The 2008 US Elections: Discussion, Opinion, Predictions

Howdy folks,

In response to Ender's request that we lock down the old thread due to morbid obesity, I am here to perform a gastric bypass.

You all know the drill: it's going to be a bumpy year for the political process in the United States.

Who wins? Who loses? Who will give us the most enjoyable ride? President Hillary? Giuliani? Huckabee? McCain?

Post your thoughts, opinions, speculations, and let's all journey down this crazy path towards the first Tuesday next November together.

Peace,

V-03

 

This is my gut:

Democrats: 75% Hillary, <15% Obama, <10% Edwards, >0% someone else.
Republicans: 35% Romney, 30% Huckabee, 25% Giuliani, 0% McCain, <1% Ron Paul, 10% someone else

If it is:

Hillary vs. Romney: Tight race, with Hillary pulling out slightly ahead
Hillary vs. Huckabee: Huckabee wins in a tight race
Hillary vs. Giuliani: Religious right forms third party which gets approximately 5% of the popular vote, giving Hillary the edge, but not a majority (like in '92)
Obama vs. Romney: Romney win with a decent margin.
Obama vs. Huckabee: Tighter than him vs. Romney, but still a decent win for the GOP
Obama vs. Giuliani: Obama gets raped in the general election

Note bene that this is not based on any reasoning whatsoever. That's just what the landscape "feels" like to me.

 

A most interesting ticket was pondered the other day, utterly unique.

Paul / Palin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin


In July 2007, Gov. Palin was heralded in the media as being the most popular governor in the United States, with an approval rating often in the 90s.

I think Hillary would get wiped out with that ticket.

 

Ron Paul is pro-homeschooling, anti-abortion, anti-gun control, anti-taxes, and I agree with him on many other issues. He's also a straight-talker and I enjoy having him in the debates as a wonderful contrast to the rest of the Republican candidates.

He's also bat**** insane. I'd vote for Hillary over them anyday. While I desperately want to see Roe v. Wade overturned, I'd rather that the country stay intact before that.

 

If Huckabee got the nomination what sort of strategy do you guys think the Dems would use in the general election? Is it possible they would try to turn his religious background against him or is that still too risky of a move in the year 2008?

 

I think that intelligent design will hurt him. They won't be able to attack him for pandering like they would Romney. I think that the worst thing about him is his politicoreligious tendencies. That has a possibility of costing him the election.

 

That's one thing I don't understand about him. Whenever he's asked about evolution he says something to the effect of "I believe God was involved in the creation of life, I don't know how he did it exactly, we just don't know". Why doesn't he just forthrightly say he believes in evolution but that God guided the process. That pretty much covers all of the bases, politically.

 

Huckabee's stature seems to be improving of late, and he could be a sleeper candidate... It would be a disaster for the GOP if they nominate him. He's a nice and likeable guy, but not subscribing certain validity to evolution?

Giuliani is basically ignoring Iowa and NH, expecting that the big State primaries will go for him and put him over the top on Super Tuesday (Feb 5th). He would have more than enough delegates to win if he takes it that day, versus the Iowa/NH results.

Hillary's campaign has been wounded a bit of late, and her poll numbers are dropping. Obama and Edwards are picking up a bit. Will it be enough? I doubt it, but anything is possible in the primaries. I wouldn't rule out suprises. Obama has the better shot at the slingshot effect than Edwards.

We're just about six weeks away now from the Iowa caucus.

Latest Iowa and New Hampshire polling reporting from RealClearPolitics:

CBS News/NY Times (11/02 - 11/12)

Iowa Caucus

Democratic

Clinton 25%
Edwards 23%
Obama 22%
Richardson 12%
Biden 4%

Republican

Romney 27%
Huckabee 21%
Giuliani 15%
Thompson 9%
McCain 4%
Paul 4%

New Hampshire Primary

Democratic

Clinton 37%
Obama 22%
Edwards 9%
Richardson 6%

Republican

Romney 34%
Giuliani 16%
McCain 16%
Paul 8%
Huckabee 6%
Thompson 5%

 

Not as big a disaster as the religious right siphoning off a third party.

 

True.

But, what if Bloomberg were to enter the race as well?

Imagine if both Bloomberg and another 'third-party' conservative jumps in.... A four way race between the GOP and Democratic nominee, an Independent Bloomberg and a Conservative third party candidate....

 

Andrew Sullivan wrote an excellent piece in this month's Atlantic about Obama and what he means to the race (it's titled "Why Obama matters"). Obama does matter a great deal, and I think he was wise to take advantage of his opportunity now, at least from a self-interest viewpoint.

So long as Hillary or Obama are the nominees, they will win. Hillary would crush Guliani (particularly by embarrassing him in his own home state) and pretty much any other Republican contender. The only man out there who can compete with her as a campaigner is Romney, and I don't think he's going to be the nominee. Paul is going nowhere, despite what Paulites would like to believe. He'll fade, as John Anderson did in 1980. Huckabee is an unknown in much of the country, and though Clinton was likewise in 1992, these are different times, and if your name isn't Obama, Clinton, Guliani, Romney or McCain, you're not going anywhere except maybe on the ticket as a VP candidate.

Like her or hate her, Hillary Clinton has a formidable machine behind her, and the experience of multiple national campaigns, not to mention a burning drive to win. She is a ruthless politician, and while I don't think that's what we need in a president right now, it means a lot in terms of what she can do as a campaigner. She has the most popular president in decades at her side, a man who far outstrips even her as a campaigner and a politician, a man with a rolodex probably the size of your average metro phone book. Like a fast receiver in the open field, if she gets the nomination and gets into the clear, she will not lose. Bill won't let her, and even more importantly, she won't let herself lose. It'll be a take no prisoners campaign, and I think she'll humble whoever is in her path if she's the nominee. I think Obama would be better for the country as a whole, and Sullivan makes a lot of sense in his piece about him, but it seems much more likely that Hillary will win out in the end.

None of the Republicans have what it takes to be president. Guliani has never run a national campaign, and that will show if he's the nominee. September 11th, 2001 will become as much an albatross as it has been a boon for him, and I think he'll get what he justly deserves-- i.e. some karmic payback. Romney makes Kerry look rock-solid on the issues, and McCain's time has passed.

Like it or not, be ready for at least four more years of the Clintons in the White House. Chelsea Clinton will be first daughter again just under one year from now.

Having said all that, I think it's possible that Obama could make some substantial gains and challenge her for the nomination. If he gets the nomination, it'll be a considerably closer campaign, but one with the same ending. The Democrats will be back in the White House come January 20, 2009.

 

Any people willing to vote for Bloomberg would probably be pulled off of Giuliani, not Hillary. However, I don't think that they would do that. Also, I don't think many people would vote for Bloomberg over Hillary. Thus, you might have Hillary winning by a larger margin (unless you use butterfly ballots).

Very true.

 

Explain this from Quinnipiac in 'blue State' Connecticut, KW. Or, here where Giuliani polls ahead of Clinton in New Jersey, a Democratic bastion. If Giuliani is the GOP nominee, if he picks off even a few 'blue States', Hillary cannot win.

I wonder if anyone can show me a nominee in history that has won a general election with as high negativity ratings as Hillary Clinton has, where basically half of the country says they won't vote for the candidate under any circumstances?

Yes, she has a significantly effective machine behind her (from her husband's machinations), and she is ruthless. However, she has been rarely put to the task with sincere scrutiny in the national debate until the other night... and she's not Bill Clinton, who is a master politician in his own regard.

She folded under the least amount of pressure in the recent Democratic debate, and it's taken down her poll numbers of late. She has faced a hostile debate on one occasion from her fellow Democrats, and she doesn't have Bill behind the curtain to prop her up. Dodd was able to demonstrate her weaknesses quite adequately. When she comes off the script, she's lost.

I'd like to see a 'Subway Series' between Clinton and Giuliani, and it would ba a ruthless exchange and interesting to watch.

 

Is that really attractive to the American electorate, though? Wasn't one of the biggest knocks against Gore in 2000 the perception that he would say and do anything to get elected? I think Hillary projects that impression twenty times as much as Gore did. And speaking of Gore, do you suppose we've passed the deadline for him to enter the race?

 

No, it's not attractive to the general electorate. You're correct that was one of Gore's problems as well. I think if he would have been more genuine, he would have won.

She is immensely ambitious, and the perception is out there that she will stick her finger to the wind to say anything to gain power. Obama doesn't give that impression off, and he comes across as much more sincere.

Gore's not getting in. He's enjoying his position in the limelight internationally too much now.

 

Explain this from Quinnipiacthen in 'blue State' Connecticut, KW. Or, here where Giuliani polls ahead of Clinton in New Jersey, a Democratic bastion. If Giuliani is the GOP nominee, if he picks off even a few 'blue States', Hillary cannot win.


I don't really care what the polls say (at least right now). I'm telling you that when it comes time to vote, Clinton will absolutely embarrass Guliani in New York, New Jersey and other blue states. Mark my words. All this if she's the nominee, of course.

Yes, she has a significantly effective machine behind her (from her husband's machinations), and she is ruthless. However, she has been rarely put to the task with sincere scrutiny in the national debate until the other night... and she's not Bill Clinton, who is a master politician in his own regard.


Garbage. She's been under constant, micro-lens scrutinity for close to two decades now. There's a reason she's so calculating, and it has a bit to do with this scrutinty. Don't demand spontaneity and then bash a candidate for being just that (not that you have, just speaking generally).

I wonder if anyone can show me a nominee in history that has won a general election with as high negativity ratings as Hillary Clinton has, where basically half of the country says they won't vote for the candidate under any circumstances?


Why, we have to go aeons back in time, all the way to... 2004. That musty, misty point in history gave us George W. Bush, who won despite strong "Anybody but Bush" sentiment around the country, or at least in blue states. Further back, we have Richard Nixon, who won in 1968 despite being about as likeable a person as Hillary.

I'd like to see a 'Subway Series' between Clinton and Giuliani, and it would ba a ruthless exchange and interesting to watch.


Like Sullivan, I don't want to see that. However, if it came to that, be assured that Hillary would win, and decisively so.

 

You said the same thing with assurance that Obama would be the nominee previously, as I recall. Perhaps it will still be so.

On election night, it is irrelevant were Hillary to take New York (she probably will do that) to the other States. The Eastern and Central time zones won't be affected by that.

...and she's remained heavily unpopular nationally for decades. This is nothing new.

She wasn't 'spontaneous' during the Democratic debate. She was off-script and genuinely shown for her nature. Dodd pinned her down on an issue, and she took both sides... triangulated the issue. Edwards ran with it in an absolutely perfect campaign ad.

Do you not think that if a Democratic candidate can hammer her about granting illegal immigrants driver's licenses, what do you think the GOP will do with her on that issue?

Obama is the only candidate that has consistency in the Democratic field.

Hillary has close to 50% of the public that have said that they will not vote for her at all, and they already know her. It isn't as if she's an unknown candidate. It isn't likely to change, although it is possible.

She has the best chance if the GOP fractures and nominates a third party candidate.

The edge is on the Democrats' favor, but it would be premature to grant either party a definitive victory at this time.

 

I'd like to respond to the last post made by Vaderize in the old thread. The criticisms of the Clinton's use of "swift-boating" was because it was gratuitous. The Clinton's are legitimately centrist and are well known for developing positions that seem to play to both sides of an issue. That's a legitimate point to bring out.

Whereas both claims about Obama (his religion and the "hand over his heart" thing) are patently false. In short, they aren't being compared because they're not comparable. Discussing a trademark tactic that someone has used over more than a decade is quite different than saying something about your opponent that has never been true in the course of their entire life, let alone now.

 

I shudder at the thought of it. Mainly because even the slightest possibility that Guiliani is the nominee makes me cringe. The man is a more ruthless politician, in terms of "my way or the highway" than Clinton is. The man has never run a campaign beyond the local level (New York City isn't your average local electorate, but still). He would be a complete disaster to this country - he couldn't even run New York City right; let alone a whole country.

Mike Huckabee in the White House scares me even more than Rudy does (well, almost). The man is such a blind evangelical that he even denies evolution. Honestly, I welcome him to the Republican nomination - all the Democrats have to do is run the "Huckabee doesn't believe in evolution" ad and anyone with a bit of knowledge will vote for the Democrats. Yes, even Hillary Clinton.

The only Republican I see standing a chance against any of the Democrats - and this includes Edwards, Obama, Hillary, Richardson, and Biden - is Mitt Romney. Other than him, I can see the Democrats beating any of the other candidates fairly easily. The only four that really stand a chance, in my opinion, will be beaten by the Democrats. The only other remaining one is McCain, and I think his time has passed. He is the only other beacon of hope for the Republicans, in my opinion.

I'm even worried about where Romney is taking this country. Maybe I'm reading it wrong (and I hope I am), but his website has absolutely no details of his plans. A staunch conservative told me the other day that his health care plan is exactly what this country means (and I am not a supporter of Hillary's plan; I am conservative on this issue...to an extent). However, on his website it just says "Romney believes..." and it's a three sentence statement on what he wants to do with health care. Yet no substance on how he wants to accomplish it.

 

You said the same thing with assurance that Obama would be the nominee previously, as I recall. Perhaps it will still be so.


You recall incorrectly, because I said no such thing, and gave no such assurances. I once posted that I had a feeling that Obama would be the nominee, and that may yet be the case. As it stands now, I think Hillary is the best positioned candidate to win the nomination, and I feel certain that if she's the nominee, she will be the 44th president of the United States.

Part of your problem, as is the case with many here and in the field of politics, is that you make the mistake of using too much data. Simplify whenever possible, and in this case, it's clear that Hillary Clinton is the odds-on favorite to be the nominee. You can break it down however you like, but the reality is inescapable. A significant chunk of people voting for her will be pro-business folks and those without college degrees. The downscale voters, as it were. They won't be heavily analyzing her as you are, and you'd be wise to remember that.

Edwards will fall apart after Iowa, and he'll be gone from the campaign by March (at least in effective form). It'll be just Clinton and Obama for the nomination. I think Clinton will win it, but that's not necessarily what I think is best for the country. It's just what I think will happen.

 

I would agree, KW. And I'm sure we'll all enjoy the ensuing hilarity and conspiracy theories that Paulities will entertain us with when he's beaten into irrelevancy.

E_S

 

Yes, you did.

Perhaps you don't recall your own sentiments:

Sounds like assurance to me. I certainly remember your staunch advocacy for him.

You've stated on numerous occasions that you base your judgements on intuition and feeling.

Do you feel that voters will get in that booth and actually pull that lever to make Hillary Clinton the Commander-in-Chief? Or, do you feel that they'll be really pulling the lever for a co-Presidency with Bill Clinton?

It seems to me that when it comes down to it - sans any October surprises - her real negatives will affect the voters in the booth. She can win, but the Democrats won't simply win on Bush hatred. The Bush Administration will be over.

This is also heavily dependent upon who the GOP nominates and how that nominee runs the campaign.

It will be the two personalities in play, and the public will decide which they feel more comfortable with.

Of course, she's the favorite to be the nominee in the Democratic primaries at this point in time. Her poll numbers took a hit with that atrocious debate performance, and that was a single event. There are cracks in her 'inevitability' air, and she's bleeding support currently. If she can shore the leaks up, she'll win the nomination.

Obama could overtake her in a surprise in Iowa. I wouldn't rule it out. If he does that, it could derail Clinton's chances by giving him the slingshot effect.

I agree with you about Edwards.

Clinton has the presumptive nomination at this time, but Kerry was also far behind at this stage in the game.

There are demonstrated weaknesses, and Democratic insiders are nervous about a Hillary nomination due to her high negatives.

 

If you want to look at more of the details, look in the press section of his site. A simple Google search found this page giving more details. That seems at least as detailed as anything I've seen from other candidates.

You can find similar pages for other topics. Look through the press section for releases entitled "The Romney Agenda".

Kimball Kinnison

 

I think obama will outslug all others for the nomination.


"I think" is not the same as saying, "I am certain."

I see Edwards as a lightweight, and i think he would be buried by Obama in a head to head matchup.


I still do think that.

I think he'll win the nomination


I no longer hold that opinion. You'll observe (or maybe not) that I did not say "I am certain he will win it".

Obama will be the nominee, and I think there's a good chance he'll win the presidency. I just have a strong intuition about it, and I can't really articulate or defend it.


Close, certainly, but I was more or less making a prediction, and that was several months ago, I believe. Times change. They will change again, of course, but I feel far more certain in saying that if she gets the nomination (not certain, just likely), Clinton will become president (a total certainty in my mind). You'll note that I was going off intuition, and didn't even bother to elaborate. This time, I have elaborated, and it isn't about intuition. It's about cold, hard facts and reality.

Do you feel that voters will get in that booth and actually pull that lever to make Hillary Clinton the Commander-in-Chief? Or, do you feel that they'll be really pulling the lever for a co-Presidency with Bill Clinton?


Yes, I feel they will, and just as important, many will pull that lever specifically because of Bill Clinton. It will be a net gain for her, not the other way around.

It seems to me that when it comes down to it - sans any October surprises - her real negatives will affect the voters in the booth. She can win, but the Democrats won't simply win on Bush hatred. The Bush Administration will be over.


She'll win in large part because she's perceived as being competent (the word used most frequently today to describe the Bush administration is "incompetent"). She's not dynamic, but she is at least well versed on the issues and perceived to be a competent, intelligent person.

This is also heavily dependent upon who the GOP nominates and how that nominee runs the campaign.


No, it doesn't. The only effect it will have is how much the Republican candidate will lose by. That's all.

Edit: DM, I feel compelled to mention that it's vaguely creepy/stalkerish to have compiled my words like that, as if this is some kind of formal debate that I'm being judged on. Four separate posts, covering over a year's time? Surely you have better things to do with yourself.

 

As an observer of current events, this video shows what is "brewing" in America, might this be a dead end, certianly, but I dare say they just might be onto something unique and historical. Time will tell the tale.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DR-uk86FtOw (features JFK famous speech)