The 2008 Presidential Election

[Ugly Bastard]

I didn't want to hijack GDubs' Recommended Reads thread for further discussion on this, so here is a new thread. I figure this will get a lot of discussion over the next two years anyway.

At the time of this post, TradeSports has John McCain with the best odds of becoming our next President. (TradeSports Presidential Election odds link here; I'm not sure how long that URL will take you to the election page, but I pretty much regard TradeSports as the best guide for who has the best chance of being elected; always follow the money). McCain's current odds are around 30%. I want to make a prediction now and say that he won't be our next President. There's probably at least a 40% chance he wins the GOP nomination, but I think ultimately his age (he'd be 72 I believe in 2008) and his health (history of cancerous cells on skin, etc) will be enough to keep America from giving him the nod. On top of all of this, the Republicans might have a real hard time winning the next election depending on how Bush concludes his final two years. The party seems to be doing a good job of seperating themselves from the Bush Administration which is crucial for their chances of winning. In general the GOP does an amazing job during campaigning anyway by focusing on hot-button emotion-based dumb-Christian issues that don't really matter for shit after the election is over (gays, abortion, etc). All of this being said, if the GOP must win the next election, I, for one, would probably be fine with it being a moderate like McCain.

As far as the Dems go, at the time of this post, Hilary Clinton is a 28% shot to win the Presidency. Obama second at 12.5%. As of right now Obama is far and away the guy I want to see in office next, but there's still a long way to go before I should be getting my hopes up. I'd probably be fine with Clinton too; really anyone who is genuinely smart would be a nice change from what we have right now, and I'm pretty sure Clinton is smart as shit. The whole idea of America going Father-Husband-Son-Wife over the course of 24-28 years makes me kinda wanna puke though; I predict that as one of the main reasons I'll ultimately be unlikely to vote Hilary in the primaries.

Okay enough rambling for now. I'll enjoy reading this post in two years to see if the names and percentages mentioned seem comical at that time.

(Others not mentioned):

Giuliani - 12%
Romey - 6.5%
Gore - 6.0%
Edwards - 4.2%
Party that wins - Dems 50%, GOP 47%, other 3%.

[DJ FC]

The GOP will win if the dems keep promoting candidates like Kerry and Hilary Clinton... they can't win.

To put this in perspective: I am a republican, because I believe that the republican party can still be saved and the libertarian party is still too out-of-touch and extreme. If there was a strong libertarian party I'd probably be right there with them. But if you can't beat em, join em, and as far as I'm concerned the economy is much more important than anything else and people in America do not appreciate just how good it is to live in a country with a strong economy. Employment, a sound currency, no nationalization, the potential to succeed. America has it all, and I think republicans would like to preserve our economy more (a bit more) than democrats. Just my personal views.

Now, on to the good stuff:

As far as electability goes I think the Republicans have a striking advantage. Hilary Clinton pisses off half the nation, is a woman (even some democratic groups - african americans for example, will not willingly support a woman), and will fire up just as much opposition as support. She certainly will energize her base, and if she was in the running we'd probably have one of the greatest voter turnouts ever, but 100% of republicans would be against her, and even some democrats would as well.

Hilary may be smart, but she is also very liberal and would most likely wreak havoc on our economy if given the chance to help 10 poor inner-city kids. Don't get me wrong, repubs do this shiz all the time, spend too much money, make war. But they usually don't recklessly raise taxes, cut incentives for investment, and redistribute wealth.

Obama - the young, liberal, and art student choice. He's hip, He's got a cool name. He's black. The thing with attracting young people is that they don't turn out to vote, even when they deeply (or say they deeply) care about an issue. Many people will say he's untested, and too young for the job. I don't even think he's that young, he just appears to be so from the public's perspective. Obama would stand a good chance if the GOP picks a wrong candidate.

McCain - very electable. Nice guy, people don't realize how conservative he really is. They just see a war vet.

Giuliani - very, very electable. In my oppinion one of the most likely to get the position. A lot of the public don't even identify him as a conservative, and if he would run against Hilary Clinton or someone as liberal, the election would be a landslide in his favor. The GOP should recognize his ability to attract those from the other side.

But: What may happen is this: the GOP may think (as I think) that the dems are putting up a bunch of unelectable crap like they did with Kerry, in which case they will put up the most conservative candidate possible, in which case we get another Bush.

[f3lix]

Nice post, UB.

I agree that McCain probably is in a really tough spot to win the presidency. He got his chance in 2000, but couldn't finish the job against Bush. His age is somewhat in question, but he'll only be 3 years older than Reagan when Reagan took office in 1980. He's the leading GOP guy, but I can see him getting snuffed again.

Hilary... What to say about her... I honestly believe more people will vote AGAINST her than FOR her. She strikes a lot of nerves with many factions of the Dems, and scares the shit out of all other parties. I just don't see her maniacle and aggressive methods winning the presidency.

Obama - Arguably the most likeable democrat. His popularity is much larger to the right than any other democrat. He's got a shot and would likely be the first major party guy that I'd support for the presidency.

Evan Bayh - A wild card. He thought he was doing all the right things by going to Iowa every month, but now with Iowa's Governor declaring his bid, the Iowa caucus will likely be tainted and not be used as a respectable quota for the Dems to trust. Bayh is very likeable to the middle-grounders, as well. He might, however, but too conservative for the dems to support.

Overall, the likely winner of the presidency would be the most neutral/middle candidate, as they tend to pull enough of the votes from the other side to win. It will be an interesting race, no doubt.

[Ugly Bastard]

I have beef with a couple of the comments GDubs made.

1.) Obama currently has antichrist-like popularity. To suggest that he is really only attractive to "young people who won't vote" discounts the fact that he seems appealing to a wide range of demographics: blacks (obv), minorities (obv), liberals, moderates, smart people (smart people vote), etc. I guess one group he definitely won't appeal to will be white trash republicans (and admittedly they are massive in number and do tend to vote) who wouldn't vote democrat anyway, especially if the candidate was a "smarty art nigger".

2.) I'm glad you threw in that "(a bit more)" line, because I was starting to think you put too much stock into how much the economy is affected by the winning party in the Presidential election. I don't want to get into an economical debate with you, because you come across as knowing a lot on the subject, and I know I don't know shit about it, but my instincts tell me you might be overplaying the "republicans are great for the economy and the economy is all that matters" card as a defense for your seemingly undying (perhaps blind?) support for a party that is currently hated by quite a great deal of this country (see: last month's elections).

3.) To suggest that Clinton and Obama are "unelectable crap" seems pretty biased to me. If anything I'm not sure the Democrats have had anything to be this excited about since Bobby Kennedy.

[ninjaface]

I'm voting for Bush.

[DJ FC]

Originally Posted by f3lix

Hilary... What to say about her... I honestly believe more people will vote AGAINST her than FOR her.

Exactly

[SittinOnDubsWGW]

I think that it should be a pretty interesting election. I agree with what a lot of GW posted as well as what UB replied to in his second post.

As stated above, the GOP will definitely have to distance itself from the Bush administration and it was said that is being done currently (admittedly, I'm not very current in the presidential candidacy at the moment). I think as seen from the recent voting turnout, it's obvious that Dems have a pretty strong chance this year.

However, with Obama and Clinton being #1 and #2 as potential candidates for the Democratic party, it will be interesting to see how many people are willing to vote for minority leaders (Black and Woman obiously). I think a lot of people would not vote for them simply based on that alone. I think that Obama has a better shot than Hillary at the position.

It will definitely be interesting to read this post in a couple years to see if we were way off, or semi-close to reality.

[DJ FC]

Originally Posted by Ugly Bastard

To suggest that Clinton and Obama are "unelectable crap" seems pretty biased to me. If anything I'm not sure the Democrats have had anything to be this excited about since Bobby Kennedy.

Not biased at all. Bayh is completely electable and of all the candidates mentioned would stand the best chance of winning the election if given the democratic nomination. But our two-party system is one big clusterfuck of game theory, and the masses don't understand game theory very well. The dems need to nominate someone like Bayh and the other guys need someone like Giuliani if they really want to win.

But if the dems nominate someone like Clinton, the GOP could probably nominate someone like Bush again and still win, because of such strong oposition.

Bush shouldn't have been elected. But when your oposition is John Kerry how can you not get elected. Only this time the dems are going the other way... instead of a "non" candidate, they are putting up super "hippy" picks like Clinton instead of Bayh and it's a damn shame.

At least the GOP hasn't figgured it out and thus far all the GOP candidates look pretty solid and I wouldn't mind any of them, especially Giuliani... executive experience is underrated.

[Beebs]

I agree Bayh would stand a good shot, if a Dem can be loved in Indiana, he can be loved anywhere.

[Heaven Can Wait]

Libertarian's for the win?

[DJ FC]

Originally Posted by Heaven Can Wait

Libertarian's for the win?

The problem with libertarians (and political parties in general) is that its too easy to join and be a member. Libertarians are some of the smartest people I've ever met, and some of the most stupid/ignorant/extreme as well. It's a crapshoot with Libertarians. I'd be one myself if they were all the smart kind, the kind that understands that there is a point where extreme idealism must give in to reality.

[Heaven Can Wait]

Knowing nothing of american politics, is throwing your vote away effective?

http://www.pennfans.net/view/Video_A...Penn_Jillette/
Pretty good interview on the suject, im pretty sure the majority of my posts are on penn and teller heh.

[Cocktooth]

Im voting Hilary...Are you sure she is allowed to serve another term? She already served 2....Oh me and my political humor

[SittinOnDubsWGW]

Originally Posted by George W. Bush

The problem with libertarians (and political parties in general) is that its too easy to join and be a member. Libertarians are some of the smartest people I've ever met, and some of the most stupid/ignorant/extreme as well. It's a crapshoot with Libertarians. I'd be one myself if they were all the smart kind, the kind that understands that there is a point where extreme idealism must give in to reality.

This is oh so very true. I hope that in my lifetime this will happen and a solid third party candidate could get elected.

As stated above Bayh is a very solid candidate as well.

[f3lix]

It truly amazes me how many people claim to support libertarians and then don't vote for them in elections. If everybody who claimed to suppor them actually voted for them, they'd take enough votes to be considered a serious candidate and a true threat. From there, more voters would take them seriously and they'd become an actual force in politics. But until people actually vote for who they want instead of thinking their vote is "wasted", this countries policital spectrum will not change.

[theMerciless1]

i'm gonna have to watch the commercials to decide.

[BigDongedHoe]

To be quite honest I'm usually not big on politics, I understand the core ideaologies for the most part and that usually sways my vote more conservative. Coming from an uneducated voter (who I'd say make up 70-80% of voters) I see absolutely no way Clinton could ever win. I also have to agree that Evan Bayh could sway enough of the conservative vote to win an election, but as mentioned the Democrats don't seem to be pushing him to hard.

I'll be really interested in the 2008 more than any other year to see who runs against who and actually pay attention to their arguements. It might be the first year I don't vote republican on a ticket just because.

[DJ FC]

Bayh Decides Not to Run
In 2008 Presidential Race
Associated Press
December 16, 2006 1:38 p.m.

WASHINGTON -- Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana will not seek the presidency in 2008, saying he believes the odds of a successful run were too great to overcome.

"At the end of the day, I concluded that due to circumstances beyond our control the odds were longer than I felt I could responsibly pursue," Sen. Bayh told the Indianapolis Star. "This path -- and these long odds -- would have required me to be essentially absent from the Senate for the next year instead of working to help the people of my state and the nation."

The announcement comes just three weeks after Sen. Bayh, in an appearance on a Sunday talk show, announced that he would take a first step toward a 2008 presidential campaign, forming an exploratory committee. His decision narrows a field dominated by Whites House hopefuls, Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois.
ust last weekend, Sen. Bayh traveled to New Hampshire, the early presidential primary state, but his appearance was barely noticed as Mr. Obama delivered two speeches to sold-out crowds and drew hordes of media.

Sen. Bayh is a Democrat with a record of political success in a Republican-leaning state. He had been pointing toward a run for the White House for months, and had $10.5 million in his Senate campaign bank account as of Sept. 30. Money that could be transferred to his exploratory committee.

In addition, the senator recently hired his first paid organizer for Iowa, the state whose caucuses will be the opening competition of the campaign.

Among the announced Democratic candidates are Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack and Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich, but Clinton and Obama loom large in a potential field that also could include 2004 vice presidential nominee John Edwards and former Sens. John Kerry of Massachusetts, Joe Biden of Delaware and Chris Dodd of Connecticut. The Republican lineup is equally crowded with Sen. John McCain of Arizona, former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani and Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

As a member of the Senate Intelligence and Armed Services committees, Sen. Bayh was one of the first Democrats to support military action in Iraq. But in December 2005, he changed his position, saying he would not have supported legislation authorizing the invasion if the facts the Bush administration used to support the move had been presented to him accurately.

Sen. Bayh, 50, has charted a centrist's course throughout his political career, including two terms as governor and eight years in the Senate. He also has served as chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council, which is a prominent voice for moderation within the party, and has helped establish the centrist New Democrat Coalition.

Elected governor in 1988, he was the first Democrat in 20 years to hold that office and -- at 33 -- the youngest state chief executive in the United States.

Sen. Bayh was often referred to as a "Republicrat" who courted the middle. He never raised taxes and he left office with a humming state economy, low unemployment and a record budget surplus.

His approval rating was an astonishing 79% in a state that hasn't voted for a Democratic presidential nominee since Lyndon Johnson's 1964 landslide.

He drew national notice, too, as his tenure neared an end. Sen. Bayh was tapped to give the keynote address at the 1996 Democratic National Convention.

He was elected to the Senate two years later.

In recent years, Mr. Bayh voted against confirmation of Chief Justice John Roberts as well as Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito; opposed legislation to open a portion of an Arctic wildlife refuge to oil drilling; supported a comprehensive immigration bill that included a path to citizenship for millions of men and women in the country illegally.

Sen. Bayh is the son of Birch Bayh, who won three terms in the Senate from Indiana before losing his seat to Dan Quayle in the Republican landslide of 1980.

Copyright © 2006 Associated Press

.

[Ugly Bastard]

Sweet. I never did like that cocksucker. Barack Obama is going to be our next President and that really excites me.

[BigDongedHoe]

I've been researching my political views and getting a better understanding of politics lately. Its been the first time in my life that politics have become more interesting and to really find out my views on issues has revealed a lot to me. It turns out that I'm socially liberal and economically conservative(which I already knew), which would put me in line with Libertarians. After finding that out I started to really research out what exactly a Libertarian is and it turns out that I'm a very strong Libertarian.

With that being said after re-reading this thread as FC says "if you can't beat em', join em'." I cannot forsee a libertarian president and since the economy is more important to me than anything else I will stick with my conservative voting. It was really interesting for me to go through and really research out political views though.

[f3lix]

Originally Posted by BigDongedHoe

it turns out that I'm a very strong Libertarian.

"if you can't beat em', join em'." I cannot forsee a libertarian president and I will stick with my conservative voting.

Once again, why Libertarians will not take office in this country, too many fuckheads won't vote with their fucking brain.

[DJ FC]

Originally Posted by f3lix

Once again, why Libertarians will not take office in this country, too many fuckheads won't vote with their fucking brain.

Read my post again. I didn't say I wish to support Libertarians. I said there aren't enough practical Libertarians and it's too dificult to sort them out. I'm Libertarian idealogically, but the candidates I'd support are too smart to run for political office.

[BigDongedHoe]

f3lix I understand what you're saying but at the sametime what is the point in supporting a lost cause. Since Republican is really "the next best thing" for me why not vote that way when it will actually count for something?

[Beebs]

Originally Posted by BigDongedHoe

f3lix I understand what you're saying but at the sametime what is the point in supporting a lost cause. Since Republican is really "the next best thing" for me why not vote that way when it will actually count for something?

Well it can count for something even if your guy loses terribly, it will raise the percentage of your demographic voting, so candidates will feel that much more inclined to pander to your demographic. Issues wise it would work the same way, both of the major parties see you as a vote that can be won over and will pander that much more to the beliefs of the people you are voting for in the hope to win you over.