Posted on 06/03/2007 9:38:03 AM PDT by TexanSniper
MACKINAC ISLAND -- Who will be the Democratic and Republican presidential nominees in 2008? Two veteran political handicappers predicted Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney would be the last candidates standing Saturday night during the closing session of the Detroit Regional Chambers Mackinac Policy Conference.
Charlie Cook and Stuart Rothenberg, both columnists and analysts with their own Washington-based newsletters, told the Saturday dinner audience that its really a matter of determining who most likely will avoid fatal landmines during the campaign ahead.
Cook described Clintons campaign as one of Prussian efficiency, more like Richard Nixons campaign in 1972 and certainly more organized than any Democratic campaign that Ive ever seen.
But Clinton also has a liability 46-48 percent of Americans wont vote for her no matter what. If she were a stock, shed have a very narrow trading range. Theres no room for error. Shes cautious and she doesnt make mistakes.
Cook said if Barack Obama were able to broaden support to a majority of African-American voters, less-educated Democratic voters and older voters, he could be a contender.
Rothenberg, who handicapped the GOP race, said I dont know what the hells happening. Normally, youd look for the oldest white guy in the race.
But McCain has lost his outside status, Rudy Giuliani is in the wrong party, (Hes pro adultery in a party that is not officially pro adultery, he quipped) and Mitt Romney oozes leadership but has multiple positions on issues like abortion that are important to GOP voters in Iowa.
Fred Thompson is in the race, Rothenberg said, because the media needs a new name. Hes a vessel each of you can pour your hopes and dreams into, the Republican Barack Obama.
Cook said the most important factors influencing who will get their parties nominations are: Iowa caucus, the New Hampshire primary, national polls and ability to raise dollars.
Both analysts said if history were a guide, Democrats will win the White House because the pattern is that generally since World War II, no party earns third terms. The exception was George Bushs election to succeed the popular Ronald Reagan.
The wild card this year may be New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and a third-party bid. If you can walk, chew gum and have a billion dollars, I might be able to do something with that, Rothenberg said. He could easily get on the ballot in all 50 states if, early next year, each party has candidates who are deeply flawed.
Anybody who says they know who’s going to be the nominee at this point is...how to put this delicately?...venting his colon.
Ahh, I see, you’re one of those “deep thinkers” who look past a persons physical appearance to...oh wait.
What has Fred ever done?
What do you want him to have done? He hasn't walked on water. He hasn't brought anyone back from the dead. But Fred has as good of a resume as anyone running with the exception of Romney, who seems to be that kid with the perfect resume who has been plotting to be president his entire life.
Bttt!
The point is, I don't care. I care what Fred will do. Can he handle the media? Does he have conservative values? Can he articulate issues and gain support? Look at who Fred will be running against. Obama two year Senator, no major accomplishments. Hillary eight year Senator, no major accomplishments. Unless you count being the wife of the liar in chief as having done something, Freds record is as long as Hillary's.
I think you are trying to compare turds here. In politics, very often the choice is not between good and bad, the choice is between bad and worse. Clearly, Romney is a politicians politician and as such is bad, however Clinton is worse. You may be perceived as naive if you hero worship politicians, whether their name is Romney or Clinton.
You are making a huge jump from my not equating the 'badness' of Clinton and 'therefore' Romney by virtue of their own politics. No hero worshipper here; but see no reason whatsoever to lump all politicians; candidates or presidential wannabe's into one large common dirtball.
If you are right in your assumptions of the 'equal playing field' of dirty politics and those who play the game; then why even bother to concern yourself about the 'better' candidate. . .the superior idiology that underscores one's political focus.
By your analysis; or so it would seem; it does not matter whether we have Romney or 'another Carter. . .or a 'John Kerry' or another round of the Clinton's or Mitt Romney or Fred Thompson or even McCain. . . They are tainted. . .self-serving and dishonest; if only be degrees of separation; and our politcal fortunes are dismally cast, no matter who wins.
I don't buy it; and I am not naively looking for perfection of 'the man' or imagining it; and never entertain myself with the folly of the 'perfect candidate'.
But there is certainly a mountain of differences between that which nourishes Bill Clinton; his character; and the legacy he imagines for himself - his myth in the making - and the ideas and motivations that move Mitt Romney; his character; and his potential legacy as President, should he so rise. . .
(. . .and not unlike that which separates ANY Leftist candidate from any Repub; be it Fred, or Rudy or even our insufferable John McCain...)
100% agree!
Such keen political insight is hard to find. Perhaps I too can be a political handicapper. My observation is that the democrats typically take the most pompous, unlikable jerk available (Kerry, Gore, Mondale...just skip Clinton). So by that observation, Hillary is a shoe in. And that formula has proven results! Losses! All she needs to do to lock it in is hire Bob Shrum.
Perot stole votes from the republican base and swayed moderates who wanted a straight talking, competent outsider who would manage the economy like a business and challenge the status quo in DC. In other words, a fiscally conservative non-politican who appealed to right-leaning voters. He hurt the Republicans. It does not follow that any third party automatically favors dems. Bloomburg is the kind of Republican who can only win in states like New York, New Jersey, etc. A flaming lib RINO. Well, the GOP isnt getting those electoral votes anyway. He'll take dem votes away, not republican.
“swayed moderates who wanted a straight talking, competent outsider who would manage the economy like a business and challenge the status quo in DC.”
Yep, you hit the nail on the head with that one. I was one of those ‘moderate 20-something swing voters’ back then. I figured that our government was in the business of handling money, so why not get a businessman to make our tax dollars work better for us? (I was also against voting Republican as a direct rebellion against my father so my vote would have gone to Clinton if it wasn’t for Perot, but I’ve grown up since then... (o:).
You are funny. Ha Ha
Your rewrite makes PERFECT sense! ... You see the Dems want a candidate who was not soiled by compromise on the Iraq war, so they go after the multi-culti neophyte.
The GOP base wants a candidate unsullied by the compromises, big spending and non-conservative compromises. There are so few of them out there.
Nonsense. The pros are telling you - as bad and as unlikeable as Clinton is, SHE CAN WIN. She did it in New York and can do it again. To pretend she can’t win is utter amateur foolishness.
I’d like to see it happen. The cokehead from Chicago is the posterboy for the decadence of the left. He’ll contrast poorly against Mitt Romney.
as bad and as unlikeable as Clinton is, SHE CAN WIN. She did it in New York and can do it again. To pretend she cant win is utter amateur foolishness...
...I couldn’t agree with you more...and the funny thing is, she and Obama, the top two, are the worst of their four or five contenders...the best is Richardson, who at least has extensive executive experience (a la Rudy and Romney), but politics is about celebrity and name recognition today, which partially explains the hoopla over Thompson getting into it...though on name recognition, Fred Thompson sounds like a guy who comes to fix your washing machine to the great mass of apolitical voters, whereas Hilary Clinton is immediately recognized...hard to say. Personally, I could pull a lever for Romney, but I think he’d be swamped by Clinton, plus I doubt he’ll be nominated...only Rudy or McCain has the star power to contest Hilary, and McCain is too old...I predict Hilary to win the White House with over 300 electoral votes unless Republicans rally around Rudy...
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.