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

[flere-imsaho]

It's been a while since we did one of these (although Bubba did a broader thread recently), so it's interesting to see how things have shaken out. We're down to a more narrow field, so I'll list the ones who appear to have somewhat of a reasonable shot.

[flere-imsaho]

As much as I hate to say it (being an Obama supporter), it looks more and more each day like Hillary's got it locked up. Even Edwards is just a vanity campaign at this point.

[finketr]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

As much as I hate to say it (being an Obama supporter), it looks more and more each day like Hillary's got it locked up. Even Edwards is just a vanity campaign at this point.

yeah.. unfortunate that.

[Young Drachma]

If you thought Swift Boat was bad, wait until you see how much of a bloodbath there will be if Hillary gets the nomination...Bill can't save her.

[larrymcg421]

I like Obama but I think he realizes this is a test run, and so do some of the other candidates. I mean, if you compare this primary to the Dem 2004 primary, it is a very mild affair. There's plenty to go after Hillary on, and theyre not doing it.

[Warhammer]

Let's not forget though, at this point in the 2004 cycle, Howard Dean had things wrapped up.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

If you thought Swift Boat was bad, wait until you see how much of a bloodbath there will be if Hillary gets the nomination...Bill can't save her.

Nah, I don't think so. The thing with Hillary is all her negative stuff is pretty much already out there. It's hard to go negative on her because the people who are bothered by that stuff are already not gonna vote for her.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Let's not forget though, at this point in the 2004 cycle, Howard Dean had things wrapped up.

Yeah, but the difference is (as I mentioned in my previous post) is people still didn't really know much about Dean, so it was easier to discredit him. People already know everything about Hillary, so there's not much they can do to bring her down. And they don't even seem to be trying to bring her down anyways. They're not going af ter her like Kerry was to Dean.

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Nah, I don't think so. The thing with Hillary is all her negative stuff is pretty much already out there. It's hard to go negative on her because the people who are bothered by that stuff are already not gonna vote for her.

True. Plus, if Rudy is the Repub nominee, then they both have a lot to lose by going negative and too man skeletons.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I like Obama but I think he realizes this is a test run, and so do some of the other candidates. I mean, if you compare this primary to the Dem 2004 primary, it is a very mild affair. There's plenty to go after Hillary on, and theyre not doing it.

I think that is strategic, though. If you go Negative on Hillary, then she wins the nomination. The non-establishment candidates get vote by getting people excited--getting people to the polls who might not come otherwise. When things get negative, voter turnout is depressed, and most of the losses come from the fresh face candidates whose supporters just stay home when they realize that it is politics as ususal.

That's why McCain's big mistake in 2000 was countering when Bush went hard negative on him. The people who were going to pull the lever for the GOP machine candidate were going to do it anyway. McCain needed to get the votes of the people who were energized by him as a fresh face. And he lost those votes when he and Bush both started throwing mud.

I'm not saying that he would have won had he not gone negative. But in hindsight, that is when the wheels came off the wagon.

[Galaxy]

Man, Rudy vs. Hillary. What a depressing situation if that happens.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Man, Rudy vs. Hillary. What a depressing situation if that happens.

+1

[Jas_lov]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Man, Rudy vs. Hillary. What a depressing situation if that happens.

It'd be yet another lesser of two evils battle and it's really sad when the lesser of those evils is Rudy Giuliani. But the Republican race is wide open and I still don't think Obama is done yet. He's gotta win a couple early primaries though or it'll be a landslide for Hillary.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by Jas_lov

It'd be yet another lesser of two evils battle and it's really sad when the lesser of those evils is Rudy Giuliani.

For me, the lesser of those two evils will depend on which party controls congress. I'd rather have Rudy in if the Congress is controled by the Democrats or Hilary in if the Republicans control the Congress. The Republicans hate Hilary so much, they won't let her get anything done (very good thing).

[chesapeake]

Obama has the money and campaign structure to still win this thing. And Edwards, to a lesser extent, does as well. But either probably has to win in Iowa -- with the other significantly underperforming -- to do it.

Just like in the '04 Democratic primary, there was space for 1 candidate who was not John Kerry to compete. The problem was, it took Edwards one week too long to knock out Wes Clark to become that candidate, and it simply became too late.

In most foreseeable scenarios, if both Obama and Edwards are still in it after NH, Hillary will win easily.

There is also a very real Bill Richardson or Joe Biden dark horse scenario -- where some event causes primary voters to feel that they need a more experienced hand at the wheel. But that gets more remote at time passes.

[ISiddiqui]

Let's be serious. It'll be Hillary. She's got a 33 point lead on Obama and has 53% of Dems voting for her in the poll.

Oh, and not only will she be the nominee, she probably should as well. She's run a brilliant campaign so far.

And I'll vote for her.

[Kodos]

I'd really prefer Edwards.

Or Al Gore if he'd run. Which he apparently won't.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Kodos

I'd really prefer Edwards.

Or Al Gore if he'd run. Which he apparently won't.

Gore's making so much money now, there's no way he'd run. Coming from a state that Gore "represented" for so many years my opinion is that he does anything that will give him more money.

[Izulde]

If it's a Hillary vs. Rudy dustup, Rudy wins it in one of the most lopsided elections ever.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Izulde

If it's a Hillary vs. Rudy dustup, Rudy wins it in one of the most lopsided elections ever.

Current polls show Hillary beating Rudy one-on-one, as well as any other GOP candidate. While I think the hate is there, I don't think it's quite as powerful as people think it is.

[Izulde]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Current polls show Hillary beating Rudy one-on-one, as well as any other GOP candidate. While I think the hate is there, I don't think it's quite as powerful as people think it is.

That could be, but in that matchup, I think we could potentially see a higher voter turnout... or hell, any Hillary matchup.

[flere-imsaho]

Actually, I think a Rudy vs. Hillary race could see record low turnout. She's not inspiring to the Democratic base, and the GOP base dislikes him. I think the likely scenario is they both get the "default" votes, and she wins on the strength of "want a different party" voters.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Kodos

I'd really prefer Edwards.

Or Al Gore if he'd run. Which he apparently won't.

I second this post.

[albionmoonlight]

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.co...noonans-o.html

I've long enjoyed Peggy Noonan's work (except for one dreadful book even she must regret writing). I don't always agree with her, but she represents for me that brand of blue-state conservatism that came of age in the Reagan era, one that was often Catholic (though not dogmatically so), repelled by the bile of the far left, respectful of religion and tradition but very much at ease with the modern world, often urban and ethnic, and very susceptible to the charm and rhetoric and deep seriousness of Reagan. I guess she reminds me of my mum and sister. These kinds of conservatives are meritocrats. They were much more Reagan than Bush. And they are deeply distrustful of dynasty and inheritance. They're not country club Republicans. But they're not Dobsonites either. And they don't always vote for the party of the right.
The idea of America being run by two families for two decades is anathema to such conservatives, as it is to many liberals. There is something inherently corrupting about it - not just corrupting of them, but corrupting of us. The experience of such power - presiding over the most powerful nation in modern history - cannot but corrupt; and our decision to delegate real decisions to various royal families while boning up on the latest news from Britney Spears is a sign of real decadence. In a war this dangerous, it's positively reckless, especially given the vast new neo-monarchical powers this administration has seized and will, in large part, bequeath to the next president. We have learned how one such succession has worked out. We should be extremely leery of another, especially since so many in the Washington establishment have already decided that this race is over, and it is now the voters' job to crown the next-in-line for the throne. So give Peggy a few minutes of your time today:

Barack Obama has a great thinking look. I mean the look he gets on his face when he's thinking, not the look he presents in debate, where they all control their faces knowing they may be in the reaction shot and fearing they'll look shrewd and clever, as opposed to open and strong. I mean the look he gets in an interview or conversation when he's listening and not conscious of his expression. It's a very present look. He seems more in the moment than handling the moment. I've noticed this the past few months, since he entered the national stage. I wonder if I'm watching him more closely than his fellow Democrats are.
Mr. Obama often seems to be thinking when he speaks, too, and this comes somehow as a relief, in comparison, say, to Hillary Clinton and President Bush, both of whom often seem to be trying to remember the answer they'd agreed upon with staff. What's the phrase we use about education? Hit Search Function. Hit Open. Right-click. "Equity in education is essential, Tim . . ."
You get the impression Mr. Obama trusts himself to think, as if something good might happen if he does. What a concept. Anyway, I've started to lean forward a little when he talks.

I've been following him for a while and got to interview him the other day for a forthcoming cover-piece in the Atlantic. He's still a real human being, a commoner. She's to the Manor wed. I don't believe this race is over. I think it has barely begun.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Izulde

If it's a Hillary vs. Rudy dustup, Rudy wins it in one of the most lopsided elections ever.

While plenty of people think this, I believe it is seriously misguided. It indicates an overstatement of hatred towards Hillary (everyone except for the far, far right has mellowed on Hillary, if they had any hate for her at all). It also indicates an overstatement of Rudy's popularity. I think as time has passed since 9/11 and his declaring that he's going to be running for President, people have looked further than the "Mayor Hero" persona (and probably asked why most New Yorkers dislike him) and as a result his popularity has fallen.

Add to that the very real possibility of a 3rd party religious wacko candidate, which would be strongly supported by some on that side of the aisle, and it may be a very lopsided election... with Hillary winning.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Current polls show Hillary beating Rudy one-on-one, as well as any other GOP candidate. While I think the hate is there, I don't think it's quite as powerful as people think it is.

The problem is that many polls focus on likely or registered voters. So they are not focusing on many people that are not currently voting or do not think they will vote yet. I know down here many people will crawl out of the woodwork to make sure that Hillary does not get elected.

[flere-imsaho]

Well, we'll see.

[Toddiec]

My wife and I were having a debate about this the other day. What do you guys (and gals) think about the possible "I don't want a woman president no matter who it is" demographic? We came to a consensus that the demo will crop up and you will probably see increased turnout partly because of that, but it will be in the very least offset with the "I want a woman president no matter who it is" demographic to even it out. We had the same discussion with the race card on Obama and came to the same general conclusion.

Anyway, interesting food for thought if Hillary gets the nomination.

[Galaxy]

I heard on one of the cable news channel Hillary is looking at a Hispanic running mate if she gets the nod.

I think one problem I have with all these "national polls" is they are useless, due to the voting system.

It really comes down to who can win the key states in a national election if it is Hillary versus Rudy. My state, New York, is a usually a Democratic lock. However, could you see New York becoming an important open state with a Rudy vs. Hillary battle?

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

The problem is that many polls focus on likely or registered voters. So they are not focusing on many people that are not currently voting or do not think they will vote yet. I know down here many people will crawl out of the woodwork to make sure that Hillary does not get elected.

Are they going to register in all the swing states illegally too? Because I'm pretty sure Hillary is going to bank on not winning the south already, so 500,000 pissed off Vols voting against Hillary just means she loses TN by 750k votes instead of 250k.

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

I heard on one of the cable news channel Hillary is looking at a Hispanic running mate if she gets the nod.

I think one problem I have with all these "national polls" is they are useless, due to the voting system.

It really comes down to who can win the key states in a national election if it is Hillary versus Rudy. My state, New York, is a usually a Democratic lock. However, could you see New York becoming an important open state with a Rudy vs. Hillary battle?

New York Polling Article

(Angus Reid Global Monitor) - Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton would carry New York in the 2008 United States presidential election, according to a poll by the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. At least 52 per cent of respondents in the Empire State would vote for the New York senator in head-to-head contests against four prospective Republican rivals.

Rodham Clinton leads former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani by 11 points, Arizona senator John McCain by 17 points, actor and former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson by 28 points, and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney by 29 points.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Actually, I think a Rudy vs. Hillary race could see record low turnout.

I know I'd have a hard time getting myself to vote either for or against either of them. I pretty much hate both of them equally.

[JPhillips]

I'd love to see Obama win, but it won't happen. For Obama to beat Hillary would take a major mistake on her part and she simply doesn't make big mistakes on the campaign trail. She's one of the most disciplined politicians I've ever seen.

When I saw her in NH she wasn't inspiring and her stump needed work, but she was incredibly knowledgable and entirely unflappable. Given that she has rough parity with Obama on money and that there's less than three months before the primary is all but decided, I don't know how she could lose.

In the general it will be interesting to see if the racial effect in voting carries over to women. One study I read said that there was up to a five percent difference between who people said they would vote for and who people did vote for when one candidate was of the opposite race. I suspect that will happen to Hillary as well.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

Are they going to register in all the swing states illegally too? Because I'm pretty sure Hillary is going to bank on not winning the south already, so 500,000 pissed off Vols voting against Hillary just means she loses TN by 750k votes instead of 250k.

Tennessee could be in play this year depending upon the candidates. Tennessee has also been much less solidly red than the rest of the south, we actually think down here. Plus, we've had a number of popular Democrat governors lately that I think if they are not a flaming lib, a Dem could carry the state.

I could see Edwards or even Obama carrying the state. I don't see Hillary getting it.

[Warhammer]

I will say this, of any of the Democrat contenders, I would be more comfortable with Obama than either Edwards (typical populist candidate) or Hillary.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

The problem is that many polls focus on likely or registered voters. So they are not focusing on many people that are not currently voting or do not think they will vote yet. I know down here many people will crawl out of the woodwork to make sure that Hillary does not get elected.

Just like all the people that would crawl out of the woodwork to vote against Bush?

[MrBug708]

Hilary vs Rudy G? 8 years of California being ignored, what is another 4?

[chesapeake]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

In the general it will be interesting to see if the racial effect in voting carries over to women. One study I read said that there was up to a five percent difference between who people said they would vote for and who people did vote for when one candidate was of the opposite race. I suspect that will happen to Hillary as well.

There is one big difference: virtually everyone who has voted has voted for a woman candidate at one time. The small percentage that haven't are pretty unlikely to say they are going to vote Democratic to a pollster anyway. And, people that don't like Hillary seem to have no problem stating it loudly and clearly to anyone who might care to listen

A significant percentage of Republicans and right-leaning independents have never voted for a black person -- not even for dogcatcher -- whether it is because of their own personal hang ups or that a black person simply doesn't run on their side of the ticket or they just happen to live somewhere that doesn't have a significant African-American population. It is folks that fall in this group that have shown in races like the Gantt/Helms NC Senate race in 1990 that they will say one thing to a pollster but do something else entirely when they actually step into a voting booth.

[JPhillips]

But it's not just whites voting for blacks. The study I read had the same effect for blacks voting for whites(although with a smaller sample size). I don't know if it will effect Hillary, but I'm still interested in whether the country is ready to vote for a woman for president.

[chesapeake]

[quote=Warhammer;1563531]Tennessee could be in play this year depending upon the candidates. Tennessee has also been much less solidly red than the rest of the south, we actually think down here. /quote]

I agree that a number of southern states, Tennessee included, could be in play next year. That thought keeps the troglodytes in the RNC up very late at night.

[chesapeake]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

But it's not just whites voting for blacks. The study I read had the same effect for blacks voting for whites(although with a smaller sample size).

I've been in the room a couple of times with predominantly black audiences when Bill Clinton walked in. The word "electric" does not do it justice. He is still deeply revered by many in the African-American community. When the general election rolls around, I think you will see the former president being used a lot by whomever the Democratic candidate is to reach out to black voters wherever they may be, and I think they will still turn out for him.

[JPhillips]

I think we're having trouble communicating. I'm talking about big trends not individuals. I fully agree that Clinton is very popular in the black community and that more than anything else has made it extremely difficult for Obama to break through.

But the unanswered question is what percent of men who say they'll vote for a woman won't. I hope it's zero, but it wouldn't surprise me if it's the same 3-5% that it is for voting for another race.

As for using Bill Clinton, I sure as hell hope so. I don't know if he could have saved Kerry, but I'm convinced one of ore's biggest mistakes was distancing himself from a President with high 50s approval ratings.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

As for using Bill Clinton, I sure as hell hope so. I don't know if he could have saved Kerry, but I'm convinced one of Gore's biggest mistakes was distancing himself from a President with high 50s approval ratings.

Gore would have definitely won Arkansas and Tennessee if he had used Clinton.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

As for using Bill Clinton, I sure as hell hope so. I don't know if he could have saved Kerry, but I'm convinced one of ore's biggest mistakes was distancing himself from a President with high 50s approval ratings.

You mean mid-60s, right?

Plus....

Unless these numbers really change, Bill is a huge asset for Hillary.

[Buccaneer]

One of many jokes making the rounds:

> What do retired people do all day?
>
> Working people frequently ask retired people what they do to make
their
> days interesting. Well, for example, the other day I went down town
and
> into a shop. I was only there for about 5 minutes and
> when I came out there was a cop writing out a parking ticket.
> I said to him, "Come on, man, how about giving a retired person a
> break?" He ignored me and continued writing the ticket. I called him a
> "Nazi." He glared at me and wrote another ticket for
> having worn tires. So I called him a "doughnut eating Gestapo." He
> finished the second ticket and put it on the windshield with the
first.
> Then he wrote a third ticket. This went on for about 20 minutes. The
> more I abused him the more tickets he wrote.
> Personally, I didn't care. I came downtown on the bus, and the car
that
> he was putting the ticket s on had a bumper sticker that said
"Hillary in '08."
>
> I try to have a little fun each day now that I'm retired.
It's important to my health.
>

[Buccaneer]

everyone except for the far, far right

Squiddy, you are much smarted than that. Do you know what the "far, far" right is? We're talking about John Birch or Lyndon Larouche territory. That's irrelevant when talking about national elections.

[Greyroofoo]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Hilary vs Rudy G? 8 years of California being ignored, what is another 4?

You guys gave us Nixon.


Die

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

While plenty of people think this, I believe it is seriously misguided. It indicates an overstatement of hatred towards Hillary (everyone except for the far, far right has mellowed on Hillary, if they had any hate for her at all). It also indicates an overstatement of Rudy's popularity. I think as time has passed since 9/11 and his declaring that he's going to be running for President, people have looked further than the "Mayor Hero" persona (and probably asked why most New Yorkers dislike him) and as a result his popularity has fallen.

Add to that the very real possibility of a 3rd party religious wacko candidate, which would be strongly supported by some on that side of the aisle, and it may be a very lopsided election... with Hillary winning.

Bias much? You can't explain away the latest (as of 9/27) Gallup poll still showing her with 48% favorable and 48% unfavorable ratings, twice that of any other candidates.

[larrymcg421]

A June poll in 1988:

favorable/unfavorable

Bush: 53/40
Dukakis: 70/20

[Big Fo]

Clinton seems to have all the momentum and sadly it's hard for me to see one of the other candidates being nominated. Obama needs to step it up in the next few months and he's my favorite among the three main contenders, but in the end I just hope that a Democrat wins the general election regardless of who it is.

That said I've never really understood the widespread dislike for Hillary Clinton. I've come across people who know absolutely nothing about politics, don't follow them, don't vote, the whole lot, but they know they hate Hillary Clinton. It just seems unusual.