Talk Elections

Is anybody else having trouble synchronizing what we see in the Democratic party with the calendar?  We are already coronating the nominee, Hillary Clinton, and we haven't even had a real fight or crisis yet?  Here we are after eight years of Republican rule and we are going to decide this thing in the 3rd inning?

It seems to me that one or more of the following is likely to happen before the convention:

1.  Major world event/crisis that reframes the election such as a major economic collapse, a war, a horrific terrorist event, an assassination.
2.  A scandal, major snafu, by the leader or spouse or campaign leader. This could be financial, emotional (think Edmund Muskie), moral (think Gary Hart).

It just seems that Clinton is hitting on all cylinders awfully early.  The Republican's meanwhile seem very far behind the calendar.  They are behaving like it is September of 2006! 

This entire campaign just seems out of synch with historical calendars. 

In the last generation, Republian primaries have worked this way- the nominee is pretty clear early on. Dems have tended to wait to really decide.

I tend to agree with your sentiment about the third inning, but, on the other hand, the Republican trend has worked pretty well for them seven out of the last ten elections.

In terms of "we are going to decide," no, we're not. Not a single vote has been cast, nor has a Democrat dropped out. Some have made the analogy that Howard Dean peaked to early and we see he didn't win the nomination, but Dean was leading the polls with not much more than 20% in a crowded field. Hillary often has double that in polls, in a sort of crowded field and sort of a three way field.

She's peaking so early because the process has been accelerated so artificially this time. And yes, it's quite possible that she could crash.

With the exception of President Bill Clinton in 1996, she is doing better at this point in the election cycle than every previous Democratic nominee for president since Walter Mondale. Like Mondale, she may face an upset in New Hampshire that turns the race upside down, forcing her to fight really hard for the nomination. Or she may go on to sweep the primaries. Or perhaps she'll win the nomination but, for some reason (Monica-gate Part 2?), be forced to step down from the role of nominee shortly thereafter.

Nobody really knows what is going to happen. I still think it's a safe bet to go against her winning the presidency, though. I strongly doubt that a majority of America is interested in continuing the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton pattern.

but are they willing to go GOP-GOP-GOP-GOP ?

Assuming Bush won't be on the ballot next year...so yeah they could

Clinton will crash like McCain did, and like Giuliani is.

2000 to 2012 would only be GOP-GOP-GOP.

Hopefully  the Clinton bandwagon will implode before it is too late and we are saddled with her as President

She's peaking too early if she does not know she is. If she's aware she is, and if she's a good strategist (that i don't know), she'll drive a strategy to stay on top for the year to come, and first for the nomination.

As exemple, in France, even if i know that France and USA are different, Sarkozy never stopped to peak since 2002 until november 2006, date of the election of his opponent, Segolene Royal, then the two following mounths were for her, and then he continued to peak.

I think that he could peak as well on five years cause he was clear. He knew that time remained and he managed this time with some very good politic strategy.

Is Clinton peaking too early? Ask Sarkozy, he'll tell you. And if she's peaking too early, she should ask him the solution. I don't like his policy, his values, but i have to recognize that he forgot to be an idiot in politic strategy, far off.

Strategy is one the big key of policy, and maybe THE key.

Clinton will not crash.  Everybody knows who she is, and everybody already has an opinion of her.  The only thing that could change her current situation is some sort of 'event", in whatever context that may be, I have no idea.

Isn't she very opportunist and populist? That is what everybody knows?

Depends on who you talk to. Most Republicans would probably call her a populist, in the most negative sense of the word (they'd actually use some more pejorative term that meant the same thing, in all likelihood). A lot of Democrats would say she isn't populist enough. As for being an opportunist, both she and her husband have heard that charge over and over again, but in reality neither of them is any more opportunistic than most politicians are. It will certainly be a tough sell for the Republicans to claim that she is an opportunist if their nominee is Giuliani or Romney, both of whom have changed their positions on a number of issues to appeal to the right wing of the party.

I know that republicans are not very tender with her. I heard that some treated her of "Bolchevik" one time, and also i heard Mc Cain criticize her wardrobe... so, very usefull criticisms!

If i said that on her, it's cause that's what i felt from different extracts of her debates and of her speeches that i saw in France. And you have to know that most of french medias (a lot of), never diserve the democrats, and even if they would prefer Barack Obama, they like Hillary Clinton a lot and more of all her husband for the one the MonicaGate gave him still more popualrity in my country.

I just felt her opportunism and populism concerning the different things she said, how she always try to make the higher bid than others in lot of subjects and how she speacks.

For sure all politicians are at least a little bit populist and opportunist, and GOP have not forgot to be it, far off. But when i feel that there is too much opportunism and populism to me, i find it difficult to support it. On the other hand, i also must say that in France Republicans are quite banished of the medias, so i haven't seen a lot of their speeches and of their debates, quite nothing at this time (for example, our big medias show us a little bit Giuliani, even less Mc Cain and Romney doesn't exist), so, maybe they are more populist and opportunist than her and i can't see it. When i'll have a better PC to watch videos on CBSnews.com or MSNBC.com or else, i'll could more know.

Something still seems strange to me. It's when you say that democrats ask Hillary to be more populist, i think it's a poor slope to do that and when you begin to activate the "populism and oppotunism accelerator", it's very difficult to stop it, and it could even drive on a longer time to the crash of policy in general. Politicians should always keep that in their mine, more of all actually when there are religious people who are not very lit and who just wait for that the policy crach herself to take it.

To come back to Hillary, maybe she's not really much populist and opportunist than most of others but, if it can be an explanation, i think that it's not a reason to jutify it. Maybe it's in the air of time, it was the same thing in France in 2007 presidency elections, main politic leaders could not help going in this way and persisting in it, it was not so much before.

Poor politicians, if they could know that they could be so much great and maybe as much popular if they made a cocktail of sincerity, realism, voluntarism and ambition, all of that driven in an ambitious way for ALL (not only money) domains of the evolution of the human being: Wow! I could love them...!

She is certainly running a texbook "clinic" on her campaign so far.  It certainly appears that she is marching to the nomination.  Yet, as I talk to people around the country, it just doesn't feel like other presidential campaigns. 

Maybe it is the familiarity and the idea that virtually everyone has a well-informed opinion on Hillary Clinton.  She is a know quantity. 

Let's get on with the primaries. 

Do someone seriously envisage that she can lose primaries???

Someone seriously envisage Obama for nomination??? Edwards???

Yes, she could lose primaries, and she could lose the nomination. Remember, nobody has voted yet, and remember what happened to Howard Dean. The biggest obstacle she has to overcome early is the Iowa caucuses, where she is running far weaker than she is in most other states. If she doesn't win there, even though it wouldn't be a huge surprise, the media and her opponents will blow her "rejection" there up to such proportions that she could be in some trouble... especially if the anti-Hillary Democrats find someone to unite behind.

For sure i do not control the science of the american campaigns, but is that so simple???

I mean, just losing in Iowa, even far, could it be a so important problem for her or even could it mean the end for her??? Could a rejection be credible just for losing in a state??? If yes, why?

Then, is an union of the anti-Hillary possible? behind who? is there a big opposition in the democrat party between anti-Hillary and pro-Hillary?

And final question, that i consider as being important, can an other Democrat than Hillary Clinton seriously envisage to win the presidency election?

Looking at the Democratic RCP chart, Clinton seems to have peaked for now and is declining again. Her average is down from 49% in early October to 45% and I wouldn´t be shocked to see it down to 40% by the end of November, considering her "illegal immigrant flip-flopping". Hopefully this recent downward trend also effects IA and SC as well, so that her 5-10% lead evaporates by December ...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/charts/?poll_id=191

I don't think that's really a fair attack on her, but I'll take what I can get.

No, she isn't.

Remember '99 and Dubya in the GOP primaries: he was peaking early...and late....and finally won easily. McCain revolt was short-lived even if pundits and people like us talked a lot about a possible success of McCain surge.

In '03-04, Kerry was, in fact, a hidden leader, almost from the beginning.

Unfortunately, real surprises (like Bill Clinton) are rarer and rarer....

Yes, it's possible to look at Huckabee but....

(PS: 3 years ago, I dreamt of a.... dream team McCain-Romney.....).

Thancks for your precisions gorkay, I appreciate it.

All of this seems to mean to me that the opinion and the medias are, or could be, verry versatile. It also seems to mean to me that in each parties there are, or there could be, long-teeth verry opportunists persons who prefer them to win than their party and also that there is not, or there could be not, a big leadership to contain all these long-teeth persons (I put the "could" cause let us see primaries...).

When I think about my country... (sorry to often speack about it but I find comparisons interesting). For 2007 presidency elections, the party of the opposition of Sarkozy's party made some sort of primaries. There were 3 candidates who made just 3 public debates on a small TV channel, the rest was some meetings or some press declarations (no politic advertising on TV, radio or press like in USA, it's forbidden in France). And after the defeat (Sarkozy won, for the ones who didn't know) everybody in the party to say: "we should have never done like that, we publicly attacked ourselves to win the nomination of the party, it's one of the large cause of our defeat", though they were real politic ennemies. I can understand when they say that cause "union makes strong" but it only works if someone is enough strong to make the union... It shows how french policy and US policy are far sometimes, but less and less, now we have... "Sarkozy the american!".

A hidden leader.  That's one way to spin things when you're losing.  ("I'm not really in third place.  My lead is hidden.")  ;)

Very well hidden.

Hopefully. I hope she doesn't get the nomination.

By "hidden leader" about Kerry, I meant a quite moderate WASP, an effective governor, with big cash (thanks Heinz), with no Mexican nanny, with a very serious profile.

Well, it's simply that, during campaigns, everybody wants to see big surprises, ups and downs everyday... and, eventually, there are scarcely real surprises (Humphrey, Bill Clinton, who else?).

In the Dem primary campaign, lots of people want to believe a big surprise can still occur. No bet.

Nevertheless, the GOP process is far more interesting. If you follow my "hidden leader" pseudo-theory, Romney would be designated. Let's see....

What is a bit disappointing is that the probable GOP surprise will finish in a bad crash in Novembrer !

Democrats would be very smart not to nominate Clinton for a hundred reasons. 

Ummm....Kerry isn't a WASP, and he was never a governor.

But what you're saying is that Kerry had several advantages that made it unsurprising that he would win the nomination.  Except that, at the time, it was extremely surprising to the entire political class.  Kerry had been all but written off as a joke candidate by December 2003.  The fact that he was able to come back and win was pretty shocking at the time.  To suggest otherwise is to rewrite history.

I am by no means predicting that the same is necessarily going to happen again this time.  Just saying that upsets do happen, and 2004 was a pretty big one.

I doubt she'll be very far ahead from everyone by the time january/february comes around...if she even still is the frontrunner. She screwed herself the last debate, and allowed almost all of her opponents to attack her...and they are doing a good job at it. If they keep it up [and she has another poor showing]...you can expect her numbers to drop.