My opinion is that the only chance the GOP has to win is if Hillary gets the Dem nomination. She is hated by a great big chunk of people, especially in the middle of the country. I’m an Independent and I don’t quite share that passion against her, but I’m almost surely going to vote Democratic unless it’s Hillary. In that case I’d rather throw my vote to a third party then vote for her.
Arkansas. He had two goes, as the 50th and 52nd governor.
How deeply she’s hated doesn’t really matter. Mild dislike and utter loathing both count as one NO vote. And right now, she’s ahead of Giuliani in the polls so clearly even if a small number of people absolutely despise her, that sentiment isn’t affecting her national viability.
And what percentage of the American populace ever gave a rat’s ass about the behavior of the wife of the governor of Arkansas? People don’t remember things that they don’t care about.
If there’s any outrage over Hillary’s behavior in Arkansas, it comes from a time after Bill started running for president.
According to a cover story in this week’s issue of The Economist (definitely not one of your left-wing mags), the American right’s chances are fading fast.
Uh … check post #97. I revived this thread to link to that article … .
I think Republicans are in big trouble. The internet is pushing politics to the left. The Republican ‘base’ is aging. Bush has completely fractured the Republican coalition with his pandering to the Christian Right (according to the Economist article, 150 Bush Administration officials are graduates of Pat Robertson’s university. No wonder they are so bloody incompetent).
Part of the problem is the intellectual rot that has sunk into the party itself, probably as a result of holding power for so long. A bunch of powerful dinosaurs control the party, and they behave in ways that enrage the rank and file. The massive growth of government on Bush’s watch is a complete failure of the core of conservatism - the desire for smaller govermment. So it looks to me like the party is about to fracture along its natural fault lines - Libertarian Republicans, Corporatist/Business Republicans, and Social/Conservative Republicans.
In the long run, this may be healthy for the Republican party. Maybe they need a few years in the wilderness to find their voice and shed the party of the corrupt losers at the top. Something akin to 1964, which was a disaster for Republicans in the short term, but paved the way for the Reagan revolution.
The Republicans have some potential ways out, though. The biggest one is the Democrats’ ability to shoot themselves in the feet. They’re excellent at that. Just when you think the Republicans are in big trouble, the Democrats come along and try to do some incredibly stupid things or attempt to elect leaders who are wildly out of step with the American public. Or, they clumsily attempt to pander to the right (John Kerry suddenly wearing his military service on his sleeve, saluting at the convention, etc), and it backfires on them.
Another way Democrats could screw up would be to take a big election win in 2008 and decide it’s a mandate for far-left social and economic policy, rather than a wholesale rejection of Republican politicians. Bill Clinton made that mistake in his first year of office, but he was a good enough politician to rapidly reverse course when it became clear the country didn’t want to go where he was taking them. A lesser politician (say, someone like Bush, only on the left) might stubbornly keep trying, and a Democratic Congress might go along with it, and then they’ll get shellaced in the mid-term elections.
But for now, with the caveat that a year is a long, long time in politics and things could change, my money is on the Republicans getting their butts kicked in the next election, and rightly so.
i think it is likely the economy could tank before the election as well, as a result of the credit crisis that is spreading around the world. In the last two days, central banks worldwide have dumped $326 billion of liquidity into the global banking system in order to keep the world credit system afloat. If the world economy stalls and we tip into recession, the last Republican claim on relevance, that tax cuts will save the economy, will be forgotten when Joe Sixpack steps into the voting booth with empty pockets.
Q: What do you call a modern US presidential candidate that doesn’t play the middle?
A: A token candidate.
Everybody plays the middle. Of what I have heard of Hillary, she has definite views but is very careful in wording them. Any person with at least an average IQ would be able to discern what her true positions are, and of what I can discern (it’s too easy - lay off), they are very reasonable. I just can’t taste the ‘wingnuttiness’ that some people mention.
If that were to happen, I’ll bet you’ll have regular threads about the 'Democratic Majority Caused The Recession".
-Joe
Why is that?
I share the feeling, and have no idea why. Her politics are a bit too timid for my tastes and offers too much comfort to those who have enough such comfort. But that doesn’t adequately explain it, I liked Barry Goldwater better than I like her, and I didn’t agree with him about much of anything. But we need change and lots of it, she offers a little bit of right now and a whole lot of someday, maybe, we’ll see.
So there it is, I flat don’t like her. For a candidate, I’d prefer Pretty Johnny, for a President, I’d prefer Richardson.
Bill Clinton wouldn’t know a far-left policy if it sucked his cock!
(Gays in the military is not a far-left policy. Neither is universal health care, especially not in the “managed care” form the Clintons proposed.)
One of the oldest methods in rhetoric, and one of the lamest and most transparent too. Just call anybody who doesn’t share your particular brand of ideology “extremist”, “loonie”, “fringe”, etc. - even when they’re in a strong majority (yes indeed, how *can * a country be to the far left of its own self?). A side benefit of this form of well-poisoning is that it sellf-excuses one entirely of having to actually consider or address any points being discussed.
Unfortunately, this forum is for Great Debates, not Great Bluster. It’s clear to all which is which.
National polls are almost worthless, since the presidential election is not decided by the popular vote. Those polls may just mean Hillary has an overwhelming lead in certain very populous areas. That may not help her in the Electoral College.
I would be more interested in seeing how she is doing against Republican contenders in historic swing states: Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Missouri.
And forget Giuliani for the moment. he may be the Republican nominee, but he may not. How does Hillary do in the swing states against Fred Thompson?
I haven’t seen any polls that address these questions.
Also, Republicans are scheming to peel away some of California’s electoral votes by sponsoring a ballot initiative there that could put an end to California being a winner-take-all state. Democrats need to be focused on that initiative, because its outcome could indirectly decide the 2008 presidential race.