OT (Politics): Who will be the Republican Presidential Nominee in 2008?

[Raiders Army]

Ru---Dee! Ru---Dee! Ru---Dee!

[Solecismic]

George Allen has taken the lead role in the telemarketing industry's push to overturn the national no-call list legislation.

I don't think Allen would be able to get very far trying to overturn it - after all, more than half of the country's households signed up for the list. But the telemarketers are trying to get more exceptions added to the legislation. It's already fairly feeble - just a couple more execeptions and all it will affect is the window glass people and the rug cleaning people.

Anyhow, for that reason, I see Allen as just another greedy career politician.

[Ryche]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

If I can over-generalize for a moment, I think Frist winning the nomination would be like Kerry winning the Democratic nomination in 2004.

Or Dole in 1996. A decent man, but unable to generate any excitement or interest from the general public.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Romney is not very popular up here. They're joking that he wants to run for president because he knows he can't keep his current job. He's definitely getting the flip-flop label over the abortion issue.

A lot of people down here said the same thing about Clinton in Arkansas.

[Warhammer]

The Republicans need to move to the right. Bush has taken the party too much to the center and is right now reaping the rewards of that. Mc Cain talks a good game, but what has he really DONE? Not only that, what has he really done that has been GOOD?

[Glengoyne]

I heard a piece on NPR a couple of weeks ago on Sam Brownback. This is a guy whose positions on social issues, I'm completely opposed to. He is aggressively anti-abortion, anti gay marriage, against Stem Cell research. In short, he is pretty much opposite me on nearly every social issue.

I really liked what he had to say, and appreciated how he has voted in the past. He is one of the few guys I think we could count on actively trying to reduce spending. I started listening thinking that this guy was a nut-job, and after twenty minutes of the aired interview, I was ready to declare my fealty. I'm hoping he surprises me in the primary.

I think the most electable Republican is McCain. A Republican that can win California, I don't think the Dems actually have a counter to that.

I think Frist goes down harder in the general than Dole did.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Who is the Christian right going to get behind? Jeb Bush? There's no way the GOP would allow that to happen. Compromises will be made, etc. The next GOP nominee will not be much like Bush.

I hope you are right. I know that, at least against Gore, I was hoping for a Bush loss, with the hopes that the power brokers in the party might change. I'd love to see the GOP move a generous step away from the social conservatives.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

I hope you are right. I know that, at least against Gore, I was hoping for a Bush loss, with the hopes that the power brokers in the party might change. I'd love to see the GOP move a generous step away from the social conservatives.

Bush is a pretty liberal socially, at least when it comes to spending money. I thought his compromise on stem cell research was good, although I know a lot of people don't agree with it, but he could have completely kaboshed it.

[JPhillips]

A strong Romney run would be very interesting. I wonder what the Christian right would do with a Mormon candidate.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

A strong Romney run would be very interesting. I wonder what the Christian right would do with a Mormon candidate.

Vote for the other guy.

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Bush is a pretty liberal socially, at least when it comes to spending money.

I can understand this sentiment, but I think you are misguided in classifying irresponsible spending as liberal.

I will not try to mask the fact that I am a democrat (and socially liberal), but I do not think that the federal spending under Bush's presidency (and I realize he is partnered with congress in this) is liberal or conservative. Cutting taxes without cutting spending is not a practice that either side of the political spectrum would claim to be one of its "traits."

Classifying Bush's (and congress's) poor economic track record as liberal is like calling Bill Clinton's infidelity conservative. One has nothing to do with the other. They are the results of an individual (or individuals) performance.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Bush is a pretty liberal socially, at least when it comes to spending money. I thought his compromise on stem cell research was good, although I know a lot of people don't agree with it, but he could have completely kaboshed it.

I dunno. I think his "compromise" was a weak kneed stand that pretty effectively Keeboshed the whole thing from the perspective that it made it much more difficult for folks to actually receive federal funding for the research. I can see someone saying that Bush is fiscally liberal, but not socially.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Bush is a pretty liberal socially, at least when it comes to spending money. I thought his compromise on stem cell research was good, although I know a lot of people don't agree with it, but he could have completely kaboshed it.

His 'compromise' was not a compromise, and is easily the dumbest thing he's done as President, politically or otherwise.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

...and is easily the dumbest thing he's done as President, politically

Erm ... I'd say that his direction on immigration tops this by a pretty big margin.
I've heard more grassroots level grousing about that than anything else I can recall in either term.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Erm ... I'd say that his direction on immigration tops this by a pretty big margin.
I've heard more grassroots level grousing about that than anything else I can recall in either term.

Taking my obligatory chance to state that I think this is one of the few issues G.W. gotten right. I just wish he had done more than pay lip service to it.

[SirFozzie]

Romney was a strong 2nd in the straw poll behind the homestate Frist.. and he's definitely playing to the conservative base, with his flip flop on abortion, and now trying to slip a bill into the State House that would exempt the group Catholic Charities from discrimination laws with regards to adoption (they recently said they would place no more children in adoptive homes because they could not honor the state's anti-discrimination laws with regards to gay parents).

He's gathering strength, and has a rep as a fiscal conservative, which I agree that he's done a good job on that issue (despite my viewpoint on his other issues). He could poll strong

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Romney was a strong 2nd in the straw poll behind the homestate Frist.. He's gathering strength, ... He could poll strong

I agree completely.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Taking my obligatory chance to state that I think this is one of the few issues G.W. gotten right. I just wish he had done more than pay lip service to it.

Ditto.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

I just wish he had done more than pay lip service to it.

If he had, he would have probably killed himself politically in some of his strongest states. We're talking about a guy who has a 67% approval rating in Georgia right now, but this was panned by pretty much everyone who likes him here. I don't there's any question that it would be viewed here as THE biggest misstep of his entire tenure, I can't recall anything else that made more people at the grass roots of his support angry/disappointed than this.

[stevew]

Romney may be a great guy and all, but his LDS connections will turn off a sizeable enough amount of the base that winning would be hard/nearly impossible. Unless the perception of the Mormons as a cult has radically changed over the last decade.

[st.cronin]

Jimga, at a certain level of civic awareness, you might be right. But ask a typical American what GWB's immigration policy is (particularly in a non-border state) and I think you get blank stares. The stem-cell thing is much more reviled by typical Americans, regardless of political affiliation, afaict.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by stevew

Romney may be a great guy and all, but his LDS connections will turn off a sizeable enough amount of the base that winning would be hard/nearly impossible. Unless the perception of the Mormons as a cult has radically changed over the last decade.

Totally random observation here, I mean really unrelated (or is it?) ... Dale Murphy was pretty much beloved in Georgia & still is. I know that baseball & politics are two different animals but at the same time, if he was universally accepted in spite of it, in an area that it would seem likely there would be backlash ... well, it isn't entirely unthinkable that Romney could overcome this too.

(What he would have to sell is a separation between him personal religion & his political activism. If he wants to bust hell wide open when his time comes, that might be overlooked ultimately ... as long as he accomplished enough good on a national level otherwise.)

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Jimga, at a certain level of civic awareness, you might be right. But ask a typical American what GWB's immigration policy is (particularly in a non-border state) and I think you get blank stares. The stem-cell thing is much more reviled by typical Americans, regardless of political affiliation, afaict.

We disagree completely I guess. I'd say his immigration stance has 10x the profile here that stem-cell does, and I really have a hard time believing that stem-cell stuff is even on the top 10 list of 5% of the voters in this country -- the same cannot be said for immigration.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

We disagree completely I guess. I'd say his immigration stance has 10x the profile here that stem-cell does, and I really have a hard time believing that stem-cell stuff is even on the top 10 list of 5% of the voters in this country -- the same cannot be said for immigration.

troll

[st.cronin]

dola

my write-in vote for the poll is Phil Plantier. I know a lot of people don't like that +3 throwing arm, but that obp against right-handers is just unreal. Very few outs on that card.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

troll

(Although it probably does bear noting that I'm not dogging the issue if it's that important to somebody, I'm more relating that I simply haven't encountered really anyone outside of media coverage who gives a particular damn about it relative to a number of other things)

[Buccaneer]

I would vote for McCain as the libertarian-minded third-party candidate. Bill Owens would be the only red/blue candidate I would vote for. All the rest would be status quo.

[Bee]

So according to our polls it looks like McCain vs Hillary in 08....does anyone think this would be even close? I'd almost bet that McCain could win if only Democrats voted.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Bee

So according to our polls it looks like McCain vs Hillary in 08....does anyone think this would be even close?

McCain might be the one person that Hillary could beat, as he's the one person who would keep the GOP base at home. Hell, even I would have to take a pass or vote 3rd-party if he was the nominee (and you know my feelings for Hillary).

[Bee]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Hell, even I would have to take a pass or vote 3rd-party if he was the nominee (and you know my feelings for Hillary).

Well luckily for us, you're not the typical Republican.

[Ryche]

McCain would draw a huge number of people from the middle who would otherwise stay home and a lot of moderate Democrats. I think McCain and Guiliani would beat Hillary easily, Rice probably would as well. Romney and Huckabee would probably have a shot, the rest of the serious nominees would be seen as good old boy beltway conservatives.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Bee

Well luckily for us, you're not the typical Republican.

nicely played. If McCain gets the nomination, I'd become a Republican in a second.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Ryche

McCain would draw a huge number of people from the middle who would otherwise stay home and a lot of moderate Democrats. I think McCain and Guiliani would beat Hillary easily, Rice probably would as well. Romney and Huckabee would probably have a shot, the rest of the serious nominees would be seen as good old boy beltway conservatives.

All true, but when was the last time a non-establishment candidate won the Republican nomination? Reagan? Until that happens, guys like McCain and Guiliani have no shot. Frist will probably be the candidate, and will win if Hillary takes the nomination. Against someone less polarizing, he'd have a slim chance.

[flere-imsaho]

In a McCain vs. Hillary battle, I'd give it to McCain, barring the emergence of an X factor (I'll get to that in a second).

Both go into the election with energized bases. McCain because the Republican base can be energized as anti-Hillary, Hillary because the Democratic machine can work things up and she has a ton of money to get things moving.

Both go into the election with other parts of their electorate sitting out. Staunch conservatives who aren't spurred by the anti-Hillary vote sit out. Disillusioned Democrats who don't like Hillary sit out.

I think McCain wins this one because a) the Republican base is better organized and b) the anti-Hillary factor gets a lot of people to vote for him only so she won't get elected (people who would stay home otherwise).

The X Factor is whether a Conservative runs as an Independent in reaction to McCain's nomination. In such a scenario McCain could end up losing enough votes to the right to not be able to overcome Hillary.

[Ryche]

McCain winning the nomination would be surprising to me, but so far he is doing what is needed and a lot of the pundits have him the favorite to win the nomination.

I think even if you had a 3rd party conservative, the hardcore right would see McCain as the lesser of two evils against Hillary. Against a less polarizing Democrat, I could see some conservatives shunning McCain.

I don't think Republican hatred of Hillary alone can beat her. They still need a good candidate. 2004 showed that didn't work with for the Democrats.

[King of New York]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

All true, but when was the last time a non-establishment candidate won the Republican nomination? Reagan? Until that happens, guys like McCain and Guiliani have no shot. Frist will probably be the candidate, and will win if Hillary takes the nomination. Against someone less polarizing, he'd have a slim chance.

Under normal circusmstances, I would agree that "atypical" republicans such as McCain and Giuliani would have little hope against establishment insiders.

BUT: the president's approval rating is in the mid-30s right now. The Republican establishment has been hurt by the Abramoff scandal. Given these conditions, I bet that the Republicans will be savvy and flexibile enough to recognize that going with an "establishment" candidate is bad strategy. They'll embrace, with a hard swallow and a forced grin, someone who can position himself as something of an outsider: either McCain or, more likely (because he has not attacked or challenged W directly), Giuliani.

There won't be a third-party conservative challenger to either of those two, I think. Not with the examples of Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan fresh in everyone's minds. Pat Robertson has nothing but nice things to say about Rudy Giuliani--that's not an accident.

[ISiddiqui]

I think McCain will get enough moderate and center-right votes to beat down any Democrat nominee, unless they change the Constitution to allow Bill Clinton to run again.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

All true, but when was the last time a non-establishment candidate won the Republican nomination? Reagan? Until that happens, guys like McCain and Guiliani have no shot. Frist will probably be the candidate, and will win if Hillary takes the nomination. Against someone less polarizing, he'd have a slim chance.

This I agree with. I will be stunned if McCain wins the nomination. I still remember the Republican political Machine grinding him up and spitting him out last time around. Guys like Rush and Hannity will be campaigning full time against the guy as well.

McCain wins the general election in a landslide. It would be a Reaganesque victory. The problem is, that he won't get out of the primaries. Some people can't see the forrest for the trees.

I hope I'm wrong, but I think emerging through the primaries on top of the heap will be an insurmountable task for McCain and company.

[Bee]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

This I agree with. I will be stunned if McCain wins the nomination. I still remember the Republican political Machine grinding him up and spitting him out last time around. Guys like Rush and Hannity will be campaigning full time against the guy as well.

McCain wins the general election in a landslide. It would be a Reaganesque victory. The problem is, that he won't get out of the primaries. Some people can't see the forrest for the trees.

I hope I'm wrong, but I think emerging through the primaries on top of the heap will be an insurmountable task for McCain and company.

I completely agree (which scares me).

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by King of New York

Under normal circusmstances, I would agree that "atypical" republicans such as McCain and Giuliani would have little hope against establishment insiders.

BUT: the president's approval rating is in the mid-30s right now. The Republican establishment has been hurt by the Abramoff scandal. Given these conditions, I bet that the Republicans will be savvy and flexibile enough to recognize that going with an "establishment" candidate is bad strategy. They'll embrace, with a hard swallow and a forced grin, someone who can position himself as something of an outsider: either McCain or, more likely (because he has not attacked or challenged W directly), Giuliani.

There won't be a third-party conservative challenger to either of those two, I think. Not with the examples of Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan fresh in everyone's minds. Pat Robertson has nothing but nice things to say about Rudy Giuliani--that's not an accident.

I don't think the Republican political establishment can really be considered savvy with regard to this particular issue. Look at what they did to McCain in 2000. They had one candidate that would cruise through the general election almost without opposition, and one that might actually eke out a victory. We know which road they took, and with the disdain they showed McCain, I just don't them changing that much in 2008.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

I don't think the Republican political establishment can really be considered savvy with regard to this particular issue. Look at what they did to McCain in 2000. They had one candidate that would cruise through the general election almost without opposition, and one that might actually eke out a victory. We know which road they took, and with the disdain they showed McCain, I just don't them changing that much in 2008.

They won, didn't they? Hard to fault their strategy in that case.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by King of New York

I bet that the Republicans will be savvy and flexibile enough

You lost me right there. Conservatives are conservatives for a reason. They can spin, they can trick, but they will not bend. McCain doesn't play well with others. He is not controllable by the power-brokers. They want someone they can have their thumb on, and there is no way they are giving hundreds of millions of dollars to McCain for him to screw them once he is in office. Guiliani is a better bet, but that almost guarantees the party splits (without the religious right, the Republicans have no shot, and the religious right would split off in a second if a pro-choice candidate won the nom).

The more I think on it, the more I think Frist is a shoe-in.

[MalcPow]

McCain winning an election against Hillary is pretty darn likely. He could probably beat her in a number of Democratic primaries, and his election as a Republican would probably be a crippling blow to a Democratic party that has been lacking a unifying vision and has become more and more an incoherent collection of disparate groups following frustrations with lost campaigns and political outmaneuvering. The problem is, a lot of conservatives see a McCain presidency as a crippling blow to the Republican party, and that his centrism would dilute entirely whatever it might mean to be a Republican anyway. His biggest hurdle is going to be winning the nomination, and it will be very difficult for him to do that. He's also going to have problems because he won't get the nice lift of bandwagon support that a lot of candidates who start well end up getting. A lot of party support will hold off until it looks like there's no one else for the reason mentioned above. He also has the most to lose in New Hampshire because his established popularity there means that anything other than a very convincing victory there will be spun as a slip-up. If a couple people fall down he could get it, but otherwise, it will be tough.

[st.cronin]

McCain should just run as a 3rd party candidate, a la Perot. He'd probably win, and have many fewer headaches along the way.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

McCain should just run as a 3rd party candidate, a la Perot. He'd probably win, and have many fewer headaches along the way.

He'd get more votes than Perot, but I wonder if he could win.

[MalcPow]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

McCain should just run as a 3rd party candidate, a la Perot. He'd probably win, and have many fewer headaches along the way.

If he were a billionaire a la Perot he probably would.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by MalcPow

a lot of conservatives see a McCain presidency as a crippling blow to the Republican party

DingDingDing.

and that his centrism would dilute entirely whatever it might mean to be a Republican anyway.

The phrase "what's the point?" sums it up very nicely I think.

Pretty good analysis there MalcPow, IMO anyway.

[Ryche]

Originally Posted by King of New York

Under normal circusmstances, I would agree that "atypical" republicans such as McCain and Giuliani would have little hope against establishment insiders.

BUT: the president's approval rating is in the mid-30s right now. The Republican establishment has been hurt by the Abramoff scandal. Given these conditions, I bet that the Republicans will be savvy and flexibile enough to recognize that going with an "establishment" candidate is bad strategy. They'll embrace, with a hard swallow and a forced grin, someone who can position himself as something of an outsider: either McCain or, more likely (because he has not attacked or challenged W directly), Giuliani.

There won't be a third-party conservative challenger to either of those two, I think. Not with the examples of Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan fresh in everyone's minds. Pat Robertson has nothing but nice things to say about Rudy Giuliani--that's not an accident.

I really hope this is the way it turns out. Knowing as many Republican party hacks as I do though, there are far too many who would rather support a hardcore conservative and get 40% of the vote than support someone more moderate who can win easily.

The midterm elections could go a long way in determining what direction the Republicans take. If they serious losses in Congress, they may be desperate enough to give McCain a chance.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

He'd get more votes than Perot, but I wonder if he could win.

He'd probably have the best shot since Teddy Roosevelt in 1912 of a 3rd party candidate winning the general election. Probably in that case, he'd just prevent a candidate from getting 270 electoral votes and sending it to a straight party line Congressional vote.

[flere-imsaho]

Bill Frist has pulled ahead of Trout Bush.