Assuming Bush wins the '04 election (let’s not debate if he will or not, for the purpose of this thread), and Hillary steps up in '08, what will be the “resonating issue” that the DNC picks to run on? I predict it will have to be something fairly major - maybe healthcare? A Social Security meltdown?
What do you folks here think it will be?
(I have my reasons to believe that Hillary will run in '08 and actually win - but I’m curious as to what you folks think the issues will be that she’ll run on - and no, I don’t plan on discussing my reasons for my Hillary suspicions.)
You want some wild speculation on a twice removed hypothetical?
FWIW, they’ll probably run with whatever issue current polls say people care about. That just might be affected by what happens between now and then: war, economy,scandals,etc.
Do you have a particular issue that you think Mrs. Clinton would be wise or ill-advised to stand on should she choose to run for President?
First one must assume that there will still be freedom to debate issues after a second term of GWB. Hot issues will be the wars in Iraq, Iran, and North Korea, as well as Bush’s new “axis of evil” Germany, France, Switzerland, and the Vatican.
I would guess the occupation will be the biggest issue. Cheney will argue that the occupation troops should stay in France until their job is done and a stable dictatorial puppet regime has been elected. Clinton will say that they should be withdrawn after their job is done.
The coming dividing line in our society will be based on social security, medicare and other benefits. We seem to want to have the benefits of socialism with a capitalist tax base. With over fifty cents of every dollar the government spends now going into someones pocket and the bell curve of aging baby boomers edging closer to becoming eligible for benefits, there is a storm a’comin.
The Republicans have staked out the taxpayers. “We’ll cut your taxes, even in the face of a budget defecit!” “It’s your money, not the Governments!”
The Democrats have staked out the beneficiaries. “We’ll keep Social Security and Medicare the same! We’ll fight for you, little person!”.
So the choice will be to raise taxes, cut benefits or change the system. Although the Republicans have been talking about a few changes to the Social Security system, neither party is willing to suggest much real reform because they don’t want the other party to beat them over the head for short-term political gain. Let the posturing, half-truths and hyperbole begin.
You’re kidding, right? The trend is the opposite direction, with many state legislatures (including Massachusetts) working on amending their constitutions to ban it. I suspect it’ll take another generation before gay marriage is acceptable in more than one or two states in the US.
I’ll just hazard a guess that a lot of the hype surrounding the issue is because it’s an election year. After November, when things calm down, I predict a number of states will quietly let the legislation through. The country will end up divided between pro and anti, with the anti states fighting various wearying court challenges, and it will rise again as a major issue in 2008, only by then Republican fight will be shifted to the uphill one.
Public opnion is strongly opposed to gay marriage, although support for civil unions is higher. Gay marriage is actually a non-issue in this election. Bush tried to make it an issue, and that fizzled. It came to the forefront last year due to the activity in Massachusetts.
John, Nope, not in MA - the proposed bill just barely passed the House, with a lot of armtwisting by the Speaker. But he just left, the new guy’s against the amendment, and there’s no way the people would vote for it twice or even once now that the sky isn’t falling.
There is a spasm of reactionaryism in other parts of the country, yes, but don’t interpret that as a the tide of history.
Bryan, you’re right, that’s how progress works in most other cases.
Saying something will take “a generation” has always struck me as an excuse to not have to deal with a subject, presuming the kids will get around to it sooner or later. In fact, major legislative change can take place in a period of two or three election cycles, i.e. 1954 (Brown vs Board of Education) to the Civil Rights Act of 1968. This was considerably faster than the seventy-or-so years of legal battles required for women to get the vote in the U.S. (~1850-1920) and I predict this battle will be faster still. The issue will be significant in 2008 and probably 2012 as well. By 2016, a lot of us (and, yes, the kids who grow to maturity in this period) will probably be wondering just what all the fuss was about.
Let’s clarify what we’re talking about here. Are you suggesting that one candidate, presumbaly the Democrat, will come out in favor of gay marriage? In favor at the federal level? If that’s what you mean, I’ll take a bet on that any day of the week. There is not single, viable Democratic candidate for president out there who takes that position.