http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/la-na-poll12jun12,0,6280343.sto ry

With poll numbers like this, Mr. Thompson may indeed overtake Rudy.

For now, I'm liking Mike Huckabee, but as we learn more about Mr. Thompson, he could also make a good candidate.

Herb

Thompson's poll numbers now mean little, because all Americans know about him is his character on "Law and Order." Do they know he's a womanizer like Rudy Giuliani and Bill Clinton? I wonder how many "impeach Clinton" people we'll have lining up firmly behind Thompson?

Let's see Thompson in a few debates.

Andrew

At this point if I were to wager on the tickets I would have to bet on a Mitt Romney/Mike Huckabee VS Barack Obama/Hillary Clinton ticket.

Thompson is a very likeable and viable canidate but just like Guilani I don't think he can win but rather be a part of a doubtful new Republican administration.

Guilani will fade from memory and popularity unless and only if Micheal Bloomberg enters the race as an independent which at this point doesn't look like it is going to happen. In a scenario like this Guilani would actually benefit from Bloomberg's canidacy and would have the Nader effect in reverse for the GOP.

One question about Thompson though maybe Herb or Andrew2 could give some insight on. Why does the old Reagan guard love Thompson so much? Is it his political values or is it kinda like an 80's retro thing? As Thompson like Reagan has the Hollywood connection.

From what I can tell, Mr. Thompson has some gravitas. He was counsel on the Watergate hearings and a US Senator.

The other thing that probably helps is that he's from the south. A lot of conservatives are located in that part of the country. Mr. Thompson also appears to lack the slick packaging that turns many people off. So far, like Mr. Huckabee, the guy seems real.

Herb

>>>"Do they know he's a womanizer like Rudy Giuliani and Bill Clinton?"

Let's get that sucker demonized quick. With nothing to run on, the Dems need to stoop to this stuff real early.

It's that rock solid neo-con voting record, plus some star power. Has 'em drooling in anticipation of not having to really change much.

Deane writes:
Let's get that sucker demonized quick. With nothing to run on, the Dems need to stoop to this stuff real early.

You're upset that I'm "stooping" to the kinds of characterizations Republicans used against Bill Clinton? You think it's perfectly fine to call a candidate a womanizer as long as he's got a D next this his name, don't you?

(And I'm not a "Dem" by the way.)

Andrew

Shyguy writes:
At this point if I were to wager on the tickets I would have to bet on a Mitt Romney/Mike Huckabee VS Barack Obama/Hillary Clinton ticket.

Hillary Clinton gains nothing by taking a VP slot with Obama - why would she? It's a step down from her Senate seat and even from her formerly powerful role as First Lady.

I think at least one of the Democratic candidates will have to be a white guy. Hillary with Obama as VP is possible but seems unlikely to me.

I think old Fred is just perceived as more of an old-time conservative than the others in the race are. And, he's charismatic and "looks" presidential. Republicans are terrified about losing the presidency in 2008 and they ought to be. A really good candidate could beat Hillary in 2008, but so far they don't have that candidate.

Anyway, it's still way too early to tell what's going to happen in '08. I'm expecting at least one strong 3rd-party candidacy. Ron Paul could be quite an interesting 3rd-party candidate. So would Michael Bloomberg.

Andrew

One thing is clear, McCain is falling faster than the Cavaliers in the NBA finals. Too many missteps, too extreme, and just seems out of touch. If he should comeback and win the nom I will eat this laptop I'm typing on right now.

And I still think Gore will eventually get in. Gore-Romney is my best guess here a year before we'll know for sure.

He's cooked and I agree, though I won't be eating my laptop!

(have fun with that, should it go the wrong way!)

Ron Paul could really shake things up. It's almost as if the GOP could somehow get him going as an indy where he pulls a Nader.

I just really like the guy because he's asking some very hard and very American questions. IMHO, enough people will bite on that, without digging deeper to really cause a shake up.

I agree with some of Ron Paul's positions for sure but I could never vote for him. He simply has too many Libertarian positions for me (I'm a big social libertarian just not a supporter of ditching public education, etc.). Paul would probably have appeal from Democrats, too, perhaps a little like Perot.

I would looooove it if Gore got in but I can't see that happening if Hillary and Obama continue to be viable. Then again, anything can happen in 2008. It's a wide open year. It's the first election I can remember when both parties nominations seem completely up for grabs. No incumbent VP or P is running for the first time since 1952. Very exciting!

Andrew

Yeah me too. It's too bad we can't somebody to ask the tough questions and be either just moderate or lean somewhat left...

I think Gore, once he finds out how well his book is received, will jump in.

Yes, Andrew...this could be the most interesting Presidential election in many decades. All bets are off "at this juncture." (Sorry, I'm quoting GHWB unintentially!) Either some, or all of the candidates will say something stupid, or, something geo-political will change between now and the election. Or neither could occur. Either way, will be fun to watch if you are into such things, and I suspect most reading this forum are.

We should start a pool - who will win the presidency? It's got to be someone we all already know, either one of the announced candidates or someone not unknown. It could be a surprise candidate, though.

I've recently read about the elections of 1860 and 1920 - both highly contested nominations. Lincoln's Republican nomination in 1860 probably seems way too remote to be relevant today, but it's fascinating how he did it (by being everyone's second choice - and all the first choices had too many enemies). Doris Kearns Goodwin's fantastic "Team of Rivals" is almost a must-read if you have any interest in this.

1920 wound up with two very lackluster candidates for the party nominations. Both Cox and Harding were lightweights - and former Ohio newspapermen, of all things. Neither Cox nor Harding were considered likely possibilities a year before nomination. Teddy Roosevelt was considered the likely Republican nominee until he unexpectedly got sick and died. Herbert Hoover was actually considered for the Democratic nomination in 1920 at one point; his name was actually put on the ballot in a few primaries. Hoover was considered a god in America in 1920, a national hero due to his heroics in organizing war relief after World War I.

I wonder if in 2008 we'll finally have another open convention in one or both parties again, when the nomination really is up for grabs at the convention, rather than the convention being a big PR show. That would be cool!

Andrew

I second the pool. We should put some stakes on it though. Winner gets something.

Now thinking about who will win -vs- who I want to win...

Let the games begin. Wait that happens too in '08 with the games in Beijing. Or will it? Will the US boycott the games? Or will their indeed be a geo-political event so Gnormous that the Olympics get cancelled?

Food for thought as something like this scenario is always possible and would almost certainly change the election landscape/game in the USA.

Please, please, Republicans;

Nominate Thompson. That would be just wonderful.

I wouldn't rule out Thompson as a serious candidate. Remember, California (including many Democrats) voted for Arnold for governor TWICE. In this day and age being a TV star is a huge asset in a society that votes more for American Idol than for President of the United States.

Andrew

OK, let me be the first...Al Gore will be elected President in November 2008. What do I win if I'm right? I'll take a $25.00 certificate to Burgerville!