Rattle wrote:

"I will be considering it next year," Giuliani said during a visit to Denmark. But he added that playing with the idea of running for the Republican nomination for president did not mean he would actually do it.

"Sometime you warm up and get ready and you don't get in and pitch," he told reporters, in a baseball analogy.

Could we wind up with Rudy Giuliani and John McCain on the same ticket in 2008? Against Hilary Clinton maybe? Al Gore take two? It would be a big mistake to have John Kerry run again. Who do the Democrats have in the wings at this point? I couldn't picture myself voting for Clinton..

I'd go for a Giuliani/McCain ticket, but I don't think that would really speak to the Republican base.

I'd go for a Giuliani/McCain ticket, but I don't think that would really speak to the Republican base.

This may be somewhat inflammatory, but the Republican base are generally idiots in the respect that they are more than happy to take the "go team" attitude at any given point, as there is usually a notable absence of people with any actual developed beliefs or ideas. The Republican base as it is commonly perceived these days is more interested in if the ticket speaks to their "values" than any political philosophy. If this wasn't the case, the Republican base would be asking for Bush's head due his fiscal policy. In my experience, the average Republican chomps ideas more than creates or grows them, and is way more concerned with being right than being correct. This being in contrast with average-joe-left, who always has all kinds of ideas and beliefs, the bulk of which are completely unreasonable, making even group cohesion difficult, and explaining some of the Democrat's current woes. In short, it doesn't matter what the Republican ticket is. Its more useful to them to have a ticket that appeals to the moderate left and center. They have control of the government, and that's the way to keep it.

No one in the Republican base is going to change teams because they don't like the ticket. At worst, they will complain about it, and vote red anyway. They will even still contribute to the campaign, because they support the team more than any given candidate.

Of course, if it does go that way, it will only last one election cycle. Afterwards, we will actually be back to a two party system again.. haw haw haw

Given the current political climate, its the Democrat's base that are fickle and likely to switch teams. That is unless something seriously changes, and soon. The people who think Katrina was that thing are just fucked in the head. Same for Drama-o'-Delay.. Nothing about any of this is going to give the Democratic party the cohesion and vision it appears to be lacking. Not unless someone actually comes up with an answer, a message, and manages to deliver it.

More people voted for Kerry because they hated Bush than because they liked Kerry. That dynamic remains present. Only next time, there will be no Bush.

Rattle wrote:

I'd go for a Giuliani/McCain ticket, but I don't think that would really speak to the Republican base.

This may be somewhat inflammatory, but the Republican base are generally idiots in the respect that they are more than happy to take the "go team" attitude at any given point, as there is usually a notable absence of people with any actual developed beliefs or ideas.

I totally disagree. The Republican base has a strong set of policy objectives:
1. Christian Conservative morals legislated.
2. Stop illegal immigration.
3. Have an aggressive forgien policy.

They are not getting 1 or 2 from a Giuliani/McCain ticket. Hillary Clinton has come out swinging at video games and illegals. The culture warriors might be more attracted to her, ironically. Giuliani/McCain would be more attractive to them from a forgien policy standpoint, but at best that would mean a broken base with some not showing up to vote at all.

I think its much more likely that one of these two will be paired with someone who is a little more red, in the way that Bush appeals to the base and Cheney appeals to the moderates. I think they were lining Frist up to be that guy, and I think they'll play him if they can. Or they'll play someone else you haven't heard of yet.

And I think they think Giuliani is a better Republican then McCain.

No one in the Republican base is going to change teams because they don't like the ticket.

There is some truth to this sentiment, but they are likely to just stay home from the polls.

Given the current political climate, its the Democrat's base that are fickle and likely to switch teams.

I agree. Most of the people who voted blue last time opposed the Iraq war. Without such an item to vote on they may be up for grabs.

Unfortunately I think I will have a choice in 2008 between someone who is an enemy of civil liberties and someone whose election will be interpreted by the enemies of civil liberties as a mandate for their adgenda. It might be a good year to vote for a libertarian.

There is some truth to this sentiment, but they are likely to just stay home from the polls.

This nails the flaw in my logic. The result would be less voter turnout from the base, not losing the base's "support". Its so easy to forget that not everyone votes..

It might be a good year to vote for a libertarian.

What?! You can do that?! Its actually an option? No way...

I'd give the Greens a better chance of putting together a power structure capable of manning (and getting to) the White House than the Libertarian party. And that's coming from someone that calls themselves a libertarian (most of the time). We don't have a party. We are a bunch of lone nuts! That's not going to change in a year...

Saying you are a Libertarian is like saying you are an Agnostic. Not having a church is different from not going to one.

Granted, they do have a webpage that seems to get updated every so often. They've had an exit strategy for Iraq since June. Its even a whole six pages long. It consists of "leave, fast". Real reasonable. The word libertarian connotes a philosophy more than a party. You need a party, an organized one at that, to inhabit the White House.

Decius wrote:

I totally disagree. The Republican base has a strong set of policy objectives:
1. Christian Conservative morals legislated.
2. Stop illegal immigration.
3. Have an aggressive forgien policy.

You can stop at 1. The Republican "base" is un-Christian, anti-democratic and probably the single greatest organized threat to the continued survival of the human race.

The Republican candidate in 2008 will again reflect their special brand of insanity. They're the ones who make a point to get out and vote in the primaries. They're how Pat Robertson won states in the '88 primaries, and why the next candidate will be just as, if not even more, right wing.

Rudy might be very popular, but he has no chance if he were to run, nor does McCain at this point. Their next candidate will be someone in the mold of Rick Santorum or Sam Brownback. Someone who knows how to whip the base into a crusade.

(and yes, I'm willing to back up why I think they're that kind of threat)

Rattle wrote:

"I will be considering it next year," Giuliani said during a visit to Denmark. But he added that playing with the idea of running for the Republican nomination for president did not mean he would actually do it.

"Sometime you warm up and get ready and you don't get in and pitch," he told reporters, in a baseball analogy.

Could we wind up with Rudy Giuliani and John McCain on the same ticket in 2008? Against Hilary Clinton maybe? Al Gore take two? It would be a big mistake to have John Kerry run again. Who do the Democrats have in the wings at this point? I couldn't picture myself voting for Clinton..

Giuliani would crush Billary. There are too many on the left who vehemently hate hilary clinton, never-mind the right. While Giuliani is disliked by some, there are very few who get angered just by mentioning his name. In that pairing, this would be his edge.

terratogen wrote:

Rattle wrote:

"I will be considering it next year," Giuliani said during a visit to Denmark. But he added that playing with the idea of running for the Republican nomination for president did not mean he would actually do it.

"Sometime you warm up and get ready and you don't get in and pitch," he told reporters, in a baseball analogy.

Could we wind up with Rudy Giuliani and John McCain on the same ticket in 2008? Against Hilary Clinton maybe? Al Gore take two? It would be a big mistake to have John Kerry run again. Who do the Democrats have in the wings at this point? I couldn't picture myself voting for Clinton..

Giuliani would crush Billary. There are too many on the left who vehemently hate hilary clinton, never-mind the right. While Giuliani is disliked by some, there are very few who get angered just by mentioning his name. In that pairing, this would be his edge.

Thats not my read. In fact, I know lots of professional young women just waiting to take time off if Hillary runs to work for her campaign. She gets mad female respect for taking a shitty marriage (which sounds familiar to most American women) and turning it into a career. Nevermind that she's not associated with the party that bankrupted the nation in Iraq, and believes in taking the nation 50 years back ideologically. Hillary has it, I think. She can win. None of her opponents even ring a bell with most people.

I see Hillary vs. Who the Fuck Ever, and I see Hillary having a good chance to take it on name recongnition alone. Not like reactionaries were gonna vote for someone they haven't already engineered a smear campaign against, anyway.

Jello wrote:

Thats not my read. In fact, I know lots of professional young women just waiting to take time off if Hillary runs to work for her campaign. She gets mad female respect for taking a shitty marriage (which sounds familiar to most American women) and turning it into a career. Nevermind that she's not associated with the party that bankrupted the nation in Iraq, and believes in taking the nation 50 years back ideologically. Hillary has it, I think. She can win. None of her opponents even ring a bell with most people.

I see Hillary vs. Who the Fuck Ever, and I see Hillary having a good chance to take it on name recongnition alone. Not like reactionaries were gonna vote for someone they haven't already engineered a smear campaign against, anyway.

She has quite a bit going against her as well though... Freedom of speech people don't like her, She's about as charismatic as a pit bull and is about as ambitious as lady macbeth, and, like third party candidates too many either won't show up to vote for her, or will vote against her because there is a false impression that a woman cant win the election. For Hilary to have a chance, the republicans would have to pick someone as evil as satan, or even Pat Buchanan. If the republicans have any sense, they'll pick a moderate candidate this time and ensure an easy victory vs. practically any dem.

Rattle wrote:

"I will be considering it next year," Giuliani said during a visit to Denmark. But he added that playing with the idea of running for the Republican nomination for president did not mean he would actually do it.

"Sometime you warm up and get ready and you don't get in and pitch," he told reporters, in a baseball analogy.

Could we wind up with Rudy Giuliani and John McCain on the same ticket in 2008? Against Hilary Clinton maybe? Al Gore take two? It would be a big mistake to have John Kerry run again. Who do the Democrats have in the wings at this point? I couldn't picture myself voting for Clinton..

I would vote for Giuliani hands down. He would be an excellent choice.