McCain to run for president in '08

The problem with the GOP is that their coalition is breaking up. It can be reasembled, but it would take a master politician. The rightwing religious conservatives and the party's business wing will duke it out in the 08 primaries most likely. Whichever side wins will emerge injured and without the full support of the losing side. That's why the Democrats are in good shape. Plus, 2008 will be an election about issues they own- social security, healthcare, Iraq if we are still there (I will say right now that if we remain in Iraq through 2008, the GOP has no chance), and fiscal responsibility (assuming the Dems in congress don't give reason to doubt they will remain Clintonian on spending before in the time before 08).

As long as they don't nominate Hillary, Kerry, or some other well known but disliked politician they will win the presidency. It's not that the GOP has weak candidates, because they may actually have a better field than the Dems, it's just that they have serious issues with their coalition and with distrustful independents, who have become increasingly Democratic over the last three cycles. We may be seeing a sort of "Indycrat" realignment.
 
Irish Caesar said:
Odd that it places odds of Ahnold winning the nomination at 200-1, considering he isn't Constitutionally legal to be elected...
Well, according to the movie "Demolition Man", that will be changed with the 61st Amendment. :)

As far as McCain running, that should prove interesting. A straw poll linked to by some conservative blogs (yeah, I know how useless it is, but still...) shows McCain with a -36% "acceptability" rating (26% said he was acceptable, 62% said he was unacceptable).

The leaders on the poll, so far this month, are Gingrich and Guiliani.
 
If McCain wins the 2008 nomination, it would be the death for the Republican Party.
 
malclave said:
Well, according to the movie "Demolition Man", that will be changed with the 61st Amendment. :)

Well, as they've passed 27 so far...there will have to be quite a few in the next two years, to say the least.

;)

malclave said:
As far as McCain running, that should prove interesting. A straw poll linked to by some conservative blogs (yeah, I know how useless it is, but still...) shows McCain with a -36% "acceptability" rating (26% said he was acceptable, 62% said he was unacceptable).

Sounds about right. I've heard that early analysts figure the GOP primary will be McCain vs. the best "anti-McCain."

malclave said:
The leaders on the poll, so far this month, are Gingrich and Guiliani.

That's absurd. Newt's political career is over; Rudy isn't presidential material.

ThePhysicist said:
The problem with the GOP is that their coalition is breaking up. It can be reasembled, but it would take a master politician. The rightwing religious conservatives and the party's business wing will duke it out in the 08 primaries most likely. Whichever side wins will emerge injured and without the full support of the losing side. That's why the Democrats are in good shape. Plus, 2008 will be an election about issues they own- social security, healthcare, Iraq if we are still there (I will say right now that if we remain in Iraq through 2008, the GOP has no chance), and fiscal responsibility (assuming the Dems in congress don't give reason to doubt they will remain Clintonian on spending before in the time before 08).

As long as they don't nominate Hillary, Kerry, or some other well known but disliked politician they will win the presidency. It's not that the GOP has weak candidates, because they may actually have a better field than the Dems, it's just that they have serious issues with their coalition and with distrustful independents, who have become increasingly Democratic over the last three cycles. We may be seeing a sort of "Indycrat" realignment.

Exactly why my buddy Mitt is perfect. He's a businessman, socially conservative without being an evangelical Christian (or even a Protestant at all), and the Mass. healthcare plan will probably appeal to those nationwide who are more liberal on the healthcare issue. He's a complete Washington outsider, too, which is essential.
 
ThePhysicist said:
The problem with the GOP is that their coalition is breaking up. It can be reasembled, but it would take a master politician. The rightwing religious conservatives and the party's business wing will duke it out in the 08 primaries most likely. Whichever side wins will emerge injured and without the full support of the losing side. That's why the Democrats are in good shape. Plus, 2008 will be an election about issues they own- social security, healthcare, Iraq if we are still there (I will say right now that if we remain in Iraq through 2008, the GOP has no chance), and fiscal responsibility (assuming the Dems in congress don't give reason to doubt they will remain Clintonian on spending before in the time before 08).

As long as they don't nominate Hillary, Kerry, or some other well known but disliked politician they will win the presidency. It's not that the GOP has weak candidates, because they may actually have a better field than the Dems, it's just that they have serious issues with their coalition and with distrustful independents, who have become increasingly Democratic over the last three cycles. We may be seeing a sort of "Indycrat" realignment.

Very good comment! My thinking exactly.

Whoever the GOP candidate will be will have a big dilemma. The "base" i.e. evangelical Christians love Bush. However, everyone else, including the GOP business wing hate him - with a great deal of passion too. It's even worse than Clinton as Clinton was only hated by the far right not the independent and middle. Do they embrace Bush and his policies and legacy, thus gaining support from the evangelical Christians and alienating everyone else or do they stand away from Bush and the opposite happens? Either way they lose. Also if they stand away from Bush it will look like the party is in disunity (which is true) which tend to make voters very nervous and make them think "Hey since you're saying that your party's predecessor wasn't that great why should I give you a chance?". I don't think distancing himself from his predecessor worked that well for Al Gore. The GOP may need to wait a few electoral cycles and maybe 10+ years for voter's memories of Bush to fade...People often compare Bush to Reagan but it is looking like the strongest connection with Reagan may be that Bush destroyed Reagan's coalition.

My vote is for the religious side to win the 08 battle for the Republican soul. The religious side has a stranglehold on the Republican leadership now. My take on the conservative media is the level of despair needed for structural transformation is simply not there. They have not yet plumbed the depths of utter defeat electoral cycle after electoral cycle for any serious changes to be made. It's pretty much business as usual, a few scapegoats replaced by the same sort of people and what looks increasingly like an attempt to purify the party to be even *more* religious and ideological and impractical instead of concentrating on becoming more practical and concerned about the things people care about most (which is not gay marriage). What would probably happen is that the 08 battle for GOP nominee results in even more nasty Rovian tactics against the moderate GOP nominee and this would alienate moderate fiscally conservative GOP members even more. The GOP is nowhere near rock bottom yet. They will find there is still a long long way to fall. They might want to talk to the Tories from the UK. Hey there's even quite a few similarities in their circumstances. One of the chief reasons the Tories were driven out was because of sleaze. In the US it's corruption. One of the reasons why the Tories couldn't make a comeback for so many years was because they kept on putting forward politicians that played very well to their base but because they were so extremist to one POV couldn't appeal to anyone else in the country. That and the sleaze connotations...
 
No republican can win without the support of the religious right, that's just how it is. Romney, no chance. McCain, doubtful. Giuliani, very doubtful due to that whole adultery and pro-abortion stance.

Frankly, Republicans do best when they go full bore conservative unreservedly. It's when they start pandering to the left and center that they do poorly.
 
VRWCAgent said:
No republican can win without the support of the religious right, that's just how it is. Romney, no chance. McCain, doubtful. Giuliani, very doubtful due to that whole adultery and pro-abortion stance.

Frankly, Republicans do best when they go full bore conservative unreservedly. It's when they start pandering to the left and center that they do poorly.

Geez. Another Republican that just doesn't get it. The problem is not that the Republicans weren't conservative enough it is because they forgot to govern the country. Instead, spurred by the religious right, they spent all their time on foolish domestic and international ideological crusades.

To borrow a story from a book, an artist was once asked what the most difficult thing to draw artistically is - a dog or a demon. The artist said a dog. A demon, a fantastical mythical creature of legend is easy to draw in a way that inspires passion. However a dog, an ordinary everyday thing is hard to draw in a way that inspires passion. However it is the dog, the stuff of daily life, that affect people most and what makes life good. In this case the "dogs" are oversight to make sure corruption is kept in check, oversight so political sexual predators are kept in check, things like Katrina, immigration, balancing the budget, healthcare. Sure these things are not as exciting and exhilerating as say going on a domestic moral religous based crusade or freeing the world's oppressed masses (that live in oil rich areas) but it is the stuff that people are most concerned with. For years the GOP has chased the exciting ideological and religious demons and forget all about taking care of the boring financial and government dogs, as shown for example by the incompetence with Katrina. Iraq is also an example of what goes horribly wrong when you don't pay attention to details, don't pay attention to reality and generally expect reality to bend to your ideology rather than the other way round.

Basically what the last few years have revealed is the religious right are just as bad as hippies at actually governing a country. Both groups while on the opposite ends of the spectrum love to indulge in high-flown ideological/religious fantasies and crusades while completely forgetting about reality and the boring task of actually governing a country. Their heads are in the clouds and there's no connection with the earth. But it's so much more exciting going on a crusade while actually taking care of the yucky details and responsibility is so well, mundane. However it is the mundane boring issues that require grinding through, protracted negotiations and discussions, and well bureaucratic competency, oversight and efficient systems that ordinary people are mostly concerned with. The old-style Republicans i.e. the non-religous-right used to keep the GOP grounded in reality while the social conservatives provided the excitement and passion. However, since the balance was destroyed and the religious right gained complete ascendency in the GOP and became even more extreme and uncompromising as a result (power does that to people...) the GOP has become the party of flights of fancy and wistful dreams. Reality? Too boring for us! We have ourselves some demons to catch. Woohoo.

The only reason the GOP lasted as long as it did before it got kicked out was because for years now they have been living off the reputation of good governance and responsibility that the hard work of previous generations of conservatives generated. People had been giving them a break since "Hey they're Republicans. They can't possibily be like that." The thing is now people have realized the truth. That the Republican party that generated the reputation of dependability and stability are long gone. All there is is the right-wing version of hippies, and people who run away from the boring responsibilities of governance by joining wacko crusades. OK they are addicted to Jesus instead of dope, but same diff. What the Republican party needs is not more social conservatism. What it needs is for the Republicans to stop dreaming, roll up their sleeves and start doing some of the boring tedious frustrating work that comes with making sure a country is run efficiently: oversight, scrutiny, planning, details, negotiations etc.
 
Okay, so are you honestly suggesting that the GOP would win simply by divesting themselves of the religious right? They still have to answer for their insane monetary policies lately, which seem to make FDR look like a fiscal conservative.

Combining the two conservative wings, fiscal and social, is the best formula for GOP success.
 
VRWCAgent said:
Okay, so are you honestly suggesting that the GOP would win simply by divesting themselves of the religious right? They still have to answer for their insane monetary policies lately, which seem to make FDR look like a fiscal conservative.

Combining the two conservative wings, fiscal and social, is the best formula for GOP success.

No. However there needs to be a balance and in the last few years the balance has been completely destroyed. The religious right provides passion, excitement, moral guidance, direction. However, it needs to be grounded in actual reality. You know the boring details that actually bring about success and which affect people's lives most. As you said the GOP works when the two wings, fiscal and social are combined. *Not* when one wing completely dominates over the other. That is not a good thing in any social group, in any country, in any time. A GOP completely dominated by the fiscal conservatives probably wouldn't be that great either. The religious right when it is working well provides a measure of conscience to unbridled capitalism. Also the social support structures by the religious right are an important safety net for when the cold brutality of the fiscal conservatives create victims. Fiscal conservatism is great for reality but doesn't particularly nuture the soul either. Also in my opinion too much power always tends to bring out the worse side of groups of people. When compromise is necessary the good sides rather than the bad sides tend to come out more.
 
Gogf said:
I'll bet he wins it.

I doubt it. McCain is too moderate to really energize what is left of the GOP base, not to mention that the religious right won't support him nearly as well as they supported Bush. Combine that with the fact that anti-GOP sentiment is rampant and you have a candidate that's going nowhere.

In 2008 if McCain runs against Hillary or Obama the Dems would win for sure.
 
Used to like McCain until he got down on his knees for Bush a couple of times on issues that he supposedly felt strongly about.

I doubt he'd survive the primaries anyway. The fundies are almost guaranteed to chew him up and spit him out.
 
Narz said:
So, you're "pro war"? WWJD?

Pro-war in the sense that justice is sometimes brought by the bullet. I'm not sure anymore if the invasion of Iraq was a good idea, but now I'll support a pro-war candidate because they are brave enough to stick around to clean up their own messes instead of leaving Iraq in chaos.
 
i'd support McCain (his recent "compromises" w/Bush were a bit unsettling, though), but Feingold (for the Dems) would be better.
 
Il vote for him if nobody better comes up.

Hes the most moderate republican out there. Or so im told.
 
I think McCain could win in the general election (I would have voted for him in 2000), but he will never get the nomination. He is unacceptable to the activists within the party and those are the people who bother to vote in the primaries.
 
Uiler said:
While I believe that is true, I think you are being misleading. McCain will not lose the GOP Presidential nominee because he doesn't support fiscal responsibility and is unwilling to act against corruption and pork spending - in fact McCain is one of the people leading the charge against all these things. Instead of trying to be misleading with talking about fiscal responsibility why don't you come out and say the bald truth. McCain will lose the GOP nomination because he is not a religious extremist. It has absolutely nothing to do with fiscal responsibility or corruption or whether McCain himself is not personally religious. It solely lies with the fact that he is unwilling to go on a religious moral *crusade* and smite the "enemies" of Christ. Or maybe lust for the nomination will overcome his personal morals and he will start talking about moral crusades, in which case he may be able to win the GOP nomination but lose the election because to everyone else in the country the true matters that matter are fiscal responsibility and corruption and religious extremist GOP politicans don't have a good reputation for tackling either. "Damn McCain, he's just another one of those guys who will talk about gay marriage all the time and won't actually do anything about say corruption or the budget". The religious extremist GOP politicans have now been labelled with much of the same negative odor as the Democrats used to be - that is, too ideological, too impractical, too fiscally irresponsible, generally not someone you want to run your own household budget, let alone the country's. "Damn hippies. What do they know about reality?" is now joined by "Damn religious activists. What do they know about reality?"

The religious right should be *one* of the voices in the GOP tent, not the *only* voice that matters. This is why the GOP are going to lose. Just like the Democrats did in the past for the same reasons.
Translation: t3h rel1jus wri3t !$ t3h d3v11!!1!

:rolleyes:
 
Translation: t3h rel1jus wri3t !$ t3h d3v11!!1!
Well, it is. :p At least in terms of science.
 
Put it this way: if the Republicans don't nominate McCain or some other moderate, they'll lose in 2008 unless the Democrats run Kerry again. Including if the Democrats run Hillary Clinton.
 
I predict the Dems will end up with John Edwards or possibly Obama. I fear Obama would lose because of racism. Hillary has too may undeserved negatives and would lose, I think she might not run. Some unknown midwesterner like Vilsack might be good.
 
Back
Top Bottom