2008 Predications

[dazzleman]

This is a very interesting discussion.

I agree with those who say that Gov. Pataki of New York doesn't have a chance in the Republican Party at the national level.  I like him in New York because the alternative there is worse, but I don't think I'd support him on the national level.  He is too weak and wishy-washy for the national party.

Giuliani is a more interesting question.  He's about the only New York City mayor who can speak outside the city without getting stoned.  Generally, NYC mayors are extremely unpopular in the rest of the state, including the close-in suburbs, not to mention other sections of the country.  But Giuliani has a record on crime reduction that made him more popular outside the city than within it.  Not to mention his performance in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks. And he campaigns effectively for Republican candidates around the country.  So he could be a contender despite his New York connections and his liberal positions on social issues.

I think Pataki may run for the Senate against Schumer.  He knows he needs an exit strategy since he's in his third term, and he saw what happened to his predecessor, who turned down other opportunities in order to go for a 4th term as governor, and ended up with nothing.

I would love to see Giuliani knock Hillary out, and I think the Republicans are saving him for that, since she is a greater long-term threat, and far more noxious, than Schumer is.  I don't agree that New Yorkers love her necessarily.  She has strong support from all the various NYC parasite groups of course, but a strong opponent could rally enough suburbanites and upstaters against her to knock her out.  If that happens, she's done in 2008.

Giuliani could also run for governor, but I suspect he won't because after 3 terms in Republican hands, the odds don't favor a Republican for that position.  But in reality, I think he would much rather have an executive job than a legislative one, and if recent history is any guide, a governor's position would position him better for the White House.  The whole thing is a toss-up.

It's very hard to see a scenario where Hillary actually wins the White House.  Even in New York, Hillary ran about 5 points behind Gore in 2000, meaning that some people who supported Gore just couldn't bring themselves to vote for her.  If you play that out nationally, she would probably win at least several fewer states than Gore did in 2000, under close to ideal circumstances (apparent peace and prosperity under the Democrats).  Surely, she would be well behind Gore's performance in Florida and most likely New Mexico, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Iowa and Michigan.  It's hard to see where she could make up those lost states.

Call me crazy, but I think even Condeleeza Rice would beat Hillary in the south.  I can't see southerners voting for Hillary under any circumstances, and Rice's obvious intelligence, well-spokenness and personality could convince southerners that she is the better choice over Hillary.  I think being a woman and/or being black will work in favor of a Republican candidate and against a Democratic candidate because of the political alignment -- virtually all the people who will vote for somebody BECAUSE she's a woman or black are in the Democratic party, and running on the Republican line against a noxious liberal like Hillary would probably ease the doubts of those who may be reluctant to vote for a woman or a black person.  I could be wrong, but I don't believe that Hillary Clinton will ever be president.  I also think that her husband's administration will look worse and worse in retrospect, the more time passes, and that will hurt her.

As far as Cheney goes, I see no chance of him running in 2008.  He barely made it through the 2000 election alive.  I have nothing against him and think he is highly competent, but he adds nothing politically.  I would like to see Bush replace him in 2004 if it can be done without a lot of political fallout.  He is from a 3-electoral vote state that always goes Republican anyway, and Bush could use somebody from the northeast or midwest that might help him pick up some states there.  I don't think the northeast is necessarily a total loss for the Republicans.  In Connecticut and New Jersey, Republicans generally run about 5 points ahead of what Republican get in New York and Massachusetts.  Pennsylvania is also a possiblitity.  It all depends upon the political climate going into the elections.  The challenge in the northeast is for the Republicans to win back relatively affluent suburbanites who have taken to voting Democratic in the last decade as they have become complacent about the longer-term threat posed to them by the Democratic party.  This is also true in midwestern states like Illinois, and even out in California.

I would not like to see Jeb Bush run in 2008 for president unless Pres. Bush loses in 2004, which I think is unlikely.  I think it would hurt the Republicans to create the appearance that they are trying to build a family dynasty.

Candidates like Sharpton are a joke.  I think he's working for the Republicans.  He's effectively blackmailing the Democrats because they're so heavily dependent on receiving such an inordinate share of the black vote, and he really offers them only downside.  He repels more votes than he brings in.  He has no chance of ever getting the nomination, but he could choose to stay around and make trouble, which is what he does best.

It's interesting to think about the possibilities.  Of course, something unforseen could happen to blow all our predictions out of the water, but time will tell.

[dazzleman]

I don't know how old Kay Bailey Hutchinson is, but she's been in the Senate a long time, and has shown no previous inclination to run for president.  I think she was also under indictment at one point for something, and although she was acquitted, that could be used against her.

Elizabeth Dole jumped the gun in 2000 when, without any previous elective experience, she ran for president under a "vote for me because I'm a woman" slogan, basically.  She is now 65 years old, so I think the odds are against her making another run, even though she would now have experience in the Senate.

To be honest, I think that the only reason these two people are mentioned as prospects is because they are women.  I don't think a female candidate can win on that basis -- there has to be more to it.

I don't think a woman can win running as a Democrat at this point.  Almost all the people who would vote for a person BECAUSE she's a woman are already strongly Democratic, and the support of many of those people would repel male voters, and even many more conservative female voters.  She would have to take rabidly liberal positions to win the nomination, and the fact that she was a woman would be even more unsettling to more traditional voters.

However, on the Republican line, being a woman would be an advantage.  More traditional voters would be reassured by a more conservative female nominee, and she could also pick up some of the people who simply want a woman in office no matter what.  Those people wouldn't ultimately like Republican policies, but they (wrongly) view any woman as an improvement over a man.

Personally, my main concern is policies and ideas, as well as strength and courage.  If a woman candidate is to my liking in those areas, I would vote for her.  Margaret Thatcher had more b**ls than many of the male politicians we've seen, so in the end I don't really care what a candidate has between his/her legs.

On the other hand, an appeal to vote for a candidate BECAUSE she's a woman, because somehow a woman, any woman, in office would represent a huge advance, would be a big turnoff to me.  That argument would more likely be advanced by a Democratic candidate, because a Republican candidate wouldn't make it past the primaries with that message.