Will the Democrats take the White House in 2008

[JLStorm]

This is one of my worst fears considering who will be running and I am very afraid we will start to lose our right to carry and own many weapons. I keep hoping that the Democrats will not win the 2008 presidential election, but I just don't see how that will happen at this point.

What is your opinion?

 

[MD_Willington]

Probably if they stay away from gun control and abortion... once they are in, the wheels will start turning...

 

[ryoushi]

I can't see a Republican getting elected President in 2008. Tom Delay says Hillary is a shoe in and I can't argue with him.

 

[JLStorm]

I have heard that many dems don't want to run for hillary...but thats just what I have heard.

The next question is what on earth will happen to our gun rights

 

[bouis]

Considering how I jinxed the last poll like this, I'm not going to vote.

 

[cslinger]

Actually I think if Giullani runs he has a chance since he is "America's Mayor" so to speak. Not that I really like him all that much either but I digress.

 

[Don't Tread On Me]

This reminds me of early 2006, when the defeatism began before anything was decided.


The Democrats count on you thinking it is all lost. That's step 1. They created this perception, this idea that it is all said and done and they've won, and this was months before. As if it were some sort of self fulfilling prophecy.


REMEMBER PEOPLE...Bush won a majority (highest popular turnout for any election) in 2004, despite all the hatred against him and negativity.


A new candidate should be able to do just as well if people get behind him.


This sort of negativity and defeatism causes the middle of the road gun owners (the one's who are Democrats) who sometimes ignore gun issues to feel better about not voting on gun issues.


Democrats win when YOU people stay home. People here stay home on election day because Democrats and Libertarians fooled them into believing the border and immigration issues were a cause for ousting the Republicans. Funny though, they offer ZERO alternative....


That's the key. One side creates mass dissent within the other party. It is like me going to Democratic Underground and claiming that the Democratic Party stinks because they haven't instituted drive-through abortion clinics or made ebonics the national language. (just an example). And then telling them the Green Party, while not electable, stands for their "values".....(just like them libertarians in response to republicans)...


Unfortunately, the Democrats are no longer stupid. Defeat after defeat has made them wake up, and they've dumped the Green Party and their infighting almost completely. They are unified and they won. They only won because we were not unififed.



So, go ahead and start believing that 2008 is lost when we haven't even had the 1st session of the 2006 defeat begin! Go ahead and begin the process of alienating Republicans so that most of them feel hopeless and then go on to vote for libertarians so they can "feel good" about it.

 

[lamazza]

Doesn't matter-as far as I have seen up until now neither side has a candidate worth voting for.

 

[kd7nqb]

This question depends on the guts of both parties. I work in politics so I am aware of many of the contenders that dont make the news. I say GOP wins if we run a real canidate being either Romney or Huckabee. If we run a fake republican like McCain we loose. Both Hillary and Obama scare the daylights out of me BUT I hope they stop fighting each other and run a joint ticket because then that makes our job much easier as GOP staffers.

 

[Highland Ranger]

Hmmmm - let's see, every major candidate is an anti . . . . who cares who wins?!

 

[Standing Wolf]

I'm afraid America may be dumb enough to elect Mrs. Clinton.

 

[Autolycus]

Originally Posted by MD Willington:

Probably if they stay away from gun control and abortion... once they are in, the wheels will start turning...

I am not so sure I agree with you on both accounts.

Gun control is coming back as an issue at least in my eyes. I was listening to the radio and they kept talking about it. It was a syndicated show called infotrek or something along those lines.

And it seems that the majority of candidates being talked about are very anti-gun. Guilliani, Bloomberg, Hillary Clinton, Obama, and McCain are the names constantly being tossed up in the air. And none of them is exactly friendly towards gunowners.

 

[lee n. field]

Will the Devilcrats take the White House in 2008

Imponderable. Depends on who they and the clueless deathwish Republicans cough up to be candidates.

 

[Monkeyleg]

If I were a betting man--which I am not--I'd bet that the Democrats take the presidency in 2008.

But I'm not a betting man precisely because I know that two years is a century in politics.

Hillary is the front-runner in the Dem polls, and will likely maintain that position going into the 2008 primaries.

Obama is the media darling, and the love of the Left. But, as a junior senator with only a year under his belt, his chances of nomination are almost nil.

Algore is working on a comeback, but his core base are those who still think that Bush stole the 2000 election results in Florida. The number of people who still are harboring that animosity could probably fill a small phone booth.

John Edwards is working the caucus states, but his credentials are still pretty much his pretty-boy looks.

On the Repub side, if it's Guiliani, I'm staying home.

If it's McCain, I'm staying home.

If it's Mitt Romney, I'm staying home.

Republicans can screw up a free cup of coffee. In this case, they had increasing power from 1994 until now, and screwed up much worse than a cup of coffee.

They have just two years during which they can redeem themselves. But I don't see it happening.

Following the 1994 "Republican revolution" in congress, the R's just seemed to lose sight of why they were sent to DC. They became so hungry to retain power that they lost sight of their promise to reduce federal power.

Unlike probably 99% of the people on this forum, I love President Bush. And I believe that his administration's strategy of pre-emptive attacks in the ME have been in the best interests of the US, and no less selfish than actions of previous presidents who are now regarded as great.

Has the situation in Iraq been mishandled? Sure. So was the occupation of Germany and Japan.

The results of the 2008 elections are so far away that we might all just as well break out our mojo boxes, and toss the squirrel bones to predict what will come.

Here's one thing you can take to the bank, though: if Pelosi & Co. succeed in getting an early withdrawal of troops from Iraq, every punk country from Iran to Bahrain is going to see us as weak.

And, if the 2008 elections are handed to the candidate selected by Pelosi & Co., our days as the world's superpower will be over.

The whole thought of it makes me nauseous.

 

[ArkansasFatboy]

Guys the way I see it if the republicans don't stop screwing up we will be up that certain unnamed creek without a paddle.
I have found that the vast majority of the public are very nearsighted when it comes to politics all they see right now is the evil Bush and any candidate with an "R" next to his name is hated.they cant see down the road and their memory of what has happened in the past is very vague.But I have found that if you can get them to shutup and listen to you for a minute ,they can be swayed back to the right at least until they see the next cnn news cast.It just blows my mind how the public just gobbles up all the negative info coming from the networks and just except it as gospel truth.
Anyway The way I see it if gop dosen't present a moderate candidate the don't stand a snowballs chance.I see the Democrats proposing a Obama/Clinton ticket in 08. And as bad as I hate to think of it the GOP will probably put up McCain as a candidate but it is still 2 years away and alot can happen in 2 years maybe the dems will do something really stupid an shift public opinion back to the right.

 

[Hkmp5sd]

I'm afraid America may be dumb enough to elect Mrs. Clinton.

She has already put out the word that she will be called President Rodham.

 

[mordechaianiliewicz]

Actually, I think the Republicans should run someone from the '94 "Revolution" time period who doesn't tow a Bush line. Someone who can rally the base, but who is strong on one issue or two that resonates with a majority of Americans. And, this guy should try to distance himself from Iraq as well without exactly saying it is a big mistake.

The Republicans need to rally the base, or they risk destoying the GOP in it's entirety. If this goes too far, for too long, the Republicans will got the way of the Whigs.

 

[Monkeyleg]

"She has already put out the word that she will be called President Rodham."

That's only because she knows not to be so presumptuous as to call herself "Queen Rodham" until she's sworn in.

Bill and Hillary were the best things to happen for gun sales and NRA memberships.

Let's hope the Queen oversteps her bounds, and wakes up the sleepy members of the gun community.

If she becomes Queen, and those members are not awakened, then they can just rot.

 

[Drewtam]

mordechaianiliewicz Actually, I think the Republicans should run someone from the '94 "Revolution" time period who doesn't tow a Bush line. Someone who can rally the base, but who is strong on one issue or two that resonates with a majority of Americans. And, this guy should try to distance himself from Iraq as well without exactly saying it is a big mistake.

The Republicans need to rally the base, or they risk destoying the GOP in it's entirety. If this goes too far, for too long, the Republicans will got the way of the Whigs.

+1

When it comes to voting with a country split nearly 50/50 for the party, and a voter turn out below 50%. Its all about who gets the base motivated to vote.

Thats what Nov 2006 was about too. Much of the GOP base is disgusted and feels betrayed by the Congress they roared in just in the past few years.

Monkeyleg
On the Repub side, if it's Guiliani, I'm staying home.

If it's McCain, I'm staying home.

If it's Mitt Romney, I'm staying home.

Republicans can screw up a free cup of coffee. In this case, they had increasing power from 1994 until now, and screwed up much worse than a cup of coffee.

They have just two years during which they can redeem themselves. But I don't see it happening.

Drew

 

[Monkeyleg]

It's 1 am, and I don't feel like sleeping. So either get ready to read one of my diatribes, or just hit the "ignore" button.

Al Gore should have won the 2000 election. He was coming off a period of great prosperity, had the winds of WJC on his back, and every other advanatage.

He was pitted against a Texas governor who stumbled in his speeches, and had what I think was a bit of dixlexiea. Or, as I've been told by people close to GW, he tried to sound like Middle America, and didn't do so well. When he talked like a Texan back in Texas, he did very well. People understood what he was saying.

Why didn't Algore win in 2000?

The Clinton Machine. Bill, Hillary, and their appointed party chairman Terry McAuliffe made sure that Algore didn't get the support he needed.

Granted, Algore was a weak candidate, but you'd think the Clintons would have given him more help.

Nah.

Take a look back at the 2004 field of Democrat candidates. Dennis Kusinich? Howard Dean? Algore2?

The whole 2004 deck was stacked against any candidate who had a chance. The Clinton/McAuliffe machine made sure that Kerry would be the front-runner.

The Clintons want to run against a Republican in 2008, not a Democrat.

So, what of Barack Obama?

If he plays his cards right, he'll get a prominent position in a prominent committee, and be promised his chance in 2012.

He's too young, and too untested. Those old enough will remember Geraldine Ferarro, and other untested Democrat candidates. For Democrats, "diversity" means a coalescence of views on the Iraq war, the war in Afghanistan, nuclear proliferation, nuclear energy as a fuel source, drilling for oil offshore, drilling for oil in ANWAR, diplomatic talks with Iran, Syria and North Korea, and acquiescing to these countries and calling it "diplomacy.

It's gonna be Hillary. And God help anyone who stands between her and the White House.

 

[Prince Yamato]

Just let the sh** fly and watch what happens in the next two years. I bet the Dems get NOTHING off the ground. I bet they'll also be regarded as the most incompitent congress in history. They're a bunch of fools who got lucky in an election.

And for those of you who say there's no difference, it's true that both sides will cater to their base, but can you HONESTLY say that a Democrat will EVER cater to a gun owner... nuh uh...

 

[Manedwolf]

Actually I think if Giullani runs he has a chance since he is "America's Mayor" so to speak.

Uh..only in his marketing materials. And you believe those?

He's not MY mayor. What I think of him is unprintable.

 

[ceetee]

Holy moly... the hate and vitriol being spewed in this thread is nothing short of vile...

 

[the pistolero]

I think if Giullani runs he has a chance since he is "America's Mayor" so to speak.

Uh..only in his marketing materials.

If only that were the case. No doubt there are more than a few people (or sheeple, or just plain naive suckers, if you prefer) in this great land who actually do believe that.
My opinion? A Giuliani presidency would be perhaps the longest-lasting, darkest legacy of Mohammed Atta and his crew, whether or not they actually do hate us "because we're free" -- no, I don't really believe that's the reason, but there are those who do -- as with someone like him in charge, we would be left even less free than we are now. How much less, I don't know, but it's not something I find pleasant to contemplate.

 

[Thin Black Line]

"President Barack Hussein Obama" just rolls right off the tongue doesn't it....
how about we just call him "H" already?

Another pet politician constructed by the powers that be from the very
beginning. Notice how no one mentions he's a brand new senator ranked
99th out of 100 in seniority and yet he's rocketed to the top of the TV
news with his subsequent polls following close behind thanks to media hype?
All part of the plan --he's a team player:

http://lugar.senate.gov/pressapp/record.cfm?id=256009

Lugar-Obama Bill Heads to Senate Floor
....
The U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee today passed out of committee, S. 2566, the Lugar-Obama Act. Modeled after the Nunn-Lugar program that focuses on weapons of mass destruction in the former Soviet Union, the bill was introduced by Sens. Dick Lugar (R-IN) and Barack Obama (D-IL) to expand the cooperative threat reduction concept to conventional weapons and to expand the State Department’s ability to detect and interdict weapons and materials of mass destruction.
....
The first part of the Lugar-Obama legislation would energize the U.S. program against unsecured lightweight anti-aircraft missiles and other conventional weapons. There may be as many as 750,000 man-portable air defense systems in arsenals worldwide, and the State Department estimates that more than 40 civilian aircraft have been hit by such weapons since the 1970s. In addition, loose stocks of small arms and other weapons help fuel civil wars in Africa and elsewhere and provide the means for attacks on peacekeepers and aid workers seeking to stabilize war-torn societies.

Don't be confused about "which party" is going to affect your rights. It
doesn't matter if there's a D or R behind their names.