hcallega Posted May 30, 2008 Share Posted May 30, 2008 Many historians would call the 2004 presidential election as crazy as the one in 2000. On the Democratic side, Lieberman was dropped from the ticket due to controversial remarks regarding his support for an invasion of Iraq. He decided to challenge Gore for the nomination but was met with little support. He was joined in his challenge by Ohio congressman Dennis Kucinich, a one-issue candidate who supported single-payer healtcare, and the Rev. Al Sharpton, who criticized Gore for his lack of support for far-left policies. None of these candidates ever got close to Gore however. Gore would chose populist Senator John Edwards for VP. On the Republican side, frontrunner John McCain stummbled early, as Colin Powell won several early primaries and caucusses. Conservative Fred Thompson also gained support outside of the south. Ultimately the Republican field became a battle between Thompson, Powell, and Rick Santorum. Powell received most of his support from grassroots supporters and the belief that the Republicans needed something different to defeat the 3rd-Way Democratic party. Thompson received his support from buisness and the republican party base in the south and west. Santorum gained his support from the Christian Right and Neoconservatives. Ultimately Thompson would edge out Powell due to his stronger fundraising backing. He would chose his strong ally, Sen. John McCain, for his VP. In the general, it was a race between Gore, Thompson, and Lieberman (Lieberman chose NY mayor Michael Bloomberg to be his VP). It was a close election, but Gore prevailed by winning all of his 2000 states, plus Nevada and Ohio, minus Florida. Lieberman only affected the race by making it closer in the pacific northwest and by swinging NH to Thompson. In his second term Gore focused his efforts towards Universal Brodband, Universal Health Care, and confronting Global Warming. While he suceeded in passing more enviromental standards, he failed to socialize medacin or make the internet free. His precidency will be viewed as a mixed sucess, where he suceeded in pushing through moderate measures but where he failed at creating more liberal measures. Now it is time to elect a new president. I would love some help with candidates, issues, and what states should be swing. List of Candidates: Democrats Sen. Hillary Clinton-NY Pushing for a continuation of Gore's policies. Gore Ally VP John Edwards-NC Supports a continuation of Gore's more liberal policies. Gore Ally Fmr. VP Joe Lieberman-CT Wants to turn the Democrats into a true "Third-Way, Centrist Party". Gore Enemy. Sen. Barack Obama-IL Supports more progressive policies. Gore neutral Republicans Sen. John McCain-AZ Wants to cut domestic spending and more aggresively confront Iran/Iraq Fmr. Gov. Mitt Romney-MA Running as a moderate who wants to "tweek" Gore's more moderate policies Rep. Ron Paul-TX Running as a libertarian republican Sen. Sam Brownback-KS Running as the Christian Rights Candidate Sen. Chuck Hagel-NE Running as a staunch pro-millitary, fiscal conservative Fmr. Gov. Mike Huckabee-AR Running as a southern, socially conservative populist Independents Mayor Mike Bloomberg-NY Running as a reformer FYI, the senate is in the control of the Dems, 53-47, as it was 50-50 after 2004. Dems won in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee (Due to Gore's strong support of Harold Ford Jr.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VoteGOP Posted May 30, 2008 Share Posted May 30, 2008 All I have to say is make it winnable for the GOP. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NYCDEMS Posted May 30, 2008 Share Posted May 30, 2008 I really like the idea of this scenario. I'll think of some candidates and issues for you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedStateProgressive Posted May 31, 2008 Share Posted May 31, 2008 Looks awesome. I would have made Clinton Gore's Veep, though. You could have Lieberman to come back and challenge the current Veep, and a nobody (at this point) Obama come up through the ranks to challenge them both. It'd be like the West Wing, except Clinton is Russell, Lieberman is Hoynes, and Obama is Santos. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NYCDEMS Posted May 31, 2008 Share Posted May 31, 2008 Sounds like a good idea. I do believe that Clinton would have an immense lead over the other candidates though because he is a skilled politician, far more than Lieberman or Obama. And I too like the West Wing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedStateProgressive Posted May 31, 2008 Share Posted May 31, 2008 Sounds like a good idea. I do believe that Clinton would have an immense lead over the other candidates though because he is a skilled politician, far more than Lieberman or Obama. And I too like the West Wing. Yeah. A three-way split between them would be good, with Clinton the favored, as she was this year, Lieberman in a close second, and Obama taking a lead in some swing primaries, including those he's done well in this year. Now if only the GOP had someone as good as Vinick... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NYCDEMS Posted May 31, 2008 Share Posted May 31, 2008 Yeah. A three-way split between them would be good, with Clinton the favored, as she was this year, Lieberman in a close second, and Obama taking a lead in some swing primaries, including those he's done well in this year. Now if only the GOP had someone as good as Vinick... The only Republican that would come close to Vinick would be Guiliani. They both have similar stances on many issues, they're both liberal-moderate republicans and they're both from solid Democratic states where they are very popular. Then there need to be traditional conservatives who are like Butler and Walken. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hcallega Posted May 31, 2008 Author Share Posted May 31, 2008 I'm glad this is getting a good response. As far as winnability for the GOP, it will be just as winnable as 2000 was. The GOP will be down a little, but lets remember that this 2008 is not the 2008 of real life. States like Montana, Virginia, NC, Colorado, NM, and Nevada will not be leaning Democrat in the same way they are today. The GOP is in a situation in this scenario where they have lost four straight elections to a different kind of Democrat. Clinton and Gore were hard to put into a corner as Social Democrats who lacked values. But in this election the true centrist (Lieberman) is not a front runner. Instead it is liberals like Hillary and Edwards who are front runners. As far as GOP candidates, Rudy will not be one, as in this cannon 9/11 did not occur and he would have faded out. McCain will be the frontrunner, as he can make a case that it has been southern conservatives like Bush and Thomspon who have failed the party. Then again Huckabee can state that his vesion of southern populism will also appeal across the country, as he is less economically conservative. And then there is always Romney, who can state that he is the new face of the GOP: a moderate, progress oriented Governor. What I really need help with is who else to add to the fields. Here is who I'm considering for each party: DEMS Mark Warner: If he doesn't run for the senate, he could run as a Clintonian Dem Evan Bayh: He could run as a true Gore Dem Joe Biden: He ran in 2008 Bill Richardson: Thrid way candidate with good experience Russ Feingold: Stuanch Liberal/Progressive who has a McCarthy/McGovernness to him Kucinich: Ran in 2008 GOP Hunter: Ran in 08 George Allen: Didn't lose in this cannon, so he could be the next in the line of southern conservatives Bloomberg: I believe that he would still be a Republican because Bush was never president I need issue help, but i'm thinking that issues like Iran and Israel should dominate foreign policy rather than Iraq. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedStateProgressive Posted May 31, 2008 Share Posted May 31, 2008 For the GOP, I'd probably add in George Pataki. More alternatives for the GOP and an alternative to the Southern Conservatives who've failed the party...Not to mention he's a centrist on social issues and is pro-choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NYCDEMS Posted June 1, 2008 Share Posted June 1, 2008 I too believe that much of the foreign policy would be focused around Israel and Iran. With regards to the candidates, Bloomberg probably would leave the Republican Party to become an Independent. He is a life long Democrat and he only joined the Republican Party to win the NYC mayoral primaries and become mayor. If anything he is a Democrat. If he were to run it would probably be as an Independent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
president9 Posted June 2, 2008 Share Posted June 2, 2008 I'm glad this is getting a good response. As far as winnability for the GOP, it will be just as winnable as 2000 was. The GOP will be down a little, but lets remember that this 2008 is not the 2008 of real life. States like Montana, Virginia, NC, Colorado, NM, and Nevada will not be leaning Democrat in the same way they are today. The GOP is in a situation in this scenario where they have lost four straight elections to a different kind of Democrat. Clinton and Gore were hard to put into a corner as Social Democrats who lacked values. But in this election the true centrist (Lieberman) is not a front runner. Instead it is liberals like Hillary and Edwards who are front runners. As far as GOP candidates, Rudy will not be one, as in this cannon 9/11 did not occur and he would have faded out. McCain will be the frontrunner, as he can make a case that it has been southern conservatives like Bush and Thomspon who have failed the party. Then again Huckabee can state that his vesion of southern populism will also appeal across the country, as he is less economically conservative. And then there is always Romney, who can state that he is the new face of the GOP: a moderate, progress oriented Governor. What I really need help with is who else to add to the fields. Here is who I'm considering for each party:DEMS Mark Warner: If he doesn't run for the senate, he could run as a Clintonian Dem Evan Bayh: He could run as a true Gore Dem Joe Biden: He ran in 2008 Bill Richardson: Thrid way candidate with good experience Russ Feingold: Stuanch Liberal/Progressive who has a McCarthy/McGovernness to him Kucinich: Ran in 2008 GOP Hunter: Ran in 08 George Allen: Didn't lose in this cannon, so he could be the next in the line of southern conservatives Bloomberg: I believe that he would still be a Republican because Bush was never president I need issue help, but i'm thinking that issues like Iran and Israel should dominate foreign policy rather than Iraq. gop- charlie crist olympia snowe rick perry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hcallega Posted June 2, 2008 Author Share Posted June 2, 2008 Good ideas for candidates As far as who will be frontrunners for the GOP: McCain, Romney, Huckabee McCain: West and Midwest Romney: Northeast Huckabee: South The other candidates: Pataki, Hagel, Snowe, Crist, Perry Pataki: Leading in New York, 2nd in New Jersey to McCain, 2nd in Connecticut to Romney Hagel: Leading in: Wyoming, ND, SD, Nebraska, Kansas, and Montana Snowe: Tied with Romney in Maine Crist: Leading in Florida Perry: 2nd in Texas to McCain I was wondering if people felt that Lieberman or Thompson should be in this scenario Dems Frontrunners Clinton: Leading in Northeast and West Coast, as well as Ohio and Michigan, possibly Florida and Texas Edwards: Leading in the South and center west (Hagel's states) Other Candidates Obama: Leading in Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin Bayh: Leading in Indiana, 2nd in Pennsylvania to Clinton Richardson: Leading in Arizona and New Mexico, 2nd to Clinton in Colorado Biden: 2nd in Delaware As far as the General Election i will be making a seperate post outlining what states the Dems and GOP will be leading in and what the swing states will be Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hcallega Posted June 3, 2008 Author Share Posted June 3, 2008 General Election Safe Dem New York Massachusetts Rhodes Island Connecticut Vermont Maine Maryland Delaware Illinois Minnesota California Hawaii D.C. Lean Dem Michigan Washington Oregon Wisconsin New Jersey Safe Rep Texas Alabama Mississippi Georgia South Carolina Utah Kentucky North Dakota South Dakota Montana Wyoming Kansas Arizona Alaska Oklahoma Nebraska Lean Rep North Carolina Virginia Colorado Indiana Nevada Arkansas Louisiana Swing States Pennsylvania New Hampshire Ohio Florida New Mexico West Virginia Tennessee Iowa Missouri That brings the Electoral Vote total to 200 for the Republicans, 220 for the Dems, and 96 in the middle This election is intended to be up for grabs, though certain candidates, like McCain and Romney for the Reps and Edwards and Richardson for the Dems bring other states into play. As you can see, the swing states are more like they were in the 1990s then they are today, as the Republican party is not viewed as incompetent and overly conservative, and the dems are not viewed as the reformers who can solve all the problems (As you can tell im being feceicous). Anyway, any comments would be much abliged! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dwaz Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 If the 2004 GOP nomination went the way you are sugesting do you really think McCain would run again. I mean if he came close to beating bush in 2000 and then in 2004 didnt even finish in the top 3 for the nomination you really think at 71 he would run agian. I would think that Powell would most likely run due to the fact that he narrowly lossed the nomination in 04. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Killjoy Posted June 5, 2008 Share Posted June 5, 2008 Would McCain have run again? Probably. If he was healthy and thought that he had any chance of getting the nom this time around, I think he'd be in the race. Powell? I doubt it. He just doesn't seem that interested in running for elective office in the first place, so I think that the '04 election would have been enough for him to swear off of doing it again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.