more likely than not, a Georgian will be running for President in 2008..

[flaminbats]

The only scenario in which a Georgian may not run would be if a Democrat was elected Governor and a Republican Lt. Governor in 2006. Even under this scenario, Chambliss might run.

If Democrats win the Governorship and Lt. Governorship in Georgia, it's highly likely this new Governor would run for the Democratic nomination. If Republicans win the Governorship and Lt. Governorship in 2006, Sonny Perdue will probably run for President. If Democrats win the Lt. Governorship and Perdue is re-elected, then Isakson would probably run for President.

This is probably first time since Jimmy Carter or Sam Nunn..that a Georgian has had a serious shot of being President.

[Rowdyboy]

1. Sonny Perdue is that insane?

Jesus, I knew the man was borderline but you really believe he might run for president?

[flaminbats]

2. yes, unless Democrats can beat him in 2006!

the other thing blocking him would be if Republicans fail to win the Lt. Governorship. Then Republicans would blame Perdue for giving the Governorship to a Democrat, leaving him to run against Isakson or Chambliss.

I thought he was insane to make his daughter President of the Young Democrats at UGA, and then switch parties on the same year!

[RT Atlanta]

3. interesting thoughts

Who do you think would be a serious contender for the Dem party from our state? Cathy Cox?

Scary thoughts with Perdue running for governor, but hey, at the very least, he can conjugate a verb and complete a sentence unlike *

[flaminbats]

4. as you probably already know, polls show Perdue and Cox in a dead heat..

Another likely candidate is Lt. Governor Mark Taylor, if he runs we must find some strong candidates for Lt. Governor. My darkhorse candidate for Governor is Max Cleland, if he runs Taylor will probably just run for re-election in 2006.

Thus any Democrat who beats Sonny Perdue in 2006 will be treated as a rising star by the national media.

[RT Atlanta]

5. I know Taylor's name, but...

dont know much about him personally or philosophically. Gotta respect any work Cleland does.

Let's home to get some good ones on board in the next few years!

[flaminbats]

6. I've always considered Taylor chief rebel of the Georgia Senate..

this was true even when DINOs were in control, but at least he still holds the gavel!

[Georgia_Dem]

7. I don't think so.

If a Democrat won the governorship, he wouldn't be in position to run. He'd have less than a year to run. During that time, he'd be too
busy establising himself as governor.

If Perdue was reelected governor, I doubt he'd run. He'd have no chance. He's not even very well liked in our state.

Chambliss? Maybe. Although I doubt if he'll win the nomination if he'll be competing with Jeb Bush.

[flaminbats]

8. It would be fun watching Perdue lose!

Gore was elected to the Senate in 1984 and became a leading contender for the Democratic nomination in 1988. Bob Kerrey was elected to the Senate in 1988 and ran for the nomination in 1992. Edwards was elected to the Senate in 1998 and ran in 2004. The only reason Edwards didn't run in 2000 was Al Gore. Somehow I doubt Jeb Bush will have the same advantages that his brother had in 2004 or Gore had in 2000.

Would Perdue run against Jeb Bush??? Only if Republicans win the Lt. Governorship! Any Democrat who wins the Governorship will be a serious contender for the nomination in 2008 if Democrats also hold on to the Lt. Governorship.

[Georgia_Dem]

9. It's very different for Gore, Kerrey, and Edwards

Their elections to the Senate gave them each a few years to establish themselves instead of the one year a Democratic governor of Georgia would have. Plus, it's easier for senators to establish themselves because of those voting records they have.

Why wouldn't Jeb Bush have the advantages of his brother? He has the same wealth, the same popularity in the state he governs, and the same name recognition. If anything, he'd be in a more fortunate position than his brother, since should he get nominated, he'd have the great swing state of Florida.

And no, I doubt Perdue will run, what with his bad popularity in his own state. If he runs, he's an even bigger idiot than I thought.

[flaminbats]

10. I agree whoever wins in 2006 must run a nonstop campaign to be President..

I have no doubt Perdue will exploit the Governorship in every way he can to become President. Isakson and Chambliss would also abuse their offices in every way possible for the same purpose.

Only a Democratic Governor would place the good of the state over his or her partisan ambitions.

[Georgia_Dem]

11. Again, Perdue is very unpopular

So it doesn't seem like he'd run, unless he's too stupid to realize that. And while he is an idiot, he also doesn't seem completely unaware that he's unpopular.

I doubt Isakson would run. He's just now become a senator. Chambliss
is really the only Georgian who can be considered a serious candidate for president in my opinion.

[flaminbats]

12. interesting post..

IMO Jeb Bush will be history in two years. Franklin Roosevelt may of been TR's cousin, but he would not have been President without being Governor of New York. I doubt even Robert Kennedy would have been considered a leading contender in 68'..if not for his brother's death.

Unless Jeb Bush is elected to the Senate, *'s reputation would only drag his campaign down and give us an advantage. Perdue is not only stupid, he's self-centered and insane..all necessary qualities to be a candidate! Isakson shall be pushed as a contender, but will probably not run. How likely is it that Republicans win the Governorship but lose the Lt. Governorship? Chambliss is the least recognized and most ideological of the three, I even know some Perdue and Isakson voters who wouldn't support him!

Remember that in 1976 Carter was considered the underdog of the candidates, he was also the right man at the right time. In 1988 and 1992 Sam Nunn was considered a leading contender among Democrats, except he had no desire to be President!

[Georgia_Dem]

13. I believe Jeb is a serious contender

Sure, he's out of the Florida governor's mansion in two years, but that doesn't mean he wouldn't be a top contender. He'd have the name recognition he needs. In the event that George's policies sink his already fairly low popularity, I'm not so sure Jeb wouldn't suffer. His father, after all, dodged the Iran Contra bullet that cost the
Republicans control of the Senate via his "no new taxes/Dukakis is soft on crime" campaign.

You make a good point about FDR. It's arguable. However, would Dick Nixon have won in 1968 without his name recognition as a former vice
president? After all, this was just eight years after losing the presidency and six years after losing the California governorship.

As for Perdue, again, I doubt he'll run if he's not any more popular
by then. He doesn't seem unaware that if he can't connect better with
this state, it's over for him. Therefore, I don't see him being foolish enough to run for president. I didn't know Jimmy Carter was the underdog primary candidate, but I wasn't alive back then. Still, I'll bet Carter had more than 43% of Georgia behind him, which is the
state support Perdue has.

I don't think Chambliss will win the primaries myself. But he'll have
a chance. Since he's not well known, he'll be able to build himself up on his own terms. How well he can do that, I don't know. I don't see how his ideology would hurt him any more than it hurt Bush.

[flaminbats]

14. Humphrey lost because of Vietnam..

I believe history has demonstrated that Wallace hurt Nixon more than Humphrey. In 1969 Humphrey was seen by many as the pro-war candidate, Nixon was viewed as the anti-war candidate, and Wallace was the neocon alternative. The same would had been the case if Nelson Rockefeller had been nominated.

If Reagan had been nominated he would have taken votes from Wallace, but the antiwar votes would had been up for grabs. Nixon's names recognition helped him in the primaries, but how much did it help in the General election? One could argue that Humphrey had the name recognition has Nixon, but if there had been no war who would have won?

If John F. Kennedy had not been shot, it seems doubtful that Bobby would of been a leading contender in 1968. If * had not been elected Governor of Texas, Gore or McCain would now be President.

I agree that every election is different. Consider what the political situation will be in 2008. The war is only likely to become worse, which will split Republicans but unite Democrats. Being associated with Bush will become a political liability not an advantage. Given these circumstances Republicans primaries will be a bloodbath, but Democrats will quickly choose a nominee. If Jeb runs, his campaign would only be an advantage for us.

1970
Jimmy Carter
59.3% (620,419)
def.
Hal Suit
40.6% (424,983)

Carter won in 1970 with nearly 60% of the vote. In 1976, he won every county in Georgia..the last Presidential candidate to do so! Perdue's future depends on how he does in 2006, and who is elected as Lt. Governor. As mentioned earlier, Bush is likely to become a political liability in 2008..this will also effect the ambitions of Chambliss and Isakson.

[Georgia_Dem]

15. I know Vietnam and Wallace were factors.

But Nixon's ability to win Dixiecratic votes was also a reason for him winning. I doubt being viewed as more anti-war than Humphrey helped Nixon. After all, George McGovern was anti-war, yet in the 1972 election, he lost forty-nine states, including his home state of South Dakota.

Even if John F. Kennedy hadn't been shot, I feel that Robert still would've been a leading contender. John had become popular due to his
handling of the Cuban missile crisis. Robert would've benefitted from
that.

I don't think George Bush's status as governor of Texas mattered in 2000. It was just that he had name recognition and the ability to appeal overwhelmingly to rural Americans. That's why he's president (well, that and the fraud).

In 2008, I doubt the Iraq war will have hurt the Republicans more than it already has, especially if the troops are out of there by then. I mean, there was a lot a bad stuff about it released during the 2004 election. Over a thousand soldiers dead, the conclusion by experts that there were no WMDs, and CIA projections of either more of the same in Iraq late in this year or civil war. On the other hand, Bush's health/social security plan and likely upcoming war with
North Korea and/or Iran may hurt his party quite a bit.

Unless Hilary Clinton, who I doubt any other Democrat can beat, runs in 2008 (I'm not factoring Al Gore in because he's not likely to run), both the Democratic and Republican primaries will be fierce. It will be the Democrats best chance of getting back into power, and who doesn't want to orchestrate it? If it does get to be a Democratic
landslide due to a backlash against the Republicans, the Democrats will go at each other not in spite of that, but because of it. Because they'll know that if they've got presidential aspirations, that'll be their best chance. And the numerous Republicans hoping to become president in 2008 (Jeb Bush, John McCain, Arnold Schwarzenegger, etc.) means that their primaries will be heated too.

Yeah, you're right that Perdue's chances depends on how he does in 2006. But not on who's elected lt. governor. The lt. governor won't have time to run for president. For Perdue, he'll realize if he wins in a "lesser of two evils" scenerio that he can't win the White House.

[flaminbats]

16. I'm not suggesting that the Lt. Governor would run for President..

merely suggesting that a Democratic or Republican Governor would be under extreme pressure not to run from their state party if the Lt. Governor was elected by the opposing party.

A Clinton campaign depends on her performance in 2006, and who is elected Governor of New York.

Bush lost the popular vote in 2000, but won narrowly in key states because he was a Governor. I believe Gore would have won Florida, Ohio, and New Hampshire if Bush had run only on his father's name after losing in Texas in 94. Any of those states would have made Gore President!

Nixon won most of the antiwar votes in 68, and those he didn't win never voted. In 1972 Nixon won Democrats in favor of Vietnam and those who supported Wallace. McGovern's coalition of antiwar votes and liberal activists lost him many blue collar Democrats who backed Humphrey. But it also won support from a new generation of Democrats just entering politics like..Clinton, Kerry, and Daschle.

The War in Iraq is only getting worse. If we pull out the public will view this as a defeat. If it continues until 2008, public support still declines. Either way Republicans lose and Democrats receive a boost. Nominating Jeb in 2008 means handing the election to the Democrats, are Republicans really that nice?

[Georgia_Dem]

17. Yeah, I misunderstood what you meant about the next lt. governor.

But again, I don't think Perdue would be foolish enough to believe he
could win the presidency, Nor do I think a Democratic governor would
have time to run. So it doesn't matter from my viewpoint.

I have little doubt that Hilary Clinton will retain her Senate seat easily. You wouldn't know it from these forums, but she remains popular with the core Democrats. her poll numbers are still fairly high. With New York still overwhelmingly Democratic, she'll perform very well, though that doesn't, on the other hand, indicate anything
as far as her potential dream of winning the White House is concerned.

Don't see why who comes out of 2006 as governor of New York will impact Hilary's chances of becoming president. Care to explain what you mean when you suggest that it will?

I don't think George Bush's governorship mattered too much. Why? Because most people do not pay attention to politics except for glances at the TV news and political ads. Certainly not enough to know about governors in other states. Therefore, most viewed Bush as and outsider but a somehow recognizable one due to his name. Had they
done otherwise, do you seriously think he would've gotten away with campaigning like a champion for the little guy and an environmentalist? I don't. His governorship probably accounts for him
winning Texas by a margin higher than in most southern states, but that's it.

Nixon may have won more anti-war votes than Humphrey, but I doubt it mattered that much. That's because of, again, the Nixon landslide of 1972, when he faced an anti-war opponent. True, a number of later political giants like Bill Clinton and Tom Daschle backed McGovern, but it doesn't change the fact that he was just routed.

We're not pulling out of Iraq now. The plan seems to be to build up a decent Iraqi security force, then try to pull out little by little over the next 1-4 years. That won't make the Republicans look bad.
Or at least not any worse than this war has already made them look (and rightfully so). Sure, the Iraqi government will then become a new Saddamite dictatorship, but monolithic realization of that ain't for a while.

A war with North Korea or Iran, on the other hand...

[flaminbats]

18. Iraq is Bush's Vietnam..

sure Bush has a short-term boost from his inauguration, but Iraq had nothing to do with it! The main reasons Bush didn't win a landslide in 2004 was Kerry had the better campaign, and American's were pissed over the Iraqi War. If we are no longer in Iraq after four years, Republicans will get a boost. But we are increasing our troop size in Iraq, when will the withdrawal begin? I believe Bush will only move troops out of Iraq in order to occupy Iran. People are not happy about Iraq, and will be less patient in 2008. The Iraqi War will provide Democrats with the opportunity to win younger voters now leaning to the right. Wallace was able to win support from young voters unhappy with both party's on Vietnam.

I doubt HRC would run if it means battling a Republican Senate, running for President with a Republican Governor in New York would only add another Republican to the ranks. You pointed out that Bush being Governor didn't make much of a difference, but two votes in the Electoral College isn't much!

McGovern was routed because he had an almost nonexistent campaign, and because Nixon was already pulling troops out in 1972. This demonstrates the danger of running such a narrowly focused campaign.

You make good points about the unlikelihood of Perdue or a Democratic Governor running in 2008. But all who know Perdue personally can tell you he's a real hothead, whose ambitions far exceed his intelligence. Do you think Isakson might run?

[Georgia_Dem]

19. I think the plan to get the troops out of Iraq is pretty obvious.

Bush seemed to make this clear during the debates. Sure, we're increasing the amount of troops deployed to Iraq, but we have to. We're losing soldiers in the right shape for duty fast. So to keep the number of troops in Iraq up, we have to deploy more. The government is currently hoping to start pulling troops out in Summer and leave Iraq completely sometime next year. It depends on how long it'll take to get a decent military force in Iraq. But Bush will then
probably take us into war with Iran or North Korea. I doubt the public will receive that particularly well.

Hilary Clinton's decision of whether or not to run for president will not be affected by whether or not she'd then have to face a Republican Senate. She's most likely got the contacts she needs to largely neutralize the Republicans just like her husband did after the Republicans took over Congress in 1994. Besides, she probably won't be able to predict the 2009 balance of power until well after the Democratic nomination for the presidency. I know that in the event that the governor of New York remains a Republican, Clinton will be handing a Republican seat to the Republicans, but John Kerry was in the same position. That didn't stop him.

A lot of George McGovern's defeat was due to Nixon successfully portraying him as a far-left whacko. Doesn't say much for the power of the anti-war vote, now does it?

Perdue's a hothead, yes. And an idiot. But somehow, he seems aware of
his low popularity. If this low popularity doesn't change, I doubt he'll run.

[flaminbats]

20. four-years ago I assumed Perdue wouldn't run for Governor..

A lot of George McGovern's defeat was due to Nixon successfully portraying him as a far-left whacko. Doesn't say much for the power of the anti-war vote, now does it?

Nor does it say much for the neocons..McGovern lost in a landslide because his campaign failed to respond to Nixon's attack dogs, and failed to deliver nonstop attacks of their own! Nixon was effective in reducing the punch of McGovern's antiwar message..why would antiwar voters be mobilized to support McGovern as Nixon pulled our troops out of Vietnam? Nixon was the last Republican to support universal healthcare..what does this say for the power of liberalism? What does it say for antiwar votes when both parties turn against the Vietnam War? Bush would now have record approval ratings if he fought for national healthcare.

Perhaps Hillary will run..always nice to have a second opinion

[Georgia_Dem]

21. The Georgia governorship was different.

I doubt Perdue was as unpopular in his legislative distrisct as he is
as governor. That's why I figure he won't run. If he didn't have a 43% approval rating, I'd think he was the perfect position.

Nixon's smear campaign against McGovern was dirty. But you gotta admit that it worked. Responding to the smears and smearing back would've helped McGovern out, but I have a hard time believing that it would've been enough to overcome Nixon's HUGE popular vote lead. Nixon may have been pulling troops out, but only gradually. The
anti-war movement wanted them home as soon as possible. So it makes since that they'd back McGovern. True, Nixon supported universal health care. That's a different issue entirely. The far left has always fared better on domestic policies than foreign policies. After
all, John Kerry (however illogically) polled worse than Bush on who was the better leader for fighting terror but better on economics.

[GraysonDave]

22. I cannot imagine Perdue running for President

That would be asinine. He would get exactly zero serious consideration. In my opinion.

[DemBones DemBones]

23. President Saxby Shameless? No way.

(Please, God, not that!)