Assuming that the democratic party is unable to get behind one candidate, and despite the opinions of many many folks (including the majority of the Dopers here), a Republican wins the election in 2008.
Other than the investigations into the election that would be called for from the moment it was announced that the republicans had won, what would the other effects be?
Too little to go on to make a guess. Would this be a Republican backed by the current administration? Then we’re well on the way to the dream envisioned by Mr. Rove-a one party system that cannot be overthrown(seems that’s happened before in the last hundred years, but I can’t seem to recall exactly where…). Are you talking about someone even more right wing in a political and/or religious sense? Then we can pretty much say buh-bye to the separation of Church and State. Someone more to the center that doesn’t believe that the ends justify the means, and that honesty and integrity still matter? Who knows, but it’s something we could survive and maybe even profit from as a nation. Of course, that last choice is a very thin possibility, see as how such a candidate hasn’t got a chance in hell of getting the monies needed to run a successful campaign.
A long-term conservative shift in the Supreme Court, for one thing, since the next president may well have the opportunity to appoint several justices and (if Republican) tip the balance of the court far to the right.
All the major Republican candidates are pro-war, and the Republican leadership has no interests in letting an anti-war candidate such as Chuck Hagel get the nomination. Thus any Republican winner would make support for the war a prominent part of their platform. However, we can assume that the situation in Iraq will continue to worsen, and that popular support for the war at home will continue to dwindle. As that happens, Congress will grow bolder in confronting the President on war issues.
In short, even with a Republican victory, it might not be possible to keep the war going for the entire four-year term. McCain has tacitly acknowledged this by saying that he might withdraw troops from Iraq under certain circumstances. Guiliani, on the other hand, is famously headstrong and stubborn, and would continue to resist Congress for as long as physically possible. Once a filibuster-proof majority in Congress are willing to vote against the war, there wouldn’t be anything left for him to do. Republican Congressfolks are watching those poll numbers, and those who face close elections are getting nervous about supporting the war. Gordon Smith of Oregon has voted for a timeline for withdrawing the troops.
A Pub would win only by clearly distancing himself from the Bush Admin and all its policies. Assuming he doesn’t reverse himself on this after taking office (which is always a possibility), it would mean a new direction for the Republican Party. Maybe the old “Rockefeller Republicans” – moderately socially liberal, fiscally conservative, pro-business but not ideologically hostile to the welfare state, pragmatic-realist in foreign policy – would become relevant again, would even become the dominant wing.
In all seriousness, can anyone imagine a scenario in which any Republican could win the election in 08? The Republican message, from the White House to talk radio to Fox News, has been to back the war and support Bush, calling anyone who differs in opinion a traitor. You don’t garner support by calling 60+% of the voters traitors.
The Iraq war isn’t going to get magically better in the next 18 months. The Republicans have lost by backing it. I even think Hillary Clinton could win now, although she won’t get the nomination.
The question is, what would happen if the Pubbies won in 08, not whether or not they can. I agree with Czarcasm, such a win would lead to a Republican lock on the White House, and eventually Congress, for an indeterminate time. The Justice Dept. firings are just the tip on the iceberg. The Republican Party plans to politicize the entire Federal government, making it the job of all federal officials to keep the Republicans in power. Under Rove, they are deliberately following in the footsteps of various Third World governments and the Soviet Union Communist Party. Like the old Commies (and arguably, the new Commies under Putin) the Republicans under Rove feel that the democratic process does not matter at all. It is only a dog and pony show staged to legitimize the grip of the ruling party. It does not matter how conservative win. I only matters that they win. Which is why the Republican Party as now constituted is the greatest threat that American democracy has ever faced.
The GOP will win if the Dems nominate either a freshman African-American Senator or a divisive female northeastern Senator as their candidate. Unfortunately, it looks like the Dems are going to actually do this. It’s so sad really because it’s clear, at least to me, that the balance between GOP and Dem voters in this country right now is so close that any attempt to “stretch the envelope” with a “non-traditional” candidate is doomed to failure.
I will not waste too much time making all the convoluted disclaimers that the offendarati require whenever one offers political opinions such as these. But for the record anyway:* I personally have no problem whatsoever with a black or female or any minority candidate. I just recognize that they have a built in handicap because of how their race/gender/whatever is perceived by the populace as a whole.
So, the OP is quite appropriate, I think. The Democrats and everyone else can see the problem with nominating Hillary or Obama from the comfortable vantage point of more than a year out. Yet they appear to want to move ahead regardless.
I guess they just want to prove a point. Very touching, but it will lose the White House at the same time. I guess it’s worth it to them.
Gore could have had the job, but with his comments blasting Canada for their environmental policies yesterday, it looks like he has given the most obvious sign yet that the has firmly made up his mind not to run. You simply don’t make comments like that about the leaders of our closest ally–even if they are Tories–if you are planning to run for president.
I don’t lie awake and tremble (hey, I’ve got to get my sleep), but I do think Democrats could lose this election much easier than some of us seem to believe. Thing is, there are a lot of “safe” Republican states, and Republicans can focus their considerable resources on the few swing states that decide every election.
National polls mean next to nothing. This is a state-by-state election. If the Democrat wins, it will be a close thing.
Yeah, but think of how they won last year - by taking strong, clear stands. Now think of the sort of campaign Rahm Emmanuel wanted them to run - the usual triangulation against themselves, blurring the differences, not running as Democrats - and think of how well that would have worked.
Then remember that Hillary is the perfect Rahm Emmanuel-style candidate, and she has a very good chance of being the Dem nominee next year.
Unless the Dems manage to avoid that hazard, they could indeed lose.
Ok, not really. But I’ve seen this sentiment before, and I just don’t think it’s true. Anybody who wouldn’t vote for Obama because he’s black or Hillary because she is a woman is not going to vote for Edwards because he’s a Breck girl or some other stupidity. There is not point trying to appeal to these voters because they will always find an excuse to not vote Democrat.
The Democrats cannot get too overconfident. You have to give the Republicans credit for shrewd strategizing ( or perhaps Bush might say “strategery”) The 2004 message was seven words: Iraq War, Cut Taxes, No Gay Marriage. Simple and effective. In addition, they’ve been masterful at exploiting single issue voters: the anti abortion, anti gay marriage, and anti gun control voters are safely and forever in Republican hands, meaning Democrats need to win a substantial majority of those votes actually in play to win.
The Iraq war plays right into the Democrats’ hands and may well be unbeatable. But there are plenty of ways to lose. A major terror attack in fall 2008 might well move people that just don’t trust the Democrats on national security. A court ruling recognizing gay marriage may energize the anti-gay folks. Swiftboating against the Democratic nominee is a possibility. The Republican front runners Giuliani, Romney, and McCain are very much beatable but right now isn’t the time for Democrats to be measuring the curtains in the Oval Office.