I know a week is a long time in politics, but Bush has pretty badly tarnished the Republicans. (I know and respect why he’s stayed in Iraq, but it was the wrong thing to do.)
So are the Republicans simply going to go through the motions next year and hope for the Democrats to slip up?
Yes, they have a chance, and Dems shouldn’t get complacent. The Pubs have put in years of work setting up entrenched institutional advantages that can survive year-to-year electoral shifts. That double-redistricting in Texas is only the tip of the shitberg. One-Party Nation: The Republican Plan for Dominance in the 21st Century, by Tom Hamburger and Peter Wallsten is a good introduction (and much more measured, non-judgmental, and respectful of the Pubs’ strategic accomplishments than the title might suggest).
DeLay’s unprecedented, Voting-Rights-Act-flouting, between-census gerrymandering only affects the House, not the Presidency.
I think the Republicans have a chance. It comes down to the Democrats coming up with a better candidate and a better message than the useless waste of time known as Kerry who had little appeal to anyone.
I think if Hilary or Obama* win the primary, they could be beat. I think if a Republican that plays to the moderates and independents gets the nominations, the democrats could be beaten.
The problem is both parties will probably put up candidates that do not appeal to the moderates and the independents. Then it is can go either way.
Jim
I can’t think of a single candidate that the Republicans have, that could survive the current political climate. Rudy and McCain are both too weak to last through the campaign season.
I may be missing someone, but I don’t think they have a potential winner right now. Anyone want to toss names up?
All depends on who the opponent is. “You can’t beat somebody with nobody.”
Nobody can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory like the Democratic Party. It all comes down to whoever gets the nomination. Complacency = defeat.
The near-sweep just a couple of months ago should have made that “truism” obsolete.
Assume the opponent is Hillary. I don’t like her, but she’s strong and she plays nasty.
Sure the Pubbies can win. Or they might “win” like Bush “won” in 2000. Complacency is not going to serve anyone well in 08, and I don’t expect to see a lot of it among the folks running for office.
That House of Representatives can decide the Presidency. One reason Gore probably didn’t challenge further in 2000 is that he would have lost in the House.
Fair enough, but that was an extreme case.
FWIW, gerrymandering can backfire. The process involves creating a large number of districts in which your support is softer than before. If your party’s general level of support substantially weakens, that’s even more districts that can go against you than if you hadn’t gerrymandered. Even DeLay’s own district, one that shouldn’t have had to be worried about, went to a Democrat last November, for instance.
As long as the old Confederacy holds to their history of not voting for a president unless (A) he’s a Republican or (B) he’s a southerner, they have a chance. When you take the electoral map and paint so many states red with a permanent marker, the Democrats have to win big everywhere else to have a chance.
With the current Democratic front-runners, I think that the Republicans have an excellent chance to keep the White House.
Senator Clinton is widely viewed as too something-or-other by a lot of people who would have no problems with a man possessing the same personality. This does not have to be an accurate description of the senator, her politics, or her capabilities, just enough of an impression to sway some number of voters to choose her opponent.
Senator Obama suffers from the current trend to elect only persons with executive experience to be president. Regardless whether that experience is required to be a competent president, some large (if yet undefined) number of voters would be leery of electing him in 2008. (Were he to be VP in 2008, he would probably have overcome that stigma by 2012 or 2016.)
And, to be frank, one senator is a woman and one senator is black and they each lost some undefined number of votes from the get-go just on those accidents of their births. These issues may be wholly irrelevant at some future date, but they will still be factors in 2008.
How soon we forget. They pulled it off in 2000, didn’t they?
Or not . . . no, let’s not go there . . .
True, if the current Pub front-runners were not even worse.
Would Hillary Clinton being considered a southerner by the south? She is Chicago raised and a NY Senator. I am guessing she would be relying on Bill to campaign very hard in the South for her. I think he could win some states for her.
I am not a huge fan of hers, but if she is running against a Jeb Bush, Tom Delay or Senator Brownback type, I will vote for her. If she runs against McCain, Rudy Giuliani or similar type, I stick to the Republicans.
What the story on Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico? I have no clue about him. Wasn’t he the Energy Secretary in Clinton’s second term when the irregularities in Los Alamos came to light? I had no clue he was a Governor now.
Jim
And voting is by state delegation, not individual member.
The House can only decide the Presidency if nobody has a majority of the votes; no matter which way Florida went, somebody would have the majority, unless you’re saying that they would put Florida’s votes on hold while the House debated.
Nope, that doesn’t fly. The Republicans had to run a write-in candidate because Delay resigned too late for them to get someone on the ballot. It’s easy to win when your opponent doesn’t have anyone on the ballot!