Point taken on overconfidence leading to laziness. I do believe that the Democrats are in a better spot right now, and I also believe we’re more energetic about getting a Democrat in the White House. Regardless, we shouldn’t assume it’s a done deal. I’m more involved in campaigning than ever before, due to George W. Bush making such a hash out of everything. Until the election of 2000 was… um… “decided,” I identified as a “DINO.” Now it all means much more to me.
The point I really wanted to make is that the Republicans are pretty defeated right now, and can’t seem to be able to get interested in any particular candidate—and non-Republicans seem to also feel a lack of enthusiasm about another Republican president. The Republicans can’t seem to generate much interest about their candidates, like the Democrats have been doing lately, and with all this media exposure for Democrats coming from the moderates, liberals and conservatives, while ignoring the Republicans, I have to wonder if the Republicans will manage to pull themselves out of their hole—and, if they do, how.
I see your point, but with respect to Presidential politics we have to remember that it’s not a national election but a state-by-state contest. The core of solidly-Republican states is still there, and the election will again turn on swing states like Ohio, Florida, Missouri, and a few others.
I just don’t think they’re in that big a hole. I think they are guaranteed a certain percentage of the vote, just as the Dems are guaranteed a certain percentage of the vote. Some of the people I talked about earlier who say they are independents are just being driven away by Bush, but at least half of them will probably come back to the Republicans. Iraq is bad, but is it bad enough, really bad enough, to drive people to the opposite party?
It simply depends on the candidates. I think either party can win this one.
[QUOTE=What Exit“those he appointed to the courts” was meant to include those lower level judges he appointed.
[/quote]
Fair enough. I missed that part.
I was hoping that Bush would appoint some real conservative judges to the courts. I’ve been largely dissapointed.
Meh. It’s not like there are judges out there ready to rule abortions illegal. They are just angling to overturn the horrible decision that abortions being legal is somehow in the constitution. It’s not. Recognizing this isn’t a hardcore conservative position, it’s just the only logical one.
I’m pro-choice, BTW.
I’d say they were both more conservative than Bush. However, it’s not really fair to compare them (especially Nixon) because of the difference in the times. I’d compare Bush with some current pols. There are certainly many out there like Brownback or Huckabee or even McCain who may be the next president that are much more conservative than Bush. If he were compared with the current crop of candidates he’d be about in the middle I’d say. He’s more conservative than a RINO like Rudy, but he’s not a Reagan or Buchannon style true conservative in any way.
Ohio has seen its Republican Party hit the skids after a disastrous gubernatorial campaign and plenty of corruption with guys like Noe, Ney, Taft and Blackwell under investigation after investigation. A dropoff in Republican identification has hurt Ohio’s Republicans, and with the economy in the dumps, the Republicans aren’t likely to make many gains. The Republicans still control the Ohio state legislature (both houses,) but the governor’s a Democrat, which means gridlock. In 2008 Ohio won’t have a gubernatorial or Senate race, which means there’ll be no statewide piggybacking for the Republcians. Ohio is looking favorable for the Democrats (though they’ll still have to work for it.)
Florida is a tough call. It also has no Senate or gubernatorial election in 2008, but this state has shown it’s notoriously difficult to court. It seems to favor Republicans, but the south Florida population has been changing. Depending on the Republicans’ attitude toward immigration during the next presidential campaign, Florida’s immigrants (and there are plenty of them) could swing one way or another. Hostility—real or perceived—toward immigrants could drive them into the arms of the Democrats, and possibly the whole state. Cubans have been traditionally loyal Republicans, on the whole, but recent changes in attitudes among Cubans favoring warmer relations with Havana have been softening the Republicans’ grip on this constituency.
Missouri seems to be moving ever-so-slighly toward the Democrats, but I’d say it still leans Republican. Whether the Democrats could make inroads here and flip its eleven electoral votes from red to blue will depend on the Democratic candidate. John Edwards could win this state; Barack Obama might be able to; Hillary Clinton probably couldn’t. Otherwise it favors the Republicans. The 2008 gubernatorial race could have an effect here, depending on whom the Democrats run. Claire McCaskill’s victory there last year hints that all is not lost for the Democrats in Missouri, but it’s still an uphill battle for them.
Colorado is inching blueward these days. Recent news that Senator Allard isn’t seeking reëlection, coupled with the established news that Mark Udall is seeking the Democratic nomination for the post, will likely give the Democrats a boost. Last year the governor’s seat and the state legislature flipped Democratic, and following the scandalous outgoing Governor Bill Owens (once talked about as a Republican possibility in 2008 and a darling of the religious right,) Republicans here are a touch dispirited.
Those are a few key states, but it’s facts like those that give me the feeling that the Democrats have a situation not unlike they did going into the election 1912. I don’t see a third party splitting the Republican vote, but I do see the Republicans lacking in fresh ideas and strong candidates.
I think so, too. No one can win a presidential election without working hard, even if the other major party’s candidate really screws up. But with Republicans (and scant others) talking so little about their potential candidates, it seems they’re not in the best position. I still find this thread interesting, in that there’s been more talk about Democratic candidates than Republican candidates, even though the topic is about whether the Republicans can retain the White House! I think that says something, and that it answers the question. The answer suggested here is, “They’ll have more trouble in 2008 than the Democrats will.”
It’s still very early. Plenty of time for a relatively unknown Republican to emerge from the pack (like maybe Mike Huckabee) and roar out to a lead in the general election.
But they would win or lose to the Democrats, so talking about the Democrats is completely relevant.
If you were talking about the World Series and you said, “Do the Indians have a chance?” then wouldn’t you have to consider who they are playing? It’s not like they have a chance in a vacuum.
Sure, it’s relevent. But what’s interesting is that when I hear anyone talk about who the Democrats are going to run, most of the talk is about the Democrats. Similarly, when talking about who the Republicans are going to run, most of the talk is about the Democrats. Why is there so much more interest in the next Democratic candidate and so little interest in the next Republican candidate? That’s what I’m musing on.
Bush? Well, he is certainly not a fiscal conservative, as observed. He’s far from conservative enough for my taste, if that says anything to you. A lot like his father, unfortunately.
But Debaser is right - “conservative” is considered more of an insult than an observation in a lot of circles, and therefore any Republican who wins the White House is likely to be labelled as extreme, far right, etc. And, of course, the SDMB is well to the left of center, and therefore suffers from the usual observational bias - anyone who agrees with me is a moderate, everyone else is an extremist.
A handy translation guide: “Moderate” generally means pro-choice. A politician labelled as “moderate” in America is nearly always pro-choice, almost by definition.
Cue some one to chime in to say “But that’s true! Any and all opposition to abortion is always an extremist position!”
Because there is still a big chunk of time left in Bush’s term, and the election is still almost two years away. The Dems are going to be in much more of a hurry to try to get going and get into the White House. Republicans are already there.
And, of course, there’s Castro’s imminent demise. What would be the effect of a mass return of Cubans to Cuba? What if a candidate - of either party - said that they’d offer Cuba a similar status to Puerto Rico?
McCain is borderline case. He is Pro-Life but less vocal than Bush on the issue and generally considered to be a fiscal conservative, but gets the moderate tag for a willingness to work across the aisle and in the past being vocal against making concessions to the religious right portion of the party. He has also bucked the party occasionally, especially on torture.
However, torture should never have been a conservative vs. liberal issue. It is strictly a neo-con vs. normal, rational thinking people issue.