U.S. Presidential Elections 2008

[jdobbin]

At this stage, name recognition is everything. (The same logic partly explains why Bush Jnr got ther Republican candidacy in 2000.)

I think the name - plus fund-raising skills - make Hillary the Democratic winner. She may come in second in Iowa but a week later, she'll be first in NH and the rest will fall quickly into place. For the Dems, this'll be over by February.

And then - the Democrats will crash and burn horribly.

I think I heard the same claims about the mid-terms and how the Democrats were not going to win the Senate and the Reps.

Last time I was in the U.S., I saw a bumper sticker that said:

Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton-Bush

Eek.

[sharkman]

Yikes, we can agree that such a bumper sticker would be revolting.

[August1991]

I think I heard the same claims about the mid-terms and how the Democrats were not going to win the Senate and the Reps.

I'll admit that the Democrats did better in the midterms than I expected but they didn't do that good.

And let's be honest, W. isn't doing all that great in the popularity polls.

Last time I was in the U.S., I saw a bumper sticker that said:

Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton-Bush

Jeb must be one frustrated, Number Two favourite son. If it weren't for his older brother, he'd be an excellent choice right now. Jeb's been a better governor of a difficult state.

[jdobbin]

I'll admit that the Democrats did better in the midterms than I expected but they didn't do that good.

And let's be honest, W. isn't doing all that great in the popularity polls.

Jeb must be one frustrated, Number Two favourite son. If it weren't for his older brother, he'd be an excellent choice right now. Jeb's been a better governor of a difficult state.

Not that good? They recaptured the House after 12 years and had the best result since 1974.

There was not one Congressional or gubernatorial seat held by a Democrat that was won by a Republican.

The Democrats won six seats and with independents won control of the Senate.

All round, I'd say that was pretty darn good.

I agree that Jeb Bush probably thought it was premature to put his name up considering where his brother is at. The big problem he faces is: Will be people rally to him four years from now if the Democrats win? Will he even have a chance to run if the Republicans win?

At the moment, momentum is with the Democrats. They have the organization, the money and no third party candidate likely to really steal their supper.

[bush_cheney2004]

At the moment, momentum is with the Democrats. They have the organization, the money and no third party candidate likely to really steal their supper.

That's what they said in 2004 as well. The Congress has far lower job approval ratings than President Bush, especially after the Democrats failed to deliver on 2006 promises.

[Guest coot]

That's what they said in 2004 as well. The Congress has far lower job approval ratings than President Bush, especially after the Democrats failed to deliver on 2006 promises.

Congress has a low approval rating only because it has continued to fail at stopping the Republican-created Iraq fiasco.

[bush_cheney2004]

Congress has a low approval rating only because it has continued to fail at stopping the Republican-created Iraq fiasco.

Go back to October 2002 and count the votes...then guess again.

[jdobbin]

Congress has a low approval rating only because it has continued to fail at stopping the Republican-created Iraq fiasco.

We'll see what happens when there is a Democratic president.

[jdobbin]

The New York Times laid bare some of Guiliani's claims.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/30/us/polit...amp;oref=slogin

Discussing his crime-fighting success as mayor, Mr. Giuliani told a television interviewer that New York was “the only city in America that has reduced crime every single year since 1994.” In New Hampshire this week, he told a public forum that when he became mayor in 1994, New York “had been averaging like 1,800, 1,900 murders for almost 30 years.” When a recent Republican debate turned to the question of fiscal responsibility, he boasted that “under me, spending went down by 7 percent.”

All of these statements are incomplete, exaggerated or just plain wrong. And while, to be sure, all candidates use misleading statistics from time to time, Mr. Giuliani has made statistics a central part of his candidacy as he campaigns on his record.

It is interesting reading.

Can't say it was a great week for Guiliani.

Edited December 1, 2007 by jdobbin

[jdobbin]

It seems Huckabee is starting to surge.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2...ml?hpid=topnews

A poll released by the Des Moines Register confirmed the shift in the presidential race over the last month, as Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) is ahead of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.). And in an even more surprising result, former Gov. Mike Huckabee has vaulted ahead of former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, long the leader among the Republicans.

The leads for Obama and Huckabee remain small, particularly given the four percent margin of error. The poll placed Obama at 28 percent, Clinton at 25 percent, and former North Carolina senator John Edwards at 23 percent, meaning that depending on how effectively they turn out voters, any of them could win. The GOP race appears a two-man contest with Huckabee at 29 percent, Romney at 24 percent and former New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani at 13 percent.

Obama is doing well too.

[August1991]

It seems Huckabee is starting to surge.

...

Obama is doing well too.

Hilary has never been first in Iowa and she may even finish third. Irrelevant.

She is first in polls in NH and in SC. NH is scheduled one week after the Iowa caucuses and SC just before Super Tuesday. Clinton will perform well in all those. Unless something happens in the next two months, I'd say that the Democratic choice is a foregone conclusion.

Not that good? They recaptured the House after 12 years and had the best result since 1974.

There was not one Congressional or gubernatorial seat held by a Democrat that was won by a Republican.

The Democrats won six seats and with independents won control of the Senate.

All round, I'd say that was pretty darn good.

IIRC, Presidents typically do badly in the off year of a second mandate. Clinton in 1998 and Reagan in 1986 and even Eisenhower in 1958.

I wouldnt read too much into the 2006 results given in particular that Bush is waging a foreign war - something that Americans have never felt comfortable doing.

[jdobbin]

Hilary has never been first in Iowa and she may even finish third. Irrelevant.

She is first in polls in NH and in SC. NH is scheduled one week after the Iowa caucuses and SC just before Super Tuesday. Clinton will perform well in all those. Unless something happens in the next two months, I'd say that the Democratic choice is a foregone conclusion.

IIRC, Presidents typically do badly in the off year of a second mandate. Clinton in 1998 and Reagan in 1986 and even Eisenhower in 1958.

I wouldnt read too much into the 2006 results given in particular that Bush is waging a foreign war - something that Americans have never felt comfortable doing.

The three main Democratic candidates are all running within the margin in Iowa. It is more important for Huckabee because is gaining momentum and is now not even campaigning in Iowa because he looking at the next race down the road.

Front runners always face risks. Ask Guiliani about that. He had a terrible week.

You had said the results were not that good in regards to the mid-terms. In this case, the mid-terms were the best result for the Democrats since the 1970s.

The war continues in Iraq and many Republican incumbents are not going to run again. I don't think the present situation is likely to get better according to the Cook Report.

[bush_cheney2004]

....The war continues in Iraq and many Republican incumbents are not going to run again. I don't think the present situation is likely to get better according to the Cook Report.

The "war" in Iraq has ceased to be the leading issue, which ironically, is exactly what the Clinton campaign needs to avoid vulnerability. Illigal immigrants and border security is the present hot button for Republicans.

[August1991]

The "war" in Iraq has ceased to be the leading issue, which ironically, is exactly what the Clinton campaign needs to avoid vulnerability. Illigal immigrants and border security is the present hot button for Republicans.

I agree, and it's an interesting angle. The Iraq war is no longer an issue.

I happen to think that barring a disaster, Hilary Rodham has the Democrat leadership. She'll lose in Iowa, suffer public talking-head debate with appropriate spin for a week, and then in quick succession she'll win NH, SC and Super Tuesday. Done deal.

I see that NH is scheduled for 8 January and the Iowa caucuses for 3 January. SC is 26 January. Super Tuesday is now 5 February.

Iraq?

I think that'll play to the Republican in the Fall - whoever it is. Why? If Iraq is quiet, Bush Jnr was right. And if Iraq is not quiet, who do you want? No Vietnamese took out large buildings in Manhattan or attacked the Pentagon. Iraq is not Vietnam. And even if it is, Nixon won in 1968.

Edited December 11, 2007 by August1991

[Canadian Blue]

To compare Iraq to Vietnam would be idiotic to say the least, and I can't believe Bush would even make such a comparison. The fact is the VC never once attacked America, and in the end the conflict could have ended in '68, but was instead prolonged by insidious tactics to get Nixon into the White House. If it wasn't for the failed talks Hubert Humphrey probably would have been elected in 1968.

However my hope is that Biden wins for the Democrats, alas it seems a pipe dream for now.

Did anybody else hear that Al Gore might consider throwing his hat into the ring at this stage of the game?

As for Huckabee, I don't really want another member of the religious right to be in the White House. While I do have more admiration for Huckabee than most of the other Republicans, his comments on AIDS patients struck me as completely ignorant. I'm not too fond of Romney, Thompson, Guiliani, Huckabee, or Tancredo taking the reigns, John McCain in my own opinion would be the best candidate for the Republicans. This is of course only if his overtures to religious right were nothing more than platitudes.

[jdobbin]

I agree, and it's an interesting angle. The Iraq war is no longer an issue.

I happen to think that barring a disaster, Hilary Rodham has the Democrat leadership. She'll lose in Iowa, suffer public talking-head debate with appropriate spin for a week, and then in quick succession she'll win NH, SC and Super Tuesday. Done deal.

I see that NH is scheduled for 8 January and the Iowa caucuses for 3 January. SC is 26 January. Super Tuesday is now 5 February.

Iraq?

I think that'll play to the Republican in the Fall - whoever it is. Why? If Iraq is quiet, Bush Jnr was right. And if Iraq is not quiet, who do you want? No Vietnamese took out large buildings in Manhattan or attacked the Pentagon. Iraq is not Vietnam. And even if it is, Nixon won in 1968.

By all accounts, Americans still want the troops to come home. The surge has brought down the level of violence for both citizens and troops. The U.S. only loses a soldier a day now. However, the Iraqi government is as divided as ever.

The next president will have to decide if 140,000 troops will have to stay indefinitely because as soon as they begin leaving, it is possible a the violence will grow accordingly. The whole premise of the surge was to reduce violence so that the Iraqi government had a chance to work. The first part has worked, the second part has not. Bush would not have been right about that. And there is very little he seems to be able to do to get a working Iraqi government.

No Iraqi took out Manhattan so I don't know what that statement meant.

Things are pretty close for the Democrats now. A misstep by any of the top three candidates could cost them.

Huckabee is the big winner in the last weeks. We'll see how that plays out.

[Sulaco]

By all accounts, Americans still want the troops to come home. The surge has brought down the level of violence for both citizens and troops. The U.S. only loses a soldier a day now. However, the Iraqi government is as divided as ever.

The next president will have to decide if 140,000 troops will have to stay indefinitely because as soon as they begin leaving, it is possible a the violence will grow accordingly. The whole premise of the surge was to reduce violence so that the Iraqi government had a chance to work. The first part has worked, the second part has not. Bush would not have been right about that. And there is very little he seems to be able to do to get a working Iraqi government.

No Iraqi took out Manhattan so I don't know what that statement meant.

Things are pretty close for the Democrats now. A misstep by any of the top three candidates could cost them.

Huckabee is the big winner in the last weeks. We'll see how that plays out.

These things are ahrd to predict but I think the Huck has poretty much hit the ceiling of support he will get. Generally I have nothing against evangelicals and have several good friends, highly intelligent men and women, who are evangelicals. But ultimately, just like they do, Huck cannot help but begin looking a little worrisome to the mainstream of the party. his religion is ffar more bible-thumping than that of GW. And that is coming out now. I suspect most Guiliani supporters will shift to Romney of Guiliani starts dropping. The Huck's best hope is that Guiliani and Mitt stay in second and third throughout the primaries. I suspect however one or the other will drop out and I think these two can draw from a same pool of support.

The huck is unlikely to pick up to much more support from the non-evangelical wing of the party.

[bush_cheney2004]

No Iraqi took out Manhattan so I don't know what that statement meant.

Guess again.....not for lack of trying in 1993 with a 1500 pound truck bomb engineered by Iraqi Abdul Rahman Yasin

[jdobbin]

The huck is unlikely to pick up to much more support from the non-evangelical wing of the party.

The latest poll on the Republican and Democrat race from Washington Post/ABC released tonight.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/polit...oll_121107.html

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/200.../11/511043.aspx

Huckabee moves into second place and Giuliani, who retains a lead, dropped 9 points in the latest Washington Post/ABC poll. Giuliani holds onto a 25%-19% lead over Huckabee, but a month ago Giuliani had doubled up his nearest opponent, McCain, 34%-17%.

In the latest poll, McCain has dropped five points and from second place to fifth. Romney, third in this poll, saw a boost from 13% to 17%. Thompson, meanwhile, lost 2 points.

On the Democratic side, Clinton gains two points for a whopping 53% to 23% lead over her closest rival, Obama. Edwards is the only other Democrat to register in double digits with 10%.

[August1991]

The Republican race is still wide open and Huckabee is going up in the polls.

You can see Huckabee here (before the weight loss) on Mercer in America at about 8:40. Amusing.

Edited December 12, 2007 by August1991

[jdobbin]

The Republican race is still wide open and Huckabee is going up in the polls.

You can see Huckabee here (before the weight loss) on Mercer in America at about 8:40. Amusing.

Charlie Cook is one of the keenest observers of U.S. politics. This is what he says about Guiliani.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22205259/

But on another level, the next week or two amounts to another form of judgment day for Giuliani.

Early on, many political operatives and analysts expressed skepticism about his chances of winning the GOP nomination based on the fact that his positions on social and cultural issues were considerably to the left of his party and because of his relatively colorful personal life.

I went so far as to boldly -- and perhaps stupidly -- say that I would win the Tour de France before Giuliani would win the Republican presidential nomination.

But while his personal history and positions on social issues have certainly hurt him, the damage hasn't been nearly to the extent that many of us expected.

He has stayed atop the national polls for almost all of 2007, and the most recent surveys have him in the mid-20s.

So, as far as I am concerned, I was wrong, whether he ends up with the nomination or not. Win or lose, Giuliani has beaten the point spread.

Having said that, Giuliani's vulnerabilities have been aired and in the spotlight over the last two weeks in a way that they never have been before.

Stories alleging that New York City police, and therefore city funds, were used to provide Judith Nathan with security while she was the mayor's mistress is a political body blow on several levels.

To the degree that his candidacy and support either show resiliency or reflect serious damage in the next couple of weeks will suggest whether these problems are as severe as many had earlier anticipated.

He faced a tough interview on Sunday's "Meet the Press" and was put on the defensive about the security story, as well as his continued holding of financial interests in Giuliani Partners.

However, his past indiscretions and flaws have not seemed to stop his momentum, and it is possible that he has the political strength to go the distance despite such seemingly fatal vulnerabilities.

From the earliest stages of this campaign it has been clear that Republican voters were really seeking a reincarnation of the late President Ronald Reagan, albeit with no success.

[August1991]

I see that NH is scheduled for 8 January and the Iowa caucuses for 3 January. SC is 26 January. Super Tuesday is now 5 February.

Nevada is set for 19 January.

Clinton leads in Nevada too.

So, after the Iowa caucuses (where Obama will likely win), Hillary will have a clean sweep. She's not the type to commit a false step and even if something comes up, she knows how to handle it. I just don't see how she cannot win the nomination now.

----

On the Republican side, Huckabee seems set to win the Iowa caucuses. Romney may win NH. Then Giuliani/Romney would split Nevada. Huckabee would get SC.

So, going into Super Tuesday, the Republicans would still be a wide open horse race.

Since all of these guys are relative newcomers to national exposure and haven't experienced yet the full brunt of media attention, I'd say that a meltdown of Howard Dean/Ed Muskie proportions is very likely. One or several are bound to break and say or do something ridiculously dumb.

[Sulaco]

Nevada is set for 19 January.

Clinton leads in Nevada too.

So, after the Iowa caucuses (where Obama will likely win), Hillary will have a clean sweep. She's not the type to commit a false step and even if something comes up, she knows how to handle it. I just don't see how she cannot win the nomination now.

----

On the Republican side, Huckabee seems set to win the Iowa caucuses. Romney may win NH. Then Giuliani/Romney would split Nevada. Huckabee would get SC.

So, going into Super Tuesday, the Republicans would still be a wide open horse race.

Since all of these guys are relative newcomers to national exposure and haven't experienced yet the full brunt of media attention, I'd say that a meltdown of Howard Dean/Ed Muskie proportions is very likely. One or several are bound to break and say or do something ridiculously dumb.

I nominate the Huck as the most likely to melt down.

Edited December 12, 2007 by Sulaco

[jdobbin]

Clinton lead vanished in New Hampshire.

The Oprah effect?

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/071212/...clinton_poll_dc

Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton's lead over rival Barack Obama in New Hampshire has vanished a month before the state's nominating primary in the race for the White House, a poll showed on Wednesday.

The WMUR/CNN poll showed the U.S. senator from New York leading Obama 31 percent to 30 percent in New Hampshire, which on January 8 holds the first primary in the run-up to the November 2008 presidential election. The survey had a 5 percentage point error margin.

Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards was in third place, with 16 percent, followed by New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson at 7 percent.

Among Republicans, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee remains mired in single digits in New Hampshire despite a rapid rise in national polls.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney leads his Republican rivals in New Hampshire with 32 percent support, followed by former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Arizona Sen. John McCain, who are tied at 19 percent, and Huckabee at 9 percent.

Huckabee is not having much luck in New Hampshire.

[Moonlight Graham]

My opinion is that they are all idiots except for Dennis Kucinich & Mike Gravel, the only 2 guys who actually know what the hell is going on. Though Mike Gravell is a big old and doddy.