Centerfield

This is the first time I've heard that Kos has endorsed anybody for President in 2008, and I check the site daily. If anything, he's committed to keeping everybody's powder dry, we must not argue amongst ourselves, save our firepower for the GOP, etc.

For the record, I'm not happy with any of the top three candidates. Edwards has no power base, Obama doesn't have enough experience, and Hilary....

Well, she reminds me of the scene in The World According To Garp where Garp and his wife are looking for a new home; they're looking at a split level ranch when a biplane crashes into the side of the house. Garp grins at the smoking wreckage and says "Honey, we've got to buy this house now! It's already been pre-disasterized!"

That's how I feel. The GOP has already thrown at her everything it can throw at her, and she's not only survived it, but thrived on it. (Some of the time because the GOP goes over the top, like when her Rep. opponent tried to force her to sign the pledge during the debate, and ended up looking like he was mugging her.) After so many Dem candidates who look like deer in the headlights, it's good to see someone who will fight back.

So no, I haven't decided on anybody, and I don't believe Kos has either. But please, do tell us what exactly these mystery polls are, with names, dates and links.

Anyone who believes that a Republican can win in 2008 must be smoking crack. The only real question is whether the Democrats get to 60 seantors in 2008 or have to wait until 2010 to get there.

The real legacy of the current President Bush is that he will most likely be the last Republican President. Demographics were all going against the Republicans and the incompetence of President Bush has just sped the process up by 20 years.

Two words, Mathew. "Blue Dogs."

Unless she steps in front of a speeding locomotive, the Dem nomination is all Hillary's. You nailed it there--she's a machine.

The GOP nomination is more open, but at this point Romney is fading fast, leaving Giuliani and Thompson.

It looks to me like "make fewest mistakes" is the name of this election game. Clinton certainly doesn't make me happy, but she is screwing up least thus far. IF this continues (and there's a long time til 11/08), I see her winning both nomination and White House (against Guiliani, remember).

If the Democrats nominate Edwards, and the Republicans nominate anyone who isn't an obvious theocon or neocon, then the Republicans have a chance. But against Clinton or Obama (baring some massive flub on their part before the election), I just can't see an opening. Unless the Republicans come up with someone really, really different (Tommy Thompson, perhaps?).

Clinton may be polatizing. But at this point, anybody who is going to be polarized against her already has been. And last I looked, her negatives were still well below 50% -- and dropping.

As for Obama's lack of experience, I'm not sure that will hurt him all that much. He does lack foreign policy experience, but so have 4 of the last 5 Presidents. And while his lack of executive/management experience will hurt him some, I expect it won't be enough to put him at risk. How much executive experience did Lincoln have going in? Just to take one example -- although whether the Republicans can still claim to be "the Party of Lincoln" with a straight face is another question.

Starbaby,
You had alot to say about Obama some time back. Your elevation of Kos' clout is another mistake. Hillary entered their den and held her own. Hillary will win and I agree that if you think the Republicans are a walk to the White House in 2008 because of Billary's negatives, you must be smoking crack.

Rove is blasting Clinton. Good, that can only help her. Rudy? Take a peek at Foreign Affairs article next to Obama's. He won't take New York, or The East Coast. Many negatives will surface if Rudy wins the nomination. McCain will never run as VP. And don't count out Bloomberg should Rudy run. His record in NY is exaggerated, to say the least. He once thanked Clinton for those 100,000 cops and credited the Clinton economy for improving NYC. I'll leave the quotes until he wins the GOP over along with is logic for putting the command center in the WTC.

Max,

I did say that I don't believe Kos deserves as much credit as he is getting... read it again.

I am STILL a huge Barack Obama fan and I STILL believe he is the best the Democrats have to offer, out of the candidates that have a shot, but he simply hasn't run a very good campaign. It isn't over, but I am thinking Hillary Clinton is the George W. Bush and Bob Dole of this election... Her nomination appears to me to be inevitable.

Jean,

Don't get me wrong, I don't have a problem with a Hillary Clinton Presidency. I don't care for her personally, but I DO think she is smart, capable, and driven. I probably will be voting for her if the nominee of the Republican Party is not Giuliani or McCain. I simply cannot support Romney, and am leaning Clinton over Thompson. If moderate Republicans don't start voting for moderate Democrats over conservative Republicans, in my view, the GOP will continue to drift right. It may be in fact too late. Movements like the one Christie Whiman, Mike Steele, and John Danforth are trying to create have a long and difficult uphill battle.

I assume you art talking about my reference to national polls... I didn't think that was a controversial statement, but a pretty well known truth, but I will get your numbers.

Jean,

Here is a poll that has Clinton barely beating Giuliani.

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm

Here is one where McCain and Clinton are in a toss-up.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/clinton_and_mccain_still_in_toss_up_clinton_leads_romney_by_11

Here is one where Giuliani beats her by seven and also has Fred Thompson in a toss-up with her.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/in_surge_giuliani_now_tops_clinton_by_seven_points

If moderate Republicans don't start voting for moderate Democrats over conservative Republicans, in my view, the GOP will continue to drift right. It may be in fact too late.

It seems to me that what you describe is exactly what happened in 2006. One could say the same about the Democratic party and drifting left. The left wing has taken a centrist-based overall party win as approval of a left-wing agenda, and they're going to be sorely disappointed if they think that carries over into electing a left-wing president. Or holding those freshmen's seats if the GOP runs moderates instead of conservatives against those freshmen. The survivors there will be those freshmen Blue Dogs in swing districts who wisely avoided joining the wingnut Halellujah chorus.

Naturally, anyone nominated by the Dems will be pilloried as an extreme left-winger, whether they are or not. Ditto for the GOP going the other way. If I had to place a bet this far out on what the tickets will be, it would be Clinton/Richardson and Giuliani/Thompson. The VP ticket is always an "outreach" thing to some strong portion of the base. It also wouldn't surprise me to see Clinton go with Bredesen, despite his oft-stated lack of interest.

My thought exactly Tully and the Dems take Tenn, something Gore couldn't do. I originally thought Obama would be a good VP, but in a close national race, "outreach" might be a better idea. A DLCer might send the right signal after a Kosfest primary. Richardson will help NM go Blue anyway and I expect Obama will figure into a Clinton administration. If it does turn out to be a dog race between Obama and Clinton (I don't think so), then a Clinton/Obama ticket isn't out of the possible. Bill might sway Bredesen, despite his "nay".

I wonder if Republicans know Rudy's history as much as New Yorkers, I doubt either Fred or McCain would consider VP.

Starbuck ---- Had Obama listened to our earlier threads, maybe his numbers would be higher. He shot himself in his own foot.

Worrying about who the Republican nominates is pointless since none of the Republican candidates has a reasonsable chance to win.

The better question is what will a second Clinton adminsitration look like, who will be the key staffers, and who will be on the cabinet.

The other important question is whether the Democratic party gets 60 seats in the senate this time or has to wait until 2010.

"The real legacy of the current President Bush is that he will most likely be the last Republican President. Demographics were all going against the Republicans and the incompetence of President Bush has just sped the process up by 20 years."

"Worrying about who the Republican nominates is pointless since none of the Republican candidates has a reasonsable chance to win."

Man, that's a lot of hyperbole in two comments. Based on all the polls I've seen, it's unjustified hyperbole as well. Exactly what demographics are going against the Republicans?

I'd like to see Clinton v. Thompson. His awshucks attitude and her political savvy would be fun to watch in debates. I pretty much pay attention to politics now for the entertainment value only.

If you're waiting for him to say something intelligent, Scotch Drinker, get used to disappointment.

(This is my designated "Quote The Princess Bride day. It's a rich source of pithy, concise material.)

Glenn Reynolds has also decided that Bredesen is in the mix. Of course, Glenn lives in Tennessee and is a bit more familiar with Bredesen than most.

I find it interesting that so many folks are talking about how Democrats can't possibly fail to win the White House. This is the same talk that was heard in 2004, with the "anybody but W" effort. In the end, voters judge each candidate on their own.

In that regard, Obama would fail against a McCain or Giuliani. He would look like an intern against either of these men. Clinton could match them in a lot of ways, then the only question is whether she would polarize the GOP base enough to support a candidate they don't particularly care for (like a pro-choice Giuliani).

That's why I think the GOP will retake the White House.

Drinker,

Republicans only draw votes from middle class and upper middle class whites. Those two groups are getting smaller as a percentage of the population. since no other demographic group seems willing to ever vote for a Republican, it is just a matter of time when a majority of voters will be automatic Democratic voters.

When Republicans try to appeal to blacks or Hispanics all they do is lose white middle class voters without gaining any minority votes.

The current front runners for the Republican nomination are all potential disasters. All have too many skeletons to make it in the general election. Clinton will eventually win in a rout verusus any of the Republican nominees.

There is not a single state that Kerry carried in 2004 that the Democrats have to worry about. Yet, the Republicans will probably lose Ohio, Colorado, Iowa, New Mexico, and maybe Virginia.

The 2008 election will be a rout and the dialy tracking polls will ensure that everyone know it by Labor Day.

Amazing. There are no non-white Republicans. No GOP voters who aren't at least middle class.

Someone needs some study in remedial demographics.

Blacks vote over 90% for Democrats. Hispanics vote at the 75% level for Democrats. Asian-Americans vote at the 65% level for Democrats. Jews vote at the 90% level for Democrats.

The only groups that vote more than 50% for Republicans are middle class and upper middle class white. Note that the richest Americans are about as Democratic as Hispanics.

So the problem that the Republicans face is how to either attract Hispanic and black voters without losing its white, middle class base or how to increase the percentage of whites who vote Republican.

President Bush has managed to alienate many upper middle class white from the Republican party. that is why the Republican party is failing faster than due to demographic changes alone.

I love the semell of wingnuttery. It smells like...Koolaid. You seem to assume that the worst historical figures ever for partisan share among groups (and old ones at that) are set in stone, when it ain't so. In fact, it's been changing constantly in the GOP's direction. Not that it couldn't turn around, but you're deluding yourself if you think the electorate is static.

Bush took 12% of the national black vote in 2004, a particularly contentious year, up from 8% in 2000. 16% in Ohio, 14% in Florida. He took 56% of the Florida Hispanic vote that year, and 44% of it nationwide, a boost from 30% in the previous election. Also notable was that the percentage of blacks with household incomes of $60,000 or greater who supported Bush increased from 7.7 percent to 22.4 percent. The percentage of self-described black Christian conservatives voting for Bush rose from 11 percent to 36 percent.

Likewise, GOP support among Hispanic voters has risen considerably among demographics subgroups defined by marriage, income, and religion.

And in any case, in overall numbers the white non-Hispanic vote is over 2/3rds of the population, and well over 75% of the voting electorate. From another angle, the GOP rules among married families, especially married families with children.

Guess Dems better get to work on keeping minorities poor, unmarried, and without religion if you want your figures to be accurate. And increase the numbers of them, too. Which does kind of explain the Dem party's love of illegal immigration.

My numbers for ethnic voting come from the 2006 election cycle. You are the one going back to older times and trying to make it seem that all Hispanic voters will behave like Cubans in Florida instead of like mexicans in California.

As the Hispanic and black population grows faster than the white population, the Republicans are faced with the challenge of increasing the percentage of white who vote Republican with each election cycle.

It sounds really pathetic to present the face that 22% of black households with incomes over $60K vote Republican as a good news story.

Anytime a candidate gets less than 45% of any bloc, that candidate is being routed. The Republicans are routed in every category except middle class whites. And they will continue to be routed.

Ask yourself what is more likely: That the Republicans can become the majority party in California again or that national politics will begin to resemble Chicago City politics. My guess is that the Chicago City politics is a much more likely scenerio.

My numbers for ethnic voting come from the 2006 election cycle.

Really? Cite sources. I use Zogby and Rasmussen Reports, among others. I do political demography for a living. Racial demographic shifts played little part in the 2006 cycle, which had a lot more to do with conservative grandstanding on social issues and corruption and "do-nothing" incumbents. (That's a polite way of saying you're trying to BS the wrong person.)

Amalgamating local election figures from an off-year Congressional cycle into some kind of claim of overall lasting long-term partisan supremacy based on racial demogrphics is downright absurd. Presidential election years are the only time you get close to measuring national sway from a single cycle. To use Congressional elections as data indicators you have to use a three-cycle minimum to even begin a long-term trend assessment.

And the most recent long-term trend assessments indicate that minorities are "softening" considerably on the Democratic Party. Probably because the party hasn't done a darn thing for them in years, whereas the GOP has been increasingly running minority candidates. In addition, minority candidates running as Democrats in local races are increasingly moderate to centrist, even "Blue Dog" Dem Conservative. The farther to the left the Dems run, the more districts they will lose IF the GOP runs moderates in those districts. Period. Likewise going the other way--the GOP's habit of pushing conservatives through the primaries in swing districts bites them almost every time.

Using single-cycle figures rather than trends is mindless unless you know exactly WHICH districts were in play, and what the demography of them was. For example, in the TX 28th the Hispanic vote went 100% Democrat in 2006, because there was no GOP candidate. But the centrist candidate won the primary, defeating the MoveOn liberal, and faced no real opposition in the general. On a partisan take, the district was simply not in play.

If blacks and Hispanics are softening on the Democratic party, they have an odd way of showing it. I looked at the cnn.com data.

Still, you are not even so bold to believe that blacks and hispanics are going to vote for Republicans. You skirt the issue by saying that the members of the Congressional Black Caucus or La Raza are really closet moderates. I find that extremely unlikely.

You seem to be making the same arguments that Karl Rove was making. Reality has shown them to be totally wrong. Every time the Republicans try to appeal to black and Hispanics, they do nothing but lose white votes. Running inept candidates like Steele in Maryland or Swann in PA shows had badly the Republican are when addressing non-middle class whites.

The Democrats can go left becasue blacks and hispanics will keep voting for them in Presidential and Senatorial election no matter their stances on the policies. The CBC and Hispanic caucus will still be overwhelmingly Democratic. Even in Texas, Bush did not get 50% of the Hispanic vote.

Remember, if blacks and Hispanics turned out to vote at the same rate as whites, the Republicans would be an irrelevent political party today. All that has kept the Republicans going is that middle class whites turn out to vote better than blacks, hispanics, asians, or 20 somethings.

You still have not explained how the Republicans can become the majority party in California again. Until you can, the idea that the republican can remain viable is a dream.

Still, you are not even so bold to believe that blacks and hispanics are going to vote for Republicans. You skirt the issue by saying that the members of the Congressional Black Caucus or La Raza are really closet moderates.

Funny, I've actually helped blacks and Hispanics run as Republicans in Dem districts--and win. They didn't win by running to the right. I've also helped elect black Democrats in white GOP districts. They sure didn't win by running to the left. I'm not skirting the issue, and I never said what you dishonestly attribute to me.

If all you can do is lie and rant, honk thee off elsewhere.

Considering that there are no black Republicans in the House or Senate, the claim that you have helped blacks win seems a little empty. Unless you are willing to name names, the claims are without merit.

And for the third time, please explain how the Republicans will become the majority political party in California again. Unless you can describe a reasonable scenerio where that will happen, all the Rovian talk about how Republicans can appeal to minorities is empty.

Considering that there are no black Republicans in the House or Senate, the claim that you have helped blacks win seems a little empty. Unless you are willing to name names, the claims are without merit.

Your complete ignorance of civics and total lack of knowledge concerning the existence of many thousands of elective offices in this nation that are not part of the federal government does not speak well of you. Nor do I go talking about current clients and their affairs. However, of federal-level candidates no longer in office, I have done campaign work for JC Watts and Dan Glickman, among others. That would be a black Republican Congressman elected four times from very white Oklahoma and a Jewish Democrat elected nine times from the very GOP Christian section of Kansas. (Why yes, I have been doing this a long time.)

And for the third time, please explain how the Republicans will become the majority political party in California again.

For the first time, since you're apparently too dense to catch a clue, I've never at any time said a single word about Republicans taking over California. Your repeated inept and moronic strawman construction is another prime indicator of a complete lack of willingness to engage in honest dialogue. Or that may be a complete inability to do so. Or a complete lack of intention. In any case, you've just about entered "abuse freely, mindless wingnut and/or intentional troll" territory by insisting on being stupid.

So surprise me. Say something intelligent. Something that indicates you're not just another partisan cheerleading troll, and are capable of adult conversation and coherent cogitation.

somehow, it always happens that when people talk about black Republicans, the name of J.C. Watts always comes up. Of course, he is the exception that proves the rule. The only place a black Republican is going to get elected is in the safest, whites, most middle class district in the reddest of states. It also helped that J.C. Watts already had huge name recognition and was elected in 1994 during the Gingrich Revolution.

I look for a list of state reps who are blacks. I found http://www.nationalblackrepublicans.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=pages.Black%20GOP%20Elected%20Officials&x=9089333.
It is a very short list.

I use California as the model since the demographics of the rest of the U.S. is slowly moving toward what current exist in California. Thus, for all of those who claim that the Repubulicans can make a come back if they just pander enough to Hispanics and blacks, I always ask if they think that the Republicans can make a comeback in California.

Unlike political operatives, I do not believe that there is a strategy, a plan, or a campaign pitch that is every going to get blacks and Hispanics to vote for Republican more than they do know.

The Republican party could come out for Racial Reparations, Affirmative Action, and hard race based quotas, and the percentage of blacks who vote Republican would barely increase. However, the number of whites who would abandon the Republican would be massive.

The Republicans are trapped in a demographic trap. It costs them two or three white voters for every black or hispanic voter that they can get. In the long run, no political party can sustain that.

The most likely scenerio for national politics can be seen in places like California, Maryland, Mass. In such areas there is an insignificant Republican party that has virtually no effect on long term policy and the Democrats always get what they want.

In the long run, the middle class whites who currently support the Republicans will realize that they only way to affect politics will be to become active in the Democratic Primary and to vote in it.

That's more coherent. (Mistaken, IMH and professional O, but coherent.) I thank you for dropping the straw men for the nonce.

The most likely scenerio for national politics can be seen in places like California, Maryland, Mass. In such areas there is an insignificant Republican party that has virtually no effect on long term policy and the Democrats always get what they want.

Remember that all politics is ultimately local. National trends have been trumpeted again and again throughout our nation's history, only to fade away in the light of current events. Remember that until the 1960's blacks voted overwhelmingly GOP, something that changed when the Nixon-era GOP implemented the "Southern strategy" of courting the Blue Dog factions of the Democrats, after LBJ infuriated southern Dems by pushing through the Civil Rights Act.

California--what party is the governor? What direction is the trend in presidential elections by party vote share since 1984? Hmm. And isn't CA the state trying to change their electoral-vote system from winner-take-all to proportional-by-district-vote, aka the Maine/Nebraska plan? Under current conditions, which party would that benefit most? (Hint: Think "elephant.")

Maryland--wasn't Ehrlich a Republican? Who defeated a Kennedy for the office, no less? And had a black Republican Lt Guv? Clearly, no Republicans can be elected in Maryland...

Massachussets--Gee, who is that Romney guy, who left the Guv's office to run for Prez? Didn't he implement universal health care coverage in MA? And what ticket is he running for again? Was it Libertarian? No.....

Point being that you're making extremely questionable assumptions about static partisanship among minorities being THE determinative factor in elections nationwide, and an increasing one, and those assumptions just don't hold up in the face of the evidence. Those loyalties can and do swing, based on events and on other socio-demographic factors. Like religion and marital status and children-in-household.

The operating principle of politics remains "What have you done for me lately?" lately, the Dems have mostly been annoying some parts of their base, taking them for granted in order to please other parts of their base who have conflicting agendas. That's an inherent problem in the Dem party, a structural one, as it's more ideologically complex than the GOP, composed of far more (and smaller) factions, all of whom have differing agendas. Diversity is not always a good thing in that sense. It undermines unity.

Florida Hispanics, for example, lean heavily Republican because of the high percentage of Hispanic refugees from central and south American dictatorships--dictators that are oft-visibly coddled and lionized by Democrats. Not a lot of pro-Dem sentiment in Little Havana. Evangelical blacks lean increasingly GOP, as do doctrinal Catholic and evangelical Hispanics, because the Dems are perceived as being hostile to religion. Married families with children of all races have much higher GOP affiliation than said ethnicities considered as ethnic groups alone. Religious married families with children even more so. And so on.

Similarly with Jewish voters, whose loyalty to voting Democrat you've seriously overestimated. While in 2004 party self-identification among Jews was roughly 74%/Dem/19% GOP, the actual voting patterns are much more independent and pliable. The Jewish vote was a wee bit over 10% GOP/90% Democrat. In fact, it was more like 40% GOP/55% Democrat. The swing factor there was the importance of Iraq and Israel.

Certain far-left Dem faction's close relationships and support with and support of the Palestinians also does not go unnoticed.

In short, a simplistic view of ethnic populations as being permanently wedded to one party is not justified. Life is more complex than that, and history shows it. It's a useful tool for short-term strategizing, but in long-term planning it will bite you in the assumption.

Meant to add--it's a long-time tradition in the much of the country to register for the opposing party and vote for their most objectionable candidate in the primary, thereby boosting the odds for YOUR party's primary winner. Nothing new there.

OK, boys, break it up, break it up! Geeze, I go away for a few days and find you guys going at it like cats and dogs. Yeah, I know you were having fun; it's always fun until somebody dies. ;-)

Meant to add--it's a long-time tradition in the much of the country to register for the opposing party and vote for their most objectionable candidate in the primary, thereby boosting the odds for YOUR party's primary winner. Nothing new there.

Hmmm...so that explains why McCain lost the 2000 Southern primaries to W, when McCain would have made a much better President (and a much tougher general election opponent.)

I had a Kansas friend who was a solid Green, but she was a registered Republican; she had the opposite strategy. She said she always voted in the primaries for the least offensive one, since the Republican nominee was going to win anyway.

You're sweet to explain, SR, but I never thought that you personally hated Hillary; just that a lot of GOPers go overboard about her, and that ends up helping her, not hurting her. As one Dem friend of mine said "They've spent the last fifteen years calling her a ballbreaking bitch; she's probably the only candidate they can't stereotype as a girly man."

Myself, I find the Rudy/Hillary debate fascinating, since she's probably the most conservative Dem, and he's the most liberal Rep, more liberal than she is in many areas. Scotch Drinker is right; it would make great TV. (If he was running for the Dem nod, I'd probably vote for him over her.) That's why he won't be the GOP nominee. However, Amanda Marcotte agrees with you.

BTW, super, (may I call you super?) Tully is right that skin color isn't destiny when it comes to voting patterns. African Americans voted Republican (except for FDR, and Truman) up until JFK's and Lyndon Johnson's civil rights work. That's about the time Nixon's "Southern Strategy" kicked in, and the rest is history.

However, you're right that the GOP will have to do more to appeal to black voters, especially after Katrina. But political parties are like your screen name; it takes time to turn them. It will take a few defeats to turn the GOP away from its SS.

And then PK Winmore's job will be much easier. ;-)

I had a Kansas friend who was a solid Green, but she was a registered Republican; she had the opposite strategy. She said she always voted in the primaries for the least offensive one, since the Republican nominee was going to win anyway.

She must have felt really stupid the last couple of governor's races when Sebelius won, with assumptions like that. And last year's AG race... ;-) Bet she voted for my guy in the primary the AG race before that. Then again, it's not as if there were anyone other than Sebelius to vote for in the Dem primary.

I sneer--but I vote for the least offensive Republican in the primary also, when it's my turn to be the Republican. (We swap parties in my house so that we get one ballot in each primary, and everyone's mailings...)

I've always said about Hillary that you can love her or hate her, but do not ever underestimate her. She's likely the most able political infighter on the scene today. She is tough as nails, meaner than the proverbial junkyard dog, and as sharp as can be. And yes, she is the least leftist of all the Democratic candidates out there, except maybe for Edwards. I don't think Edwards actually has any ideology at all other than ME ME ME!

Unless she actually gets elected, and then like her husband before her she will automatically become a far-left commie in the eyes of screaming right-wing partisans. Just as her husband did, and just as Bush miraculously went to the right of Newt Gingrich in some eyes upon taking that oath.

I'm taking no bets and giving no odds on the race at this early stage. LOOOOOONG time until next November. But if forced to make a forecast, I'd still be picking it as Giuliani versus Clinton.