An interesting look at our Presidents...
- 04-21-2005, 04:00 PM
An interesting look at our Presidents...
I was looking at the political history of our presidents in the past half century or so.
Goerge W. Bush: Gov. of Texas
Bill Clinton: Gov. of Arkansas
George H.W. Bush: VP of USA
Ronald Reagan: Gov. of California
Jimmy Carter: Gov. of Georgia
Gerald Ford: VP of USA
Richard Nixon: VP of USA
Linden Johnson: VP of USA
John F. Kennedy: US Senator from Massachusetts
Dwight Eisenhower: General/Commander of NATO
Harry Truman: VP of USA
Franklin D. Roosevelt: Gov. of NY
So with the exception of Ike and Kennedy, in order to be prez you had to either have been the VP or a Governor. Senators seem to overwhelmingly be defeated in presidential races. I was thinking about why that is and I realised it may have to do with federal voting records. The thing with being in ths senate is that no matter what you vote for or against, it can be turned against you because EVERY bill has junk in it that has nothing to do with that bill itself. For example, let's say there is a bill that says that women's right to vote should be revoked. Let's say that bill has a clause that gives $20,000,000 in funding to Medicare. If you vote "no" like any sane human being, then in an election your rival will say you voted to cut medicare by 20 million. It's a no-win situation.
Heck look at the recent election. The Republicans used that technique to say Kerry was a flip-flopper. They'd pick and chose aspects of various bills he voted for or against, and made it look like he was constantly going from one side to the other. The reality is, he changed his mind on only a few issues (he still sucks, but that wasn't the point of this argument).
For this reason, I am 100% positive whoever runs in the next Presidential election, the NON-Senator will win.
- 04-21-2005, 11:39 PM
- 6'2" 195 lbs.
- Join Date
- Aug 2004
- Rep Power
- Lv. Percent
...so it's either Dick Cheney in '08 or another governor?
- 04-21-2005, 11:51 PM
Interesting analysis Null. You made a great point about the voting record.
04-22-2005, 02:47 AM
(Kennedy had some vote fraud issues in 1960. Many has said if he didn't cheat he wouldn't have won.)So with the exception of Ike and Kennedy, in order to be prez you had to either have been the VP or a Governor. Senators seem to overwhelmingly be defeated in presidential races. I was thinking about why that is and I realised it may have to do with federal voting records.
It is much more complicated than that. Some times it just as simple as nominating a bad candidate. When your in the senate so long many times the selection for president boils down it it's my turnism. If the senator has been there a long time and has allot of power in the party they are with, many times they can easily get the nomination but that doesn't mean they will be a good presidential candidate. Look at Bob Dole. He had two things going against him. One was Ross Perot and the other was he came off as a cranky old man and was simply not a very good choice for president, but he was in the senate for a very long time and had the support he needed.
Governors do have the element of surprise some times. When they aren't known very well nationally many times they can get allot of support if they are a good over all candidate. The opposition research can take longer as well with lesser known candidates. When someone's been in the senate for 12 + the it isn't too hard to find dirt or controversy.
Saying that Kerry wasn't a flip flopper is the equivalent of saying Bush is an articulate and elegant speaker. The man couldn't answer if he owned an SUV for god's sake. He was all over the place on the war in Iraq and when it came down to it his plan was exactly the same as Bush's. The exception was he claimed he could get more international support yet couldn't say how he would do that. I believe a few countries said they wouldn't send troops no matter who was president. He started out early in the presidential campaign trying to be a moderate like lieberman on the war but quickly sprinted to the antiwar side because of the traction Dean was making. Then he tried to run back to the more moderate side.Heck look at the recent election. The Republicans used that technique to say Kerry was a flip-flopper. They'd pick and chose aspects of various bills he voted for or against, and made it look like he was constantly going from one side to the other. The reality is, he changed his mind on only a few issues (he still sucks, but that wasn't the point of this argument).
As far as his voting record what got him in trouble was the "I voted for before I voted against it" quote which he didn't explain away very well and waited way too long before he addressed the quote. He got in trouble for voting for the war then not voting to fund it.
His over all voting record was more of an issue than anything. Two non partisan publications had him as having one of the most liberal voting record in the senate. There was also allot of in fighting with in his campaign mainly between the Kennedy wing and the Clinton wing of advisors. The guy was a bad candidate and there were many factors why he didn't win.
Governors can get hammered by there voting record or actions as well. In 2000 someone ran an add comparing a African American who was dragged to death to Bush not supporting hate crime legislation. The implication was that the murder was caused by Bush's opposition to a hate crime bill. Dukakas got hammered in the 88 election on the Willy Horton issue. In the mid 80's Massachusetts had a law that allowed convicted prisoners weekend furloughs. William Horton was serving a life sentence for murder. He was let out for the weekend and didn't come back. He assaulted a guy and raped his fiancée a few times while on his furlough. Bush repeatedly brought the case up in the 88 election. So it can swing both ways and hurt the governors as well.
04-24-2005, 05:16 PM
There is absolutely ZERO chance that Dick Cheney will run for president and actually get the republican nomination. Well, ok, there's some chance...
Personally, I want to see a Hillary Clinton vs. Condoleeza Rice race.
Originally Posted by BodyWizard
04-24-2005, 06:46 PM
There is no way Cheney will run. I don't want to see Hillary run at all. The Clintons are the democrat version of Nixon. Hopefully Ted Kennedy's brother in law recorded something good that will put them in jail or at least keep her from running. Newt has made it obvious that he wants to run but he would get slaughtered unless he gets a genius to run a PR campaign. The likely candidates for the republicans are Rudy, McCain, Newt, and maybe Mitt Romney. Arnold wants to run and is trying to get them to change the constitution so he can run. Rudy and McCain will have a real problem getting the nomination but would probably do well in the presidential election and Newt would probably have no problem getting the nomination but would get his ass handed to him. I think Romney could do pretty well in the primary in the presidential election.There is absolutely ZERO chance that Dick Cheney will run for president and actually get the republican nomination. Well, ok, there's some chance...
Personally, I want to see a Hillary Clinton vs. Condoleeza Rice race.
For the democrats if Hillary runs she has a lock on the nomination. If something happens and she doesn't I don't know who the democrats will pick. You will probably see three really liberal members of the senate and one or two moderates that won't have a chance. Edwards will run again, Kerry might, If Hillary gets knocked out of the picture you could see Al Gore jump in. If they were smart they would run a moderate to conservative democrat from the south if there are any left.
04-24-2005, 09:11 PM
If Hilary runs, I'd say she'd likely win. The "first woman president" factor would be hard to overcome, and would energize a significant portion of the Democratic voters. The only hope there would be to have a woman running on the Republican side too, or to get the conservatives that hate the Clintons energized again.
That's one of the reasons I'd like to see at least some hinting of the idea that Rice might run now to head off any accusations that Republicans were running her just to have another woman against Clinton.
04-24-2005, 11:00 PM
If the consitution does get chenged to allow naturalized citizens to become pres, then Arnold will most definitely beour next President IMO. He's a Republican who would get California's votes. He'd completely slaughter any opposition.
04-25-2005, 12:22 PM
Are you serious?Originally Posted by not_big_enuf
04-25-2005, 01:45 PM
Why so you can see a Man-hating Witch vs. a Mindless Yes-woman?Originally Posted by not_big_enuf
04-25-2005, 02:22 PM
am i really serious? NO...
but it'd be "fun" --> just like the last election was like grinding nails against a chalkboard.
i'd rather see McCain run personally as he's a Republican I respect (obvious objections aside), but who's counting. i'm very eager to see who wins the democratic nomination. if it's Hillary, i can very easily see the republicans pushing Rice, but obviously McCain, Guilliani and potentially Arnold will be in the mix as the real canidates (notice i put Arnold in the "real" canidate group... hmmm).
honestly, Hillary isn't going to be easy to stop. you can say, "well, people won't for her because she's a woman," but i think there's the OTHER side of that too... because people will definately vote for her because she's a woman. political views aside, she's going to be a hard canidate to fight and very easily could be our next President.
04-25-2005, 02:39 PM
Hillary will have a very good chance. The media will be on her side and will let her get away with murder, so she has that going for her. I think if she does run it would be likely that behind the scenes that the Clintons will get a third party conservative to run which will split the republican vote. If this happens for the republicans to win they need someone with high approval and name recognition. Which leaves McCain and Rudy.The problem with both of them is they are liberal republicans and will have difficulty getting the nomination. My greatest fear is Hillary vs Newt. The Clintons are Nixon and will do incredible harm to the country. I am hoping that this story of Ted's brother and law will have legs and at least keep her from running. Judging by the media attention to it so far aside from FOX I haven't seen too much about it. This means they better prosecute her.
05-02-2005, 02:32 AM
Dick won't run. He's stated it many times. He's not as influential of a VP as some of the past candidates have been. I mean, to some people, Al Gore was the true President during the Clinton years.
I think the reason why Senators don't win is because they're not really in charge of anything. A Governor is much more involved with the people he/she serves than a Senator. A Senator runs off to Washington during the week and maybe, once in a while, return back to the home state. Vice Presidents do well of course because they've learned from the President. Senators often times seem much more delusional than Governors or Veeps. Many are off in their own worlds because they are masters of ideologies. Governors face real life issues like being in charge of the economy and so on.
I thought it was the Dukakis wing? I remember Kerry's lead advisors run the Dukakis election. If this is true, I'm not surprised since they both featured the same problem: slow responses to anything that came up.There was also allot of in fighting with in his campaign mainly between the Kennedy wing and the Clinton wing of advisors
Kerry lost because I think the Democrats thought it was going to be a slam dunk victory. So they put in an effort but it wasn't a serious one. They figured people would be pissed off enough about the economy and Iraq enough to where Bush was sure to lose. Plus when the media is drooling at the fact that Bush might lose, the Democrats really lost touch with the American people. Hillary will not make the same mistake in 2008. Thats why the more I read about what she's doing, the more effective I think her campaign will be. If they put in someone like Gingrich for the GOP, they are handing over the election to Clinton.
05-02-2005, 03:25 PM
I remember he had some Dukakis people in at some point. After he fell below Al Sharpton he fired most of his advisers and replaced them with many of Ted's people. After that during the election he added a bunch of Clinton cronies which was a mistake. I thought he understood that the Clinton's were a threat to him when Hillary wasn't going to speak at the nomination but they caved.I thought it was the Dukakis wing? I remember Kerry's lead advisors run the Dukakis election. If this is true, I'm not surprised since they both featured the same problem: slow responses to anything that came up.
Looking at what she is doing it is transparently obvious that she is running for president. She is pretending to be a moderate when the reality is she has a far left ideology. She is attempting to be a socialist Trojan horse. The Clinton's are allot of things but stupid isn't one of them. Republicans repeatedly under estimate them. Newt could easily win the nomination but I think Hillary could easily beat him, especially the way the press treats her. That gives her an advantage right from the start.Hillary will not make the same mistake in 2008. Thats why the more I read about what she's doing, the more effective I think her campaign will be. If they put in someone like Gingrich for the GOP, they are handing over the election to Clinton.
05-02-2005, 05:40 PM
Yeah but of course you should know from 2000 and 2004 that media coverage does not always equal votes. Hillary is far from stupid and is doing a good job of setting up an effective campaign. She's portraying herself as a moderate because she knows that Socialist Liberals will not stand a good chance of getting elected. Next, she's been talking about issues that affect the more conservative voters. Her initative (if you can call it that) to regulate the border is appealing to conservatives. They'll think, "Gee, even our own party (GOP) isn't going to mess with border security but here's someone who will."
Although I do like Gingrich's stance that America needs to return to balanced budgets. The balanced budget idea can do good things because debt is a growing concern.
2008 will be interesting.
05-03-2005, 10:06 AM
Yeah I agree.
It's really amazing to me how Hillary is even trying to rewrite history in regards to the N. Korean nuclear situation and the press with very few exceptions is giving her a total pass on it.
05-03-2005, 02:34 PM
It's the 2008 coverage that is going to get her votes. Right now Hillary is smart enough to see that people don't want to buy and eat the box of crap that the democrats are selling. Right now Hillary is in operation Trojan horse. Hillary has four years to change her perception of uber liberal to moderate. With Bill his opinion on issues basically change with what ever the latest polls says. Hillary is entrenched in a liberal ideology. Everyone in the press knows she is liberal and they also know that she is running for president. Yet, they go along with her. A guy brought this issue up on a radio show a few weeks ago. Hillary made a speech about abortion. If you listened to it all she basically said was can't we all get along. The press hit the ground running that Hillary has changed her position on abortion which isn't true. When she announces that she is running there will be a media frenzy of surprise as if no one saw it coming followed by preferential treatment for the rest of the election. They never ask her tough questions and they let her get away with almost what ever she wants. This gives her a huge advantage over who ever her opponent is.Yeah but of course you should know from 2000 and 2004 that media coverage does not always equal votes.
05-03-2005, 03:36 PM
Also the media can't wait for a woman to get into office. "Damn that patriarchy." Women will go almost unanimously towards Hillary, which is a big group since married women overall voted Bush more than Kerry and helped get a stronger lead for 2004. Unless women hate Hillary too which does happen. I seriously do believe the reason why she's getting a pass is because she's a woman trying to get into the Presidency. For the record, I don't care who gets in (race or gender) but they're salivating like hungry dogs. Expect the media to blast any GOP member disapproving Clinton to be a "chauvinist, sexist, patriarchal male" every time it happens. Kind of like whenever someone wants to address border security, they are immediately labeled as a racist. Then the GOP will dance around the issue to make sure they get the woman vote, making them lead a defensive campaign. As we all know, defensive campaigns are lost campaigns.
Still though, I don't think the media has as much power as they want to believe. Fox News right now for example dominates cable TV news ratings with O'Reilly leading at about 2 to 2.5 million viewers nightly where most CNN shows get a million less. I think Fox News will be a much bigger force for 2008 so there will at least be some forms of media that won't be on Hillary's nuts.
05-09-2005, 09:50 AM
Hillary only leads right now because of the name recognition. The truth is that almost half the people view her as liberal and first impressions are lasting. Even many dems see her as an unelectable opportunist with too much baggage. If she runs, she'll face an unprecedented attack from both the right and the left, and I predict (and hope) that she won't survive the primaries despite her unrivaled fundraising prowess. If she does win the nomination, then the Dems will lose because Hillary is not the type of person people like to vote for.
For Republicans the most likely nominees are George Allen and John McCain (in that order) according to a recent insider poll by the National Journal. For Dems I think Mark Warner or John Edwards will get the nomination. Wesley Clark may also have a shot if he finds the money to run.
By the way, Hillary lost to both McCain and Giuliani in a recent Marist poll of potential presidential match-ups, whereas John Edwards beat both of them. Mark Warner is still too unknown at the national level to show up in national polls, but he's right up there in the insider polls and market odds.
05-09-2005, 02:47 PM
If you look at what Hillary did as a senator she will have no problem getting the nomination. She knows how to raise money regardless of the legality of it and she did for many democrats running for reelection over the past 5 years. So in a word many democrats owe her and she will remind them of that. If she gets the nomination the left will not attack her at all and probably won't attack her during the nomination process. The press will give her preferential treatment no matter what she does and that is obviously a huge advantage. As I have said before if she gets the nomination they will stick to what got them elected in 92 and 96. You will see a third*party candidate that is actually a conservative run. Hillary has the nomination if she makes it. There is a lot of things brewing with illegal fund raising activities. One thing people should have learned over the years is not to underestimate the Clintons. Before her senate run she denied it and when she did run most people said the same things you are that she couldn't get elected.Hillary only leads right now because of the name recognition. The truth is that almost half the people view her as liberal and first impressions are lasting. Even many dems see her as an unelectable opportunist with too much baggage. If she runs, she'll face an unprecedented attack from both the right and the left, and I predict (and hope) that she won't survive the primaries despite her unrivaled fundraising prowess. If she does win the nomination, then the Dems will lose because Hillary is not the type of person people like to vote for.
05-09-2005, 03:37 PM
I've been visiting some liberal political sites recently and I can tell you that Hillary is not popular among the left. You are right that she's in a strong position within the party, but I doubt that'll be enough to convince the primary voters. If she is nominated, then the left won't attack her, but during the primaries and before them they will.Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla
Here's an article by Joe Klein from Time: Hillary in 2008? No way!
I've seen many similar articles from pro-Dem journalists and the logic is always the same: Hillary is a competent senator, but after what happened to Kerry it would make no sense to nominate another Northeastern liberal senator, especially not Hillary because she does not connect particularly well with the voters.
Now that's the so-called liberal media. The right-wingers seem to still be deciding whether to attack her right now, or hope she gets the nomination because she'll be the easiest candidate to beat, and only attack her thereafter. I hope they go with the former.
05-09-2005, 04:17 PM
Obviously the far left isn't very happy with her right now. She is trying to reinvent her self as a moderate. Hillary is smart enough to realize that the democrats are getting their asses kicked because they are too liberal. The far left of the democrat party has taken over the party and is too stupid to realize this. The far left believes they are getting their asses kicked because they aren't being upfront about their positions. In a word, they believe they should come out and say yes I am a socialist.I've been visiting some liberal political sites recently and I can tell you that Hillary is not popular among the left. You are right that she's in a strong position within the party, but I doubt that'll be enough to convince the primary voters. If she is nominated, then the left won't attack her, but during the primaries and before them they will.
Hillary is a socialist and will be a liberal Trojan horse if she is elected.
The liberal media..........abc, cbs,nbc, cnn, and the NYT love Hillary and have given her a pass in the past and will give her a pass in the future. The example I have all ready given was her speech on abortion. She stood up and said can't we all get along on the subject of abortion and the next day the NYT has on the front page that she has moved to the center on abortion when in fact that isn't the case at all.Then the rest of the press picks up the story because it was in the NYT. So the far left op-ed pieces and blogs will have a problem with her but that really isn't that big of a deal and will probably be an advantage for her in redefining her but the main stream press loves her and treats her a royalty wich is a big advantage for her in the primaries and in the election.Now that's the so-called liberal media. The right-wingers seem to still be deciding whether to attack her right now, or hope she gets the nomination because she'll be the easiest candidate to beat, and only attack her thereafter. I hope they go with the former.
As I have said before you are underestimating her. The same things were said when she was running for the senate. The rights attacks on her will be irrelevant. They will be painted as mean male chauvinist Clinton haters. Her book will be used as a fig leaf for any legitimate question they ask. If she is asked about the 1000 or so scandals she will say I addressed it in my book.The right-wingers seem to still be deciding whether to attack her right now, or hope she gets the nomination because she'll be the easiest candidate to beat, and only attack her thereafter. I hope they go with the former.
It could be likely that she gets into the race late depending on who she is running against in her own party. She could wait until the last minute and be billed as the party savior because no one is happy with the candidates that are running. She obviously has truck loads worth of dirty any candidate could bring up but if she is running against people she raised a boat load of money for that won't happen.
05-11-2005, 11:52 AM
Clinton has more than just name recognition though. Her move to the center will make people who hated her for her socialist views think twice about her. "Is she really that liberal?" Over the years, she's fine crafted her image to where she can appear a different person. As I've said before, I seriously think she started planning for her Presidency when Bill got elected a second term. She was a bleeding heart liberal in the first term but started the centralization at the second term. Change of heart? Unlikely. She wants to dispel the myth of the elitist New England liberal so she can win the 2008 election. If she wins, she might even be a moderate until 2012. If she gets elected to a second term, expect the real Hillary to show and I don't think we're going to like it.
She has a lot of baggage but she's a woman. Anyone who goes against her will be labeled a sexist, chauvinist, male pig by her campaign. Then the other side will try to dance around that image and become soft to appeal to women. She will have no troubles running in 2008. The question for the other Democrats is not if they will run for President. Its who will get to be VP for Hillary. There will be a lot of Democrat apologists wanting Hillary to be President by default because she's a woman. Injustices, blah, blah, blah. It seems like Biden, Edwards, and maybe even Reid will try to run for VP. Edwards was popular enough to go for it but he lost a lot of favoritism with 2004. He was accused by the left as being a weak VP for being a no-show during crucial moments of 2004. He'll still try to make a run for it. I even hear Kerry was going to try again but he's not going to go anywhere. Its not like Nixon where he just barely lost, Kerry was a joke and got as many votes as he did by playing the anti-Bush card.
For the Time article, who cares. Its not about being a Liberal senator. I remember in 2000 how Democrats were saying, 'We need to shake off the elitist image, go to grassroots, and appeal to the Midwest, etc.' Guess what happened in 2004? They picked a Taxachusetts elitist who was perceived as an ******* in the Midwest who used McAuliffe to raise money (who is the furthest thing from grass roots). The DNC is one big circle jerk. They still prize philosophy over concerns of the people. They will make the same mistakes in 2008 because in their minds, the 2000 and 2004 elections were lost because Americans are idiots, not because they were out of touch. You can find this evidence by all of the editorials written in newspapers. Many editorials said Bush won because Americans are idiots, not because any flaws with Democrats. Although the GOP is getting kicked around now and losing a lot of steam with recent months so there may be a left shift in the next couple of years.
05-22-2005, 12:20 PM
If it was anybody but Hillary, I would agree with you but character plays way too much of a role in an election and people simply don't like Hillary as a person. If she had the personality of her husband she'd be a shoe-in regardless of her political platform but she comes across as a bitch. If you think about the last election, a strong argument can be made that Bush won primarily because he come's across as a good guy despite some of his policies. Hillary doesn't have that kind of personality and that's why she most likely will never win the White House. I personally don't think she'll even win in the primaries.Originally Posted by CDB
There's only two ways that Hillary could win; either she runs against Cheney who is equally diabolical in the eye of the public, or the GOP just comes out with an equally horrible candidate equivilent to John Kerry.
On a side note, the real future for Democrats is Barack Obama. He's extremely intelligent and he's an amazing speaker. I'm a republican and I even like the guy(probably wouldn't vote for him but he's extremely likeable). I think, barring some kind of political hell storm, he will be the first black president. Who knows, maybe he'll be on the ballot in '08.
Similar Forum Threads
- By mr.cooper69 in forum SupplementsReplies: 51Last Post: 05-26-2012, 04:12 AM
- By MakaveliThaDon in forum AnabolicsReplies: 9Last Post: 05-12-2005, 10:51 PM
- By bigpetefox in forum AnabolicsReplies: 1Last Post: 07-04-2003, 02:34 AM
- By pjorstad in forum General ChatReplies: 0Last Post: 01-23-2003, 09:13 PM
- By Sean in forum AnabolicsReplies: 1Last Post: 11-09-2002, 08:51 PM