Who will (not should) be the Democratic presidential nominee in 2008?

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

Keep in mind, I was a wide eyed liberal when I was younger, just like most of you guys are right now. Actually, until 2006, I'd never voted for a republican candidate in my life.

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

Keep in mind, I was a wide eyed liberal when I was younger, just like most of you guys are right now. Actually, until 2006, I'd never voted for a republican candidate in my life.

You didn't answer the question(s)

[kurtism]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

*golf clap*

[ISiddiqui]

I think those saying McCain are going to get destroyed are being waaay too optimistic. Makes me remember when people said Kerry was going to wipe the floor with Dubya in 2004 because of how unpopular Dubya was. This is going to be a close race.

[st.cronin]

McCain does have a number of things in common with Bob Dole, which is a negative indicator. On the other hand, it was pretty impressive the way he routed the Republican field.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I think those saying McCain are going to get destroyed are being waaay too optimistic. Makes me remember when people said Kerry was going to wipe the floor with Dubya in 2004 because of how unpopular Dubya was. This is going to be a close race.

I agree, I just think it's equally silly to say that McCain has already won at this point.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

McCain does have a number of things in common with Bob Dole, which is a negative indicator. On the other hand, it was pretty impressive the way he routed the Republican field.

Except for one very key factor - McCain will not run a campaign as poorly as Dole did. McCain has already shown that he willing to say the right things at the right time (like his recent blue-state tour). Dole never could do that, as much as they tried.

I am agreeing with the conversation regarding Clinton and her chances. As far as the general, there are way too much narrowmindedness to take what anyone says seriously. Imran was the only one who got it right.

VV: You are correct on the peak polling but because of extenduating circumstances in the Dems primaries, their peak will come later in the cycle.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

McCain does have a number of things in common with Bob Dole, which is a negative indicator. On the other hand, it was pretty impressive the way he routed the Republican field.

Other than age, they don't have that much in common. Dole was always perceived as being mean spirited, even by members of his own party. Additionally, the public never warmed up to the guy on the campaign trail. In that particular trait, Dole probably has more in common with Al Gore and John Kerry than he does with John McCain.

[SFL Cat]

Since it is likely that this would be Hil's only shot at the presidency, I think she stays in it 'til the bitter end.

I hope she does. That will make for one hell of an entertaining convention.

[Buccaneer]

But nothing controversal is going to happen at the convention. They got all summer to get everyone in line and on the same page.

[SFL Cat]

They've got disgruntled voters in Florida and Michigan. Hillary wins here, and I imagine its close in Michigan. We're talking whole different ballgame if those two states count.

Lots of bad blood between Clinton and Obama and their supporters. I'm not sure either would consent to be a second fiddle on the "dream ticket" some are having orgasms thinking about (Obama-Clinton or vice-versa).

I think if Clinton doesn't drop out prior to the convention, things will be very interesting -- and no one will be happy if the Super Delegates select the nominee.

[Scoobz0202]

Well, it won't be close in Michigan, because Obama was not even on the ballot.

[chesapeake]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I think those saying McCain are going to get destroyed are being waaay too optimistic. Makes me remember when people said Kerry was going to wipe the floor with Dubya in 2004 because of how unpopular Dubya was. This is going to be a close race.

Fair enough. If anyone could snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, it would be the modern incarnation of the party of Messrs. Jefferson and Jackson.

But there are a number of things that aren't parallel. 4 more years of the same war, for one. A deeply struggling economy for another. And let's not discount the accumulated fatigue of 4 more years of Bush's autocratic rule.

I have to assume that McCain will do his best to divert the country's attention away from these basic issues, but I don't think it will work this time. For one, he won't have the money that Bush did in 2004 to get his message out.

And Vic, I don't think that Obama will have to devote that many resources to MI to firm it up. His own particular skills as a candidate lend themselves to maximizing his bounce out of the convention, and I think that will go a long way toward firming up his support in most traditionally Democratic states.

[Buccaneer]

But there are a number of things that aren't parallel. 4 more years of the same war, for one. A deeply struggling economy for another. And let's not discount the accumulated fatigue of 4 more years of Bush's autocratic rule.

I don't discount anything but I also don't assume things will remain the same. When Bush2 came into office in 2001, everyone was wrong as to what the first 4 years would bring. However, I still contend that no matter who becomes President, there will be many things that will remain the same and other things that will be cyclical. US History has never shown linearity in any significant length of time. You could not even imagine what the world would have been like (or how different from today) if what most people had said in the 70s came true.

[Vegas Vic]

Obama just picked up another defector.

[Galaxy]

How do you guys think Congress will shape out? Do you think people will vote in a certain way in relation to how they vote for the President?

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Curiously, it appears those who ridiculously predicted Obama's demise a month ago, now standby a prediction that McCain will win the general election.

Obama became the next President of the United States in March 2008. McCain and the Republicans running for Congress are going to get creamed. The war, the economy, enough said.

[Ksyrup]

Now Pelosi legitimizes Clinton's chances. Dean and Pelosi have both come out essentially supporting the idea that Clinton has a realistic opportunity to win the nomination. Amazing.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Vinatieri for Prez

Obama became the next President of the United States in March 2008. McCain and the Republicans running for Congress are going to get creamed. The war, the economy, enough said.

I want to agree with you (not because I want him to win, but because I think you are right), but on the morning of election day 2004, I probably would have bet my house that Bush would lose, and he didn't. Anything's possible 6 months from now.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

They've got disgruntled voters in Florida and Michigan. Hillary wins here, and I imagine its close in Michigan. We're talking whole different ballgame if those two states count.

Everyone keeps saying this, but it's just wrong. Because of the dems way of doing things in proportional numbers, Hillary isn't going to gain a lot by Florida and Michigan. Even with a double digit win in both Michigan and Florida, Hillary picks up a whopping 33 delegates. If she wins by a 20 point spread (60-40) in both states, she picks up 67 delegates.

Assuming the rest of the states play out even, Hillary would still need well over 60-70% of the supers to go her way.

The FL and MI are just posturing at this point. Hillary has only two outs to win this battle now:

1) Total disaster for Obama. He dies of a heart attack. He gets caught screwing a 10 year old boy. He's caught on tape saying Israel should be bombed. I'm talking something HUGE.

2) The supers go into the back room and agree that Hillary is the candidate.

That's it. Hillary has no chance any other way. If 2 happens, she and the dems can forget about winning in November.

Now if the dems had a Republican style system? Florida and Michigan would be game changers. Now? Those states are irrelevant to the big picture.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

This is why there is a huge difference between Obama-Wright and McCain-Hagee. The latter is about votes. Relatively speaking, it's not that important whether Hagee endorses McCain or Wright endorses Obama. There is no long-standing relationship there. It is not even remotely comparable. With Wright and Obama the issue is that this is a person by the senator's own statements who is a powerful figure in his life, a spiritual mentor, officiated his wedding and baptism, etc. A key formative influence, personally.

It's like Obama's damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't. When the Wright stuff first came out, people wondered "what does he really think about race?" So Obama goes on national television and gives a thoughtful explanation of race in America, his views on the question, and an idea of where he'd take the subject if elected President.

When Wright takes his 15 minutes of fame and runs with it, getting more and more histrionic, Obama clearly and completely breaks with Wright and his message.

Obama's been clear to people that he was drawn to Wright because of the quality of his pastoral care. We've now watched as Obama's had to come to terms that a man who he respected on a personal level has indulged in a form a political grandstanding that has only served to alienate the two from each other.

Frankly, I think the whole episode has been an excellent opportunity to learn about the character and views of Obama. Some people just don't seem to want to take this evidence at face value.

Obama could have done the politically expedient thing and threw Wright under the bus as soon as possible. He didn't, because he valued that personal relationship. He tried to explain this as best he could. When Wright gave him no choice, he made the correct decision and threw him under the bus.

Now let's contrast this to McCain. McCain once called Falwell and Robertson "Agents of Intolerance". And rightly so. However, once he started running for president in this election cycle he changed his mind. Suddenly he was speaking at Falwell's University. Suddenly, when asked, he no longer felt they were "Agents of Intolerance".

Last Sunday, McCain said that he was "Proud" to have Hagee's endorsement, but that he didn't agree with his views.

What does this say of the McCain we "know"? It says that once he decided to run for President this time around, he was willing to sacrifice any principles necessary to get the right endorsements and the right contributions.

There's your dichotomy.

If you're not willing to believe Obama because you think he's being two-faced about Wright, then you damn well better be not willing to believe McCain on anything as he's been two-faced about almost every position he's held during the course of this campaign.

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Huh. And to think I always thought the converse of evil was good, not patriotism.

Where have you been for the entire Bush Administration?

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

Electoral-vote.com is a joke, and I don't know how anyone who has seriously followed presidential elections over the years can take them seriously.

Electoral-vote.com is quite clear that until the polls really start rolling, his algorithms result in nothing more than guesses. He's said as much about the current totals on the site. In the past few election cycles the site has been a good predictor starting about 3 months out from the elections.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Last Sunday, McCain said that he was "Proud" to have Hagee's endorsement, but that he didn't agree with his views.

What does this say of the McCain we "know"? It says that once he decided to run for President this time around, he was willing to sacrifice any principles necessary to get the right endorsements and the right contributions.

There's your dichotomy.

If it was Obama who was proud to have Hagee's endorsement but noted that he disagreed with his views, we'd be hearing all about how great of a uniter Obama was because he brought people into the fold who he didn't necessarily agree with, but wanted to work with to 'unite' this country. Welcome to politics.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by Vinatieri for Prez

Obama became the next President of the United States in March 2008. McCain and the Republicans running for Congress are going to get creamed.

This isn't meant as a slam, it's a legitimate question -- have you seriously followed presidential politics over the years and seen what it takes to assemble an electoral college to get to 270 votes?

If you seriously think that McCain is going to get "creamed", then I assume you're talking about an electoral college landslide, and perhaps you'd like to rattle off the list of states that Bush won in 2004 that Obama is going to win in 2008.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by chesapeake

But there are a number of things that aren't parallel. 4 more years of the same war, for one. A deeply struggling economy for another. And let's not discount the accumulated fatigue of 4 more years of Bush's autocratic rule.

I have to assume that McCain will do his best to divert the country's attention away from these basic issues, but I don't think it will work this time. For one, he won't have the money that Bush did in 2004 to get his message out.

Well, as it has been said, it takes far longer to change someone's public perception than to build one up. McCain is not seen as being a "Bush Republican". Of all the Republican candidates, the Reps actually did the smart thing and picked the guy seen as most not-Bush. I'm not sure that Bush is going to necessarily decide this thing. After all, even the most ardent anti-McCain people are going to admit that McCain has, many times, worked with his political opponents across the aisle. He's worked closely with Hillary Clinton, Russ Feingold, and Ted Kennedy among others. He is far more willing to listen to others than to simply shut his ears and go with his gut.

That counts for something when you are distancing yourself from W. And remember, even after the Nixon impeachment, Gerald Ford almost won in 1976. People don't automatically impart the sins of the previous President on the candidate of the same party.

[chesapeake]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Now Pelosi legitimizes Clinton's chances. Dean and Pelosi have both come out essentially supporting the idea that Clinton has a realistic opportunity to win the nomination. Amazing.

hxxp://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/07/pelosi-the-race-is-not-over/

I think Pelosi is being much more circumspect than you are giving her credit for.

"The people should all have the opportunity to speak as long as two candidates wish to compete in those primaries and caucuses. In a few weeks we will be on our way to nominating the next President of the United States," she said.

When asked whether she could see any path to victory for Senator Clinton, Pelosi said "You never know in elections."

Hardly a ringing endorsement of HRC's chances to pull this one out; but it recognizes that if Obama implodes in the next month or two, HRC could back into this thing.

[chesapeake]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Well, as it has been said, it takes far longer to change someone's public perception than to build one up. McCain is not seen as being a "Bush Republican".

You have identified one of the primary goals for Obama in this election. His campaign SHOULD be focused on making sure that, when voters think of McCain, they think of 100 more years of Bush policy on Iraq and 4 more years of Bush's untax-and-spend economic policies -- both of which he championed in the Senate.

McCain has a little bit of a problem responding. The two current issues that he can point to being a GOP maverick on -- immigration and anti-torture -- are core beliefs of the base he needs to turn out in the fall. Torture he can probably work out a message on, but immigration gets him into deep doo-doo. If the anti-immigrant GOP base doesn't turn out for him in Ohio, he's hosed. And this group will abandon you on that one issue.

[chesapeake]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

If you seriously think that McCain is going to get "creamed", then I assume you're talking about an electoral college landslide, and perhaps you'd like to rattle off the list of states that Bush won in 2004 that Obama is going to win in 2008.

The states you'd have to look at are Ohio, Virginia, New Mexico, Iowa, Nevada, Missouri, Florida, North Carolina, Tennessee and Arkansas. I don't know that he will win all of these, but he could win a bunch of them.

Voters are angry right now. Really angry.

[chesapeake]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

How do you guys think Congress will shape out? Do you think people will vote in a certain way in relation to how they vote for the President?

Retirements are always a good indicator for which way the wind is blowing.

Retiring House Members (25): 22R 3D
Retiring Senators (5): 5R 0D

Democrats have already picked up 3 House seats from Republicans that have either died or resigned.

Of the top 10 House races that could lead to a seat changing hands, the National Journal has 9R and 1D. The same numbers apply to the Senate.

A couple of the big Senate races are in states that are very competitive in the Presidential race. VA is as close to a lock as you get in May to change from John Warner (R) to Mark Warner (D). New Mexico is right behind. In both cases, the Democrat has a big financial advantage, which will help the entire ticket.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by chesapeake

The states you'd have to look at are Ohio, Virginia, New Mexico, Iowa, Nevada, Missouri, Florida, North Carolina, Tennessee and Arkansas. I don't know that he will win all of these, but he could win a bunch of them.

Voters are angry right now. Really angry.

I see.

He couldn't make Ohio (which went republican in 2000 & 2004) competitive in a primary vs. Clinton, but somehow he's going to beat McCain there in November?

He won the democratic primary in North Carolina with a coalition of African-Americans (who made up 40% of the primary vote) and college students, but somehow he's going to be the first democrat to carry the state in 32 years. Hillary Clinton got 60% of the democratic white vote. What do you think is going to happen when you throw in a few million republican voters in November.

He got destroyed by Clinton in the Tennessee primary, but he's going to be the first democrat to carry the state in 32 years.

[st.cronin]

New Mexico will almost definitely go with McCain in the GE, likely Nevada too, although I don't know their demographics as well.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by chesapeake

hxxp://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/07/pelosi-the-race-is-not-over/

I think Pelosi is being much more circumspect than you are giving her credit for.

"The people should all have the opportunity to speak as long as two candidates wish to compete in those primaries and caucuses. In a few weeks we will be on our way to nominating the next President of the United States," she said.

When asked whether she could see any path to victory for Senator Clinton, Pelosi said "You never know in elections."

Hardly a ringing endorsement of HRC's chances to pull this one out; but it recognizes that if Obama implodes in the next month or two, HRC could back into this thing.

Anything less than "give it up and quit putting yourself before the party" out of her and Dean's mouths is demonstrating a serious lack of leadership. If Obama is caught in bed with a 10 year old boy, then obviously Clinton is going to jump right to the top, suspended campaign or not. The only chance of winning she has is to turn the process on its ear and have the superdelegates overturn the popular vote, and if the Dems allowed that - coming on the heels of the "stolen election(s)" - they're even stupider than I already think they are.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by chesapeake

The states you'd have to look at are Ohio, Virginia, New Mexico, Iowa, Nevada, Missouri, Florida, North Carolina, Tennessee and Arkansas. I don't know that he will win all of these, but he could win a bunch of them.

Voters are angry right now. Really angry.

I sincerely doubt he's going to win Missouri, and we've been a bellweather state over the past 100 years. We rarely pick the loser. His location won't affect the votes either. Chicago, Illinois may be only 3 hours from our state border, but it's a world away as far as culture goes.

[JPhillips]

IMO the states that could switch from 2004 will be IA, CO, NV, NM(especially if Richardson is VP), OH and VA. I'm not on the NC or TN bandwagon.

As for OH, it's far more receptive to the Democrats than it was four years ago. There is a resurgent Democratic party, a popular Democratic Governor, and a few competitive House races. The Republican brand is also still tarred by the numerous scandals of the state Republican party.

[st.cronin]

I think its just a fact that Clinton puts a lot more states in play than Obama. Obama would have to run a perfect campaign to win the GE, Clinton would have a lot more room for error. I don't think this is contested by anybody, and its why Clinton still has a chance to win the nomination. That Obama has the lead he has and is NOT being declared the presumptive nominee I think reveals that the Democratic leadership knows the score, and is hoping to find a way for Clinton to win.

[JPhillips]

Ksyrup: I don't think either Dean or Pelosi have any right to force someone out of the primaries before they're done. After June 3 they should force a choice by the supers, but candidates shouldn't be pushed by party bosses to quit before the elections are over.

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I think its just a fact that Clinton puts a lot more states in play than Obama. Obama would have to run a perfect campaign to win the GE, Clinton would have a lot more room for error. I don't think this is contested by anybody, and its why Clinton still has a chance to win the nomination. That Obama has the lead he has and is NOT being declared the presumptive nominee I think reveals that the Democratic leadership knows the score, and is hoping to find a way for Clinton to win.

Did you switch Clinton and Obama's names here by accident?

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I think its just a fact that Clinton puts a lot more states in play than Obama. Obama would have to run a perfect campaign to win the GE, Clinton would have a lot more room for error. I don't think this is contested by anybody, and its why Clinton still has a chance to win the nomination. That Obama has the lead he has and is NOT being declared the presumptive nominee I think reveals that the Democratic leadership knows the score, and is hoping to find a way for Clinton to win.

There are only two ways st. cronin. I posted them up top. Obama in bed with a 10 year old boy would do it. Or the supers overriding the voters. The first isn't going to happen. If the second happens, it'd be the end of the democratic party as we know it.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by TroyF

I posted them up top. Obama in bed with a 10 year old boy would do it.

Can we get off the 10 year old boy?

Wait, that didn't come out right...........

[Ksyrup]

I'm more than happy to see them allow her to continue. And I don't agree with people dropping out early, like the Republican race developed (or didn't, more precisely). But since she can't win, I think it's incumbent upon somebody to stand up and bitch slap her back into reality. Actually, this should have happened after she, in fact, lost Texas - when both she and Bill acknowledged that if they didn't win both Texas and Ohio, her campaign was over.

If she was just running a Huckabee-type race, not focusing on attacking the other guy but playing up her strengths, then I could understand giving her some leeway. But the number of "Hillary is doing things that would make Karl Rove blush" comments I read from Democrats who are angry with her makes me think she's doing more harm than good, and that this is all about her desperately trying to win a race she thinks she is owed, but that Obama has unjustly taken from her.

This is like if someone came in and swept the Repubs up in 1996 and screwed Dole out of his "lifetime achievement award" nomination, and he went Terminator on that person trying to reclaim what was rightfully his.

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

This isn't meant as a slam, it's a legitimate question -- have you seriously followed presidential politics over the years and seen what it takes to assemble an electoral college to get to 270 votes?

If you seriously think that McCain is going to get "creamed", then I assume you're talking about an electoral college landslide, and perhaps you'd like to rattle off the list of states that Bush won in 2004 that Obama is going to win in 2008.

I already did this the last time you asked; it's somewhere in this thread if you care to search for it.

The question you should be asking is since McCain is starting 10 points behind, how exactly is he supposed to win? Newt was asking this same question earlier in the week.

Not only do I follow elections, I bet heavily on them. I don't make a habit of being spectacularly wrong very often.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

I don't make a habit of being spectacularly wrong very often.

Of course you don't. If there's one thing we need more of on the internet, it's anonymous message board posters who are rarely wrong.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

I already did this the last time you asked; it's somewhere in this thread if you care to search for it.

I have searched the thread and can't find the answer.

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Of course you don't. If there's one thing we need more of on the internet, it's anonymous message board posters who are rarely wrong.

Oh I'm wrong a lot.

[Fighter of Foo]

Who will (not should) be the Democratic presidential nominee in 2008? - Page 15 - Front Office Football Central

Probably wrong regarding TN.

[ISiddiqui]

Speaking of that interplay, have you decided if you want to make the 315 Electoral votes margin bet yet?

[st.cronin]

Colorado seems like a state where Obama may do better than Clinton or McCain, that I can buy, although I don't think its a slam dunk. The others, not so much. You think Obama can win Idaho?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Anything less than "give it up and quit putting yourself before the party" out of her and Dean's mouths is demonstrating a serious lack of leadership. If Obama is caught in bed with a 10 year old boy, then obviously Clinton is going to jump right to the top, suspended campaign or not. The only chance of winning she has is to turn the process on its ear and have the superdelegates overturn the popular vote, and if the Dems allowed that - coming on the heels of the "stolen election(s)" - they're even stupider than I already think they are.

Depends upon what the role of the party leadership is.

Is it to put forth the best candidate possible for a win in November? (I would think that's the most obvious role) If so, then they're doing exactly what they should be doing, keeping their best chance at winning in November in play as long as possible, in spite of a process (of their own making) that doesn't seem to be producing that result. And as far as I can tell, there's really been no significant manipulation of the rules or anything, they're largely just letting their process run to a conclusion.

Honestly, I don't get all the angst about how this is playing out. I think it's probably one of the healthiest things I've seen in American politics in years, and I guess you'll just have to take me at my word (or not) that I'd say the same thing if it were happening in the other party. I just don't get the whole "pulling out before mathematical certainty" thing, regardless of the party. And in this particular scenario, I don't see much damage being done to the party's chances November. At that point people are either going to "vote the party" or "vote the candidate" and I really don't think there's much going to be changed about which they decide to do by whatever infighting remains.
The differences -- whether they're policy, personal, social, whatever -- are real, the process is just exposing them, and I think that's a healthy thing (and really wish the same had taken place with the GOP). And letting it play itself out is probably the most respectable thing I've seen from the Dems, or either party for that matter, in a long time.

[path12]

Wow. I totally agree with Jon on a political matter. I think they have to do it this way also, you have to allow the Clinton supporters to be able to come back to the fold with their heads held high -- so playing it out (at least until you can come to a compromise on FL and MI) allows you to devise a scenario where that can happen.

Forcing the matter right now just reinforces the bad blood between the two camps.

[st.cronin]

These are the states that I believe will go blue if its Obama vs. McCain:

Edit: added in the electors, also fixed a couple of obvious errors like leaving out New Jersey.

Hawaii - 4
California -55 (although watch out)
Washington - 11
Oregon - 7
Minnesota - 10
Wisconsin - 10
Iowa - 7
Illinois - 21
Michigan - 17
Pennsylvania - 21
Maryland - 10
Delaware - 3
DC - 3
New York - 31
Connecticut - 7
New Hampshire - 4
Vermont - 3
Maine - 12
Rhode Island - 4
New Jersey - 15

That makes 255, not enough.

New Mexico - 5
Ohio - 25
Florida - 27

That makes 312.

[Young Drachma]

Why do people think California is going red? Are you on meth?