Posted on 03/15/2006 8:57:03 AM PST by Jean S
Democrats will spend much of this midterm election year “finding their voice,” as liberal Democratic activists are fond of saying.
As I argued in this space last week, the possibility that some über-liberals might suddenly rise up and scare America with their rhetoric is a major reason that Democrats seem poised to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. But it’s not the only reason.
Hillary Clinton’s imperious control over her party’s presidential politics will also become a stumbling block to the Democrats’ prospects for recapturing control of either house of Congress this November.
The 2008 contest for the Democratic nomination for president is already over, according to activists and even some news organizations. Just last week, ABC News released polling that implied Hillary’s the only one.
Ms. Clinton’s glittering favorable ratings among Democrats, even liberal ones, make it altogether a slam-dunk. Eighty percent of all Democrats and 86 percent of liberal Democrats hold favorable impressions of Her Highness.
Evidently no other Democratic candidates are even worthy of polling in light of numbers like those. Of course, ABC tested John McCain alone on the GOP side, but they know the GOP contest is just beginning. ABC just used McCain for balance to Hillary.
So what does Hillary’s 2008 hegemony have to do with 2006? In a nutshell, Hillary’s tight control of the primary field deprives this year’s Democratic congressional candidates of the energy and money that would result from a large field of prospective 2008 Democrats. And Ms. Clinton’s back-in-the-day persona leaves Democrats without a genuine newcomer or fresh face to meet the challenge evident from polls showing that large percentages of the electorate see the nation on the wrong track.
In times like these, voters want to turn to a new generation of leadership, something that voters won’t believe a Clinton or a Bush can provide. If this weren’t true, popular Florida Gov. Jeb Bush would be a GOP front-runner for 2008.
To understand the Democrats’ disadvantage, consider the GOP’s surplus of fresh, new faces. New-era candidates like Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney or Virginia Sen. George Allen will be embraced as a chance to turn the page and move to the next chapter in American politics.
Exciting new candidates like this can help congressional Republicans raise more money this year and energize grassroots activity in a way that candidates from the past cannot. Even John McCain has such an iconoclastic, maverick reputation that he’s still “fresh” in a world where Hillary is decidedly stale.
I’m convinced that the Republican field, already crowded, is not yet set. The electoral demand for “new” candidates is likely to drive some potential contestants from the “also-mentioned” category to full-fledged candidacies. The more, the merrier. Look for a few latecomers such as Govs. Bill Owens of Colorado or Mike Huckabee of Arkansas or Sens. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska or Lindsey Graham of South Carolina to fill out the field before fall.
Meanwhile, all this energy on the GOP side will be unmatched by Democrats. Frankly, it would be considered heresy to step forward and challenge Ms. Presumptive Nominee.
Of course, you say, a popular Hillary can help raise money and energize Democratic grassroots support. That’s true, but she’s only one person. And I’m not sure she’s the sort of hardworking, party-oriented candidate who’ll push through the fatigue to help one Democrat after another all year long, especially when she’s working for her own reelection. The new Republicans are younger and hungrier and have more to gain. They’ll outwork the New York senator and her complacent campaign every night of the year.
With Hillary sitting on her lead, Democrats will be stuck with even older, less inspiring generals leading the grass roots this fall. Whom do you want for your Jefferson Dinner: Kennedy, Gore or Byrd? Or the Democrats could risk pressing a 2012 or 2016 candidate like Illinois Sen. Barack Obama into the fray before his time, possibly compromising his future electoral prospects.
Hill is director of Hill Research Consultants, a Texas-based firm that has polled for GOP candidates and causes since 1988.
I don't pretend to see what the future holds, but I am fairly sure, from talking to liberal friends, that those who think of themselves as either "liberals" or Democrats will go ahead and vote for Hillary. But she may well scare a lot of the fence sitters and less political types, and I doubt she'll have any ability at all to get crossover votes. I guess you could say that I'm guardedly optomistic and fearful both at once.
On one thing I agree with Mrs. Clinton - any major events that occur during W's presidency are potentially larger vote getters than any amount of political rhetoric.
"Sens. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska"
I think you have to actually be a Republican before you can run in a Republican primary. Is there ANYTHING Hagel supports the president on? I can't think of a one.
We can't underestimate Hillary or the Dems, but she does suck up all the oxygen in the room. I'm sure many Democrats are secretly fuming.
But she may well scare a lot of the fence sitters and less political types, and I doubt she'll have any ability at all to get crossover votes. I guess you could say that I'm guardedly optomistic and fearful both at once.
That's why we need to pick a candidate who can grab up the fence sitter voters, like McCain, Guiliani and even Rice. A nobody like Allen won't interest them, so they'll fall in with Hillary. If we give them a reason not to vote for Hillary like providing them with a strong GOP candidate and not some goober who says all "the right things" and is from "the right part of the country" (the South) but can't debate his way out of a paper bag and has all the charisma of a slug, then the GOP will take the indy and swing voters. But we have to give them the right candidate.
Hillary is the best thing to happen to the Republicans.
She cannot win any states except the ones that were won by Kerry in 2004. Which means one thing.
The RATS will once again try to steal a state.
Yeah... like we did with Bob Dole!
That's an example of having gone with the wrong candidate.
If we could get Colin Powell to run, in spite of the rather negative opinion of him held by many freepers, we'd blow Hillary completely out of the water. I believe Giuliani and McCain would also win. I guess a question is, do we have any candidates who are more solidly "conservative" than those three? I'm not up to speed on Mitt Romney's politics, but there is surely name recognition there at least.
It's all very interesting.
do we have any candidates who are more solidly "conservative" than those three?
We do have candidates who are more conservative, but they're not candidates that would excite anyone or that most people have even heard of. And none of them have any particular ability to excite voters. I really can't think of any rock solid conservative with the name I.D., campaign skills and ability to connect with voters who could run in '08. I know people on Free Republic keep throwing around the name Mike Pence, but I couldn't pick his face out from among a crowd or tell you much of what he believes and I'm a political junky's political junky.
The problem with a blank slate candidate going up against a known quantity like Hillary is that you have a "better to go with the devil you know" factor that helps the known candidate at the expense of the unknown candidate, probably enough so to cost him or her the election. Plus in a year when Republican candidates might be radioactive, and I have a sense come 2008 Americans will be looking for a change from the Bush years (I don't get it either. Americans have never had it so good or had their security against terrorism so well protected) which means voters will not be willing to vote for a guy they don't really know just because he's a Republican. In fact that will probably be a reason to vote against him. That means we need to give them a strong, known and popular quantity like a McCain, Guiliani or Rice to incentivize them to vote Republican. With popular candidates like that, their party affiliation even in a year Republicans are not popular will not be a negative for them.
You just cannot run an appliance bulb against a superstar.
I got it. I was just commenting...
Does Hagel have a following of his own? Or is he just a fall-back option for McCainiacs in case McCain decides not to run (or can't because of his health)?
I don't know that I'm a McCainiac, but right now unless a more viable option presents itself I am supporting McCain because he's the only candidate who I can see who will keep Hildabeast out of the White House. I figure I don't like everything McCain does, but then I don't like everything Bush does, or doesn't do, either yet I am still able to support him. In any event, I think McCain will be as strong as Bush on the WOT, Iraq, keeping tax cuts low (though if he pledges to raise taxes I will not support him) and better than Bush on cutting spending, particularly pork spending. So though I was irate about his position on torture and a few others, I was at the same time grateful that he wasn't hopping on the Bush bashing bandwagon over the ports deal and wiretapping like so many Republicans were. And he has been really helpful to Bush in both of his campaigns. So I've weighed both the good and the bad in McCain's history and decided on balance he's with the GOP and the president enough that I can support him in 08.
Hagel is another matter. Though I hate the term "RINO," if it applies to anyone it applies to him. I don't like the term because so often it's just indiscriminately wielded against people like McCain who aren't locksteppers, but are with the GOP more often than not. But in Hagel's case he is almost NEVER with the president or the GOP including on Iraq, the WOT and wiretapping. Hagel is a total liberal with a Republican tag so he could win a Senate seat in a GOP state like Nebraska. I believe inwardly the man is secretly a Democrat. I would never support him as a fall-back if McCain were to drop out. He unlike McCain is a complete, rancid Bush basher.
By the way, if you're interested to learn more about McCain's voting record, check this out. It's fairly conservative if you look down the list of issues: http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=S0061103
Given the prospect of a long, bruising Presidential run with an uncertain outcome, of the certainty of hundreds of millions of dollars in the bank, I think Hillary! would certainly take the money and run, leaving the Donks in the lurch.
Wouldn't that be sweet!
Amen to that. I've seen Allen now beat to a pulp in separate political chat show appearances with Barbara Boxer, Chuck Schumer, Sen. Jack Reed of R.I. and Congresswoman Jane Harman over the last 6 or 7 months. I mean, if you can get destroyed in a debate with a brainless twit like Barbara Boxer, you're just not ready for prime time. All 4 of those I mentioned ate Allen for lunch and what they were saying was imminently refutable. But he seemed totally scripted and unable to respond to their blatant lies. I was yelling at the TV during his appearance with Boxer about what he should be saying to rebut her and all he did was look like a deer in the headlights and went back to his script! It was as troubling as it was embarrassing.
I saw Allen was on I think Fox News Sunday this last Sunday with Joe Biden. I just couldn't bring myself to watch. This is going to be a miserable campaign for our party in '08 if this dimbulb Allen is our candidate.
Romney would be somewhat better than Allen. He's at least bright and able to think on his feet. He comes off well at least and I think he's got some name I.D. Allen doesn't. Plus he won't have the baggage of coming out of the Senate like Allen does. Senators just don't win presidential elections. Governors do. So I'd rather match a governor against Senator Clinton than another senator. So if the GOP makes the mistake of not going with a big name candidate, I guess I could be comfortable with Romney. He'll have a fight on his hands, but I at least have some faith he's capable of waging and winning it. Certainly he'll force Hillary to have to campaign somewhat in the Northeast.
2006 and 2008 elections will be interesting.
FReeper RINO's forget that it was John O'Neill,
and Viet Nam Vets who saved America from
hanoi kerry.
Without vital support from Independents the GOP can't win.
Karl Rove nailed it exactly
Rove Credits Swiftvets With 'Energizing' Bush Vote (Thank You Karl Rove!)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1345603/posts
If Allen still comes off as behind the curve... I'll look at Brownback or Romney. If they fail to get my attention... I'll back the most popular candidate. If it's McCain... so be it.
No more Clintons!
No more Clintons!
I honestly think these short-sighted people who keep saying "I won't vote!" or even more stupidly "There's no difference betweeen McCain and Hillary" have forgotten the scandal a month club trauma that was the Clinton years. Either they were too young or it's now too long past that ugly period that they have no rememberance of it. That anyone would so cavalierly sit back and not act to keep those same criminals from coming back into power all based on some irrational hatred of McCain is simply astonishing. But again, they'll be the first ones to complain during the leftward leap and endemic corruption that will rear its ugly head again early in a Hillary Clinton presidency.
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.