November 30, 2006
Carville Predicts A Gore Run
Live from the The American Democracy Conference at the Reagan Federal Center in DC.
Editor's Note: this writer will not attempt to craft a narrative from Mr. Carville's stream of consciousness.
Breezing through his standard roster of jokes (Mary Matalin and estrogen, Howard Dean, Dan Quayle), James Carville, one of politics' most successful consultants and one of Bill Clinton's best friends, pronounced the 2006 election "pretty predictable."
But, he said, "The most disturbing thing to me as a Democrat was that this was the third election cycle in a row that Republicans have closed better than us. Wherever we were on Friday before, we were not as good on Election Day."
The "most positive thing," he said: "the thing that reaches out and slaps you across the face is 18-t0-30s. I think we won them about 61 to 39. Way Way better than any other age group. If you're a political party, you'd rather have [that age group] because they tend to be around longer."
"There is no clear Republican frontrunner," which Carville calls an historical anomaly. Not since 1940 has the Republican Party not annointed its standardbearer years in advance. Republicans, Carville said, aren't used to divisive, competitive primaries.
Another historical anomaly: "We're going to have five larger-than-life candidates running for President. McCain, Giuliani, Hillary Clinton, Obama and Al Gore. And you want to make it interesting, you might have Newt Gingrich in it."
The rest of the fields: "It's hard to see them as president."
"Giuliani and McCain are larger than life people. They're not the most temperate men I know. Maybe we'll have a little fisticuffs. In the long, freezing cold, irritating saga of the campaign, we know many delicious things are going to happen."
On Hillary Clinton's potential campaign: "I don't think I'm going to work on it, but I'll be helpful where I can."
Posted at 09:12 AM
Comments
Carville, Not only did we win a lot of federal elections, but also state, local elections. Besides we didn't loose any of the Democrats in the Congress, either. Isn't that a pretty good sign and people are fed up with Patriotic Acts replacing our Constitutuion and also losing our Haebeous Corpus? with the military act? Gees. here we are doing the very best we can.
But you are right, it will take more. (I sort of wish Baker would go home. The last time he came to pull Dubya out we got a dishonest election and I wonder who is that in the WhiteHouse? Let's try to send him home.) Give us credit for that. All in one go, but it is the best we have had since 1994, 12 years. Really its been tough IN cONGRESS on the Democrats since 1994 and was tough on Bill Clinton's last term. I believe we must do better in order to get the Executive Branch in 2008. I simply can't put anyone down for not doing better, we have all individually worked our fingers to the bone, literally, to get this done and it took a whale of a bunch to get it done...no one person did this or didn't do this, it was all of us united that pulled this one off.
What I am worried about is this: What is Baker's December 6th surprise. The last few surprises I have had from this administation have been pure hell.Bush said that he would consider anyone who is anti-war in iraq a potential Terrorist. now today i read where they have millions on the list..so that would out number Al Quida...so who do you think are the rest of the list?
What about the millions who are now on their potential terrorists list. that is of some concern to me. They are saying those that are cannot fly...well, does that mean half of America? or what?
Theresa J. Steed | 12.01.06 04:58 AM
 |
I think Carville is wrong about the Republicans and 1940. In 1952 the Republicans had a wide-open convention between Taft and Ike.
Vinny | 12.01.06 02:54 PM
|
Post a comment
The Watergate · 600 New Hampshire Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20037
202-739-8400 · fax 202-833-8069
NationalJournal.com is an Atlantic Media publication.
