Countering the Dems
 

I generally don't get heavily into politics, but my mom and I were discussing this the other day...

Since the Dems generally name their candidate before the Republicans, should the Republicans feel obligated to present a candidate who would "counterbalance" the Democratic candidate?

For example, if the Dems pick Clinton, since she's pretty far left, the Republicans could probably get away with putting up a candidate who's a little farther to the right than if the Dems pick Obama. However, it might be wise for the Republicans to pick someone like Rudy, who could pull in the centerist votes.

I know there's a million '08 threads already, but most of them seem to have made their way to the Obama/Clinton debate and sort of stuck there.

A lot of people are ready on call the election for whomever the Democrats run, simply because of the dismal polls on President Bush.

Personally, I think that the Dems could be in a real bind if Clinton and Obama remain the front runners.

Overlooking liberal vs. conservative, one is a woman and one is black.

As sad as the question is, is the American voting public ready for either?

I hope so, but I'm not sure.

OP,

Republicans typically nominate who they want, not someone they think will "beat" the Democrats. It is more than 15 months to the general election there's alot of things that could happen between now and then.

That's my general understanding, but I wonder if that's the wisest thing for them to do...

For the record, every "political" quiz, etc I've taken has me moderate conservate, or stongly libertarian (when that's an option)....but really, my main "issues" are abortion and immigration reform. It wouldn't bother me if they legalized gay marriage. I don't have an opinion on gun control, because it seems a dammed if you do, dammed if you don't argument. I'm in a middle class tax bracket, so most tax issues don't have much to do with me (although I'm all for privatizing retirement, as Social Security probably won't be there by the time I'm old enough, so I'm just paying out money that I could be putting in my own 401k).

Every poll I've seen on the subject suggests that individually, most people are open to voting for either a female or a black candiate (or both) but that, like you, many don't think that other people or "America" will do it. Are we just cynics?

I think there might be a lot of people who won't vote for those particular two, and I'll be prepared for a lot of accusations of sexism or racism if they fail to be elected.

But I think most people would vote for an African American or a women who reflected their political positions.

For instance, a lot of people from across the spectrum would have voted for Colin Powell.

And I think a lot of conservatives would have voted for Ward Connorly or Alan Keyes (although I think he's gone to far right now and seems a little freaky).

Of course there are a lot of people who wouldn't, but nobody would probably frame the people who wouldn't as racists, but I think if Obama loses the south, it will blamed on racism as opposed to his actual positions being too far left.

And if Hilary crashes in the red states, it's because she's freaking Hilary not because she's female.

As far as women, Elizabeth Dole was at one point, I think, electable at that level and may still be. Or Condolezza Rice maybe although I don't think she can fake the warmth that she'd have to. (I don't think she's any colder that H. Clinton or E. Dole, but they can play the role that American voters want to see better I think.) And this is an absurd example for obvious reasons, but I think a big section of the right would have voted for Margaret Thatcher had it been possible.

People ARE prepared to vote on the issues and leadership, rather than race or gender, but Clinton and Obama aren't going to pick up too many Republican moderates, I don't think.

(Oddly, I think they may pick up some hard right conservatives who might not vote for Republicans again for a long time. I think they are mighty angry and want to punish the party.)

In regard to AlphaFrog's question, at this point, it's a question of which party is even less competent than the other incompetent party. I don't think either is capable of pro-active strategy.

In the last election cycle one party put forth John Kerry and the other George Bush. Could it get worse? You wouldn't initially think so, but I bet you it can.

(Who would bother to go to the polls in a Giuliani vs. Clinton election outside of New York? How different are their actual positions, other than attitude toward Marc Rich?)

It worked pretty well for the last 5 out of 7 elections! ;)

What does that mean? Who they want and not who will beat the Democrats? They nominate the guy with the most money who has been able to gain support financially and beyond because of his electability. Republicans went for Bush because of his ability to beat the Democrats by gaining the Christian votes. If it wasn't about winning, everyone would be throwing money and time away.

-Rudey

Yep.

As for voters being ready to vote for a black or woman, I would expect people to say that on surveys, etc.

I hope that's honest, but the cynic in me thinks that perhaps they say it because that's what is the "right" thing to say. Whether that transfers to the voting booth is questionable to me.

I hope I'm wrong about that.

All in all, though, we've come a long way from when I remember an awful lot of people who said they wouldn't vote for JFK because he was Catholic.

She's far left?

She was before she decided she was a presidential candidate. These days, she's just whatever it takes to win the election.

Actually as a member of the DLC she's considered a centrist. What are you talking about?

-Rudey

I think its...

Obama------Clinton-------MIDDLE--Rudy-----Romney/Thompson

I think this is going to be a fascinating election. One part of me says that it's the Democrats' to lose, but there's no one outstanding candidate in either party.

Just once, I'd like to vote FOR a candidate, not AGAINST the other person!

OMG, true that!

There is not realy a strong candidate from any where that can be seen on the horizon!

Amazing on how much money is collected to get a winner and for what? Favors!:rolleyes:

i truly dont consider myself either, although i tend to sway more towards the Democratic side.

i truly dont know what the dems are gonna do. there are dems who wont vote for Hill just because she is a woman. and there are dems who wont vote for Obama because he is black. they should let them run together on one ticket, and if the dems win the overall election they count up the votes and whichever one gets the most is prez, 2nd place is vp. its a win-win situation if you ask me...

In terms of moderate, Clinton and Rudy are from the center of their respective parties. Some may even say Clinton is center-right and Rudey is center-left.

-Rudey

I don't imagine that is draw to scale, but do you think either Romney or Thompson are as far to the right as Obama is to the left?

Obama appeals to me for a lot of reasons, but I think he's more a Pat Buchannan distance from the center on the opposite side. (ETA: I've looked at him a little more closely, and I admit he may not be that far out there after all. Economically, he's a little more centrist than I thought. It's still hard for me to see him as equally close to the center as Romney and Thompson, but it's my vantage point more that his location. He's not on the left wing fringes of the party like Pat B on the right, but he's pretty far from where I am.)

I really do think that most people would vote for Black or women candidates; I just don't think they will abandon the issues to do it for the sake of doing it, and that's what someone on the right voting for Obama would have to do.

I have a hard time imagining that there's an issue Hilary would stick with if it didn't poll well. That might mean she's a pragmatic winner or it might mean she has no moral core.

Rudey, how do you figure Rudy is at the center of the Republican party? I'm curious about your thinking.

He just seems to me to be on the very liberal side of the Republican party (not the spectrum overall, just Republicans), but you may be doing some fun subtraction of the religious right "conservatives" from the equation.

Seriously will you break it down for me?

I think Rudey is basing it on Rudy's stance on issues and how they line up with the over all polling of registered Republicans - both the CBC and BBC rate him as a moderate or left-leaning Republican in there political analysis of the US Presidential Nomination race.

Yeah, I understood that he was basing it on Rudy's stand on the issues. I was hoping he would break down the issues for me that pull him to the center of the party.

I don't come up with any that are anything but center or left for the party when I do it myself.

Can you think of many (any?) other elected Republican more liberal that Rudy?

I think he's a centrist on the complete spectrum which means he's not also going to really be at the center of the right.

Does that make sense? Rudey's quote said they were both at the center of their parties, not moderates or centrists overall, which I would have completely agreed with.

CBC and BBC? You mean Canadian Broadcasting and British Broadcasting?

I'd put it like this...

Obama- I think his "moderate" tone covers for his liberal tendencies. This was also the case with Edwards in 2004. However, Edwards Senate record and attitude since the election have shown his legitimately liberal nature. I think Obama is the same.

Hillary- Likewise, since 9/11 she has toned herself to a moderate level, which I think hides some of her liberal nature. Socialized medicine wasn't moderate the first time she proposed it, and it isn't a moderate idea now. The question is whether she values ideology over opportunism. My opinion is no, she doesn't. Therefore, many on the right may detest her, but they also would probably rather have her become president than Obama, who may not be as hesitant to push for "progressive" change.

Guiliani- He's close to the center. Very questionable on abortion rights and even public funding (to conservatives, of course).

Thompson/Romney- Both have detractors and past incidents which take away some of their conservative appeal, but both also have fairly conservative records and current ideologies.

Of course, its hard to say where everyone is on the political spectrum. The problem is with what positions define what label.

Yeah, and I think it's hard to speculate about where people are within the parties too. It's easy to forget about the freaks at the far ends pulling the center of the parties out from the middle.

Someone who seems like a centrist liberal or conservative to someone within the party, seems farther out to a member of the other party.

Thank you, and good night.

Obama has said rejected the "moderate" core of the Dem party and asked that the DLC not be associated with him. He's definitely on the left and is not bashful about that. Much more down to earth than $400/haircute Edwards.

Hillary has been a moderate for a long time. And there are plenty of Republicans that support universal healthcare as well as a multitude of other "socialist" objectives (Pew Poll shows that 59% of social conservatives and 63% of populist conservatives support universal healthcare). The entire evangelical core is socialist and is Republican right now. There is evidence of that in everything from support to religious "philanthropies" and in Bush's prescription plan.

Guiliani has said he's against abortion but doesn't want to legislate it. Of course this upsets certain Catholic priests, who really have no room to talk on moral legislation. Rudy is definitely right of center and a lot of the press releases against him not being conservative enough have come from...the DNC.

Thompson has a cute wife and has a hit tv show. Romney wears Mormon underwear but has the support of most of my coworkers.

-Rudey

Guiliani is making an effort to paint himself as economically conservative, which I think is somewhat accurate. However, him being solidly on the right is very questionable, I think. Additionally, I think his personal life edges into his social conservative appeal, and I wonder when that issue is going to start coming up. By Oct/Nov, I imagine.

Yeah, it seems to me that even on the positions where he's conservative, he's just sort of typical for the party, but when he deviates, he deviates pretty far left for the party. As long as he was just running in New York, he was clearly pro-choice, pro- gay marriage, and pro- gun control, which don't seem to me to be typical Republican positions.

His conservative positions: military, homeland security, public school reform, for example are probably just hitting the center of the party.

And if you are inclined to regard personal life and indicative of general character, the less you know about Rudy the more you might like him.


Is the only reason that a Democrat would want to distance himself from the DLC be that he wanted to be seen more liberal than that? It seems to me that it's close association will Bill and Al might want to be something you didn't want to taint yourself with, rather than it's actual positions.

Well in the primary it makes some sense. The core of the party has become pretty far left, mostly in anger over the current administration. I imagine the more centrist lean will be reestablished in the general, but who knows.

That is the no. 1 problem for the dems, in my opinion, is that they let ideology interfere w/ political judgment. Now, some might think thats a good thing, but they've been given an inch (the war) and now want to take a mile. Despite what the DNC and CNN thinks, I don't think 2006 was a mandate for serious progressive change. They won with people like Heath Shuler, and if they now continue to cater to the Feingold/Pelosi wing of the party, I think they're going to be in trouble come 2008.

And of course, the Democratic leader ship in Congress have shown what?

Not a damn thing!:mad:

They still piss and moan about how the Republicans did and do things and still are a do nothing inept bunch of sheep!

Have any of them helped any of us?

Say yes and you are kidding your selves.

Wake up and smell the posies!