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

Nah, let's put up Hillary and watch the GOP self destruct! Talk about hate and vitrol, I think the country might elect her just to make the GOP go CRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZYYYYYYY!

 

Do you want the clueless or the spineless in power at this time?

Unfortunately, those in power at this time are both clueless and spineless (and seemingly corrupt).

 

First of all, in 2002, Romney promised not to seek changes in the abortion law in Massachusetts. That was not, IMHO, an indication he was pro-choice.

Second, he does have very valid cover - the Massachusetts Supreme Court, which imposed gay marriage on the state of Massachusetts.

Third, other politicians/political figures have migrated the other way (Al Gore, Jesse Jackson, and Dick Gephardt, for instance) from pro-life to pro-choice. Republican primary voters have accepted other politicians who have migrated from pro-choice to pro-life (George Bush Sr., for one - another was Reagan).

 

It's bad now for you guys, but I can't imagine if the GOP holds on to the White House and Congress in 2008 and beyond. If the Dems put up Hillary, they will lose. The party could actually implode if such happens in 2008 with yet another defeat.

Someone would have to hide the Kool-Aid from many of you here; otherwise it would probably be mass suicide.





I personally hope both parties reorganize into more viable units as they have stagnated.

I wouldn't call the GOP spineless, but clueless.

I would call the Democrats spineless.

GOP = clueless

Dems = spineless

 

Yes, goes with the stereotype:

Democrat: Liberal, intellectual, and effiminate

Republican: Conservative, mindless, and strong.

 

I'd rather be intellectual and effeminate than a mindless and "strong".

Fortunately for me, I can be intellectual and "strong".

 

First of all, in 2002, Romney promised not to seek changes in the abortion law in Massachusetts. That was not, IMHO, an indication he was pro-choice.

Yes, but he ran as strongly pro-choice in the last election, if I recall correctly. He began distancing himself from Roe only after he got into office.

Second, he does have very valid cover - the Massachusetts Supreme Court, which imposed gay marriage on the state of Massachusetts.

Not this old saw again.

The Massachusetts SC correctly allowed the law as it currently stands. Both the legislature and the people, through referendum, will have the chance to nullify this if they so choose.

Please do not pretend that the court has had the final say in this situation, as that is only a half-truth. What's more, you know it.

This goes both ways on a variety of issues; I am not interested in a "tit-for-tat" on the subject.

Third, other politicians/political figures have migrated the other way (Al Gore, Jesse Jackson, and Dick Gephardt, for instance) from pro-life to pro-choice. Republican primary voters have accepted other politicians who have migrated from pro-choice to pro-life (George Bush Sr., for one - another was Reagan).

It was never about party with me, Jediflyer; you are missing my point. He risks alienating moderates who might have otherwise voted for him, and as such, risks losing some states in the more liberal/moderate Northeast and Mid-Atlantic.

Peace,

V-03

 

Seconded

Romney has done a lot to alienate Massachusetts. If he makes a bid for the Presidency, he won't exactly be getting a great letter of recommendation from MA residents. He could try to spin things I suppose, and claim he is a Republican who can hack it in a Blue State.

I can definately say, however, Romney will not win Massachusetts in a Presidential Election. Massachusetts is weird when it comes to governors and will (for some strange reason) elect Republicans, but no way will voters swing Right for a Presidential candidate.

 

Hillary can't win a national election. There are too many people who would rise up and vote for the other canidate; regardless of who it is.

 

The Tennessee fan speaks the truth. The Democrats will show how out of touch they are if they nominate her.They would do so much better with someone like Bayh of Warner. I also beleive the Republicans would be foolish to nominate a neocon like Frist or Allen.I consider the Democrats the favorites to take the White House, and for some reason, I think the Dems will come to their senses and not nominate Hillary.

 

I think it would be less a testament to how out of touch the Democrats are with the public than it would be to the stranglehold the DLC clique has on the party machine.

 

Mitt Romney just signed a bill in Massachusetts that makes carrying health insurance mandatory by law for all State citizens....

He's positioning himself quite well, I think.

 

What about poor people who can't afford health insurance?

Regardless, Hillary won't run unless she is 90% sure she can win. She's a politician, a very competent one, not an ego-maniac. I think she'd rather half a life-long career in politics as the someday senior Senator from New York than as the failed presidential candidate who was the first one to receive a major party nomination.

The Dems are in it to win in 2008. Mark Warner might have some skeletons, but Evan Bayh, Tom Vilsack, we got some smart good looking fellas who can win in red states.

That's what the Dems need, is to win in Red states. So long as the GOP doesn't put up someone with moderate appeal like McCain, blue states like Illinois won't be in play. If a couple of charismatic men with southern appeal (ala Clinton/Gore) storm through Iowa, the Dems will have this thing locked up before the general.

 

The only problem with that OBM is that the extreme left base is too angry to let a moderate win the election, even one from their own party. I would love to vote for a Dem, but at this point the Dems are so inept that they won't learn the lesson from the last election. You will still ignore those of us that are against gay marriage and abortion, and that means you can't be for the Dems even if the GOP is corrupt, incompetent, and lazy. Bush may have dragged us into a war, helped the rich get richer, and done nothing about securing the border, but at least he got some decent people in the Supreme court. I don't see the Dems doing much on the first three either, but I know they would love to put some nutcases in to increase the power of the courts so they have a big negative to start with in my book.

Even Hillary is too moderate for the lefties, and that should tell you something.

 

It is a progressive-type system where the poor are given their insurance free of cost to them, the lower middle class pays very little, and so on.... There are also penalties for those who can afford the insurance and don't buy it (just like auto insurance).

It is also an approach that does not foster complete dependency on government (a Republican ideal) while facilitating the needs of poorer citizens when necessary (a Democratic ideal), so both parties came together overwhelmingly to pass the bill for Romney to sign.

He's proven he can pull both parties together on such a major issue as health care. If he can transfer that success to the national scene, then his chances are very good indeed.

He has to get through the GOP base though, which could be difficult.

 

-Yeah, and the extreme left wanted Howard Dean, and it was only because Kerry positioned himself as this moderate, sensible, and not extreme liberal candidate that he locked up the nomination.

The Democrats want to win, and in places like Iowa and New Hampshire, we'll want some moderate candidates.

Republicans won't go for universal health coverage on a national stage. Something about their nature forces them to believe people shouldn't take care of each other.

 

I would expect such an ideological response.

Their platform is that people are best when they care for themselves. They believe the government to be less able to care for you than you are able to care for yourself if able.

And, it isn't 'national health care' in the government-sponsored vein. It is a program involving people required to buy private insurance, with only the most poor being afforded community health care. Such a system was in place here in New Orleans already before Katrina, but the government hospital (Charity Hospital in New Orleans) was well known for attracting much of the riffraff of society. Many of whom were drug dependents looking for their fix, or the treatment of gang-related violence... Since Charity is now closed, that element in our local society has migrated elsewhere.

Most locals (and indeed, most healthcare professionals that I speak with on a daily basis) don't want Charity to return being the crap magnet that it was.

 

The Democrats want to win, and in places like Iowa and New Hampshire,

You mean like Iowa, and New Hampshire, and Washington, and Ohio, and West Virginia..YEEARGH!

 

@ Mr44

 

The only problem with that OBM is that the extreme left base is too angry to let a moderate win the election, even one from their own party.

Who said the Democrats were the party of the 'extreme' left? The Democrats are waaay too conservative (hears the sound of DM's head exploding); we just tend to vote for the Dems because, bad as they are, they're still usually more liberal than Republicans. The more liberal candidates are just all-too-rarely viable choices.

 

No, my head didn't explode.

One would be hard pressed to find true conservativism (in the American political sense) in the Washington today in terms of economics. The GOP are not altogether much different than the Democrats in terms of spending these days (although the Dems would raise the tax rate to include their spending).

The Democrats are certainly not conservative, and only a fringe extremist (again, in American political terms) would make such an inaccurate claim.

Bush certainly is no economic conservative by any reasonable definition, either. Tax cutting itself doesn't make one conservative (nor his ignoring of the oil industry's record profit taking).

 

I don't care too much about what happens right now, I'm just glad we won't have to deal with Bush anymore.

 

Darth Mischievous:
One would be hard pressed to find true conservativism (in the American political sense) in the Washington today in terms of economics. The GOP are not altogether much different than the Democrats in terms of spending these days (although the Dems would raise the tax rate to include their spending).

Bush certainly is no economic conservative by any reasonable definition, either. Tax cutting itself doesn't make one conservative (nor his ignoring of the oil industry's record profit taking).

As I've said in other threads, that's wrong. Democrats have been pushing to hold the line against cuts in domestic programs, and expanding them if possible. And that's the right position, IMO. Republicans, on the other hand, submit budgets that freeze, restrict or cut the budgets of most domestic programs, but paired with defense increases and tax cuts, still end up increasing the deficit.

Don't believe me? Take a gander at this representative CBPP report. To misquote and paraphrase Joe Friday, "Just the facts, sir."

I recommend you check out my post here. I also recommend that if you want to continue discussing this topic, we move it to that thread, so as to not further derail this one.

 

Democrats aren't conservative, maverick, unless one is making observation from the left fringe which happens to be so in your case.

You're also referring to an organization on the left-wing that is concerned with the issues surrounding poorer citizens (income redistribution) and one that Krugman gushes over:

"[The Center's] statistical work is absolutely impeccable; there is nothing at all like it on the right, or anywhere else. . . . If you care about [fiscal issues], check CBPP's site regularly for updates."

Paul Krugman, New York Times columnist,
in a May 28, 2003 column on his website listing
websites that are "must reading for anyone interested in government policy."

Find a more objective resource for consideration.

Of course, there isn't a type of taxpayer money spending on social welfare that you didn't like, maverick. Haven't learned the lessons of spending excessively and taxing to cover it, I still see, maverick? The GOP is suffering extensively because of their love for pork that they share with their Democratic colleagues.

Not so? What about that bloated Medicare bill?

The public is in no mood for increased domestic spending in Congress nor for tax increases. In fact, pork needs to be trimmed, and useless spending eliminated.

The GOP's irresponsibility could suppress conservative voter turnout in ?06 that could cost them even into 2008. However, if the Dems win this year and there is nothing but gridlock in Washington, then it could hurt them in '08.

 

I guess it depends on how badly people are ready for a chance, and whether or not they perceive the democrats to be the instrument of that change.

Peace,

V-03