There's a general concensus among many people that this upcoming election, just like the 2000 election, gives you nothing but a choice between "The Lesser of Two Evils." Many (myself included) were not satisfied with how the Democratic Primaries played out. Many more are sick of the low-blows and cheap shots that are fired nonstop from both sides.

Frankly, I'm fed up with both major parties. Over the last couple of months, Democrats across the nation have been trying to keep Ralph Nader off the ballot. Their reasoning: They want a one-on-one battle. So they've basically said that third-parties have no place in this election. They blame Nader for Gore's loss, and that isn't fair. The blame should be placed on the people that decided not to vote and now complain about Bush. And as far as my dissatisfaction with the Republican Party is conferned, check my journal. It's ALL in there...

But enough of that. I want to see who the people of Evboard REALLY want for President, and why? I've placed a poll with nine potential candidate choices. The tenth option is a write-in.

I chose these individuals becuase they either have already run or are running for the office, or because there have been talks among people that would like to see that particular individual run. And legislature is being presented that could make naturalized citizens elgible to run for President. If that passes, you KNOW Arnold's gonna run.

I like McCain. He's a more moderate Republican, and he had an awesome showing in the 2000 primaries. He seems like the kind of candidate that Kerry has tried to be (unsuccessful).

My prediction: It'll be Clinton and Schwarzenegger in 2008. I could personally do without either, but they're both the biggest opporotunists in our government (yes, even bigger than Kerry).

hmm...rudy gets my vote

he's really a great guy

I don't foresee the bill being passed for nationalized citizens running for President.

Also, George W. Bush cannot run for a third term, so his being on the ballot is a moot point.

You didn't mention Mitt Romney! He is the current Governor of Massachussetts, and is a VERY good guy. I used to work with him, and I can tell you that he is a very great guy with loads of integrity.

I honestly do not see the Democratic party choosing a woman for their nominee at this point in time. I think that regardless of the social and cultural standing of women in today's climate, the country is not ready for a woman president. Maybe in 2012 or 2016, but not 2008.

Also, George W. Bush cannot run for a third term, so his being on the ballot is a moot point.

I'm not sure what I was thinking. I guess I was somehow trying to put two different questions together.

Who do you want to be President now, and who do you want to run in 2008?

But nevermind, I will fix the error.

EDIT: Poll fixed, just for you tob :rolleyes:

Ah-nold does not meet the requirements for being the President. You have to be a NATURAL-BORN U.S. citizen.

And, um, what about Bill Frist (R)? He's the Senate Majority leader, and he's already stated that he may not pursue another term. He's a doctor, a lawyer, and a damned intelligent man. Why leave him out?

<3 Mary

Ah-nold does not meet the requirements for being the President. You have to be a NATURAL-BORN U.S. citizen.

Currently, yes. But it's been put on the floor recently: A Naturalized President? (http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju67306.000/hju67306_0.HTM)

And, um, what about Bill Frist (R)? He's the Senate Majority leader, and he's already stated that he may not pursue another term. He's a doctor, a lawyer, and a damned intelligent man. Why leave him out?

<3 Mary


Well, I couldn't name EVERYONE, obviously. Which is why the write-in option is there.

Hey Nelson...I would think that in order to allow a naturalized citizen to become president, you would have to make an amendment? I am not too familiar with this bill, but is that what it proposes?

Yep. A Constitutional Amendment.

JOINT RESOLUTION
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to make eligible for the Office of President a person who has been a United States citizen for twenty years.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:
''Article —
''A person who is a citizen of the United States, who has been for twenty years a citizen of the United States, and who is otherwise eligible to the Office of President, is not ineligible to that Office by reason of not being a native born citizen of the United States.''

Mr. CANADY. As we will hear in today's testimony, the drafters of the Constitution left little written record of the purpose of the natural-born citizen requirement. Historians trace the origin of the phrase to a letter written by John Jay to George Washington during the Convention's deliberations in 1787. Jay, who would become an author the Federalist Papers and would later be appointed the first Chief Justice of the United States, recommended that the drafters provide, and I quote, a strong check, closed quote, against the admission of foreigners into the Government and expressly require that the Commander in Chief be a natural-born citizen.

Some sources suggest that Jay was responding to a rumor that the Convention was secretly designing a monarchy to be ruled by a foreign monarch, but Jay's warning can also be seen simply as a reflection of the widely held fear of foreign influence in this new country's elections and of a general distrust of executive power at that time.

Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC

Many view these considerations as equally relevant today. The natural-born citizen qualification continues to provide to the political system of the United States a certain level of protection against the influence of foreign nations. In addition to this safeguard, the requirement also secures the ability of the President to make decisions involving domestic and foreign policy that are in the best interests of the United States without an inherent emotional or familial attachment to another nation.

Supporters of the measure, however, argue that the limitation is no longer warranted. They assert that distinguishing natural-born from naturalized citizens has no relevance in determining who might be subject to actual foreign influence. Unlike natural-born citizens, naturalized citizens have made an express commitment to embrace this Nation's principles. The many naturalized citizens have indeed served this country with great honor and distinction.

Moreover, supporters of the amendment regard eligibility for the Presidency as a civil right with strong symbolic importance and assert that the principle of equality is not served unless every citizen has the opportunity to reach the Nation's highest office.

Currently, yes. But it's been put on the floor recently: A Naturalized President? (http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju67306.000/hju67306_0.HTM)



Well, I couldn't name EVERYONE, obviously. Which is why the write-in option is there.
I think Bill Frist is way more than a write-in. He really does stand up well to teh competition, and I believe that he probably will wind up being the Republican nominee (way more likely than say Giuliani, in my opinion). However, it is your poll...do what you want, but I think you're missing something important here.

<3 Mary

Dick Cheeney is not present either. If bush is re-elected, Cheeney will be the next man in line for President.

*shudders* :eek:

I think Bill Frist is way more than a write-in. He really does stand up well to teh competition, and I believe that he probably will wind up being the Republican nominee (way more likely than say Giuliani, in my opinion). However, it is your poll...do what you want, but I think you're missing something important here.

<3 Mary


I think that Romney will be much more likely to win the Republican Nomination. First of all, he is the governor of the most liberal state in the nation, and he is doing a fantastic job there by all accounts. He would be able to carry Massachussetts as long as he has a high approval rating there when election time comes around, and that is a major deal.

But then again, I usually have no idea wtf I am talking about. :p

And with an uninformed, apathetic electorate, a candidate has to be likeable to be electable.

<3 Mary

None taken.

I haven't had sleep yet today :/

EDIT: I was able to add another option to the poll (I thought I could only have 10), so Frist and Cheney are here.

I think Hillary Clinton is a cert for the job should she be proposed in 08.

My reasoning -

1) George Dubya is gonna get in by a landslide in the upcoming elections. This means the USA will have had two terms of Bush's brand of Republicanism, and I don't think that can be sustained beyond that. (It is a bit... radical ;) ) So you guys, I'm willing to bet, will be ready for a change. That's the way that political opinion eddies.
2) Hillary became an international saint when she forgave and allowed Bill to carry on the Presidency still married and with his testicles attached. By taking over from Uncle Rudy, she gets to bask in some of his reflected post 9/11 glory. And let's not overlook the fact that she's something of an accomplished Statesman in her own right ;)
3) It's about time you guys had a woman in charge. See if you pick a better one than we did in 1979...

:)

I think Hillary Clinton is a cert for the job should she be proposed in 08.

My reasoning -

1) George Dubya is gonna get in by a landslide in the upcoming elections. This means the USA will have had two terms of Bush's brand of Republicanism, and I don't think that can be sustained beyond that. (It is a bit... radical ;) ) So you guys, I'm willing to bet, will be ready for a change. That's the way that political opinion eddies.
2) Hillary became an international saint when she forgave and allowed Bill to carry on the Presidency still married and with his testicles attached. By taking over from Uncle Rudy, she gets to bask in some of his reflected post 9/11 glory. And let's not overlook the fact that she's something of an accomplished Statesman in her own right ;)
3) It's about time you guys had a woman in charge. See if you pick a better one than we did in 1979...

:)

1) If Bush wins by a landslide, then that means that the American people are mandating that they want that kind of governance. If they're tired of it by the end, who knows.
2) Hilary never took over for Rudy, she became a Senator and that is nothing close to what Rudy had been doing. She doesn't get the glory that Rudy did because she came after the fact, and is not directly filling Rudy's shoes.
3) This country is not ready for it. People in the US will not elect a woman as President in this decade. A woman is going to have to be VP before one ascends to the Presidency. Maybe after that victory for women is won, they will move on to the next step.

I think it's odd how we're talking about a woman becoming President, but nobody's even touched on a non-Caucasian person getting elected. Do you guys think that this is a possibility right now (given a good solid candidate), or are our prejudices still too intense? If not now, when?

About the Hillary thing: to me, Edwards really outshines her. I really think these two will be strong contenders in the Democratic nomination of the next non-Kerry election (either 2008 if Kerry not elected or 2012 if Kerry elected). Oh, and while I admire Mrs. Clinton's commitment to her marriage vows, that doesn't sway me one way or another as to whether she'd be a good C-I-C. And it makes her stoic, not really likeable.

Oh, and Nelson... I think that you meant to quote my post, not edit it (though I could be wrong). Sleepyhead.

<3 Mary

Yeah, I was trying to quote.

Enough, I'm going to bed.

*passes out*

This country is not ready for it. People in the US will not elect a woman as President in this decade. A woman is going to have to be VP before one ascends to the Presidency. Maybe after that victory for women is won, they will move on to the next step.

Unfortunately, you're right but It would be nice to see a Mrs. President of the United States of America someday.

2008 Election: Condy Rice vs. Hillary Clinton. :p hehe, doubtfull, but it would be quite interesting....

Rudy all the way though..

3) This country is not ready for it. People in the US will not elect a woman as President in this decade. A woman is going to have to be VP before one ascends to the Presidency. Maybe after that victory for women is won, they will move on to the next step.

I would have to disagree. I don't think a woman would have to be VP before even being considered for President. I do see Hillary as a storng possible contender for 2008. What is your reasoning for people not electing a woman in this decade? I think if a woman were candidate, that she would rake in quite a few votes and have a decent shot at President.

My vote goes for Rudy, because he's a strong guy, and I think he could handle it.

I think it's odd how we're talking about a woman becoming President, but nobody's even touched on a non-Caucasian person getting elected. Do you guys think that this is a possibility right now (given a good solid candidate), or are our prejudices still too intense? If not now, when?




I think that Colin Powell quite possibly could have been elected president had he chosen to run. Apparantly some other people did too, enough so to make death threats against him if he did run, if I'm not mistaken.

Yes! Colin Powell would have been great!:) I'd vote for him.

If I'm not mistaken, neither Cheney nor Powell is interested in the presidency. The R's will probably push Giuliani, but Condi Rice or Elizabeth Dole are possible candidates. The D's will probably push Hillary or Al Gore.

I would have to disagree. I don't think a woman would have to be VP before even being considered for President. I do see Hillary as a storng possible contender for 2008. What is your reasoning for people not electing a woman in this decade? I don't think it's because we wouldn't elect a woman - I just think Hillary is just way too divisive a figure. In my opinion she's unelectable - not that she won't take a shot, I think she will. I think she's planning on it. But it kind of depends on who wins this one.

Scenario 1 - Bush wins 2004. In 2008 Cheney will decline for "health reasons" and then it's wide open. My bet's with McCain but I like the idea of Romney. For the democrats, Hillary will take a run but cooler heads will prevail and it'll likely be Edwards. So my prediction is Edwards vs. McCain

Scenario 2 - Kerry wins 2004. Hillary won't get her chance because Edwards will get the nod as VP. On the Republican side it's still wide open but my money's still on McCain so Edwards vs. McCain in 2008.

So I guess it doesn't really matter after all. Different paths but same result.

I would have to disagree. I don't think a woman would have to be VP before even being considered for President. I do see Hillary as a storng possible contender for 2008. What is your reasoning for people not electing a woman in this decade? I think if a woman were candidate, that she would rake in quite a few votes and have a decent shot at President.
What makes Hillary a good candidate? People really aren't ready for a woman President. You haven't even seen a female VP candidate from any of the major parties. When we do, I expect a landslide in favor of the other party in the first election. Furthermore, Hillary's first public office is the one she holds now. This is better than Condi Rice (who has never held an elected position; she would need to get elected to something else first) but still not good enough to convince voters that she has what it takes to be President. I'm sorry to say, but it is going to take a lot more to convince the American people that a woman is right for the job right now than it will be in the future.

Women need to keep plugging away and trying to get into these higher offices. This is the only way we'll see a woman get elected to President within our lifetimes.

You haven't even seen a female VP candidate from any of the major parties.
Were you sleeping through 1984? Geraldine Ferraro anyone?
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/gferraroacceptanceaddress.html

EDIT: I guess you weren't the raging political junkie you are today back in kindergarten.

Were you sleeping through 1984? Geraldine Ferraro anyone?
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/gferraroacceptanceaddress.html

EDIT: I guess you weren't the raging political junkie you are today back in kindergarten.
My point is proven. ;) I guess I should have qualified my statement by saying no woman has been ELECTED as VP.

It should be noted that Arnold cant become President because he wasnt born here.

Id vote for McCain, he is a Republican(which I am) but isnt a puppet to his party(*cough*kerry*cough*)

It should be noted that Arnold cant become President because he wasnt born here.

Id vote for McCain, he is a Republican(which I am) but isnt a puppet to his party(*cough*kerry*cough*)

Nelson has qualified his listing of Arnold with as long as the naturalization bill is passed.

Pardon my pathetic grammar, but I don't feel like fixing it. :p

Nelson has qualified his listing of Arnold with as long as the naturalization bill is passed.

Pardon my pathetic grammar, but I don't feel like fixing it. :p


And pardon my lack of reading skills :P
i had a rough night...thats my excuse...*shifty eyes*

I'm sorry to say, but it is going to take a lot more to convince the American people that a woman is right for the job right now than it will be in the future.



It is interesting that Hillary has the most votes on this poll :) , granted we (the mesageboard) do not fully represent the American people.

It is interesting that Hillary has the most votes on this poll :) , granted we (the mesageboard) do not fully represent the American people.

What I do is take what this message board collectively says, reverse it, and then you have a practical American viewpoint.

What I do is take what this message board collectively says, reverse it, and then you have a practical American viewpoint.

While this board may not accurately represent the views and opinions of the American people, it does show something interesting...

No one has voted for Kerry. Yet.

Yet, in the other President thread, he leads by a huge margin in that poll. So the way I see it, people really don't want Kerry, but most are simply gonna vote for him because "He's not Bush", which is not a good way to vote at all, sadly.

*is a complete hypocrite now*

While this board may not accurately represent the views and opinions of the American people, it does show something interesting...

No one has voted for Kerry. Yet.

Yet, in the other President thread, he leads by a huge margin in that poll. So the way I see it, people really don't want Kerry, but most are simply gonna vote for him because "He's not Bush", which is not a good way to vote at all, sadly.

*is a complete hypocrite now*

You are 100% correct, Nelson. If you only want the guy that's running against the incumbent for the simple reason that he is not the incumbent, regardless of his ideology, why change?

I don't think that Kerry will run again in 2008. I don't think the Democrats will allow him to run again. He has been a disaster, and they will choose someone who actually fosters their beliefs rather than some wing-nut who they only picked because he "could win".

Honestly, there is nobody out there right now that could switch my vote from Republican to Democrat. I honestly would love to have someone come along that COULD challenge that and try to win my vote. But right now, I don't see anybody like that on the horizon. I see many possible very great Republican nominees, and if Giuliani runs, I don't foresee anybody beating him.

You are 100% correct, Nelson. If you only want the guy that's running against the incumbent for the simple reason that he is not the incumbent, regardless of his ideology, why change?

I don't think that Kerry will run again in 2008. I don't think the Democrats will allow him to run again. He has been a disaster, and they will choose someone who actually fosters their beliefs rather than some wing-nut who they only picked because he "could win".

Dean. Considering the fact that he's the one that has the best ideas and was the one that lit the fire under the Democrat's collective asses. The more time goes by, the better he looks, and the more sense he makes.

Kerry's just a "resume". A decorated Veitnam War Veteran with a Four-term Senate tenure. But by that train of thought, Wesley Clark would have made a much better choice. Four-Star General, former Supreme Commander of NATO...

It just pisses me off that out of 9 Democratic choices, Kerry's the one we got. He wasn't even my fifth choice.

And for the record, I have once again become one of the "undecided".

Dean. Considering the fact that he's the one that has the best ideas and was the one that lit the fire under the Democrat's collective asses. The more time goes by, the better he looks, and the more sense he makes.

Kerry's just a "resume". A decorated Veitnam War Veteran with a Four-term Senate tenure. But by that train of thought, Wesley Clark would have made a much better choice. Four-Star General, former Supreme Commander of NATO...

It just pisses me off that out of 9 Democratic choices, Kerry's the one we got. He wasn't even my fifth choice.

And for the record, I have once again become one of the "undecided".

Dean is even farther left than Kerry. The Democrats need someone who can bring them back to the middle. That's the only way they'll be able to start winning back the senate and the presidency.

Kerry's resume isn't even that great. 20 years in the senate which we haven't even heard about. I've heard more about his 4 months in Vietnam than his 20 years in the US Senate.

It just pisses me off that out of 9 Democratic choices, Kerry's the one we got. He wasn't even my fifth choice.
I think Gephart or Lieberman would have been a FAR better choice for the dems. But me being a republican, I'm thrilled Kerry was picked. :p

And for the record, I have once again become one of the "undecided".

*Points to my sig*

Dean is even farther left than Kerry. The Democrats need someone who can bring them back to the middle. That's the only way they'll be able to start winning back the senate and the presidency.

Kerry's resume isn't even that great. 20 years in the senate which we haven't even heard about. I've heard more about his 4 months in Vietnam than his 20 years in the US Senate.

The only real "Moderate" Democrat I've seen is Barack Obama. BUT, he's still fairly young and hasn't been elected to the U.S. Senate yet. I'd like to see how far his political career goes.

*Points to my sig*

The Rusty Humphreys show...On your RADIOOOOOOOOOO!

The only real "Moderate" Democrat I've seen is Barack Obama. BUT, he's still fairly young and hasn't been elected to the U.S. Senate yet. I'd like to see how far his political career goes.
I've heard some great things from Obama, and I think by the time he is ready (and if he wants to) to run for President, this country will be ready to elect a minority. And I foresee that happening before a woman is elected. :)

The Rusty Humphreys show...On your RADIOOOOOOOOOO!
NOOOOOO!! The Glen Beck show....On my RADIOOOOOOOO! :p


I've heard some great things from Obama, and I think by the time he is ready (and if he wants to) to run for President, this country will be ready to elect a minority. And I foresee that happening before a woman is elected. :)
I agree. He's a very good speaker , and has a bright future.
Although , the two dems I mentioned on the previous page are quite moderate , and If one them happened to be nominated instead of Kerry , It might had made my choice a little tougher.....

The Rusty Humphreys show...On your RADIOOOOOOOOOO!


I've heard some great things from Obama, and I think by the time he is ready (and if he wants to) to run for President, this country will be ready to elect a minority. And I foresee that happening before a woman is elected. :)
Well sure, since black men got the right to own property and vote before women did. Why are we so afraid of women? Is it PMS-push-the-red-button syndrome?

Thing about Obama is...I don't know if he really has much of a political agenda. And even though I think he's nifty, is an ignorant electorate going to vote for someone whose name rhymes with Osama? Some of them are probably too stupid to realize he's different.

I will say this. Generally, the people I would REALLY like to see elected would never get elected because the voting age population is too prejudiced, or too stupid, to know that the candidate is good or CARE that the candidate is the best for the job.

By the way, just as an aside to all of you who don't know the issues in your school board campaigns, or your city mayoral or council elections. Cast your vote for President (and any other races you have enough info to make a decision about) and for God's sake leave the rest blank. If you don't know the issues in a campaign, you are essentially shooting blind if you cast a vote. What, the candidate who puts out the most signs or has the most attractive last name wins? Vote on substance. And if you can't vote on substance, please don't vote.

Nelson, why have you become undecided? I'm interested to hear this.

<3 Mary

Well sure, since black men got the right to own property and vote before women did. Why are we so afraid of women? Is it PMS-push-the-red-button syndrome?
I have no idea; it's kind of a social stigma associated with women in powerful positions.

I have no idea; it's kind of a social stigma associated with women in powerful positions.
I know, I know, I know. But that doesn't keep me from railing about it now and again.

I know, I know, I know. But that doesn't keep me from railing about it now and again.


I would vote for you if you ran for Pres, Mary. :D

I would vote for you if you ran for Pres, Mary. :D
No can do. I have a dirty past. But thanks for the vote of confidence.

<3333333 Mary

Nelson, why have you become undecided? I'm interested to hear this.

<3 Mary


Well, I'm not sure I can bring myself to vote for Kerry anymore because he just seems like a shrewd opporotunist now. He does have a lot of good ideas (to me, anyway) when it comes to foreign policy, energy, and health care. But I do worry about the taxes. He says he won't raise taxes for the middle class, but if elected, I hope he would hold himself to that, because the amount of taxes I currently pay seems outrageous ALREADY ($163 from my last check, and I'm a Wal-Mart peon). My real problem with him is more or less personal. He hasn't been consistent. He's milking Veitnam for all it's worth (I wish we could just learn from that war and finally put that mistake behind us). He's based his campaign on the fact that "He's not Bush." I KNOW he's not Bush, but how do I now he can do better? He (and Edwards) voted to give Bush the authorization to go to Iraq, which we shouldn't have done. He just seems like a career politician. The Democrats only put him in this race so he could "Beat Bush", not for their admiration of him. At the DNC, Dean and Obama were the men of the hour. Everyone wanted to shake their hands.

And Bush, well, I just don't agree with his policies. He speaks of tax cuts, but I personally haven't gotten any. Both my 2002 and 2003 tax returns gave me a measly $200, and I live on my own (and at the time, I was a full-time college student). I don't agree that we should be in Iraq (but I also don't think we can pull out any time soon either. We've made a mess, and now we must fix it). I've looked at both Bush's and Kerry energy policies, and Kerry's make more sense to me (But I do like that Bush wants to propose a $4,000 tax credit for people that buy Hybrid cars). I don't agree with the Marriage Amendment, either. For one, it should be up to the states to decide something of that nature. Second, I personally don't have a problem with gays wanting to get married. I have quite a few gay/bisexual friends, and I want them to be happy. I would like to say that I really don't have a problem with him personally, though. He's always appeared to be a sincere person. He's a very convincing individual. And I supported him for quite a while (until late 2003).

I will say this. Generally, the people I would REALLY like to see elected would never get elected because the voting age population is too prejudiced, or too stupid, to know that the candidate is good or CARE that the candidate is the best for the job.Amen.

I voted for McCain, and would gladly vote for him over Kerry or Bush today. Unfrotunately, I don't think that he's going to run. He's already 80, and by the time that 2008 rolls around I have to wonder if his health would still be holding up. Frist doesn't look bad; I sincerely believe that Barak Obama will be the first black president in this nation. However, I don't see it happening for quite some time.

Oh, and like Llywelyn said in the '4 ideas to fix US elections' thread, the parties need to be picking their candidates. Iowa and New Hampshire have a disproportionately _huge_ influence on the outcome of the nominees than their population warrants. So screw that. Let's let the parties sort it out for themselves. I'm not sure what the legal complications from doing this would be, but I'm sure that there's someone here who knows far better than I what they would be.

I have no idea; it's kind of a social stigma associated with women in powerful positions.

Its because people see women as nurturers and many dont believe that when it came to make tough choices, like going to war, that women would be able to make them. Then there are those who feel women are just emotional and cant make rational decisions.

Which is bogus, of course.

in some ways the 1950's lives on.

I voted for McCain, and would gladly vote for him over Kerry or Bush today. Unfrotunately, I don't think that he's going to run. He's already 80, and by the time that 2008 rolls around I have to wonder if his health would still be holding up.

Actually, he's 68. He was born in 1936. If he were 80, the he looks damn good for 80. :D

I sincerely believe that Barak Obama will be the first black president in this nation. However, I don't see it happening for quite some time.

As much as I would love to see it, we're not ready for a black President. Not yet. But as long as it happens at least once in my lifetime, that will be fine.

Oh, and like Llywelyn said in the '4 ideas to fix US elections' thread, the parties need to be picking their candidates. Iowa and New Hampshire have a disproportionately _huge_ influence on the outcome of the nominees than their population warrants. So screw that. Let's let the parties sort it out for themselves. I'm not sure what the legal complications from doing this would be, but I'm sure that there's someone here who knows far better than I what they would be.

I'm not sure how the Primary system works, but I don't like it. By the time the Primaries got to Arkansas, Kerry already informally won the damn thing (it was just a matter of the DNC formality at that point). It didn't even matter.

My bad nelson.

Since thats the case, I'll say more power to him in the next election.

Reagan, definitely, Reagan.

I voted for McCain. Then I realized how old he is. But I supported him in 2000 (who cares that I was 13) and I thought he had a great shot. I kinda wish he would've got the nomination.

Seriously, out of the Democractic candidates, the one I would've voted for (could I vote) was Kucinich. I'm either REALLY liberal or conservation, and there's no middle ground. Weird, I know.

I hope for a good Republican candidate in 2008.

Barack Obama does have a shot in the future, I believe. But not this next election.

I will just offically be scared if Arnold gets into the oval office! :eek:

Arnold is an ok guy i guess, but I really dont like the idea of changing the consitution just for one guy....I mean really

And why isnt Condi part of this poll? I MEAN REALLY CONDI!!!! With a name like Condi, how can you go wrong!?
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/images/georgewbushsign.jpg

And why isnt Condi part of this poll? I MEAN REALLY CONDI!!!! With a name like Condi, how can you go wrong!?
In her case, you can.

Sorry, I just don't trust her.

Someone is just mad that Nader is a complete nut.
But a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush....so I cant completely be against the guy.

What about Hillary and Obama on the same bill? Would America elect the first woman president with a minority VP, to then be able to elect the VP to President in another 4 years.

What about Hillary and Obama on the same bill? Would America elect the first woman president with a minority VP, to then be able to elect the VP to President in another 4 years.

A) We've never had a female or minority Pres or VP yet, expecting to get both at the same time is beyond what the country is ready for.

B) If Hillary would win in '08 then Obama wouldn't be a presidential candidate until '16 unless she for some reason did not seek re-election.

What about Hillary and Obama on the same bill? Would America elect the first woman president with a minority VP, to then be able to elect the VP to President in another 4 years.It looks good on paper, but I'm not sure it's a winner. Clinton seems to be more of an opporotunist than Kerry was. And Obama is a newcomer. He's gonna need more than 4 years in the Senate to convince people that he deserves to be the 2nd in command to our country.

Also, we found out something in this Election. The core Republican base is much larger than the Democrats, and larger than it ever has been. The Republicans have also established themselves as the party of "good moral values". Many Evangelican Christians that didn't vote in 2000 came out in droves. In order for Democrats to win another Presidential Election, they HAVE to widen their base. They HAVE to reach out to potential young voters. They HAVE to reach further out to minorities. They'll have to push even harder than the Republicans now.

Someone is just mad that Nader is a complete nut.
But a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush....so I cant completely be against the guy.

Actually, as Nelson's sig used to say...a vote for Nader is a vote for Nader. Either you vote for one of the two major candidates, or you vote for a third party candidate to try to make the party more recognized.

No one should say that whoever votes for Nader would otherwise vote Democrat. That's too much generalization.

If I could've voted, I would've gone for Badnarik, Nader, or Bush. So you never know.

Why are we talking about something that is fours years away? FFS, lets live in the now and not a dream state of the future....

If we don't protect the 'now', there will be no future....

Arnold can't run. He is not a natural US citizen.

Maybe one of these years hell will freeze over and we will have an African -American, Female, Independant President.. :confused: :eek: ;)

Arnold can't run. He is not a natural US citizen.

That was brought up back on the first page, and Nelson pointed out that there is proposed legislation to allowed a naturalized citizen to become president.

Maybe one of these years hell will freeze over and we will have an African -American, Female, Independant President.. :confused: :eek: ;)

I wouldn't put it out of reach. Barak Obama is still young.

I wouldn't put it out of reach. Barak Obama is still young.
Yes, but he's neither female nor independent. I thought robzombielover meant all three at once?

Whoever the democratic nominee is, there gonna have a tough time.
Take a look at the election results county by county.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/images/rcp%20electoral/2004_results_by_county..gif

thats alot of red..

^
I don't think that means those counties always go red or blue, Alot might have just liked Bush better.

There are alot of people who vote by the person and not the party.

I will probably vote just as I did this year (2004)...and that was Libertarian because I am sick of all the lies and bullcrap. But if 2008 is anything like 2004, my vote won't matter at all, anywayz. :(

--sabbathius

Whoever the democratic nominee is, there gonna have a tough time.
Take a look at the election results county by county.



thats alot of red..

That really doesn't mean much. Kerry lost the last election by 134,000 votes in Ohio.

Population density is comparatively low in a lot of those red counties as well, so just because a lot of land is covered doesn't really mean anything.

What about Colin Powell (sp)? I heard he might run.

What about Colin Powell (sp)? I heard he might run.

I'de be ALL for Colin Powell running. I think he would make a great president.

Unfortunately, his wife is pretty against it from what I've heard. I think thats why he only planned on 1 term w/ Bush. Looks like he'll be going into the private sector and spending time w/ his family..

I voted Hilary Clinton. I reakon a female at the helm may have more time for other countries, which I think will be a very good thing for America, and try and claw back some of the ground thats been lost under George W. I think with his views on foreign policy he is more likely to make America more unsafe, by the screw ups he has made during the Iraq war and other places. For his faults I thought Bill Clinton was a far better stateman than George W will ever be

I voted for Hillary. Maybe they won't nominate her in the next election, but she is a person I would definatly want to see as president. =)

I support Hillary Clinton.

-For one thing Colin Powell will never run for presidency bc his wife said she would leave him if he did.

-Secondly, Hilary is the worst liberal politician there is. She is evil at heart, I truly believe this. If she becomes president America will end. She is a money hungry/power hungry feminist.

-Condeleeza Rice would make a much better President than Hilary. She has class and the toughness. I would love to see her at least be a VP.

-I see the next President of the USA is either Bill Frist (the head of the Republican Senate) or John McCain

not a big fan of the provided list of candidates.. there arent any real conservatives up there who would satisfy my vote.. senate majority leader frist is an option.. i also didnt see senator evan bayh (d- indiana) up there. many think hes gona be comin out wit the big guns in 08. hes a moderate so i would like to hear more of what he's got to say.

... just to add i think tom mcclintock would be a good guy to add to the list. if i lived in cali, i wouldda voted for him over arnold in the recall election last year. he was a good man.

Obama vs. McCain: Setting up The Tone (http://pollclash.com) We don't need neither one of these candidates in the WHITE HOUSE! The one we needed was Hilary Clinton. She has the experience because she ran our nation when Bill was president. We lost a great candidate when we lost Hilary. We are worried about all these other things but never look at the most important things. Our gas, food, diesel and everything else has sky rocketed and we worry about this? We have a candidate with no experience and one too old and we are in trouble. We vote them in and point fingers when they screw up but it's our fault for voting without researching our candidates would vote for McCain only because I can't vote for Hilary!!

Why can so few Hillary supporters actually spell her name right, lol?

I clicked on Kucinich. The poor guy needed a vote.

NESARA Law for world peace!! :mrgreen:

This thread was started 4 years ago and with the exception of yesterday was dead for 3 1/2 years.

Please feel free to discuss the upcoming election in the thread below:

http://www.evboard.com/2008-us-election-who-will-win-37530.html