It won't be Gore, Clinton or Kerry

[cali]

Regarding Gore and Kerry, I think it's highly unlikely that dem primary voters are going to give someone who had a shot, another one. They're going to want someone who doesn't have a painful campaign history behind them. As far as Hillary goes, dems are weary of the Clintons, and wary about the shit that would fly with a Clinton nomination. Clark, if he runs a much better campaign than last time, has a shot, Mark Warner does, and though I know DUers don't want to hear this, Bayh, depending on the vigor of his campaigning, also has a shot. My one exception to the no retreads theory, is Edwards. He endeared himself to dem voters, and has a clear message on which to build. Oh yeah, and Biden's delusional if he really thinks he can win the nomination.

[ginnyinWI]

1. 80% of Democrats believe the 2004 election was stolen. n/t

[Perky]

22. Got a link?

I think maybe 80% of DUers might think tha way. But nominal dems I would not put it at more than 25%

[skipos]

24. Wow that is SOOOOO not true.

You must have gotten that tidbit from an online poll or something. Most people are pretty confident that their vote is counted.

This is from CNN's 2004 exit poll. I know many here don't believe polls when the results aren't what they want to see, but anyway...

WILL VOTES BE COUNTED ACCURATELY?
Very Confident (50%)
Somewhat Confident (40%)
Not Very Confident (7%)
Not At All Confident (2%)

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

[jazzjunkysue]

71. sounds right to me. 50%

[JNelson6563]

36. Untrue, but we all know for sure 2000 was

Nobody questions the fact that Gore got the popular vote and Bush was in the SCOTUS.

Julie

[ginnyinWI]

49. yeah I was wrong--confused it with another stat.

Here's how people believe according to recent polls:

http://www.baltimorechronicle.com/2006/051106Kall.shtml

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

69. Are You Kidding? I Don't Even Think 80% Of DU'ers Believe That.

I believe it was, though maybe not as masterfully as some believe. But regardless, saying 80% is ridiculous.

[WI_DEM]

85. I think more dems think 2000 was stolen than 2004

why? because Gore actually contested it and there were 34 days of debate and wide television/newspaper coverage on the subject. By conceding the election in 2004, Kerry did what he did based on the evidence he had at the time, but most people voters, dem or rep, believe that Bush actually won that election. Most voters don't haven't paid attention to the post '04 election evidence because Kerry conceded. We bloggers are more interested in this sort of thing but we still represent a minority of the total democratic vote.

[Road Scholar]

2. Thank you. I totally agree. One more thing,

John's wife Elizabeth. 'Nuff said.:toast:

[JAYJDF]

3. The first Dem candidate

that I see actually doing something about voter fraud will get my support!

[never_get_over_it]

33. Thank you!!!!

That is exactly how I feel and I have to think it would have to be a Gore or an Edwards because I believe they both know they were screwed big time.

[helderheid]

87. I'm not worried about voter fraud - I am worried about election fraud

Welcome to DU :hi:

[Jim Sagle]

4. You forgot Tom Daschle!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[cali]

6. How could the scintillating Daschle

have slipped my mind.

[celestia671]

5. Who we need....

We need someone with the energy and charisma that Clinton had for his first campaign. Someone who can reach out to everyone, young and old. Any ideas on who that might be?

[Libby2]

8. Edwards

[lpbk2713]

10. YES.

Edwards can do it. He's bright, capable and he's got charisma. His wife is a major plus as well. She'd make a great First Lady.

[Libby2]

13. He's the one I'm rooting for.

[Clark2008]

14. Edwards of the no gravitas in foreign policy, diplomacy,

war, immigration, etc?

No thanks.

[cali]

16. He certainly has

as much gravitas (a much overused word) as someone like Warner, and he has more domestic experience than Clark. He also has the guts to focus on the persistent problem of poverty. Most dems act like it doesn't exist. More to the point, he connects with voters, as the recent poll in Iowa demontstrates. The repub meme that he's a lightweight is silly.

[Pithy Cherub]

26. That was funny. Clearly wrong, but funny.

A one term technocratic governor who needs a 24/7 national security, foreign policy tutor on the critical issues of the day is definitely not the one to have the nuclear football in these times.

Clark has MORE experience than many by being the equivalent of a Head of State as Supreme Allied Commander of NATO with military command responsibilities for 19 countries with participating forces in NATO. Countries, not states.

Certainly, Edwards is focusing on domestic issues as he totally screwed up (his admission) when he had a critical vote in the senate and backed Dimson. Edwards is camped out in Iowa for now and the results should show his hard work there - that doesn't mean it stays that way once the campaign heats up. Interesting he's spending so much time in Iowa but not as much in the Gulf Coast or urban areas where poverty has its deepest roots.

[cali]

34. Methinks you have blinders on

You're so loyal to Clark, that you're clearly unable to clearly assess the putative candidates. I find that's true regarding all those who are are completely dedicated to any given candidate. As for the crap that a candidate in "these times" has to have had foreign policy experience, I don't buy it for a nano second. Nor, I think, will most voters. I expect Warner to do quite well. And if Clark doesn't up his political skills considerably, he'll meet the same fate as last time.

[Pithy Cherub]

37. My ability to assess remains unimpaired and full of good humor.

the mini-me candidates you like will be even more entertaining as the campaign gets closer and more serious. Obama would lay waste to the one term wonders, Edwards and Warner, should he get in as he would be the media star and the fundraising star. Not saying Obama should, but he clearly is going to be a major endorser - Warner & Edwards not so much. :P Feingold has shown the ability to become a strong voice and would clearly excite the base. Gore would lay waste to the rest of the field should he choose to get in and now he's a movie star who could also just rake in Hollywood cash Edwards & Warner again, no sale (or box office draw)here in the Sunshine State, especially should his film be award nomination worthy.

You picked two perfectly nice neophyte fellows with the biggest unfortunate holes in their one page resumes. We'll both see.

[MissWaverly]

17. if I can't have Gore, I will want Wes Clark

he has been on top of what has been going down and he is sure to appoint a capable Secretary
of Defense, Edwards is okay for vp, but it will take somebody with experience to dislodge
the neocons.

[Sugarcoated]

51. I personally think Russ Feingold fits that criteria

Likable and believable. And gravitas. And SPINE.

[Jade Fox]

7. Nixon overcame a very painful campaign history....

I think Gore has a similar chance. The growing sensation that he SHOULD be our President will hopefully continue. (I want him, as should be obvious).

[Cameron27]

9. I have to agree with you

The more I read about Clark, the more I'm impressed with him. Also have a soft spot for Edwards. I wish we had the option of picking campaign managers --- that's where most of the nightmare of past campaigns began, I believe.

[mikelewis]

11. Why isn't Obama a contender?

I know he's green but even green, he's still more intelligent and more dignified than any Repub candidate. He's level-headed and engages the people regularly. He also doesn't have a history that they can attack with any credibility. I'd trust his decisions and believe he would do what his conscience told him to do; rather than some crooked lobbyists. I would prefer a Gore campaign hands down but idealistically speaking, I would like to see Obama consider running. I think I trust him more than the other candidates (except Boxer, but she won't run).

[Karenca]

12. Lieberman lite .... nt

[cali]

15. He's way too smart to

run after only a couple of years in the Senate. OTH, I wouldn't be shocked to see him as a VP contender, depending on who eventually wins. Obama has plenty of time, and he knows it.

[Brigid]

29. How about a Gore/Obama ticket?

Can't you just see the Repugs wetting themselves over that possibility? :evilgrin:

[Rosemary2205]

18. I'd go Clark before I went Edwards or Obama

I like them all, but I think Edwards and Obama need more time to cook. I think Clark, with military experience, will speak to swing voters nervous about someone who can handle terrorism.

Just my humble opinion.

[Brigid]

30. Yes, I can see that.

I could easily vote for Clark. Hillary, not so much. Hey, anybody else liking that we have a number of potential candidates' names to kick around, while the Repugs don't have much of anybody who isn't too closely associated with the Bush regime to be electable? :evilgrin:

[wain]

19. It's been 34 years since we last had a senator as president

The last two (or three) senators that became president brought us Vietnam.

The odds are better to nominate someone who has had command responsibility in running an organization (governor, general); not a legislator.

:)

[cali]

20. I'm by no means advocating for him

but let me point out that bayh was a popular governor of a red state before he was a Senator.

[Vogt]

78. Bayh definitely was

popular in Indiana. As a Democrat, he was winning more than 60% of the vote. That's unheard of here. I think Bayh/Obama could and would win in '08.

[Perky]

23. Umm Try 46 years

1960

but you are right.. Senator have two much legislative history to poke holes at.

Governors get a pass on International affairs.

[skipos]

25. I am hoping for a good non-senator nominee from a flippable red state

we will see what comes along.

[Perky]

27. Richardson or Warner

would make a grear ticket

[Tom Rinaldo]

38. Clark also fills that bill n/t

[1932]

32. governors do better vs incumbents; senators do better in open elections

IIRC.

[rock]

21. Well, Gore and Kerry (as well as Edwards)

have already proven themselves winners. As for Clinton, hey, she's won all the races she been in as well! So they appear to have overcome any painful campaign history.

[Brigid]

28. I like Edwards.

I would happily vote for him again. :)

[jazzjunkysue]

70. He's the winner. Edwards. Cute, strong, southern.

[flvegan]

31. 2 words: Dennis Kucinich

If only the entire party would get behind him.

[SavetheUSA]

86. Screw the 'party'

'We the Democrats' are the party! and I think we should !Demand Dennis!

He is the one who has stood strong against this administration and their policies from the beginning. He led the effort in the House of Representatives against the patriot act (in fact he is the only one who stayed up all night reading it) and he led the effort to vote NO against the IWR! He should be the leader of the House of Representative right now! He is the true leader!

He is also the one that can unite Democrats and Republicans around real patriotism...real moral values like taking care of the people in this country, and stop wasting money bombing people in other countries.

He would repeal the patriot act and restore our constitution. Why would anyone allow the dumbest president ever to change our constitution?? Does he know more than the founders? My dog is smarter than that rat bastard!

He would call for universal health care, something that the clear majority in this country are for.

[JNelson6563]

35. I was wondering, what kind fo DUer would

refer to Gore as just someone who "had a shot". Gore also won.

But when I saw your recommendation, it all became clear to me.

Julie

[cali]

42. Can you spell analysis?

More to the point, can you tell the difference between analysis and advocacy. I didn't recommend anyone. I'm pretty neutral about the race so far. I think Gore would make a terrific President. That's distinctly different from whether I think he can win. And yes, alas, Gore is someone who had a shot at the presidency; indeed was cheated of that office, but IMO, he should have beaten bush soundly.

[Clarkie1]

39. I tend to agree with your assesment, generally speaking.

I don't think Gore will run. I'm unsure about Hillary, but I don't think Iowa voters are going to rubber-stamp the MSM nominee. Edwards undeniably has charisma which will get him far, but lacks the gravitas to close the deal, in my opinion.

Biden is a dead fish, I honestly don't understand how he thinks he has a shot against the likes of Clark and others. Honestly, I also don't see Bayh or Warner eclipsing Clark, either. Perhaps I'm too unobjective in my analysis, I guess we'll all just have to wait and see.

[JNelson6563]

43. I can spell just about anything

But the fact you suggest Clark or Warner requires very little analysis. I've noticed it is Clark and Warner fans who seem to take the most issue with the recent surge of support for Gore on DU.

Gore has won the Presidency once already, none of the other potential candidates have. Frankly I see his experience at having run the race already as invaluable. He will avoid many of the mistakes made by those going through it the first time.

Julie

[Tom Rinaldo]

45. I've seen a lot of Clark supporters say that their top three choices are

Clark, Gore, and Feingold, or Clark, Feingold and Gore. I haven't paid as much attention to Warner supporters, but I think more of them put Edwards in their top three somewhere.

On edit: I'm one of those Clark supporters with Gore in his top three by the way.

[JNelson6563]

57. Yes, I have too

I should have said "some Clark and Warner supporters" for the sake of accuracy. Mea culpa.

:toast:

[Clarkie1]

53. Gore is my #2 choice behind Clark.

I don't care for Warner at all.

[karynnj]

40. Pretty amazing that you makean exception for Edwards

because he "endeared himself to Dem voters" - it seemed to me that Kerry was the one with the huge entusiastic crowds. Let's see how the primaries play out - in 2004, it wasn't lack of likability that caused Edwards to fade in the primaries after Iowa (he did better ONLY in NC and SC) was that he simply seemed too much a lightweight. That is not a Republican theme - he was a trial lawyer and then a Senator for one term. It may be that he will come off better in the debates in 2008 and through his work since 2004.

[Clarkie1]

41. I think Edwards did endear himself more to Dem voters than Kerry

but, as you say, he seemed to much of a lightweight. Voters went for Kerry because of his military service and greater political experience. I'm not sure if I agree or disagree with you.

[karynnj]

54. If Edwards endeared himself more he would have won the primaries.

Edwards did very well in Iowa. NH was next door to MA. Edwards was in a great position at that time. He was either second or tied to second with Howard Dean. At that point the media was very hostile to Dean, lukewarm to Kerry admitting only what they had to (that he won both primaries) and very friendly to Edwards, who was described invariably as sunny, handsome and charismatic.

The next contests were the 7 states SC,OK, DE, AZ, NM, MO and ND on the first multi-state day. These are states that should have been friendlier to a Southern populist than to a MA liberal. When Kerry won 5, Edwards 1 and clark 1, CNN called the day a big win for Kerry and a smaller win for Edwards. Looking at the states, this was bad news for Edwards - if he couldn't win the majority of these states, which states could he win? With any other candidate, having won 7 out of 9 primaries would mean you were likely unbeatable. The press continued to push Edwards as the person who could stop Kerry.

[Clarkie1]

72. I guess it depends on what your definition of "endear" is.

I don't think most primary voters were "endeared" to Kerry; they simply thought he was the one with the best chance of winning.

[karynnj]

80. I would have preferred another word

such as impressed or inspired, but I used the op's word. Endeared seems more a word to use with a puppy. I really think is is PR that people are saying, as if it is fact, that Dean, Edwards, and Clark all had people who really liked them - and Kerry didn't. I have no idea how many advocates each got - I know of no poll on who do you like best as a person. I know I liked Kerry best, Cali clearly likes Edwards best and you like Clark best. I really don't know why it's more acceptable to say that Edwards endeared himself and Kerry didn't - versus saying the opposite.

I've watched the Road to the White House and they have recenly had tape from various commencement speeches. Last night they had Evan Bayh at De Paw (sp??) and Kerry at Kenyon College. Out of all of them I have seen, the one where the connection was most affectionate and strongest is Kerry's. It was a very warm, friendly speech that was also inspiring. More than any other speaker he praised the kids, the faculty, and the parents. I saw Kerry at Faneuil Hall in Boston - I have never heard more applause for a speech. Before that I saw Kerry at one of his NJ stops for Corzine - all the local papers in the county spoke of how good he was. Clearly, part of the smear on Kerry was that this charismatic likeable guy was boring (where have we heard that before) and not fun to have a beer with.

[cali]

44. Actually the main reason I exempted Edwards

was because he wasn't on the top of the ticket. It 's unfair but many people blame Kerry for not winning.

[karynnj]

63. Ok, I personally don't buy your arbitrary rules

but have it your way.

[ThomWV]

46. I Think you are wrong on almost every count

I'll buy into the Edwards description you give, none of the others though. Clark can't, Hillary is unelectable and everyone knows it EXCEPT those who relish the last name. Bill she ain't, let it go folks, let her be the best Senator New York has ever seen. To this day I do not know why Kerry was the nominee last time around but I do know that Gore is capable of winning not only the Nomination but the Presidency as well. He had already done each of those things once and were he to announce a run today he would have an Army of volunteers at his side in the morning.

[cali]

50. you misread what I wrote

I don't think Hillary can win either. But, just because Gore eked out a win last time, doesn't mean he can do it again. Anyway, it's highly unlikely that he'll run.

[blm]

76. If you don't know WHY Kerry was the nominee then maybe that's a problem.

Can you name a lawmaker who who has investigated and exposed more government corruption than John Kerry has?

Can you name another Democrat who received more votes than Kerry did in 2004? So many that BushInc had to steal 5 million of them for themselves.

[Hamlette]

47. could be someone we've never heard of

our last two presidents came out of nowhere

[ProgressivePatriot]

48. And it can't be any of those filthy DLC'ers.

[blm]

52. The people already elected both Gore and Kerry, they're not loser retreads

And if the machines are secured before the vote, either could win in a landslide.

Besides - - WHO is going to outdebate either of them? Kerry has his chops down. I would say that Clark will probably be the next best debater after Kerry.

[Joe Fields]

55. I think it is absolutely foolish to make predictions at this time.

And that's why I say it's going to be Gore.

[AtomicKitten]

56. Nope, Gore is the one.

[SammyWinstonJack]

58. ! He is the one! Love that man!

[zulchzulu]

59. We'll just see about that...

I agree that Gore of Hillary won't be the nominee. Gore isn't going to run and Hillary will not do well in the primaries...but I would not underestimate Kerry if I were you.

I also think that a being a frontrunner at this point is not necessarily a good thing. It's like having a nice, big target on your head waiting for the media to pounce. And you know they will...

[moez]

60. It's Clinton's to lose -

I don't like it. But, it's just a fact.

[SammyWinstonJack]

61. Which Clinton?

:evilgrin: And that isn't a fact Don't pick our candidate for us.

[moez]

65. Roger - if he was running.

But, since he's not - it'll be Hillary. And, I didn't pick her. The media did. It's over - game over.

[Warchild]

74. George Clinton?

No, I don't think that would work. We're still a ways off from the first African American crackhead Chief Executive

[wisteria]

62. I don't agree. I think Kerry has shot again.

At this point, I wouldn't count anyone out.

[savemefromdumbya]

64. IF they hold elections in 2008

[BlueIris]

66. Ah, another poor, delusional soul who doesn't read real news.

And doesn't understand real history, or know how to critically evaluate information, I fear. What a pity. You're going to have a rough 2008-9, dear. Enjoy!

[cali]

77. Ah, another cheap purveyor of ad hominem attacks

who is either incapable of engaging in debate or unwilling to do so.

[politicasista]

67. It's really too early. Focus on 2006 n/t

[saltpoint]

68. It looks as if Mike Gravel is unstoppable. The nomination is his to lose.

Let everyone else whimper in the corner like whipped dogs.

[Warchild]

73. Big John Kerry

will be the next POTUS (unless we are so lucky that GWB croaks with his boots on and Dead Eye Dick slides into the big chair).

[catD]

75. I'm a Clark supporter, so I come from that viewpoint,

but the man is a strategic genius. He's studied the playing field this time and is arming the Congress with Democrats so that as president he'll be able to accomplish things.

Can't wait.

[greenbriar]

79. Gore/Kerry ~ Poetic Justice

because we deserve it!

[tallahasseedem]

81. I would definately take a Clark/Obama ticket.

I like Edwards but I didn't feel that he could hold his own against Rove's attacks.

[stop the bleeding]

82. Feingold and my pet cats could kick any rethug's ass in 2008

No "seriesly" Feingold and ________________(insert favorite VP here)

[lpbk2713]

83. Bob Graham

would make a fine Veep.

[Adelante]

84. He certainly would

As to the OP, here are some CNN poll numbers that seem to agree with Cali's conclusion:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/19/poll.presidential/

[stepnw1f]

88. lol.... we'll just see... won't 'we'? (nt)