2008 Presidential Announcement Thread.

[Balta1701]

Hillary is going to refuse public funding for her Presidential run, as well she should if she wants to win... Personally I would like to see one canditate who said they are wanting to reform campaign financing actually make the statement by sticking with public funding, and trying to find alternative ways to get their message out. I'd have much more respect for that than sticking with the flawed system.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206....Q&refer=us

Hard to blame them IMO. The system has just been blown so out of whack by the sheer amount of money available within the system - the amount available via large donations is growing at a rate much faster than the costs of running a campaign or the amount available via public funds. I find it hard to believe that any of the serious candidates will accept public money during the primaries. Even if one of them did decide to stick with public funds because of principles...they'd wind up totally outgunned by the fact that the people not accepting public money will have 2x as much $ to spend.

[Balta1701]

Link

Senator John F. Kerry plans to announce today that he will not run in the 2008 presidential race, and will instead remain in Congress and seek reelection to his Senate seat next year, according to senior Democratic officials.

 

Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat, plans to say he will remain in the Senate to recommit himself to efforts to extricate the United States from the war in Iraq. His decision to stay out of the presidential race reflects a realization that he would have had an uphill climb in capturing the Democratic nomination, given the other party heavyweights who are already in the race, according to the officials, who spoke to the Globe on condition of anonymity.

 

Kerry plans to make his plans known with a speech on the Senate floor this afternoon, and is taping a message to e-mail his supporters to explain his decision.

[Texsox]

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

Kerry had his chance. I really wish he would change his mind and run, the GOP would have a flip flop field day, getting all excited and slobbering.

[NorthSideSox72]

Link

Good. There is no room for him in that field anyway, he'd get slaughtered.

[Texsox]

Good. There is no room for him in that field anyway, he'd get slaughtered.

 

How are you seeing the primary going on the Dem side? I'm thinking there will be some early knockouts with Hillary and one or two people battling deep. But it will get to 2 or 3 before Super Tuesday.

[NorthSideSox72]

How are you seeing the primary going on the Dem side? I'm thinking there will be some early knockouts with Hillary and one or two people battling deep. But it will get to 2 or 3 before Super Tuesday.

I honestly don't know. At this point, I can say I see 4 candidates for the Dems that have a reasonable chance. I think with those four (Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Richardson), its possible we'll see something unusual - that all 4 of them might still be drawing significant votes even up until Super Tuesday. That would be something amazing.

 

Notice something interesting in that group of four? Only one is a caucasian male.

[southsider2k5]

Unless Hillary or Barack does something incredibly stupid, or has something big in their closet, they are going to crowd out everyone else. There is only a finate amount of money to go around, and that is going to prohibit anyone else from getting their word out on the democratic side of things. The other guys in the race are just wasting their time if you ask me. Its sad, but money is the only way to get elected now adays.

[Balta1701]

Unless Hillary or Barack does something incredibly stupid, or has something big in their closet, they are going to crowd out everyone else. There is only a finate amount of money to go around, and that is going to prohibit anyone else from getting their word out on the democratic side of things. The other guys in the race are just wasting their time if you ask me. Its sad, but money is the only way to get elected now adays.

He's probably not going to get my vote, but I wouldn't count out Edwards just yet. He has the built-in advantage of having done all of these states 2 years ago, he has an active ane experienced organization in all of these key states where the other 3 are just in startup mode, and he has significant potential funding sources from unions and lawyers. And the Dem calendar may benefit him as well; the current setup I believe is as follows:

 

January 14: Iowa

January 19: Nevada

January 22: New Hampshire

January 29: South Carolina

February 5: Delaware, Missouri, possibly California, Florida.

 

Iowa, Edwards is currently leading in polling and finished 2nd there in 04. Nevada is supposedly pretty strong union terrotory, and South Carolina is Edwards's back yard.

 

But anyway, if you're so sick of the money-in-politics, then join me brother in supporting a full public campaign financing package, possibly along the lines of the one the senior Senator from the Great State of Illinois is proposing.

[Rex Kickass]

With everyone moving the primary dates up and the bulk of delegates being awarded by mid February, it now seems that getting the nomination might be harder for those with the fundraising advantage.

 

Edwards has a shot, as long as he maintains his high profile. Both him and Richardson have significant netroots and die hard Dem support. Primaries are funny sometimes and I think that might make a huge difference down the road.

[Texsox]

Unless Hillary or Barack does something incredibly stupid, or has something big in their closet, they are going to crowd out everyone else. There is only a finate amount of money to go around, and that is going to prohibit anyone else from getting their word out on the democratic side of things. The other guys in the race are just wasting their time if you ask me. Its sad, but money is the only way to get elected now adays.

 

Great, great, point.

[southsider2k5]

I read a story the other day that said for any canditate to be vaible in this election cycle they are going to have to be able to raise $100 million by the end of 2007 because of the compacting of the primaries. Does anyone really think that there is $300, $400, $500 million or more to go around for just the democrats, in just the primaries? To put it in perspective that is almost $300,000 a day. Does Bill Richardson, John Edwards or anyone else besides the big two have that kind of ability? If they don't, they aren't going to be able to get their names out. Period.

[jasonxctf]

The top 3 polling on the Dem side are

 

Clinton- who will have 8 years of senate experience by 2008

Obama- who will have 4 years of senate experience by 2008

Edwards- who will have been out of politics since 2004.

 

The top 3 polling on the Rep side are

 

McCain- who will have 22 years of senate experience by 2008

Guiliani- who will have been out of politics since 2002

Gingrich- who will have been out of politics since 1999

 

 

anyone notice something similar about 3 of the Top 6 polling candidates????

[Texsox]

The top 3 polling on the Dem side are

 

Clinton- who will have 8 years of senate experience by 2008

Obama- who will have 4 years of senate experience by 2008

Edwards- who will have been out of politics since 2004.

 

The top 3 polling on the Rep side are

 

McCain- who will have 22 years of senate experience by 2008

Guiliani- who will have been out of politics since 2002

Gingrich- who will have been out of politics since 1999

 

 

anyone notice something similar about 3 of the Top 6 polling candidates????

 

Perhaps a better phrase would be "no elected position held since" not out of politics, But point taken.

[jasonxctf]

good point. is it that the country is so fed up with politicians that they are more apt to support those who have been removed from the immediate process for a while?

 

shoot, you can even include Obama in that reference. Maybe even Hillary. The only one with lifelong, in-the-spotlight political experience is McCain.

[Balta1701]

Duncan Hunter is officially in the race on the GOP side.

[southsider2k5]

The top 3 polling on the Dem side are

 

Clinton- who will have 8 years of senate experience by 2008

Obama- who will have 4 years of senate experience by 2008

Edwards- who will have been out of politics since 2004.

 

The top 3 polling on the Rep side are

 

McCain- who will have 22 years of senate experience by 2008

Guiliani- who will have been out of politics since 2002

Gingrich- who will have been out of politics since 1999

anyone notice something similar about 3 of the Top 6 polling candidates????

 

Its also the reason that Obama had to run NOW. The nature of politics today is all about what you have done wrong. For whatever reason, people don't want to know enough about what you have done right.

 

Its hard to do anything wrong from the sidelines where all you have to do is snipe at what the people in power are doing. Its the reason the minority in Congress usually has it easy. The majority does the work, and the minority sits and complains about it.

[southsider2k5]

Hill has a 19 point lead over the golden child Barack Obama

 

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,...1582130,00.html

 

Hillary Clinton is the clear front-runner to win the Democratic party's nomination for President in 2008, but the Republican race will be a close contest between Senator John McCain and former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani — with McCain edging Giuliani by a three- to four-point margin. And a presidential face-off between Clinton and McCain, right now, would be close to a dead heat. Those are some of the key findings of a new TIME poll earlier this week that canvassed a random sample of 1,064 registered voters by phone.

 

Despite the buzz generated by Senator Barack Obama entering the race, the survey found that Senator Clinton would beat him for the Democratic nomination by a margin of 40% to 21%. Senator John Edwards is a distant third with 11%. Obama clearly suffers a disadvantage in profile among likely voters, with only 51% indicating that they knew enough about him to form an opinion, compared with 94% saying the same of Hillary Clinton. In Obama's favor, however, is his far lower negative ratings. While 58% of voters familiar with Hillary Clinton have a positive view of her, 41% give her negative marks, for a net favorability score of +17. By contrast, Obama's net favorability score is +47. On the Republican side, Giuliani has a net favorability rating of +68, with only 14% having a negative view of him. McCain's net favorability score is +45.

 

McCain, however, holds a narrow lead of 30% to 26% over Giuliani for the GOP nomination. A race between McCain and Clinton would be a virtual tie (47%-47%), according to the poll, while McCain would beat either Obama or Senator John Edwards by a 7-point margin.

 

Clinton's popularity within her party does not translate as easily across party lines as Obama's does, or indeed as Giuliani's and McCain's. Only 58% of the total sample of respondents had a very or somewhat favorable impression of her, compared with 82% for Giuliani (including 7 out of 10 Democratic voters), and 70% each for Obama and McCain — both of whom showed strongly among independents. These figures must be read against the fact that 94% of respondents said they knew "a great deal" or "some" about Clinton, while 73% said the same of Giuliani and 66% of John McCain. Only 51% knew "a great deal" or "some" about Obama.

 

If the election were held now, Rudy Giuliani appears to have the support of the greatest number of respondents of both parties, with 56% indicating they would "definitely" or "probably" support him — followed by Hillary Clinton (51%) John McCain (50%) and Barack Obama (50%). But Clinton has a strong edge when the question is which presidential candidate people would most like to have over to their homes for dinner. The former First Lady led the dinner-invitation field with 26%, while Obama and McCain tied for second place at 15%. But with the New Hampshire primaries a year away, the the four leading contenders all have some work to do: Obama in making himself better known, Clinton in making herself better liked, McCain in matching Giuliani's appeal to Democratic voters, and Giuliani in landing more invitations to dinner.

[Balta1701]

Obama draws first blood from the Kerry castoffs.

[Rex Kickass]

Hill has a 19 point lead over the golden child Barack Obama

 

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,...1582130,00.html

 

Polls in Jan 07 mean that more people know who Hillary is. I think the 100 million is a bit overestimated to be honest, and I think that there's plenty of money to go around.

[Balta1701]

Polls in Jan 07 mean that more people know who Hillary is. I think the 100 million is a bit overestimated to be honest, and I think that there's plenty of money to go around.

Beyond that and probably more importantly, there is no national primary, which is what that poll would measure. There are a series of state-by-state primaries. John Kerry was not winning any of the national polls IIRC until after he won Iowa. But anyway, it at least is measuring something, and useful or not, data is data.

[southsider2k5]

Beyond that and probably more importantly, there is no national primary, which is what that poll would measure. There are a series of state-by-state primaries. John Kerry was not winning any of the national polls IIRC until after he won Iowa. But anyway, it at least is measuring something, and useful or not, data is data.

 

And why did John Kerry win Iowa? His wife infused his campaign with a s***load of money and inundated the state with his campaign ads. It would have still been a much more interesting primary season if the rebel yell never took place.

[Heads22]

So it's all up to us corn-growers, eh?

 

My first choice is still Richardson.

[Balta1701]

So it's all up to us corn-growers, eh?

 

My first choice is still Richardson.

But since Iowa is a series of caucuses and not a single vote...you should know quite well that your 2nd and 3rd choices can be very important.

[jasonxctf]

And why did John Kerry win Iowa? His wife infused his campaign with a s***load of money and inundated the state with his campaign ads. It would have still been a much more interesting primary season if the rebel yell never took place.

 

actually this is not true. Kerry won Iowa because he was endorsed by the Govenor of Iowa's wife who took a liking to him. The newspaper endorsements didn't hurt either.

 

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles...9/19point.1.htm

 

above is a link to a 34 page article on how Kerry actually ended up winning Iowa. It had nothing to do with his wife's $.

[southsider2k5]

actually this is not true. Kerry won Iowa because he was endorsed by the Govenor of Iowa's wife who took a liking to him. The newspaper endorsements didn't hurt either.

 

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles...9/19point.1.htm

 

above is a link to a 34 page article on how Kerry actually ended up winning Iowa. It had nothing to do with his wife's $.

 

Oh.please.

 

If TH Kerry doesn't throw money at her husbands faultering campaign, he never goes anywhere. I don't care what 34 pages say, canditates don't win in this day and age without raising huge dollars. Kerry was a failure at fundraising compared to Dean at the time, and it was once he got the dollar infusion and sold his face as being "electable" that he started to really enter into the race as a possibility. Add into that the Dean yell, and there you have it.