Skip to main content

I did this one before, got an okay turnout, see how we do this time.

Same rules as last time- this isn't about who you really want to see win, it's about who you see as the Democratic nominee.

Comments section for who you think the Republicans will nominate.  One day I am going to figure out a way to do a decent poll around the Republican nominees- not just who the nominee will be, but who do you most fear (as an opponent), and then figure out a way to do matchups and who you think will win- but for now, let's stick to who we think each parties nominees will be.

Same names as in Kos poll, plus some old favorites.

Originally posted to JakeC on Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 04:05 PM PDT.

Poll

Who do you believe will be the Democratic nominee?

25%55 votes
10%22 votes
12%28 votes
22%49 votes
3%7 votes
2%5 votes
2%5 votes
4%9 votes
3%8 votes
0%0 votes
14%31 votes
0%1 votes

| 220 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Gore (none)
    If he runs I think it's his for the taking.  He'll have more CBC support than Clinton and more liberals on his side.  He'll also have just enough establishment support to keep Hillary from obliterating him in fundraising.  And having the Party Chairman on your side couldn't hurt either.

    "It's like we got Merrill Lynched"- Kanye West

    by ChicagoDem on Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 04:08:23 PM PDT

    •  If Gore runs... (none)
      I think he wins it.  But I don't believe that he'll run.  When he says that he won't ever run again, I take him at his word.  Personally, I think a Gore/Clark ticket runs away with it, and I think Gore (as changed as he is since 2000) would make a great president.  But in order to be president, you've got to want to be president.

      My feeling is that if Hillary runs, she and Clark may begin to cancel each other out, and that Feingold will slip in.  Feingold, I think, is a loser in 2008 for lack of name recognition.

      On the (R) side, I still think that it's either going to be Giuliani or Jeb.  Jeb will be the stronger Diebold candidate, but Giuliani's got that "Hero of New York" thing they'll try and sell.

      Certainty generally is illusion, and repose is not the destiny of man. - OWH

      by blockbuster on Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 04:50:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Who knows (none)
        A Draft Gore movement might work.  Three more years of Bush failures might work.  I mean when he was recently asked, he refused to categorically deny a 2008 run.  So who knows?

        I don't know if Clark has the establishment connections that Hillary does, though.  My gut says that at least one of the DLC candidates will drop out (probably Bayh; this is pretty much Biden's last chance and he's wanted it for a while).  That'll leave Edwards as the poverty/social issues guy and Clark as the military/outsider guy.  The problem is that neither has the massive establishment support that Hillary does, meaning that they're likely to be swamped in media coverage and fundraising.  They're also both therefore more likely to have equivalents of the "Dean is Osama!" ads launched at them too.

        I dunno, I think that if Gore doesn't run it'll become a "Stop Hillary" contest.  Probably between Clark, Edwards, and Feingold.

        "It's like we got Merrill Lynched"- Kanye West

        by ChicagoDem on Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 06:52:22 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Re a draft... (none)
          I'm 52 years old, and I've been voting in national elections since the age of 19.  Every four years there's a "draft" so-and-so movement.  I have never seen a successful one.  I've never looked it up, but I'd be surprised if there was ever a successful draft movement - taking the candidate to the presidency.

          Certainty generally is illusion, and repose is not the destiny of man. - OWH

          by blockbuster on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 09:00:40 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  20 bucks (none)
    says this poll gives you almost the same results as the "who do you want" one.
    •  I don't like (none)
      them odds.

      Let there be sharks - TracieLynn

      by GussieFN on Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 04:21:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You've got... (none)
      ... the Republican nomination nailed down.  They may as well not even bother with a primary.

      If you are right about the Dems, we are fucked.

      "Reduce Unwanted Stress By Not Giving A Fuck." - The Onion.

      by NambyPambyPinkoCommie on Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 04:30:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Interesting (none)
        McCain is certainly who I would vote for if I was a Republican, and I really think he is damn near unbeatable in the general election.

        But, I don't accept as a given that he's the nominee- he's pissed off a lot of people in the party, and that's got to hurt him in the primary.  Plus, he's pretty old, and hasn't had perfect health- that may work against him, or even keep him from running.

        A flame rescued from dry wood has no weight in it's luminous flight yet lifts the heavy lid of night.

        by JakeC on Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 04:49:43 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  asdf (none)
          I agree that McCain wins the general election if he gets the nomination. In fact, I think he wins in a landslide. But he'll never get the nomination. Republicans won't nominate anyone who doesn't claim to channel Jesus on a regular basis.

          Thwarting the forces of conservatism since 1978.

          by wiscmass on Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 05:08:28 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  yup--Edwards (none)
       with someone else youngish and new--not Gore or Kerry or Clinton please!
    •  McCain-Dole (none)
      McCain & Dole, BTW, are exactly one month apart in age: McCain was born 8/29/36 and Dole was born 7/29/36. Somehow I can't see the GOPs nominating a ticket of two 72-year-olds.
  •  On shear campaign ability (none)
    ... I'd go Edwards here.
    •  Johnny Sunshine (none)
      is the perfect post-Katrina nominee.  Paired with Clark as veep we'd have a perfect team for a "Democrats: Compassion and Competence" campaign that would wipe the floor with Frist, Brownback, Mitt, or whoever the repug is.

          The guys I fear?  McCain and Hagel.  Good thing neither one of them will get the nomination-- too much time off the reservation.
      Will Mitt ooze in?

      "What everyone wants is a job and some hope."--RFK

      by For Dean in Dixie on Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 06:32:56 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Edwards is very good. (none)
        I worked for Dean in Iowa, but saw Edwards speak twice.  He was killer.  Excellent.  And now that he has had national experience, I think he'll give Hillary a real run for her money.

        Not saying I'm backing him (or anyone at this early juncture), but in terms of being a damn good campaigner, I think he's at the very top of the heap.

  •  I think the most likely ticket (none)
    is Clark/Richardson.

    --
    The neocons will not give us our country back. If we want it back, we'll have to take it.
    --Lila Garrett

    by peacemonger on Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 04:23:59 PM PDT

  •  Barack Obama (none)
    What about Barack Obama?
  •  someone new... (none)
    I don't think anyone who lost before (and I'm not even going into whether they REALLY lost here) will get the nomination again. Democrats are not going to want a candidate who can't become energetic and forcful until 3 or 4 years after he last ran (Gore) or someone who took bad advice and ran such a bad campaign he lost against the worst President ever (Kerry).

    But maybe Edwards might get a chance, but I'm pretty certain it will be Hillary and I'm okay with that. I think she is less likely to take any shit about rooting out EVERY one of the Bush appointees.

  •  Will there even be an election? (none)
    Or will the American lockdown be complete by then?

    "No matter how hard the loss, defeat might serve as well as victory to shake the soul and let the glory out." Al Gore

    by Patriot for Al Gore on Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 05:20:48 PM PDT

  •  Are y'all smoking crack? (none)
    The topic here was your prediction about who will be the 2008 nominee, not who your choice is. The reality is that Hillary is WAY ahead of anyone else. Sure, she could mess up, or someone else could catch fire, but at this point there is at least an 80% chance she'll be the nominee.
    •  Not Hillary (none)
      The polls to date are based pretty much exclusively on name recognition, which is why HRC is on top.  I doubt very much she will be the nominee.

      Although my favorite candidate is Brian Schweitzer, it does not appear he will run.  Of the others, the only one who I am more than lukewarm about AND believe couldwin is Al Gore.  I think we're starting to see a wave of Clinton nostalgia, and I think Gore could more easily milk that in 2008 than HRC.

      "I wish I could drink like a lady; I can take one or two at the most; Three and I'm under the table; Four and I'm under the host" -- Dorothy Parker

      by asskicking annie on Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 05:30:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  GOP candidate (none)
    I think Rudy will be the Republican nonimee, I don't
    think even the GOP would be so stupid to nominate
    another Bush esp. when he comes complete with
    an imaginary companion.  Who's left, Cheney is too
    sick and I really feel that they will want someone
    outside the Bush circle.  That leaves McCain, Hagel
    Giuliani & Gingrich.  I think it will be Rudy.  Although I think that the only one with a chance of winning is Chuck Hagel.
    •  Au contraire (none)
      I think the likelihood of Cheney running is very high.  Rudy?  No way -- Dobson isn't going to sign off on Rudy.

      If not Cheney, I think maybe George "I am the motherfucking scum of the universe" Allen.

      "I wish I could drink like a lady; I can take one or two at the most; Three and I'm under the table; Four and I'm under the host" -- Dorothy Parker

      by asskicking annie on Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 05:32:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Couple of questions: (none)
      1. Why would you consider the GOP to be "stupid"?  I can see where you might argue evil, but stupid?  If the GOP are stupid, what does that make the Dems, considering the GOP runs everything?

      2.  Who on the Democratic side could beat McCain in the general election (assuming McCain could make it through the primary)?  In fact, sitting here today, admittedly a long way off, who even stays close?  Which state that Bush won would McCain be unable to hold, because I can think of several bluish states where McCain would presumably do better than Bush.

      A flame rescued from dry wood has no weight in it's luminous flight yet lifts the heavy lid of night.

      by JakeC on Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 05:36:31 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  GOP is stupid (none)
        Read John Dean's Worse than Watergate.  The Republicans knew that George Bush never made a case for the invasion of Iraq, they supported him anyway.  
        Now about McCain, I like McCain as a person, I do
        not think he will win the presidency.  The American
        people will never vote for any politician that
        ate cake and partied while New Orleans drowned.
        It may be unfair but there it is.
  •  None of the above... (none)
    unless somebody is willing ot take the gloves off and be some kind of action figure instead of just another talking head appealing to the microphone for justice.

    "On Olympos, Scholic Hockenberry, there are no permanent friends or trustworthy allies or loyal mates... only permanent interests." -- Dan Simmons

    by Eloi Scientist on Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 06:00:47 PM PDT

  •  Honestly (none)
    Right now I have absolutely no idea who will be the Dem nominee. My guess is that someone comes out of lewft field. Hillary will be passed over because of her slide to the right and people not wanting to vote for her as it seems she has it locked down. We really need to look at the primary season, NH and Iowa will be the big ones and whoever wins the third (I heard this will be in AL, not sure tho) will be the nom. Quite honestly, as Feingold raises name recognition, and once the primary season actually heats up, he could slip out with it. He's already popular in Iowa and is now VERY popular to the Dem establishment in AL, he's going to NH to help local dems there. He's getting his name out on the right issues at the right time. I really think he could walk away with it as long as people don't kow-tow to impossible ideas of "electability". If that's the case, Feingold and Hillary are both out. Either way, I don't see Hillary doing it, she's peaking way too early.

    Freedom can't be forced.

    by Perdition on Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 06:15:25 PM PDT

    •  Electability (none)
      I'm not one who favors picking a candidate on the basis of which candidate is most "electable," but, as a screening question, I think it's entirely reasonable to ask, "Can he or she win?" Given this, I have to say the talk I see here of a Feingold candidacy completely mystifies me. I find it impossible to reach any conclusion other than a Feingold nomination equals President George Allen.
      •  And That (none)
        mystifies me. He's obviously electable, he's been elected three times. In a purple state, a large population of whom (I can say this, I'm from WI) are not as enlightened and unprejudiced as some of us wish. He wins because he's honest and oozes integrity. He holds listening sessions in every county, even hard-core red ones, and the people there almost all come away feeling like they've been listened to. He held his first listening session outside of WI in the most conservative county in Alabama, and he was soundly praised by people who were there. He has appeal for people in every area of the country, but to break this down into solid numbers for you. He would win all the states Kerry won, that is true of a large portion of the Dem nominees. He would make WI a blue state, rather than a purple one. The res tof the midwest would shift to the blue end from where ever they were before, including Ohio. He would have an inroad in Florida, his midwestern appeal would appeal to the mountain states, he's shown he can connect with southern voters. Why couldn't he win? Anyone who would vote against him for his being a Jew or a divorcee won't vote for a Dem. Period.

        Freedom can't be forced.

        by Perdition on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 02:17:47 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Can we stop this? (none)
    Please? Pretty please?

    Come get lost in our world: www.politicsandletters.com

    by MonkeyDog102 on Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 07:28:37 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site