Zazzie
|
posted on December 14, 2000 12:01:22 AM new
I've had a very interesting time watching the election..I have an Amercian hubby, my mother was American and our genology research has put our family on the Mayflower----so I do watch USA news with distant curiousity.
When the USA sneezes --Canada gets the flu.
But my question is inregards to the chanting when Gore left the Eisenhower building after his concession speech---the crowd was chanting 'GORE in FOUR--GORE in FOUR'
Do you think he will run for the Democratic leadership in 2004??? and what sort of outcome do you think might happen if he does.??
|
mark090
|
posted on December 14, 2000 06:09:46 AM new
Well, with GW Bush as president, he now has the resources to rig elections in many more states than before......
|
Linda_K
|
posted on December 14, 2000 06:23:55 AM new
Zazzie - So many things to consider when trying to guess if Gore will be offered the Democratic ticket in 2004. My opinion is a lot will depend on whether or not the people feel that President (elect) Bush does a good job. If he, and his party, are seen as making positive progress we could have another close race.
Then again, Hillary could change her mind and decide to run. I think the Democrats would take her above Gore. Now she says she won't, but she has a long time to change her mind.
If Gore keeps himself in the public eye (eg: lots of public speaking) that might help him too.
Who knows....I just hope we can come together, as a nation, after all that has happened.
|
enchanted
|
posted on December 14, 2000 06:37:42 AM new
I think it will be a contest between Hilary and Gore in the primary in 2004. Whoever wins the primary will pick the other as their running mate/VP candidate.
I can't wait.
[email protected]
|
krs
|
posted on December 14, 2000 07:25:06 AM new
Never happen. Hillary's JUST a woman.
|
toomanycomics
|
posted on December 14, 2000 07:33:43 AM new
krs - gee it sounds like to me that you think Hillary belongs in the kitchen
|
krs
|
posted on December 14, 2000 07:59:43 AM new
Probly can't cook, either.
|
whitemist
|
posted on December 14, 2000 08:07:57 AM new
Hil has stated that she will serve her full term and not run in 04, but whats one more lie more or less.............
|
furkidmom
|
posted on December 14, 2000 08:10:13 AM new
Well on thing you can bet on is if Hilliary ran and won, she would demolish the lil' room just off the Oval Office!  Andddddd probably make the Executive Desk with a glass bottom so everyone could see if anyone is ummmmmmm picking up dropped cigars... :lol
|
fred
|
posted on December 14, 2000 08:12:43 AM new
Zazzie, 50%, give or take a few percentage points, of our country did not vote or register to vote.
Al Gore's loss of his home state Tenn. hurt him more emotionaly, than the loss of the Presidency.
This is were Gore must start. From his speech I think he understands both of the above..
Fred
|
stusi
|
posted on December 14, 2000 08:21:04 AM new
although i have very serious doubts regarding the success of Bush's presidency, if he somehow does a credible job and appears to be the GOP nominee in 2004, there is no way Gore will want to go through this again. particularly if the electoral system is not abolished. there is no way that Hillary will be the Dems' nominee even though there are those who respect her strength(?) regarding Bill's shenanigans. there are numerous potential candidates who would be more likely to gather broad Dem support. eg.-Kerry,Bayh,Bradley etc.
|
gravid
|
posted on December 14, 2000 08:23:02 AM new
We are starting into a recession which nobody is going to want to admit and it will be laid at the feet of Bush because he is there. It is cyclic and has been held off for a long time, but people will blame him anyway although they don't understand the economics they need someone to blame, and it will be him. Look for one term.
|
mrpotatoheadd
|
posted on December 14, 2000 08:50:27 AM new
they need someone to blame, and it will be him
Since politicians of all persuasions are quick to take credit (whether or not the claim is accurate) for the good times, it seems only fair that they accept responsibility for the bad times (although it is not likely that many will).
|
lswanson
|
posted on December 14, 2000 10:50:16 AM new
Gravid, the economy is indeed variable, and is "due" for a decline. But I would attribute lot more influence to the Federal Reserve. With Greenspan in for another three years, we may not see any real decline anytime soon, in which case Dubya may wind up looking pretty good.
I think most of us agree that it's not the man in office that determines the economy. I think it's a strong positive statement about the strength of U.S. businesses both at home and in the world market.
On the other hand, we really are due for a decline, regardless of the reasons. Or maybe that's just the pessimist in me speaking.
|
dejavu
|
posted on December 14, 2000 12:49:27 PM new
I predict that in the next couple of years Hillary will divorce Bill, making her popularity soar. Accepting the abuse and humiliation her philandering husband has laid on her over the years makes her look like a doormat. If she divorces him she will be seen in a more positive light.
Then I predict she will run for Pres. in 04. I think there is a pretty good chance she could win.
What she tells the voters right now is what they want to hear. Hillary is going to look out for Hillary, no one else.
|
mrpotatoheadd
|
posted on December 14, 2000 12:58:53 PM new
What she tells the voters right now is what they want to hear.
With the national debt over 6 trillion dollars, is there any surprise that's what politicians do?
http://home.europa.com/~blugene/deficit/debt.html
|
Shoshanah
|
posted on December 14, 2000 01:33:12 PM new
Wounds will heal; pain will diminish...but no one will forget what happened during this election. For the Democratic Party, this could be a new source of strength for Mr. Gore, bringing more people to rally behind what is viewed by many as an injustice. I do not believe Hillary will enter the race...yet. She is a smart woman, and will keep an average profile, while she learns...THEN...she will; so figure 8 years.
She will probably divorce Mr. Clinton; not because she feels like a doormat, but because she needs a lot of room...On the other hand, both might think carefully about the impact a divorce might have on Chelsea....Never mind: she is a big girl now...
********************
Gosh Shosh!
http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/rifkah/
[ edited by Shoshanah on Dec 14, 2000 01:36 PM ]
|
boysmommy3
|
posted on December 14, 2000 01:37:01 PM new
"Look for one term."
Absolutely one term but not because of the economy.
I think Hillary will stay in New York for two terms and then go for the white house in 2008 and I believe she will have a strong chance of winning.
|
Antiquary
|
posted on December 14, 2000 03:27:51 PM new
I doubt that Gore will be the standard-bearer in 2004. Many of his Democratic supporters, myself included, are only luke-warm advocates, and our support has been maintained as much from an anti-Bush sentiment as a pro-Gore sentiment. As vice-president the party leadership was obligated to support Gore or risk a strong possibility of fragmentation. Also, Gore will not be likely to capture enough media attention to establish a strong mandate from the people.
Hillary may run in 2004, but if she does, I think that it will be more of a trial run, or in anticipation of being a vice-presidential nominee, or as I think Libby Dole did, primarily to make the country more aware of the fact that a woman can and likely will become president in the future.
I also think that GW will only barely survive the next four years, but then the Republican party will be in the position of either having to support him or risk fragmentation. That could be pretty interesting.
|
networker67
|
posted on December 14, 2000 03:43:05 PM new
Antiquary - Interesting take on the matter. However, absent Hillary very few likeable known Democrats. So one of those Senators better step and fill the void. Or one of the Govenors or Mayors better start moving into national prominence.
Gore just needs to spend some quality time with Al Gore. So he can find out who that man is. Trust me something else is bothering Gore too. This election and certain votes in certain places made him realize something about his country that he didn't quite understand. Dealing with that is going to take sometime.
|
LadyGambler
|
posted on December 14, 2000 03:47:32 PM new
Networker67,
Do you think when Gore mentioned going back to Tennessee and "mending fences, both literally and figuratively," that he was referring to the fact that he did not carry his own home state?
And by the way, I enjoy your posts tremendously!
|
dejavu
|
posted on December 14, 2000 04:42:01 PM new
I hadn't given Chelsea much thought until shosh just mentioned her. She must have been MORTIFIED to hear her father's BJ's being discussed in the media & Lewinsky's testimony.Poor kid. I wonder how she really feels about her Dad?
A recognizable face and name are what is needed to win the Presidency. I was horrified to read one poll where more people correctly identified Colonel Sanders than either Gore or Bush...........of course this was before the election. I suspect even a second grader would recognize either one now.
|
xardon
|
posted on December 14, 2000 05:07:49 PM new
In 4 years.......our most prolific poster will be voting only for AARP endorsed candidates.
|
CleverGirl
|
posted on December 14, 2000 08:37:03 PM new
Hillary won't run in 04. She's much smarter than that. I'd be surprised if she ran in 08, but it's possible, I suppose. No way the country will be ready for a woman president in 04. And probably not in 08 either. Of course, if she's willing to do it earlier to "pave the way" for a woman president later on, that's another matter.
As for Gore, who knows? One problem with the Dems, unlike the Republicans, is that they have a tendency to savage their own. You notice Republicans have learned the fine art of closing ranks around all their friends AND foes in public -- just as long as they're Republican, that is. Dems don't have that discipline. So Gore doesn't automatically have ANY support from ANY Dems for 04. Not now, and maybe not then.
And yes, Gore was talking about having lost his home state when he spoke figuratively of mending fences.
|
krs
|
posted on December 14, 2000 08:50:10 PM new
Very funny, Xardon, but I officially retired in 1996 and have been receiving entreaties from that bunch for two years already without joining. Their two-bit discounts on bus passes just isn't enough to sway me into swallowing their politics. 
|
KatyD
|
posted on December 14, 2000 09:06:52 PM new
CleverGirl, very good point about the self-fragmenting tendencies of the Democratic Party. I also agree with you about Hillary in 2004, but I do think that 2008 is a target date for her. I think she will be a terrific President, and I'm looking forward to it if for no other reason than she absolutely drives Republicans batty. What a gal!
Dejavu, your comments on Chelsea are boorish and insensitive. First rule of politics: leave the kids out of it!
KatyD
[ edited by KatyD on Dec 14, 2000 09:07 PM ]
|
jamesoblivion
|
posted on December 14, 2000 09:10:57 PM new
I'm sure Hillary will run in '04 for no other reason than that she promised us she won't.
|
shar9
|
posted on December 14, 2000 09:43:57 PM new
Hi Zazzie,
I have wondered about your interesting and enjoyable insights into USA elections. Now I better understand.
As to 2004. That is light years away by political standards and who knows what will happen by then.
I do think Hillary will have a tough timein the Senate. Trent Lott said so and he can get down and dirty and he will do everything in his power to keep it from happening.
I do think the 2004 election people better make some changes because I think Fla was just a sample of how wrong votes can be and also dismissed. This was an education. An embarassing one and I doubt we will be ask to monitor anther countries elections when we can put a man in the white house that won because we didn't have time to make certain and was elected by default and the clock.
|
networker67
|
posted on December 14, 2000 11:49:04 PM new
As a Democrat, I agree with the statement the party spends too much time fragmenting. As for Hillary Clinton running in 2004. I don't think so, although she has national appeal. I do not think the American people will place a "Rookie Politician" in the White House. Let's remember that Senate is her first political office and campaign. Now to her credit she managed to run an effective Statewide campaign in a very large and diverse State such as New York. However, remember she got tremendous party support. And did not have to dicker around with a Democratic Primary.
IMHO the first woman President of the United States hasn't begun her political career as of yet.
Now as for the next four years. As long as Bush doesn't try to force too much too fast in Congress he might do okay. Now what he really has to do is get that tax package through before 2002. If he can do that he can stave off Democratic gains in the House. The Senate should swing full Democrat in 2002 because I know of another Republican seat that is 95.9% guaranteed to return to the Democrats.
What George Dubya really has to do is avoid the appearance that Cheney is running things from the number 2 spot. If that appearance is proliferated from the media to the people. He is out in four. Onthe reverse if he manages to reel that look. The people might keep him for eight. But his next election better not come down to Florida again because he might be the subject of Ken Starr's next Special Prosecutor Investigation. And do we really need or want him back in the national spotlight.
|
