2008 Presidential Election: Gore/Clinton

[sithgoblin]

I said it before, I'll say it again. Gore would be a disaster. People are desperate now that Warner is out, as he could REALISTICALLY (unlike Hilary) win an election and turn the party around. Gore seems good on paper, but would end horribly.

Care to expand on that at all..?

 

[Spider-Bite]

Taxes are not fiscally conservative. I think the term you are looking for is fiscally responsible, like Bill Clinton was. I think that instead of taxing the rich, the government should have a sales tax (divide 50/50 with the state governments), increase taxes on tobacco and alchohol, and legalize marijuana and tax the s**t out of it making billions of dollars from hippies who wear Che Guerva shirts claiming they hate capitalism yet ironically support it

traditionally democrats were considered the big spenders. tax and spend. republicans were about conserving tax dollars and and conserving spending. that's where the term fiscally conservative comes from. responsible means you spend responsibly, and balance the budget. fiscally conservative means you lower spending or keep it low.

Electing Howard Dean as chairman shortly after the 2004 election showed that the Democrats learned nothing that their leadership was completely out of touch with the American people.

wait but you just said...

Also, Howard Dean can't be President because like Hillary, he's too damn polarizing. They should just make him Democratic Party Fundraiser, he's really good at that.

That's what the Chairman does, and he has actually surpassed all of his predecessors. Electing Howard Dean as chairman worked better than electing anybody they previously elected. It worked. The guy knows how to do his job whether it's governor or chairman, he just makes mistakes when trying to get the job in the first place.

 

[Chris B]

you do realize that Gore won the popular vote in 2000 right? How is somebody who wins something to avoid? The country would look at Gore wishing he had been president for the last eight years. and having Hillary as the VP, would make people feel like they were voting for Bill Clinton, at the same time.

hillary as the nominee is a silver platter for republicans, but Gore/Hillary would be unstoppable.

I was coming from the perspective that the Democrats need to nominate a moderate in order to win in 2008.

 

[Spider-Bite]

That's the problem with many Americans these days. They'll support a candidate just because of the party. Vote for the person, not the party, make the candidates earn your vote, don't make them take it for granted.

in the primary I make the democrat work for my vote.

 

[Chris B]

I'm starting to think a Bayh/Warner or Bayh/Richardson ticket would be a godsend to Democrats. Bayh has both insider and outsider experience as Senator and governor and he does have quite a few accomplishments. My concern is that he's a bit too conservative for the Democratic Party, but he has authored some interesting legislation.

I think that if Evan Bayh did win the nomination he would be best advised to select a more liberal Democrat as his running mate. A Evan Bayh/Russ Feingold ticket may not be a bad idea.

 

[Spider-Bite]

I think that if Evan Bayh did win the nomination he would be best advised to select a more liberal Democrat as his running mate. A Evan Bayh/Russ Feingold ticket may not be a bad idea.

your probably figuring that the liberal would fire up the base, but it wouldn't work. if the VP is two different from the nominee it creates conflict, because you have the one guy saying we should do this, and the other guy saying that's wrong. they woudl inadvertantly make each other look bad.

for example the only thing Bush and Cheney disagreed on was the constitutional ammendmant to ban gay marriage, but all Cheney would say about it was "I used to support it, now I don't, but Bush supports it, he's my president and I support him"

they can't be saying that about every issue because they would come off as opponents rather than partners.

 

[Immortalfire]

Neither.

 

[Chris B]

your probably figuring that the liberal would fire up the base, but it wouldn't work. if the VP is two different from the nominee it creates conflict, because you have the one guy saying we should do this, and the other guy saying that's wrong. they woudl inadvertantly make each other look bad.

for example the only thing Bush and Cheney disagreed on was the constitutional ammendmant to ban gay marriage, but all Cheney would say about it was "I used to support it, now I don't, but Bush supports it, he's my president and I support him"

they can't be saying that about every issue because they would come off as opponents rather than partners.

That's my reasoning. The thing about Evan Bayh is that he may be too moderate for the liberal Democrats. I reasoned that Feingold would balance the ticket out, but the scenario you mentioned could easily happened with any ticket that was balanced on the basis of ideology.