(Politics): Who will (not should) be the Republican presidential nominee in 2008?

[flere-imsaho]

It's been a while since our last one of these (although Bubba did a broader one recently), and it's very interesting to see how the race has shaken out since that time.

Again, it's who will, not who should.

[stevew]

This is depressing.

[Swaggs]

If only Trout Bush were willing to run...

[stevew]

Interesting that Allen was the #3 choice last time, then he loses re-election in part cause of a racial slur. And I doubt we see McCain put up numbers like he did last time either.

[flere-imsaho]

This is a tough one, I think. All of the candidates have pretty big flaws. For me, it's between Romney & Giuliani, and I'm giving it to Romney because I think the conservatives will just balk too much on Rudy for the nomination.

On a related note, however, it's amazing just how fast Fred Thompson has gone from GOP savior to comic relief.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by stevew

This is depressing.

Both parties list are depressing to me.

[albionmoonlight]

I went with Rudy. I think that the religious right holds it nose and votes for the guy that it thinks has the best chance of beating the Dems.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

This is a tough one, I think. All of the candidates have pretty big flaws. For me, it's between Romney & Giuliani, and I'm giving it to Romney because I think the conservatives will just balk too much on Rudy for the nomination.

On a related note, however, it's amazing just how fast Fred Thompson has gone from GOP savior to comic relief.

Isn't there a rumor that a "third-party" Christian conversative candidate will run?

[Neon_Chaos]

Sweet. I never knew we held "Who's going to lose the 2008 Presidential Elections" polls here.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Neon_Chaos

Sweet. I never knew we held "Who's going to lose the 2008 Presidential Elections" polls here.

Actually, I don't care what the polls say now, but if Hillary gets the Dems nomination, I think the Repubs get the win. If the Dems run just about anyone else, they will win.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Actually, I don't care what the polls say now, but if Hillary gets the Dems nomination, I think the Repubs get the win. If the Dems run just about anyone else, they will win.

I agree. I think her recent proposal (the government will give you $5K for every child born) makes her look like she's trying to buy votes.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Actually, I don't care what the polls say now, but if Hillary gets the Dems nomination, I think the Repubs get the win. If the Dems run just about anyone else, they will win.

I agree. I think people will cross space and time to vote against Hillary.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

I agree. I think people will cross space and time to vote against Hillary.

We heard this when she was running for Senate.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

We heard this when she was running for Senate.

There are plenty of politicians in NY State who can win statewide but not get elected nationally.

As for who's going to win... that's a tough one. I really don't see a lot of Republicans pulling the lever in the primary for Giuliani or Romney, but we'll see. I picked Thompson because he's the closest to a traditional Reagan Republican and I think that will appeal to a lot of primary voters, but I think I need to see about another month of Team Fred before I feel solid about that guess.

[Neon_Chaos]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Actually, I don't care what the polls say now, but if Hillary gets the Dems nomination, I think the Repubs get the win. If the Dems run just about anyone else, they will win.

People are going to be voting not for Hillary, but just to get Bill Clinton back in the Whitehouse.







In best Clinton voice:
"I love boobies."

[Jas_lov]

I also picked Thompson since he's closer to a conservative than Romney and Giuliani, though not by much. But Thompson hasn't been the savior that everyone expected. I guess Giuliani would be their best shot to beat Hillary, but maybe not because people don't want another George Bush. The libertarian in me has to mention Ron Paul's $5 million fundraising quarter which was 5 times more than what Huckabee raised and rivals what Thompson and McCain brought in. He seems to be the only Republican who is on the rise. All of the other top Republican candidates raised less in Q3 than they did in Q2 except Fred since he wasn't in the race yet. Rudy and Romney raised about $10 million, Fred $8 million, McCain $6 million, Paul $5 million, Huckabee $1 million. And I think Hillary and Obama raised as much as these 6 guys combined so that's somewhat telling I guess.

[path12]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

This is a tough one, I think. All of the candidates have pretty big flaws. For me, it's between Romney & Giuliani, and I'm giving it to Romney because I think the conservatives will just balk too much on Rudy for the nomination.

On a related note, however, it's amazing just how fast Fred Thompson has gone from GOP savior to comic relief.

I picked Giuliani, but I can totally see the base rejecting him completely and going another direction -- but if that happens, I think we see someone like Huckabee as a compromise candidate rather than Romney.

[Bubba Wheels]

Getting closer to backing Guiliani. Conservative Christians that knock him seem to forget that Reagan gave us Kennedy, Bush Sr. ...(hold nose) Souter, Bush W. almost inflicted us with Harriet Meyers (sp?) before he got it right.

Point is, despite personal views on abortion the Supreme appointments are what counts. Guiliani says Thomas, Alito, Roberts and Scalia are his benchmarks. Couple that with his conservative record as Mayor and it looks good to me. Also think that Guiliani will run rings around Der Frau, with her turgid style, in the debates.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Honestly? I have no freakin' idea.

[Crapshoot]

Guliani, but my wild card is Romney.

[path12]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Getting closer to backing Guiliani. Conservative Christians that knock him seem to forget that Reagan gave us Kennedy, Bush Sr. ...(hold nose) Souter, Bush W. almost inflicted us with Harriet Meyers (sp?) before he got it right.

Point is, despite personal views on abortion the Supreme appointments are what counts. Guiliani says Thomas, Alito, Roberts and Scalia are his benchmarks. Couple that with his conservative record as Mayor and it looks good to me. Also think that Guiliani will run rings around Der Frau, with her turgid style, in the debates.

I really thought the Christian Right would be all over either Huckabee or Brownback. Why aren't they?

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Actually, I don't care what the polls say now, but if Hillary gets the Dems nomination, I think the Repubs get the win. If the Dems run just about anyone else, they will win.

+1

[King of New York]

Fred Thompson.

That his numbers are as high as they are, given how shaky his performance has been, suggests that a lot of Republicans really, really want this guy to come through.

Once he starts showing any signs of life, the media will start hyping Thompson, and supporters of Rudy and Mitt are going to peel away, mostly because of regionalism--despite W's low poll numbers, most Republicans will still take a red-state southerner over a blue-state northerner any day.

[Young Drachma]

Also, I don't think Rudy would know fiscal sanity if it hit him in the face. I think he'll make GWB look like a real conservative. But people will elect him if it means beating Hillary and I think he's betting on that. Romney is a real dark horse. The Mormon thing is just a smokescreen that the media wants people to believe will stop conservatives from voting for him. He's slick, he's savvy and has tons of money.

A few fireside chats between LDS Bishops and some Southern Baptist reverends and all will be fine. After all, they're not Jews and that's all someone needs to really explain to them.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by path12

I really thought the Christian Right would be all over either Huckabee or Brownback. Why aren't they?

Just off the top of my head, I'd say both have lost a lot of (potential) votes by backing amnesty (or even more) for illegal immigrants.

[path12]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Just off the top of my head, I'd say both have lost a lot of (potential) votes by backing amnesty (or even more) for illegal immigrants.

Ah. OK. I haven't followed much of the Republican race and wasn't aware of their stance on that.

Is it really that big an issue with the Right? Enough to offset Rudy's and Romney's baggage?

[sooner333]

I think Alan Keyes gets the win.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by path12

Is it really that big an issue with the Right?

Which "Right"? And that's not meant as a joke.

For me (as a pro-choice conservative), immigration control with serious teeth is as big a litmus test issue as any. Not the only, or the biggest, but get it wrong, you have zero chance of getting my vote.

But for others, abortion is the litmus and a difference on immigration isn't a candidate killer.

Problem is, there's no candidate that doesn't seem to have failed or is at least poised to fail at least one must-pass test for a high number of likely conservative voters. I'm not at all sure there's any tactic that the eventual GOP nominee can use to win except I'm-not-Hillary.

It's the most depressing group of candidates I can recall in my lifetime.

[Galaxy]

I do think the GOP is hurting themselves with the minority group after the top candidates skip some minority-focused debates.

How do you break down the GOP voters/members in terms of the Christian conservatives; financially-conservative, small government(with more moderate/liberal views on social) and moderates?

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

It's the most depressing group of candidates I can recall in my lifetime.

It seriously is an awful, awful bunch. I'm not even sure how to hold my nose to vote for any of them.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

I do think the GOP is hurting themselves with the minority group after the top candidates skip some minority-focused debates.

It was stupid from a PR perspective, but honestly, those things are NEVER about substance. It's always about browbeating, white guilt and pandering to the colored folk to make them convinced that "We really do care."

I don't blame them for not going. Tavis Smiley is just trying to sell his stupid book and the Univision one was going to be a retread debate about immigration.

I'm not saying that you need Juan Williams or someone more to the right to pundit one of these as evidence that it's "fair and balanced," I'm just saying that you can't expect people to go into hostile territory when they can be certain that it's not going to win them an election.

Especially at the primary stage of the game.

So sure, it looks bad. But it's not going to hurt them with anybody but white moderates and by the time it comes time for them to decide, they'll have time to make amends or they'll have forgotten this snafu.

[QuikSand]

 2008 REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE (1-Pay)  	$100 WIN  
Series Name 	Sell 	Buy 	 
RUDY GIULIANI 	35 	40 	  +150
MITT ROMNEY 	23 	28 	  +257
FRED THOMPSON 	20 	25 	  +300
REP. RON PAUL (TX) 	3 	6 	  +1566
SEN. MCCAIN (AZ) 	3 	6 	  +1566
GOV. HUCKABEE (AR) 	2 	5 	  +1900

For those interested in this sort of thing... here's the thinking of at least some people putting their money where their mouth is.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

It was stupid from a PR perspective, but honestly, those things are NEVER about substance. It's always about browbeating, white guilt and pandering to the colored folk to make them convinced that "We really do care."

I don't blame them for not going. Tavis Smiley is just trying to sell his stupid book and the Univision one was going to be a retread debate about immigration.

I'm not saying that you need Juan Williams or someone more to the right to pundit one of these as evidence that it's "fair and balanced," I'm just saying that you can't expect people to go into hostile territory when they can be certain that it's not going to win them an election.

Especially at the primary stage of the game.

So sure, it looks bad. But it's not going to hurt them with anybody but white moderates and by the time it comes time for them to decide, they'll have time to make amends or they'll have forgotten this snafu.

Good points.

[path12]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Which "Right"? And that's not meant as a joke.

I meant Christian Right, but I appreciate the clarification. As someone who is left of many Democrats, I tend to think of the "Right" as one giant group.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

How do you break down the GOP voters/members in terms of the Christian conservatives; financially-conservative, small government(with more moderate/liberal views on social) and moderates?

At this point, if you define four categories, I'd say it's 25% each.
If you gave me five, I'd say 20% each.

The problem seems to be that every permutation seems to have each candidates failing at least one Do-Not-Pass-Go issue area with a significant number of potential voters. I'm not at all convinced that any candidate could currently even get half the likely conservative voters to go to the polls to vote for them. Against someone else maybe, but not for GOP Candidate X. And it's nigh to impossible to win an election when you can't even get people to bother to go vote.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

It's the most depressing group of candidates I can recall in my lifetime.

You were born after 1996???

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by path12

I meant Christian Right, but I appreciate the clarification. As someone who is left of many Democrats, I tend to think of the "Right" as one giant group.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here & guess that you mean the group that would pretty readily self-identify themselves as such, not just those who vote to the right but also happen to be Christians.

My own unscientific guess would be that maybe 1/4th at most of those are in the "get abortion right, you can be wrong on everything else & still get my vote" camp. For the rest, you'd have a variety of other must-pass issues, but not a serious majority who have the same set of issues. They're becoming as divisible as all of the other niches within the GOP.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by path12

I meant Christian Right, but I appreciate the clarification. As someone who is left of many Democrats, I tend to think of the "Right" as one giant group.

That's the problem with many of the voters in this country, can't think beyond one or two dimensions. That's no different than saying all those left of X are commies. Or for someone like me that sees both left and right as clusterfucks.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

That's no different than saying all those left of X are commies.

But they are commies, damn it!!

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

You were born after 1996???

Hell, I'd say this group is less inspiring than 1976.

[Jas_lov]

Originally Posted by sabotai

But they are commies, damn it!!

Yes, they are! And the neo-con section of the Republican Party isn't far behind them. This is why we need more people like you and me and possibly Bucc judging by his signature to support Ron Paul! You may laugh now, but watch out for Ron Paul as a darkhorse candidate, especially in New Hampshire. Anyway, I think the top candidates skipping the minorities debate was a big mistake. They probably hurt themselves more by not showing up. Paul and Tancredo didn't really pander to the crowd and did just fine so I don't see why the top guys didn't bother to come. Once it was announced that they were all going to skip I thought one of them would show up and gain some points, especially McCain who is not in good shape and really shouldn't be turning down opportunities at this point.

[path12]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

That's the problem with many of the voters in this country, can't think beyond one or two dimensions. That's no different than saying all those left of X are commies. Or for someone like me that sees both left and right as clusterfucks.

I don't disagree with that. And I also think that us or them viewpoint has accelerated and taken root due to the consolidation of media outlets and a 24 hour news cycle.

But I digress.

[Buccaneer]

possibly Bucc judging by his signature

Lol. You must be new around these parts.

Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if Paul comes in a solid third. As far as my pick (I post this here since libertarianism is the opposite of socialism), in only 2 elections in my voting lifetime did I vote FOR a person. Majority of the time I voted against someone. If that little questionnaire we did recently is any indication, it may happen again.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by path12

I don't disagree with that. And I also think that us or them viewpoint has accelerated and taken root due to the consolidation of media outlets and a 24 hour news cycle.

But I digress.

That is a great digression. I and a few others (like Arles) here have been harping on that point for quite some time.

[path12]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

As far as my pick (I post this here since libertarianism is the opposite of socialism), in only 2 elections in my voting lifetime did I vote FOR a person. Majority of the time I voted against someone. If that little questionnaire we did recently is any indication, it may happen again.

I think it's a very hard time for true leadership to emerge. There are many periods of prolonged mediocrity. I believe you and I are around the same age, unfortunately we seem to be living smack dab in one of those stretches.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by path12

I think it's a very hard time for true leadership to emerge. There are many periods of prolonged mediocrity. I believe you and I are around the same age, unfortunately we seem to be living smack dab in one of those stretches.

Well I'll be damned, we are about the same age. I would have expected someone who said that the Right is one big group to have been much younger.

[path12]

I occasionally speak far more broadly than I should.

[JPhillips]

I'm surprised that people still think Thompson has a chance. He can't raise big money and he's been uninspiring on the stump. He actually had to ask an audience for applause last week. It seems the more people see him the less they like him.

Romney is really burdened by being a flip-flopper and a Mormon. The last poll I saw had over 50% of people saying they would never vote for him. If he won the nomination that would go down, but his margin for error is incredibly slim. He's also having to loan his campaign a lot of money the past two quarters to keep his fundraising numbers high. If he can win Iowa and come in second in NH maybe he has a chance, but at this point it's very hard for me to see him winning.

AFAIC it's Rudy's to lose. A lot of the Christian right is going to hold their noses and vote for him because he's the best chance of winning the general. If Dobson and company keep good on their promise to run a third candidate he can't win the general election, but my guess is they stomp and yell and eventually support Giuliani after he picks a solid Christian conservative for VP.

We'll know soon enough. Iowa is probably going to move to December and NH might also. By the new year this may already be over.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Also, I don't think Rudy would know fiscal sanity if it hit him in the face. I think he'll make GWB look like a real conservative. But people will elect him if it means beating Hillary and I think he's betting on that. Romney is a real dark horse. The Mormon thing is just a smokescreen that the media wants people to believe will stop conservatives from voting for him. He's slick, he's savvy and has tons of money.

A few fireside chats between LDS Bishops and some Southern Baptist reverends and all will be fine. After all, they're not Jews and that's all someone needs to really explain to them.

Yes, because we all know that the last Mormon that the Republicans elected president worked out so well for the party.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Neon_Chaos

People are going to be voting not for Hillary, but just to get Bill Clinton back in the Whitehouse.







In best Clinton voice:
"I love boobies."

Honestly, that's what I see from them too. Hilary's "I'll appoint Bill as ambassador to the world" speaks pretty clearly that America will get a nice dose of Bill if she wins.

I saw Bill doing an interview recently and he was pushing Hillary throughout most of it and playing down questions about himself but at one point they asked him about a policy Hillary opposed and why and he fired off quickly with "because we believe it's bad policy." Subtle but again, the message is clear.

I imagine that this will continue and really ramp up in the general election. I must say, I yearn for the days when the worst thing we have to talk about is boobies and blowjobs and not about our boys dying, bombings, terrorism etc.

I really think when it gets down to it, that is going to be the real issue. War fatigue. Most of the voters lived through Vietnam. They realize that sticking with the party in power can't end a war. It took their parents 13 years to realize that but they got results. I'm betting their kids are going to be willing to pull the trigger quicker.

They're more informed, more experienced than them and they're not stoned.

I'd consider voting for someone I didn't really agree with in order to end a war. I could always vote them out in 4 years but by then they would have done a great service to the country.