Wednesday, May 24, 2006

Even more on the 08 race

I know its several years out and I also know that if people like me stopped thinking about it, perhaps the elections would not be drawn out so long, but I just can't help myself so here is an update:

According to the Washington Post, Senator Christopher J. Dodd from Connecticut may be adding his name to the long list of Senators running for the White House in 2008. According to the article, the 61 year old Democratic Senator who has served since 1980, put off running in 2004 in deference to his Senate colleague Joe Lieberman. Here is his Senate Website.

Just to be clear on the updated, the following people are likely to run:
Senate Democrats:

  • Hillary Clinton (NY)
  • Evan Bayh (IN)
  • John Kerry (MA)
  • Joe Biden (DE)
  • Russell Feingold (WI)

Non-Senate Democrats:

  • Wesley Clark (AR)
  • John Edwards (NC)
  • Tom Vilsack (IA)
  • Mark Warner (VA)

Senate Republicans:

  • John McCain (AZ)
  • George Allen (VA)
  • Chuck Hagel (NE)
  • Sam Brownback (KS)
  • Bill Frist (TN)

Non-Senate Republicans:

  • Rudy Giuliani (NY)
  • Newt Gingrich (GA)
  • Mike Huckabee (AR)
  • George Pataki (NY)
  • Mitt Romney (MA)


Thats 19 candidates America gets to pick from and we're still a long way out. Am I forgetting anyone or is someone here who should not be on this list?

16 comments:

Roger said...

Is Jeb Bush definitely not running?

And didn't Bill Richardson look ready to go?

Roger said...

Also, might there be any high(ish) profile third or even fourth candidates this time round?

Cram said...

Ah, Bill Richardson! I don't know why I forgot abou him, especially since last I heard, he told party leaders that he is planning a run (this has been unconfirmed but Richardson has refused to deny it). Definitely on the list. Superficially, I love him! He is the Gov. of a swing state and a Latino with an anglo-name and perfect English! His name might as well be Santos.

I excluded from the list anyone who has stated flatly that they will not run, even if there is a lot of hype, thus no Condi Rice and no Jeb Bush (who, by the way, was recently approached about becoming the commissioner of the NFL).

Third tier candidates are a staple of late and will undoubtedly play a part, although I don't know who yet, it would be a little surprised if Kucinich doesn't try again.

dcat said...

Rumors are that Bill Richardson has sexual peccadilloes that make Bill Clinton look like a Mousekateer. otherwise, I'd say he could be a serious powerhouse.

dcat

montana urban legend said...

Hear, hear! I hereby nominate Bill Richardson's genitals for the candidacy for the office of President of the United States.

Oh wait, we can't vote on that.

dcat said...

Not yet, anyway. But in a Futurama World, it might be possible.

Cram said...

I just came accross the following site which discusses the pros and cons of most possible candidates of both parties. The site is crude and sensationalized (particularly its boxing music) but pretty informative nonetheless:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12304248/

montana urban legend said...

Perhaps there is hope yet for mainstreaming the natural if MSNBC can get away with being crude.

Rich said...

Let's not forget:

Michael Badnarik (L)

I still find it hilarious that the one-letter symbol for Libertarian is 'L.' Get it?

dcat said...

And one has to wonder if we will not have a Nader/Buchanan siting. On top if that, I wonder ho farfetched it would be fr someone like McCain to pull a TR and run as a third party candidate if he feels that he got screwed from the nimination if something like 2000 happens to him again.

dcat

Rich said...

McCain and Guiliani are going to get screwed, you can count on it. I think the time is ripe for the Republican "base" to do something stupid like shun what I think would be an almost unbeatable McCain/Guiliani ticket, or how about Powell/McCain?

I would be overjoyed to see McCain or some other top GOPer preempt this madness and join forces with Gore or even Hillary. Why not. The time is ripe in these parts. I was just a wee lad in '92 but look at the waves Perot made. Didn't he get around 20 million votes or something? Clinton 39 mil and Bush "the senior" 36 mil? I love how Iran's leader calls W "Bush, the junior." Sorry, it finally broke 60 degrees up here and I have sun poisoning.

dcat said...

I have to say, I have never quite gotten the Giiuliani bandwagon. He had some good moments post-9/11, although I'm not certain what all of that means, and who would not have looked good under the circumstances. he gets credit for "cleaning up" new York City, but two issues stand out for me there: Almost every American city had comparable rates of success with lowering crime rates during the 1990s, and few had as many visible incidents of police brutality during the same time period. Meanwhile, Giuliani's highest elected office has been Mayor of New York. Let's not presume that he is ready for the presidency quite yet.

dcat

Cram said...

There is no way I can see McCain running as an independent for one simple reason: he wants to be relevant. As a Senator, perceived moderate, and presidential candidate, he will always command an audience, and even more so if he were put in a future Republican administration. As a third party candidate, he becomes a pariah among Republicans and a clown among Democrats. Furthermore, him doing so would be seen as whining over losing the nomination since his overall ideology fits well within the Republican party and thus his run would be less ideological than personal. Finally, McCain would never do that because he is, at heart, a pragmatist and he knows that he could not win. Of course, this is just my own observation, anything is possible.

As for a bipartisan ticket, I would personally be opposed to such a ticket. The reason is simply that I think that there are important fundamental differences between the parties and would find any marriage between then to simply be a gimmick. A bipartisan ticket has occurred only twice in American history for a reason (1796 and 1860, by my memory).

In 2004, many were hoping for a Kerry-McCain ticket. Why? The two men differ on abortion, the death penalty, gay rights (McCain opposes them serving in the military, for example), and many other important issues. The only thing that they have in common is a decorated war record and the fact that they are both honorable men who abhor fear-and-spear campaign attacks, of which both have been on the receiving end. I understand the attraction to a bipartisan ticket (primarily winning) but in order for me to support one, I would have to believe that the primary differences between the parties are either superficial or merely personality driven. Then again, as long as “my guy” is at the top, I could be persuaded otherwise ; )

dcat said...

Marc --
The question of a bipartisan ticket is, I agree, something of a halcyon dream. But what I wonder about is if the two people would not effectively be starting a centrist third party. It seems obvious that the two parties are quite different, but that there is no reason why we only need two parties -- one need look no further than any parliamentary democracy to see a multiplicity of parties. Now our system is set up as a winner take all, to be sure, but imagine if the GOP split between the religious right and the, say, traditional conservatives, the business right, or the moderate right, or whatever term you want to use. In other words, what if our friends at Big Tent were to cohere their own vision of a party independent of the Christian conservatives?
I agree that right now McCain is unlikely to break away, but what if his party screwed him again? Is it impossible to imagine that he might believe that the party had not only betrayed him, but had betrayed its roots, and that therefore the only viable option was to break away in hopes that enough would follow him either to create that third party or to purify the republicans?

dcat

Cram said...

Although I am in the minority among my friends, I actually like our 2 party system, and support reform in other areas (such as the nominating process and campaign finance). After all, multi-party systems are no less compromising, no less pandering, and can be no less fanatical than ours. The difference is that while the voters in those countries can remain ideologically “pure” and vote their hearts, it is the parties themselves that must compromise, negotiate, and “politic,” whereas here, we the voters have to do that in choosing among candidates that we might not agree 100% with. The problem as I see it is not our 2-party system, but the fact that the nominating process has been stripped of its democratic nature. Candidates are chosen, not by the parties themselves as in Europe and once here, but by a small handful of non-representative states and the moneyed interests willing to pour money into them.

Imagine, for example, if we had a three party system, where religious conservatives had their own party. What we would have is either deadlock in Congress as no one can agree on leadership and agenda, a compromise Congress that would produce legislation similar to what we have no anyway, or worst of all, a government that represents only 1/3 of Americans. I humbly submit that better parties are the solution, not more of them, and path towards THAT goal, while complex and unlikely to gain support, is probably MORE likely than reforming the entire electoral system (which you would almost have to do to produce a multi-party government).

dcat said...

Marc --
I actually have often defenbded the two-party system as well. And I decry fatuous ninnies who claim that there is no difference between or within the two parties. That is just plain nonsense. But i do think that the parties have structures that could use some overhaul and maybe even challenging. And I believe that a third party is not necessarily, but if it emerges organiocally, rather than in some forceed way, it would be good for American politics. But i do not see a viable and natural third party emerging any time soon.

dcat