It will be very difficult to win this presidential election cycle with a candidate perceived as hard conservative.
We _might_ have had that chance, IF we could win exactly the same states that Bush won in 2004. But we cant, because Ohio is going to be a problem. As someone wrote in another thread recently, the Republican party is in deep doo-doo in that state. It may be impossible for ANY Republican presidential candidate of ANY persuasion to capture Ohio in 2008.
There is also a problem with the [formerly] reliably red states turning purple. Cases in point would be:
- New Hampshire: seems like the Democrats have been winning this once-conservative state with increasing frequency lately
- Arizona: didnt they just VOTE DOWN a gay-marriage ban? What the heck is going on there?
- New Mexico: another once-reliable state that is slipping from the Republican grasp.
Hard conservatives arent guaranteed these states any more, because the states themselves are no longer hard conservative.
On the other hand, there are blue states that Giulianni could actually WIN. Cases in point would be:
- New Jersey: Rudy is doing VERY well there. I think he could take it (even though he probably doesnt have a chance of winning New York across the Hudson; its just too damned blue to hope Republicans can ever win there again).
- Pennsylvania: Although Philadelphia and Pittsburgh are rat cities, the heartland of PA is red. Its a battleground state and Rudy can probably take it easily.
- Florida: Rudy could cut through the purple haze to win there, too.
If we can take NJ, PA, and FL, we can sustain the loss of Ohio and win. But there is only one Republican I can see, capable of winning in New Jersey.
Political fortunes ebb and flow, like the tides. I think its safe to say that at the moment, the fortunes of the Republican party in general, and of the hard-right in particular, are on the ebb. The war in Iraq is going to be a BIG problem, better not kid ourselves on this. Any candidate we put up is going to have to be perceived by the mushy middle to have credentials in regard to terrorism (remember that the American public, by and large, still _thinks_ it is supposed to be a war on terror, regardless of what this struggle REALLY is about). Rudy has those credentials. What does Fred Thompson have?
Theres no denying that we took significant losses in 2006. How might the loss of BOTH houses of Congress otherwise be seen?
We cannot afford to lose the Presidency in 08. We have to be pragmatic, shift tactics if necessary, and DO what is necessary to hold that office.
2008 will be a defensive election for Republicans. We must hold the line, try to minimize losses in the Congress (even pick up a few seats), and hold the Presidency (which gives us an edge for judicial picks for the next 4 years, in which Stevens and Ginsburg will have to be replaced on the Supreme Court).
Of course, one can stand hard on principles - NO COMPROMISE. And lose.
Or we can be pragmatic, compromise, and win.
Which is better?
Really?
- John
343 posted on 04/21/2007 8:07:32 PM PDT by Fishrrman
Excellent analysis of the political reality we face in 2008.
Thank you for posting it. barset
12,975 posted on 04/28/2007 8:00:58 AM PDT by Barset
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 343 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
The post to which I responded was from Fishrrman. It is, in my view, a realistic analysis of what we face in 2008.
Every state is a “battleground state” in 2008, and depending on how many bridges are destroyed and city centers flattened and how many schoolyard massacres occur, we cannot predict which battleground will be the bloodiest.
Unless, of course, our pols react as the Swedish official has reacted to the depredations of Sweden’s Muslim colonizers, “We must be nice to the Muslims so that when they are in the majority, they will be nice to us.”
You are clueless and dishonorable and unworthy of any type of response from me.