[QUOTE=spoke-]
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.
[/QUOTE]
State by state, it is:
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.
[QUOTE=jsgoddess]
It simply depends on the candidates. I think either party can win this one.
[/QUOTE]
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.”