Why is no one giving the Dems a chance in '08?

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Dems are definitely handicapped by running a Senator. On the other hand, the likely GOP candidate is a mayor. Anybody want to guess how many candidates have managed to ascend from mayor to president, with no stops in between?

But the big thing (and I know I say this a lot, but that's because it's true) is that Electoral College math favors the Dems. The Dems have to win either every state they won in 2000, plus any other, or any state they won in 2004, plus one big one. Given that Ohio's GOP has imploded since 2004, that several Rocky Mountain states are trending Dem, and that the GOP seems to be going out of its way to alienate Hispanic voters (a significamnt component of their 2004 victory and 2000 "victory"), the math is on the side of the Dems.

Still, nobody is better at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory than the Democratic party.

[Kuciwalker]

Dems are definitely handicapped by running a Senator. On the other hand, the likely GOP candidate is a mayor. Anybody want to guess how many candidates have managed to ascend from mayor to president, with no stops in between?

Have any ever run?

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Dems are definitely handicapped by running a Senator. On the other hand, the likely GOP candidate is a mayor. Anybody want to guess how many candidates have managed to ascend from mayor to president, with no stops in between?

Have any ever run?

None have ever made it to the nomination, afaik -- so, yes, this would be a first. I take your point. But another way to think about it is that, not counting generals, we tend not to elect people who haven't won at least a state-wide election (or, at least, we haven't since 1844). Guiliani's basically got a "Gephardt problem," and it will be interesting to see if he can overcome it.

[Ramo]

Way too much is made about data about specific job experience before the Presidency. The sample is way too small and dispersed in time to make too many meaningful conclusions. Also, the importance of experience in managing large organizations is somewhat ameliorated by the importance of foreign policy this election.

Anways, I'm pretty sure the Dems will win, and big. Regardless of who's nominated. But I'm a lot less sure which Dem (maybe ~55% chance that it'll be Clinton) is gonna beat which Rep (my sense of the odds are a lot vaguer, but maybe ~35% Romney).

[DanS]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
None have ever made it to the nomination, afaik -- so, yes, this would be a first. I take your point. But another way to think about it is that, not counting generals, we tend not to elect people who haven't won at least a state-wide election (or, at least, we haven't since 1844).

Aren't you forgetting Lincoln?

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by DanS


Aren't you forgetting Lincoln?

D'oh! You're right. I always think of Polk as our last Congressman-President. Okay, 1860 then.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Re: Why is no one giving the Dems a chance in '08?

Originally posted by David Floyd
Are the Democratic candidates really that weak? Personally, I think their only real candidate is Edwards, but I don't think he has a shot in hell at being nominated. Hillary is seen as too liberal to win, and although I don't feel this way, a lot of conservative Democrats (read: Southerners, especially religious ones) may not vote for her because she's a woman. As for Obama, I think his name is going to kill him among the undecideds, in the sense that millions of people will probably go to the polls with no clue, and they aren't going to vote for someone named Barack Obama. Yes, American voters are that stupid. More substantially, though, he is seen as a foreign policy lightweight, when foreign policy is going to be crucial. Also, he's black, which will probably also hurt him - realistically, it will. Sad, but true.

I think that's pretty much your answer. The Democrats will be running either a black man or a white woman...I'm not so sure that either is electable in the US yet unless they're truly exceptional (and neither seems to be.) As you say...sad, but true.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


D'oh! You're right. I always think of Polk as our last Congressman-President. Okay, 1860 then.

Wasn't JFK in Congress prior to the 1960 Presidential election?

[Kuciwalker]

He was a Senator.

[Deity Dude]

The reason why a Republican will win is because the country is more small-govt than big-govt more low-tax than hi-tax more anti illegal immigration than pro-illegal immigration and more worried about foriegn policy than domestic programs and more believe in God than don't. And when its all said and done thats why a guy like Bush can beat a Gore or a Kerry.

Everyone of those issues people tend to think Republicans are stronger at. The only reason Clinton snuck in with 43% of the vote is because Perot split those issues in half. The only reason Carter got 1 term and almost lost was because of Watergate. JFK-Nixon was extremely close and the outcome was very debated. Roosevelt needed a national crisis that he could blame on the Republicans then WWII to stay in office.

So unless the country suddenly thinks Clinton or Obama are a superstar, (which is partly what they are both running on) the Republicans will win close.

It doesn't mean I endorse it - I am just analyzing it. My choice is Ron Paul.

[MarkG]

Originally posted by Admiral
I would be very surprised in the GOP retained the presidency in 2008. Well, maybe not very surprised.

QFT

[Heraclitus]

I suppose it is needles to point out that, any victory by a republican would immediately bring about a rise in anti-American feelings. A lot of people I know were just resentful of Bush before his reelection; afterwards some started having a strong negative opinion of America. A third term by any of the Republican candidates likely to win, would make them anti-Anti-American. I myself am still optimistic about the future of the US, but if you go this way… I don’t think I can keep telling myself how great the founding fathers were and how the ideals of America are some of the brightest in the world. I can’t forever ignore what America really is, nor can I ignore the fact that it’s likely not to get better.

Why can’t Hillary win? It can just be an electoral victory, it doesn’t have to be a popular choice... You can hate her guts, but just vote for her and impeach her later m'kay. I know she is a b****, but we Europeans understand pragmatism and cynicism, and we can respect it. Its in you’re best interest too, since America needs a president like that.

Think about it we, like most people care more about form that substance. Just having the democrats tag and being a woman will automatically bring in a plus for the US. If you intend to s**** the world, at least be smart or competent. Or smile while doing it like good old Bill did.

[DanS]

Originally posted by Heraclitus
I suppose it is needles to point out that, any victory by a republican would immediately bring about a rise in anti-American feelings.

Even if it weren't needless, nobody in the US would vote based on your opinion anyway.

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Deity Dude
The reason why a Republican will win is because the country is more small-govt than big-govt more low-tax than hi-tax more anti illegal immigration than pro-illegal immigration and more worried about foriegn policy than domestic programs and more believe in God than don't. And when its all said and done thats why a guy like Bush can beat a Gore or a Kerry.

Everyone of those issues people tend to think Republicans are stronger at. The only reason Clinton snuck in with 43% of the vote is because Perot split those issues in half. The only reason Carter got 1 term and almost lost was because of Watergate. JFK-Nixon was extremely close and the outcome was very debated. Roosevelt needed a national crisis that he could blame on the Republicans then WWII to stay in office.

So unless the country suddenly thinks Clinton or Obama are a superstar, (which is partly what they are both running on) the Republicans will win close.

It doesn't mean I endorse it - I am just analyzing it. My choice is Ron Paul.

He can't win.

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by DanS


Even if it weren't needless, nobody in the US would vote based on your opinion anyway.

True.



PS Would it be that bad though, to be liked in the world again?