Which Party do you THINK will win the 2008 Presidential Election?

[WalterMitty]

hopefully the independent party with mike bloomberg at the top of the ticket.

[Akno21]

Republican. They don't need as much to go right EV-wise. 

[Clay]

Republican. They don't need as much to go right EV-wise. 

Bush works against them.  Almost everything he's done is setting the Democrats up for a win in 2008, making him pretty much the worst thing to happen to the Republican party in a very long time.

[Akno21]

Republican. They don't need as much to go right EV-wise. 

Bush works against them.  Almost everything he's done is setting the Democrats up for a win in 2008, making him pretty much the worst thing to happen to the Republican party in a very long time.

You have a lot more faith in the current Democratic leadership's ability to capitalize on that than I do.

[Max]

I think Dems have the better chance, as long as they concentrate on economy, Iraq and Bush.

They'd avoid campaigning on social issues.


btw: Hallo to the forum! After reading your posts for some weeks, here's my first one.
My English is not the best, but I'm working on it! ;-)

[MODU]

I think Dems have the better chance, as long as they concentrate on economy, Iraq and Bush.

The only aspect of the economy they could campaign on is the debt.  The economy itself is quite good, and they would have a hard time pinging the GOP on any true negatives.  Over the weekend, the news reported that the debt will be down to around $300 Bill this year, thanks to another big tax return year.  This is down from the $400+ Bill projection by the budget office last year.  Bush promised to cut it in half (from $500+ Bill) in 2004, and he's almost there.  Now, on the flip side, his party (with the help of Democrats too . . . don't forget) help generate most of this, so he can't get all the gold stars.  He can recover those gold stars by backing George Allen's budget legislation and help getting it passed, forcing Congress to stop spending money as fast as they get it.

[Max]

The only aspect of the economy they could campaign on is the debt.  The economy itself is quite good, and they would have a hard time pinging the GOP on any true negatives. 

I'm not an expert on American economy at the moment, but aren't there many jobs lost compared with the Clinton years?
That's something Dems could point out.

[opebo]

The only aspect of the economy they could campaign on is the debt.  The economy itself is quite good, and they would have a hard time pinging the GOP on any true negatives. 

I'm not an expert on American economy at the moment, but aren't there many jobs lost compared with the Clinton years?
That's something Dems could point out.

MODU is wrong, Max, as usual, about the economy.  The great majority of americans perceive the economy as being atrociously bad, and since perception is what matters in politics, the economy is atrociously bad.

Of course in this case the opinion of the majority is grounded in reality - while the economy has been good during the Bush presidency for the very wealthy, it has been even worse for the working class than the previous several administrations (which were also quite bad).

[Frodo]

I think Dems have the better chance, as long as they concentrate on economy, Iraq and Bush.

The only aspect of the economy they could campaign on is the debt.  The economy itself is quite good, and they would have a hard time pinging the GOP on any true negatives.  Over the weekend, the news reported that the debt will be down to around $300 Bill this year, thanks to another big tax return year.  This is down from the $400+ Bill projection by the budget office last year.  Bush promised to cut it in half (from $500+ Bill) in 2004, and he's almost there.  Now, on the flip side, his party (with the help of Democrats too . . . don't forget) help generate most of this, so he can't get all the gold stars.  He can recover those gold stars by backing George Allen's budget legislation and help getting it passed, forcing Congress to stop spending money as fast as they get it.

Great, so we are going through boom times on paper, but if you are having trouble paying college tuition, medical insurance bills, higher gas prices, and so on, what you and Treasury Secretary John Snow say is next to irrelevant.  If ordinary Americans benefit so little (if at all) from this supposed economic recovery that it colors their perception, then it really isn't worth much now is it?

This much I can say about the supply-side economics currently ascendant here in the United States -it can certainly bring about economic recovery and growth, but it falls far short of spreading those benefits to those of us who don't live in mansions.   

[opebo]

This much I can say about the supply-side economics currently ascendant here in the United States -it can certainly bring about economic recovery and growth, but it falls far short of spreading those benefits to those of us who don't live in mansions.   

Very correct, Blue Dog, but remember the lesson of the Great Depression - such 'growth' is quite inferior to the sort of demand-led growth created by Keyensianism.

[MODU]

Great, so we are going through boom times on paper, but if you are having trouble paying college tuition, medical insurance bills, higher gas prices, and so on, what you and Treasury Secretary John Snow say is next to irrelevant.  If ordinary Americans benefit so little (if at all) from this supposed economic recovery that it colors their perception, then it really isn't worth much now is it?

This much I can say about the supply-side economics currently ascendant here in the United States -it can certainly bring about economic recovery and growth, but it falls far short of spreading those benefits to those of us who don't live in mansions.   

That's how "politics" are played.  The economy itself is quite good.  Personal economies are different.  If you campaign on how economically hard your life is, you are only going to reach a small portion of the population.  For decades, states have kept their tuition rates artificially low.  The only times you see significant increases are during times of recessions, and the states need to make up the lost income from somewhere (especially when the states start letting illegal immigrants pay in-state tuition).  Since we know that in macro-economics, movement in the economies take years to become significant, the impact of the tech boom bust and some of Clinton's/90's Congress quest for a balanced budget lead to states getting hit harder than projected.

I agree with medical bills being high, but that is not caused by the economy, but rather legislation and litigation expenses, which Bush and Congress have been trying to tackle for some time (with resistance from unions and some democrats).  By capping court rewards against doctors/hospitals/pharmaceuticals, you will see these expenses come back down to a more natural (natural, not "fair") level. 

Gas prices are market driven.  Considering how well the economy has been growing on all levels despite higher gas prices, it is difficult to ping the GOP on this.  The GOP, however, can easily counter with the continual blockage against drilling in ANWAR and off the California coastline.  Now Congress has constantly failed to encourage refinery and nuclear plant construction in the US, while allowing the ever-increasing number of gasoline fuel blends that states and regions demand.  By limiting the number of blends and removing California's stupid legislation on refinery production (they will not allow a refinery to produce at their maximum efficiency if the blend that site makes is already at a pre-set supply level), you would see your gas prices dip since the cost for production would decline.

Again, the best bet the Democrats have is by going after the deficit itself in regards to the economy.  Without taking into account the costs for Katrina, Iraq, 9/11, etc, the GOP went heavy with spending in the past 6 years.  It is an easy case for them to say "This is suppose to be the party of fiscal responsibility....."

[Reignman]

If neither Hillary or McCain are nominees, Dems.  If one but not the other, I dunno.  If both, the GOP.

[Harry]

Funny how everyone counts out Hillary right away.  She's the clear frontrunner for the Dems and has the most money.  She wraps up the nomination in NH, and the Republicans continue to fight for a long time and spend money against each other in a circular firing squad.
By the time the Reps have a nominee, Hillary has such an extreme money advantage, she wins the general election.

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

I accidentally voted Dem. instead of Rep.!

[zorkpolitics]

No matter who the Democrats nominate they are unlikely to lose any of the Kerry states.  Hence the Democratic nominee only needs OH.  Given the current melt down of the Republican party in OH, I think any generic Democrat will beat any generic Republican. 
The only exception would be McCain v Hillary where Hillary distain will likely give McCain the edge.

However, if the Democrats win the House (which I think is highly likely) and they can be tagged by the Republicans as do nothing, partisan, obstructionists, the Republicans will have a better chance in 2008.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

No matter who the Democrats nominate they are unlikely to lose any of the Kerry states.  Hence the Democratic nominee only needs OH.  Given the current melt down of the Republican party in OH, I think any generic Democrat will beat any generic Republican. 
The only exception would be McCain v Hillary where Hillary distain will likely give McCain the edge.

However, if the Democrats win the House (which I think is highly likely) and they can be tagged by the Republicans as do nothing, partisan, obstructionists, the Republicans will have a better chance in 2008.

The Republican Senate was able to pourposefully schedule votes for the sole porpouse of hurting the Kerry campaign.

[adam]

It really depends on who runs. I'll say that the worst choice for the major parties right now would be Hillary and McCain respectively.

Hillary simply doesn't have the ability to gain traction in more moderate, blue collar areas. She would lose all of the midwest  with the exception of Illinois and possibly Pennsylvania as well. It would be a lopsided looking election.

McCain on the other hand has burnt all of the wrong bridges. He has picked a bad time to support illegal immigration and has been riding the fence on a plythera of other issues. His approval ratings are slowly diminishing.

I think that if Giuliani runs in 2008 that the Dems wont stand much of a chance. He has a great record and an empty skeleton closet, plus hos moderate social stances appeal to all arenas.

Warner looks like he could be a good option for the dems, a moderate that actually decides on issues rather than riding the fence hoping for the best. However, a lot of people don't know much about him and his lack of accomplishment as governor could hurt him.

Here are a few predictions:

----------
Hillary in the race
----------

Hillary Clinton - 47%
George Allen - 50%
Other 3%

Hllary Clinton - 48%
John McCain - 49%
Other - 3%

----------
McCain in the race
----------

John McCain - 48%
Russ Feingold - 50%
Other 2%

John McCain - 46%
Mark Warner - 51%
Other - 3%

----------
Giuliani in the race
----------

Rudy Giuliani - 51%
Russ Feingold - 48%
Other - 1%

Rudy Giuliani - 50%
Mark Warner - 49%
Other - 1%

[Max]

Hllary Clinton - 48%
John McCain - 49%
Other - 3%

John McCain - 48%
Russ Feingold - 50%
Other 2%

Rudy Giuliani - 50%
Mark Warner - 49%
Other - 1%

I disagree with you on this ones.

I think McCain would defeat liberals like Clinton and Feingold by at least 4 to 5 points.

And I'm sure that Warner would defeat Giuliani by winning at least two Southern Bush states (Arkansas and his home state of Virginia)  while Giuliani could only weaken, but not win the Northeast.

[adam]

Hllary Clinton - 48%
John McCain - 49%
Other - 3%

John McCain - 48%
Russ Feingold - 50%
Other 2%

Rudy Giuliani - 50%
Mark Warner - 49%
Other - 1%

I disagree with you on this ones.

I think McCain would defeat liberals like Clinton and Feingold by at least 4 to 5 points.

And I'm sure that Warner would defeat Giuliani by winning at least two Southern Bush states (Arkansas and his home state of Virginia)  while Giuliani could only weaken, but not win the Northeast.

A lot of polls show Giuliani gaining ground and fast in traditionally democratic areas. I could almost assure you that a strong Giuliani campaign could take New Hampshire, Iowa, Minnesota, and possibly Wisconsin. Mark Warner is a decent candidate - but he lacks accomplishment where as the public have given Giuliani the title of "America's mayor". I just don't think that people could warm up to Warner fast enough for him to beat the already tremendously popular Giuliani.

A couple of years ago I would have agreed with you on John McCain. However, the public is clamoring for immigration control, which is something he constantly votes against. His on the fence stances have left the public irritsted in a time when they demand decisivness. Feingold is a good decision maker and could one up McCain as far as a voting record goes. (Keep in mind that Feingold was the ONE senator to vote against the Patriot Act). People just don't like Hillary and that is why, despite McCain's poor output, could one up her.

[DCProy]

I think Democrats will win as long as Hillary Clinton isn't nominated.

I think a lot of people are annoyed with Republicans right now. This gives a huge advantage to Democrats. Also, I don't think Hillary Clinton could win. I think the country just isn't ready for a woman president. I would vote, if I could, for a qualified woman. I just don't the vast majority is ready for this. It's just too great of a change for people.

But I do agree, it will be close.

[Max]

A lot of polls show Giuliani gaining ground and fast in traditionally democratic areas. I could almost assure you that a strong Giuliani campaign could take New Hampshire, Iowa, Minnesota, and possibly Wisconsin. Mark Warner is a decent candidate - but he lacks accomplishment where as the public have given Giuliani the title of "America's mayor". I just don't think that people could warm up to Warner fast enough for him to beat the already tremendously popular Giuliani.

Seems to me that you are better informed about Giuliani and I don't know any polls for a Giuliani vs. Warner race, but I think socially liberal Giuliani would loose more in the South - especially against moderate-to-conservative Warner - then he'dd win in the Northeast.

The white blue collar workers in the North would also vote for Warner over Giuliani, in my opinion.

[adam]

A lot of polls show Giuliani gaining ground and fast in traditionally democratic areas. I could almost assure you that a strong Giuliani campaign could take New Hampshire, Iowa, Minnesota, and possibly Wisconsin. Mark Warner is a decent candidate - but he lacks accomplishment where as the public have given Giuliani the title of "America's mayor". I just don't think that people could warm up to Warner fast enough for him to beat the already tremendously popular Giuliani.

Seems to me that you are better informed about Giuliani and I don't know any polls for a Giuliani vs. Warner race, but I think socially liberal Giuliani would loose more in the South - especially against moderate-to-conservative Warner - then he'dd win in the Northeast.

The white blue collar workers in the North would also vote for Warner over Giuliani, in my opinion.

Despite his socially liberal stances, he is an "immigration hawk" who has that if president he would "do for America with illegal immigration what he did for NYC with crime"(This is a good statement considering how much he slashed the crime rate during his mayorship. Immigration reform will be the main issue in 2008 and I think that his hawkish stance will save more votes in the south that his "non-evangelical" stances would lose him.

The midwest is also pretty divided on Giuliani, mainly because most people polled say that they don't know enough about him to form an opinion. If nominated I think that he could at least nab Minnesota and Wisconsin. A true fiscal conservative always strikes a chord in that area. Just my 2 cents.