Any chance of a Republican Challenger in 2004?

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-07-25 04:55pm

John McCain has been "uncommitted" for a long time now and from what I understand some other minor Republican's are contemplating challenging Bush. Most Alan Keyes type long shots but hey, I'd prefer them to Dean

.

Any one think some one would have the guts to do it?

Xenophobe3691 · Post by **Xenophobe3691** » 2003-07-25 05:28pm

The Contender'd get shot down by Bush's extreme popularity in his own party.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-07-25 05:29pm

Please, let there be a contender - no, multiple contenders.

theski · Post by **theski** » 2003-07-25 05:34pm

No one will run against a sitting pres of their own party... You would lose the party machine for raising money and support.

Thats why Hillary wants Bush to win in 2004 so she can run against him in 2008

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-07-25 05:37pm

Not a chance. Alan Keyes types are the only ones you'll see running against Bush for the nomination.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-07-25 05:40pm

The acrimonious re-nomination fight in '92, more than anything, was what really cost GHWB the election; therefore as long as GWB has at least a chance of winning reelection, the GOP probably won't sanction any challengers against him.

The Democrats aren't really a "field" per se - only four candidates (Dean, Kerry, Lieberman and Gephardt) have much chance of making it past Iowa in contending position.

Andrew J. · Post by **Andrew J.** » 2003-07-25 05:49pm

Excuse me.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

No.

irishmick79 · Post by **irishmick79** » 2003-07-25 07:13pm

Only the extreme right would come out of the woodworks and challenge Bush in open political combat. Anybody who actually has a real shot at winning knows better, and will wait until '08. McCain lost alot of support among republicans when he challenged Bush in 2000, and I think if he challenges Bush again the conservative core of the party will disown him.

It just works differently in the democratic party. The Democrats tend to rally around the hip, new face in their party (guys like Kennedy and Clinton), and the Republicans tend to have coronations. The republicans simply rally around their standard bearer much more than the Democrats do.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-07-25 07:45pm

Thats why Hillary wants Bush to win in 2004 so she can run against him in 2008

Bush running in 2008? Kind of illegal.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2003-07-25 08:01pm

There will only be fringe candidates running against Bush IF that. The Republicans will make sure that he goes into the election with as little baggage (aside from his record) as possible. McCain nearly sunk him and I was disgusted by McCain's treatment during the primaries. The party essentially WANTED Bush, they all but gave him the crown BEFORE the primaries kicked off and what a shock when he lost to McCain in that first prmary. Then the party did everything it could to sabatoge McCain.

I guess the will of the Republican electorate was secondary to the will of the party elite. UGH.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-07-25 08:18pm

Bush would have won. He was more in touch with the fundie demographic, which McCain wasn't.

theski · Post by **theski** » 2003-07-25 08:30pm

Sorry Durran: thats what you get from typing before you think

It should have read " That's why Hillary wants GWB to win in 2004 so she doesn't have to run against a sitting Dem in 2008"

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-07-25 08:32pm

I don't think Hillary will ever be on the Democratic ticket, personally, but that doesn't mean she won't try. She's out of touch with the swing vote and hasn't really done much as a Senator.

Xenophobe3691 · Post by **Xenophobe3691** » 2003-07-25 08:38pm

Durran Korr wrote:Bush would have won. He was more in touch with the fundie demographic, which McCain wasn't.

But McCain was more in touch with the moderate overwhelming majority...

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-07-25 08:43pm

But McCain was more in touch with the moderate overwhelming majority...

But Bush was more in touch with the ideological core of the Republican party, hence his success with (only registered Republicans decide who will be the candidate, as far as I know, with non-Republicans having no say).

And there is no moderate overwhelming majority. 35 percent of the people are going to vote Democratic, 35 percent Republican, and the remaining 30 percent swings.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-07-25 09:35pm

In most states you have to be a party member to vote in the primaries.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2003-07-26 02:44am

I just wish Graham stood a chance. He really is a fairly good person, but he's not photogenic enough or trendy enough to mount a serious campaign.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-07-26 03:06am

The Dark wrote:I just wish Graham stood a chance. He really is a fairly good person, but he's not photogenic enough or trendy enough to mount a serious campaign.

He would be a disaster. This election will not be won on the left side of foreign policy, which is where Bob Graham is, IIRC.

theski · Post by **theski** » 2003-07-26 08:28am

Durran, What is your opinion on Fred Thompson from Tenn?

I think he may have a shot in 2008

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-07-26 03:55pm

theski wrote:Durran, What is your opinion on Fred Thompson from Tenn?

I think he may have a shot in 2008

A candidate with which I'm not familiar, can you give me some info?

irishmick79 · Post by **irishmick79** » 2003-07-26 08:16pm

Durran Korr wrote:
theski wrote:Durran, What is your opinion on Fred Thompson from Tenn?

I think he may have a shot in 2008
A candidate with which I'm not familiar, can you give me some info?

Fred Thompson was a Republican Senator from Tennesse who gave up a prosperous acting career for politics. He was the Admiral aboard the aircraft carrier in Hunt For Red October, and he was the chief of Dulles International Airport in Die Hard 2. As he is currently retired from politics, I don't think he's a realistic candidate for President.