It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Prez in '08 Who and Why?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 04:19 PM
link   
Okay I know it is early but who do you think will win their respective primaries and lead their party into the White House in 2008. I have talked about this on a few other threads but I am intersted to see what everyone else thinks.

From the Democrat's side I see Dean making another run at it along with Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, and John Edwards. In the end I see Edwards being the Presidential Candidate with Hillary Clinton running as the Vice-President.

On the Republican side it will be Frist, Condi Rice, Jeb Bush, McCain and a few others with Jeb Bush winning out as President and Condi Rice being the V.P. candidate.

In the end I see the Republicans winning by slightly more than they did in '04. One twist would be McCain switching sides or possibly running as a third party candidate. This would eat away at both candidates votes but dig a little deeper into the Republicans votes probably causing a loss.

Let me know what you guys think!




posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 09:23 PM
link   
I became a Republican because of what Ronald Reagan stood for.

I think Bush is making a total mess of a once great party, and am seriously considering joining the Libertarian party instead ... but I like Frist ... he's the first person to have the guts to stand up to Bush.

I can't see McCain as a president, maybe as a vice president.

I've alot of hype about a new Democrat candidate, although nothing verified yet (not Hillary someone new).

But I may end up voting for the Libertarian candidate anyways.



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 01:41 PM
link   
I'm voting Constitution Party--again. I sure ain't voting Democrat, and the GOP resembles the Nazi Party too much for my liking.

I don't know who's scarier...Bush or Hillary....



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 01:54 PM
link   
A lot of people say Jeb won't run this time out of fear that people will throw the "dynasty" label at him, but I think he probably will, which scares the hell out of me, since it is said that he is the real ambitious one of the Bush brothers. God help us if what we've seen for the last eight years in an "unambitious" Bush agenda. There is one thing that might stop him, though,and that is if the combination of scandals and incompetence that have been circling closer to Bush right now ever finally do catch up with him. If even one thing that could land at Bush's doorstep ever actually does ( and to do that the media lackeys that give him such a free pass will have to quit protecting him ) , then Bush's popularity---what remains of it---will sink like a rock. If Iraq continues to get worse, if Hurrican Katrina continues to show him for the incompetent fraud he is, or if anything at all about 9/11 finally sees the light of day, then Bush is finished, and will end up the most hated man in America since Nixon. If that's the case, then Jeb's presidential ambitions are over. If , though, Bush somehow continues to avoid his justly-deserved comeuppance, then my bet is that Jeb will be the Republican nominee, with his "competitors" being McCain, Frist, and Newt Gingrich, who has really been raising his profile lately.
On the Democratic side, I believe that Dean will stay at the DNC---in fact, I think they put him there to keep him quiet and happy and make sure he didn't run again. Hillary will be the nominee, with both Edwards and Kerry both giving her some "competition" early.
My early guesses for the VP spot are Condoleeza Rice for the Republicans and Barack Obama for the Democrats. Every singel predicitive indicator possible would lead one to think the Dems have a solid chance to win the next election by a huge margin, which is what it may take if Diebold machines become even more widespread.
---Ryan



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 01:56 PM
link   
Personally, I'd like to see Condi Rice. I can't make any predictions of who will win, though we'll have a better idea which party will be more likely to win after the 2006 elections.

There are many reasons I'd like to see Dr. Rice win the presidency, though. I agree with a lot of her politics, more so than any other major player out there. However, that could change, seeing there's still 2 more years for people to volley for position. She seems really down to earth, and has an amazing story, too. Talk about a rags to riches story! I suspect, and have seen evidence that her experiences through life have put her in touch with a far larger range of the population than most people could ever hope to be.

While her politics would be the primary reason for wanting her in office, I think an added bonus would be to finally break the gender and race barrier that has been maintained in our highest office since the inception of the nation.

Go Condi



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 03:02 PM
link   
Condi was rags-to-riches?!

Really???

I was under the impression that - at the very least - her family weren't exactly poor....but anyways.

I still think there's a chance it'd be a Hillary-Condi battle.

I can't honestly say who'd be my preferred candidate; both rub me up the wrong in some areas.

Then again, it's difficult at this stage trying to predict exactly what their respective platforms would be; I might just find myself voting for George Carlin instead.



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 03:13 PM
link   
Gov. Jeb Bush has got it locked up.

Diebold will insure it.


I'm battin 4 for 4 in the pres. guessing game.

But I must remind you: No Wagering, no side bets, and hold all tickets!



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake

While her politics would be the primary reason for wanting her in office, I think an added bonus would be to finally break the gender and race barrier that has been maintained in our highest office since the inception of the nation.

Go Condi



Your not concerned about the two political parties that don't allow other parties to debate them? How does that make this country fair and free?

Two pary candidates were arrested last year for trying to enter the debate, forget gender barriers, worry about the political injustices that have been going on all around you!



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueLies

Your not concerned about the two political parties that don't allow other parties to debate them? How does that make this country fair and free?

Two pary candidates were arrested last year for trying to enter the debate, forget gender barriers, worry about the political injustices that have been going on all around you!


Absloutly I am! I talked about multiple parties being allowed in the debates and to get fair media coverage quite a bit leading up to the election. That, however, doesn't mean I have to vote for one of them. I can support their rights to participate as candidates while at the same time supporting someone who is affiliated with one of those two major parties.



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
Absloutly I am! I talked about multiple parties being allowed in the debates and to get fair media coverage quite a bit leading up to the election. That, however, doesn't mean I have to vote for one of them. I can support their rights to participate as candidates while at the same time supporting someone who is affiliated with one of those two major parties.



Then your not really concerned about the injustices and the strangle-hold these two parties have on the country...

But as long as your guy gets in who cares about democracy!



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueLies
Then your not really concerned about the injustices and the strangle-hold these two parties have on the country...

But as long as your guy gets in who cares about democracy!


Yep, that's what I meant



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
Yep, that's what I meant


Roll your eyes all you want

You have your own brand of what freedom is because you only care about a republican getting on the white house. My husband is just like you.. Thinks that debating should be open to all parties but you continue to encourage this kind of un fair and unjust treatment by voting in those who keep away a just political arena for all to play in, and other choices that voter's want that neither political party offer's.




[edit on 7-9-2005 by TrueLies]



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 04:12 PM
link   
So I'm not allowed to support or believe in someone's politics if they're players in one of the two major parties, even if their views most coencide with my own and support free and open debates at the same time?

I have to compromise my own beliefs to stand up for those of another person? I was under the impression we should make it a fair playing ground so that we could vote for the person we most agree with. Isn't that the point of introducing multiple parties and allowing them to participate on the national level?

EDIT: If I believed that, I wouldn't support multiple party debates because it would thereby restrict my choices, which is why I'm against the two party system.

[edit on 9-7-2005 by junglejake]



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 04:30 PM
link   
So you want to have your cake and eat it to then...

Obviously you are the opposite of those who believe in their country before party.

By voting your party in your encouraging them to flush this country down the crapper.

In a dictatorship you only have one choice. But if you only have two choices even though other parties want to come on board and then be arrested for trying, is this political arena not like a dictatorship also?

What would you regard this as?



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 04:58 PM
link   
As far as this two-party monopoly goes, people have forgotten the three requirements one has to meet to run for President

1) Born in USA (I don't think that pertains to "anchor" babies).
2) US resident at least 14 years
3) At least age 35

NOWHERE in the Constitution does it say that there shall only be two major parties and that any "third" parties have to have petitions going to even get on the ballot!

Plus, given that there's very little difference between R and D, I say EVERYONE vote third party! There's Constitution (my pick), Libertarian, Green (for the tree-huggers LOL), Socialist (but we have R and D), Independent....



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 08:35 PM
link   
I'm glad to see this thread revived.

But seems to have gone off on a tangent

So, to remind y'all, please discuss Prez in '08 Who and Why?



posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 02:38 PM
link   
Jeb Bush has stated several times that he has no intentions for running for President.



posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by elderban
Jeb Bush has stated several times that he has no intentions for running for President.


So has Condi Rice, but we can still hope
It's still 3 years away.



posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 02:51 PM
link   
I see this....

Republican
____________________

Jeb Bush
Condi Rice
Frist
McCain

With either Bush or Frist winning the primaries. Condi can't since she is a woman and black, and McCain can't since he is to moderate.

Democrat
____________________

Hilary
Edwards
Dean

With Hilary winning primaries so democrats can play the "If you don't vote for Hilary you are a disgusting egotistical chauvonistic male pig."

Third Party
____________________
Powell
McCain
Badnarik

All three win primaries, all take votes from republicans, 2 take votes from democrats.

Winner?
Hilary due to split republican votes.



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 09:50 AM
link   
Want to know why I'm voting whoever's on the Constitution Party ticket?

Check out their platform here. It's a true conservative party...unlike the GOP. And they firmly believe in putting the Constitutional leash on the government dogs (as of late they've been chewing through those leashes).




top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join