Posted on 12/30/2005 9:57:12 AM PST by SirLinksalot
An Early Handicap of 2008
It is very difficult to make any interesting arguments about what will happen in 2008 this far out. It is impossible, for instance, to say (a) which candidates on either side will run, (b) which candidates will receive the nominations or (c) which candidate will win the general election.
It is easy, at this point, to get a sense of who is thinking about running and who is not. But that also makes it relatively uninteresting -- a quick peek at whom C-SPAN is covering on its "Road to the White House" will tell you everything you want to know.
There are a few valuable points that we can make with a higher degree of confidence. For instance, we can confidently identify a few who stand no chance at acquiring the nomination of either party. I tend to view the Republican primary as being fairly wide open, even for McCain and Giuliani (New Hampshire provides a nice x-factor for these two). The Democratic Party, however, is definitely not wide open, insofar as some of the known presidential aspirants/ponderers are aspiring/pondering in vain.
There are three potential candidates whom I think it is safe to say stand no chance. All three of these have shown, to varying degrees, an interest in running. These three are: Al Gore, John Kerry and John Edwards. None of these fellows will nab a nomination -- POTUS or V-POTUS.
There are two reasons I think this is the case:
1. As known losers, they have a real strategic disadvantage. First and foremost, they do not know how to win general elections. Second. primary opponents know what to expect from them. Thus, in a crowded field, it is likely that these three guys will manage to work their respective ways to the bottom of the barrel.
2. As known losers, it will be difficult for them to attract primary voters. The Democrats want to win in 2008; and so, in a crowded field, primary voters will move away from these three guys. They wanted a win in 2004 and picked Kerry because, for some reason I have still not quite fathomed, they thought he would beat Bush. They forced Kerry to pick Edwards because, again for some inscrutable reason, they thought he would help beat Bush. Democrats will not make the same mistake twice with these two (and, for that matter, neither can claim that he is electable) -- and Gore is risky for the same reason. Gore is perhaps more risky, as he now has a track record of making extreme utterances.
None of this is to imply that former candidates cannot become future candidates, as with Adlai Stevenson, or successful future candidates, as with Richard Nixon. I am not trying to postulate some general law of presidential dynamics. But, in a crowded field, the known loser is not the smart money.
Could I really make myself vote for Hillary? McCain is just the candidate to make me find out.
Which one of the current horde of RATS wouldn't be a satan if he/she got power?
I agree completely.
My own reasoning with respect to her being an effective Conservative candidate is that 1) I don't know all her views on a wide-range of Conservative topics, and 2) she's never run for public office. While she may be adept at public speaking, I have no idea how she would fare against a MSM onslaught. Things CAN get heated out there! In this respect I'm thinking of Newt, who is a great thinker and speach-ifier, but who demonstrated an inability to handle a hostile Press, unlike Ronald Reagan. In addition, while great on the issue of Defense, I have no idea how she comes down on the other 95% of Conservative issues that are important.
I just cannot see her, nor would I vote for her, getting the Presidential nomination..........but a POTUS-in-Training (VPOTUS) would be something I'd heartily endorse.
Could I really make myself vote for Hillary? McCain is just the candidate to make me find out.I'd go 3rd party.
For you nitpickers, I know darn well Kennedy only had one child before the 1960 election!
The Gop will have several darkhorse candidates appear that are conservative and not as bland as Allen.Neither the Mayor or the POW have a chance.
Look for Saxby Chamblis or a conservative Gov.The election is 3 years from now.
I wouldn't vote dopertarian. I'd vote Constutition party, or maybe some other. Maybe even the Greens, to help give them false hope for the next election cycle.
IMHO Rice as VP would be the only way she would win or even try for the '08 nomination.
Like it or not, this is probably the number one attribute required for a man to become president. Has been so since Kennedy and television. That is my worry about Allen. I've only seen him a couple of times, but there's something unappealing about his appearance. Can't put my finger on it yet. All this is not to say that it is smart to vote for the pretty face. It's juat a fact of American politics.
It likewise offers clear proof that by losing to Gerald Ford in the 1976 primary and Ford losing to Jimmy Carter in the general election, there was no way that Ronald Reagan could have won the 1980 nomination and go on to defeat Jimmy Carter. Since Carter beat Ford and Ford Beat Reagan there is no way Reagan won in 1980.. is there?
Come to think of it there is no way that Franklin Delano Roosevelt could have been elected president after being defeated for vice president in 1920.
How did Adlai Stevenson get the Democatic nomination twice? How did William Jennings Bryan get the Democratic nomination the third time after losing the two previous elections for president?
This article is at best a waste of bandwidth.
I TOTALLY disagree. Rudy was NOT corrupt, and he will always be known for turning NYC around- crime and all. He was the best mayor NYC has ever had.
Guiliani and McCain for GOP nominee would make me skip the President box or put a write-in for Great Cthuhlu or Nyarlathotep.
Wrong. It isn't "very difficult." It's out-and-out bullshit. Nobody knows for at least a year. Everybody wants to get into the act of being a big-shot prognosticator.
What could McCain bring out about Rudy that isn't known?
The womenizing?
The indictments of the leader of the liberal party?
The thefts of that backers son?
His police commishoners corruption?
His power struggles?
His endorsement of Cuomo in return for favors to the city?
Everyone knows this, and ignores it and he is still popular.
NYC would have re-elected him again if it could have, 9/11 or no 9/11.
Rudy is still a SCUMBAG who will not get past the primaries in the South.
While I like alot of things Rudy did as mayor, I wouldn't want him as President.
That said, I don't think he will even get to the south.
I see him losing Iowa and New Hampshire, and Michagan, ending his run and endorsing someone else, whomever promises to give him a cabinet spot.
I also don't think he will endorse McCain and he will use his clout with whomever he endorses to pound the democratic nominee (probably Hillary).
Donald Rumsfeld would make an excellent President. Known quantity, a lot of executive experience, connects with the voters, does not abide idiots and makes hamburgers out of them - what better to be desired? Besides, it would be fun to watch.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.