Over here we’ve had a pretty lively discussion about ways the Democrats can shot themselves in 2008. But how about the Republicans?
The Republicans currently hold, in addition to the presidency, both houses of Congress and a majority of state governorships. No matter how unpopular GWB might be, he won’t be on the ticket.
So the Republicans will go into the 2008 election from a position of strength. Even if they lose both houses of Congress in 2006, Republicans will still have state-level strength. What could go wrong?
I think the Dems are so far away from having a viable candidate, the only way the Reps could screw up the election is to not show up. They could probably sell Cheney with minimal effort. Chuck Norris would crap his own pants if Cheney told him to, imagine what he’d do to some half-baked Dem in a debate!
I think the biggest danger the Republicans face is if they start believing their own press. There’s an obvious temptation to stick with what’s working and the Republicans have been riding a string of victories. But there are real problems out there and at anytime they might suddenly rise to the attention of the general public. If the candidate holds too steadily on the party line, there’s a danger that the mood of the country might swing and he’ll miss it.
I’m a hard-core liberal. Yet…I can’t imagine anything but Republican presidents for decades.
I think a lot of liberals are a turn-off. They come of as preachy. They are, in many ways, extremely close-minded; ironically, the espouse having an open mind. They just don’t always have a good image.
Republicans present themselves as fiscally responsible, family-oriented, and “strong on terror.” That’s hard to beat. (I don’t believe any of it for a second…crap, I was really trying to post w/o my opinion, lol…)
I think Gore would have won if Clinton hadn’t had the blow job from Monica.
Still, though…I would never have predicted Clinton would have won in 1994…
Any party begins to schism when its tent gets too big. That will be the Republican Party’s problem:
Republican divisions over Middle East policy and the war in Iraq will grow.
The libertarian wing of the party has become disaffected and may stay home or withhold their votes on election night. (Patriot Act surveillance, failure to cut spending, gay marriage and flag-burning bans on the agenda, the war on drugs…)
The religious right is still wondering why its agenda hasn’t been pushed through a Republican Congress. On the other side of the coin, the Southern Baptist Convention has seen a backlash against the politicization of religion. So there may be some disaffected religious types for varying reasons.
When you say “screw it up,” you mean the election, right? Not the country?
I don’t think the GOP will control both houses of Congress by 2008, but that aside, I think they’ll be dealing with some of the same infighting that everybody is predicting for the Democrats. McCain is their most likely candidate right now, but I don’t know if the ‘base’ will like him that much. A lot of people are throwing Rudy Giuliani’s name out there, but he might be too socially liberal for the religious right’s taste. It’s an unusually wide-open election for them, since Cheney isn’t running and they may not be able to take advantage of Bush’s incumbency at all.
I think the mid term elections will be a wakeup call for the GoP. I’ll go out on a limb and predict they will lose control of the House, and lose some seats in the Senate. I hope that will convince them that a drift back towards the center is appropriate. That said, unless somebody gets undoctored video of John McCain sodomizing a baby goat, he’s going to be the next President.
OK, that would screw it up. Even Hillary would beat another in the Bush line. She could also beat David Duke or Newt Gingrich, but that’s about it. Don’t think the GoP is dumb enough to nominate another Bush in 2008 though. 2012, maybe. But not 2008.
I’m from the libertarian/small-gov’t wing of the party, and right now I’m going to vote against every incumbent on the ticket in 2006. Unless the GOP fields a 2008 candidate with the balls to say “Bush was wrong on the Patriot Act, torture, gay marriage, flag-burning, the deficit, drugs, taxes, and more” I’m voting for the Democrat on the off-chance that he’ll do something I can approve of.
I want a President who will raise taxes, cut spending, and fire the sadists working for the CIA. Oh, and also I’d like him to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies foreign and domestic.
The August before the election, the Demos will remind everybody about New Orleans.
I predict the Reps will mouth off like jerks.
The September before the election, the Demos will remind everybody about 9/11, & claim it is the Reps fault it happened. Then remind everyone that Bin Laden hasn’t been caught.
I predict the Reps will try to claim that “9/11 is in the past” & is “not important”. Thus soaking themselves in gasoline & striking a match.
I agree with this prediction, although I don’t believe the Republicans will lose control of the Senate.
Jeb Bush for President is a losing proposition, but I doubt strongly that Jeb is or will be a viable candidate. Frankly, I suspect McCain is too reminiscent of Bob Dole to win. Too old, too established in the political system, and a Senator. Governors do better than legislators. I also think McCain is one of those Republicans the media and liberals love - until he actually starts to run.
Guiliani is also a losing proposition - great for New York, but no grass-roots in the Republican party.
I’m still hoping Condi Rice changes her mind and runs.
If the Republicans do mess up somehow, it will probably be an issue of the party splitting into pro-religious and pro-secular parts. I rather hope this happens.
When the federal deficit is as gawdawfully huge as it’s gotten on Dubya’s watch, it’s the only fiscally prudent thing to do.
The Electoral College math has favored the GOP for at least a decade, if not more, and it’s even worse since the 2000 census. The Republicans could do a couple of things to lose in 2008: nominate an extremely conservative but talentless candidate who’s a poor campaigner (I know, I know: insert your own 2000 joke here); we could still be bogged down in Iraq; the situation in Afghanistan could get significantly worse; there could be a major terrorist attack on the mainland U.S. that it turns out, in retrospect, could have been prevented; or (crossing my fingers here) the Dems could actually nominate an appealing, articulate, experienced candidate (at the moment, I’m leaning to Mark Warner, former governor of Virginia, but it’s waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay early yet).
BINGO. To get the deficit under control, we need to cut spending and entitlements. But the government must keep its promises, so to meet every obligation we’ve incurred until now, we need to raise taxes.
And yes, I do think we need to levy more taxes on the extremely wealthy; with high-end earners making more while pension funds declare “bankruptcy” and rely on my tax dollars to bail them out, I want to make sure the CEO is paying at least half of his paycheck into the same pool of money used for those bailouts. Also, when Tom Cruise makes $20M per movie just for showing up plus 20% of the gross, taxing him at 50% won’t create a dis-incentive for him to be a successful actor. I don’t want fair taxes. I want just taxes. Find me a GOP candidate who will say “we are spoiled, and we have a lot of work to do” and I’ll vote for him (provided he doesn’t want to revoke Constitutional liberties).
If I don’t hear the GOP candidate address the budget problems, I’m voting Democrat on the assumption that he’ll work to preserve my civil liberties.
#1: As others have alluded to, let the party split itself like it did in 1992. Have McCain or Guiliani win the nomination, and have the Religious Right throw a tantrum; or have another social conservative and fiscal liberal like W get nominated and have the libertarian wing finally grow some balls and throw its own tantrum.
#2: Refuse to admit that there were ever any mistakes ever made ever by the Bush administration. The Democrats are going to attack the Bush adminsitration incessantly, just as the Republicans attacked Clinton in 2000; if for some reason, the Republican nominee gets caught up in trying to defend the Bush record, he/she’s going to get pasted. If, on the other hand, the nominee is able to praise the Bush adminsitration’s philosophies while damning its competence- or if the nominee is just able to completely ignore the issue- then said dog shall not be of the hunting variety. Unfortunately, that probably means that Condi is not a winner, no matter how much of a wet dream her candidacy would be for Republicans.
Condoleezza will not get the nomination. Not because she’s black or a woman, but because she’s too involved in the Bush administration and she’s unmarried. No bachelor has been elected for 150 years. The rumours about her personal life (that she’s a lesbian, that she’s having an affair with Bush, etc) will only get worse and more widepsread.
