presidential election 2008: who's going to win?

[blaze666]

vote, and then give me your opinion on why you think that.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

My guess is the Republicans. I think they have stronger general public support, but this is a matter in which I would like to be wrong.

[BadBoyBenny]

It really depends on the candidate and the news 6 months before the elections. I think the Repblicans are more likely because they have a stronger farm system, better fundraising capability, and better campaign managers.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
My guess is the Republicans. I think they have stronger general public support, but this is a matter in which I would like to be wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

The 2004 election showed the Republicans making substantial grounds in some traditionally Democratic ground like Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Iowa (that whole area). The Bible Belt is moving north and putting the Democrats in an Electoral College squeeze.

[HtotheNootch]

My Vote:

It Doesn't Matter.

[[censored]]

Probably Republican just based on past trends but it is really too early to tell. Also the candidates matter more than which party they are from.

[jcx]

I predict McCain v. Hillary. McCain likely wins. He's done a masterful job in becoming a media darling and can attract votes from moderate Democrats. Even though the conservative GOP base hates him, when faced with voting for him or Hillary he knows he will get their votes too. His biggest obstacle will be the primaries, but the GOP really has no other option in 2008 if they want to win. Frist is a weak Senate Majority leader and I don't believe America will elect another Bush president.

In the end, it really doesn't matter. GOP or Democrat, not much difference these days.

[shots]

There's no way McCain can win the republican nomination. Most republicans don't vote for who they think can win, they vote for the candidate they want. On paper McCain was the better nominee in 2000 by far but he's simply to far to the left to win the gop nomination.

[Colonel Kataffy]

The republican party is heading for an implosion, whether it occurs before or after the next presidential election is hard to say.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
The republican party is heading for an implosion, whether it occurs before or after the next presidential election is hard to say.

[/ QUOTE ]

What evidence leads you to draw this conclusion?

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The republican party is heading for an implosion, whether it occurs before or after the next presidential election is hard to say.

[/ QUOTE ]

What evidence leads you to draw this conclusion?

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe the term is 'wishful thinking.'

[Colonel Kataffy]

There are major rifts within the republican party. So far a combination of a shared desire pull the party out of the crapper and a post 9/11 neopatriotism has been the glue that has held the party together. But its only going to hold together for so long.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
There are major rifts within the republican party. So far a combination of a shared desire pull the party out of the crapper and a post 9/11 neopatriotism has been the glue that has held the party together. But its only going to hold together for so long.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting, could you please elaborate on the "major rifts" and how the consequences will lead to an imposion of the party.

Thanks

[censored]

[tolbiny]

Jed bush has to be the favorite for the republicans. The name recognition alone is worth at least one state.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
Jed bush has to be the favorite for the republicans. The name recognition alone is worth at least one state.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is some thought that McCain in an attempt to win over the conservatives would tap Jeb for VP and then due to his age most likely serve 1 term.

[Colonel Kataffy]

The biggest one, of course, is between the jesus juicers and the rest of the party. But other than that, there are different figures with different agendas. They'll argue and bitch and moan. The party will go down hill, untill a new charasmatic leader shows up and unifies the party. They might elect another president that slips through riding on the charisma of the previous administration, but that'll likely be it. Then the democrats will take over for a term or two and so fourth.

For a party to remain stable, it needs a clear and common cause AND (but to a lessor extent OR) a charasmatic leader. The republicans don't have a clear and common cause to rally behind for the coming decade and Bush is out in a few years and his popularity is waning. Granted, a new figure could emerge out of thin air and adopt the republican banner and take over, but more likely there will be a lot of catty fighing and some growing pains as the party adapts to its post Bush existance.

[Colonel Kataffy]

But didn't GW make it perfectly clear to republican voters in their primary election that Mccain was psychologically unfit to be president due his wartime experience.
/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[[censored]]

So would it be fair to say that your arguement is just broad generalizations comprised mostly of talking points from the left?

There have been very few examples of the Republican party fighting amongst itelf (the break with Colin Powell being the biggest) and far less than what seems to be the battle amongst democrates between the "traditional liberals" led by Howard Dean/Move on.org and the more centrist Clintoneastians who have been much more Hawkish than it would seem many in the part want.

Your reference of "jesus juicers" shows very little understanding of the Republican Party but I can assure you no serious Republicans will be breaking with this wing of the party. you may not like it but the coalition the comprises the GOP is as strong as ever. Winning has that effect.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
But didn't GW make it perfectly clear to republican voters in their primary election that Mccain was psychologically unfit to be president due his wartime experience.
/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting as McCain has done nothing but voice support and friendship for The President since the beginning of his reelection campaign more than a year ago.

While it is true that Democrates dream of a man of McCain's stature breaking from the Party, it is not going to happen.

[Colonel Kataffy]

That I am on the "LEFT" is a false assumption on your part.

If you sensed a personal bias in my post, it wasn't from the left. I don't have a bias against the republican party, though as a Catholic, I do have a distaste for "jesus juicers." And as a huge supporter of McCain in 2000, I definitley have a strong dislike for GW.

[Colonel Kataffy]

[ QUOTE ]
While it is true that Democrates dream of a man of McCain's stature breaking from the Party, it is not going to happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would McCain have to break away from the republican party to oppose Bush? McCain has been an active and prominant republican a lot longer than Bush.

And in my opinion, McCain's not sticking up for himself enough during those disgusting attacks by the Bush campaign during the primary is one of his few fualts.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
That I am on the "LEFT" is a false assumption on your part.

If you sensed a personal bias in my post, it wasn't from the left. I don't have a bias against the republican party, though as a Catholic, I do have a distaste for "jesus juicers." And as a huge supporter of McCain in 2000, I definitley have a strong dislike for GW.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't assume you were on the left, rather I stated that opinion of internal republican politics mirrors the current left talking points being currently used.

In any event I think my observation that your assessment lacks anything specific is valid.

Are you saying as a Catholic you have a problem with people of different religeous faith? I think I misunderstood you intended meaning. Also could you please give some examples of the jesus juicers you have a problem with?

Not liking The President is fine, even for a Republican. However I think you are letting that bias your opinion when it comes to what is going on in the Republican Party. Yes we are a party of President Bush but we are also a party of Guilani, Arnold and McCain. It is a tactic of the left to attempt to paint the Republican party as being too narrow for those I mentioned. It is false and you need only to listen to them yourself to know this.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
While it is true that Democrates dream of a man of McCain's stature breaking from the Party, it is not going to happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would McCain have to break away from the republican party to oppose Bush? McCain has been an active and prominant republican a lot longer than Bush.



[/ QUOTE ]

What I am saying is that he has opposed The President on several occassions already and yet he still remains on strong supporter of his. McCain has many times said what they have in common far outnumbers where they disagree.

What I don't understand and what I am trying to get it is why you think these few policy breaks is reason to believe that the party is going to impload or whatever adjective you used.

[Colonel Kataffy]

I don't have problems with Protestants, but as a catholic, I like to tease them a little.

"Jesus Juice drinkers" I do have a problem with. I don't like the infuence they are having on "OUR" party.

Finally, the instability within the republican party should be obvious to any political observers, not just the ones on the left.

[[censored]]

WTF dude? You're running dangerously close to me just ignoring you.

Again do you have any SPECIFIC examples of this instability within the party as well as who exactly are these jesus juicers you so distain?

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
WTF dude? You're running dangerously close to me just ignoring you.

Again do you have any SPECIFIC examples of this instability within the party as well as who exactly are these jesus juicers you so distain?

[/ QUOTE ]

They are Jesus Juicers! Don't you understand that? Jesus Juicers!

Let me explain it again. Jesus Juicers!

Hopefully, you understand now.

[Colonel Kataffy]

[ QUOTE ]
You're running dangerously close to me just ignoring you.


[/ QUOTE ]

Dude, what do want a detailed thesus. Your not going to get one from me. I'm trying to multitable the 3/6 6-max. Listen, I'm not saying that the republican party is going to cease to exist. All i'm saying is that the 9/11 common rallying point is already wearing thin. Theyre going to have to find something else. Due to budget problems, their old fall back, cutting taxes isn't going to work much longer either. It is my belief that with out a common cause that all republicans can rally behind, the party will falter. I think that there are already disagrements within the party. I know that there are some republicans that want Jesus to be the new focus of the party, I know others that don't. I know some republicans that are very concerned about the current administrations spending. There are disagreements about what to do with Iraq.

I the impression that you seem to think that the Republican party is some sorty of well oiled machine that is going to keep running smoothly with out a hitch. That simply isn't the case. At some point in time they will lose an election. I think that either during the coming one or the one after that, the machine will break down due to the lack of a common direction in party.

Dissagree if you must, but what ever you do, please don't ignore me.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]

Dude, what do want a detailed thesus. Your not going to get one from me.

[/ QUOTE ]

That much is clear.

In any event losing an election at somepoint would be normal and not a sign of things run amuck.

IMO you basically do not like your percieved direction or leadership of the current party and thus have invented not only a vague bad guy to blame in "Jesus Juicers" but also an imagined rift in and oncoming collaspe of the party based only on from what I can tell the observation that all republicans do not agree on every issue across the board.

The truth is that where you see weakness instead lies the current strength of the Republican party and the resulting electoral success. It is because there is room for the likes ranging from Newt Gengrich to Rudy Guilani that we have been able to do so well. Again I will say that John McCain has said many times that number of issues he agrees with the President far outnumbers the few he does not.

[Felix_Nietsche]

With the exception of Bill Clinton, the republicans have owned the democrats the last 28 years. The main reason Clinton won was two reasons:
1. Bush41 broke his no new taxes pledge.
2. A sympathetic media (ABC/CBS/NBC) exagerated the length of an economic recession (which happened after Bush41 raised taxes) by an additional 6 months which gave Clinton lots of ammo during the election. And when Clinton took office.....the recession MAGICALLY disappeared w/o any legislation being passed. Wow! Clinton is really good!

The American Democrat party has been in a slow decline since Jimmy Carter/Reagan. Political conservatism which was considered a joke during the Goldwater/LBJ election has been making steady gains over liberalism. The democrats had an iron lock on a sympathetic media (ABC/CBS/NBC) but talk radio (Rush Limbaugh), cable news, and the internet have been very successful in breaking up the media monopoly and conservative points of view have been given more forums to get their side. Conservatism has become more mainstream. I've notice that ABC/CBS/NBC have become a LITTLE less partisan in their favortism of the democrat party. The democrat party is on the defensive and the best they can hope for is to maintain their number of seats in the Congress/Senate and block Republican legislature.

Normally in American elections, the party of a sitting president LOSES seats in the Congress and Senate and yet under Bush43 the Repubs gain seats!!! This was a MAJOR loss for the democrats. Tom Dascle the Democrat Senate leader was defeated in his home state. These types of defeats are VERY RARE in American politics. In the mid-1990s when the democrats lost the House, Tom Foley, their majority leader was defeated! Again ,these types of defeats are VERY RARE in American politics. When the 1960 'hippy" generation starts dying off, the dems will be in big trouble. The younger generations are more conservative than generations before them and so I expect the Repubs will further consolidate their power.

Also, the democrat leadership has an irrational hatred towards Bush43. The call him a liar, they have mentioned impeachment, they call him an idiot, dunce, etc... Although this may be red-meat for the rabid Democrat supporters it is NOT persuading the swing voters. The democrats also come accross a VERY WEAK on national security and left leaning swing voters have been looking at Bush43 and the republicans with more respect. The republican party has been making several political mistakes but the democrat leadership has been making a lot more.

Republicans win again unless some major scandal happens.

[Colonel Kataffy]

I also believe that party hacks are hurting the republican party by creating a cloud of denial that inhibits the ability of thinking republicans to fix the things in the party that are broken. This inability fix problems and deal with rifts partly stems from this cloud of denial. Ironically, this mindset of yours which is all too common in the republican party these days is a contributing factor in the impending explosion.

[[censored]]

Well dude it's hard to argue with specifics like "cloud of denial"

[Felix_Nietsche]

Interesting as McCain has done nothing but voice support and friendship for The President since the beginning of his reelection campaign more than a year ago.
************************************************** ****
McCain does not like Bush43.
His anger toward Bush43 began during their primary fight where he perceived Bush43 hit below the belt (I believe that Bush43 did nothing wrong but McCain believes otherwise). Do not be fooled by McCain's diplomatic talk. He is a smart politician who knows how to play the game. Watch McCain's actions. His 14 moderate senator comprimise was a betrayal/challenge of Frist's leadership and therefore Bush43. I heard (but not confirmed) that McCain said his coalition of 14 senators would be the ones choosing the next supreme court nominee.

While it is true that Democrates dream of a man of McCain's stature breaking from the Party, it is not going to happen.
************************************************** *********
McCain will probably never leave the Republican party but he will never be a team player and he will undermine Bush43 is subtle ways. McCain is a very angry man with his sights on the presidency.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
There are major rifts within the republican party.

[/ QUOTE ]
I would say the rifts within the Democrat party are more dangerous for them than the GOP's. Democrats lost a large section of hispanic voters, as well as lost black voters, in 04. You have the pro-war bunch and the anti-war bunch fighting. Kerry tried to juggle those two interests and look where that got him. There really is no charismatic leader for the Dems; merely some vocal ones. Howard Dean seems to be doing everything in his power to assure a GOP victory in 08 every time he opens his mouth.

I think this all adds up to a Dem loss in 08, but I could be wrong.

[Colonel Kataffy]

[ QUOTE ]

Well dude it's hard to argue with specifics like "cloud of denial"

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a rift located specifically between GW Bush and John McCain. It is deep and it is personal. The fact that both are trying to hide it is not evidence of the party's good health. If you don't see that this is a problem, then you are in denial.

Much of Bushes suport base consists of the christrian right. These people have grown accustumned to having a loud voice in the white house. Other republicans are more secular. If you don't think this split exists and/or is a problem, then you are in denial.

Many republicans disagree with the deficit spending of the current administration. If you don't believe this is a potential problem for the party, then you are in denial.

This is as specific as I am willing to be.

[Colonel Kataffy]

Don't get me wrong, the democratic party is a mess.

[shots]

I believe that it's the current state of denial on the part of the left, in that they refuse to accept accept how badly they're being beaten and have been for the last 15 years, that will ensure many many years of republican dominance.

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe that it's the current state of denial on the part of the left, in that they refuse to accept accept how badly they're being beaten and have been for the last 15 years, that will ensure many many years of republican dominance.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are generalizing in your first phrase above, but in this particular case, I agree with your reasoning.

-ptmusic

[goofball]

[ QUOTE ]
I predict McCain v. Hillary. McCain likely wins. He's done a masterful job in becoming a media darling and can attract votes from moderate Democrats. Even though the conservative GOP base hates him, when faced with voting for him or Hillary he knows he will get their votes too. His biggest obstacle will be the primaries, but the GOP really has no other option in 2008 if they want to win. Frist is a weak Senate Majority leader and I don't believe America will elect another Bush president.

In the end, it really doesn't matter. GOP or Democrat, not much difference these days.

[/ QUOTE ]

McCain will never be nominated by the republican party. He's far to liberal for them.

also, [censored] bible belt! When are those states just going to collapse in a frenzy of self righteous hypocrisy.

[blaze666]

APPARENTLY if clinton runs for the democrats, then they are a dead cert. otherwise the republicans are stronger.

[natedogg]

The election results, like the one in 2000, will have nothing to do with policy or the issues at hand. It will be all about the charisma of the candidates.

natedogg

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
The election results, like the one in 2000, will have nothing to do with policy or the issues at hand. It will be all about the charisma of the candidates.


[/ QUOTE ]

I have seen several posts in this thread refer to George W. Bush as "charismatic". I don't get it. IMO, he can only be considered "charismatic" by comparison with Al Gore. Well, maybe John Kerry, too.

[JimBob2232]

I think its pretty simple really...
If Hillary wins the nomination, she loses the election.
If McCain wins the nomination, he wins the presidency.
If Mark Warner (D-VA) wins the nomination, he wins the presidency unless he is opposed by McCain.
Otherwise, the democratic candidates I have seen are a bunch of (i'll use the word) losers, and dont have much of a chance against the list of likely republican nominees.

[shots]

Someone asked me a really interesting question today. Knowing that I'm a conservative he asked me who I would vote for if it was McCain vs. Lieberman. Of course this would never happen but assuming it could, the truth is I'm not sure who I'd vote for. I would have to watch the debates very closely to determine who had the bettret policies because on the surface, despite the fact that I'm more conservative then either candidate, I really like and respect them both. Therefore in this circumstance I might not vote republican.

[JimBob2232]

[ QUOTE ]
Someone asked me a really interesting question today. Knowing that I'm a conservative he asked me who I would vote for if it was McCain vs. Lieberman. Of course this would never happen but assuming it could, the truth is I'm not sure who I'd vote for. I would have to watch the debates very closely to determine who had the bettret policies because on the surface, despite the fact that I'm more conservative then either candidate, I really like and respect them both. Therefore in this circumstance I might not vote republican.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am in pretty much the same boat as you. I would have voted for Lieberman this past election over bush, and I would consider doing it again over some terrible GOP candidate. However, the one thing that bothers me about Lieberman is his need to conform to what his party wants. Look when he was Gores VP. he was just as liberal as the whole Clinton/Gore/Kerry clan can be. Then he morphed back into being "himself" afterwards. I still like the guy, though that move lost some respect with me. I am a conservative, but just about anyone could have (and should have) beaten bush in 2004. Unfortunatly (or fortunatly depending on how you look at it) the democrats fonud one of a handful of people who couldnt do it. They risk making a similar mistake with hillary in 08.
The best ticket for the GOP to win: McCain / Allen
The best ticket for the Dem to win: Warner / Lieberman

Wow. A campaign that actually focused on the issues, and one that I respect all 4 candidates involved! America would be better off if we had an election such as this one, and not another bush vs. clinton