Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
The Democrats Will Win In 2008  
User currently offlineMatt D From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 9502 posts, RR: 46
Posted (13 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 1200 times:

I'm surprised no one has brought this point up. But me, as a dyed in the wool conservative will go on record now to say that Dems will be all but handed a victory in 2008.
Why do I say this?

Answer:
Richard "Dick" Cheney.

Although I think he is a good VP, I would've preferred to see someone else named to the position (like Colin Powell, Pete Wilson or even Lamar Alexander).

Whether or not Bush wins in 2004 is still to be seen. But one thing will be certain: Cheney will also be on the ticket.
Like many others, I am concered about the health and life expectancy of Cheney (he's had how many bypass operations now?).
By the time 2008 rolls around, Cheney will be pretty old (like he isn't already), and certainly in no better health than he is now. He won't be in any position to run for President.
What does that leave us with? Assuming Cheney is still alive in 2008, you can almost be certain that he will get the GOP nomination by virtue of being an incumbent. yet it will be like Bob Dole all over again (I still can't believe that a 70-something year old senator was the best thing the GOP could muster in 1996).

So the GOP will be in a double quandry:
The incumbent will be old and in questionable health, and certainly will not have the energy, endurance, or stamina needed to run a successful campaign.
But at the same time, I can't imagine them putting anyone else on the ticket. I can't recall a single instance where any party put someone other than the incumbent on the ballot.

So when you add it all up, I am willing to state now that the Dems will be virtually assured a victory in 7 years.

UNLESS (and this is the only out I see for the GOP) that Bush replaces Cheney in 2004 AND wins a second term.

26 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineKROC From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (13 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 1178 times:

Is there a written rule somewhere, that says in 2008, Cheney has to run? By then, Colin Powell should be ready to make a run for the big office, and I see him having a better chance than Cheney. From what your saying, if Bush won in 92, then Quayal would have run in 96. That alone would have been enough to chance my party affiliation, and I can't actually see the GOP putting that guy on a presidential ticket. Just a few opinions....

User currently offlineMatt D From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 9502 posts, RR: 46
Reply 2, posted (13 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 1173 times:

You make some valid points KROC, but if Bush had won in 1992, I can almost gurantee you that Quayle would've been the candidate in 1996.
That is just the way it goes. I'm not really sure why, but here are a few examples. tell me if you can tell me a time when there was a deviation from this formula:

2000 election: Al Gore, lame-duck Clintons VP
1988 election: George Bush SR, lame-duck Reagans VP
1984 election: Walter Mondale, Jimmy Carters VP
1960 election: Richard Nixon, lame-duck Eisenhowers VP



User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39887 posts, RR: 74
Reply 3, posted (13 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 1167 times:

You are partialy correct about the Democrats winning in 2008. Whoever that candidate is, they will be running for re-election.  Smile

2008, Colin Powell will be too old.
If Dick Cheney is alive, he will get the nomination.
John McCain might get it if he dosen't upset his party anymore than he has.
It might be Jeb Bush if he wins re-election in 2002 in Florida.
Scarry thought isn't it?



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineMatt D From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 9502 posts, RR: 46
Reply 4, posted (13 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 1163 times:

Although I don't know much about Jeb, I think that the public can handle only so much political nepotism.
Maybe in 2012 Jeb might want to consider.


User currently offlineSingapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13742 posts, RR: 19
Reply 5, posted (13 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 1163 times:

GO HILLARY! I want Hilary wto win. How do you spell her aname?

Anyway! I want Hilary to win. She's great! She looks nice for her age and Chelsea is nice.

I like Democrats.

Especially when yer President make a comparison with Yogi Bear's fork in his budget speech!



Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39887 posts, RR: 74
Reply 6, posted (13 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 1154 times:

Singapore_Air
I like Hillary Clinton too!
Even though Chelsea isn't so hot, her friends are babes!  Smokin cool
I meet Chelsea and her friends last year twice. Once at a Democratic party fund raiser and another time hanging out down near Stanford in Palo Alto, Ca. where she goes to school.

Hillary will not run in 2004 because she has to run for re-election in 2006 in the Senate to be conserdered a serious political force in her own right.
She may be a Vice-Presidential pick.
I think it will be:
Gray Davis (Gov. California).
Evan Bayh (Senator of Indiana)
or
Bob Grahm (Senator of Florida)

Who knows, we might get lucky and get what US voters wanted in the first place, Al Gore!  Big thumbs up



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineAirsicknessbag From Germany, joined Aug 2000, 4723 posts, RR: 33
Reply 7, posted (13 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 1150 times:


Matt,

the GOP might still win the 2008 election: as you seem to be very fond of historical patterns (no criticism, so am I), you have to consider it near certain the Democrats will win in 2004: unti no, every president who had lost the popular vote was ousted after four years; by the very guy he beat 4 yrs before, in all but one case.
So the scenario looks as follows: Gore wins 2004 (if the Democrats can talk him into running, if not someone else will run and win), Cheney can retire or die or whatever and the Republicans don´t need to use the incumbent "lame duck VP".

Daniel Smile


User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39887 posts, RR: 74
Reply 8, posted (13 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 1146 times:

Cheney can retire or die or whatever and the Republicans don´t need to use the incumbent "lame duck VP".

 Laugh out loud  Laugh out loud  Laugh out loud

That was hilarious!


I would love to see Gore as President in 4 years!
I think many Democrats don't want him to run though.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (13 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 1145 times:

Oh, Please! Save us from Hillary! She'd be worse than her husband. Power-hungry bitch, that one is.

And Chelsea is what you get when two lawyers screw. Woof!

I don't see Chenney running for any presidency. He has already said he wouldn't want the job, and his character is that of an extremely competant organizer and back-room manager, but not national leadership.

Colin Powell - Interesting idea. He certainly won't be too old, and his coming years as SecState will give him some good political experience outside the military arena (I don't know how much baggage he has on domestic policy). His leadership abilities are well proven.

Wouldn't it be Ironic that the first black president might be a Republican?  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

Charles


User currently offlineMatt D From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 9502 posts, RR: 46
Reply 10, posted (13 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 1147 times:

Mr. Sicknessbag:

All emotions and political loyalties aside, I'm afraid I have to agree with you. You're right. If we look at history, the odds are indeed stacked pretty high against "Dubya".
The popular vote issue, you are dead on about. Plus, the only other father-son presidents in history (John Adams and John Quincy Adams) were both one-termers.

But then again, history has the nasty habit of dealing us the unexpected at times. Look no further than this last election disaster.
So unforseen things can and do happen, and history can dodge the trends.
So, I wouldn't write off Dubya in '04 just yet. He's only been in office for a month, and still has a long ways to go-and a lot of time to prove or disprove himself.

The problem will not be whether or not he can prove himself, but how long the Gore supporters choose to keep picking at this emotional scab by being as obstinate and uncoopertive towards Bush as possible-and constructing a record of a very ineffective him

That tactic may work and return the White House to the Dems in '04.

But it could just as easily backfire and give Dubya a LANDSLIDE victory in '04 because we are sick and tired of the Dems belaboring a moot point.

It should be interesting.


User currently offlineAirsicknessbag From Germany, joined Aug 2000, 4723 posts, RR: 33
Reply 11, posted (13 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 1140 times:


Larry,

I think the point is that Al Gore doesn´t want to go through that ordeal again - leave it to others to work their back off for nothing. The question is whether the democrats can talk him into running again; in my opinion he´d easily win (and be it just out of compassion with the tragic hero of 2000).

Matt,

there are worse things than having to agree with me  Big grin. But seriously, that´s the nice thing about this kind of historical patterns, they end just like that from time to time (and Reagan didn´t die in office after all in spite of the 20 yrs rule). Only time (or history) will tell.

To everybody:

I don´t believe Hillary will get any party´s nomination in the next ten years. I read an article in the IHT (which is a rather left wing paper I gather) and they stated that the Democrats are rather angry with the Clinton clan´s sleazyness on which they blame Gore´s loss.

Daniel Smile


User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39887 posts, RR: 74
Reply 12, posted (13 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 1135 times:

Gore can't blame the Clinton's for the loss.
Gore didn't win in by a larger majority because:
1. First two debates
2. Ran from Clinton and the success of the Clinton administration.
3. Didn't aggressivly compete in Ohio
4. Took Tennessee, Arkansas and West Virginia for granite.

I would love to see Hillary as President.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineKROC From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (13 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 1136 times:

For all of you Hillary Supporters...what are you basing the fact you think she would be president on? More and more she is proving to be one of the most corrupt people in America. She, like her hubby, is a champ at pulling the wool over peoples eyes. As a New Yorker, I can atest she doesn't give a damn about New York. She is using NY as a stepping stone, too bad it will get her nowhere. Her biggest issue right now, is opening up more casinos in NYS. What a class act.

In 2008, I really don't think Colin Powell will be too old to run. Also, McCain is always a possiblity. MattD, your VP chart made great sense, but with Quayl, I'm not sure he would have had the nod against say Dole.

Superfly, I see your back to adding fuel to my soon to be huge democratic rant post.  Big grin


User currently offlineCstarU From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (13 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 1133 times:

Isn't Cheney really the president now?

I know Bush was elected, but...
 Big grin


User currently offlineKROC From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (13 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 1133 times:

>1. First two debates
2. Ran from Clinton and the success of the Clinton administration.
3. Didn't aggressivly compete in Ohio
4. Took Tennessee, Arkansas and West Virginia for granite.

1.) Bush got slaughtered in the first debate.
2.) Gore distanced himself, because of the negative image the Clintons really did leave on the minds of Americans. Moraly and Ethically at least. Plus, Gore didn't want to be seen as a byproduct of Clinton. Gore had the right game plan, until he started crying about losing the election 5 times Big grin
3.) I really don't see this. My good friend who livesi n Detroit is a staunch Democrat supporter, and was positive Ohio was a win for the Dems.
4.) No, this just proves that even in his own state, people didn't want him as president. Plus, he was in WV and as for Arkansas....well, who cares.


User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39887 posts, RR: 74
Reply 16, posted (13 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 1128 times:

Ohio was a state that the media kept saying was a Bush state so Gore didn't bother competing aggressivly there. When election day came, Bush won Ohio by a small plurality because of Ralph Nader who did compete in Ohio.

Most Americans forgave Clinton for the blowjob.

Don't worry about Hillary Clinton too much. Her concern for New York isn't any greater or less than Alphonse D'Amato. Big grin



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineKROC From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (13 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 1124 times:

At least as a Mob supporter, Al was behind SOME people of NYS.

Also, while most Americans MAY have forgivin Clinton for his BJ, that doesn't mean they forgive his lack of morals, or the fact he tried lying to the masses....as well as rediffine what a sexual relationship was....


User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39887 posts, RR: 74
Reply 18, posted (13 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 1125 times:

It ain't sex to me if there's no vaginal penetration! Big grin


Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineKROC From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (13 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 1122 times:

Shit, its been a while now, so I might be willing to redefine "sexual relationship" as well, so I might be able to, ahhhhh never mind  Big grin

User currently offlineMatt D From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 9502 posts, RR: 46
Reply 20, posted (13 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 1121 times:

Hillary is to the Democrats what New Gingrinch was to the Republicans. Both were extremely popular amongst those loyal to their party. They had the country in the palm of their hand, and seemed invincible. But then, Newt's past caught up to him, and sent him into obscurity shrouded in disgrace.

I see the same thing happening to Hillary. She's on the plank now, and there are people with saws on both ends.


User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39887 posts, RR: 74
Reply 21, posted (13 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 1116 times:

Hillary didn't serve divorce papers to a spouse dying of cancer.
Hillary didn't allay herself with Nazi-sympethisers.

Hillary's ills are far less serious than Newt's.

Hillary will make a great President!  Smile



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineMatt D From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 9502 posts, RR: 46
Reply 22, posted (13 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 1115 times:

The thing that scares me the most about Hillary running is that she may acually have a shot at winning it. That's bad enough. But what really scares me is the real reasons why people will vote for her-namely because of her name and gender as opposed to whether or not she will do any good for the country.


User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39887 posts, RR: 74
Reply 23, posted (13 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 1113 times:

People voted for Bush Jr. because of his name too.

Hillary is harmless.
I don't understand why the same people who demonize Hillary are the same people who praised Elizabeth Dole. She was just a cheerleader with no agenda at all.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineKROC From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (13 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 1095 times:

>She was just a cheerleader with no agenda at all.

Your talking about Hillary here right?


25 An-225 : The fact that scares ME is the fact that a stupid redneck is a president. He even can't spell right.
26 COexERJ : AN-225, I think we need to give him a chance. Calling him a redneck and being critical of him does nothing to better things. As for Hillary, I don't t
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
How The Dems Can Win In '08 posted Sun Oct 23 2005 17:58:46 by Falcon84
Why The Democrats Will Continue To Lose posted Fri Nov 5 2004 20:47:26 by Air2gxs
The Sun Will Explode In Less Than Six Years! posted Thu Oct 3 2002 00:40:56 by Dufo
Who Will The GOP Run In 2008? posted Sun Aug 29 2004 14:47:12 by N6376m
Who Will Win The British Open posted Fri Jun 30 2006 21:49:36 by Handcuffs
What The Democrats Need To Win Back The Whitehouse posted Thu Dec 8 2005 18:41:32 by SATX
Who Will Win The Heisman This Year? posted Sun Nov 13 2005 17:02:36 by Lumberton
The Open Championship - Who Will Win? posted Wed Jul 13 2005 15:38:22 by EDKA
The Official Danica Patrick Will Win Indy Thread posted Sat May 14 2005 01:32:59 by Sacflyer
Who Will Win The Golf Masters 2005? posted Wed Apr 6 2005 23:25:23 by VS747SPUR