• Secure your account

    A friendly reminder to our users, please make sure your account is safe. Make sure you update your password and have an active email address to recover or change your password.

  • Xenforo Cloud has scheduled an upgrade to XenForo version 2.2.16. This will take place on or shortly after the following date and time: Jul 05, 2024 at 05:00 PM (PT) There shouldn't be any downtime, as it's just a maintenance release. More info here

2008 Presidential Election: Gore/Clinton

I would go for Gore because Hillary isn't a good cantidate at all. Plus she's a phony.

I like Gore alot. He's a good man. He has good character.
 
NOFX said:
Democrat Governor Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas!

Even her supporters don't think she's worth devoting a thread to on a comic to film internet message board, so I'm thinking not. :down

jag
 
cb48026 said:
The Democrats will need to nominate a moderate in '08 if they want to win, so a Gore/Clinton ticket would be something to try to avoid.

Now that Mark Warner is not running, what is the consensus on Evan Bayh? He was both the Governor and now a Senator from Indiana, a Red State. He may have the needed crossover appeal that the Democrats will need.

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.
 
SentinelMind said:
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 agree on the conservative aspect, but then again, Bayh is starting to lean towards the left. Maybe if he comes across as a centrist leaning towards the left he could get the nomination.
 
Gore. I doubt we will be in any wars and we will pay more attention to global warming.
 
cb48026 said:
The Democrats will need to nominate a moderate in '08 if they want to win, so a Gore/Clinton ticket would be something to try to avoid.

Now that Mark Warner is not running, what is the consensus on Evan Bayh? He was both the Governor and now a Senator from Indiana, a Red State. He may have the needed crossover appeal that the Democrats will need.

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.
 
SentinelMind said:
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 dont' know about the guy. What makes him conservative? personally I'm begging for a fiscally conservative democrat. we need that so incredibly bad. Spending needs to go down, down down. and taxes for the rich need to go up, up, up.

Why can't Howard Dean be president? :csad: So what if he screamed. That guy knows what needs to be done, and he would actually do it. I really can't see him cowering to pressure. People can claim he's too liberal, but nobody refute his accomplishments. He tore it up as governor in a way that was almost too good to be real, and now as chairman? He's raised more money than all of his predecessors. Personality wont balance the budget or solve global warming.
 
enterthemadness said:
Gore. I doubt we will be in any wars and we will pay more attention to global warming.
Agreed.

I would love a Gore/Kerry or Kerry/Gore ticket.
 
Tangled Web said:
Agreed.

I would love a Gore/Kerry or Kerry/Gore ticket.
I don't think Gore will ever agree to be a Vice President again.
 
Spider-Bite said:
...personally I'm begging for a fiscally conservative democrat. we need that so incredibly bad. Spending needs to go down, down down. and taxes for the rich need to go up, up, up.
1) Thats not conservative.

2) Spending going down is fine as long as the cuts are to improve efficiency, but you realize that by over taxing the rich, you are in essence over taxing businesses. Businesses that hire people that need jobs. Businesses that will simply pass the costs on to consumers. Raising taxes is unnecessary and will weaken the economy. In fact going "up up up" with taxes will totally wreak the economy.
 
Didn't we all agree Kerry sucks? Cause if not, we should.
 
Spider-Bite said:
I dont' know about the guy. What makes him conservative? personally I'm begging for a fiscally conservative democrat. we need that so incredibly bad. Spending needs to go down, down down. and taxes for the rich need to go up, up, up.
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 :up:

Why can't Howard Dean be president? :csad: So what if he screamed. That guy knows what needs to be done, and he would actually do it. I really can't see him cowering to pressure. People can claim he's too liberal, but nobody refute his accomplishments. He tore it up as governor in a way that was almost too good to be real, and now as chairman? He's raised more money than all of his predecessors. Personality wont balance the budget or solve global warming.

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. People didn't vote for Kerry, they voted against Bush. They lost, badly. They are still following that strategy in 2006 and I hope they pay dearly for it (i.e. not winning the majority in Congress). Hell, once again, the Democrats are just riding on the f**k ups of Bush and the Republicans instead of creating an alternative.

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.
 
jaguarr said:
Even her supporters don't think she's worth devoting a thread to on a comic to film internet message board, so I'm thinking not. :down

jag
*sigh*
 
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.
 
Matt said:
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.
Bush-sized disaster?
 
CConn said:
Didn't we all agree Kerry sucks? Cause if not, we should.
I'm not sure I can disagree with someone that kind of quotes Taylor Rain in their sig.
 
blind_fury said:
I agree. But Bush is a hundred times worse.

They were both equally horrible. It was like choosing crap and crap.


KvB: Whomever wins, we lose :csad:
 
hippie_hunter said:
They were both equally horrible. It was like choosing crap and crap.


KvB: Whomever wins, we lose :csad:

It was more like choosing between crap and crap that had raped your uncle's goat.
 
JLBats said:
It was more like choosing between crap and crap that had raped your uncle's goat.

Or a *****e or a turd sandwich.
 
Truthteller said:
1) Thats not conservative.

2) Spending going down is fine as long as the cuts are to improve efficiency, but you realize that by over taxing the rich, you are in essence over taxing businesses. Businesses that hire people that need jobs. Businesses that will simply pass the costs on to consumers. Raising taxes is unnecessary and will weaken the economy. In fact going "up up up" with taxes will totally wreak the economy.

here's the deal. 40% of what you pay in taxes is not to cover government services. It's to cover this year's interest on the deficit. Imagine the economic stimuli if we didn't have to pay that. not to mention the larger the deficit the less the dollar is worth. the dollar is shrinking at a rate unseen since the last Bush was president.
the deficit is over 30,000 dollars per person now when divided equally, and the baby boomers are just now retiring. like it or not, but our taxes are going to go up dramatically. and it's not good for the economy. the highter the taxes are on the rich, the lower they can stay on everybody else, the consumers. Consumer spending is the driving force in our economy, not trickle downenomics. They hire and layoff based on consumer spending, demand for their product, and not their taxes.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"