<p>Is Hagel going to run? I think that his classic conservatism, vs the “Don’t-Tax-But-Still-Spend” Congressional mood of the past few years (on both sides, btw) might sit well with much of the electorate.</p>
<p>I think that the real question is: Will all of the Republican candidates chase “the base” and ignore the middle-of-the roaders, or will someone break away, and make up for the loss of the base with crossover votes which, to my of of thinking, could be quite large?</p>
<p>Yes, I believe that Bush’s theory–as midwifed by Cheney–of the unitary executive is an illegal usurpation of powers. But he wouldn’t call himself king and he wouldn’t be crowned. No need for that trivia. But remember, as Asimov observed, it’s a poor atom blaster that doesn’t point both ways.</p>
<p>Hagel isn’t running, Digi. </p>
<p>I had lunch with an old friend & veteran campaign hand yesterday. Yes, the Republicans are chasing the base. I encourage them in this. Also, as a group, they look disorganized and the party as a whole seems demoralized. Good, I say: give 'em another whiff of grape and cannister, then release the cavalry from general reserve and hunt 'em down with lance and saber.</p>
<p>Vox: November 8, 2008.</p>
<p>I haven’t heard anyone make this analogy, but it seems to me that the Republican candidates may fall prey to what I call the “Humphrey Problem.” While George Wallace may have taken a lot of Democratic votes, I don’t think HHH had a chance. Johnson was hugely unpopular with the war at the time and HHH did not want to stray too far from the base (read “money”) line. HHH was a decent man, and if he had dared to speak openly against the war, I think he might have won. What if RFK had lived?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Judging from the surprisingly few Republican defectors in the House and Senate Iraq votes, I would say that the base simply won’t allow movement away from the Bush administration policies.</p>
<p>In a way, that’s the fundamental dynamic of American politics today. Whichever party allows candidates the freedom to move from the rabid base to the center positions itself to compete for the key 20% swing voters who determine the outcome of national elections. In a perverse way, it probably requires first losing badly to gain that freedom.</p>
<p>On the other hand, it is pretty clear that this particular election cycle will be Iraq, Iraq, and more Iraq. The challenge for Democratic candidates is to oppose Iraq while not allowing themselves to be tarred and feathered with a Dukakis “soft on defense” label. The challenge for Republicans is to figure out how to distance themselves from a failed administration policy. Otherwise, they go through the campaign cycle dragging a ball and chain. </p>
<p>It’s tough when the sitting president from your own party is your ball and chain. George Bush is going to be the loneliest guy in American when the campaign heats up. He’s not going to be in big demand at campaign rallies.</p>
<p>ID, you’ve probably seen the latest on the longitudinal Gallup survey on party self-ID but while the Democrats have gained a net of about 5 points on the Republicans in the last four years, the staggering change has come among independents. When pushed for which party they lean towards–and voting history is pretty stable in this direction–the Democrats and Republicans haven’t been more than a 2-3 points apart since 1992, when the survey started, with the Republicans sometimes leading. It’s jumped to a 50-40 margin in favor of the Democrats.</p>
<p>TheDad:</p>
<p>Those polls are probably of limited value. The polls that really matter are likely voters. That’s why these races all hinge on galvanizing events (like Iraq) to motivate voter turnout.</p>
<p>This election has the possibility of confounding the pollsters. The presence of the first woman candidate and/or the first minority candidate has the potential to motivate voters in non-traditional ways. For example, does the opportunity to elect the first woman president motivate female (and even male) voters in a way that cuts across traditional partisan divides? </p>
<p>For example, whether I were wild about Clinton or Obama, I would be personally inclinded to vote for either because I think the big picture positives of electing either a woman or minority candidate would trump the short-term issues of the day. I think it would be a generically good thing for my 21 year old daughter to live in a country where it is possible for a woman to be President.</p>
<p>I don’t know how well the pollsters will do in getting at those sentiments.</p>
<p>otoh (regarding staying close to the incumbent), Al Gore stayed away from Bill. Had he brought Clinton into the campaign in a full way, history might have been quite different.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Tell me about it. It cost him the election, too. All that fall, I kept screaming at him to stop running away from the Clinton administration. He desperately needed the dose of charisma and energy that Bill could have brought to his campaign.</p>
<p>hagel</p>
<p><a href=“Concord Monitor”>Concord Monitor;
<p>Hagel…</p>
<p>$$$ ???</p>
<p>HUGE $ and connections. Founder of Vanguard Cellular Systems in the early 80s. Investment banker. CEO of the G7 Economic Summit. Long service on the Senate banking committee.</p>
<p>The issue is not Hagel’s personal weath. The issue is whether he has raised the necessary $100 million ante to get in the game. I think his break from the President on recent Iraq votes will make it highly unlikely that he could successfully turn to the base for financial support.</p>
<p>I think he will initially need less, as, to the base, McCain, Giuliani, and Romney are so unattractive, and will become more so the more they know 'em. The social conservatives will be very comfortable with him, and the fact that he can win. The money will follow. He has the contacts (a la Chris Dodd). But what he has, which Dodd doesn’t, is opportunity.</p>
<p>(Remember: Dean wasn’t financially in the game either.)</p>
<p>Hagel is viewed as a traitor by too many in the GOP base. It’s all about Bush & Iraq. The GOP places a premium on certain orthodoxies, loyalty to a Republican president be he good, bad, or deserving to fry for eternity not withstanding. Which explains much of McCain’s last seven years.</p>
<p>Hagel is currently at lest than 1% in all the polls, behind people I’ve never heard of. It would take a sustained effort to build the name recognition for a Presidential run.</p>
<p>Hagel has no chance. It doesn’t matter how much money he can raise.</p>
<p>The Republicans have a weak field. My guess is that someone is going to come out of the blue who isn’t well known nationally right now. I’m not suggesting that whoever that is will win the Presidency</p>
<p>Not sure who it’s going to be. In my view Rudy has the best chance of staying around for a while. McCain has ticked off too many in the party and Romney has been all over the board on too many issues. For whatever reason the Mormon issue seems to concern too many people as well.</p>
<p>My guess on the Republican side: Rudy will be fighting it out with someone who isn’t yet on the radar screen (and it won’t be Newt).</p>
<p>i didnt read all of the posts before this yet so forgive me if someone already said this…</p>
<p>this is going to be my first time voting in a presidential election and it seems like this time people are preparing so early!</p>
<p>i mean that romney guy is already going to have commercials out and everything!</p>
<p>has it always been like this? it didn’t seem this way in 04</p>
<p>&& its pretty sad that Republicans are turning(or turned) their backs on their own party/president just to get elected </p>
<p>i mean they should be supporting each other instead of pointing fingers!</p>
<p>So far a poor crop of candidates. Mostly all nutty or inexperienced. Mostly they’ll say whatever is popular at the moment. Richardson may be the only reasonable and experienced one in the bunch, which means he hasn’t a chance. So we’ll get stuck with Husein Obama who will campaign like a moderate but once in office show his true liberal stripes not to mention become controlled by more experienced liberals. Still waiting for a real candidate.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I believe there are quite few defeated Republicans who feel like Bush turned his back on them last November.</p>
<p>Have fun with your first election. It’s exciting to follow the battles through an entire season.</p>