Talk:U.S. presidential election, 2008/Archive 1

When did Michael Bloomberg come into this picture? Didn't the guy just switch parties to run for Mayor? His loyalty to the Republican Party is unproven, not to mention his liberal views. I doubt they would ever think of nominating him. --Jiang 23:21, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Maybe the list should be left out entirely. The article itself says such predictions would be useless. --Jiang 23:43, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

No, the article doesn't say useless, it says tentative, which is correct. --Mcarling 23:49, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Or rather, "difficult". --Jiang 23:52, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

How about Bill Owens?

The most widely-discussed candidate at this point is Colorado Gov. Bill Owens, whom the article doesn't even mention. John Ashcroft, though unelectable, is also talked about as the candidate of the Far Right.

As to Giuliani or Colin Powell, I think a great deal depends on the outcome of this year's election. If Bush is re-elected, I think it will be somebody like Frist or Owens. If Kerry wins, though, I think the Republicans will be infected with a visceral desire to "Bush" him. In that case, a pro-choice candidate like Rudy Giuliani or Colin Powell or Tom Ridge might well become acceptable on the ground of electability to people who otherwise wouldn't support him.

If Bush is re-elected and Cheney steps down in mid-term, of course, the new Veep will automatically become the front-runner

Reorganized List

I reshuffled the list of potentials in party affiliation, creating three categories, with one being for "Other Parties and independents" which I hope is respectful enough. To me, it makes it easier to see the potential races for the nominations. This is fun. -- Decumanus 09:35, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

also added Jeb and Harold Ford Jr., who if you see if him on tv, you can see how people are going to be talking about this guy a few years down the road for higher office. See [1] A bit young this time around, but I think his name will be thrown about, with implications for 2012 and beyond. I should add: I see him as a potential candidate, not a potential nominee. There's obviously a big difference. OK I added two three names. That's all the speculating I'm going to do about this thing for a while.-- Decumanus 09:46, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Do we really think a 38 year old (in 2008) Congressman without a strong national reputation will even be a potential candidate in 2008? I agree with after 2012, when he'll be 42 and possibly a Senator or Governor, but a 38 year old Congressman? Isn't that a bit of a reach, even for a list of potentials? --Xinoph 16:13, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)

I'll believe that an African American can be elected statewide in Tennessee when I see it. Until then, he's in the highest office that he can hold. When was the last time that a House member was nominated by a national party for President?

Rlquall 13:37, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Added (D)'s + Gov. Commentary

I added the following Democrats to the potential candidates section: U.S. Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana, also a former Governor U.S. Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, co-sponsor of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico, former Congressman and Secretary of Energy, amongst other things.
I also added a brief paragraph to the "Lessons from History" section pointing out that four of the last five Presidents have been Governors, and that the last U.S. Senator elected President was John Kennedy in 1960.
--Xinoph 13:00, Mar 9, 2004 (UTC)

What about Haley Barbour?

I don't know, but, I wonder if in Barbour's running for governor of Mississippi, he may be trying to set up a potential run for the presidency. After all, most Presidents have been a governor at some time or another earlier in their political careers. With that in mind, I added Barbour's name to the list.

Clinton vs Bush? again?

What if Bush wins in 2004, and in 2008 Florida Governor Bush runs against Hillary Clinton? I think It is absolutely possible.

Armen Abelyan

My prediction for the 2008 election-

Jeb Bush/Bill Frist ticket vs John Edwards/Wes Clark ticket

Bush will win re-election, thus setting up a non-incumbent election in 08. I also predict that Jeb's Bush name will stir up the Republican base, and Jeb's popularity in Florida will win him the Presidency. Bill Frist would be the perfect running-mate for Jeb.

Biographical Lines

I've added short biographical lines to the possible candidates list. I thought this would be an easy way for people to make their own decisions about whether a candidate is possible or plausible merely by looking at this page, and not pawing through all the biographical articles. In all cases I have listed only their most recent (or currently held) office; if they held that office in the past, I have indicated dates. Xinoph 15:06, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

Ruty Gulinony for president becuase of his political backround and the job that he did in New York after the terrorist attack.I think he will be the best candidate for the job.

Ashcroft

There is zero chance that Ashcroft will be a presidential candidate. First, he was defeated for reelection to the US Senate in what should have been a safe Republican seat by a dead guy. Second, he is possibly the most unpopular political figure in the US.

Exactly what I was thinking. While the major parties certainly aren't above nominating bad choices, Ashcroft goes beyond just "bad" as a choice. Even if he were stupid enough to run for nomination, even Republicans don't like him -- he would never be nominated.

--- Ashcroft as VP, especially after a terrorist attack on the US is more likely that some would like to consider, I'll wager ---

The candidate lists are too speculative

Trying to speculate about who the Democratic candidate might be before we know whether or not the incumbent will be a Democrat is premature, at best. On the Republican side, there is an overwhelming likelihood that McCain will be the nominee. The current lists portray a wholly inaccurate picture by obscuring these facts. I propose that the candidate lists be removed, at least until after the 2004 election.

Yes, but it's a handy resource for do-it-yourself political commentators :-) And it's fun to maintain. --zenohockey 01:22, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

And the "overwhelming likelihood that McCain will be the nominee" would be awfully POV, too. He's anathema to many religious conservatives, and they tend to play hugely in Republican primaries. And many serious commentators would give edges to various other candidates, notably Giuliani or Jeb Bush. 64.229.35.161 02:48, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Another point about McCain -- he will be 72 years old in 2008. Reagan aside, that's pretty old for a presidential race. I doubt he'd really be up for it. (I tend to like McCain myself, but I think 2000 was his chance, sadly.) Acheron 20:00, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

8 more years

"If George W. Bush won re-election in 2004, and sentiments across party lines looked favorably on a contest between him and Bill Clinton in 2008, a change to this term limit might find support."

Bush for 8 more years? Why not, fine by me.

This would require a constitutional amendment, which could only pass with overwhelming public support. The chances are remote. Mcarling 9:09, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Schwarzenegger

I'm not sure if he should go on the speculative candidates list, but given the talk that's been going around recently about a constitutional amendment to allow foreign-born candidates, it's entirely possible that he could be considered for 2008. TheProject 04:36, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And here I was waiting for T4 *pouts* Daddydog 06:46, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Refused Candidates"

I don't think this should be in the article. Cause afterall- most Presidential candidates say the same thing before they run. With that logic- Guilani, Frist, and Owens have to be taken off the list too. All are widely considered to be the GOP frontrunners.

Of course no one knows who it will be this early. But Jeb may throw his hat in yet, you never know. Daddydog 06:49, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've been bold and done this. (172.186.42.31 19:09, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC))

I added the section and I disagree with the removal of the list. It should be there. This is a list of potential candidates. Jeb Bush nor Dick Cheney is a potential candidate, for both have declared not to seek the presidency. Therefore, they should not be on the list. However, to make clear that they were not simply "forgotten", we need a list of candidates who declared *not* to run. That's what this list is for. I'll be bold and place it back. Gerritholl 13:17, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And yet, in politics, simply declaring that you will not run does not necessarily mean you are not a potential candidate. - Nat Krause 13:32, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think that the list should be included for that very reason - potential candidates should be listed in this article, yet we should note that they've said that they're not running. --Goobergunch 17:35, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've moved two other refused Republicans, plus the first two refused Dems (Obama and Hillary). Let's see if any of them change their minds over the next three and a bit year. (172.202.9.48 18:30, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC))

Just because a candidate says he isn't running doesn't mean it's true. Sometimes a candidate can have many reasons for saying that- not wanting the surprise to leak out, wanting to leave the base in suspense, etc.

BTW- Bill Owens and Bill Frist have both said they wont run. Based on various interviews I saw them both do on the major cable news networks. If you take all these candidates off the list (Giuliani, Frist, Owens, Pataki, Jeb, McCain- if you take all these guys off, the Republicans have no one to run). Daddydog 22:13, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Time to reform the article

I believe the "2008- if Kerry wins" scenario should be taken off right about now. Daddydog 06:51, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

John Thune

John Thune for president?!That's a bit joke!I think we should remove him from this list.Everyone agree?

John Thune is the most stupid idiot in the world.

Tom Daschle

I love Tom Daschle.

Section moved here

Hi, I've moved the following section from the article, as it has nothing to do with 2008. john k 07:38, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Moved to U.S. presidential election

I moved the last revision of this extant on our page before john k removed it again tonight to U.S. presidential election, under the heading "Presidential candidacies." I made slight changes: one typo fix, one wording change slightly downplaying Kerry and Edwards' surges leading up to the first primaries which I thought was overplayed, and obvious changes to the superstructure to fit it into the context of its new home. There's considerable promise there for there for a section of encyclopedic value and use, but it probably was misplaced in an article about the 2008 election. Samaritan 07:40, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. I have no problem with the section as such, but it has nothing to do with 2008. john k 16:10, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Candidates: The lessons from history

Predictions as to who will be a major party's candidate in the 2008 election are difficult to make. Past selections suggest that the Democrats and Republicans will likely look to a present or former President or Vice-President, a Senator or Representative, or a state Governor. The last candidate from one of the two major parties who had not previously served in one of the elective offices listed above was General Dwight D. Eisenhower who won the Republican nomination and ultimately the presidency in the 1952 election.

It should be noted that although Representatives and Cabinet members have frequently run in their party's primaries, they have rarely been nominated in the 20th century. Furthermore, most Senators nominated have served at least one full term, and often in a leadership capacity, before being considered prominent enough to become a serious contender for their party's nomination.

In recent years, electoral success has favored state governors. Of the last five Presidents (Carter, Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush), only George H.W. Bush was never Governor of a state. Geographically, these Presidents were all from either very large states (California, Texas) or from a state south of the Mason-Dixon Line and east of Texas (Georgia, Arkansas). The last elected President from a northern state was John F. Kennedy of Massachusetts in 1960; he was also the last sitting U.S. Senator elected President.

A major turnover in each of these offices will occur in gubernatorial and congressional elections due in 2006, which could see new potential challengers emerging or present challengers facing new circumstances.

Among the past upsets and unexpected candidates were the following:

• Abraham Lincoln was a little-known Congressman from Illinois when he arrived in New York City for the Republican Convention in 1860. His speech at the Cooper Union immediately catapulted him into the nomination. The photographs of him taken by Matthew Brady in his signature tophat before his speech were distributed to newspapers around the country, making him an instant nationwide celebrity. The current nominating process makes convention surprises like this extremely unlikely.
• Warren G. Harding was a little-known U.S. Senator from Ohio before receiving the Republican nomination in presidential election of 1920. Considered the last true "dark horse" candidate, he emerged from complete obscurity to become president in less than six months.
• Calvin Coolidge was a little-known one-term governor of Massachusetts leading up to the presidential election of 1920. Following a deadlock for vice president at the 1920 Republican National Convention, he received the nomination after a delegate from Oregon shouted his name out into the crowd. After Harding's death in 1923, Coolidge received the nomination and easily won re-election in the presidential election of 1924.
• Many people predicted that the presidential election of 1936 would be a close election, in part due to what was expected to be a strong challenge from the left by William Lemke and the short-lived Union Party, but President Franklin D. Roosevelt defeated Kansas Governor Alfred M. Landon in a landslide.
• In 1944, Harry S. Truman was a little known U.S. Senator from Missouri. Picked by Franklin Roosevelt to replace the increasingly radical Henry Wallace as Vice President, Truman still languished in near complete obscurity during the first months of his term as Vice President and was never once invited to the White House by Roosevelt. Immediately after Roosevelt's death, Truman was catapulted into the Presidency. Later he was widely predicted to lose the presidential election of 1948, with Governor Thomas Dewey seen as the certain victor. This prediction, however, was largely based on telephone polling at a time when there was still a statistically very significant proportion of the population who did not have telephones, and who generally favored Truman.
• Most Republican insiders, and many other observers, in 1952 felt that "Mr. Republican" Robert Taft would easily turn back the challenge of General Dwight D. Eisenhower, previously an apolitical soldier who had never so much as even voted; however it was "Ike", not Taft, who went on the the Republican presidential nomination and won subsequent election.
• In 1964 it seemed to many that Senator Barry Goldwater would be too conservative to make major inroads into the ensconced "regular" Republican apparatus that had governed the party for generations. This perception was enhanced when the 1964 New Hampshire primary was won by Henry Cabot Lodge in a write-in campaign largely orchestrated by the Manchester Union-Leader. However, Goldwater came back to swamp his rivals, notably Nelson Rockefeller, in the later primaries and then withstood a "Anybody But Goldwater" movement which coalesced around Pennsylvania governor William Scranton in the runup to the 1964 Republican National Convention, and Goldwater received the nomination, but was swamped by Lyndon Johnson in the general election.
• Following his defeat in the 1960 election, few imagined that Richard Nixon would become the Republican nominee, let alone the Republican victor, in the 1968 election, nor were they prepared for the shock assassination of Senator Robert Kennedy and the decision of President Lyndon Johnson to drop out of the 1968 race. These events resulted in an electoral battle that no one had expected. In mid-1967 the conventional wisdom was that Michigan governor George Romney would be the Republican nominee, or that New York governor Nelson Rockerfeller would finally be successful in obtaining the nomination on his third attempt. It hardly seemed likely that Romney would drop out of the race in December, 1967, three months before the first primary was held in New Hampshire, or that Rockefeller would again be overwhelmed in the primaries by the unsucessful nominee from eight years prior. Later the "conventional wisdom" became that George Wallace, Democratic governor of Alabama running for President on the ticket of his self-created American Independent Party, would carry most or all of the eleven states of the old Confederacy, probably forcing the election into the United States House of Representatives and becoming something of a "kingmaker" who could make strong demands upon the major party candidates in exchange for Southern support. However, in the end he wound up receiving only about 13% of the popular vote and 46 electoral votes, which was not enough to force the election into the House or otherwise disrupt anything about Nixon's plurality popular vote win and large Electoral College majority.
• In 1972, it was widely predicted that the 1972 Democratic nominee would be either 1968 vice presidential nominee Edmund S. Muskie or his old boss, 1968 Democratic presidential nominee Hubert H. Humphrey. Few thought that it would be George McGovern, a Senator from a state with only three electoral votes (South Dakota) which usually supported Republicans in presidential elections, and who was little-known by the public at large outside of Democratic Party inner circles until the 1972 primary season.
• After the 1972 election, few could have predicted that the 1976 presidential election would involve Congressman Gerald Ford, who suddenly became Vice President and then President after the resignations of Vice President Spiro Agnew and President Nixon. Likewise, Georgia Governor Jimmy Carter was largely unknown politician prior to his 1976 run, and not expected to be a large player in the race. In fact, the announcement that he was running was met with yawns by most political pundits and the mainstream media of the time, and this perception did not change until his upset win in the Iowa caucuses. Conversely Senator Edward Kennedy was widely predicted as destined to be the Democratic candidate in either 1976 or 1980. However, after the depth to which the 1969 Chappaquiddick scandal had damaged his credibity with much of the public at large, including many Democratic primary voters, at least those outside of Massachusetts, became readily apparent, Kennedy's name was taken off the table temporarily. After an attempt to seek the Democratic nomination in the 1980 election revealed just the depth to which this scandal and the damage it had done to his reputation had lingered, and the general public's perception of him of being, unlike his brothers, an "ultraliberal", Kennedy has never again sought the presidency.
• Gary Hart was a little-known U.S. Senator from Colorado at the time he lauched his bid in 1983. Few political commentators had been prepared for the initial shock of Hart beating former Vice President Walter Mondale in the 1984 New Hampshire Primary and challenging Mondale for the Democratic nomination. Hart was later considered a frontrunner for the 1988 Democratic nomination before the Donna Rice affair in 1987.
• Michael Dukakis was not widely predicted to be candidate for the 1988 election until his challenge was launched.
• After the 1988 election, Bill Clinton (then Governor of Arkansas) was not regarded as serious contender for the 1992 election. His long-winded and widely ridiculed opening night address at the 1988 Democratic National Convention was generally thought to destroyed whatever small amount of credibility he might have possessed at the national level. At the time, many people believed that New York governor Mario Cuomo would be Democratic candidate in 1992. When the Gennifer Flowers affair was then exposed in early 1992, it was at first assumed that it would destroy Clinton's chance for the nomination in the same way that the Donna Rice affair had destroyed those of Gary Hart five years previously.
• Paul Tsongas, Bill Clinton's main challenger for the 1992 nomination, was a little known former U.S. Senator from Massachusetts at the start of the 1992 campaign.
• George H. W. Bush was seen by many as unbeatable in the year prior to the 1992 presidential election due to his record approval ratings in the wake of the Gulf War.
• Howard Dean, former governor of the small state of Vermont, was not considered a serious contender when he launched his bid in 2003. Conversely, he later held commanding leads in both fundraising and opinion polls during the months prior to the Democratic primaries in the 2004 presidential election, but his campaign fizzled after stunning surges from John Kerry and John Edwards in the weeks prior to the earliest primaries.

The failure of front-runners like Edward Kennedy, Mario Cuomo and Howard Dean to win their parties' nominations, and unexpected victories like those of Harry Truman, Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, show that any predictions made will have to be tentative.

Conversely, early serious contenders (excluding sitting presidents) who turned back their challengers and later went on to receive their party's nomination as expected include:

• Herbert Hoover in 1928. Although never elected to office, he had served as Secretary of Commerce and was widely known as an "engineering genius" for his relief efforts in Europe in World War I. He was widely considered as Coolidge's heir apparent who would continue the prosperity of the 1920s.
• Thomas Dewey in 1944. Although he had lost to Franklin Roosevelt in the waning days of World War II in 1944, he was later considered the frontrunner for the nomination in 1948.
• Adlai Stevenson in 1956. He had been the nominee in 1952, losing to Dwight Eisenhower.
• Richard Nixon in 1960, the sitting Vice President.
• John F. Kennedy in 1960. Although not considered the frontrunner in part because of his relative youth (many thought Stevenson would win a third nomination), he was widely considered to be a possible candidate at some point. His victory over Hubert Humphrey in the West Virginia primary established him as a serious candidate to challenge party insider Lyndon Johnson, who later became Kennedy's Vice President.
• Hubert Humphrey in 1968, the sitting Vice President. His most serious challenger, Robert Kennedy, entered the race late but was assassinated after winning the California Primary less than two months before the convention.
• Ronald Reagan in 1980. He had mounted a serious and hard-fought challenge to Gerald Ford in 1976. Early in the campaign, however, few anticipated his landslide victory over Jimmy Carter.
• Walter Mondale in 1984, former Vice President, who turned back the unexpected challenge from Gary Hart.
• George H.W. Bush in 1988, the sitting Vice President. Although he received an early challenge from televangelist Pat Robertson, he drive for the nomination was never seriously threatened.
• Al Gore in 2000, the sitting Vice President, who turned back a challenge from Senator Bill Bradley.
• George W. Bush in 2000. His early heavyweight status was based partly on name recognition. He received the lion's share of early fundraising support in the Republican Party in 1999 and later turned back a serious challenge from John McCain to seal the nomination on Super Tuesday in March 2000.
• John F. Kerry in 2004. His early frontrunner status was due to several factors: his lengthy Senate career, his inclusion in 2000 on Al Gore's VP "short list", and his well-known military service in Vietnam. In the pre-voting, fundraising phase of the primary process, his campaign stalled and Vermont Governor Howard Dean became the leading candidate in the eyes of the media and many enthusiastic volunteers. Kerry reshuffled his campaign staff, won the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary, and almost every primary thereafter.

A question from a newcomer

I feel uncomfortable pontificating on American politics, as I am a newcomer to the USA, having moved to this country from England just over a year ago. But I was wondering about an omission form the possible Democratic candidates list. My wife's home state of West Virginia was in the news briefly for electing a Democratic governor, Joe Manchin, despite the state going to Bush in the presidential race. Manchin seems to fit the criteria for potential candidates outlined in the article, being governor of a state south of the Mason-Dixon line and east of Texas. He also has proven ability to appeal to red-state voters. I would have thought this would at least make him a possibility as a Dem candidate. But as I know so little, I assume there's some reason that he wasn't included which I'm missing. I'm just posting this to find out what that reason is. I have no connection to the man or his campaign beyond the fact that my wife was born in WV - if he had been governor of any other state, I doubt I'd have even noticed him in the newspaper reports!

Once again - my view is that people should only be listed if they have been mentioned as potential presidential candidates in the press, not because wikipedians think they would be plausible candidates. The latter strikes me as being essentially "original research," which we are not supposed to engage in. john k 18:37, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Pelosi and Reid, "refused" candidates

Firstly, can anyone give any support for Pelosi and Reid being discussed as possible candidates for the nomination? If it is unsourced, I see no basis for the argument that they should be on the list. Secondly, considering that some of the most discussed candidates have at least quasi-refused to run, wouldn't it be appropriate to list them all together, and note any refusals in the description, rather than having a separate section? john k 18:40, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Removed fluff

I trimmed this out the of the article:

Each candidate listed carries both strengths and deficits; a candidate may be much younger than the typical presidential candidate, or older, or may have some weakness (or overweight) in senior-level political experience, national, foreign or domestic experience, or executive leadership experience. Some candidates may be seen as especially liberal for a presidential candidate, others as especially conservative. These are not lists of the most "mainstream" or "electable" candidates alone. As much as possible, potential candidates listed are among those who could mount reasonably high-profile campaigns for their party's nomination, or independent candidacies as applicable.

Essentially, these sentences don't make an argument. They convey no information that would be either essential or informative. --Jiang 01:03, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I wrote that essentially to caution against the plague of extremely subjective deletions without breaking into self-reference; maybe a self-referential tag outside of the main article would have been better. Anyway, I liked your shortened version Jiang, and there's now a note to editors at the top of the Democratic and Republican that appears only in the edit window conveys the same basic caution. 64.229.33.197 01:17, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)