GOP Nominee
Former Candidates
With just hours to go until 2007 is ushered in here in the east, I am prepared to put my credibility on the line as a political seer and make the following prediction more than a year out from the Iowa caucuses.? I hereby predict that, at the end of the day, former North Carolina senator and former Democratic vice presidential nominee John Edwards will be the Democratic presidential nominee in 2008.
Why Edwards?
1) Iowa.? Over the last year, we’ve seen several polls of likely Iowa caucus-goers placing Edwards either on top or very close to victory in the state that will hold the nation’s first 2008 contest.? His strength there, despite losing in the national polls to Hillary, gives us some indication of what Democrats will do when actually exposed to the candidates and their campaigns on the ground.? Moreover, it tells us that Edwards is in a very good position to come out of the gate with a win in Iowa.
2) Nevada.? With Democrats moving Nevada’s caucus between Iowa and New Hampshire, and with the disproportionate influence that organized labor will have on the outcome in Nevada, it’s quite likely that the economically populist Edwards, fresh from a victory in Iowa, will also take Nevada.? That will mean back-to-back wins for Edwards in the first two Democratic contests of 2008.
3) South Carolina.? Hillary will likely curb Edwards’ mo’ in the Granite State, where her husband’s fiscally prudent, socially liberal record is far closer to the positions of most “live free or die” voters than the Middle American populism of Edwards.? But on the heels of New Hampshire is South Carolina, a primary that will be held in Edwards’ backyard.? If Edwards wins three of the first four primaries, and all Hillary has left is New Hampshire, it’s highly possible that Edwards will be in a good position to win the next few primaries — largely in the south and midwest — and will have already created a sense of inevitably about his nomination by the time Hillary country comes into play.
4) The Anti-Hillary.? It doesn’t take much time surfing the left side of the blogosphere to determine that there’s little love lost between Hillary and grassroots liberals.? The Left would prefer that Hillary not be the nominee, and strategic types within the Democratic establishment also fear that Nominee Hillary, with her inability to connect with voters, her polarizing manner, the baggage of dynasty, and her status as a northeastern liberal will ensure a third successive GOP victory in the general.? Edwards, with his southern pedigree and style will be seen as someone who can give Republicans a run for their money in the middle of the country.?
5)?The midterms. ?Edwards is the candidate who most resembles the type of Democrat who won red territory in 2006: fiscally populist, isolationist, and socially liberal but not a coastal elite type.? If Democrats want to continue their successes in the border states and along the Ohio River, Edwards becomes a far smarter pick than Hillary.
It is for these reasons that I believe John Edwards will be the 2008 Democratic nominee.? Our challenge, then, is to ensure that the candidate we select can beat him.
December 31st, 2006 at 4:19 pm
I agree that Edwards will be the nominee (I also think he’ll be the next president of the United States).
And thanks for sending out the heads-up e-mail about the comments being back up, Kavon, even to us Democrats. As Gerald Ford once told the Washington Post, “I enjoy having adversaries who are not enemies.”
December 31st, 2006 at 4:48 pm
Dave,
Heh. I was just about to post on Edwards. I agree with you that he stands the best chance of being the Democratic nominee at the moment. As we’ve discussed several times, Edwards stands the best chance of beating the Republicans because of his particular populist and isolationist message will be much more resonate if the Iraq War is still going on (as it most assuredly will) come 2008.
Just today, Edwards went on the offensive against both McCain and Obama. He called the idea of a troop surge in Iraq the “McCain Doctrine” and said that it was “dead wrong.” He also was quoted by Blue Hampshire as saying that: “Identifying the problem and talking about hope is waiting for tomorrow.” which is a big swipe at Obama’s “audacity of hope” message. These clearly differentiate himself from his potential opponent on the GOP side and his biggest competition on the Democratic side.
December 31st, 2006 at 5:31 pm
Edwards seems to be aware that he needs to actively avoid the “isolationist” label. On Hardball, he says: “Protectionism doesn’t work.” Go to MSNBC, scroll down, and watch the “Edwards on the Economy” video: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15925398/
December 31st, 2006 at 5:48 pm
Â
No problem Mike! I am honored that you come to Race 4 2008.
————-
Re: Edwards… I agree that he has to be viewed as the frontrunner right now due to the primary schedule.
As a Republican, I am quite enthusiastic about facing Edwards in the general election. Americans really didn’t get to know the real John Edwards last time around. Economically, he is a relic of the 1960’s/1970’s Democratic Party with his constant harping on class warfare. 70% of Americans like Walmart, John.
He is also a trial lawyer who made his millions on suing OB/Gyn’s out of business on some pretty flimsy evidence. Only in America with our screwed up legal system could a person like John Edwards get rich in this manner. His electoral experience amounts to a grand total of six-years in the Senate. He would literally be the least qualified person elected president since the 19th century.
Just when it looks like the Dems are building some momentum towards 2008, the latter-day William Jennings Bryan comes to the forefront. Hillary, Mark Warner, Evan Bayh, and Bill Richardson are four candidates that would present the GOP with a very difficult challenge in the general election, and it looks like they don’t stand a chance in today’s Dem party.
December 31st, 2006 at 6:01 pm
Mike,
Interesting interview. He seemed to be tripped up when talking about radical Islam and China, first calling our focus on radical Islam a “distraction” and then an “obsession.” In regards to the substance of his remarks on trade and the US economy, not much has changed with his stances since 2004. He was given a 17% rating by CATO. He’s campaigned against NAFTA, voted against the Chile and Caribbean FTA’s and he supported the imposition of steel tariffs in 2002. To his credit, he did vote to extend normalized trade relations to China and Vietnam. So while he might not be as protectionist as, say, Gephardt, he’s pretty close. I think as the 2008 election gets closer and populist sentiment continues rising, he might find it hard to resist giving in.
December 31st, 2006 at 6:16 pm
Kavon,
I would actually disagree with that. The country has shifted a significant amount since the 2004 elections and as the midterms showed, the electorate is more receptive to the populist/protectionist message, particularly in the Northern Rust Belt. If the Iraq War is still going on in 2008, I think it will shatter the GOP’s dominance post-1968, just like Vietnam ended the Democratic dominance from 1932-1968. Hillary has no passionate, utterly devoted followers and Edwards does. He has a lot of electoral strength that Hillary and Obama don’t have. He can play in the South and will perform really well in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Kentucky. Particularly if he picks Barack Obama to be his running mate (your worst nightmare, I’m sure), it could be too much for the GOP to overcome.
December 31st, 2006 at 6:46 pm
You have to counter with Rudy if Edwards is the nomation. Rudy can pull away those Bill Clinton type indies and dems who are socially liberal but are who are free market types.
In fact it weird. For each Dem canidate I think a different republican is the best on to face him/her.
Huckabee will be the best vs. Clinton because he wins ARK and the whole South from here. He is also perfect to go after Hillary weakest in the Democrat party. Those Health Shuler Dems are would have a hard time voting for her anyway, but with Huckabee having a few Demorcate postion like on the minium wage, healthcare, ect it would likely be enough to push them over and swinging Winconsin and Minn while holding Ohio and Iowa. Plus his pro immagrant stance would make it hard to pull away the southwest (Can’t frankly Hillary upcoming defunding of the war is going to damage her good out there, angering Latino for voting for it to start then angerying the anti illegal types while making Indies feel they can’t trust her.)
VS. Obama McCain is the best because of Experience and goes right at his weakest.
December 31st, 2006 at 7:27 pm
Paul8148,
Huckabee will be the best vs. Clinton because he wins ARK and the whole South from here.
The polls I’ve seen (SurveyUSA and Rasmussen) show Hillary overwhelmingly beating Huckabee in Arkansas.
December 31st, 2006 at 7:37 pm
LJ-Huh? Don’t you think really any decent GOP candidate can win the south. If not, we’d better pack it up right now. Even Romney who I think is a goner could win the south.
December 31st, 2006 at 8:57 pm
LA Kid,
Well, given Hillary’s ties to the South (Bill won AR, LA, GA, MO, TN and KY and Hillary is running really strong in FL) she could make lots of inroads there. Remember for the Dems to win in 2008 they just need to win every state that Kerry won plus one. The really decent GOP candidates like McCain and Giuliani have electoral strength because they can be very competitive in the northern, traditionally blue states. For example, McCain could win several New England states and Giuliani could win several of the states in the NY region. If we nominate someone other than those two and the Dems nominate Hillary or even worse, Edwards, the Republican Party would probably lose the election.
December 31st, 2006 at 10:33 pm
That is a good argument for why we need someone to win outside of the traditional south but really any GOP candidate should and must win in the south which is why Huckabee is not the solution.
December 31st, 2006 at 11:17 pm
LJ, good point. The Republican Party is pretty much sending itself to the slaughter house if
McCain or Giuliani are overlooked. All surveys pretty much tell us this.
December 31st, 2006 at 11:21 pm
What about when the right leaves the party and a third party starts up in 2012 and the Republicans never win the White House again?
December 31st, 2006 at 11:33 pm
I’m a democrat and I think you guys are really overlooking Barack Obama. Not even 50% percent of the country has even heard of Obama and he still matches Edwards numbers in Iowa and Hillary’s numbers in New Hampshire. Edwards is nice and all, but Obama is the next JFK.
January 1st, 2007 at 12:11 am
Peter,
To play devil’s advocate…What about all of the Fi-Cons and Libertarians leave the GOP when Huckabee and his tax raising and nanny-state enabling self is nominated? Huckabee is also as pro-amnesty as Ted Kennedy and has basically called any Republican that disagrees with him on the issue an idiot.
There is much, much more to being a conservative than just being a So-Con.
January 1st, 2007 at 12:25 am
Well after Bush, I wouldn’t be surprised if good meaning non-religious/fiscal conservatives have already left!
The Republicans have a choice; they can complement the “big tent” theorem of Ronald Reagan and show the rest of the country that LEADERSHIP is the composition of their ticket.
OR
They can go ahead and let the evangelicals anoint yet another candidate and lose the White House for 3-4 terms.
Is that what you are trying to say Peter? Live with it…. Romney, Huckabee, Gingrich or Brownback cannot win against ANY serious Democrat in 2008.
I am not one of those people who believe the religious right necessarily have the power to decide who wins the nomination. And as a consequence, it annoys me when I hear talk of a third party threat.
Where did the moderate Republicans go during Reagan, Bush I and Bush II? They stayed and supported all three Presidents.
That is pretty much the crux of what I am saying. Basic fairness and a bit of courage from the far Right wouldn’t go astray.
What I find particularly funny about all this is all the conservative sites talking about “taking the party backâ€â€¦. and yet we have President Bush sitting in the White House, Mr. Big Government, as a result of the religious right.
I think we should be more worried about where the average Republican voter is going to go if another proponent of the religious right gets the nod…. what happened in November should be a lesson.
January 1st, 2007 at 12:48 am
“Well after Bush, I wouldn’t be surprised if good meaning non-religious/fiscal conservatives have already left!
The Republicans have a choice; they can complement the “big tent†theorem of Ronald Reagan and show the rest of the country that LEADERSHIP is the composition of their ticket.
OR
They can go ahead and let the evangelicals anoint yet another candidate and lose the White House for 3-4 terms.
Is that what you are trying to say Peter? Live with it…. Romney, Huckabee, Gingrich or Brownback cannot win against ANY serious Democrat in 2008.”
Would Huckabee really have a problem winning all the states that Bush did? Let’s be serious here. Rudy’s the past. Live with it, friend.
HAPPY NEW YEAR ‘07!!!
January 1st, 2007 at 2:50 am
All the Democrats need to do is win all the states that Kerry won in 2004, and take either Florida or Ohio to win the election…. it is not going to be anywhere near a cakewalk for the Republicans.
At least Rudy IS going to hold the majority of the states that Bush carried in 2004, and will likely make gains in the northern and quite possibly eastern regions of the US (i.e. Washington, Michigan, New Jersey, New Hampshire and Connecticut).
Huckabee won’t be carrying any northern states, and will have trouble holding many of the states that Bush carried (i.e. Missouri and Ohio will likely among others swing the other way).
If Republicans want to win, only a McCain or Giuliani can do it.
Happy Year New.
January 1st, 2007 at 9:26 am
Latest Rasmussen poll, Edwards trails Giuliani by 8.
January 1st, 2007 at 10:52 am
Perhaps, but notice how many states elect Democrats in the state-wide elections, but Republicans in the national ones.
January 1st, 2007 at 11:13 am
Edwards has always been a democratic, why does it matter now?
Happy New Year-007!
January 1st, 2007 at 12:39 pm
huh?
January 1st, 2007 at 1:01 pm
LJ,
The Edwards/Obama ticket is what I consider most likely, as well. I think the prospect of the Republican nominee picking Rice as his running mate makes Obama an extremely likely choice for the Democratic nominee.
The most obvious knock on an Edwards/Obama ticket is of course youth and inexperience. The most obvious reply to that is to point to the performance of Washington veterans like Cheney and Rumsfeld.
January 1st, 2007 at 1:24 pm
Isn’t is pretty clear that the election will be decided by Iraq, and to a lesser extent the economy. If you read Lichtman’s 13 keys to the WH, this is apparent.
If Iraq is improved by 2008, US Casualties are dwon and at least 50% say that it’s looking positive and that all in all it’s looking worthwhile, the GOP wins.
If Iraq continues to get worse, casualties stay the same or increase, it doesn’t look like it will get any better, and at least 50% if not significantly more say that it was a mistake and not worthwhile, the GOP loses.
There could be other factors, such as say a huge scandal involving Bush, a recession, a Katrina like disaster, a foreign policy breakthrough/failure involving Iran/Israel/China/etc…, a huge scandal involving one of the candidates but these are all things taht are unpredictavle.
Basically, assuming everything else stays equalthe outcome of the 2008 election depends on Iraq.
January 1st, 2007 at 4:00 pm
Are there any likely Republican candidates who can’t beat this empty suit? I doubt it.
January 1st, 2007 at 5:46 pm
I am surprised that no one has mentioned the 2004 VP debate. Cheney mopped the floor with Edwards and made him look like a fool. Remember the hair joke? Edwards is going to have to get some substance behind his pretty boy face.
Edwards/Obama would have to be the least experienced ticket in decades.
January 1st, 2007 at 6:42 pm
The only two post-debate scientific polls I saw don’t really support that characterization:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/05/opinion/polls/main647648.shtml
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/05/debate.main/index.html
January 1st, 2007 at 7:01 pm
” Are there any likely Republican candidates who can’t beat this empty suit? I doubt it.”
- McCain/Giuliani
- Giuliani/McCain
- Giuliani/Romney
January 1st, 2007 at 10:15 pm
Edwards is WAY too much of a “good ole’ boy.”
January 1st, 2007 at 10:22 pm
[...] …for calling John Edwards, “a relic of the 1960’s/1970’s Democratic Party with his constant harping on class warfare” in Dave’s post yesterday? [...]