Hillary won't be elected President in 2008. Neither will Obama or Edwards.

[2008]

Hillary hasn't a prayer of becoming POTUS. Fundies think she's a baby-killer, the rest of the conservatives think she's a socialist, the far left considers her a warmonger, and just about everyone else sees her as an opportunist.

Obama and Edwards will be seen as having far too little experience (both single-term senators). Then there's another setback that both Edwards and Obama share with Hillary:

SENATORS ARE HIGHLY UNELECTABLE, due to their voting records. A senator can vote for an anti-puppy grinding bill 87 times, and the one time s/he votes against it -- due to a provision in that particular version of the bill that would allow kitten grinding under extraordinary circumstances -- s/he can be permanently branded, in the minds of the majority of clueless voters, as the senator that voted against the anti-puppy grinding bill.

When is the last time a senator was elected POTUS? Not in 2004, although it could be argued that Ohio was stolen for Bush. But it shouldn't have been that close, given our opposing candidate. With the benefit of hindsight, nominating a senator for the Dem ticket in 2004 was probably a mistake.

2000? That election was won by a VP, according to us, or by a governor, according to them, but not by a senator.

1996: incumbent (Clinton)

1992: governor (Clinton)

1988: vice-president (Bush 41)

1984: incumbent (Reagan)

1980: former governor (Reagan)

1976: former governor (Carter)

1972: incumbent (Nixon)

1968: former vice-president (Nixon)

1964: incumbent (Johnson)

1960: senator (Kennedy)

Then you have to go all the way back to 1920 (Harding) to find a candidate elected whose highest previously-held office was that of senator. (General Eisenhower didn't have a voting record on which he could be attacked.)

At present we have one governor in the running for the Dem nomination (Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack ended his bid last month, and former Virginia Governor Mark Warner ended his back in October): New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson (though he's currently at the "presidential exploratory committee" stage)...

Bill Richardson was recently re-elected to a second term as Governor of New Mexico with the support of 69 percent of voters, representing the largest margin of victory for any Governor in state history. He was supported by Democrats, Republicans and Independents, winning in both urban and rural counties. New Mexicans overwhelmingly endorsed Governor Richardson's aggressive efforts to improve education, cut taxes, build a high-wage economy, expand health care access, invest in renewable energy and make New Mexico safer.

Bill Richardson's fiscally responsible governing style has allowed New Mexico to tackle important priorities, while maintaining a balanced budget and the highest reserves in state history. He cut $230 million in bureaucratic waste, invested in new opportunities for New Mexico's children and returned more than $1 billion dollars in taxes to working families.

As Secretary of Energy to President Bill Clinton, Bill Richardson implemented tough efficiency standards to save energy. And as Governor, he has made New Mexico the Clean Energy State by requiring utility companies to produce energy through renewable resources and reduce carbon emissions.

Before becoming Governor, Bill Richardson served in Congress for 15 years and helped President Clinton pass the economic plan that created millions of jobs and led America to its first balanced budget in 30 years.

Appointed by President Clinton as the Ambassador to the UN, Bill Richardson worked with world leaders to build alliances and help prevent the development of nuclear weapons in North Korea. Bill Richardson has been nominated four times for the Nobel Peace Prize for negotiating the release of hostages, American servicemen and political prisoners in North Korea, Iraq, and Cuba. Governor Richardson recently negotiated a 60-day cease fire in war-torn Darfur following direct talks with rebel leaders and the President of Sudan.

http://www.billrichardsonforpresident.com/about

(edited to change title from 'President in 2008' to 'elected President in 2008')

[Donnachaidh]

1. hope you have your flameproof jammies on

:popcorn:

[Inspired]

6. LOL!

No flaming here......but Bill Richardson will never be President either.

[Clark2008]

24. No flaming from me.

I completely agree.

[MonkeyFunk]

2. 100% correct

well, the title is, anyway.

Bush will be president through 2008. The rest is just a guess.

[2008]

5. oops. I'm gonna have to edit that to "elected"

thanks!

[kaffiria]

72. That's the lucky scenario

Bush being president till Jan 09 is comparitively lucky. The alternative is Cheney. That is very sad.

[cali]

3. Crystal balls are not reliable.

And you seem to be using one, rather than analysis. Really, it's impossible to guess who will get the nom at this point. One thing is certain: Bill Richardson has an uphill battle to get it.

[saltpoint]

4. I think you're mistaken on all counts.

Are you not able to praise Governor Richardson without dismissing other Democrats?

And if not, why not?

[H2O Man]

9. Very important point.

I think that Richardson has strengths, and that he adds a lot to the democratic primary process. But I am more interested in posts on DU that focus on each's candidates' positives compared to the other candidates' positives. Likewise, I think it is beneficial to be objective in comparing each candidates' weak points. The truth is that we have a pretty talented group of individuals to examine. Each one has strong points, and some weaknesses.

[saltpoint]

13. I second that. Our very talented field is gonna whip the GOP but good.

[Blue_Roses]

27. defintely

well said:thumbsup:

[2008]

10. because there are no other governors running for the Dem ticket

my belief is that our only hope is to run a governor or a vice-president

[saltpoint]

15. Both parties this time are Senator-rich. The odds do not favor a

governor becoming our next president, IMO.

If both parties nominate a U.S. Senator a U.S. Senator will be our next president.

[Clark2008]

31. There's no "dismissing" of other candidates here.

Why is it we can't discuss the very real problems with all the candidates without being called out for it?

This is a discussion board wherein, during the primaries, we discuss what makes candidate viable or not viable.

I didn't see anything in the above post that tore into the so-called "front-runners." It was a genuine analysis of electability. It may not be accurate (I think it is, but others may not, and don't have to, agree), but it wasn't a cut-down of anyone.

Certainly you can distinguish between an Ann Coulterequse-type admonishment and an informed analysis of conventional wisdom of the current political landscape.

[GCP]

7. Well, that just opens up the field to Gore- no?

[2008]

8. that would be sweeeet

I don't think he'll run, but we can hope

[AlinPA]

11. Its probably just me, but I don't feel comfortable about these kinds of posts

on DU. Divisive. And I like Richarson, Edwards, Clinton, Obama. I won't say anymore.

[saltpoint]

12. If both major parties nominate a U.S. Senator a U.S. Senator will be the

next president.

[2008]

19. however, if we run a governor and they don't...

then a governor will most likely be elected

[saltpoint]

21. I'm sorry, 2008, I disagree. We've only had 43 presidents. That's not a

reliable control group.

If Richardson is our nom, his being a governor is no insurance that he beats McCain or Giuliani, one a senator, one a former mayor.

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

29. Excellent observation.

By the OP's lights it can be argued that a woman or an African-American can't be elected because one never has been.

Used to be that voters would never accept a divorced man, until they did.

Al Smith's Catholicism helped keep him out of the White House. That wouldn't be true today.

And nowadays candidates are expected to be married, though that was not true in the past.

[2008]

40. it's more about the voting records of senators being used against them

A senator can vote against something for reasons that can be explained in several paragraphs, but the opposition's meme becomes "S/he voted against ... (education, the war on terror, breast milk for crying infants, etc.)."

That's the point I tried to make with my anti-puppy grinding bill example in my original post.

[Telly Savalas]

70. And nothing a governor does can be easily twisted?

Willie Horton, anybody?

[skipos]

76. Sure, but can't you admit senators have MUCH more material to work with?

I like Obama and Edwards, but I can admit it will be easier to smear them because they are senators. Look at the whole "Obama is the most librul senator" crap that just started. You can't do that with a as easily with a governor. My memory is that they attacked Bill Clinton about the conditions of AR, just as we attack GW Bush about the conditions of TX. That stuff just doesn't seem to stick as much as "candidate X voted to raise your taxes 2344 times" and "candidate x voted against body armor for our troops."

[mmonk]

14. Bill Richardson would have a good chance

at getting some independent voters and a southern state or two. But I'm certainly not going to speculate on who is going to win. I'm not ready to be drawn into it all yet. There's grave unfinished business in this country that needs immediate attention.

[cali]

20. I agree.

I just can't get excited about '08 yet. It's too early, and there are more pressing concerns.

[mmonk]

22. Yep.

Hope we can get ourselves a few subpoenas. And of course, some legislation that corrects some fundamental damages to our body of laws and rights (as well as domestic legislation).

[Clark2008]

60. I agree with you, but with an addendum.

I can't get excited about 2008 both for the other pressing concerns and because I think the Dem field is "blah" when it comes to flipping any purple/red states. I live in a purple-red state, so it's a top concern of mine.

I'd like to see this country somewhat united again - and that means providing the South and the mid-West with a candidate that they can vote for - and, by doing so, come back into the fold of the United States and not "fundie-dom."

I don't see them voting for any of our top three en masse, and the reasons aren't necessarily that they're all senators, but that's some of it.

If Fred Thompson gets into the Republican race and wins the nomination, we're in for a long, hard slog, to coin a phrase.

[spanone]

16. I guess we don't need to vote then.....

:sarcasm:

[dkofos]

17. It's more about money raised than where the person came from.

That is how the M$M will report it. And how the people will accept it.

[soothsayer]

18. astrologically speaking, it's going to be a dem. just don't know

which one, yet. Hope it's a great one, whomever he/she/it may be!

[1932]

23. In open years, senators do better than anyone else.

[2008]

30. open years?

Is an open year one in which neither an incumbent nor a sitting VP is running?

The last time a senator was elected president in an open year was 1920. Harding beat a sitting governor (James Cox, Ohio).

[1932]

65. Kennedy beat Nixon.

[2008]

66. Nixon was a sitting VP

if an open year is one in which neither an incumbent nor a sitting VP is running, then we're back to 1920

[1932]

69. A sitting VP is not an incumbent.

I can't believe that I have to point that out.

And you do know that Senators were appointed until about 100 years ago, so the kind of people who were Senators were very different from the kind who are Senators now.

[2008]

74. and that's why I asked you, in post 30 (above)...

"Is an open year one in which neither an incumbent nor a sitting VP is running?"

because I wanted you to define "open year"

in that case, we're back to TWO: 1920 and 1960

the same two election years I referred to in my original post

1960: senator (Kennedy)

Then you have to go all the way back to 1920 (Harding) to find a candidate elected whose highest previously-held office was that of senator.

in "open years", or years in which neither candidate is an incumbent, senators do NOT "do better than anyone else"

they do worse than anyone else

in open years, governors and vice-presidents do far better than senators ... which is a statement that can also be found in my original post

[2008]

75. open-year results, 1900-present

in the open years since 1900, the winners have been:

-- a sitting secretary of war in 1908
-- a sitting senator in 1920
-- a sitting secretary of commerce in 1928
-- a sitting senator in 1960
-- a former VP in 1968
-- a sitting VP in 1988
-- a sitting VP (according to DU) or a sitting governor (according to FR) in 2000

the longer list:

2004 not an open year
2000 not a senator (our side claims the winner was a sitting VP, their side claims he was a sitting governor)
1996 not an open year
1992 not an open year
1988 sitting VP (Bush 41)
1984 not an open year
1980 not an open year
1976 not an open year
1972 not an open year
1968 former VP (Nixon)
1964 not an open year
1960 sitting senator (Kennedy)
1956 not an open year
1952 not an open year
1948 not an open year
1944 not an open year
1940 not an open year
1936 not an open year
1932 not an open year
1928 sitting secretary of commerce (Hoover)
1924 not an open year
1920 sitting senator (Harding)
1916 not an open year
1912 not an open year
1908 sitting secretary of war (Taft)
1904 not an open year
1900 not an open year

[1932]

77. Thank god Cheney's not running!

And senators and ex-senators do pretty well.

[pretzel4gore]

25. if we aint gonna fix the pigmedia, then what do it matter?

the media is a pig media because WE have allowed wealth/power to be glorified and thought of as greatest GOOD (while still keeping up the xian fiction that 'blessed are the poor'...etc) and we have allowed power and wealth to be handed down until today we have a totally corrupt media run by/for the upper class twittery who THINK staging 911 etc are impressive at same time as they CANNOT admit that carbon gangsterism (electric cars were built at same time as the model-t, but were hid away by auto/oil industry pigs; hemp, or marijuana was once one of the main crops in the country, but was made criminal by textile/drug/alcohol pigs etc) might be a problem...
who cares if hillary or obama or even rush limbah-humbug are next potus? what difference can it make if robert novak or brite hum or rupert myrdock etc are still lying and poisoning the air?
why do the simpsons characters homer, marge etc only have 4 fingers?

[riverdeep]

26. Maybe 9/11 really did change everthing.

In 2002 a 1st term incumbent president picked up seats in the Congress. That didn't occur since 1934 and FDR. There's a bunch of things that have'nt been going according to historical precedent. For that matter, there's never been a woman or a black man in serious contention for the white house. And yet, it's here.

We're through the looking glass, the laws of physics no longer apply.

[lligrd]

28. Hey, This Is America - Anyone Can Become President

Even a chimp.

[Jcrowley]

32. Poll numbers

Barack Obama 28.1%
John Edwards 24.6%
Other 12.4%
Dennis Kucinich 10.3%
Hillary Clinton 8.7%
Bill Richardson 7.6%
Undecided 4.9%
Joseph Biden 1.9%
Christopher Dodd 0.5%
Mike Gravel 0.3%


Behind Kucinich: Will MSM Cover Hillary's Fifth-Place Finish in Dean Org Poll?
http://newsbusters.org/node/11601

[2008]

35. compare to this point in the election-'92 cycle

at this point in the election-'92 cycle (19+ months before election day), Bill Clinton wasn't even being discussed

if I recall correctly, Tom Harkin was the front-runner at that point

[robcon]

39. That's an online poll.

That's really, really a deceptive thing to do, Jcrowley.

I believe one HAS to mention that it is a self-selected online poll, not a random poll.

That's totally deceptive, almost unethical, to post that without the warning that it is not a random poll.

[Jcrowley]

46. Relax

no big deal. No deception and link provided. It's not my obligation to explain all the ins and outs of some poll.

[robcon]

68. Nobody asked you to explain "all the ins and outs of some poll."

When you use an online, non-random poll, and don't highlight that critical piece of info, you are being deceptive, IMO. Your response, Jcrowley, seems to be that you don't care if you are deceptive.

[hang a left]

33. Before you go off on that "margin should have been wider" bs

Votes were skimmed from all over and not just in 04. 06 as well, they just couldn't have stolen that one with the sentiment in this country.

I am waiting on Gore.

Feingold for VP.

[iamjoy]

34. Don't Forget The Charisma Factor

I think that has a lot to do with it too.

Let's look at the elections over the past 48 years (since television became prominent). The candidate who became president was the one perceived as being more likable. That would certainly favor Edwards or Obama.

Kerry was deficient in the charisma department. It came through in small groups, which is why I think he could win those early primary states, but not to large crowds or through television, which was ONE of the factors contributing to his not becoming President.

I like Richardson and he has an impressive resume. But, I hear he's kind of boring.

You make some good points, but don't underestimate the importance of charisma. Besides, if the Republicans nominate McCain, the Senate thing could be a moot point.

edited for spelling :blush:

[2008]

37. now THAT is a very good point

60 Kennedy
64 Johnson (I guess)
68 Nixon (not)
72 Nixon (even less)
76 Carter
80 Reagan
84 Reagan
88 Bush (not)
92 Clinton
96 Clinton

In the majority of POTUS elections, charisma has won. I'd say the '80 election would have been a tie in the charisma department, had Carter not come across as looking so beaten down.

[sellitman]

36. You are partially right. Al Gore will be our next President....AGAIN.

:think:

[patricia92243]

38. If Hillary and Obama do serious damage to each other and Al Gore does not step in, THEN I believe Ri

Richardson has a really serious chance. And I believe there is a HUGE chance that the Hillary,Obama, Al scenario will come to pass.

[MadHound]

41. LOL, please rejoin reality

Look, I would be OK with Richardson getting the nomination nod, but sadly, he won't. He doesn't have the money, nor the corporate blessing that HIllary does. And with a front loaded primary season that favors those with deep pockets, Richardson, my favorite Kucinich, nor any of the other second tier candidates have a chance. Once again, corporate America is rigging the game to favor their hand picked candidates, sad to say.

So it will be, sadly, Hillary who gets the nod. And we will see the sad spectre of people demanding that we all march in lockstep behind a candidate who doesn't represent our views, and is in many cases in direct opposition to them.

And yes, Hillary will lose, badly.

[2008]

45. Oh, I didn't claim Richardson will get the nomination...

...and I definitely didn't claim Hillary, Obama or Edwards will not get the nomination.

My claim is that our best hope is to run someone who is not a senator, due to the ability of an opposing campaign to distort that senator's record.

Unless Gore runs, I think that leaves Richardson. Maybe Clark.

[MadHound]

63. That may be our best hope, but sadly corporate money is controlling this show

And that is going to leave everybody but Hillary out in the cold. Sad, but true:shrug:

This is why we desperately need publicly funded elections, from dogcatcher to President. Take corporate money out of the election campaign and the quality of our candidates will go up exponentially.

[WI_DEM]

42. the difference is that Edwards and Obama have not really been part of Washington

Edwards only had one term in the Senate and left while Obama is only in his first term. They haven't been there like Clinton (in her second term and then 8 years as first lady) or Biden or Dodd.

So I disagree with your analysis.

[2008]

44. "Obama and Edwards will be seen as...

"Obama and Edwards will be seen as having far too little experience (both single-term senators)."

Seems like you repeated part of my analysis, as opposed to disagreeing with it.

[WI_DEM]

47. No, experience isn't all it's cracked up to be. People are willing to look at other qualifications

such as what a person has done in there life other than politics. Americans have always been willing to do so:

Lincoln: two years in congress
Cleveland: two years as mayor of Buffalo and 2 as gov of NY
Adlai Stevenson: in first term as gov of IL when nominated in '52
Jimmy Carter: former one term governor of GA
FDR: only four years as Gov of NY, Asst. Sec of the Navy
Thomas Dewey: former DA and in first term as Gov of NY

This team (the Bush team) has done a great deal of talk about their experience with people like Cheney and Rumsfeld on the team and look at the disasterous policies they have initiated. People will take such talk in the future with a grain of salt. They will evaluate the person and their ideas.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

43. Richardson is probably running for VP.

I can't see him getting much traction anywhere.

Besides, if you want a dark horse how about Dennis Kucinich? He's not a senator.

[riverdeep]

48. It's a year and half from elections,

and people are already declaring dems the losers.

[WI_DEM]

49. anything to build there guy up and break down the others

[2008]

53. "there guy?" Richardson is not my guy

Gore would be ideal. Richardson is simply the best candidate with the most experience whose highest political office was not that of a US Senator.

Thus, my original post stating the same.

[WI_DEM]

56. I'm talking in general. too often on DU people attack others to build up a certain candidate they

favor.

[Telly Savalas]

71. Gore has a long Senate voting record.

[2008]

50. I hadn't heard that

Looking at the contenders for the dark side, I think we have a very good shot. I'd just rather have an excellent shot instead of a good one.

[WI_DEM]

51. "I hadn't heard that" well look at your title--you declare Obama, Clinton and Edwards all losers in

'08.

[2008]

54. read beyond the title, then get back to me

[WI_DEM]

57. stop being so disingenuous you keep back tracking when what you write is disputed

I read your whole post but what is the first thing that we all see? that you declare three of our top candidates losers. "Hillary hasn't a prayer" "Edwards and Obama have too little experience"

[2008]

58. this does not mean that I think the Dems are GOING to lose

[WI_DEM]

59. No, apparently if Richardson or Clark are nominated or someone who

you think can win then we will win. But your post states that if Obama, Clinton or Edwards are nominated they will lose. I tend to think we have a great field of candidates and I think almost any of them can beat the Republicans.

p.s.
for the record I like Richardson and Clark a great deal.

[2008]

61. it's still relatively early -- more than 19 months to go

as I wrote in an earlier post:

at this point in the election-'92 cycle (19+ months before election day), Bill Clinton wasn't even being discussed

if I recall correctly, Tom Harkin was the front-runner at that point

[riverdeep]

55. That's good,

but I'm reading stuff like 'And Hillary will get the nod...and, yes, she will lose, badly.'

I just don't know how anyone can know this.

[skipos]

73. Have you looked at the polls?

I know they aren't the end all be all, but Dame Rudy and Weathervane McCain do pretty damn well for being a pair Bushbot warmongers.

[InvisibleTouch]

52. Perhaps, but if I've learned one thing in the last 7 years...

...it's that conventional wisdom is usually wrong, especially here on DU. How many times have we, as a community, gotten worked up about something or been absolutely certain of an outcome, without so much as a blip in the rest of the world? (And no offense implied; just an observation.) I don't think we can look to precedents anymore, as a clue to what will happen in the future.

[Orsino]

62. Whoever polls highest will be president...

...or lose narrowly to the Republican. Whatever Richardson's merits, he is still a relative unknown. Unless that changes, he will not win, either.

[skipos]

64. I like Richardson a lot

but he will never be a DU favorite.

It is a fact that only 3 senators have been elected Pres since Lincoln, and only two sitting senators have been elected Pres EVER.

It is a fact that new england / great lakes Democratic Presidential candidates haven't done as well as southern Democratic candidates in the the last several elections.

But that doesn't mean a Governor will definitely win and a Senator definitely won't.

Of the well known candidates (Hillary, Obama, Edwards) most polls indicate Hillary has the worst favorable/ unfavorable ratings, and does the poorest in general election match ups.

[ends_dont_justify]

67. That is a very interesting observation, but senators are more well known

It leads me to believe that either very famous or very unknown candidates become POTUS, more than what they used to be. I am sure had more people known about what bush had done in his time as governor he wouldn't have been voted for (not going to say 'won' because I don't believe he did).

Perhaps what we need to do is usher up al gore or some lesser known dems with good track records to come right out of left field. Less time for the smear-machine to take place. They've been working obama, edwards and hillary to the ground for quite a long time...