One of these 24 people will be our next president.

[saltpoint]

Some candidates have dropped out (Frist, Warner, Bayh, Daschle, Feingold, etc.).

Some here are much-spoken-of potential candidates but have not yet announced (Gore, Clark, F. Thompson, etc.)

Some are announced but are not polling as strongly as others on the list.

One is an unannounced potential independent (because I don't know where else to put him).

Obviously some candidates are given a greater chance of being elected president than others, although no race is ever over until it's over, as Yogi instructs.

If I've left anybody out, please let me know so I can adjust this post and update the list.

Thanks.

DEMOCRATS

Delaware Senator JOE BIDEN
Retired General WES CLARK
New York Senator HILLARY CLINTON
Connecticut Senator CHRISTOPHER DODD
Former North Carolina Senator JOHN EDWARDS
Former Vice President AL GORE
Former Alaska Senator MIKE GRAVEL
Ohio Congressman DENNIS KUCINICH
Illinois Senator BARACK OBAMA
New Mexico Governor BILL RICHARDSON

REPUBLICANS

Kansas Senator SAM BROWNBACK
Former Virginia Governor JIM GILMORE
Former Georgia Congressman NEWT GINGRICH
Former NYC Mayor RUDY GIULIANI
Nebraska Senator CHUCK HAGEL
Former Arkansas Governor MIKE HUCKABEE
California Congressman DUNCAN HUNTER
Arizona Senator JOHN McCAIN
Texas Congressman RON PAUL
Former Massachusetts Governor MITT ROMNEY
Colorado Congressman TOM TANCREDO
Former Tennessee Senator FRED THOMPSON
Former Health Secretary TOMMY THOMPSON

INDEPENDENT (?)

New York City Mayor MICHAEL BLOOMBERG

===========================

[AshevilleGuy]

1. I would say one of these four,

In alphabetical order:

John Edwards
Rudolf Giuliani
Albert Gore
Fred Thompson

Can't really imagine any of the others getting there.

[saltpoint]

4. An interesting bunch demographically -- three Southerners and one

former mayor of New York.

We never know what's coming down the pike with these demographics. I was completely thrown off by Bill Clinton's selection of Al Gore in 1992, since both their states bordered each other. Sometimes in the past veep noms were chosen because they were geographically different and/or they offered the chance of carrying a difficult state's electoral votes.

[Bluedogvoter]

6. I'd add Obama, but I agree with your list.

[cadmium]

14. Don't underestimate Romney. He is gathering the backing of

a lot of Bush loyalists and he can raise millions easily. He is plugged into the big venture capitalists. He raised 6.4 million in a single night telethon before he even declared. Little noticed he came out on top of the CPAC conference straw poll.

[AshevilleGuy]

15. I understand, but I don't think he will be their nominee.

It will be Rudy or Fred, you just watch.

[cadmium]

16. Whatever dynamic could overcome Rudy's negatives would be

interesting to see. In the end I think the Republicans will just see him as too vulnerable. Fred Thompson is worrisome. He has the new face, money and media assets that Romney has. Romney thrives on being underestimated. He hasnt even begun to cash in on his claim to have sav ed the Olympics or taking credit for the Massachusetts Commonhealth.

I wouldn't be surprised if Romney was paying off Tommy Thompson to split the Thompson vote!

[AshevilleGuy]

17. I don't think the swing voters will worry about Rudy's negatives.

Those are factor we politicos worry about. I can see numbers of white males looking up from the World Series and shouting, "Rudy's da man!! He saved us from the terrorists!! WooHOOO!!!". Are there enough of them to swing the election? I think maybe. Add Thompson to the ticket and we have major grief.

[cadmium]

19. The media intimates that the Republican

field is weak. I dont think so at all. McCain's slippage may be what they really mean. He is the only one of the big three or four that I would want to run against. Rudy's negatives will play a role in the Republican nomination process more than the general election.

[AshevilleGuy]

25. Right. They are not weak.

The male swing voters are always more conditioned to vote for the republics (or against the Dems), so they have that built in advantage and have had it since Nixon.

Now, they were weak one time, in 1996. But if BILL Clinton could run again, he would win going away in 2008 - I wouldn't even worry about it.

[cadmium]

29. I still say watch out for Romney

Check out the fundraising power and he isnt even well known yet.

Round One: Romney Beats Giuliani
AP | JIM KUHNHENN | April 2, 2007 11:32 AM

Republicans Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani joined the Democratic presidential candidates in reporting unprecedented fundraising numbers on Monday, with Romney declaring he raised $23 million during the first quarter, and Giuliani saying his donations totaled $15 million.

[AshevilleGuy]

32. Well, I would rather we run against Mitt any day than Rudy.

Mitt ain't gonna automatically get the Bubba vote (North and South). He will bore them. Rudy and Fred together would excite the shit out of them.

[cadmium]

36. I dont think that is how they are thinking now.

My guess is that they have maxed out the security moms and angry men in the middle. If I was a Republican strategist I would want a good-looking candidate that could take credit for successes, project an air of confidence, and have few vulnerabilities. Rudy can be done in by his vulnerablities. Romney may not inspire but I dont see him hurting himself. He will run to the right in the primaries but keep enough plausible deniability to run toward the middle in the general election. People like to feel tough which is one mindset the Republican exploit. People also like to feel successful which is the mindset that they exploit with Romney.

[OHdem10]

49. A Democratic Consultant whose name

escapes me reently commented on MSNBC:
"My brother, a lifelong Democrat, says that if Rudy
wins the primary, he (brother) will vote for Rudy.

I see Rucy as a threat because he can bring over
some Dems and Independents(Swing Voters.

While he is much too conservative on Economic
Issues for me, our party is not willing
to spell out the faults and shortcomings of Conservatism--
Economics of Conservatism that is.

Rudy is liberal on God, Guns, Gays part of Conservatism.
He comes across as Mr Authenticity when he explains
why he believes what he does and you can take him
or leave him.

[TwilightGardener]

21. I agree--the BFEE is behind him. He is malleable/empty suit material--

they don't want someone more independent-minded who might suddenly decide to veer from the neocon plan. And he has shitloads of money, and (one) nice wife. And the Mormon thing isn't going to shock anybody closer to primary time. His poll numbers aren't encouraging, but too early to count him out. Plus, he has THE LOOK. Very important. I can't stand him, but usually the people I can't stand win.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

34. I think you've left out the three front-runners.

One could make a strong case that Clinton, Obama and McCain all have a better chance than any of the ones you've named (fwiw, I'm not convinced McCain does - I don't know much about the Republican primaries).

[AshevilleGuy]

41. I chose my four deliberately.

Of your three, MAYBE the odious McCain, but he is really embarassing himself this week. Clinton or Obama, not the slightest chance. Impossible in the general.

[Clark2008]

50. God, I hope not.

Not Edwards. I'd like to vote for a Democrat, thank you.

[AshevilleGuy]

Obsessed. n/t

[AshevilleGuy]

53. Delete. It doubled up.

[LynneSin]

56. Only way Fred Thompson will be president is if he plays one on TV

Seriously!

[CK_John]

2. In order of probability,

Bloomberg IND
Gingrich GOP
Clinton DEM

Why, because we always underestimate our opponents.

[wyldwolf]

3. A prime example of "underestimating opponents" is in post 1

...where the poster leaves off Hillary Clinton

[mnhtnbb]

7. I'd put Obama on that list before I'd put Hillary. Clintons have been too cozy with Bush

[wyldwolf]

8. ... uh... so?

[AshevilleGuy]

11. My reasoning for that omission can be summed in one phrase:

White male swing voters.

Dems have had a serious problems with them since Nixon. Their numbers are legion; can we win without them? In fairness I doubt that, against Rudy and/or Fred, Gore or Edwards can do it either, but I am convinced they have the best shot(s) at it.

[weezy2736]

28. I think they're on their way down...

Ford had a nice run of it in Tennesse.

[AshevilleGuy]

33. ??? Don't understand that.

The white male swing vote is a large part of what defeated Ford. They and the Baptists (which two groups intersect of course).

[weezy2736]

37. Yes, but

He gave it a helluva run. They still matter greatly, but would Ford have had a shot a decade ago? I doubt it.

[saltpoint]

5. Hi, CK_John. I think the chance is fair of Sam Brownback not getting the

GOP nomination and running instead as a God-inspired third party. If he does that, the GOP vote is going to be split. The fundie base will lean toward Brownback and the "moderates" will go for the main GOP guy.

Bloomberg struck early on as unelectable, but I keep reading about all his money, and that he has enough cash to run for president any time he wants. I hope he finds another hobby besides politics to distsract him for 2008, but I don't discount your prediction on your list of three.

[TwilightGardener]

13. I think Brownback will have enough of his excellent adventure

pretty soon and head back to the Senate. I think Bloomberg might run as an Indy, but more likely Hagel will and let Bloomberg be his VP. Bloomberg has money and an apparently good track record in NY, but doesn't stand out as presidential-seeming enough to worry about as a big threat.

[saltpoint]

18. On one hand I'd love to see Brownback just resign his seat and crawl

back under the rock he came from.

On the other I think he'd be easy to defeat. He'd be very ideologically isolated. We could easily paint him as an extremist, someone who takes a highly intrusive approach to public schools, etc.

On Bloomberg. I just don't know what to think about him yet. He was a Democrat a while back, ran for NYC Mayor as a Republican, and of course he has all that money.

It's going to be a strange primary for the Thugs. I hope they beat each other to death trying to get the nomination.

[TwilightGardener]

20. I can't wait for the 'Thug primary--"I'M more conservative!" "No! I am!"

Gonna be fun. I don't know what to make of Bloomberg either, but I've read stuff about how he's short, effeminate, and kind of an ogre of a boss. The "Ogre" thing would appeal to 'Pugs, but the short/effeminate part would be a little hard to sell--LOL! Brownback's actually Catholic, if I recall, which I usually don't consider "fundie"--maybe that's why the Falwell Crew hasn't taken a shine to him, no matter how many wombs he wants to guard.

[saltpoint]

23. I believe you are correct about Sam Brownback -- he is a

Catholic -- I think he became one relatively recently in his life -- wasn't born into or raised in the Church.

Which makes your guess on Brownback & Dobson a very good one. Dobson is a wildly bigoted man, and I imagine his brand of hellfire hyper-fundie Protestantism would not abide a Catholic. Very good point.

[saltpoint]

9. Each of us will winnow the list in our own minds to say, 12 , or 6, or

what have you.

But the list itself is subject to change. Names once on it are no longer on it: Mark Warner, Bill Frist, Evan Bayh, John Kerry, Russ Feingold, and so forth.

And I don't rule out names of people I haven't considered. There are outside chances of Condoleezza Rice, for example, though I rate her odds quite long. Also, I hate her guts.

If Bush is impeached and Cheney dies of a heart attack, Nancy Pelosi could step into her new job. Again, very long odds but not strictly speaking out of the question.

But by and large, this is the group of 24 people from whom our next president will be chosen.

[TheWraith]

10. My picks, and reasons for elimination.

Republicans first.

Former Health Secretary TOMMY THOMPSON
Former Virginia Governor JIM GILMORE
California Congressman DUNCAN HUNTER
Texas Congressman RON PAUL
Colorado Congressman TOM TANCREDO

These five you can file under "I don't know what they're smoking, but I know people who would like some."

Former NYC Mayor RUDY GIULIANI

Too many wives, too many questions, and too liberal for the flying monkey right that is the Repub primary base to open up to. He's basically running entirely on 9/11, and the Republican party's scary level of obsession with a horrific tragedy. But sooner or later somebody farther to the right is going to crank up a smear campaign the likes of which Bush used in 2000 against McCain, and Guiliani's gay-rights support and dressing in drag is going to kill him.

Arizona Senator JOHN McCAIN

Once a strong candidate, he's now sold out to the religious right, but the joke's on him, since they'll never quite trust him as one of their own. Besides which, with his almost obscene support of the war and the "surge," he's effectively strapped himself to a nuclear bomb, Slim Pickens style.

Former Arkansas Governor MIKE HUCKABEE

A small chance, but no name recognition.

Former Massachusetts Governor MITT ROMNEY

Support for abortion and gay rights will haunt him with the primary voters.

Former Tennessee Senator FRED THOMPSON

All I'll say is ((shudder)).

Nebraska Senator CHUCK HAGEL

Hagel, assuming he runs, is placed in the unenviable position of threading the needle between not being tarred by the war, yet also not having sucked up to Bush, who's still quite popular with the hardest of the hard core base.

Kansas Senator SAM BROWNBACK

Disturbingly, Brownback is a possibility. He's hard right and a fundie. He's distanced himself just enough from the war not to be a poster child for it, but not enough to alienate the pro-apocalypse Repub base.

Former Georgia Congressman NEWT GINGRICH

Another serious contender, he's crazy enough to

So my pick is Brownback or Gingrich for the Repubs, with Hagel as the dark horse candidate.

And now, the Democrats:

Former Alaska Senator MIKE GRAVEL

I think I speak for everyone when I say HAHAHAHAHA.

Delaware Senator JOE BIDEN

Too much foot-in-mouth. He's basically pork, i.e. "the other white guy" candidate.

Ohio Congressman DENNIS KUCINICH

DK is great, but he's kind of like a cartoon of a presidential candidate.

New York Senator HILLARY CLINTON

The war vote and her refusal to back away from it will garrote her with the primary voters.

Retired General WES CLARK

A great guy, and who I think would make a great president, but doesn't have a warchest to compete with the other big players, and doesn't--at least right now--have the kind of profile that would make such funding unneccessary.

Connecticut Senator CHRISTOPHER DODD

I think I speak for all the casual primary voters when I say: Who? Yeah, I know who he is, but how many other people do?

Former Vice President AL GORE

I don't think he's running, and even if he does, I think that most people want somebody fresh.

New Mexico Governor BILL RICHARDSON

Lack of name recognition, and lack of money. Might make a decent VP candiate to somebody.

Former North Carolina Senator JOHN EDWARDS

A serious contender, whose main drawbacks are the percieved lack of experience (exacerbated by the fact that he looks like a man thirty years younger) and having been strapped to Kerry for the 2004 election.

Illinois Senator BARACK OBAMA

The other major contender, who doesn't seem to have demonstrated any major weaknesses yet.

My pick: Edwards or Obama, with Clinton as the underdog.

Thus: Brownback, Gingrich, or Hagel against Edwards, Obama, or Clinton. Worst ticket for us would be Hagel versus Clinton, best for us would be either Gingrich versus Edwards or Gingrich versus Obama.

[TwilightGardener]

12. Wow--excellent reasoning, but I can't see Brownback and Gingrich

getting by Rudy McThompney. I do agree that the absolute worst ticket would be Clinton V. Hagel--she couldn't pull that one off unless she had pictures of him with little boys. Best would be Obama V. Gingrich--that's just too much of a contrast between good and evil, IMO.

[CK_John]

22. Not sure about Hagel. He took a stand about 2 weeks ago and

within 2 days he was almost in tears when he backed down and hasn't said anything since. They have something on him.

[TwilightGardener]

24. You must have missed last week's Sunday show with George

Stephanopoulos when he talked ON NATIONAL TV about Chimpy facing possible impeachment in the future. And then he was THE deciding vote on the Funding Bill this week--lots of angry Republicans calling for his head in this state and nationwide. He is declaring his independence from the GOP--I think--for a prez run, but I can't say for sure, and I don't know how far he would get. If BFEE has something on him, they are going to wait until he gets further along, for revenge. He was on the short list for Bush's VP in 2000, I'm sure they know LOTS about him.

[bklyncowgirl]

26. If Hagel runs it would be as an Independent.

I can't see Republican primary voters going for him. He probably looked reality in the face and backed down from his announcement.

[TwilightGardener]

27. Agreed--how do you announce a run as a Republican during the same week

a magazine article comes out about you and the headline includes the word "Impeachment" in regards to Chimpy? Boy, that'll get the base to love you! I think he wanted to run as an "R" because that's his home team, but he knows it's unrealistic. I also think the Fred Thompson timing was more than a coincidence--that probably kept him from announcing too. If he runs, it will be as an Indy.

[Renew Deal]

30. You left out Lyndon Larouche

:evilgrin:

[saltpoint]

39. You bet I did!

[tinfoilinfor2005]

31. I think Jon Stewart would bring out the youth vote.

;-)

[Hart2008]

35. You forgot Gary Hart!! Shame on you! n/t

[saltpoint]

38. Hi, Hart2008. Well, yes, I did. I didn't know there was any talk from

Hart about it. I know of your post from (yesterday?) here on DU.

But didn't hear of anything concrete from Hart himself about his consdering a run.

Give us the inside scoop. What's up with a possible Hart candidacy?

[Hart2008]

42. Nothing concrete from Gore or Clark either!

Well there has been nothing concrete from Gore or Clark either. In fact Gore has stated that he is not running. Yet, you list these candidates here. Hart considered running very seriously in 2003 before announcing to sit out, but he hasn’t said he won’t run in 2008, and he has been very actively posting on HuffPost. ;)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-hart/

Gary Hart is a serious person with serious ideas for the party and the country. He doesn’t want to be a vanity candidate. He won’t be Eugene McCarthy running in New Hampshire in ’92, 24 years past his prime without a hope of winning. . (In fairness, I must wonder what McCarthy could have done on the Internet.) If there is enough support, I believe he will run. That is why we are making the case for him here.

Really, this is weak field of candidates. If Hart runs, Hart wins!

There is no Republican who can beat Hart in a general election.

Zero, zippo, nada, nothing!

:kick: HART 2008 :kick:

[saltpoint]

44. I think the weak field is on the red side of the ledger, not the blue.

If Gary Hart runs, he will rightly earn the attention of serious voters in our primaries, but he's not entering a weak field by any means.

Again, Gore and Clark have not unequivocally removed themselves from consideration when asked. I don't have Hart on the list because I have not heard he's even interested in running. I followed his public comments in 2003 and thought for awhile he might jump into the primary mix, but he didnt.

Is he making sounds as if he's considering a race this time?

[Hart2008]

54. Any candidate who supported the war is weak n/t

[saltpoint]

40. As promised, I tried to link to the www.RunGaryHart.com site but

it wasn't up yet.

Any word on when it will be up and running?

I've saved the URL so I can check, too.

[Hart2008]

43. It's a work in progress by volunteers...

You can read Hart's postings here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-hart/
http://www.garyhartnews.com/hart/

Remember, it is still early yet in the campaign season!

:kick: HART 2008 :kick:

[saltpoint]

45. I clicked on Hart's site there... yes, he is a Renaissance thinker and

speaks out frequently on the issues, but I don't see any intimations of a candidacy there.

And the Blog has been shut down "until further notice."

Do you have inside info that he's going to make a go of it?

[Hart2008]

47. The blog is being upgraded with new material.

The blog is being upgraded with new material. Measures are being taken to keep out the trolls from posting on the blog.
Does that answer your question?
;)


:kick: HART 2008 :kick:

[saltpoint]

51. Sorta kinda, yes. I've saved the sight, Hart2008, and will check in

from time to time and see how things are going.

Has Gary Hart himself indicated he might jump into this nomination race?

[Hart2008]

55. “silent as the Sphinx”

The Sage of Troublesome Gulch himself has been “silent as the Sphinx” about his intentions to seek the nomination. He hasn’t said he will or won’t.

:popcorn:

That is, in and of itself, very unusual for him.



:kick: HART 2008! :kick:

[saltpoint]

57. Well, Christ knows we could have used his foreign policy expertise

over the last 6 years.

Instead we got Colin Powell and Condiliar at our State Department top desk, and the tensions in the Middle East are testimony to THEIR expertise.

Which is the PG version of saying they suck.

If Hart jumps into this nomination race, he brings that huge mind with him. I'll keep a vigil, Hart2008, and I will wish him well.

The country needs its best lights. He's definitely one of them.

[saltpoint]

46. After Iowa, I believe the list will be effectively whittled down to:

DEMOCRATS

New York Senator HILLARY CLINTON
Former North Carolina Senator JOHN EDWARDS
Former Vice President AL GORE
Illinois Senator BARACK OBAMA
New Mexico Governor BILL RICHARDSON

REPUBLICANS

Kansas Senator SAM BROWNBACK
Former NYC Mayor RUDY GIULIANI
Arizona Senator JOHN McCAIN
Former Massachusetts Governor MITT ROMNEY
Former Tennessee Senator FRED THOMPSON


INDEPENDENT

New York City Mayor MICHAEL BLOOMBERG

[Czolgosz]

48. By the end of January '08, it will be down to Edwards, Obama, Clinton & Romney, Giuliani, Brownback

I don't think Gore, Fred, or Bloomberg will run.

[saltpoint]

52. I'm wondering if Bloomberg might jump in out of sheer boredom.

He's got more money than he can count and nothing to do.

Agree with you on Fred Thompson. I'm just not seeing the "Fred Thompson scenario" yet. I'm not stomping my feet and insisting that he's out, but it just feels as if he's out. For now anyway.

Re Gore, here is this piece from today's www.politicalwire.com:

_ _ _ _ _

Dan Gerstein: "According to a well-connected Democratic operative, Team Hillary is less threatened by Obama than by the possible entry of Al Gore into the race. That's the real reason why the putative frontrunner's strategy has been geared toward bulldozing the field early on -- to scare Gore off. And that's why, under this theory, Obama's early money might is so problematic for Hillary. The more strength Obama shows, the weaker she looks. And the muddier the race gets, the more inviting it is to Gore."
_ _ _ _ _

It's going to be a wild one, isn't it.