Who will (not should) be the Democratic presidential nominee in 2008?
 

We're about a month away (or less) from the first primaries, so I thought it might be fun to revisit this.

First, links to the previous (2) threads:

March, 2006
October, 2007

Again, it's who will, not who should.

Although it pains me, as an Obama supporter, to do this, I'm still going to have to go with Hillary, who also won our last two polls in a landslide. Obama's definitely surged in the past couple of months, but it still looks like Hillary's to lose. At this point she probably needs a Dean-like meltdown for Obama or Edwards to sneak in. I don't think any other Democratic candidate has a hope of getting the nomination.

I'll probably be wrong, but I think Obama is going to get Iowa and finish a very close second in NH. From there things will start to break his way especially after Edwards drops out.

Hillary. Machine candidates are very hard to beat.

She also will have the support of Republicans, who know that she is the easiest to beat in the general election. In a close race, that kind of media support is hard to discount.

Fixed.

I think once the Republican nominee goes toe to toe with Hillary, they'll find that thinking was wrong.

Fair enough.

My personal dislike of Hillary winning shown through there.

I continue to agree with this.

Hillary vs. Huckabee = Huckabee's "Willie Horton" moment getting full press, and, eventually, a lot of the secularist "center" going with Hillary over Huckabee. I wonder if Huckabee will suffer in the general election by wearing his faith so openly on his sleeve like Bush (and his low approval rating) does. Remember, when things aren't going well, the electorate just likes change, and Huckabee doesn't seem, to me, to be much of a change from Bush.

Hillary vs. Romney = The Clinton campaign doing to Romney what the Bush campaign did to Kerry, starting with the flip-flopping. The evangelical "base" still hasn't made up their mind about him, and a lot of the centrists don't trust him. If the Clinton campaign keeps pushing a message of "Remember 1995-2000", it'll be very tough for Romney.

Hillary vs. Giuliani = Lowest % turnout in general election history. Half the Democrats stay home and all of the Republicans do (except those who turn out to write in Ron Paul). The Giuliani campaign starts to die on the 9/11 anniversary when he's savaged by the NYPD & NYFD and then the election as a whole dies out completely in October when the Giuliani campaign crumples under the nonstop unearthing of scandals by the New York tabloid press.

McCain could probably beat Hillary, but only if his campaign gets a lot more professional & rich, a lot faster.

Huckabee's more likable than Hillary and would beat her.

Obama. He will win Iowa and ride the resulting momentum to the nomination as Democrats across the country slowly realize they just don't like Hillary Clinton all that much and that her nomination is the one thing that could possibly galvanize a reeling Republican Party. [wishful thinking/]

America will not elect a black man or a woman. I don't think we're ready for that yet.

It's over. Hillary will win and she will be our next President, God help us all. A pro war Republican has no chance against a Democrat in this election, even Hillary. People don't want another George W. Bush. McCain is a washed up version of himself in 2000, Romney is the only person who flip flops more than Hillary, Huckabee is an economic liberal and an ultra social conservative who would scare away too many people, and Giuliani is an authoritarian war monger. Whoever is elected from this bunch, get ready for more of the same old crap!

Agree 100%

The ONLY way a republican gets back into office in 08 is if Hillary wins the democratic nomination.

Yep. It amuses me how people seem to forget that Hillary Clinton was the main advisor to that other Clinton who absolutely schooled the Republicans for most of his administration (the first two years were a mess, but once he settled in, he whipped them). It's like they think that Hillary has no idea what she's doing.

She's already completely transformed her image from first lady to Senator. Why do they think she won't be able to adapt deftly in a Presidential campaign?

Probably the right way to think about this is to look at candidates other than Obama and Clinton and try to guess who they would back if they felt they had to give up. I believe Richardson would back Clinton, but I don't think he has a lot of support. Would the other candidates flock to one of those two, or would they consolidate behind somebody else (like Dodd, maybe, who I think would be a very strong GE player).

I don't know the answer.

I basically think it's a toss-up between Clinton and Obama. Whoever gets the early momentum will steamroll right through.

Didn't Oprah come out and back Obama? That should swing about 10 million female voters, surely...

I should add that I basically don't have a vote in this matter. The DNC decided to punish the Michigan Democratic Party for making its primary too early (Jan. 15) by making it so the state can't send any delegates to the convention. Florida was given the same punishment.

I can't speak for Florida, but the candidates all agreed to not even campaign here, and several big names (Edwards and Obama among others) won't be on the ballot. Their supporters are urged to vote "uncommitted" in hopes that our delegates can be "free agents" at the convention. So if I was a Hillary supporter my vote would go for her in the primary and there'd be no representation at the convention if she won. If I was an Obama supporter my vote would go toward freeing up Michigan delegates to vote for anyone at the convention. So essentially I get to vote for either no one or anyone, in terms of its impact in the convention. Awesome.

Not only does this discourage loads of people from actually taking interest and participating, but I really don't understand how not campaigning in two crucial swing states makes any sense for the party whatsoever.

IIRC, the Republicans are also punishing Michigan and Florida, so it'll be wash as far as not campaigning in a crucial swing state.

Don't worry, whichever candidate wins will reinstate all your delegates for the convention.

On the Oprah thing I was listening to a story tonight that said every person at the Oprah events gave contact info to the Obama campaign. In SC two thirds of the attendees were new to Obama's list. Oprah could end up being the difference.

Democratic boycott could benefit Republican nominee

I can't figure out what (if any) punishment has come down from the RNC, but according to this article, all the Republican nominees will be on the ballot in Michigan, and "a number of the front runners are expected to campaign in the state."

Republicans didn't punish as hard as the Democrats did. As a voter in Michigan, I was leaning towards voting for the Democratic candidate in the general. However right now I will NOT be voting for any Democrat. So right now I'm leaning heavily towards voting Independent, will leaving my options open for the Republican candidate.

I believe the Republicans are docking half the delegates or something like that, but everyone is still on the ballot.

I love how offended that article is. Heaven forbid if the parties want to run their nominating process themselves!!!

It wasn't that long ago that Democrats were getting all high and mighty about voter disenfranchisement. Now they're taking away my vote in the primary process to punish the state party. I guess it's about equal parts offensive and just plain dumb.

But I don't mean to get the thread so far off track, so I'll leave it at that.

I really disagree. I think the one thing that could really get the right fired up about this election is if Hillary gets the nod. If the Democrats want to win, they should nominate either Edwards or Obama. That would be a landslide. Hillary will be more the same of the last two elections.

One cannot argue with someone so biased as Squiddy in his support for Hillary. Everything, in debating the election, is filtered through that.

They can run it however they like. However if they don't want to include me in the process they aren't getting my vote in the general election.

Kucinich ftw

Notreally. What kiled the Democats in the last two elections is the failure to respond. Hillary won't fall for that trap. If they attack her, they better be ready for the same tenfold.

Also, there isn't a single poll that supports this notion that Hillary is an obvious loser against anyone in a heads up matchup.

Of course they could not do anything and in 20 years we'll have the primary, January 1st... of the PREVIOUS year to the election. Where does it exactly stop? Blame the greedy ass state parties.

As for "bias", Bucc. I can easily say the same thing for those biased against Hillary.

As larrymcg alluded to, Hillary's willingness to fight back and not be a Gore-like or Kerry-like punching bag may actually get the LEFT fired up about this election.

Edwards has gone ridiculously populist and can't even win his own state, while Obama is a black man which hardly any record.

Those that are living by the polls still cannot ignore Hillary's very high unfavorable ratings and despite having been a clear frontrunner, she could only manage to be statistically even with some of the Reps.

The New York Republican Party also thought those high unfavorable ratings would lead to an easy defeat for her. Woe be the candidate that underestimates Hillary. Remember she was the primary advisor to the President who went from the debacle of the 1994 midterm election to the the landslide of 1996.

I truly think Dole had something to do with that. ;)

There's a slippery slope. And I've never said they shouldn't do anything about it. In my opinion they should come up with a fair system like a lottery that decides the order or something rather than Iowa and New Hampshire going first for no good reason. That's beside the point, though, as I'm sure they could've come up with a short term solution that didn't involve Michigan and Florida voters being left out entirely.

Perhaps... but Clinton made Dole seem like a doddering old man, when Dole was anything but the sort. There is a reason Clinton is considered such a great "politician". His team played the game beautifully.

Those same polls that show her with high unfavorables also show her winning head to head matchups. If anything, that tells me the high unfavorable ratings won't hurt her. I posted a comparison poll in another thread that showed only 44% planned to vote against her. That's essentially the same % as for Edwards and Obama. However, the % of people that plan to vote for Hillary is higher than any other candidate in both parties.

I do not see that (according to Rasmussen). She is still at 55%, 10 points higher than Edwards and her favorable is lower than Obama and Edwards.

Bucc, you can't argue against us by saying polls are bunk in one post and then argue against us by quoting polls in another post! ;)

Anyway, I think it bears reminding that most of the Republican front-runners have unhealthy unfavorables as well.

I am in the same boat with the other Michigan voters. I plan to vote for Ron Paul in the Republican primary. I would have voted for Obama, but I wont get that chance.

That said, unlike Greyroo, there is no way in hell I am turning my back on the Democratic party in a general election. I will not allow my vote to be wasted. Not after the crap we've had to suffer through over the last 8 years...

I have to agree with those that feel Hillary could struggle in a general election. She's a polarizing force and will motivate the Republican base to get out and vote against her and I think she'll turn off a number of swing voters as well.

Is it officially too late for Al Gore to get in the race?

The mistake is in assuming that unfavorables will automatically vote against. There are probably alot of Democrats that hate Hillary, but they sure ain't voting for Huckabee. Furthermore, the Dem base will be mobilized byt he GOP attacks on Hillary. She was at her highest historical rating after the Lewinsky affair. The negative GOP attacks could backfire.

Here's a Rasmussen poll I posted earlier. It measures the people committed to Voting For/Voting Against a candidate:

Clinton 32/44
Obama 23/44
Edwards 22/41

What a bizarre point to make. How could that possibly have any significance to either the primaries or the GE?

I'm talking about how she was seen as a victim. If the GOP comes out with guns blazing, she can play off that same perception once again.

Regardless, this perceived polarization that Hillary has is completely invisible. It hasn't been measured by any poll. The same polls that show her with high unfavorables also show her still winning head to head matchups.

I think its a lot easier to look like a victim as a first lady than as a Presidential candidate.

She's always been seen as a Presidential candidate.

You think she was seen as a Presidential candidate during Blowjobgate? :confused:

I think she was seen as a Presidential candidate since 1992.

Regardless, I think by 1998 most people had figured that she was going to run for Senate, at the very least.

I think Edwards has a legitimate shot. The election is still far enough away that Obama and Clinton could destroy each other in the press and voters will look for a third option which right now seems to be Edwards. When you look back at history it's pretty common for the early front runners to get knocked off before the end since everyone is gunning for them. That might not happen this time, but I do think it's a possibility and Edwards seems to me to be the most likely to benefit from that.

I would much prefer an Edwards candidacy to Hillary or Obama. Honestly, I think Obama may be preparing to turn the corner and rally in the early states, then start winning the southern Black Democrat votes that he'll need to take to the convention. I voted for Edwards last time in the primary and will do it again even if he looks like a sure loser.