and in North Carolina Edwards's approval rating plummted once he became associated with John Kerry. You want someone in there who is strong in a region which has a significant number of contested electoral votes, Edwards is not it. He is also weak in that he is a senator and has a pretty liberal voting record. All of the liberal allegations that stuck to Kerry would stick to Edwards. Edwards also has the problem of being a medical malpractice lawyer.

Warner would be a pretty strong choice. Even though Bush won Virginia by 8 point, Warner is a popular enough Governor that he'd stand a good chance of swinging the State. Virginia i s only 13 Electoral Votes, which isn't enough in itself to give the Democrats an EV majority, but Warner has a strong moderate image and is more moderate on gun rights, and he could be more appealing to moderate voters in battleground States. Add to the fact that he is a Governor and not a Senator and he would be a strong choice.

I think Richardson would likely be the strongest candidate. As a Popular Govenor of a very close state, New Mexico would be in the bag. But more over he is also from the Southwest, and so would give the Democrats a good chance at swinging the Southwest, which other then the Rust Belt/Great Lakes region has the most contested EVs if you count Arizona. If he could carry all of Kerry's States plus NM, as well as Colorado and Nevada both of which were very close, then he would have an EV majority. He'd also stand a reasonable chance at taking Arizona. He'd be particularly strong in the Southwest also because he is a Hispanic, with a large concentration of Hispanic voters. His Hispanic heritage would also help him in Florida, which also has a good number of hispanic voters, although not Mexican voters like himself. He'd also be helped in the many urban centers across the country that have sizable Hispanic populations. My only concern with him would be how strong he would be in the Greats Lake region, which might not be so favorable to an "ethnic" candidate. In Pennsylvania, for instance, there is an unfortunately high amount of racism in the State.

Unfortunately for the Democrats, Hillary Clinton will be tough to beat in the 2008 primary. She has great name recognition, high established popularity among the democratic base, and a great fundraising machine. The fact that she is a woman would also help among the highly female Democratic electorate, and the Clinton name would also probably help greatly among African American voters, with whom Clinton was very popular with. Hillary, I believe, would likely be a weak candidate who would be difficult to sell outside of Blue America.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I don't think Hillary wins the nomination, but she's surprised me with her political accumen. She has moved her perception to a moderate left Senator instead of the wacky leftist she had after the Health Care Plan. Very savvy. She could be a very good SecState, IMO, under a President Warner or a President Richardson.

[Admiral]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I don't think Hillary wins the nomination, but she's surprised me with her political accumen. She has moved her perception to a moderate left Senator instead of the wacky leftist she had after the Health Care Plan. Very savvy. She could be a very good SecState, IMO, under a President Warner or a President Richardson.

One advantage of Hillary that a lot of people don't consider is the right wing ire directed against her. One of the failings of the Democrats in the 2004 campaign was being percieved as too angry at Bush, and that of running a basically negative campaign. Republicans would naturally fall into that trap, which could concievably turn against them. I probably won't vote for her in the primary, but it may be interesting to have her run.

[MrFun]

Um . . . . . . .


the Republicans were all about running a negative campaign as well.

[Shi Huangdi]

Originally posted by Admiral


One advantage of Hillary that a lot of people don't consider is the right wing ire directed against her. One of the failings of the Democrats in the 2004 campaign was being percieved as too angry at Bush, and that of running a basically negative campaign. Republicans would naturally fall into that trap, which could concievably turn against them. I probably won't vote for her in the primary, but it may be interesting to have her run.

Yes, it hurt Kerry that he came to be associated with some of the most vitroilic Bush-haters such as Moore, but I don't think it hurt him quite so much as it helped him, I think people overestimate the damage caused by an angry base. Whatever political damage to him was likely offset by the groundswell of grassroots support behind the Kerry campaign in gaining a huge amount of volunteers and campaign staffers, and getting so many grassroots donations as to actually build up a larger campaign warchest then Bush had.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
Edwards would be a bad choice for the Dems. American Presidential Elections are games of States, and Edwards would not be likely to be particularly strong in terms of picking up any specific states. As the VP candidate, the Democrats lost North Carolina by 13 points, and in North Carolina Edwards's approval rating plummted once he became associated with John Kerry. You want someone in there who is strong in a region which has a significant number of contested electoral votes, Edwards is not it. He is also weak in that he is a senator and has a pretty liberal voting record. All of the liberal allegations that stuck to Kerry would stick to Edwards. Edwards also has the problem of being a medical malpractice lawyer.

Warner would be a pretty strong choice. Even though Bush won Virginia by 8 point, Warner is a popular enough Governor that he'd stand a good chance of swinging the State. Virginia i s only 13 Electoral Votes, which isn't enough in itself to give the Democrats an EV majority, but Warner has a strong moderate image and is more moderate on gun rights, and he could be more appealing to moderate voters in battleground States. Add to the fact that he is a Governor and not a Senator and he would be a strong choice.

I think Richardson would likely be the strongest candidate. As a Popular Govenor of a very close state, New Mexico would be in the bag. But more over he is also from the Southwest, and so would give the Democrats a good chance at swinging the Southwest, which other then the Rust Belt/Great Lakes region has the most contested EVs if you count Arizona. If he could carry all of Kerry's States plus NM, as well as Colorado and Nevada both of which were very close, then he would have an EV majority. He'd also stand a reasonable chance at taking Arizona. He'd be particularly strong in the Southwest also because he is a Hispanic, with a large concentration of Hispanic voters. His Hispanic heritage would also help him in Florida, which also has a good number of hispanic voters, although not Mexican voters like himself. He'd also be helped in the many urban centers across the country that have sizable Hispanic populations. My only concern with him would be how strong he would be in the Greats Lake region, which might not be so favorable to an "ethnic" candidate. In Pennsylvania, for instance, there is an unfortunately high amount of racism in the State.

Unfortunately for the Democrats, Hillary Clinton will be tough to beat in the 2008 primary. She has great name recognition, high established popularity among the democratic base, and a great fundraising machine. The fact that she is a woman would also help among the highly female Democratic electorate, and the Clinton name would also probably help greatly among African American voters, with whom Clinton was very popular with. Hillary, I believe, would likely be a weak candidate who would be difficult to sell outside of Blue America.

Good analysis. I would like to point out that while an Hispanic candidate might be looked down upon in some parts of the midwest, states like Illinois, Michigan and Iowa have had good-sized Hispanic populations for a while and I think that generally relations improve between Hispanics and white Americans as they get to know on another, within the context of whites remaining the majority at least. So I don't see Richardson's ethnicity as being a negative factor for much of the midwest.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi


Yes, it hurt Kerry that he came to be associated with some of the most vitroilic Bush-haters such as Moore, but I don't think it hurt him quite so much as it helped him, I think people overestimate the damage caused by an angry base. Whatever political damage to him was likely offset by the groundswell of grassroots support behind the Kerry campaign in gaining a huge amount of volunteers and campaign staffers, and getting so many grassroots donations as to actually build up a larger campaign warchest then Bush had.

I think in general it does hurt more than it helps, but the last election was exceptional in that the vitriol in the Dem base was at an all time high. It would be a mistake for the Dems to count on the next Repub being so divisive however.

[Shi Huangdi]

Originally posted by Sikander


I think in general it does hurt more than it helps, but the last election was exceptional in that the vitriol in the Dem base was at an all time high. It would be a mistake for the Dems to count on the next Repub being so divisive however.

It probably also counts who the vitriol is coming from. Much of the anti-Bush vitriol was coming form the Michael Moore crowd. Alot of the anti-Kerry vitriol was from the swiftboat veterans, and Vietnam vets might not have been the worst people to be associated with.