Presidential Races

[soxwon]

In your opinions

If you had to make a prediction now

Who will be the GOP nominee in 2008?

 

I'd bet now its john mccain with mitt romney as vp

 

also who will be the Democrat nominee?

i think hillary and obama will cancel each other out

and John Edwards will get the nod.

[Rex Kickass]

For the GOP? I could see Mike Huckabee from Arkansas get the nod... I just don't see McCain keeping his momentum.... He's become a worse shill than John Kerry in the last couple years, and I think people will get exposed to it. Guiliani's campaign will be a mess the more he opens his mouth.

 

I see an Obama nomination a distinct possibility, but I think theres a decent shot that Edwards or even Gore could get in there. I doubt Hillary has the nomination. My VP nomination lock: Former Gov Mark Warner.

[YASNY]

I don't see McCain getting the GOP nomination. I believe he's too moderate for the tastes of the mainstream in the GOP.

[NorthSideSox72]

For the GOP? I could see Mike Huckabee from Arkansas get the nod... I just don't see McCain keeping his momentum.... He's become a worse shill than John Kerry in the last couple years, and I think people will get exposed to it. Guiliani's campaign will be a mess the more he opens his mouth.

 

I see an Obama nomination a distinct possibility, but I think theres a decent shot that Edwards or even Gore could get in there. I doubt Hillary has the nomination. My VP nomination lock: Former Gov Mark Warner.

Huckabee? Really? Interesting. I know virtually nothing about the man. Now I need to go do some research.

 

 

I don't see McCain getting the GOP nomination. I believe he's too moderate for the tastes of the mainstream in the GOP.

Which mainstream? With the Bush administration losing its grip on the party, we are seeing a continued fracturing there - the GOP is becoming two parties. The religious/social crusaders (further right), and the small government business-focused conservatives (more moderate socially). And I am not convinced about which one will win out for the voice of the party in 2008. The crusaders are still very powerful, but as strong as their rise was in the last decade, their fall looks like it is going to be even faster.

[southsider2k5]

Huckabee? Really? Interesting. I know virtually nothing about the man. Now I need to go do some research.

Which mainstream? With the Bush administration losing its grip on the party, we are seeing a continued fracturing there - the GOP is becoming two parties. The religious/social crusaders (further right), and the small government business-focused conservatives (more moderate socially). And I am not convinced about which one will win out for the voice of the party in 2008. The crusaders are still very powerful, but as strong as their rise was in the last decade, their fall looks like it is going to be even faster.

 

Good analysis. The fiscal conservatives have been all but squeezed out during the Bush admin. The tax cuts were about the last real thing he did that was what we were looking for... He hasn't even made an attempt to rein in spending, even if you excuse the extra spending in the couple of years after the Clinton recession.

[kapkomet]

Huckabee? Really? Interesting. I know virtually nothing about the man. Now I need to go do some research.

Which mainstream? With the Bush administration losing its grip on the party, we are seeing a continued fracturing there - the GOP is becoming two parties. The religious/social crusaders (further right), and the small government business-focused conservatives (more moderate socially). And I am not convinced about which one will win out for the voice of the party in 2008. The crusaders are still very powerful, but as strong as their rise was in the last decade, their fall looks like it is going to be even faster.

 

 

Good analysis. The fiscal conservatives have been all but squeezed out during the Bush admin. The tax cuts were about the last real thing he did that was what we were looking for... He hasn't even made an attempt to rein in spending, even if you excuse the extra spending in the couple of years after the Clinton recession.

Both good points.

[NorthSideSox72]

Good analysis. The fiscal conservatives have been all but squeezed out during the Bush admin. The tax cuts were about the last real thing he did that was what we were looking for... He hasn't even made an attempt to rein in spending, even if you excuse the extra spending in the couple of years after the Clinton recession.

Just one clarification. I don't think there was a "Clinton recession", nor was there a "Bush recovery". Presidents generally have minimal effect on the economy. Bush's dad said that once in a speech, and he was right (even though he should never, ever have said it in front of a camera). The recession was due mostly to market forces not under the control of the government - and Clinton deserves only a small part of the blame, just as he only deserves a small bit of credit for the 90's boom. Similarly, the quick recovery in 2003-2006 was due to many factors, only a small part being anything that Bush had material influence over.

 

Presidents have only a small effect on the economy, except in extreme circumstances like FDR and the Depression era programs.

[HuskyCaucasian]

also who will be the Democrat nominee?

i think hillary and obama will cancel each other out

and John Edwards will get the nod.

 

OH! Good call. I really liked John Edwards last time around. However, if Edwards is smart, he should bring in Obama as VP. That gives Obama time to really learn the ropes and prep himself to run for President once Edwards is done.

[southsider2k5]

OH! Good call. I really liked John Edwards last time around. However, if Edwards is smart, he should bring in Obama as VP. That gives Obama time to really learn the ropes and prep himself to run for President once Edwards is done.

 

There is not a chance Obama thinks about VP at this point of the election cycle.

[NorthSideSox72]

OH! Good call. I really liked John Edwards last time around. However, if Edwards is smart, he should bring in Obama as VP. That gives Obama time to really learn the ropes and prep himself to run for President once Edwards is done.

Edwards is at this point (IMO) the most electable of the Dem candidates, in a national election against the GOP. That said, I do not think he'd make the best President.

[YASNY]

Good analysis. The fiscal conservatives have been all but squeezed out during the Bush admin. The tax cuts were about the last real thing he did that was what we were looking for... He hasn't even made an attempt to rein in spending, even if you excuse the extra spending in the couple of years after the Clinton recession.

 

It's for this very reason that I made my post about McCain. The conservative base is not happy with Bush's policies and won't let a moderate GOP'er get nominated.

 

Religious/social crusaders? What is that all about? Do you get that straight from the secular progressive handbook? Are you trying to stir up the Muslims? I wasn't refering to anything religious whatsoever.

[NorthSideSox72]

It's for this very reason that I made my post about McCain. The conservative base is not happy with Bush's policies and won't let a moderate GOP'er get nominated.

 

Religious/social crusaders? What is that all about? Do you get that straight from the secular progressive handbook? Are you trying to stir up the Muslims? I wasn't refering to anything religious whatsoever.

I have to say again, I like the secular progressive thing.

 

Anyway, YAS, I was trying to point out the divide in the GOP. You do see what I am referring to, right? i think its just true that there are those two factions in the Republican party right now, and I am wondering which faction will ultimately have the party line when it comes time for a nomination.

[YASNY]

I have to say again, I like the secular progressive thing.

 

Anyway, YAS, I was trying to point out the divide in the GOP. You do see what I am referring to, right? i think its just true that there are those two factions in the Republican party right now, and I am wondering which faction will ultimately have the party line when it comes time for a nomination.

 

Just like Democrats always appeal to their base to get nominated, the GOP do the same thing. Personally, I'd like to see both sides swing toward the middle.

[NorthSideSox72]

Just like Democrats always appeal to their base to get nominated, the GOP do the same thing. Personally, I'd like to see both sides swing toward the middle.

You're definitely right, that tends to happen in the primaries, then each candidate tries to swing to the middle before the big election. And of course, that is a really stupid way to do things. 2008, though, I think we may actually see relatively centrist candidates from both parties. The electorate is tired of the polarity. Just a feeling I have.

[YASNY]

You're definitely right, that tends to happen in the primaries, then each candidate tries to swing to the middle before the big election. And of course, that is a really stupid way to do things. 2008, though, I think we may actually see relatively centrist candidates from both parties. The electorate is tired of the polarity. Just a feeling I have.

 

The electorate doesn't decide the candidates, the parties do. I believe the polarity will continue.

[NorthSideSox72]

The electorate doesn't decide the candidates, the parties do. I believe the polarity will continue.

And if the parties fail to serve the electorate, they don't get their party into power.

 

I am not convinced one way or the other yet, but I am leaning towards us seeing one or both candidates being more towards center than their party lines.

[southsider2k5]

The electorate doesn't decide the candidates, the parties do. I believe the polarity will continue.

 

If either party puts out a polarizing canditiate out there for this election, they will get TROUNCED at the polls. I think that's why a Hillary Clinton or Newt Gingrich don't have a snowballs shot in hell at being elected. There is too much venom right now, and unless it really abates in the next two years, which I don't see how, the canditate who can appeal to the middle of the road wins this.

[YASNY]

If either party puts out a polarizing canditiate out there for this election, they will get TROUNCED at the polls. I think that's why a Hillary Clinton or Newt Gingrich don't have a snowballs shot in hell at being elected. There is too much venom right now, and unless it really abates in the next two years, which I don't see how, the canditate who can appeal to the middle of the road wins this.

 

I wouldn't be shocked to see BOTH of them nominated.

[NorthSideSox72]

I wouldn't be shocked to see BOTH of them nominated.

now where is that vomit smiley...

[YASNY]

now where is that vomit smiley...

 

I didn't say it was a good thing.

[Balta1701]

I think a lot of you are forgetting the issue which is going to dominate the 08 race even more than it dominated the 06 race...the debacle in Iraq. As things currently look, it looks pretty likely that by 2008 there will be more U.S. troops in Iraq, not less, and the situation will probably be even worse, as it is getting worse every day, week, and month right now.

 

That's going to be a hell of an albatross on a lot of these candidates, especially those who were in Congress when the vote on it happened. McCain has been even more hawkish on Iraq than Bush, and Bush is about to prove that his "more troops" strategy he's been advocating for a year won't do anything. Hillary is going to have the same noose around her neck, since she voted for the damn thing. It may even hurt Edwards, even though he's come out and called for the beginning of a draw-down, since he voted for it too.

 

That gives a real advantage to some of these outsiders, the governors or Obama (since he wasn't in Congress in 02 to vote on it). Beyond that, a lot of it may sort itself out based on what they're saying after another year of casualties and no progress.

 

You can talk about splits between fiscal and social conservatives or whether the liberal elites will back Hillary over Obama, but I think what's going to decide these primaries, and this election, will be the question "How the Hell do we get out of Iraq?". 2006 was just a preview of it.

[NorthSideSox72]

I think a lot of you are forgetting the issue which is going to dominate the 08 race even more than it dominated the 06 race...the debacle in Iraq. As things currently look, it looks pretty likely that by 2008 there will be more U.S. troops in Iraq, not less, and the situation will probably be even worse, as it is getting worse every day, week, and month right now.

 

That's going to be a hell of an albatross on a lot of these candidates, especially those who were in Congress when the vote on it happened. McCain has been even more hawkish on Iraq than Bush, and Bush is about to prove that his "more troops" strategy he's been advocating for a year won't do anything. Hillary is going to have the same noose around her neck, since she voted for the damn thing. It may even hurt Edwards, even though he's come out and called for the beginning of a draw-down, since he voted for it too.

 

That gives a real advantage to some of these outsiders, the governors or Obama (since he wasn't in Congress in 02 to vote on it). Beyond that, a lot of it may sort itself out based on what they're saying after another year of casualties and no progress.

 

You can talk about splits between fiscal and social conservatives or whether the liberal elites will back Hillary over Obama, but I think what's going to decide these primaries, and this election, will be the question "How the Hell do we get out of Iraq?". 2006 was just a preview of it.

 

No doubt that will be issue #1.