Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: senna on September 04, 2002, 04:32:52 AM
-
Hed make a good pres. And you know it.
:)
-
I don't think he'll ever run for president. His wife has depression (I do believe) and the press and Dem's would drag that out, and he doesn't want that criticized.
BUT, he'd make a great president.
K2
-
probly the only republican I'd vote for.
-
I read somewhere that his wife was fearful that if elected President, his life would be in serious danger from rednecks that would be afraid of a black President. Don't know if thats true or not.
I agree, he would be a great Pres tho.
-
I went and saw Powell speak a couple of years ago. He was very good at motivation, but the best part of his speach had nothing to do with oration.
Two soldiers had snuck up to the front of the crowd and were trying to get a picture. In mid speach Colin Powell stopped, looked down and asked "did you get it guys?" The crowd kind of chuckled, but Powell wasn't done.
He stepped away from the podium, and motions the 2 soldiers up to the stage. He posed for a picture with each, then shook hands with them and continued his speach. His first words were "I miss those guys".. meaning all soldiers.
He would have had my vote that night.
-
From a redneck from the south, I'd vote for him in a skinny minute.
-
2004 is not a good year for him to run. To run against an incumbent would create a very divissive primary and will cost major money on both sides. Powell would be uniquely suited to beat GW Bush for the republican nomination, but the money fight they would wage would leave whoever wins at the mercy of the Democratic candidate in the general election. I think that If Powell chooses to make a serious run for the Presidency in 2004, then we will swear in a democrat in Jan. of 2005.
In 2008 however, it could be Powells year. But it will likely be the only year left for him. At 71 years old, I believe that he will be the oldest person elected to a first term. The age issue played against Dole in 96, I can see it biting Powell on the bellybutton if he were to run in 2012.
So, what does Powell do with his time between now and 2006, when the campaign really starts up? I think that reports of his leaving the Bush administration in 2004 were started along this line. Now, Powell has come out and denied these reports, but I still think the possibility exists that he will not be the secretary of State in the second bush administration. I imagine that if he wants to make a run in 2008, he will push for the VP. However, given the appearance that Powell and bush/chenney have serious foreign policy dissagreements, I'm not sure how receptive the party will be to putting him on the ticket. If they are going to have some forsight, the GOP needs to understand that they need to groom a Veep for the 2008 ticket. In that respect, Chenney is a poor choice in my opinion, and Powell a good choice. But hey, last time a Bush ran for a second term he was still carrying Dan Quale, who, regardless of whether you think he was treated unfairly by the press, wasn't considered by many to be "leader of the free world" material. I just mean to say that Qual wasn't picked because of his ability to carry the ticket in the 1996 election.
It'll be interesting to see how this plays out in the next two years. I think we will know for sure about Powell's intentions by this time two years from now. I'd perfer him over any other nominated candidate from the past few elections.
Hey Levi, what do you think?
-Sikboy
-
I would vote for him. Probably McCain too.
-
I'd guess that Powell would get quite a bit of Democratic votes as well as Republican ones.
I'd vote for him in a heartbeat.
If Bush runs again, I'll vote for Marlyn Manson if he's the main opposition :)
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
2004 is not a good year for him to run. To run against an incumbent would create a very divissive primary and will cost major money on both sides. Powell would be uniquely suited to beat GW Bush for the republican nomination, but the money fight they would wage would leave whoever wins at the mercy of the Democratic candidate in the general election. I think that If Powell chooses to make a serious run for the Presidency in 2004, then we will swear in a democrat in Jan. of 2005.
[/B]
There is no chance that Powell would fight Bush for the Republican nomination in 2004. Not only would he lose, but he would achieve pariah status among party elites like McCain has managed to do. McCain will never be president, and if Powell follows this path he never will be either.
In 2008 however, it could be Powells year. But it will likely be the only year left for him. At 71 years old, I believe that he will be the oldest person elected to a first term. The age issue played against Dole in 96, I can see it biting Powell on the bellybutton if he were to run in 2012.
[/B]
Age probably wasn't as huge a factor going against Dole as you'd think. There are two main predictors of vote choice for presidents: party affiliation (plus the strength of that affiliation), and the state of the economy. The latter explains the greatest amount of variance in presidential voting. The simple fact is that in 1996, Dole ran against an incumbent president who served during a period of economic growth with a prognosis for continued economic strength well into the future. I'd venture that this fact alone doomed him whether he was 35 or 105 years old.
And before people note that Gore lost the 2000 election despite a robust economy, it's important to note that he obtained a majority of the popular vote but lost due to procedural rules. In other words, the 2000 election was kinda wacky by anybody's standard regardless of the outcome.
I'd also caution against overstating the case for Powell as VP. There is little evidence to suggest that the Vice Presidency is a good stepping stone to the presidencies in modern times. In fact, of all incumbent VPs running for president since Franklin Roosevelt took office, only George H.W. Bush succeeded. If Powell truly wishes to chase the presidency, the history of modern presidents (by "modern," most political scientists mean FDR to the present) tells us he should run for governor somewhere. Apparently, the executive experiences of a governorship coupled with running a gubenatorial campaign translate well into running for the American presidency.
Another strike against Powell for VP is the fact that VP choices tend to be myopic based on regional or party considerations. What's particularly funny about that fact is that years of political science research have consistently shown that Vice Presidents bring practically nothing to a presidential campaign; voters rarely consider the VP when casting a vote, even those from the VP's home state. The only modern example I can imagine to the contrary might be Johnson with Kennedy, but that was due more to his party connections in Texas than due to his popular appeal among voters in that state (unless you count all of the deceased voters who cast ballots for Kennedy in pro-Johnson counties in 1960).
Would Powell be a viable presidential candidate in 2008? Maybe. That really depends on a number of factors that I don't presently know. First, he must appear as an attractive candidate to party leaders, most of whom tend toward the extreme elements of the party. Second, he must appeal to the primary voting Republicans, most of whom also hold more extreme views than the party rank and file. Finally, he must appeal to the party rank and file and the large contingent of moderate/non-affiliated or moderate/Democratic-leaning voters. I don't know what his standing is with party elites or primary voters at this point (or what it will be in 2008), but I'm guessing he's not the most popular guy within the Bush administration or within a hawkish party leadership right now given his pragmatic stance on Iraq. The fact that Powell has been so reluctant to run for president might signify his understanding that he would run afoul of one or more of the aforementioned keys to the presidency.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
He'd likely be a shoo-in. Most Republicans would vote for him and many Democrats. He's got my vote.
-
Todd-
The only comment I think I disagree with is regarding the past election... the contest should never have been close enough for an electoral college to matter at all. After so many years of a healthy economy (rightfully or not attributed to the administration) Gore should have been a given. It was his election to lose, and he somehow found a way to snatch defeat from sure victory.
-
Powell strikes me as about a billion times more competant than Bush, and I bet he could totally kick Bush's ass...but then again, so did a cracker.
-
Originally posted by Kieran
The only comment I think I disagree with is regarding the past election... the contest should never have been close enough for an electoral college to matter at all. After so many years of a healthy economy (rightfully or not attributed to the administration) Gore should have been a given. It was his election to lose, and he somehow found a way to snatch defeat from sure victory.
This is true, and in large extent I'd attribute Gore's failure to his unwise decision to distance himself from the Clinton administration. He wrongly saw Clinton as a liability when, in fact, he should have embraced the Clinton legacy and its perceived accomplishments. According to some polling data I've seen, this created a disconnect among many voters who attributed the state of the economy to Clinton but not to Gore.
However, even given such a poor campaign decision, it still came down to a matter of procedure.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
I just can't get past his name....
good thing that's a P not a B
-
Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
I'd also caution against overstating the case for Powell as VP. There is little evidence to suggest that the Vice Presidency is a good stepping stone to the presidencies in modern times.
I can see this fairly clearly, however (and I honestly don't know) what are the chances for the VP to NOT win the Nomination following an 8 year presidency? You have to be in it to win it, and if Bush wins in 2004, Powell would do well to be on the ticket at the VP. Of course, if Bush looses in 2004, that might be a huge windfall for Powell, especially if he wasn't part of the ill fated ticket.
In the end though, you are probably dead on with regard to the fringes of the party having too much sway in primary politics. Moderates tend to get eaten alive in the primaries, especially with the incumbent party.
I guess I'll put a hold on my "Powell in 08" bumper stickers :)
-Sikboy
-
Does anyone think the Dems would have the nerve to bring up the race issue? How would they do it? Would it blow up in their face?
-
Ugh....that name....McCain....I thought highly of him, enjoyed his book, then followed his stupid rantings for a while. Gawd what a moron that guy turned out to be
I rate him up there with Jeffords for loyalty
-
W will be VERY LUCKY to be re-elected
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
I can see this fairly clearly, however (and I honestly don't know) what are the chances for the VP to NOT win the Nomination following an 8 year presidency?
[/B]
This is a good point; the chances are pretty slim, but as I noted, VP selections tend to be pretty myopic. It's unlikely that Bush would choose Powell solely because of Powell's presidential ambitions in 2008. Powell would have to bring something to the table in 2004, and he would have to do so with the consent of the party leadership and party elites.
You have to be in it to win it, and if Bush wins in 2004, Powell would do well to be on the ticket at the VP. Of course, if Bush looses in 2004, that might be a huge windfall for Powell, especially if he wasn't part of the ill fated ticket.
[/B]
I think the latter scenario would be the best one for Powell at this point.
In the end though, you are probably dead on with regard to the fringes of the party having too much sway in primary politics. Moderates tend to get eaten alive in the primaries, especially with the incumbent party.
[/B]
A scholar around here has done some research on strategic primary voting, and she found that most primary voters do not vote strategically. This means that most primary voters are not forward-thinking in their vote choices -- they aren't casting a vote for the candidate they believe would stand the best chance in the general election, but rather voting for the candidate they prefer the most at the present. So in a spatial sense, primary voters vote for the candidate closest to their policy positions, not the candidate who would be closest to the median voter in the general public. That does not bode well for Powell in any Republican primary.
I guess I'll put a hold on my "Powell in 08" bumper stickers :)
You might wanna. :)
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Gore lost the election not because he distanced himself from Clinton. He lost it because he waited too late to distance himself from Clinton. Had he not done so, he might have pulled in more conservative voters in the South and West, the regions that contributed most heavily to his defeat.
By the way, there is no greater proof of how balkanized the voting public has become than the demographics of the last presidential election. If the votes of African-Americans are left out of the equation (more than 90% voted for Gore) Bush would have won almost every state. The last thing the country needs is more politicians that attempt to turn any "group" into pariahs.
Regards, Shuckins
-
I was having this same conversation with a friend on vacation here from the states.
We both reached the same conclusion. We are both liberals, she is a hardcore democrat, and we would both vote for Powell IN A HEART BEAT if he ran for president. In fact, I would probably live in a state and make residence just so I could vote for him.
Colin Powell had a hard road to get to where he is now, he achieved certain things that I doubt many around him would have in his position. Not only that, but he is one of the only politicians who seems he can speak honestly without dodging issues that would make him look unpopular. He doesnt seem to have that political bulshit artist attitude.
Plus, he is a great diplomat, but with a strong military background.
-
Originally posted by H. Godwineson
Gore lost the election not because he distanced himself from Clinton. He lost it because he waited too late to distance himself from Clinton. Had he not done so, he might have pulled in more conservative voters in the South and West, the regions that contributed most heavily to his defeat.
[/B]
There is no evidence to support this contention, and in fact all evidence points to the contrary. Here (http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/06/16/president.2000/gore/) is a story from June 16, 1999... the day that Gore officially announced his candidacy... that takes note of Gore's plans to distance himself from Clinton. This was a campaign strategy from the getgo.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Originally posted by Animal
We both reached the same conclusion. We are both liberals, she is a hardcore democrat, and we would both vote for Powell IN A HEART BEAT if he ran for president. In fact, I would probably live in a state and make residence just so I could vote for him.
I think Powell would kick bellybutton in the general election because he not only sports a stellar military and diplomatic record, but also holds domestic and foreign policy positions close to the median of the general public.
What he may not possess, however, would be policy positions consistent with a majority of the primary voters and/or leaders in the Republican party. The biggest problem for Powell wouldn't be winning the general election, it would be getting to the general election in the first place.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
What steller diplomatic record?
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
What steller diplomatic record?
Averting an international disaster with China a little while back comes to mind. So does his insistence (along with others) in the early 1990s that we form a coalition against Iraq, a strategy that was ultimately successful.
Beyond that, you're right that he doesn't have much to show. This in part appears to be the product of an administration at odds with Powell's world point of view... further evidence that Powell may be marginalized by administration insiders and party elites.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
"But he's black?!"
How can it be brought up as a race issue by the Democrats? You mean they've never used the term "Uncle Tom" before?
Don't know if I'd vote for him or not. I've only seen him perform in puppet roles. I'm very curious to see what he would say representing himself. I'd really not like to fall into the "Let's vote for then non-offensive black man" right wing political correctness trap.
AKDejaVu
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
I don't think he'll ever run for president. His wife has depression (I do believe) and the press and Dem's would drag that out, and he doesn't want that criticized.
BUT, he'd make a great president.
K2
I'd probably vote for him. But wasn't Tipper Gore's depression used as a plus in the Gore campain?
-
Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
The biggest problem for Powell wouldn't be winning the general election, it would be getting to the general election in the first place.
-- Todd/Leviathn
This is, sadly, the truth.
-
Dead Man Flying,
Gore cast the deciding vote in the Senate which helped pass legislation that was offensive to many conservative voters in the South and West.
It's only fitting that many conservatives have become Republicans. Gun-owners have long memories and they never forgot or forgave those votes.
This legislation was pushed by Clinton and Gore gave it his whole-hearted support. These votes cost the Democrats in the Congressional elections of 1994 and it hurt Gore in 2000. If you require evidence look at the election results map. Bush carried out an almost clean sweep of the South, Southwest, West, and Heartland states, which are traditionally conservative strongholds. Being associated with the Clinton campaigne-finance scandals didn't help him in those regions either. Had Gore carried the election in just one more of those states the vote in Florida might not have mattered. Instead, he lost nearly all of them, including his home state.
He and his campaigne staff may have adopted a policy of distancing themselves from Clinton in June of 2000, but it was STILL too late.
Regards, Shuckins
-
Powell is the only person that I can think of that I would enthusiastically support.
eskimo
-
Pardon my lack of knowledge,but isn't Powell a Democrat?
-
Sirloin,
Nope, he's not a Democrat. He's a Republican. An African-American who is a Republican. One of the rarest birds in the political ecosystem. With more brains and talent than the last ex-general to be elected President, Dwight Eisenhower.
Regards, Shuckins
-
I don't know, AK, I find myself voting for a man like Powell because of integrity, bearing, and the fact he has some pretty good foreign relation experience. My question about him would revolve around his domestic agenda more than anything else...
...and you have to admit, he has a far more presidential bearing than anyone else on the scope at the moment. Black or not, that matters...
-
Great discussion and solid analysis. He makes a great candidate, but as noted he does seem to be an unlikely choice from the republican party standpoint.
Charon
-
Originally posted by H. Godwineson
He and his campaigne staff may have adopted a policy of distancing themselves from Clinton in June of 2000, but it was STILL too late.
He and his campaign staff adopted the policy of distancing themselves from Clinton in June of 1999, not 2000. You can't get any earlier than that when it comes to presidential campaigns.
I'm also well aware of Gore's history as a Vice President, but what you've done here is apply your own experiences with Gore to the general public, and that almost always proves erroneous. The fact is that gun control is simply not a hot button issue in presidential campaigns for most Americans; we know this from years of polling data.
In addition, the logic of your argument doesn't hold up. You argue on the one hand that the Democrats suffered in 1994 congressional elections because of policies that angered the South and West, and that Gore likewise paid for this in 2000. Yet you conveniently ignore the 1996 presidential election and the 1998 congressional elections. Did voters in the South and West forget to seethe during those years, but they remembered to do so again when Gore was running? Clinton captured plenty of states in the South and West in 1996 despite the anger you purport over gun control. In 1998, Democrats did far better than historically expected for mid-term elections. Did gun enthusiasts suffer from temporary amnesia during that election?
It's also important to recognize that the 1990s saw the conclusion of a long regional partisan realignment in the South. Traditionally conservative regions that had always voted Democrat dating to the Civil War finally began voting Republican as a reflection of new ideological realities. Their representatives weren't necessarily any more or less conservative than before, it's just that they were now Republicans instead of Democrats.
As an aside and an addendum to what I'd written to Kieran earlier, there's been some interesting work done in political science on the 2000 election. The best I've seen is by Bartels and Zaller (2001) who argue that prevailing models of presidential elections still predict electoral outcomes with great success... including the 2000 election... if we keep in mind a few facts easily overlooked or misconstrued. First, voters retrospectively evaluate the economy for incumbent presidents, but they prospectively evaluate it for all other candidates, including the VP. Thus while Clinton benefitted in 1996 from the economy and Bush Sr. suffered because of it in 1992, Gore gained little from the boom times of the 1990s. Regardless of Clinton's legacy and Gore's attempts to distance himself or paint himself closer to Clinton, his candidacy was hurt by the fact that by November 2000, economic forecasts pointed to a declining economy.
Bartels and Zaller also argue that our predictions depend on how we operationalize the "state of the economy." Usually political scientists measure this with GDP, but they argue persuasively that the more personal measure of Real Disposable Income (RDI) should be used instead. While GDP grew robustly in 2000, RDI increased at a much slower pace. If we take into account the dual facts that (1) Gore did not benefit for Clinton's economic legacy because of prospective economic evaluations by voters, and (2) the economic prospects based on RDI were grim, then the race was always much closer than conventional wisdom suggests. It might never have been Gore's to lose in the first place, but rather a very real competition between roughly equal candidates.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
I think your original assessment of Gore and his intended separation from Clinton rang more true with me, though I hate what this says about society. I think if he had clung to Clinton's coattails a little tighter he might have held a lot more votes from people that longed for "four more years".
OTOH, it might just be that Gore never really had a personality the people could warm to. After all, what real man needs to hire a women to teach him to be an "Alpha Male"? Gore to me just seems to be a man uncomfortable in his own skin.
-
I am pretty sure about this, but I believe that Powells only true deviation from the republican point of view is that he is Pro-Choice (can someone confirm this). I would vote Powell if he ran for President, but I would like to know what his domestic agenda is first though.
-
http://www.issues2002.org/Colin_Powell.htm
-
Seems to be pretty moderate.
-
You all know that I believe in a woman’s right to choose and I strongly support affirmative action. And, I was invited here by my party to share my views with you because we are a big enough party -- and big enough people -- to disagree on individual issues and still work together for our common goal: restoring the American Dream.
Hmmmmm. Now what do you all think?
-
I think I am not as conservative as you think I am. I also think he may not be a perfect match for my mindset, but he's closer than most. I still believe affirmative action is failed in implementation, I am still against abortion, for example, but I could still vote for him.
-
Originally posted by Colin Powell
You all know that I believe in a woman’s right to choose and I strongly support affirmative action. And, I was invited here by my party to share my views with you because we are a big enough party -- and big enough people -- to disagree on individual issues and still work together for our common goal: restoring the American Dream.
ahahahahahahahaha
Sorry, that's funny. I don't mean this as a slight to the GOP, but Levi and I have gone over how this isn't reflected in Presidential politics. If it were, I'd be a much happier voter.
-Sikboy
-
Dead Man Flying,
I didn't mean to leave the impression that the gun issue was the sole reason for Gore losing the conservative vote in 2000.
The appointment of future Supreme Court Judges was an issue that hurt him in the conservative areas of the country.
The famous Chinese temple/campaign finance scandal certainly didn't help him either. The use of White House telephones to solicit campaign contributions in direct violation of federal law also exacted its toll. Making statements such as "...there is no controlling legal authority..." didn't play very well in the heartland, where people seem to be bothered more about such ethical lapses on the part of their candidates. An economy that was beginning to show signs of weakness may have hurt him some, but it wasn't nearly as strong a factor in the election of 2000 as it was in 1992.
Lastly, Gore was not the "teflon candidate" that Clinton was. He had neither the personality nor the chutzpah to shake off the effects of the scandals and personal foibles that his predecessor had. Despite his fumbling, broken grammar and, at times, awkward demeanor, Bush had more "personality" than Gore did. Large numbers of moderate and conservative voters chose a weak Republican candidate rather than have "four more years" of the bumbler from Tennessee.
Regards, Shuckins
-
Making statements such as "...there is no controlling legal authority..." didn't play very well in the heartland, where people seem to be bothered more about such ethical lapses on the part of their candidates.
Speaking from my place in the heartland, I say Amen! I remember where I was, and chuckling to myself, "Naw, he didn't REALLY say that, did he?!" I took it as the equivalent of "Yeah, I did it, screw you!"
-
Colin Powell Re: an Amendment to ban flag burning.
I understand the powerful sentiment in state legislatures for such an amendment. I feel the same sense of outrage. But I step back from amending the Constitution to relieve that outrage. The First Amendment exists to insure that freedom of speech and expression applies not just to that with which we agree or disagree, but also that which we find outrageous. I would not amend that great shield of democracy to hammer a few miscreants.
I like this guy more all the time.
-
Originally posted by hawk220
I read somewhere that his wife was fearful that if elected President, his life would be in serious danger from rednecks that would be afraid of a black President. Don't know if thats true or not.
I agree, he would be a great Pres tho.
Well, Im a southern man, born and bred....It would be an honor to cast my vote for a man of such character, and hard earned distinction. :cool:
-
There's no way Dubya would have Powell as his VP in 2004.
One word. Assassination. ;)
-
Yeah, W would be dead in no time. ;)