Originally Posted By Mr X >>>But "negative and dirty" is counter to the whole Obama persona that makes him popular to begin with, so I don't see him doing that<<< Don't forget the power of the 'net. It'll be interesting how this plays out, but I'm thinking the "grassroots fight" is only beginning. Who knows how much his people actually know about it (my guess is a lot), but it can be done without Obama or his people actually getting their hands dirty. Same goes for all the others. This will be an interesting one, I think. Oh, and whoever brought up Bush and a 3rd term...that happens to be my worst nightmare. Seriously. If another attack were to occur, I can completely imagine him lobbying for another term under the guise of "a wartime president who can't leave the nation unprotected". Scary.
Originally Posted By JeffG >> "I predict, that having ANOTHER four years to prepare, the two Democratic front-runners will engage in such dirty politics and constant negativity, that, AGAIN, due to their complete incompetence, Americans, by a slim margin will run from these clowns, thereby causing the Democratic party to lose AGAIN to the Republican nominee....and, of course, cry for the next 4-8 years." << Keep in mind that the Republicans do not have an incumbent candidate this time either and look poised for a rather competitive race as well. I could easily see the bitter and nasty politics in the primaries of both parties essentially canceling each other out. -Jeff
Originally Posted By Mr X Yes, and Cheney can roll in the mud with the best of em. Oh, wait. He's not actually RUNNING is he?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 >>>But "negative and dirty" is counter to the whole Obama persona that makes him popular to begin with, so I don't see him doing that<<< <Don't forget the power of the 'net. It'll be interesting how this plays out, but I'm thinking the "grassroots fight" is only beginning. Who knows how much his people actually know about it (my guess is a lot), but it can be done without Obama or his people actually getting their hands dirty. Same goes for all the others.> Yes, there's always the "surrogate warfare," which can only be enhanced with the 'net and hard-to-trace videos and the like (I talked about this on another thread), but the persona of the candidate himself makes a big difference. Reagan's surrogates did plenty of negative campaigning, for instance, but Reagan himself always had the optimistic persona (and teflon coating). In other words, some campaigns can get away with having negative campaigning "under the table" and the candidate himself isn't stained with it somehow. Some people are, some people aren't. <Oh, and whoever brought up Bush and a 3rd term...that happens to be my worst nightmare. Seriously. If another attack were to occur, I can completely imagine him lobbying for another term under the guise of "a wartime president who can't leave the nation unprotected". Scary.> Rudy G. actually tried to pull that in NY - i.e. I should stay on as Mayor, because no one else can possibly lead us now. What was scary was how many New Yorkers were okay with that idea. (Fortunately, Bloomberg was having none of it). It's one of several reasons why Rudy isn't my fave.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> "I predict, that having ANOTHER four years to prepare, the two Democratic front-runners will engage in such dirty politics and constant negativity, that, AGAIN, due to their complete incompetence, Americans, by a slim margin will run from these clowns, thereby causing the Democratic party to lose AGAIN to the Republican nominee....and, of course, cry for the next 4-8 years." << This comment completely ignores the reality of the `00 and `04 campaigns. Remember 'swiftboating'? Remember kerry being a traitor, and bush being a war hero? Remember mccain having a drunk for a wife and an illegitimate black baby? Remembering the 'whispering campaigns' about who might be secretly gay? Those were all brought to us courtesy of our 43rd president.
Originally Posted By onlyme To be honest, I really don't feel that Obama wants to get dirty(Hillary does), but will have no choice when Mrs. Clinton starts 'pulling out all the stops'. He'll fight fire with fire. What choice will he have? And to further my prediction...even with the disdain that many have with the Bush Administration, I see the usual 'implosion' by a particular party, which will allow the other party, who everyone supposedly hates, to waltz into the White House. I'm not trying to be a partisan jerk, really. I won't cry if a Democratic is elected. I've just gotten used to seeing the Democratic party self-destruct- usually at the wrong time-close to the election. As we all know, politics are cyclical. It's 'time' for a Democratic president. But can they do it? Can they run a good race and finish without screwing things up? We'll see. >>Remember 'swiftboating'? Remember kerry being a traitor, and bush being a war hero? Remember mccain having a drunk for a wife and an illegitimate black baby? Remembering the 'whispering campaigns' about who might be secretly gay?<< Looking forward to see what goodies are pulled out of the hat in the comong months/year.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <He'll fight fire with fire. What choice will he have?> There's a difference between answering negative attacks and going negative oneself. If Hillary starts going dirty/negative, he would theoretically have the choice - not to say he'd take it, but theoretically - to say "My opponent is going dirty and negative, but I refuse to do so." If he could resist the temptation to go negative himself if/when Hillary does, it might underscore the negative impression a lot of people have of her, while boosting his own positive persona. It would probably be the smartest thing he could do. But it might be hard to resist the temptation.
Originally Posted By onlyme Yes, I realize that if your opponent is lashing out with a barage of junk, you need to respond. I wouldn't fault him for that. Now, if he did, in fact, resist the temptation to counter-attack and simply responded to the 'accusations' that Hillary WILL throw his way, he might even get my vote. It would be very refreshing to see. I know he's lacking in the experience department, but for some reason, I like him. Of course, I know little about him, so I'll have to wait and see. God......just not Hillary, please!!
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Remember 'swiftboating'? Remember kerry being a traitor, and bush being a war hero? Remember mccain having a drunk for a wife and an illegitimate black baby? Remembering the 'whispering campaigns' about who might be secretly gay? Those were all brought to us courtesy of our 43rd president.> No, they weren't.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 McCain/Richardson in a close one over Clinton/Edwards -- and echo the earlier sentiment that due to dirty political smears on TV and radio - by election time I will just want it to be over --
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <McCain/Richardson in a close one over Clinton/Edwards > McCain/Richardson???
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Yes, I think it would more likely be McCain/Pawlenty. I think that ticket could likely win, but I do wonder about McCain's age. If I'm not mistaken, McCain would be older entering his first term of office than Reagan was when entering his second.
Originally Posted By alexbook Fred Dalton Thompson/Condoleeza Rice d. John Edwards/Barack Obama Thompson spends the campaign looking genial and "Reaganesque" and making jokes about how young Edwards is, while Rice keeps attacking affirmative action and denouncing the Democratic candidates' lack of experience in foreign affairs.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <<McCain/Richardson in a close one over Clinton/Edwards > McCain/Richardson???< that's what happens when multi tasking - doh ! McCain/ Guilliani
Originally Posted By JohnS1 McCai/Richardson's not a bad ticket, actually. I think a novel idea would be for a moderate Republican and a conservative democrat to join together and run as a joint party ticket. I originally thought McCain/Lieberman would be good, but if age is a big factor, they would both be considered too old, I guess.
Originally Posted By friendofdd As an independent, I can only wait until the parties pick thier candidates, but I will predict if a Democrat wins, S/he will not be trusted by the Repubs, and if a Republican wins s/he will be despised by the Dems. With this long time 50/50 split in the electorate,sadly, we have little chance of a president who can gain the support of Americans in general.
Originally Posted By alexbook Well, looks like I might have been wrong about Fred Thompson's appeal. That's actually a bit of a relief to this liberal.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Thanks for reviving this topic, Alex! Even though my prediction is unlikely in the extreme.
