Thoughts about the Election/Looking Forward Thread

[Barcalounger]

[ QUOTE ]
If its Hillary vs. McCain they might as well not even hold the election...it'll be a bloodbath with Hillary getting slaughtered.

[/ QUOTE ]

They might not carry a single state. A landslide might be renamed to a hillaryslide.

I do see this scenerio playing out, though. The republican party will now appear to clean their ranks, retool for 08, nominate a reformer, and carry the election. I can just hope that they accidentally actually clean thier ranks and nominate an real reformer.

[jcx]

Interesting post.

Don't read too much into anything NH does. It is a notoriously maverick state and can't be counted on to be reliably blue or red, ever.

It's certainly possible Hillary could win at this point. However, I also think she is the only possible candidate the Dems could lose with in 08 (forget Obama. Not a chance in hell he'd be seriously considered by the party). Any random moderate Dem governor (esp if he is from the south) will absolutely kick the sh*t out a GOP nominee next election. Hillary is the only candidate the GOP can possibly beat. I think they'd love to see her as a candidate.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
Any random moderate Dem governor (esp if he is from the south) will absolutely kick the sh*t out a GOP nominee next election.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the opposite is true. If we are still in a state of war (War on Terror counting), the country is going to be very reluctant to elect a Democratic President when the Congress is also controlled by the Democrats. Even at a time when voters are upset over Iraq, they still pefer the Republicans slightly over the Democarts on defense issues.

It doesn't appear any top Republican candidate is tied to the Bush Administartion too closely. Giuliani, McCain, Romney, and the other viable candidates can all easily establish themselves as a new start for the Republicans.

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
Interesting post.

Don't read too much into anything NH does. It is a notoriously maverick state and can't be counted on to be reliably blue or red, ever.

It's certainly possible Hillary could win at this point. However, I also think she is the only possible candidate the Dems could lose with in 08 (forget Obama. Not a chance in hell he'd be seriously considered by the party). Any random moderate Dem governor (esp if he is from the south) will absolutely kick the sh*t out a GOP nominee next election. Hillary is the only candidate the GOP can possibly beat. I think they'd love to see her as a candidate.

[/ QUOTE ]

New Hampshire is a weird state, but it looks very blue right now. Control of the state legislature will be entirely in Democratic hands for the first time since 1922 (or so I have read). Dems also knocked off GOP incumbents in both congressional races, one of which wasn't even on the radar as being a possible Dem pickup. All I'm saying is that if the state went slightly Kerry in 2004, it is probably a very good bet to go blue in the 2008 presidential at this point.

I mostly agree with you about Hillary. I think she has more of a shot of winning than some people give her, but she would still be a bad and divisive candidate. People in Washington see this great transformation in her since she came to the senate, which may very well be true. But people in the midwest remember the Hillary of the 1990s, and that's not a very electable Hillary.

[CharlieDontSurf]

2008 is McCain's election to lose.

I'm a dem at heart and I'd vote for him over any of the crappy canidates the Dems have lined up so far.

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Any random moderate Dem governor (esp if he is from the south) will absolutely kick the sh*t out a GOP nominee next election.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the opposite is true. If we are still in a state of war (War on Terror counting), the country is going to be very reluctant to elect a Democratic President when the Congress is also controlled by the Democrats.

[/ QUOTE ]

I doubt Dem control of congress will make much of a difference regarding the importance of security issues in 2008. They are likely to be very important either way, and probably will remain the biggest weakness of the Dem nominee, especially given the field that is shaping up.

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If its Hillary vs. McCain they might as well not even hold the election...it'll be a bloodbath with Hillary getting slaughtered.

[/ QUOTE ]

They might not carry a single state. A landslide might be renamed to a hillaryslide.

I do see this scenerio playing out, though. The republican party will now appear to clean their ranks, retool for 08, nominate a reformer, and carry the election. I can just hope that they accidentally actually clean thier ranks and nominate an real reformer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Clearly McCain is a formidable candidate. I like him, and he's one of the only Republicans I'd consider voting for. But I think you guys show a lack of perspective for just how much can change in a two-year news cycle, and a ten-month campaign cycle. Michael Dukakis and Walter Mondale once had double-digit leads over their Republican opponents.

McCain has been on the political scene for a long time; he's celebrating his 20th year representing Arizona in the Senate. It's only in recent years that he's become something of a political darling. And that period has consisted entirely of when McCain was playing off of George W. Bush's foil, first as a candidate for the Republican nomination in 2000, and then as a sort of gadfly in the Senate. McCain will have to find a new way to triangulate himself with Bush gone, and that might not be easy as it sounds.

Among the potential challenges that his candidacy faces:

* The GOP nomination process. Although I think McCain remains a heavy favorite to emerge as the nominee if he runs, there's going to be a holy war between at least two or three branches of the party during the nomination process, and McCain may wind up having to position himself in such a way that damages him in the general election.

* Iraq. While McCain is extremely credible on foreign policy issues, at the end of the day he's a hawk and likely to advocate some variation of a "stay the course" policy. If the Democrats nominate someone who can make a clear case for pulling out, this could create problems.

* Personality. McCain can be abrasive, which creates the possibility of a Howard Dean Moment. I suspect that he'll also poll somewhat unfavorably among women voters, as his personality reads more as the feisty uncle than the benevolent father. Couple this with a possible "whisper campaign" about McCain's age, health, and the psychological effects of his time as a POW, and there is an opportunity for Democratic countertactics here.

* The Midwest. McCain did not perform well in the flyover states in his presedential bid in 2000; in fact he skipped the Iowa caucus entirely. Given Democratic consolodiation in states like Ohio and Iowa yesterday, this could make the electoral math challenging.

* His Senate record. As Sen. Kerry discovered, a candidate who has been in the U.S. Senate for a couple of decades is always going to provide for a lot of room for scrutiny of his specific positions. He is also not completely clean of personal scandal, having been implicated in the Keating scandal and having admitted to extra-material affairs earlier in his life.

I'm deliberately making the devil's advocate case but I think McCain is something like a 5-3 favorite in a matchup with Hillary Clinton; not more than that.

[adios]

-- Minimum wage increase is a lock. It's clear the majority of the country wants this. The Republicans won't put up a fight.

-- Amnesty for illegals and a guest worker program are almost as likely as a minimum wage increase. The Democrats and Bush are basically aligned on this. The only thing standing in the way is a possible Republican fillibuster in the Senate and I doubt that will happen.

-- Something we've already seen start to happen with the axing of Rummy, a bi-partisan policy initiative for the U.S. involvment in Iraq. Expect Bush to defer to the Baker led commission recommendations. It's an easy out for Bush.

-- Republicans will make a very big deal about the looming 'sunset provisions' in the tax code which will effectively raise taxes from their current levels.

-- Republicans will strive to show that they're the more fiscally responsible party by attempting to show that the Democrats are the tax and spend party. Every item in the budget that can be construed as a government handout for the Democratic party constituency will be targeted and publicized by the Republicans.

-- Some form of federally funded embryonic stem cell research has a real shot at happening.

-- Judicial appointments will be made with a lot of consideration by Bush as he'll seek to nominate people like Roberts. Conservatives who's credentials are impeccable. True many Democrats will be opposed but one's where Democratic opposition can be made to look like being based on partisan politics only.

-- The Republicans will propose budgets and tax incentives that have a lot of middle class appeal (probably without a ghost of a chance of succeeding).

-- The Democrats are a lock for seeking to expand entitlements and effectively raise taxes.

Looks like a prescription for gridlock to me.

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
-- Minimum wage increase is a lock. It's clear the majority of the country wants this. The Republicans won't put up a fight.

-- Amnesty for illegals and a guest worker program are almost as likely as a minimum wage increase. The Democrats and Bush are basically aligned on this. The only thing standing in the way is a possible Republican fillibuster in the Senate and I doubt that will happen.

-- Something we've already seen start to happen with the axing of Rummy, a bi-partisan policy initiative for the U.S. involvment in Iraq. Expect Bush to defer to the Baker led commission recommendations. It's an easy out for Bush.

-- Republicans will make a very big deal about the looming 'sunset provisions' in the tax code which will effectively raise taxes from their current levels.

-- Republicans will strive to show that they're the more fiscally responsible party by attempting to show that the Democrats are the tax and spend party. Every item in the budget that can be construed as a government handout for the Democratic party constituency will be targeted and publicized by the Republicans.

-- Some form of federally funded embryonic stem cell research has a real shot at happening.

-- Judicial appointments will be made with a lot of consideration by Bush as he'll seek to nominate people like Roberts. Conservatives who's credentials are impeccable. True many Democrats will be opposed but one's where Democratic opposition can be made to look like being based on partisan politics only.

-- The Republicans will propose budgets and tax incentives that have a lot of middle class appeal (probably without a ghost of a chance of succeeding).

-- The Democrats are a lock for seeking to expand entitlements and effectively raise taxes.

Looks like a prescription for gridlock to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree almost across the board except for the last point.

I don't think the Dems will undertake any tax cut initiatives. As you point out, the battle will go more like this: Bush will introduce measures to lock-in his tax cuts, the Dems will resist, saying that they don't have to be acted on until 2010. The political battle will revolve around spinning the Democrats' refusal, with the GOP attempting to portray this as a de facto tax hike and the Dems saying that they are only putting things off until the fiscal picture becomes more clear.

I don't see the Dems actually actively taking measures to increase entitlement spending, with the possible exception of some limited health care reforms that will be impossible for the public to digest anyway. They will simply not touch current programs, which will allow them to increase. But this is a lot different politically than actively setting out to spend a lot more money.

Basically, I wouldn't be fooled by the liberal look to the Democratic house leadership. They are smart enough to know that (a) they have the GOP by the balls right now (b) nothing radical is getting past Bush's veto anyway and (c) that if for two years they can deprive the GOP of ammunition for traditional attacks against tax-and-spend liberalism (which the GOP has largely already deprived itself of), then the 2008 picture looks a lot better.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see the Dems actually actively taking measures to increase entitlement spending, with the possible exception of some limited health care reforms that will be impossible for the public to digest anyway. They will simply not touch current programs, which will allow them to increase. But this is a lot different politically than actively setting out to spend a lot more money.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we're likely to see something in the health care area which I believe will be tantamount to increasing entitlement spending. Medicare negotiating drug prices directly with drug companies is one thing I'm hearing as being something that will be pushed. Something like this could easily lead to expanded entitlements (a trojan horse type thing IMO). I'm fairly certain that this particular situation will be addressed and I don't think we're likely to see less benefits as a result:

Group Says Gap in Medicare Drug Coverage Will Be Costly

There's an outside, probably very remote chance, of doing something about SS too and that something will involve a higher limit on income exempt from SS taxes and/or means testing.