US Elections 2008 - Speculation and Analysis (Future Election Discussion)

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by Darth Mischievous, Mar 4, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Darth Mischievous Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 12, 1999
    star 6
    We are fast approaching the preliminary stages for the 2008 US Presidential election with several candidates already lining up to position themselves to run.

    Current polling data indicate a variety of candidates with varying competition between the two parties.

    In the Democrat Party field, Hillary Clinton is standing out as the woman to beat for the DNC nomination. However, there are large negatives for the former First Lady, as a full 51% of current voters say that they would vote against her with not even 20% stating that they would definitely vote for her. Will the Democratic Party base go for her or another candidate? The Democrat Party may choose to go with someone much less divisive, like a Mark Warner - the hugely popular former Governor of Virginia....

    In the Republican Party field, it is currently more open. John McCain and Rudy Giuliani are currently considered frontrunners, with Condi Rice a possible stealth candidate (or a VP nominee possibility). There is also Mitt Romney, the Governor of Massachusetts (he has stated he will not seek re-election for Governor again this year). The GOP could consider him to peel off a few Blue States. Let's not forget about George Allen, the current US Senator and former Governor of Virginia....

    There will be other candidates from various parties, but will we see a type of candidate on the mold of a Perot or Nader that could sway the election for the Dems or the GOP?

    What issues will dominate the 2008 Election?

    The candidates will be announcing very soon...

    Begin the speculation!

    Just making it an official discussion
  2. Jediflyer Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Dec 5, 2001
    star 5
    I just have a few points to make right now:

    First, I think Chuck Hagel, my senator, has a good shot at the Republican nomination. He is more McCain than McCain minus the campaign finance crap.

    Secondly, Guiliani doesn't have a chance in the primaries. There is no way the religous right will get behind him.

    Thirdly, I think Hillary Clinton has a better chance than you give her credit for. Much of her negatives are likely based on an amporphous "bad" connotation from radio talk hosts (both talk and morning show) and late night TV. When she actually gets out there in speeches and debates, I think we will see the numbers even out. Also, although I think she is just as vulnerable to Republican attacks as Kerry was, I think she will handle them better and have a much better command of how to run a campaign.

    Fourthly, I don't forsee a major third party candidate.

    Fifthly, as for the major issues, I think economic issues such as immigration and outsourcing, as well as a backlash against Republican cuts in nonmilitary spending and fiscal irresponsibility will be pretty major. The Democrats will probably get some mileage off the corruption scandals, but most of this will probably be used up in the 2006 mid-term elections. The war in Iraq will still be a big deal, but not as big as 2004. I also don't forsee gay marriage being anywhere as big as it was last election. The big wildcard however is probably abortion. It has the chance to explode, depending on how the Supreme Court rules next year on the Nebraskan case it just accepted to hear in the fall a few weeks ago.

    My question to add to DM's is this: How do you think the mid-term elections will affect 2008?
  3. Espaldapalabras Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 25, 2005
    star 5
    Mitt Romney would be great, it would be good to see a Mormon that isn't as idiotic as Senator Hatch make a run for the Presidency.
  4. Darth Mischievous Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 12, 1999
    star 6
    Jediflyer, you have a point concerning Giuliani, which I had considered. However, he may end up the VP candidate on a McCain ticket, and there is great love for Giuliani by the GOP generally. It will indeed be difficult for the GOP base to accept him, but it's not out of the realm of possibilities.

    As far as Hillary is concerned, her negatives aren't simply a result of talk radio and late night television. She is seen as shrill and unprincipled. She is also very divisive. If the Dems run Hillary, they will lose in 2008 unless the GOP puts up a complete dud. Hillary will not carry a single southern State. I do believe that Hillary would beat Condi Rice in a head-to-head match up though. I also believe that the nation has Bush and Clinton fatigue and is ready for new blood.

    Mitt Romney presents the most interesting scenario for the Republicans, especially if Hillary is the Democratic nominee.

    The mid-term 2006 elections are also an interesting scenario involving the 2008 Presidential race, Jediflyer. If the Dems control the House, then investigations will ensue for the rest of the Bush Presidency and nothing will be accomplished until 2008 (even though his Presidency is pretty much in lame-duck status now with even Republicans rebelling against him). The country is looking for change, but the country is uneasy about both parties. If the Dems control the House, it may add strength to any Republican candidate in 2008 (as he could blame them for any lack of movement in Congress to solve national issues in the time they were in control). If the GOP retains control and the situation continues as is, then the Democrat nominee may have the edge (unless it's Hillary vs. Condi or some other GOP dud).

    However, the whole situation depends on the candidates that the Parties put up in 2008 regardless of what happens in 2006.
  5. Vaderize03 Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 25, 1999
    star 5
    I wouldn't put too much stock in Mitt Romney, DM.

    His swinging to the right on abortion and stem-cell research has not only alientated voters in Massachusetts, it has come across looking like exactly what it is: political opportunism. The social conservatives don't believe him, and the liberals and moderates are accusing him of shifting positions to align himself with the national GOP.

    I think he will go nowhere.

    I agree with you that Warner will be the best choice for the dems, but it remains to be seen if the huge Clinton political machine will be able to take one for the team.

    I'm not optimistic.

    I like Rudy, but he cannot win the support of the religious conservatives with his positions.

    If he gives them up, he risks losing the support of even his own state.

    McCain? No charisma and a gruff manner. I think that this will become apparent once he appears on the national scene for real, IMHO.

    It will be an interesting year, that's for sure.

    Peace,

    V-03
  6. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 8
    Sorry, is the Democratic colour blue, and GOP red?

    E_S
  7. DARTH-SHREDDER Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    May 6, 2005
    star 5
    Honestly, the reason Hilary Clinton will never win is because all the yahoos in this country can't get over the fact that she didn't divorce Bill, even though, you know, that's none of their business and has nothing to do with how well she can be a leader and politician.

    I think America needs to get educated before we can have a serious election. [face_tired]
  8. Fluke_Groundrunner Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 1, 2001
    star 4
    I think this guy would be a good Democratic canidate, unless there is something I do not know about:
    Carl Levin
  9. Coruscant Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2004
    star 6
    Honestly, the reason Hilary Clinton will never win is because all the yahoos in this country can't get over the fact that she didn't divorce Bill, even though, you know, that's none of their business and has nothing to do with how well she can be a leader and politician.

    You're mistaken. ;)

    We "yahoos" have much more valid reason to not want to see Hilary in office, and it has to do very much with her leadership and political abilites.



  10. beafet Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Mar 12, 2001
    star 5
    Interestingly, the more Hillary talks and gives speeches, etc, the lower her numbers get.

    [face_plain]
  11. Obi-Wan McCartney Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 17, 1999
    star 5
    If Condi ran on the top spot, I'd probably vote for her.
  12. Darth Mischievous Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 12, 1999
    star 6
    V03, maybe we're overlooking the fact that Romney is proficient at triangulating issues, much like Clinton did in the 1990s with issues like welfare. It is opportunistic, but Dems like Hillary have proven very proficient at that.

    Don't underestimate the ability for Giuliani to woo the GOP base, especially if Hillary runs. It would make a head-to-head matchup with New York voters, and I tend to think NY would go with Giuliani over Hillary in a Presidential race.

    McCain is already on the national scene, and people like his compromising style. He isn't very charismatic, but he is effective at negotiating compromise between the parties. That is his most attractive asset as a candidate.

    I would consider voting for Mark Warner, over Condi Rice or George Allen.
  13. DeathStar1977 Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 31, 2003
    star 4
    My .02 cents...

    First off, polls now don?t mean much. Its all about name recognition. While this in the long run may benefit Hillary because of her ability to raise money, Democrats will take a first, second and third look before they pick a candidate. Likewise for the GOP.

    As I have said before, the shift of the South from being strongly Democrat to strongly Republican would prevent practically any Democrat from winning any state there. As talented as Bill Clinton was, he faced a weakened incumbent and a weak challenger, yet his results in the South were average and neither of his opponents were a true southerner.

    While I personally like Gov. Warner, he was my gov when I lived in Virginia, I don?t see him doing well in the South, aside from taking Virginia provided he doesn?t face George Allen, and especially if the GOP puts up a southerner. Where he could do well is Ohio, Colorado, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico and Iowa, where his relative youth could bring the new blood that some have spoke of.

    I don?t see much of a chance for Romney or Giuliani. I?d actually love to see one of themversus Warner, who would probably keep most of the blue states AND make some inroads in the South versus either of those two. But in reality, the social conservatives currently hold a lot of sway in the GOP, hence the reason McCain has been courting them, or so I?ve read. McCain would be almost unbeatable in a national election provided the Republicans rally around him. I am surprised that some here find him to be sans charisma. IMO he is as charismatic/likable as most every other politician.

    I don?t see Condi running. Either way, to me she comes across as bright but also a bit of an ice queen. Senator Allen is the x-factor, as I think he could either be feast or famine. He is popular amongst social conservatives, yet doesn?t come across as a loon (Santorum, Delay, Brownback, etc.) that may make him appealing to a cross-section of Republicans. Giuliani may have name recognition, but IMO he?d flame out quickly. In addition to the previous stated reasons, the current administration has milked 9/11 enough, and Guiliani has pretty much disappeared since then.

    Out of all of the Republican possibilities, I like Chuck Hagel the best. His voting record is quite conservative, but he has shown a willingness to stray from the reservation regardless if it is politically advantageous or out of an incessent need to be loved. For these reasons though, I don?t see him winning the nomination. And being a Democrat, I really have no say anyway. [face_mischief]

    I could see McCain winning the nom, and choosing a social conservative to appease that wing. Or possibly Mark Warner, who then chooses Barack Obama as his VP, to bring youth and vitality, similar to Clinton/Gore in 1992. George Allen remains a strong possibility for the GOP. If Hillary wins the nom, Wes Clark as VP would be a possibility. Naturally I'm just throwing names out there so don't use em for gambling purposes. ;)

    As of now, I'd say the favorites are Hillary, Warner, Allen and McCain.

    Despite all the speculation, its always interesting to see how things pan out, especially when the candidates are all officially announced and given a public forum to compare and contrast. Its here where people get a read of whether or not someone is presidential and reflects their values, concerns and goals.
  14. liberalmaverick Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Feb 17, 2004
    star 3
    Disclaimer: None of the following is actually directed at anyone who has commented on this thread, but rather to people who discuss 2008 Presidential politics in general.

    Okay, so as far as the 2008 Presidential race is concerned it's already pretty unproductive to be talking about it on a SW forum, but it's even more unproductive (in any venue) to wildly speculate about who will run/not run. It's also unproductive (and somewhat insulting) to not take candidates at their word when they say they won't run. With that said, let me just say...

    CONDOLEEZZA RICE WILL NOT RUN FOR U.S. PRESIDENT IN 2008!!!!!1!!!!111!!!!1!1!!!!

    I really empathize with Dr. Rice in that she has strenously denied ANY, I repeat, ANY, interest in the race, and yet people (again, this is not a knock on anyone here, just political people in general) continue to bandy her name about as if she was some ambitious politico just waiting to take over the White House. Because, you know, other people know more about Rice's political plans than she does. As she complained, what do people have to do to say no in D.C.? Now if she does step into the race I'll gladly admit that I was "wrong" (though really what I'm doing right now is repeating what she said about her own ambitions) but let's wait until then.

    Likewise, Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill.) is not running. He's said it. He's said it twice, three times, maybe five thousand times. I don't know the exact number, but he's said it.

    And ah yes... Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.). Was there any chance that her name would NOT come up as a possibility for 2008? It was almost like the media, or the brain-dead flock of sheep that passes for a media these days, automatically assumed she was running in 2008 right after the 2004 election. Cuz you know, God told them. Or Pat Robertson did - same difference. At any rate, as Mugatu in Zoolander put it, am I taking crazy pills here?! Or has anyone noticed that Clinton has not said Word One about 2008? This is not to say that she will not run. Because she has not actually denied the possibility of running, the way Rice and Obama have, it is likely that she will run. But let's wait until she actually does something.

    That said, there are candidates that are actively speaking and working towards a 2008 Presidential run. These are the people who are going to Iowa and New Hampshire, raising massive amounts of money, setting up PACs, and doing talking about their Presidential campaigns. They are the ones who want and need attention but are losing it to HRC's non-existent campaign. Who are these crazy people?

  15. Senator Joseph R. Biden, Jr. (D-Del.), who on June 19 2005 told CBS News that he was going to run for President in 2008.


  16. Senator Samuel D. Brownback (R-Kan.), who has told the Topeka Capitol-Journal that he?s effectively running for President and starting well in advance to make up for his lack of name recognition.


  17. Governor Michael Huckabee (R-Ark.), who has reportedly already told friends that he is running.


  18. Former Speaker Newton L. Gingrich (R-Ga.), who said ?[I want to] help shape the discussion ... I don't know of any better place to do it than in Iowa ... [I'd] like to be a participant in the dialogue on these major issues. If that means I'm a candidate, then I'm a candidate.? (Interestingly enough, at a February 2006 CPAC, he said that he was not yet a candidate, failing to realize that guys like me are tracking his every move and utterance. This doesn't bode well for any claims to honesty and straight-shooting he might decide to make in the campaign.)


  19. Former Governor Mark R. Warner (D-Va.), who is already hiring Presidential campaign veterans and setting up the underpinnings for a campaign.


  20. Senator Birch E. "Evan" Bayh III (D-Ind.), who is already setting up a campaign team filled with Presidential campaign veterans and taking trips to New Hampshire.


  21. Governor William
  22. Darth Mischievous Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 12, 1999
    star 6
    It's looking like McCain is the man to beat right now according to the recent data and the information provided at that recent GOP meeting (even though McCain is trying to solidify GOP support for Bush's ailing Presidency), but there is a long way to go.

    After the 2006 midterms, the picture will start to clarify.

    If there is a McCain/Giuliani ticket, I don't think that the Dems could surmount that...

    However, I think an individual like John McCain would have much better success at working with Congress, even if there is Democratic Party control... He is also very popular with Independents (like myself) and moderate Democrats.

    A Democrat like Warner would also probably have some success as well, as he is also popular with Independents and moderate Republicans...

  23. Obi-Wan McCartney Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 17, 1999
    star 5
    Well DM, according to the drudgereport, McCain just faced embarrassment at a GOP straw poll, and attempted to discredit the event by asking his supporters to vote for Bush.
  24. Fluke_Groundrunner Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 1, 2001
    star 4
    The drudgereport story is only on that website, as an exclusive. I wonder if Matt Drudge just doesn't like John McCain? Is this story anywhere else?

    I get the sense that McCain probably has a lot of enemies because he probably pissed people off by not toeing the party line.
  25. Darth Mischievous Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 12, 1999
    star 6
    OWM: The GOP activists are fools if they think Frist is a good candidate for nomination, and there is more popularity within the general GOP with McCain than with the hard-core activists present at that meeting.

    Romney's showing was somewhat of a surprise, though.

    The GOP would be far better served not to nominate Frist or Allen, just like the Dems would be wise not to nominate Hillary or Gore (again).
  26. JediSmuggler Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 5, 1999
    star 5
    Romney could really make some waves. He's got a good track record in turning some things around - and he also has some outsider appeal.

    I'd vote for him in an instant.
  27. liberalmaverick Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Feb 17, 2004
    star 3
    What I'd like to see is how Republican Romney supporters that also happened to criticize John Edwards's VP candidacy in 2004 on "lack of experience" explain this one.
  28. Darth Mischievous Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 12, 1999
    star 6
    The obvious difference is that Romney is a Governor with executive experience versus Edwards who had no such executive experience, libmav.

  29. Fluke_Groundrunner Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 1, 2001
    star 4
    Edwards was also critized on his lack of foreign policy experience by some of the same people who supported Bush in 2000.
  30. liberalmaverick Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Feb 17, 2004
    star 3
    Yeah. How much foreign policy experience does Mitt Romney have? And no, running the 2002 Winter Olympics doesn't count.

    Not to mention that if this is a legislative vs. executive experience debate, John Kerry didn't really have any executive experience either (aside from two years as Massachusetts's Lt. Governor) and no one complained about him.
  31. Darth Mischievous Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 12, 1999
    star 6
    The GOP is just begging the Democrats to run Hillary in '08.

    Mitt Romney would destroy Hillary in a nationwide referendum. Hillary will not carry a single Southern US State, and Romney could peel off a few Northeastern States.

    If the Dems run someone like Warner, then they have a much better shot at it. Warner would pick up at least a few Southern States and probably all of the northeast, and he would beat Romney at his own game.

    If there is a McCain/Giuliani ticket, then the GOP will be in power until 2012.
  32. Obi-Wan McCartney Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 17, 1999
    star 5
    DM, you always talk about the left-wing extremists in the Democratic party, but the thing is, they are mostly ignored. They run around in full force in the GOP, (the right wing extremists that is), they must be addressed and they must be appeased. They will never, ever allow a pro-choice social liberal like Guiliani on the ticket, and they never cared for McCain.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.