kmchugh

Disclosure: I am a conservative who believes that our nation’s greatest president in the last 50 years was Ronald Reagan. That out of the way, I am ready to start analyzing the race for the presidency in 2008. I’m interested in others’ opinions, as I am always open to changing my mind, especially at this early juncture.

DEMOCRATIC RACE

With two exceptions, the democratic race seems to be filled with Bill Clinton/John Kerry clones, all of whom are far enough behind the front runners to be discounted, at least for now. So, the two front runners:

Barak Obama

Obama seems to be a popular man, with charisma to spare. However, he is young, and really has limited national exposure. Though his campaign has been strong, he has had one or two very minor stumbles. I’m not sure he’s running to try to win this time, as much as he is getting himself needed “face time” in front of the nation, in order to set himself up for the 2012 or 2016 elections. By that time, he will be better known, his positions will be more solidified. Frankly, by then he should be able to win the Democratic nomination in either of those two elections on the campaign slogan “I’m NOT a Clintonista.”

Hillary Clinton

Certainly, Clinton has the national exposure and face recognition factors in her favor. She has, of late, tried to position herself as a “moderate” Democrat, though it seems doubtful that most people are buying this. The electorate is frankly afraid of her seemingly socialist past, as even most Democrats don’t want to swing the nation “too far” towards socialism. In her tenure as both First Lady and as the junior Senator from New York, a lot of smoke surrounded her past business and personal lives, which many voters find disturbing.

REPUBLICAN RACE

There are again several candidates, but I currently see three front runners. Barring any major meltdowns, one of these three probably has the nomination:

Mitt Romney

Another charismatic candidate, Romney carries a lot of positives. He is clearly a religious man, which might play well with the Bible Belt, but being a Mormon could be as damaging as it is helpful. Recently, he has been dogged by accusations of being unclear on his positions (i.e. abortion), and flip flopping to appease the religious right. The fact that his political experience has been limited to being a state politician might also hurt him. Whether you think Bush has been a successful president or not, the left has been highly successful in painting his presidency as a dismal failure. Like Bush, Romney's highest previous office was state governor. Therefore, Romney’s lack of political experience on a national level could be used a weapon against him. These three factors together might be enough to cost Romney the nomination.

Rudi Guilani

Guilani is riding mostly on his success as the mayor of New York City. There can be no question that during his tenure, violent crime in New York fell markedly. He was also the mayor when the 9/11 attacks occurred, and believes he can point to his success there as a mark of how he will perform as president. However, this may be as harmful as helpful. Bush senior learned the hard way that one can only ride success for so long. Guilani has not done much since leaving the mayor’s office, and has no experience at the national level, points that won’t be missed by his current opponents, nor by the Democrats.

Fred Thompson

Thompson will announce his candidacy this week, but even before he stated his intents, he was firmly in the pack of front runners. As a former senator from Tennessee, he has experience at the national level, and as a sometimes actor, has the national face recognition all other candidates save Clinton lack. So far, his position on the issues has remained steadfast, and he seems to be avoiding any appearance of pandering to any special interest groups. However, the fact that he has been out of office for a while and the fact that he has lymphoma (in remission) might hurt him.

NOMINATIONS

On the Democratic side, while Obama will make a strong run, I think it likely that Clinton will get the nod. After her victory becomes assured, Clinton may approach Obama to be her running mate, though if he’s smart, he will decline. The Clinton machine has, for all intents and purposes, run the Democratic Party since 1992. I predict that the 2008 election will bring this crashing down. In 2012 and later, any provable association with the Clintons will be enough to kill a candidate’s chance for election. Hillary Clinton has a past that the Republicans will easily be able to claim is more than shady. In fact, they may be hoping for a Clinton nomination. I believe it’s highly likely that they “have the dirt” on Hillary, and are simply waiting for her to get the nomination. After that, proof of past misdeeds are likely to come pouring out, killing her chances of a future political life. Also, polling data shows that in nearly every demographic group, there is widespread mistrust and dislike of Hillary Clinton. Even among liberal women voters, the majority has said they would vote for anyone other than Clinton. Clinton dismisses these polls, and believes that a groundswell of largely ignored women voters, particularly housewives, will sweep her into office. (Interestingly, a poll of this demographic shows she is likely to do worst among those she’s counting on to take her to victory.) In the end though, unless there is a meltdown along the way, Hillary Clinton will likely get the nod from the Democratic Party in 2008.

On the Republican side, Fred Thompson seems to be riding a wave of popularity. If he has timed his entry into the race correctly, he’s counting on that wave to take him to the nomination. He appears to be a candidate from the mold of Ronald Reagan. As yet, nothing of any great import has surfaced to hurt his candidacy. He has not been closely associated with the Bush presidency (again, whether or not you believe Bush had done well, such associations will be enough to seriously damage any candidate.) He has both the national experience and recognition that other candidates lack. Again, barring a meltdown along the way, Fred Thompson is likely to win on the Republican ticket.

AND THE WINNER IS....

So, in the 2008 election, here’s how I see it shaking out: Hillary will make a strong run, but in the end, her past as well as the perceptions the electorate have of her will kill her. Whitewater, Travelgate, and other scandals will dog her candidacy. If my suspicions are correct, and the Republicans have proof of any past misdeeds, these will come out and might even kill her career as a senator. In that event, Clinton would have been better off never running for the presidency. She could have at least had some influence on national policy as a senator from New York. As a disgraced politician, she will be shunned even by those she now considers to be her closest friends and advisors.

So, barring major revelations or upheaval, I see Fred Thompson being sworn in as President in January 2009.

__________________
If you didn't pay any taxes, it's not a rebate. It's welfare.

Dwarven Pirate

I don t think Thompson can afford it.

kmchugh

I wouldn't be too sure. I live in Arkansas, 8 miles from Fred's home state. He's already got a pretty big war chest.

glyn

__________________
Semper in excretum. Solum profunda variat.

dalem

Obama's proven himself to be a lightweight. No way he gets anything more than Hillary's Veep slot and probably not even that.

For the Dems, it's Hillary, end of story. For the Repubs, still wide open.

As far as "who wins?", I really don't know. I was sure last election that the Repubs could pull it out and I was dead wrong - they were punished for not living up to their promises and conservative goals even though the result was ... less conservatism overall. Will the idea of President Hillary send enough conservatives to the polls to vote for more Republicans in 2008? Hard for me to say. I certainly hope so, but the electorate is a funny thing - people pretty much end up doing what they want, TV ads, long campaigns, and afteraffects aside.

Not a bad system.

-dale

wabpilot

Unfortunately our presidential elections have turned into a contest to see who can raise and spend the most money.

crooks

Is gender of the president an issue with Americans?

__________________
'Liberty - it is newly strung and shall be heard.' - Motto of the United Irishmen.

Stan187

Nay, Hilary is the one who wears the pants in the Clinton family. So we've got pool of candidates, all of the same gender.

__________________
In Iran people belive pepsi stands for pay each penny save israel. -urmomma158
The Russian Navy is still a threat, but only to those unlucky enough to be Russian sailors.-highsea

FibrillatorD

I think that's a plausible scenario. Hillary (unlike her husband) is the most polarizing figure in the race. Hence, the divide for dems largely falls between those who want to elect a proven liberal in Hillary (even though she isn't), or someone who won't elicit such revulsion from the other half of the country, and therefore be easier to elect, too.

Also, from the democratic perspective, Giuliani would elicit a similar uprising among opposition voters. He outraged many NY liberals when he instituted quasi-fascist police techniques while mayor of NY (and presumed to credit them when crime in his city fell in step, even though crime in the whole country fell similarly during the time), enjoyed a buddy-buddy relationship with G-dub since 9/11, and more than anything, he's made 9/11 a political tool for his personal gain (google: debate ron paul giuliani). I think this outrage may fall under the radar a bit, but rest assured my conservative WAB comrades, Giuliani would not be a wise choice. However, Thompson or McCain would be, but I don't see either of them winning the nomination. McCain's out of money, and he took a serious hit in popularity with his support of the last two immigration reform proposals (scoring points among dems in the process), and Thompson is too late. I predict Thompson falls flat on his face in living up to the gargantuan hype shrouding his candidacy. He's out of practice

Julie

HILL-ARY, HILL-ARY, HILL-ARY.......

crooks

I see - and does the American public like the woman?

She seems compotent from this side of the pond, though she has rumours of being fairly right-wing for a Democrat, would that be fair?

Shamus

Please Lord No,Please Lord No,Please Lord No.. Sorry Julie,couldn't help myself

__________________
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but
it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.

Julie

It's okay, really.


Why can't the GOP come up with a candidate stronger than Hillary?

kmchugh

That's OK, you keep pushing for her. That ensures that the Republican candidate, even if it's Buzz Light Year, will be the next occupant of the White House.

kmchugh

By and large, I'd say the American public are wary of the woman. She is currently painting herself as a fairly right-wing Democrat. However, past actions have most people believing that her real beliefs lie somewhere left of Karl Marx.

Up to this point, polling has indicated that she's probably going to win the Democratic nomination. Polling also indicates that she can't get elected.