The 2008 W's
Ok, ok, I guess it is time to start asking questions about the 2008 presidential race. Why not?
Let's use the official First Grade Standard Current Events Format by focusing on the five W's: who, what, when, where, and (sometimes) why.
Who . . . supports Hillary, and how strong is that support? Polls always have her as the clear Dem favorite (with Obama and Edwards making some gains), but is that a product of name recognition? I suspect it is.
What . . . is Joe Biden thinking with his stupid jokes about Delaware being a former slave state? In South Carolina (I think), he recently made some comment about how Delaware would've fought with the south in the civil war if they could've found it, but there were a couple states in the way. Har har. That's not funny, it is weird, and it is politically dangerous. I don't think he really means that he thinks Delaware should've thought with the confederacy, but why is he even going there at all? I actually like Biden and think he'd be a great President, but the guy makes botched jokes every other week (though he actually has a sense of humor to play it off slightly better, unlike Kerry).
When . . . should these candidates formally announce their intentions to run? So far, only scrub candidates (Duncan Hunter, Tom Vilsack) have done it formally, because that is their only prayer for any media attention. But does it really matter whether Hillary announces now or in next September? What about possible insurgent candidates, like Newt Gingrich--should they establish themselves early, or only come when people are tired of the other politicians?
Where . . . are the areas of the country that are truly in play? The 2006 midterms wiped out Republicans in the northeast the way Dems have been wiped-out in non-black areas of the south. The industrial midwest leans pretty strongly Dem these days as well. Missouri, Tennessee, Virginia and Arkansas seem to be toying with a return to Democrats. But most interesting is the libertarian west's distaste for Republicans these days. The most shocking result of the 2006 midterms to me was actually only a near-loss for the Republicans, but the Wyoming congressional race (which is a statewide election since WY has only one congressperson) split 48%-48. That shocks me. Is there really an opportunity for Dems in the west, particularly with libertarians?
Why . . . has no one mentioned what a liability McCain's steadfastly stubborn position on Iraq will be for him in the 2008 presidential race? Do we expect that American sentiment about the war in Iraq will go back up in the next two years? Imagine that we actually pull out most to all of our troops by 2008 against McCain's wishes--do you think he'd suggest that because we shouldn't have left, we should go back in? I think that the conventional wisdom about McCain's strength totally ignores the Iraq issue.
Let's use the official First Grade Standard Current Events Format by focusing on the five W's: who, what, when, where, and (sometimes) why.
Who . . . supports Hillary, and how strong is that support? Polls always have her as the clear Dem favorite (with Obama and Edwards making some gains), but is that a product of name recognition? I suspect it is.
What . . . is Joe Biden thinking with his stupid jokes about Delaware being a former slave state? In South Carolina (I think), he recently made some comment about how Delaware would've fought with the south in the civil war if they could've found it, but there were a couple states in the way. Har har. That's not funny, it is weird, and it is politically dangerous. I don't think he really means that he thinks Delaware should've thought with the confederacy, but why is he even going there at all? I actually like Biden and think he'd be a great President, but the guy makes botched jokes every other week (though he actually has a sense of humor to play it off slightly better, unlike Kerry).
When . . . should these candidates formally announce their intentions to run? So far, only scrub candidates (Duncan Hunter, Tom Vilsack) have done it formally, because that is their only prayer for any media attention. But does it really matter whether Hillary announces now or in next September? What about possible insurgent candidates, like Newt Gingrich--should they establish themselves early, or only come when people are tired of the other politicians?
Where . . . are the areas of the country that are truly in play? The 2006 midterms wiped out Republicans in the northeast the way Dems have been wiped-out in non-black areas of the south. The industrial midwest leans pretty strongly Dem these days as well. Missouri, Tennessee, Virginia and Arkansas seem to be toying with a return to Democrats. But most interesting is the libertarian west's distaste for Republicans these days. The most shocking result of the 2006 midterms to me was actually only a near-loss for the Republicans, but the Wyoming congressional race (which is a statewide election since WY has only one congressperson) split 48%-48. That shocks me. Is there really an opportunity for Dems in the west, particularly with libertarians?
Why . . . has no one mentioned what a liability McCain's steadfastly stubborn position on Iraq will be for him in the 2008 presidential race? Do we expect that American sentiment about the war in Iraq will go back up in the next two years? Imagine that we actually pull out most to all of our troops by 2008 against McCain's wishes--do you think he'd suggest that because we shouldn't have left, we should go back in? I think that the conventional wisdom about McCain's strength totally ignores the Iraq issue.


14 Comments:
At 7:27 PM,
Dave said…
Most of the attention has been paid to the Democrats with the Big Two jockeying for early support. But I think there is a huge spot for someone to surge forward in the Republican primary. And the reason is this:
The three major candidates are Romney, McCain, and Guiliani. Once Republicans realize who Guiliani is, he will fade fast. Romney is an excellent, excellent, excellent candidate, but will they really vote for a Mormon? And McCain, in addition to being old, is a fixture of Washington politics, of which people have been sick and tired. There is a spot for a conservative Republican outsider, perhaps a strong governor if there is one, who can play off the weaknesses of these other candidates. Huckabee has more baggage than a bellhop and Duncan Hunter is, well, not going anywhere. I suspect that if no one else steps up, Newt Gingrich may surge late and rise past these flawed candidates. I'm obviously not saying Newt has no flaws of his own, but when the aforementioned problems arise with the other candidates, someone will need to step in and Newt may just be that man.
Or Allan Lichtman, if he were to change his party affiliation.
At 10:12 AM,
Eric Dondero said…
"libertarians' distate for Republicans out West..." Give me a break. Is that why the Montana House of Reps just switched to Republican?
You use Wyoming as an example. Cong. Barbara Cubin got lower percentages this year, only because a Libertarian Party candidate was in the race who got like 5%. You add the Republican and Libertarian vote together and the Democrat got clobbered.
Libertarians will return to the Republican fold enthusiastically in 2008 with a Rudy Giuliani for President Campaign. Rudy is a Centrist who leans libertarian.
Rudy is a cinch to win the Nomination. Even Social Conservatives like in South Carolina, are backing him now.
I predict the GOP Primaries will be over fast, with Rudy romping all the others.
Eric at www.mainstreamlibertarian.com
At 11:02 AM,
Matthew Jerome said…
Dondero, thanks for stopping by, I enjoyed your comments. You have a great villain name, by the way . . . "I'll get you, Dondero!!!!!"
Unfortunately, I think your analysis is flawed on several accounts, or you have failed to read carefully my analysis.
A) You respond as if my argument was that libertarians and the west love Democrats. Wrong, wrong, wrong. I'm saying they have lost trust of Republicans to the point that what was once a bastion of conservatism has now become competitive for Democrats.
B) Nice try citing an obscure state legislative situation, Dondero, but I believe that in Montana, Dems lost a one seat advantage because one guy switched from an R to a D. The fact that Dems in MT control both Senate seats, the governorship, and roughly half the legislative seats mean that Montanas WILL pull the D lever.
C) Now, my reaction still is "give me a break" that they would start voting reliably for Democrats, but I stand by my statement that there is distaste for Republicans by libertarians EVERYWHERE, but they are more highly concentrated in the west. Prove me wrong, please, with a statistic other than one seat in one legislative house switched this cycle.
D) "Rudy is a cinch to win the Nomination. Even Social Conservatives like in South Carolina, are backing him now." No, he is not a cinch to win the nomination. I will be shocked if he wins it. You can arbitrarily capitalize the words Social Conservative but that doesn't mean he has their support. Why would social conservatives, after years of being fervently anti-gay and pro-life, suddenly take a risk with a Manhattan moderate? All it takes, as I've said before, is one direct mail piece with Giuliani in drag highlighting his record on these social issues and he's toast.
At 11:03 AM,
Matthew Jerome said…
Dave--Huckabee has more baggage than a bellhop? Really? I've heard about some gift-registry scandal that quite frankly is too complicated to gain any traction, but is there more that I don't know about?
I think it'll be Romney who gets the nomination, though the anti-Romney forces are really ratcheting up past statements that he's made in support of gay rights.
At 12:34 PM,
liberal journal man said…
People will try to derail Romney for any reason. Having achnowledged that gays are not the spawn of Satan, that may be all that those people need.
It's McCain's nomination to lose. Even though he really is a Washington insider, the media still treats him as a 'maverick'. That should confuse people enough on that issue. The war issue is his biggest problem but I dont think it will be as much of a problem in the GOP primary.
At 12:40 PM,
Dave said…
Hey yeah there's a whole host of things on Huckabee. I'll send you some articles later or tomorrow that will shed some light on this. I'd like to see Sonny Perdue get in it, but it won't happen.
At 11:02 PM,
Cassidy said…
As my super-duper upset pick...
If this person runs, it will come down to him and Obama in the Democratic primary...
WESLEY CLARK!!!
At 11:26 PM,
K. Rove said…
My super-duper upset pick: Jimmy Carter.
At 11:28 PM,
Dave said…
Cassidy, where you think Clinton will fall in there if she runs? Do you think she won't even be in the top two?
At 1:10 PM,
Cassidy said…
I may just be hedging my bets here, but I think that HRC will either win the nomination or will finish out of the final two.
At 6:41 PM,
Anonymous said…
You're really going out a limb there, cassidy. You've made the bold prediction that you think HRC won't finish #2. Wow, how do I sign you up as my political consultant?
At 11:25 AM,
Cassidy said…
Well, what is your pick?
And by saying she won't finish #2, I'm saying a lot more than you're realizing? Clinton will either (a) win, or (b) lose big. She won't be the last candidate standing. I like HRC a lot, and I have no idea who I were to vote for if Maryland's primary were held today. But I do know that she elicits (rightly or wrongly) some strong opinions, and I have a feeling that that opinion will either swing way for her, or way against her.
At 12:55 PM,
Anonymous said…
Cassidy: I realize exactly what you're saying about HRC. I fully understand what it would mean for her not to finish second, I'm just saying that while you are identifying the situation you're not making a particularly bold statement about it.
I also think that you're assuming that Democratic primary voters perceive HRC like general election voters do. I think Democratic primary voters are likely to be split between those who love her and those who think she's OK but not a winner. She's just not that polarizing within the Democratic faithful who will turn out. With that said, I think she will finish #2 to because while she is bound to have the best machine in place, the fact that she is rather uninspiring and that the Iraq vote will be a liability going forward. Not that's it's particularly original, but I'm going with Obama #1, HRC #2.
I'm curious, what makes you think Wes Clark is so much better positioned now than in 2004? I thought he would be a dynamo then and he fizzled. I think the fact that he's not a politician could help him in the general election but is a definite liability in the primary where working channels and turning out chunks of votes is so much more important.
At 1:03 PM,
Matthew Jerome said…
No anonymous posting, please.
Post a Comment
<< Home