Redstate diarist NotSoBlueStater outlines his nightmare scenario for 2008:
I’ve been thinking for 3 or 4 months now that Barack Obama will be elected president in 2008.
I started thinking he’d be president someday on election night 2004, when I saw Obama interviewed by one of the networks (I’ve never found a transcipt). He spoke graciously about the Democrats’ national defeat, and spoke about how the Democrats would have to learn to function as the loyal opposition (which ironically they did not do). I was impressed by his gracious and statesmanlike words at a moment that was totally devastating to Democrats. I remember thinking that night that he would be the next Democrat elected president, but probably no sooner than 2012.
But that night I also assumed that the corner would be turned in Iraq by 2006, and that a solid Republican congressional majority would remain intact through at least 2010 — and probably a lot longer. I thought the Republicans would keep the White House in 2008 as well, but probably lose it in 2012, simply because those sorts of things tend to happen.
Now I think Obama will win in 2008.
The Democrats are starving for a winner. They will be afraid to pull the trigger on Hillary Clinton and her notoriously high negatives. They will turn quickly to their “rock star” Obama. The Republicans, feeling a little lost in the wilderness after last month, will follow their soul searching by leaning harder to the right, and will probably nominate Mitt Romney. Under the conditions most likely in Fall 2008, Obama would wipe the floor with Romney because he will capture the hearts and minds of the center at a time when the Republicans haven’t yet had time to completely right their ship. In short, 2008 may not be the best year for a “base campaign”.
Because of this, I think the Republicans must nominate a centrist, but I don’t see it happening. I think instead after sifting through the ashes conservatives will decide that they simply haven’t been conservative enough, and that Romney is the most compelling conservative available. It will be a principled, but ultimately doomed decision. And it’s too bad. Romney would make a good president. He’d also be the perfect candidate if Hillary was the Democratic nominee, as he plays well against her weaknesses. But she won’t be the nominee, and he’ll therefore come off as “too conservative” as Obama’s march to the center will make even Bill Clinton envious.
I have yet to be convinced that Obamamania is anything other than a media creation fueled by the MSM’s desire to create the Democartic Party’s “next rising star” for them.
What other conclusion should be drawn about Obama (other than that the Democratic grassroots and MSM adore him) when he graces the cover of Time magazine at a time when nearly 5 out of 10 Americans have never even heard of him.
Is being swarmed by Democrats at a Democractic barbeque fundraiser really at that it takes for the MSM to annoint you these days?
But Obamamania is actually beside the point of my post. NotSoBlueStater touches on what myself and DaveG (Dave far more eloquently than I) have written about extensively regarding the danger the GOP faces by following the 2000/2004 template in a country where that mold may no longer fit.
If the Dems nominate someone who has the potential to flip southern states (Clinton/Edwards), or even someone who is just a little better than even money to flip Ohio (Edwards or Obama against the right candidate), that gets them to 270 quite easily using the 2000/2004 template.
Geography has always played a major (if not sometimes defining) role in U.S. Presidential elections; and 2008 will not be an exception. I implore my fellow Republicans to consider the consequences of nominating a candidate whose geographic base consists of GA, AL, MS, LA, and UT.
This factor, far above all others (including the supposed “Mormon Factor”), is what Republicans should be concerned about regarding Gov. Romney.
December 7th, 2006 at 12:57 pm
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again; being a Republican from the bluest state in America matters. It matters in a way that I think is difficult to grasp for many people. I fail to conceive how Obama, who has never run a competitive political race in his life, and hails from bluest of blue Illinois, somehow will have more appeal to moderates when the dust settles then a Massachussetts Republican. 20 years ago, if you had taken a Massachussetts Republican and cut his arm, you’d see the precise pulse of the American center. There is a reason why George Bush is the first president of either party since Kennedy to legitimately have his “geographic base” in a red state. George Bush I always had more Connecticut roots. And there’s also a reason why that strategy, nominating a blue state Republican or a red state Democrat , has resulted in a win essentially every time it’s occurred during this century. Nixon was from California. Reagan was from California. Truman was from Missouri (though admittedly a more Democratic friendly Missouri then the current version). You might consider this all some sort of odd coincidence or a quirk of fate, but I think it bears repeating “blue state Republicans do an awful lot better then any regional matchups might otherwise indicate”. In 1992, Clinton did significantly better then Dukakis and congressional Democrats not merely in the states surrounding Arkansas, but virtually every traditionally red area. Even without Perot and the economic slump, Clinton would have undoubtedly run leagues ahead of Dukakis.
On the other hand, I think we’ll be making a dire mistake if we nominate someone who CAN’T match Obama’s feel good optimism and charisma. I have more then serious doubts about McCain’s ability to manage that. I know Romney can. Giuliani probably can as well. If I honestly thought Obama would beat Romney (not could…I’m willing to lose with a candidate I believe is right for the job), but would lose, I’d cast my ballot for Giuliani in a heartbeat. But I think the idea that a candidate who won 50% of the vote in a state with 13% registered Republicans, and who has, since then, only changed his positions substantively on one issue, doesn’t or can’t attract moderates or independents, is simply theatre of the absurd.
December 7th, 2006 at 12:59 pm
Barack Obama will not be the next President. He is making a huge mistake running after only two years in the United States Senate. When his liberal record, which is most apparent from his tenure in the Illinois legislature, and lack of experience are trumpeted he will go down in the polls.
The nightmare scenario for both parties is a wide open primary fight that leaves them too battered and bruised to regroup in the general election. The resentments could well linger from these primaries and cause loyal voters of theirs to stay home in November of 2008.
December 7th, 2006 at 1:13 pm
Michael Medved, in discussing the 2008 race, revealed his view that each candidate, to be a formidable candidate, must have an issue and a story. Mitt Romney has a few stories (saving some drowning citizens in a lake while on vacation, etc.) and an issue: Health Care. For a *Republican* to have achieved Health Care success in a liberal state will appeal to many centrists, independents, and even some Democrats. It will be a good trump card for lower-middle class families who would otherwise vote Democrat. I don’t know if Barack Obama has a story, but he does NO have an issue.
December 7th, 2006 at 1:14 pm
“I implore my fellow Republicans to consider the consequences of nominating a candidate whose geographic base consists of GA, AL, MS, LA, and UT.”
This needs to be shouted from the rooftops. Because some conservatives still don’t get it.
“In 1992, Clinton did significantly better then Dukakis and congressional Democrats not merely in the states surrounding Arkansas, but virtually every traditionally red area. Even without Perot and the economic slump, Clinton would have undoubtedly run leagues ahead of Dukakis.”
Matt: I think you and I are on the same team here when it comes to nominating a blue-state Republican. And I think you’re right about Clinton outperforming “the Duke” (heh) in what we would now call “red” areas, like the south and the plains states. It’s interesting though; the Clinton of 1992 basically matched Dukakis’ 1988 numbers in most northern states. States like Michigan, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey would’ve been repeats of 1988 in 1992 had all the Perot voters gone to Bush. I don’t think that would necessarily have happened in the red states. But here’s where it gets really interesting. Starting in 1996, there was a HUGE leap in the Democratic vote share in the north from what it was in the 1980s. And that increase has remained to the present day. In other words, if you look at the percentage of the vote that went to the Democrat in each of the industrial northern states for the past, say, six election cycles, you will see a similar percentage in 1984, 1988, and 1992, and a similar, much higher percentage in 1996, 2000,
and 2004.
I can only assume that at some point between 1992 and 1996, Clinton began the conversion of the Rust Belt over to the Democrats. He likely did this by governing as a fiscal moderate-conservative and a social moderate-liberal, which, from my experience, is what most voters in this region are.
December 7th, 2006 at 1:43 pm
Republius,
He is making a huge mistake running after only two years in the United States Senate.
I used to think the same thing a few months ago. But the desire for an Obama run is obviously too great for him and I’m not sure that if I were in the same position, I would opt out of running. I don’t know if you read any of the lefty blogs, but they are dripping wet over the idea of Obama running and most are either apathetic or openly hostile to Hillary running. The thing is, Obama and Hillary are almost mirror opposites of each other. Hillary is generally moderate, yet she is percieved as being being a flaming liberal. Obama, in contrast, has a very liberal voting record, but will be preaching the idea of national unity. That will be very, very strong. In fact, that’s why I think Obama also poses a huge threat to, not only Romney, but in particular McCain and Giuliani. When the campaign really picks up, McCain and Giuliani will both be running as “above the fray” candidates that will end the divisiveness in Washington. Therefore, they are well positioned against Hillary, whose candidacy will have us debating the 1990′s as much as Kerry’s had us debating Vietnam. They are widely popular among independents and a small but significant chunk of Dems. Obama would effectively neutralize that unity position and the Dems would not have a reason to vote Republican.
In the primaries, I think Obama is incredibly well positioned. The media is already talking about an epic showdown between Obama and Hillary, while treating everyone else (poor Edwards) as mere afterthoughts. Remember in 1988, Jesse Jackson won 15 primaries and a third of all delegates. He did that by winning almost the entire black vote, but hardly any of the white vote. Obama could probably match Jackson in terms of the black vote, but would pick up a huge amount of the white vote as well. That would make him an incredibly formidable candidate. It must be particularly distressing for Hillary because a significant factor in her winning the nomination would be taking most of that black vote (South Carolina alone is almost 50% black). Her campaign is already frazzled by Obama and has decided to push up courting any donors that might be tempted to side with Obama. The fact that he went to NYC last week (a few blocks from Hillary’s office) to court high level donors, including George Soros, speaks volumes. He’s going up to New Hampshire this weekend to give a “major policy speech.” Let the fireworks begin.
December 7th, 2006 at 1:50 pm
I swear to God, if the Republicans can’t sell the American people on the notion that a guy named Barack Hussein Obama, with a 100% liberal voting record, 2 years in the Senate (the next two years are irrelevant if he runs) and not one iota of foreign policy or executive experience is terrifically unfit to lead this country in a time of war, then our party might as well fold. We probably won’t have to though when Obama decides to cut and run, end the Patriot Act, end foreign intelligence surveilance, end coercive interrogation, set free terrorists, and surrender Israel to Iran, Palestine, and Syria. Because there’ll be no country to fold from.
December 7th, 2006 at 2:04 pm
“I swear to God, if the Republicans can’t sell the American people on the notion that a guy named Barack Hussein Obama…”
I would counsel my fellow Republicans to leave this one alone.
December 7th, 2006 at 2:21 pm
Fair enough. I was getting a little upset…I could care less what his name is. But it’s just so terriffically frustrating to see such an inexperienced candidate being touted as a strong 2008 candidate. I’m a black Republican (a rare creature to be sure) who was quite interested in Obama at first. Since then, his complete lack of substance has convinced me what I initially expected but was too afraid (and sad) to voice; that Obama would be a promising, yet little praised senator today if he was white. And I can’t help but think that, when we as a country finally do cross that barrier, it should be with a man who’s unimpeachably qualified for the job. I’d consider Obama a reasonable candidate maybe 10 years from now; perhaps even as soon as 6. But right now, only harm can come from his rapid, and unjustified ascendancy.
December 7th, 2006 at 2:23 pm
Kavon,
I agree. So what if his middle name is Hussein? Just because it’s a predominately Muslim name (it is also used a lot in Africa and his dad was from Kenya, you know), should that alone make us second guess him? Matt, coming from a Romney supporter, I’m surprised at this. If Romney’s Mormomism doesn’t matter in terms of being President (and, for the record, I think it doesn’t), neither should this.
surrender Israel to Iran, Palestine, and Syria
This is really unnessecary hyperbole and reminds me of people who said that John Kerry would order the conversion of all Americans to Islam upon his election. Remember, it’s primarily the Republican “realists” like Baker and Scowcroft are pushing for Israel to give up the Golan Heights in order to secure Syrian help for the US in Iraq.
December 7th, 2006 at 2:30 pm
Yes, LJ. I agree. Much of my previous post was uncalled for. Mounting frustration causes one to say some dissapointing things occasionally. My true concerns with Obama are simply 1). He’s too inexperienced to navigate what is likely to be an extremely difficult time in the history of America. 2). A poor minority President, on our first go, would drastically harm the future candidacies of minorities for high office.
December 7th, 2006 at 2:33 pm
Matt, as far as your theory about nominating blue state Republicans, your theory has some flaws. You point to Reagan and Nixon coming from the blue state of California. Before 2000, can you name the last Republican to win an election but lose California? It was James Garfield.
December 7th, 2006 at 2:54 pm
Nathan,
You make an interesting point, but it’s quite misleading. Before 2000, there hadn’t been a competitive election that a Republican won since Garfield. Bush I won in a landslide. Reagan won in a landslide twice. Nixon won in a landslide. Eisenhower won in a landslide twice. Hoover won in a landslide. Coolidge won in a landslide. Harding won in a landslide. TR won in a landslide. McKinley won in a landslide. The only election Republicans won in all that time that was even remotely close was Taft’s and even there Taft beat Bryan like a rented mule. We won California during those years not because it was a red-state at the time, but rather because we won EVERYWHERE.
December 7th, 2006 at 3:06 pm
Base regions change over time, and it’s true that before 1932, the GOP was largely the party of thenorth and the west, but I think the general point is that successful presidential candidates generally come from outside a party’s base region. The reason is, to put it bluntly, the base region can often be taken for granted. Democrats don’t need to field a candidate from New England. They’re going to win New England regardless of who their candidate is, because most New Englanders cannot stomach even the most liberal of today’s Republicans. So they can nominate a candidate who may be culturally foreign to their base region, like Carter or Clinton, and compete in the rest of the country.
Our base region is now the deep south and the plains west. We know this because they voted GOP this year and no one else did. That means that they’re going to vote Republican no matter who we nominate, because Hillary/Edwards/Obama is just anathema to them. And that means that we should nominate a candidate who can appeal to other regions of the country, like the southwest and the industrial north.
December 7th, 2006 at 3:24 pm
My take that Obama is making a mistake assumes that he cannot win because a couple of years in the U.S. Senate is not going to impress enough voters. So the question then becomes whether running and losing helps or hurts a future run? I think recent history shows that running and losing is not helpful. There are too many ambitious and qualified candidates to pull off what Richard Nixon did. And I don’t count the Reagan run in 1976 as a loss because I think a majority of the delegates at the Republican Convention that year were predisposed to select Reagan but were forced based on circumstances and rules to support Ford.
In addition, I think running when not prepared or experienced enough reflects a hubris that is unbecoming and hurtfull down the road.
Finally, without enough experience, Obama is going to make mistakes, which will make him look bad for future runs.
We’ll see.
As a Republican, I hope he runs because I think it will take him out of the equation in the future, when he could be a powerful candidate and opponent.
December 7th, 2006 at 3:36 pm
So, right now, people are mostly touting Giuliani, McCain, and Romney as the major candidates. Now, take out those candidates who hail from the deep red GOP base region, and you’re left with… Giuliani, McCain, and Romney.
I think we’re fine.
December 7th, 2006 at 3:46 pm
Responding to various comments:
“I have yet to be convinced that Obamamania is anything other than a media creation fueled by the MSM’s desire to create the Democartic Party’s “next rising star†for them.”
I can assure you that Obama is not a media creation. The feelings for him amonst centrists and center-libs is very real and sincere. His support from liberals is also real. The media is covering that phenomenon, and, of course their coverage adds to it. But the notion that Obama could be a media creation is ridiculous.
“I fail to conceive how Obama, who has never run a competitive political race in his life, and hails from bluest of blue Illinois, somehow will have more appeal to moderates when the dust settles then a Massachussetts Republican.”
Gee, I never realized there was such a hunger amongst the electorate for a Massachussettes republican
Seriously, I think you overestimate the geographic stuff. I suspect that if Reagan would have come from Ohio, or Clinton from Oregon, they still would have won. Being able to connect to voters on a personal level, and speaking to the issues that concern them, and inspiring hope would greatly trump geography, IMHO.
“Barack Obama … is making a huge mistake running after only two years in the United States Senate.”
Even if he doesnt win, why on earth would it be a mistake to run? Reagan was in the mix in 68, ran and lost the nom. in 76, then won it all in 80. If you run a good campaign, it can be something to build on for the future.
“Obama would be a promising, yet little praised senator today if he was white”
I think that is complete nonsense. No doubt, being black, adds a compelling factor to the equation. But the rhetorical skills, coupled to what seems to be an instinctive willingness to listen to, learn from and incorporate the views of those who come from a different perspective (within reason of course) – an instinct that seems rooted in his identity and life history – makes him come across, at least for now, as a masterful political leader of the type we very rarely see. A Clinton without the personal disciple problems. And he can write! Just close your eyes and listen to him – you would know that this guy would be a political star irrespective of his race. Whether he would be a good president is, of course, a different matter.
December 7th, 2006 at 3:48 pm
OF course, I meant to refer to Clinton’s personal _discipline_ problems, not the disciple problem. Although…
December 7th, 2006 at 4:09 pm
I’m at a loss to understand precisely what Obama has done to indicate his “willingness” to listen, learn from, and incorporate the views of others, beyond being a generally congenial fellow. I’ve pored over Obama’s record and stated views a fair bit. And he certainly wasn’t “incorporating” anyone on the right’s views when he consistently (i.e., a good bit more then the average Democratic senator) voted with the Democrats. How does one incorporate another’s views without changing their own? And if he has changed his own views, then why isn’t it reflected in his voting record, stated positions, actions, or anything else? Or are we just supposed to hear his “bi-partisan” rhetoric and swoon with joy because, after all, he wants to “listen” to us, and incorporate our views if not into his actual positions or actions, at least into his heart? I mean, is that the sum of the liberal argument on Obama? Because, I’ll confess, I’m at a loss. That is probably the most bothering aspect of Obama in my mind; he hasn’t had to do anything whatsoever to obtain the cooperative, bi-partisan image that people like John McCain spent years cultivating, virtually destroying their career’s and future ambitions in the process. Clinton had to run to the right to win, despite all his charisma. Reagan had spent 8 years as the highly popular Republican governor, and former lifelong Democrat, of one of the bluest states in America. JFK out-hawked Nixon and Eisenhower while preaching tax cuts. These were the single most charismatic people of our era, all of whom I’d say surpass Obama in that regard. All of whom surpass Obama in experience. And even they, for all their wondrous talents, couldn’t convince moderates that they were moderate without having some aspect of their beliefs or past reflect that image. And yet, Obama gets to be a moderate because….well, he’s Obama? What? I’ve asked liberals what precisely Obama has done, either to qualify him for the presidency, or to justify this absurd moderate image he has. They look at me dreamily and say, “he’s so bi-partisan”, “he’ll bring the country together”. They don’t explain how or why this is so. I suspect they don’t let facts get in the way of the stars in their eyes. So Tano, I’m going to have to disagree with you about Obama being a media creation largely driven by his race. I know quite a bit about being put on a pedastool for that reason, and I can draw no other conclusion from Obama’s situation.
December 7th, 2006 at 4:12 pm
Barack Obama is all style and no substance. His lack of legislative record, new ideas, or anything other than vastly overrated rhetorical skill hardly justifies the media’s excessive coverage of him.
Any Democrat running against Obama in 2008 should repeat Mondale’s line to Gary Hart in 1984: “Where’s the beef?” Of course, Obama will probably reply: “Helping communities, bridging divides, loving your neighbor, having compassion for the poor … that is the beef.”
And all the Obamamaniacs go “Oh, he is so charismatic! He has the _ audacity _ of _ hope!”
Bleh. One thing is for certain though – an Obama nomination would be a great setting for a bloggers vs. msm battle. Ideas vs. vague generalities! Flowery imagery vs. facts! Style vs. substance! There is hope yet. The conservative movement must keep the facts close at hand … no candidate, however charismatic, can escape the failed policies of liberalism.
December 7th, 2006 at 4:32 pm
“I can assure you that Obama is not a media creation. The feelings for him amonst centrists and center-libs is very real and sincere. His support from liberals is also real. The media is covering that phenomenon, and, of course their coverage adds to it. But the notion that Obama could be a media creation is ridiculous.”
See this is exactly what I’m talking about!!! I know that “Center-libs” like Obama, because we call those people “DEMOCRATS”!!!!
Now for “Centrists” liking Obama, please show your cards. I want to see a poll or some shred of empirical eviodence that shows that there is significant support for Obama among people who have voted Republican in a least 1 of the last 4 presidential elections.
Reading that Obama has high support among Centrists is not the same as saying the Independent voters highly support Obama.
December 7th, 2006 at 4:33 pm
Actually Matt, I disagree about McCain’s bipartisanship. There is some of that, but for the most part he is a “maverick”. Which means he does his own thing, irrespective of the views of his own party, and not because he is trying to reach out to the other either. Rather, he takes the postion because it is what he believes. Thats attractive, but not “bipartisan”.
Obama articulates bipartisanship. His rhetoric is indicative of one who takes seriously other views. And, though his career nationally has been short, he has actually done things in a bipartisan manner. The Porkbuster bill with Coburn, and his humanitarian efforts with Brownback are examples. Those are examples of active bipartisanship, as opposed to McCain maverickness.
As for qualifications – well I dont mean to be too provacative given the nature of this site, but I do think that the bar has been set about as low a s it can go in terms of who is to be considered of presidential timber. Issues? As I recall, in ’00, our current president ran on the platform of giving tax cuts, and not getting a bj in the OO. His “executive” style – being the “decider” has influenced the perception of the job description – what we are looking for is someone with judgement, and vision, to make the right calls on policy alternatives that arise from below. A president doesnt “run’ the government, or create the brilliant ideas – he has the judgement to pick the right managers of the departments, and to make the right decisions amonst the alternatives presented to him. It wont be hard for any number of people to make the case that they can do those things better than the incumbent.
December 7th, 2006 at 4:38 pm
“As for qualifications – well I dont mean to be too provacative given the nature of this site, but I do think that the bar has been set about as low a s it can go in terms of who is to be considered of presidential timber.”
I’m sorry, but your comparing 2 years in the Senate to being the chief executive of the 2nd biggest state in the US for 6 years? Ridiculous!
December 7th, 2006 at 4:46 pm
Matt,
Mounting frustration causes one to say some dissapointing things occasionally.
No worries. God knows I’ve said more then a few things on this blog in the past several months that I’m not proud of.
1). He’s too inexperienced to navigate what is likely to be an extremely difficult time in the history of America.
I agree completely. I happen to think he would most likely get killed in a debate, especially against McCain or Giuliani.
2). A poor minority President, on our first go, would drastically harm the future candidacies of minorities for high office.
Not too sure about this one. As for poor, I mean, Bill Clinton grew up in an Arkansas trailer park. The minority part is always talked about. There’s the assumption that whoever the first black or women candidate would have to be amazing because otherwise, if they made any mistakes it would be blamed (subconsciously) on the person’s sex or race. I doubt Obama could’ve survived if he had started the Iraq war and it had gone this badly. But you never know, he could turn out okay. But I agree, giving the reigns to someone this untested would be the height of irresponsibility.
Republius,
As a Republican, I hope he runs because I think it will take him out of the equation in the future, when he could be a powerful candidate and opponent.
I definitely see where you’re coming from. I just think that if Obama waits out 2008 and stays in the Senate until 2012 (or 2016 if a Dem wins in 2008) that he will have lost most of his luster and will be a typical Washington politician. I think that if decides not to run in 2008 that he should run for Illinois governor in 2010 and that’ll give him some executive experience. But the thing about Presidential politics is that anything could happen. Hardly anyone expected that 3 months before the Iowa caucuses that John Kerry would be the nominee and come within 150K of defeating Bush. The way I see it, Obama has a not impossible chance of beating Hillary in the primaries and who knows, we might end up nominating Romney. Obama would very much be able beat him and lo and behold, we have President Obama. If he loses than I agree, he’ll be taken out of serious contention in the future. If you were Obama, would you seriously sit it out?
December 7th, 2006 at 4:56 pm
Actually, I kind of feel sorry for Obama. If left alone, he could grow and mature into quite a force. Instead, the roaring crowd is trying to rush him into taking steps that he simply isn’t prepared to take.
I hope he has the good sense to resist the urges of the crowd. Otherwise, it will likely end in a manner most unpleasant.
December 7th, 2006 at 5:04 pm
LJ,
We share the same opinion on what Obama should do in the future.
I wrote about this at the beginning of Obamamania and stand by it.
Obama is 41 years old. He has the next 30 years to run for president. What he should do is run for Governor of Illinois after Blago leaves in 2010. That way he will have executive experience (which Americans seem to love in their presidential candidates) and it will take him out of the Senate, where presidential aspirations usually go to die.
If he does this, and truly becomes the moderate/centrist is supporters will have you believe he is, he may be come unstoppable.
If he runs and loses now, it’s all over at age 43.
Ambition is a powerful emotion, and has led to the ruin of many. Will it destroy Obama too? We’ll see. But I firmly believe that if he follows the Governor route, he has a darn good shot at the WH.
December 7th, 2006 at 5:09 pm
I should note, I still think there’s a pretty big possibility that Hillary may try to get Obama as her veep. If you think about it, that tickey helps them both out immensely. It’ll shore up support for Hillary on her left flank (antiwar activists, her normal constituency among blacks, etc.) and it’ll give Obama invaluable executive experience that he would need if he ran to succeed her in 2016.
December 7th, 2006 at 5:26 pm
If I could interject a thought. I don’t buy the “Obama has nothing to lose if he runs” line I hear on cable news and from Dems. Dems have a way of eating their own after they lose (I do not mean to make a jab at them, just an observation I hope no one takes offense at), and I am sure they would not be as critical of wonder-boy Obama if he loses, but nonetheless Obama’s image would be severely tainted. His image could easily recover from losing in a primary, something Reagan did with ease, however the general is something else. During war time i find it inconcievable a two year Senator rises to the presidency. As I fear him I hope he gets the nod in 08, we bet him before he grows into something unbeatable.
On a tangent, if Obama (or even Hillary) gets the nod I feel the Republican candidate cannot afford not to go after the Hispanic vote full tilt, Hispaninic Veep nominee and all. As Dick Morris has pointed out as of late, there are only so many white males out there to counter-act the female and minority vote. A Hillary/Obama ticket (or switch it) would absolutely require (in my humble opinion) that Republicans get at least 45% of the Hispanic vote to have a prayer. This would be done by Bush nominating a Hispanic Supreme Court justice when Stephens steps down/passes away, and whatever Rep. is nominated appointing Hispanics to Veep and other high posts (yeah, im not a big fan Martinez either, but it might have to be done).
December 7th, 2006 at 5:33 pm
I really dont understand this notion that a failed Obama run would ruin him. Did it ruin Reagan? Did it ruin Gore? Where do you guys get the notio that there are no second acts in American political life? History teaches otherwise.
As for the experience factor – well, I think it is only one factor. It’s a negative factor – obviously it would be better if he had executive experience, but there are lots of other factors that go into the voter’s decision. I guess you guys think it is a decisive factor, but I strongly suspect that none of you would vote for him anyway, no matter how great a resume he might have.
Think about what the American people will be hungry for, come 08. I would really need to be convinced that whatever that hunger is, it would clearly be better satisfied by a one-term small state governor (for example).
December 7th, 2006 at 5:35 pm
“During war time i find it inconcievable a two year Senator rises to the presidency. ”
Well, I really can’t resist. There is, of course, at least some precedent for a tall, skinny, horribly underqualified guy from Illinois rising to the presidency in a time of national crisis…
December 7th, 2006 at 5:39 pm
John R,
What about Henry Bonilla or Mario Diaz-Balart? Balart is pretty young though…
December 7th, 2006 at 5:40 pm
Oh, and before someone jumps on me for that – I was referring to Gore not being ruined by his ’88 failed run….
December 7th, 2006 at 5:43 pm
“What about …Mario Diaz-Balart?”
Now that would be fun. Fidel Castro’s nephew for VP!
December 7th, 2006 at 5:53 pm
Tano,
There is, of course, at least some precedent for a tall, skinny, horribly underqualified guy from Illinois rising to the presidency in a time of national crisis
But of course Lincoln wasn’t elected during the Civil War. His election is what caused the South to start succeeding from the Union. In time of war, the country always, always picks someone they can trust and has perceived qualifications to deal with the situation at hand. Were we not at war, Obama would stand a better chance of winning, but now not too much. Do you really think the country would’ve elected Lincoln, let alone say JFK and GWB, if we were already at war? I highly doubt it.
December 7th, 2006 at 6:03 pm
“I really dont understand this notion that a failed Obama run would ruin him. Did it ruin Reagan? Did it ruin Gore? Where do you guys get the notio that there are no second acts in American political life? History teaches otherwise.” – Tano, I dont think it would ruin him, but it certainly could not help. Keep in mind Reagan never lost a general election (though other have lost and come back to win). It would simply hurt his image. The words of the dastardly Al Davis do apply to politics: “Just win, baby.” Im sure he would have a good comeback, but not as good as getting seasoned and winning the whole enchalada the first time around. In my mind losing the general moves Obama out of the “Shoe-in to be president someday” category and into the “probably/might be pres. someday category”. However, we are obvioulsy entitled to different opinions. Oh, and Lincolc won in what I believe was a four-way race, making it possible for a political novice with a strong regional base to get the presidency, and thank God he did.
December 7th, 2006 at 6:29 pm
John R: a 1% increase in the European-American vote is equivalent to, what, a 10% increase in the Hispanic-American vote? Even if the Republicans were able to change their Hispanic fortunes significantly by appointing Hispanics to various positions as you suggested, I have to think real voting pattern shifts need substance, which means transforming the party into the Democratic party on issues for which Hispanics are currently voting Democratic – a Faustian bargain IMHO. Can you substantiate your claim that the Republicans need 45% of the Hispanic vote in the case of a Hillary/Obama ticket?
December 7th, 2006 at 6:55 pm
“Can you substantiate your claim that the Republicans need 45% of the Hispanic vote in the case of a Hillary/Obama ticket?” – I can’t prove it scientifically, and I am sure there are ways around it, but I am speaking generally. If women do in fact turn out in droves for Hillary as pundits predict (seems likely, but not etched in stone), those need to be offset somehow. White males already are strongly in the Republican camp and blacks are already cemented into the Hillary/Obama camp. So where do the votes come from to counteract the women for Hillary vote, assuming she does indeed get a dispraportionate amount of women voters? I think the place to look is the Hispanic vote. I would encourage everyone here to remember that Hispanic voters are not typified by the pro-illegal immigrant marchers waving Mexican flags you see on cable news. The majority are here legally, are family oriented, often pro-life, anti-gay marriage, and a tremendous amount own small business. Sounds like the stereotypical Republican!
Kavon – Diaz-Balart wouldn’t be bad. For better or worse I think Martinez is too electorally attractive not to get the nod of VP, if the head of the ticket wants a Hispanic VP. Bonilla or Balart might come across as “the only reason I’m on the ticket is because I’m Hispanic” guys, while Martinez now has a real resume. While I am not crazy about the guy, he does give a leg-up with the Hispanic vote and helps in Florida, you could do a lot worse.
December 7th, 2006 at 7:21 pm
The only problem is that Mel Martinez is ineligible.
December 7th, 2006 at 7:23 pm
i wondered about that, is he cuban born?
December 7th, 2006 at 7:33 pm
I haven’t heard pundits predicting women will turn out in droves to vote for Hillary. In fact, I’ve seen polls that suggest many women are reluctant to vote for her or are unenthusiastic about her candidacy. And I don’t just mean many as in Republican women. I’m talking about her receiving a smaller percentage, albeit not by much, of the women vote, then you’d typically expect to see for the Democratic candidate. I don’t think it’s just a Hillary thing though. I think plenty of polls have shown that women are, as a group, more skeptical of a woman president then men are. Weird, but it’s something that I’ve seen replicated too often in polls to suspect that it’s some sort of anomaly.
December 7th, 2006 at 8:39 pm
Dick Morris is the main pundit who predicts that women will vote in droves for HRC.
December 7th, 2006 at 8:58 pm
“I haven’t heard pundits predicting women will turn out in droves to vote
for Hillary.”
As Kavon noted, Dick Morris has made that prediction. Based on his track record, look for Morris to change his opinion at least four times between now and November 2008, and to be proven absolutely, completely wrong.
December 7th, 2006 at 9:37 pm
Yes, Martinez was born in Cuba, and is inelegible.
My sense is that the Republicans have already shot themselves in the foot with the Latino vote. Perhaps not as badly as they have in California, but pretty badly. Is it not the case that the Latino voted shifted dramatically to the Dems in the recent election?
Maybe an immigration bill will be passed by the new congress, but as things stand now it seems like it might be a joint Bush-Democrat bill, with Congressional republicans in opposition. I doubt that that will help GOP candidates.
December 7th, 2006 at 10:08 pm
Tano,
Yeah, I oppose the comprehensive immigration bill, but I agree the GOP has hurt their strength with Hispanics of late. That said, huge sweeping societal changes such as immigration reform, have a tendency to be attributed (both good and bad), to the president who signed them into law. Thus Johnson and the Democrats benefitted from the Voting Rights Act of 1964 to lock down the black vote. It didn’t matter to the populace that more Republicans then Democrats voted for it’s passage, or that Democratic senator’s were trying to fillibuster it. All that mattered was that Johnson signed it into law. So I think if by some disaster immigration reform gets through in the next congress, the Republicans will regain much of their standing among Hispanic voters (perhaps even gain a majority). Also, not all areas saw Hispanics vote in en masse for Democrats. The Florida Republican Party continues to show remarkable strength among Hispanics. Jeb Bush is so well loved in the Hispanic community, there’s absolutely no question in my mind that if he was “Jeb Smith” instead, he’d carry over 50% of the Hispanic vote nationwide and win with ease. Sigh. Too bad.
December 7th, 2006 at 11:16 pm
Oh c’mon Matt. The Dems did a little more than just happen to be in the WH when the Voting Rights Act was passed. There was a sustained committment to civil rights, dating back to Humphrey’s speech at the ’48 convention and carried through to the remarkable leadership of the Kennedy borthers and LBJ. Obviously this was carried out by only part of the party – but the Dems essentially decided that civil rights, and equality for black people was more important than holding their party together. So they marched ahead with eyes wide open, knowing that the souther conservatives would bolt to the opportunistic Republicans and give the Dems long term electoral grief. It is that principled adovoacy which won the enduring alliegance of black voters.
I agree with you that Bush will get a fair amount of credit in the Latino community if a decent immigration bill is passed, for he has fought for it even (especially) within his own party. But how will that translate to GOP candidates? Will Bush’s support rub off on the candidates, or Congressional republican negativity? Given that Bush will not be running, but Congressional republicans will be, there should be cause for worry.
In any case, this is just one of many issues (Iraq is a HUGE one) in which the GOP candidates are going to have to walk a real tightrope, in terms of how much support they are going to give Bush, or how far they are going to run away from him.
December 8th, 2006 at 2:51 pm
Wasn’t Brownback against the war from the begining?