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

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Apocalypse
I think if Hillary picks Richardson as the VP, I could see her easily losing. He brings a lot of baggage with him, namely losing nucular secrets to China and hundreds of millions in Enron deals.

What exactly did Richardson lose to china? I don't think he was responsible in a meaningful way for that fiasco... and he most definitely doesn't use the word 'nucular'

[Ramo]

Here's an October poll. According to the poll, New York is in play if Giuliani is the GOP candidate, no matter who he's against. Obama v. Giuliani is a dead heat. Giuliani trails Clinton by 11.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1318.xml?ReleaseId=1108

Here's a 10/30 poll showing Clinton beating Giuliani by 34. I've seen a few of these polls. The average is probably somewhere in the 20-30 range. In other words, not competitive.

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportEmail.aspx?g=2b437822-0643-4214-a4fa-a398c0685271

Honestly, the only hope for the GOP is if McCain wins in a way that consolidates his base (and prevents a third party challenge). Which is to say, ain't gonna happen.

Giuliani is looking worse and more pathetic every day (both in the primaries and the general). See the news on him about subsidizing his affair on the taxpayer's dime, for instance. I just don't see him winning the nomination, much less beating Clinton. He has more potential against Obama, but that's mostly because we're only starting to see him respond to a barrage of negative attacks; we'll have a better sense of this matchup in a couple months.

And no, he would not win NY. Clinton's would beat the **** out of him there, while Obama would hold his own. Political campaigns are polarizing, and Dems will be a lot less inclined to vote for a GOP candiate, while Reps will be a lot less inclined to vote for a Dem candidate in another year. NJ would be more competitive, though...

Huckabee's probably the most interesting candidate. He has a lot of natural potential, but he does have some problems masking his lunacy. He probably has the best chance of consolidating the base of any other candidate (which isn't to say it's all that great - he still needs to appease the Club for Growthers), but he talks about quarantining AIDS patients. Honestly... He also is a lightweight on foreign policy, which means that he's going to have problems in the general.

Romney would be a solid candidate if his 2003-era persona were able to win the GOP nomination. But it's not, and the extremism that he espouses now, combined with his Mormonism, would doom him were he to make it out of the primaries.

So in addition to the candidate's own particular problems, all sorts of macro indicators are pointing to a Dem victory. The public overwhelmingly wants to get out of Iraq. The public overwhelmingly wants universal health care. The public overwhelmingly wants to do something about climate change. G Dub, one of the most reviled Presidents in history, is a Republican. The generic ballot advantage is favoring the Dems by 10-20 points.

[Ramo]

I mean really...Hillary has 49% negatives and Obama is the son of muslims?

Grandson...

[Apocalypse]

Originally posted by snoopy369


What exactly did Richardson lose to china? I don't think he was responsible in a meaningful way for that fiasco... and he most definitely doesn't use the word 'nucular'

He was pretty much the fall guy for the Wen Ho Lee issue.

[David Floyd]

Honestly... He also is a lightweight on foreign policy, which means that he's going to have problems in the general.

But what about Huckabee vs. Obama? Both are light on foreign policy, and you have the interesting dynamic of a former Baptist minister vs. a candidate with a Muslim name/Muslim parents. Wonder which way the traditionally Democratic Catholic and Jewish votes would go?

Also, does Obama profess any form of Christianity? If not, I really have to question his ability to win in this country.

[Ramo]

Yep, he's a Christian. IIRC, his mom was Christian, his dad was agnostic, and his paternal grandparents were Muslim...

I think Obama has a pretty solid sense of foreign policy. His campaign against Clinton is fundamentally about foreign policy (i.e. emphasizing diplomacy, the push for a "grand bargain" with Iran, etc.). The dissidents to the pre-Iraq war "liberal hawk" consensus are coalescing around him (Zbig Brzezinski, etc.). While he doesn't have all that much in the way of experience, that's a different matter.

OTOH, I don't think Huck has put all that much thought into foreign policy at all. For instance, when a reporter asked him about the recently declassified Iran NIE, he had no clue what the reporter was referring to.

[David Floyd]

Right, but Obama is typically attacked as being light on foreign policy, even by his own party. What happens if he gets nominated, those attack ads are remembered, AND he faces another perceived/actual lightweight?

Does foreign policy even become the major issue in the campaign? Or do both avoid it because they just aren't that credible?

[Ramo]

But foreign policy in this election is primarily about Iraq. And if Iraq looks ****ed next year (and I think it will), no one among the major candidates of either party will have more credibility than Obama. And if public sentiment stays overwhelmingly in favor of withdrawal (and, again, I think it will), there's a natural benefit for any Democrat to talk about foreign policy.

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by Flubber
It is odd since they (senators) should have a better chance to have a national profile than governors for instance

A large part of the population here does not view a senate or other legislative career as actualy having run something. A mom and pop store owner has done more management.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by DanS
Here's an October poll. According to the poll, New York is in play if Giuliani is the GOP candidate, no matter who he's against. Obama v. Giuliani is a dead heat. Giuliani trails Clinton by 11.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1318.xml?ReleaseId=1108

Looking through the state polls, Giuliani is quite the wild card.

Looks more like the Republicans are grasping at anything to convince themselves that they have a chance at winning. It's just that attitude that will cost them the election in the end.

[Kuciwalker]

That's incoherent nonsense on several levels.

[DanS]

My head hearts.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Ramo
See the news on him about subsidizing his affair on the taxpayer's dime, for instance. /QUOTE]



I heard him on Russert - he answered alot of attacks pretty well ("why dont you just reveal your client list" "isnt Qatar teh eevil?") He squirmed on the bodyguard for Judy Nathan thing, but "subsidizing his affair", man thats Rovian.

His vulnerabilities are obvious, but I wouldnt count Rudy out, not at all. Against a Dem who ISNT absolutely controlled, he could exploit an opening.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Ramo

"Yep, he's a Christian. IIRC, his mom was Christian, his dad was agnostic, and his paternal grandparents were Muslim...

I think Obama has a pretty solid sense of foreign policy. His campaign against Clinton is fundamentally about foreign policy (i.e. emphasizing diplomacy, the push for a "grand bargain" with Iran, etc.). The dissidents to the pre-Iraq war "liberal hawk" consensus are coalescing around him (Zbig Brzezinski, etc.). While he doesn't have all that much in the way of experience, that's a different matter.

His poll numbers have risen as things have actually improved in Iraq, and as issue polls have shown Iraq becoming less of an issue, from what Ive read. Apparently for all the harping on Clintons vote, shes still seen as better on foreign policy. Obamas campaign may about foreign policy to his base, but to the supporters hes gotten beyond his base, its about a different approach to politics, about hope, and about not trusting Hillary (and no, that doesnt reduce to the Iraq vote)

As for Brezinski, I find him scary at many levels. Certainly it would be ironic to have him advising on Iran, at this point in history. At least no one has to worry about idealistic pursuit of democracy with him around.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Ramo

But foreign policy in this election is primarily about Iraq.

Bush wont be on the ballot, which just may shift things a bit to the many other foreign policy concerns, which are still quite real.

[q]And if Iraq looks ****ed next year (and I think it will), no one among the major candidates of either party will have more credibility than Obama.[./q]

Nobodys lost money betting on bad news from Iraq, but the current trend on security is already the other way. I wouldnt want to count on Maliki to keep the bad news coming if I was running for Prez.

And if public sentiment stays overwhelmingly in favor of withdrawal (and, again, I think it will), there's a natural benefit for any Democrat to talk about foreign policy.

Obamas been able to avoid specifics on whether hes for a fast Edwards style withdrawl, or for a gradual drawdown. Mainly cause Clinton doesnt want to talk about it all, since its a no win for her in Iowa and New Hampshire. Against a Republican in the general, he may not have that luxury.