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

While Giuliani can clame some credit for the drop in crime in NY, a lot had to do with the vast improvement of the national economy. In fact, the crime rate was already dropping when we came into office. Furthermore, since he is a Roman Catholic and has committed adultery, been divorced, is pro-gay rights, pro-choice...all this doesn?t bode too well for the social conservatives, unless someone or someones change their views, although the right-wing certainly does not have an aversion to hypocrisy. Again, if it is someone who could potentially run as a moderate, and has actual deserved and well-earned national security credentials, that candidate would be John McCain.

And as I've said previously, Warner seems formidable...on paper. It will be interesting to see how he pans out as a candidate.

Oh, and I do believe real leadership is necessary, and Clinton did show it on many occassions and certainly would've been better regarding Katrina. However it should be truly earned, not claimed. I actually just read an article about FDR and how he was considered a weak candidate versus Hoover. However, when he became President, his leadership qualities truly shined. The point being that often great leaders emerge (i.e. Lincoln), and we don?t see it coming.

Regarding the Governor v. Senator dynamic...IMO a lot of it is how the official is portrayed and the degree of ease (or difficulty) in spinning ones service in office. Generally speaking, a Governor can take credit for accomplishments that they may or may not have had anything to do with, while a Senators record is a lot more specific considering they have to vote on each and every item put in front of them and thus have a very detailed record that is more difficult to spin. And furthermore, even if one votes for something popular, unless they are the sponsor, then they can be deemed just one of many who supported the bill. But if its something they vote against, then they are deemed against ?health care, taxes, defense, etcetera?. A good example of this is Reagen v. Dole. Reagan was attacked for being against Medicare, but he claimed that he was for a different proposal. Since there is no official vote on the record, he has more leeway to spin it in his favor. On the other hand, Dole voted against Medicare. Its on the record, so it leaves little room for spin and thus is easier to beat him over the head with ?He voted against Medicare? even if there is more to it than that. Same with Goldwater. He opposed the Civil Rights Act, but it was more due to his libertarian leanings as opposed to him being a racist, and his background suggests this. But in a campaign it becomes ?Goldwater voted against the Civil Rights Act?.

So IMO I don?t think that one or the other is necessarily better in terms of whether someone would make a good President, rather in terms of campaigning where perception can become reality, a Governor is better suited than a Senator. Naturally, all of this gov v. senator stuff could be quite obvious, but I figured I'd post it anyway.

 

[KW: Regarding Gore, I think he's shot himself in the foot too much lately to be a serious contender.


Has he? Or is he just saying things that either you or the right wing don't agree with?

 

Bush has spent his entire life shooting himself in the foot, yet here we are?

The problem I see with Gore is that everyone seems to be advising him to stick to his big issue, which is the environment/global warming. IMO this issue is not nearly enough to win an election and a campaign can?t be based around it. Sure many people say they care about the environment, but its not like most people really do anything about it.

Anyway, I don?t think elections are won or lost based on the envirornment. IMO while there should be investment in alternative sources regarding oil, it will really ramp up once supply really starts to decrease and demand really starts to increase, which is kinda what is happening now (China, India, etc.)...more demand for alternative sources as the supply of oil dwindles causing demand to increase, blah, blah, blah...

 

None of the GOP candidates excite me. Giuliani will not win the nomination without a major revolt from the religious right, and his nomination would seal a Democratic win of the White House because many religious voters would stay home.

McCain is the party establishment candidate like Dole was 10 years ago ... it is his turn unless someone better shows up, and neither energized the rank and file. McCain also reached out to Dems in 2000 when running against W in the primary, and that raises suspicions among the party faithful.

A lot will depend on what happens in the fall. Unless W and the GOP congressional leadership get some traction, they will look at losing Congressional control. W would then truly be a lame duck unless he could latch onto Pelosi and Reid like Clinton did to Newt Gingrich from 1995-98 and vilify the opposition while taking credit for their initiatives ... effectively distancing himself from himself. Losing control of Congress would actually benefit the next GOP nominee because it would scare the party rank and file and motivate them into action, and wipe the slate clean in some ways for the nominee from W.

But overall, I can't say that these are good times for the GOP. I am hoping the hire of Tony Snow and some of the shakeup at the White House will help W, but I don't think that Rove and company ever really caught on that Washington is not Austin, and that the gift of capital and goodwill following 9/11 was spent up long ago.

 

There is some crazy stuff going on in D.C. right now. It looks like CIA Head Porter Goss is resigning in connection to the "Hookergate" scandal which is being investigated in connection to Rep Duke Cunningham's corrupt deals with defense contractors.

I hadn't been following the story too closely up to this point, but now it looks like it could get very big.

*Edit*
I'm going to post some quick links to allow all of you to get the gist of the story. I'll probably be updating this for the next 5-10 minutes, so stay tuned.

San Diego Tribune's compilation of Duke Cunningham related investigations <-- looks to be really useful.

Washington Post article on Duke Cunningham and perhaps other lawmakers possibly being provided prostitutes

TPMMuckraker<---They have been following the Duke Cunninham story from the beginning. You'll have to browse around a little as the blog also tracks other corrupt or illegal activities by politicians.

And get this: The prostitutes for lawmakers deal supposedly happened at the Watergate Hotel!

Also remember that Porter Goss was a Republican Congressman before being tapped for the CIA job.

I'm also copying this post into the Bush Admin Staff changes since this definitely applies there as well. We can take it up in whichever thread everyone feels is most appropriate. The immediate topic probably fits better in the Staff Changes thread, but if the investigation explodes, it could significantely impact the upcoming 2006 and 2008 elections.

 

Darth Mischievous: I was saying that Warner and Romney will be initially perceived (and labelled) as weak on foreign policy. Whether it'll stick or not is another matter.

Btw, I agree with DS1977: while McCain would definitely be a tough candidate to beat, I don't think the same of Giuliani. I can't see what he'd run on other than 9/11 and maybe the NYPD (which is a checkered issue).

DS1977: I suppose you're right about governors having an easier time on the campaign trail, but my bottom line at least is that we ought to look at the candidates as individuals rather than what posts they currently hold. Knee-jerk "we gotta have a governor!" is like a political blinder that could rule out potentiall good candidates. It's even worse when people add "Southern" to the governor cuz really we only have but a few and only one of them has even indicated interest in the White House.

As for Al Gore, he seems disinterested in another WH run, so for now I'm taking him at his word and ruling him out. We'll see if he changes his mind but I see no reason to believe he will.

 

Oh, I agree that it should based on the individual. But based on history, as well as my opinions stated above, it appears to be smoother sailing for a governor as opposed to a senator.

 

I don't think McCain is that tough to beat.

He lacks charisma, and has now spent a great deal of time and effort attempting to dump his "independent" image in favor of building an establishment one.

Whether or not this will help him remains to be seen; if the dems get their act together and put up a southern moderate (rooting strongly for Warner here), then they have a chance.

Peace,

V-03

 

McCain is not that strong in the GOP, though he's probably the closest to being the party establishment favorite and is probably the best known candidate due to his 2000 run. Nevertheless, his nomination is not a given. I did not realize how much certain conservatives dislike McCain until I heard Bob Dornan ripping him on Michael Savage's talk show. Based upon abortion, McCain can probably pull in the religious right. His maverick streak on campaign finance and immigation reform may pull in some moderates and Democrats, but honestly, why would Democrats vote in the GOP primary? I would not vote in the Democratic primary even if I really liked a candidate, and I don't see Republicans going to vote for Lieberman or conservative Democrats in their primaries. As I posted before, that raises the suspicion of party loyalists of McCain. I know that my own in laws, who are staunchly conservative and retired military, do not like McCain, and that is really surprising given McCain's military background and overall credentials.

McCain can probably get enough votes to garner the nomination, since there are no real other alternatives. Giuliani will not get the nomination since he is liberal on social issues, even though his other stances are appealing to conservatives. Mitt Romney and Pataki are unknown at this point to most party members outside the Northeast. Frist may appeal to evangelicals but he does not have any pizazz or charisma. Thus, the evangelical and arch-conservative vote is up for grabs right now. Bob Dornan said that he would favor George Allen of Virginia, but he is also an unknown.

It's still early. But I think a lot of will depend on how this fall's elections go. And as I posted earlier, I really believe it will be better for the next GOP nominee if the party loses Congress this fall because it will distance the nominee from both W and Congress.

EDIT: I agree with Vaderize; Warner would be a great candidate for the Dems. John Edwards might have some crossover appeal, but Warner appears to be even more moderate, and depending on his stance on social issues, he might help the Dems to take back states like West Virginia and Ohio that W took in 2000 and 2004.

 

Even Bayh, Mark Warner, even Tom Vilsack, these are Dems with southern appeal.

A dem with Southern appeal seems unbeatable in an open election for 2008, IMHO. Imagine if Guiliani or McCain is nominated, they aren't going to be able to make up for the loss of southern conservative religous folks, meaning, I think a Dem with southern appeal pulls the southern vote more than a moderate republican pulls northern moderate vote. A conservative republican vs. a dem with souther appeal would be a fight for the south, but if the Dem can make headway like Slick in 92-96, and make a serious play for the south without any danger of losing the blue states, I don't see how the GOP can overcome that.

 

It's damn frustrating the the south essentially dictates presidental elections. You're only as strong as your weakest link, and they're ours (along with the more central red states, though they don't have the electoral votes to make it matter as much).

 

They are only the "weakest link" if you disagree with the direction that they tend to favor.

I would say that the fierce patisans (on both sides), who make everything into "my party or the devil's party" (even to the point of labelling those who disagree with their views such things as the "weakest link") are our contry's weakest link.

Kimball Kinnison

 

They are only the "weakest link" if you disagree with the direction that they tend to favor.


they are the weakest link, KK. The south has always been years (sometimes decades) behind the rest of the country in terms of social progress, and yet candidates must pander to it in order to win elections. In essence, our country's social progress is slowed by a handful of states.

 

Change isn't necessarily progress, KW.

Just because you disagree with them doesn't make them wrong, nor does it make them backwards or behind the times.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Change isn't necessarily progress, KW.


No, but it often is.

Just because you disagree with them doesn't make them wrong, nor does it make them backwards or behind the times.


don't insult my intelligence. I'm well aware of that. Nobody said they were "wrong" (certainly not about anything in particular), or backwards.

 

The flip side of what KW is saying is heard daily on Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity with conservatives griping about the dreaded cabal of Northeastern intellectuals and their media toadies trying to shove their paternalistic ideas of social progress on us bumpkins in flyover country. One's view of progress and enlightenment depends on one's perspective. And certainly one can always argue that a certain group of voters or states is holding back the country from achieving the utopia that one would like to see.

The South dictates the direction of the country only because of the massive electoral votes involved. Most growth in this country is occurring in the Sun Belt, and with many jobs in the last 30 years moving from the North to the South and West, which are typically areas that lean to the GOP, the power that Northern states enjoyed has shifted. Nixon recognized that the Southern states had voted as a Democratic bloc since Recontrstruction (the so-called Solid South), but that if a Republican could peel off a few of those states, a Democrat could not count on getting in the White House. No Democrat since Carter has won all of the Southern states. Clinton did the same thing as Nixon after the South began shifting to the GOP in the 1980's, but I don't think a Democrat has won all of the Southern states since. I don't think we will see a realignment of the South's ideological leanings for at least a few decades, when immigration and population patterns may change things or unless the parties may flip their perspectives once more.

 

I wouldnt be suprised if by the 08 election year if McCain isnt running against John Edwards and not Hillary of Kerry.

 

Sellars1996

Wait, you?re not a bunch of bumpkins? That?s what Beverly Hillbillies told me.

The South dictates the direction of the country only because of the massive electoral votes involved.

Very true. The Electoral College was designed, among other reasons, to prevent regional candidates, yet it tends to happen. And as many know, the electoral votes aren?t exactly proportion to the population. For example, according to the 2000 census, California has over 12 times the population of Mississippi, but just over 9 times the number of electoral votes. And approximately 7.9 times the number of people than Alabama, but only just over six times the number of electoral votes. Now I?m sure it works both ways at times, but since a state is guaranteed at least 3 electoral votes despite its population, the smaller states can have a greater proportional influence, i.e. California only has 18 times as many electoral votes as Wyoming but 71 times the population.

I say get rid of the Electoral College, for among other reasons, so that our elections aren?t determined by a best of three between Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida.

Most growth in this country is occurring in the Sun Belt, and with many jobs in the last 30 years moving from the North to the South and West, which are typically areas that lean to the GOP, the power that Northern states enjoyed has shifted.

Perhaps, but many of those states still depend on federal tax revenue from Northern states plus California.

Either way, as I?ve said before, a lot of the shift is due to the emergence of social issues in electoral politics.

Nixon recognized that the Southern states had voted as a Democratic bloc since Recontrstruction (the so-called Solid South), but that if a Republican could peel off a few of those states, a Democrat could not count on getting in the White House.

To add to this, a lot of it was the fracturing of the Solid South for the Democrats over the civil rights issue. Sure there were some true libertarians like Goldwater, but a lot of them were/are outright racists who view blacks (among others) as lesser people. And I don?t think they just disappeared because of an act of Congress and the President.

No Democrat since Carter has won all of the Southern states. Clinton did the same thing as Nixon after the South began shifting to the GOP in the 1980's, but I don't think a Democrat has won all of the Southern states since.

And Carter was running against a moderate, unelected Northerner. And I do believe that Clinton failed to win a majority of Southern states either time, even as an incumbent versus an inept challenger (Dole).

I don't think we will see a realignment of the South's ideological leanings for at least a few decades, when immigration and population patterns may change things or unless the parties may flip their perspectives once more.

Agreed. As I?ve argued before, the South has always been more culturally conservative, it?s the parties that changed. While the Democrats have been more competitive in Presidential elections since the 70s and 80s, IMHO their electoral fortunes lie in places like Ohio and Colorado, not North and South Carolina.

 

I agree, and I'd radically overhaul representation in the Senate as well, to reflect population (among about a dozen other things). Unfortunately, to do that we'd need a Constitutional amendment, and there are more than enough states who would lose power in that case to block any such amendment. Because, let's face it, the only reason a good number of states are economically viable at all is because they line up to the trough of pork barrel expenditures, especially military spending and farm subsidies.

Remember when the Pentagon wanted to close Ellsworth AFB, but South Dakota was able to politicize the issue and block it because it's SD's second-largest employer? We have a major AFB that we don't need, and we're keeping it open because South Dakota is too dependent on it for its economic well-being to deal with closure. How is that different from multigenerational dependence on welfare? Because it's rural white people and not urban black people? Because it involves the military? In any case, the only reason it happens is because South Dakota, like many rural states feeding at the federal trough, is overrepresented in the Senate.

It's the same thing you see in the life cycle of any country or empire. There are inefficiencies and imbalances which need reform, but entrenched vested interests hold enough power to block necessary reforms, so the whole thing either goes into decline or there's a revolution of some kind.

 

I once advocated very strongly for abolishing the electoral college, but on the other hand, I'm thinking that in our federal system it helps pay tribute to state authority. However, since the states don't actually cast the votes like they used to, I think it would be better to go with a popular vote. The only probelm is that a popular vote would change the nature of elections entirely, maybe for the better, maybe not.

However, I think keeping the Senate intact is appropriate. Every state gets two senators, I don't see why we question it. It is to help ensure that smaller states do not get bullied out by larger states. But to make the compromise legit, the house DOES get a proportional vote.

 

I'd radically overhaul representation in the Senate as well, to reflect population

I don?t know if I?d go that far, as I can understand that there should be some balance. But there should at least be some tacit acknowledgement of the inherent imbalance of the Senate. For example, I remember reading recently that the population of New York city is greater than four of the ?red? states in the bible belt, yet while they have to share two Senators with the rest of their state, the other four get eight. Also, up until recently, Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska was in charge of the appropriations committee (now I think its Thad Cochran of Miss.), hence he held more power on spending than say, my two Senators in California, despite having a fraction of the population and the federal taxes paid. I understand why the system is the way it is?but c?mon man, no need to keep milkin? it.

Anyway, chalk some of this up to my analysis, and some of it to frustration at being totally and entirely out of power (sour grapes? ). I mean, c?mon, its been 44 years since us Democrats from the non-South have had one of our own in the White House?at least we got closer in 2004 than anytime since, so perhaps the tide is turning. Oh, and no, I ain?t rootin for Hillary Clinton to be the next one. *takes cover from the oncoming wrath of OWM*

 

oh, how history would be different if RFK had lived. How very different it would be. The ultimate liberal champion, and he was so close to saving the Democratic Party from itself.

//semi non-sequitor

 

Duh, that's why the vast right wing consipiracy had him capped, like JF Kennedy. TFK getting drunk and likely causing the death of a young aide, well, the Dems were in disarray and gave the conspiracy that one for free.

DS, we are cool so long as you vote for Mrs. Slick in the general election.

 

KW

Now I?m starting to get verklempt.

OWM

Oh, definitely regarding the Kennedys. They just couldn?t let a northeastern elitist dynasty manifest itself now could they?

Speaking of the 60s, I still think Hubert Humphrey got screwed in ?68, mostly by people within the Democratic party. Humphrey was a great man who was as honest and decent as any politician in recent history, respected even by conservative Republicans (i.e. Goldwater) who took to his defense when Spiro Agnew accused him of being soft on communism.

And I would vote for Slickette over any Republican currently being mentioned as a candidate?but I wouldn?t necessarily be happy about it.

 

Never have truer words been said - although he was quite conservative to be called a " liberal " champion ". Well, old school conservative, at least. Teddy Roosevelt conservative.