• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

2008 Election

If the following candidates were to run, whom would you vote for?

  • Hillary Clinton(Democrat)

    Votes: 11 50.0%

  • George Allen(Republican)

    Votes: 5 22.7%

  • Wyatt Chesney(Reform)

    Votes: 2 9.1%

  • Daniel Imperato(Ind.)

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Michael Badnarik(Libetarian)

    Votes: 3 13.6%

  • Jim Gilchrist(Constitution)

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Ralph Nader(Green)

    Votes: 1 4.5%
  • Total voters
    22
I believe the only way Hillary wins the election is if Jeb Bush runs against her. Then, she's a shoe-in. This nation has had enough of the Bush's.

I agree, though...terrible choices.

If Hillary had a running mate like, say...Barrack Obama...then the chances could be much better against anyone the republicans put up.

Personally, If Gore's name was up there, I probably would've chosen him.
 
Hoot said:
I believe the only way Hillary wins the election is if Jeb Bush runs against her. Then, she's a shoe-in. This nation has had enough of the Bush's.

I agree, though...terrible choices.

If Hillary had a running mate like, say...Barrack Obama...then the chances could be much better against anyone the republicans put up.

Personally, If Gore's name was up there, I probably would've chosen him.
Click to expand...

I am with you Hoot, every night before I go to sleep I say my prayers and pray that Hillary gets the nomination.......I don't agree with you on Jeb Bush though.....He is a much better politician then GWB and I would not underestimate him if I were you.............He would definitely carry the battleground state of Florida and would win huge in the hispanic community........
 
Navy Pride said:
So SD you don't put much stock in all the polls that show Hillary with a huge lead for the Democratic nomination and that includes with Gore in the race...I personally think Hillary is a shoo in for the nomination unless she self destructs..

It is not as clear with the Republicans...The polls are a lot closer with McCain leading closely followed by Guliani and Allen...........
Click to expand...

Polls are meaningless right now. The only reason why Hillary is ahead in the polls is name recognition. She is the only candidate that has said they are running that most people have heard of. Mario Cuomo had a solid lead in the polls for the 1992 Democratic Nomination in 1990 because he was the only candidate anyone had heard of. What happened in 1992? Some governor from a little southern state with only 2 million people in it got the Democratic nomination.
 
Not really liking the choices...I would like Mark Warner to get the dem nomination...
 
Robert Stark said:
I never made that claim, find one quote I said!
Click to expand...

When you ask someone to find a quote stating something you deny stating, you should wait until there's several hundred posts to crawl through to find it:

Robert Stark Post 13 said:
Not necessarily, Wyatt is the only candidate that is pro-environment and for limited immigration, and border security. He also supports a 10% tax on companies that outsource, and 10% break on companies that do not, as well as making America the "Saudi Arabia" of Hydrogen Energy. If you look him up on wikipedia http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyatt_Chesney you can see his presidential votting record.
Also I would like to suggest all moderates and independents to vote for Warner in the Democratic Primary.
Click to expand...

The exact statement of mine you're trying to run away from is:

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
If that link doesn't refute your claim that Wyatt wants to punish businessmen for making employment decisions,
Click to expand...

A statement more than adequately supported by your Post 13.


Robert Stark Post 13 said:
All I said was that he was pro-environment, and against out-sourcing.
Click to expand...

Clearly you said more than that.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Polls are meaningless right now. The only reason why Hillary is ahead in the polls is name recognition. She is the only candidate that has said they are running that most people have heard of. Mario Cuomo had a solid lead in the polls for the 1992 Democratic Nomination in 1990 because he was the only candidate anyone had heard of. What happened in 1992? Some governor from a little southern state with only 2 million people in it got the Democratic nomination.
Click to expand...

Isn't it ironic when polls that show President Bush's approval rating low you liberals constantly cite it........I think that if the poll favors your position then it is relevent but if it doesn't that is another matter......

I truly believe Hillary is unelectable......Her negatives are as high as her positive......I saw a recent poll where 48% of the American people would not vote for her under any circumstance and another 25% said they probably would never vote for her........That is a tough hill to climb..........
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
What terrible choices. I have said it before, and I will say it again. Hillary has little chance at the nomination. The early front runner with Republicans usually gets the nomination. The early front runner with Democrats never gets the nomination. I bet, I don't know, but I bet, that Al Gore ends up running. If Al Gore runs, and its the current crop of candidates then he will probably get the nomination. Now wait a minute, I know a lot of guys on the right are thinking "Al Gore...He would be a terrible candidate". People seem to forget though that Al Gore got more votes than Bush did in 2000. Since then, Al Gore has went back to the progressive ideals he had earlier in his political career and is more his own man. Maybe this is good, maybe not, but if he runs, he stands a good chance at the nomination.

On the Republican side, at this point, it looks like McCain. Its hard to say though, the social conservatives and religious right hold a lot of sway in the Republican Party, and they don't like McCain at all. He is trying to court them (much like Hillary), but it leaves to be seen whether that will work. Just the same, he stands the best chance at it. The problem McCain is going to have running in 2008 is his age. The man is going to be 72 years old. Now, I know what a lot of people are thinking, Ronald Reagan was old too, but Ronald Reagan also was very physically fit and started suffering from memory problems in his second term. I don't know if voters are going to still be as open to electing a man in his seventies.

So, I think there is a good possibility that 2008 will be a Gore / McCain match-up. If that is the case, it will be a very close race. If Iraq just goes to total crap, or really, just keeps on its present course, then Gore will probably win because McCain has been a strong supporter of the war. If Iraq turns around between now and then, McCain may stand a good chance of winning.

Just the same, its way to early to try to guess it now. It is worth pointing out though that Richard Nixon narrowly lost to JFK and 8 years later won in a landslide because of an unpopular war, and that was back when the Dems were much stronger politically than the Republicans are today.
Click to expand...
SD, I rember you posting on another thread that you are pro-environment and for limited immigration, clearly Wyatt is the only candidate that fits that profile, but I noticed you refraimed from voting on the poll.
 
Robert Stark said:
Wyatt's updated website and platform: http://www.chesney2008.tz4.com/ I still think it needs work, any suggestions?
Click to expand...


Explain to him that a business is property and that he can't claim to both support property rights and tax businesses for making decisions regarding employment that he happens to disapprove of.
 
Navy Pride said:
Isn't it ironic when polls that show President Bush's approval rating low you liberals constantly cite it........I think that if the poll favors your position then it is relevent but if it doesn't that is another matter......
Click to expand...

Polls are a sampling of the population's current mood. In the case of Bush's approval ratings, the public knows who Bush is and they can make at least a semi-informed judgment about him based on current events. In the case of these hypothetical matchups about an election that's over two years away, most people haven't even begun to pay attention and will naturally gravitate toward the names that they've heard of.

Navy Pride said:
I truly believe Hillary is unelectable......Her negatives are as high as her positive......I saw a recent poll where 48% of the American people would not vote for her under any circumstance and another 25% said they probably would never vote for her........That is a tough hill to climb..........
Click to expand...

I agree. I don't think Hillary is electable unless the Republicans nominate a clone of George Bush...for example, Jeb Bush or George Allen or Mitt Romney. If that happens, I think voter turnout on both sides will be incredibly low and Hillary might win if voters deem her the lesser of two evils.

Fortunately I don't think she'll win the nomination anyway. Mark Warner is a much more appealing candidate for the Democrats.
 
Kandahar said:
Polls are a sampling of the population's current mood. In the case of Bush's approval ratings, the public knows who Bush is and they can make at least a semi-informed judgment about him based on current events. In the case of these hypothetical matchups about an election that's over two years away, most people haven't even begun to pay attention and will naturally gravitate toward the names that they've heard of.



I agree. I don't think Hillary is electable unless the Republicans nominate a clone of George Bush...for example, Jeb Bush or George Allen or Mitt Romney. If that happens, I think voter turnout on both sides will be incredibly low and Hillary might win if voters deem her the lesser of two evils.

Fortunately I don't think she'll win the nomination anyway. Mark Warner is a much more appealing candidate for the Democrats.
Click to expand...

I will agree with you that socially the three men are similar but fiscally they are as different as night and day.........GWB spends like a drunken sailor and Romney and Allen are fiscal conservatives........

As far as Warner goes he is in the same boat as Bayh and Leiberman.....Because they are moderates the left wing liberal base of the party will never nominate them and you know it........
 
Navy Pride said:
I will agree with you that socially the three men are similar but fiscally they are as different as night and day.........GWB spends like a drunken sailor and Romney and Allen are fiscal conservatives........

As far as Warner goes he is in the same boat as Bayh and Leiberman.....Because they are moderates the left wing liberal base of the party will never nominate them and you know it........
Click to expand...

Lieberman's main problem is that he isn't really "moderate," he's more of a Bush Republican. For that reason, it is indeed extremely doubtful he could ever win the Democratic nomination.

Warner and Bayh are both good candidates who appeal to a wide range of voters. The left wing does not have as much of a stranglehold on Democratic politics as you seem to believe; in 1992/2000/2004, the candidate perceived as more "electable" won the nomination rather than the firebreathing liberal maverick.

With that said, I'd rather have Warner than Bayh for the simple reason that he could deliver his home state and governors are much better candidates than senators.
 
Last edited:
I am officially a Condista, though she may be a long shot. Not seeing anyone who I liked, I voted for my party, but I guess that's the way it goes sometimes.

But yeah, I support Condoleeza because she would most definately bury whatever WASP the Democrats vomit out of the primaries.
 
dont really like any of those you listed..
sooooo I vote none of the above..
 
Are these the best you were able to suggest.
Wow, the USA is seriously sick.
 
Kandahar said:
I guess Hillary is the least terrible of those terrible options...I want Mark Warner or Evan Bayh or John McCain though.
Click to expand...
Good man....Mark Warner-Pres and Evan Bayh-VP...perfect ticket.
 
My_name_is_not_Larry said:
Here's a poll, between me and Jeb Bush, who would u vote for?

I said jeb not george bush.
Click to expand...
Larry, I'd vote for you for sure, and you could be a scizophrenic crackhead.
 
(Wyatt Chesney's Platform:
http://www.freewebs.com/ivotedcobb/platform.htm)

He presents a pretty good program, however:-
1) The American electorate do not want to think about who they should vote for, consequently they vote a Party ticket.
2) The American electorate not only expect but apparently also want their representative's / Senator's to be corrupt.
3) The American electorate want and expect their elected Government to be dishonest with them, to lie about their program before the election and to about turn after the election.


_________________________________________________________________

Everyone gets the Government they deserve.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom