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.
This is his latest, albeit, a little early, handicap of the 2008 elections.
(Thinking aloud -- is Condi Rice for POTUS really a hopeless, wishful thinking case ?)
Sure would be nice to see Weird Al gets his ass kicked again.
It will also be nice to see McCain release all of the dirt on Giuliani, exposing both men for the frauds that they are.
Yes.
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.
Noooo...well whodathunk it. We couldn't possibly have figured out that bit of wisdom on our own, now could we.
There is one wild card scenario, Cheney leaves office after 2006 for some reason and Rice becomes VP.
AS VP the GOP nomination would be hers for the asking.
Unless it's Allen, the real handicap will belong to The American People. Between all the Dem losers and the squishy RINOs (not to mention an uninspiring field of GOP governors), conservative Americans are in "deep doo-doo" for 2008. Their best bet is that the Dims choose someone so far left (Howard Dean, for example) that the Republicans can claim the squishy middle by default.
In my best hopes, it is Allen vs. Hillary. In my worst fears, it is McCain vs. Hillary.
Huh? I missed this. Got a link? Thanks in advance.
McCain is a fraud. Absolutely.
But I like Giuliani. I wouldn't want him to the party nominee (I prefer Allen), but I think calling him a fraud is wrong.
The one thing I can promise is that if The Good Lord wills it and I'm still here, I will vote for anyone I can think of if they are running against HRC ..... ANYONE!
9/11 saved Giussolini's career. Otherwise, he would be remembered as a corrupt RINO.
In my best hopes, it is Allen vs. Hillary. In my worst fears, it is McCain vs. Hillary.I agree. I like Allen so far, from what I know of him, and I hate McCain. I don't think McCain could get the Republican nomination. If he does, the Hildebeast will probably win the general election.
Saw a little blurb in The Sporting News that seems to fit here.
Second baseman Alfonso Soriano was traded from the Texas Rangers to the Washington Nationals. The slugging former Yankee insists he will not move from second base even though he doesn't play the position well. Most teams, including the Nationals, want to turn him into an outfielder.
TSN noted "This is uncommon because most people when they get to Washington seem extrememly eager to backpedal and change positions".
Like I said, I wouldn't want Giuliani to be prez, but to say he's a fraud is really going too far. He's a New Yorker with some corrupt friends. Ok, start looking for a New Yorker without corrupt friends. Ready, set, go...
[Edwards] could still crawl out of JFK's 2004 wreckageNo way. Edwards is the most vapid candidate in the history of American politics. Babs Streisand is a deeper thinker.
You could be right. He could conceivably get the nomination. He would be incredibly easy to beat. He looked like a little boy being scolded in his debate with Cheney. Four years later he'll just be a saggier little boy, but still a little boy.
He may be too cute by half a measure. Let's hope so. He'd be Satan if he ever got power.
>>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.
Well he almost did. He got closer than anyone else in the Dem field, so they were making their best choice. If not for the swift vets, and that bin Laden pre-election anti-Bush message, Kerry would have won in spite of his shortcomings.
And he was long on shortcomings.
I don't think we'll be so lucky next time. Incumbent fatigue, for one thing. And my pet theory about the 16-year flare-up:
In 1960 after 8 years of Republican president, a young and seemingly vigorous Dem with great hair and young children slips into office. Sixteen years later, after 8 years of Republican president, a young and seemingly vigorous Dem with great hair and a young child slides into office. Sixteen years later, after 12 years of Republican president, a young and seemingly vigorous Dem with great hair and a young child slithers into office. Sixteen years later, it is 2008 and...
So I worry about John Edwards, whose candidacy would be no more ridiculous than Clinton's was, when he first came to our attention.
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.