Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
United States

Journal pudge's Journal: I Know It's Early 10

Journal by pudge

I think 2008 will be the first time in over 50 years that we will have neither an incumbent President nor incumbent Vice President as one of the two major party nominees for the Presidency. In 1952, when Harry Truman was President, Illinois governor Adlai Stevenson ran against General Dwight Eisenhower. That was the last time it happened.

In 1956, President Eisenhower ran; in 1960, VP Nixon ran; 1964, President Kennedy; 1968, VP Hubert Humphrey; 1972, President Nixon; 1976, President Ford; 1980, President Carter; 1984, President Reagan; 1988, VP Bush; 1992, President Bush; 1996, President Clinton; 2000, VP Gore; 2004, President Bush.

Huh, only once did a sitting VP win election in that time, 1988.

Anyway, Bush can't run, and Cheney won't. So unless we get a new President or VP in the next few years, we will not have an incumbent, which might make both fields more wide open than any of us have ever seen. Although, 1968 and 1976 were fairly open, and Hillary may lock up the nomination very early this time around.

This is early to talk about I guess, but debates begin in about two years (the first Democratic debates for the 2004 election were conducted around May or June 2003).

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

I Know It's Early More

I Know It's Early

Comments Filter:
  • Only twice has a sitting VP won the Presidency, Martin Van Buren and George HW Bush.

    And if Hillary locks up the bid, then the GOP will win the Presidency despite their ineptness.
    • A couple thoughts on Hillary taking the nomination early...

      She won't have to worry about the cross-party attacks that usually exist in the primaries. This could either benefit or hinder her. She is obviously re-writing her history currently as a centrist. And without a far left candidate clamoring about her tack to the center then that will have to be exposed on the Republican's dime instead of Move On's. I doubt Move On is going to expose her anyways since she has far Left ideals and is simpley trying
      • since the media isn't going to ask a tough question, "After the last couple years, do you still support nationalizing health care?"

        Oh yes, they will. It will be one of the first questions she's asked as soon as they get past the official announcement stage. There will be a honeymoon period will they will talk about her accomplishments and history, and then they will start getting to specific issues, and this will be one of the first questions asked.

        If the Republicans do it the same way, then they're g

        • Oh yes, they will. It will be one of the first questions she's asked as soon as they get past the official announcement stage. There will be a honeymoon period will they will talk about her accomplishments and history, and then they will start getting to specific issues, and this will be one of the first questions asked.


          I dunno that I agree with that. TV and print media won't be asking about her health care plans until she changes address to 2600 Pennsylvania again. If they do, they risk losing their #1
          • I dunno that I agree with that. TV and print media won't be asking about her health care plans until she changes address to 2600 Pennsylvania again. If they do, they risk losing their #1 bet for getting it implemented. We might see those questions come up in talk radio, but not otherwise. I expect to see a lot of softball questions for Hillary, just as we saw for Kerry. Print and TV ignored as best they could Kerry being the pro-anti-war candidate. Where they did mention it was only in praise for how sophis
            • It's simply about the fact that every Presidential candidate gets asked every tough question anyone can think of, by the mainstream media. Can you think of important questions Kerry or Gore or Bush was not asked?
              • Well, to be honest, I never did hear anyone ask Senator Kerry why we should take into consideration his actions in Vietnam as a positive indicator of his leadership ability, but ignore his protests and lies afterwards as "youthful indescretions."

                That was a logical disconnect that I never heard addressed in a direct question to him.
                • Well, you might not have heard it framed in that way, but questions about those facts were asked. On Meet the Press [msn.com], no less:

                  RUSSERT: ... I want to talk about Vietnam. You are a decorated war hero of Vietnam, prominently used in your advertising. You first appeared on MEET THE PRESS back in 1971, your first appearance. I want to roll what you told the country then and come back and talk about it:

                  [clip]

                  RUSSERT: You committed atrocities.

                  KERRY: Where did all that dark hair go, Tim?

            • I'm not sure why Hillary would end up in the La Perla Italian restaurant in DC,

              LOL! Good typo catch. Thanks.
    • Now, I know that's not true, because just off the top of my head, our second and third Presidents were both sitting VPs when elected ...

Slashdot Top Deals

Even bytes get lonely for a little bit.

Close