If Kerry loses in the general election, who gets the 2008 nomination?

[ringmastery]

Would it be Edwards vs. Hillary?

[Syrinx]

1. I don't even want to think about Bush getting elected...

But in that case, I think you will see a Dean juggernaut. Hillary has ZERO chance of being president of the United Snakes.

[ringmastery]

2. I don't think so

after 4 more years of bush fucking this country up, people will vote for hillary. They'll hope with her and former president clinton surely playing a huge role in her administration, they'll get the country back on track.

Basically, Hillary running for president gets you two presidents for the price of one.

[Syrinx]

3. I agree, really

I was just wondering if anyone would get my Firesign Theatre reference to the "United Snakes." :)

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

38. clever

United Snakes.....Join or Die.

[Dookus]

4. don't confuse

the depth of the hatred for Hillary with the breadth of it.

She is deeply, deeply disliked by the far right. But she is rather admired by a much larger percentage of Americans. The fact that she won her senate seat in a very tough state by a pretty good margin indicates that.

Her husband was just as hated by the right, and won reelection handily. FDR was just as hated by the right, and was reelected three times. The right attacks those they fear the most. They fear Hillary because they KNOW she'd be a viable candidate.

[jsw_81]

18. You think Howard Dean would beat Hillary Clinton in the primaries?

You have a lot to learn about Democratic party politics.

[tameszu]

5. One of the poor bastards who have been Left Behind

Because if Bush wins again, then the fundies are right!

(Hey, maybe I should run, if I can get away from the rains of locusts and a ride over the rivers of blood)

[incapsulated]

6. Please, I can hardly sort out the present election

I'm not thinking about the next one should we lose!

 
 

[Kool Kitty]

27. I think if W manages to steal another one,

we won't have to worry about any more elections. He'll just declare himself President for life. Or something equally as horrible will happen. (Slightly off-topic to you, incapsulated-I know just how you feel about your hockey team. I am a Penguins fan, and, well, I know just how you feel. It hasn't been pretty for them this year, either. *sigh*)

[rpannier]

7. Hard to Say

Hard to say. Most opposition to Bush will probably have done one of three things:
1. Moved to another country.
2. Starveed to death in a shanty somewhere
3. Committed Suicide
I would be 1 or 3

[mot78]

8. Who ever can beat Jebbie and destroy the BFEE

[DieboldMustDie]

9. What makes you think there would be a 2008 election?

[mot78]

12. Because Jebbie needs to get the throne

[fujiyama]

10. If it's between...

Edwards and Hillary, I'm with Edwards all the way...But as another poster said, I don't want to even think about another Bush term.

[countmyvote4real]

11. There won't be any room for an opposition nominee.

In four more years of * all the courts will be stacked to the gills. The constitution will have been ammended and recended. It will be too late for the masses to repurchase their souls. They will have no jobs, SS or anything to sustain them other than the empire's imperialism and theology.

By then the "opposition" choices will be Santorum, Judge Roy Moore and Pat Buchanan. Nevermind. Jeb is annointed to be next in line. The populace might have an opportunity to awaken when the throne is eventually passed to Neil "Caligula" Bush.

None of us can wait that long.

[raysr]

13. It won't matter anymore

There'll be no more elections.

[ringmastery]

14. were there elections

after Nixon and Reagan?

Come on, stop with the histrionics, people. Life will go on. It may suck, but it will go on. We're still in much better shape than the 70's and early 80's.

[Dookus]

15. exactly

this country has survived much much worse than the pissant currently in the white house.

Civil War, two World Wars, Depressions, etc. etc. We always had elections.

[saracat]

20. We have NOT survived much worse

If we do not prevail this time, the USA as we know it will cease to exist. The neocons have already chipped away at more then a few of our rights.And when you say "we always had elections", you don't mean to say we really had an election in 2000, did you? And are you completely unaware of the barriers we may face in order to have an election in 2004?

[Dookus]

22. bullshit

anybody who thinks this is the worst or most precarious moment in American history doesn't know squat about American history. Seriously - I don't know how ANYBODY with any knowledge of the early years of the republic, the Civil War, the Great Depression or World War II could even consider it possible.

It's possible to hate Bush and his policies without histrionics. In fact, opposing them with nothing BUT histrionics assures we will lose the upcoming elections.

[countmyvote4real]

25. Patriot Act

Dooks, you know I love your posts, but I have to presume you're not a Muslim or of "Arab" descent. For the record neither am I. So what's different from being Japanese sixty some years ago (now that we've recovered) is that it can apply to ANYBODY for whatever reasons.

Does a deferred apology make it right? That's assuming you can expect one.

Sorry if a hissyfit about recess appointments suggests histrionics. We can compare notes at the camp. At least I'll know I'll be in good company.

[Dookus]

26. Sorry

but that's more hysterical reaction. I don't think we need to imagine outrageous outcomes - the reality will be bad enough. It will suck. I'm not saying it will be GOOD to have four more years of Bush. I'm simply saying we will survive it... just as we have survived far more dangerous periods in our history.

Have a little faith in our democracy. It's survived some incredible hardships and tests. We will survive one dumbass president.

I used to believe as you did - I was 19 when Reagan was elected, and I was sure it was the end of America. I was wrong. Then I learned a lot more about American history and realized that we're a lot stronger than any single president. That's the beauty of our system.

We will survive Bush. Hopefully it will only be a few more months.

[countmyvote4real]

30. Thanks Dooks

By your account it took 12 years to get to Clinton., 8 if you were hoping for Bush 1. Presidential blow jobs were not part of the political landscape way back then. But we soon had manufactured distractions like "Travelgate" or "Whitewater" or Vince Foster, but they lead to a BJ and an impeachment. Okay, if we presume that Clinton lied about a BJ that didn't kill anybody, why aren't we impeaching this imposter for lying about WMD? And the dead rise daily.

Now choose your most important issue and factor appointees for the:

Supreme Court.
Supreme Court.
Supreme Court.
Supreme Court.

If we don't defeat this I still hope to see you at the camp with me.

[earthsea wizard]

28. Come on Dookus, open up to the reality

It may not be the single worst time in American history, but its pretty damn bad, and a problem unlike any we've faced.

Corporatism is stronger than it has ever been. Corporations control the press, the Republican party, factions of the Democratic party, and international economics. These days, corporations even have the money and resources to enter competition with countries on a global level, and are busy effecting international laws that favor corporate interests over national interests.

Corporations are -- by their very nature -- anti-democratic. They often act in direct opposition to the US Constitution, and are tied only to profit, pretending a US patriotism only as long as it serves their Internationalist agenda. They are anti-union, and it is the labor union that is primarily responsible for creating a strong middle class, and thus a socially and economically healthy America.

Over and over, Bush has shown that he is hog tied to his corporate keepers, and yet you honestly don't think that defeating Bush is is a top 10 issue in the history of the country? Democracy is on the line. That amazes me.

[Dookus]

29. I believe it is very important to defeat Bush

for a host of reasons.

The fear that his reelection will lead to the end of our republic is not one of them.

[WitchWay]

32. Corporatism only a Bush thing?

Once you see beyond party loyalty, things become more obvious. For instance, the underpinnings of these problems are deeply rooted in the Clinton Administration. Clinton was DEEPLY involved in the corporatization/walmartization of this country - and was an avid imperialist. Some reminders of Clinton Policy: NAFTA, WTO, bombing in Serbia, in Iraq, Welfare Reform, Plan Columbia...

I have had similar hardships under both the Bush and Clinton regime. I think that there IS a lot of exagerration and hysterics about Bush and republicans, esp. when you compare it to Clinton's record. Bush is terrible, yes, but fear of Bush (or whoever) is always going to cause folks to ask for less and less from their government. Pragmatism will destroy ideals until all that is left is a dystopia, one way or another.

We have to hold both parties accountable for the mess we are in, today. It's a two party system, after all, that got us in this mess, in the first place.

Anyways, I hope there is no more of the Bushes or Clintons, cuz I'm not very fond of either.

[earthsea wizard]

54. Interesting post

Clinton is over rated as Democrat, I agree. We love him because he was hated by the right, faced political assasination, and survived.

Well, that and all that peace and prosperity :D

But really, Clinton didn't do much to push forward a Dem agenda, unless you count changing the Dem agenda to a Republican agenda and pursuing that.

Yep, corporatism affects both parties, but to different degrees.

that's one reason I'm unhappy with the current choices for our nominee. At least Edwards has come out against NAFTA.

I hate to say it, but that Damned Ross Perot was right! There was a giant sucking sound as jobs left the country.

[newyawker99]

45. Hi earthsea wizard!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[earthsea wizard]

53. Cheers to you!

:toast:

[leyton]

57. Corporatism is not at its highest at the moment.

Corporations were pretty powerful until Roosevelt came to power. If you want controlled media, look to William Randolph Hearst, Joseph Pulitzer and the Spanish-American war. It is reminiscent of today's Iraq war but more sensationalized and the front pages after the bombing of the USS Maine never hinted that there was any doubt that the Spanish detonated a mine under the Maine. At least today's newspapers acknowledge skeptics of Bush - and increasingly so. Look also at the laissez-faire attitude of the 19th century which allowed the unchecked aggressive growth of railroads and companies like Standard Oil to manipulate companies in other sectors.

Between Andrew Jackson and Chester Arthur, the entire Federal bureaucracy was basically dependent on the spoils system. Chester Arthur instituted the civil service based on merit. Today's administration does appoint lots of campaign donors all over the place, but that's mainly at the top. It's not quite at the level that it was during much of the 19th century.

If you want corruption in a party, look to Howard Taft (although he came after Teddy Roosevelt), who secured the nomination through party machinery even though every state that held a primary voted for Teddy Roosevelt.

And if you want jingoistic imperialism (what a great phrase!) look no further than the Spanish American War (partly a war for sugar, like a war for oil today), our acquisition of Alaska, Hawaii (which we conquered from the natives), and of various pacific islands. Not to mention that we started the Mexican American War so we could have that land over there. To me, the Iraq war pales in comparison to all of this.

The Bush administration is pretty bad. Yeah, there are a ton of corporate interests. There's corruption, imperialism. But it's not quite at the level that it has been in the past.

[WitchWay]

58. What do Taft, Kerry and Bush have in common?

You guessed it!
http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/NWO/Skull_Bones_1.htm

Taft was a bonesman, his father co-founded Skull and Bones.

But that's just a coincidence, right?

[leyton]

50. Ditto.

Get some perspective people.

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

39. Do you really think Jeb is going to get the GOP nom?

I think that would smack just too much of a dynasty. I don't think even the GOP would go for that...you can bet there would be a big GOP primary fight if Jeb runs.

Otherwise, your comment about court stacking is pretty apt. Even if the Dems do win in 2008 the GOP can "rule from the poltical grave" via judicial review by a conservative Federal bench.

[wal]

16. Kerry ain't gonna lose !!!

Damn and #@$%^&*, what are you talking about!
You have absolutely nothing else to think about but getting off your hypothetical arse and making sure that Kerry wins!
He's proved that he's the man that can do it - all the rest are fading into history,and he's going to smash the case next Tuesday.
I have never seen (in 50 years) America get so pathetically enslaved by the criminal element in your society.
Why is time being wasted? Organise, plan, raise funds, stump - there is not a Democrat in the country who shouldn't be doing all he or she can to get rid of Bush!
What'll we do if we lose? God help me, of all the pathetic....
do you want Coulter and Rush and Drudge sneering at you for another four years? You want Tom Delay and Gingrich and Ashcroft and all the @#$%^&* 's that are currently tearing your country's democracy apart to finish the job.
Stop whining about if we lose. Stand up like a human being and support the good man who's doing his best to lead America back to Democracy. And do it now.

Kerry ? Kucinich in '04

[jsw_81]

17. Probably Senator Clinton

But hopefully President John Kerry will be seeking a second term in 2008.

[sandnsea]

19. This is not allowed

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. NO Surrender.

These kinds of threads are pure bullshit. There's too much work to do beween now and November to waste our energy with crap like this.

[VOX]

31. Yes! It's tempting as a thought question, but it's diverting...

from the battle at hand. Democrats have to line up behind their candidate (whoever he may be) and fight like hell.

:toast:

[quaker bill]

34. You are correct about the amount of work

But people need to play a little too.

[janx]

47. They certainly do. n/t

[sandnsea]

63. Play the Nader game

That one isn't as destructive as the what if we lose game. It's just ridiculous to even entertain the idea.

[OhioStateProgressive]

36. thanks for taking the responsibility upon yourself to say what is

allowed.

Would you like to go ahead and think for everyone as well??

[sandnsea]

64. #34 wants to play

But I'm not allowed to make a point with a joke. Go figure.

[wuushew]

21. Gore shades of Nixon 1968

We will need his environmental expertise to deal with peak oil.

[elcondor]

52. I agree

[JCMach1]

23. JEBtm vs. Hillary

In one of the most polarizing campaigns in American History

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

40. LOL ...even more polarizing than this one?

... Jeb & Hil would be sort of symbolic wouldnt it?

[JCMach1]

65. Even worse

:(

[Adjoran]

24. I agree with Dookus

it isn't the Apolcalypse. The bottom isn't pleasant, but if you hit it, there is nowhere to go but up.

We already know we aren't winning the House or Senate back this year. The repubs had the edge in redistricting, and we are defending more Senate seats. The White House is our best shot, and we shouldn't give up on it yet.

But even if we lose, all is not lost. The repubs won't be able to run against a "Democratic congress" or a President anymore; they will have to assume responsibility for everything that happens.

2008? It is Hillary's to lose. She doesn't have to run for reelection in NY, because she has already proved she can win it. She can step down and spend two years travelling the country, raising money for state and local parties and candidates, just like Nixon did for repubs 1966-68. She will have so many IOUs in her pocket that she will be unbeatable.

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

41. hitting bottom.

..I think if we lose more Congressional seats in the 2006 and lose the Presidency in 2008 we really have hit bottom.

But you are correct about the GOP having to take responsibilty...since they are so dominant you will begin to see factionalism break out on certain issues. We are already seeing this with the budget. I suspect GOP factionalism will lead to a more contentious primary fight for them in 2008

I think the Democrats would be more unified by 2008, but there wont be the big anti-Bush fervor that you are seeing now, unless the GOP does something really dumb like nominate Jeb. I think the country would reject that as smacking too much of a "dynasty".

[quaker bill]

33. Who has the better hair?

After all, if Mr. Electability can't do it, the obvious choice will be someone with better hair.

Edwards has really good hair and he is from the south.

Hillary's hair is an asset, but I think she could use a better cut.

[OhioStateProgressive]

35. Dennis Kucinich(nt)

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

37. Thats a good question...easier to crystal ball the GOP field...

I think the political situation will be alot different in 2008. You would have had four more years of GOP control in the Congress, too, so alot of time for the GOP agenda to be pushed.

And there is no real obvious Democratic leadership out there too.

In some ways its easier to predict who the likely GOP challengers would be. The two Republicans Im thinking would be running would be Chuck Hagel & Tom Ridge. Maybe Rudi Guliani. I'm almost convinced Hagel will be runnng.

For the Democrats, its really tough as the part doesn't have a deep bench.
The "leadership" of Daschle, Gephardt, Kerry...well, Kerry & Gephardt wouldnt be around, and Daschle doesnt seem that "presidential" (and may be defeated, too, by the GOP).

I was thiking Edwards, but he won't be in public life anymore, will he, as hes given up his Senate seat?

Hillary Clinton? Somehow I don't think thats a good choice, either, as shes really polarizing.

I can't think of any Democratic governor, like Howard Dean, right now that might rise up.

[NicRic]

42. Hillary ,without ?

It will be time for a lady President, and no one is more qualified then Hilary. Remember , who she is married to ,imagine having two of the best minds in the White House again ! Oh happy day !

[AntiCoup2K4]

43. The one good possible outcome of Kerry losing in November

...if there IS a 2008 election, the DLC corporatists won't be involved. Democrats are starting to wake up to what these Repuke infiltrators have done to this party, and if you follow the pattern of 1994, 2000, 2002, and now 2004 the answers are obvious. The DLC is throwing the elections on purpose because their entire motive is destruction of the Democratic party from the inside. Maybe that's what it will take (not to mention the fascist chaos from 4 more years of the BCE) to bring true progressive leadership in this party and this nation again. Things shouldn't have to get that bad, but there are far too many with blinders on, and worse yet are those who know exactly how sick and wrong it is, but play along anyway. Like Kerry and Hillary :grr:

[tryanhas]

44. No one.

There won't be a democratic party by then, or it will be too much of a joke to even be considered viable.

DON'T YOU ALL REALIZE THAT PART OF ROVE'S PLAN IS TO CREATE A ONE PARTY COUNTRY?

If you give them another term, that's just what they are going to do through the media conditioning people, and Bush will destroy the middle class making them beggars, and they will suck the financial life out of all groups that back Democrats (the caps on malpractice lawsuits are part of that plan).

If Democrats nominate a sure loser like Kerry, instead of a sure winner like Edwards who can win IN A GENERAL ELECTION anywhere in this country, then there won't be a Democratic party come 2008...

[no name no slogan]

60. How old are you?

I'm asking because I heard a lot of the same type of ranting in 1980, when Reagan was elected. We were all pretty convinced that we'd all be radioactive by 1988 if we didn't get rid of Ronny in 1984.

Suffice to say, it didn't happen.

Like Dookus and others have said, this country has survived FAR greater challenges than the Smirking Chimp-- after all, Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus during the Civil War, but we still had elections.

What we're going through now is no worse than what Nixon was doing, and we were in NO DANGER of democracy collapsing then. This country has survived a Civil War, TWO devastating world wars, prohibition, slavery, numerous presidential assassinations, and countless natural disasters.

One village idiot from Crawford, TX is a walk in the park.

[ludwigb]

46. Gore or Edwards

I don't think Hillary has the political skills and besides, she'll energize the wingnuts.

[janx]

51. The wingnuts love the thought of Hillary running. It's almost

all they ever talk about!

[WitchWay]

59. hahaha

Thats too funny.

Maybe they should run hilary.

[Sly Kal]

48. NO Hillary, No Edwards

No more Dinos.

[NewHampster]

49. The One and Only

Howard Dean

[janx]

55. Do you think that people will have learned by then?

?

[bigtree]

56. Satan

[ngGale]

61. God I hope not as I believe that if she runs she...

will win the election. I like Hillary wish she had run this time or would accept a Vice. Don't think so though.

[gate of the sun]

62. I don't see any point in talking about this

but on consideration it will be Kucincih.

[Finch]

66. Rendell/ Ford 2008

If and please God no! ... it comes to it and Bush gets back in then I would imagine the economy would go down the tube and the Dems would take back the house in 2006.. in a primary battle you'd might have...

Sn.Evan Bayh (D-IN)
Rep(maybe Sn.)Harold Ford (D-TN)
Sn.Russ Feingold (D-WI)
fr Sn,2004 VP/running mate John Edwards (D-NC)
Gov.Janet Napolitano (D-AZ)
Gov.Phil Bredesen (D-TN)
Gov.Ed Rendell(D-PA)
Sn. Bill Nelson (D-FL)

And in such a Field, despite really being attracted to Feingold I go for Rendell with Ford as his VP...

But personally I think it'll be Kerry/Edwards in 2004 and they will beat Bush/Cheney in November leading to Edwards/ Ford in 2012 (Ford proably having got to the Senate by then)...