Difference between revisions of "United States Presidential Election, 2008"
m (spelling) |
|||
| Line 53: | Line 53: | ||
== Democratic Strategy == | == Democratic Strategy == | ||
| − | + | Evaluating the race in terms of the [[Electoral College]] forces caution upon the Democrats. Between the [[United States presidential election, 2000]] and the [[United States Presidential election, 2004]], only three states budged from one party to the other: New Mexico (from Democratic to Republican), Iowa (from Democratic to Republican) and New Hampshire (from Republican to Democratic). The American people would seem to be not only strongly divided, but in the vast majority of states, faithful over a period of years to their chosen parties. Not even the [[September 11, 2001 attacks]] could persuade the people of New York to vote Republican, for example, and it is highly unlikely that the depopulation of [[New Orleans]] will be considered a good reason for the majority of voters in Louisiana to become Democrats. The phrase [[Second Coming Republicans]] (or Democrats) takes on new meaning in light of the relative lack of party-switching in response to these events. | |
| − | + | Had all three of the above [[swing states]] voted Democratic in 2000, and everything else remained the same, [[Al Gore]] would have become President in 2001, so this is the result Democrats should especially aim for. This does not necessarily mean they can let their guard down in the states that voted their way in both of the last two elections -- particularly if the Republicans nominate [[Rudy Giuliani]], [[Mitt Romney]], or another candidate associated with one of those states. | |
| − | + | Strategy for Democrats is a hot topic for debate among members of that party and independent [[pundits]]. [[Daily Kos]] can occasionally provide arguments on the strategy that should be pursued by Democrats, although most posts there are simply rants against the Republicans or Democrats deemed insufficiently [[liberal]], which led [[Barack Obama]] to say in 2006 that he found the site "predictable." A majority of Democrats are confident that the declining popularity of [[President]] [[George W. Bush]] and particularly [[Operation Iraqi Freedom]] puts them in a highly favorable position for 2008, to the extent it may even be their race to lose. | |
Evaluating the race by historic analogy, the last Senator elected President and the last Northern Democrat elected President were the same person: [[John F. Kennedy]], in the [[United States presidential election, 1960]]. If this pattern continues to hold true this cycle, the candidate best positioned this year is [[Bill Richardson]], who is cast somewhat against type as a member of the [[National Rifle Association]] and also has the distinction of being from one of the three [[swing states]] cited above. In strong second place would probably be [[John Edwards]], but it needs to be said that the Democrat who can carry Edwards' home state of [[North Carolina]] in a Presidential election probably hasn't been born yet. [[Lyndon B. Johnson]] was the last person to do so, just after writing off most of the South for the Democratic Party by passing the [[1964 Civil Rights Act]]. Still, the Democrats, as pointed out above, feel for the most part that this is their race to lose and may "let it all hang out" in the belief that any of their first-tier candidates (though probably not Gravel or Kucinich) will handily defeat a [[generic]] Republican candidate. | Evaluating the race by historic analogy, the last Senator elected President and the last Northern Democrat elected President were the same person: [[John F. Kennedy]], in the [[United States presidential election, 1960]]. If this pattern continues to hold true this cycle, the candidate best positioned this year is [[Bill Richardson]], who is cast somewhat against type as a member of the [[National Rifle Association]] and also has the distinction of being from one of the three [[swing states]] cited above. In strong second place would probably be [[John Edwards]], but it needs to be said that the Democrat who can carry Edwards' home state of [[North Carolina]] in a Presidential election probably hasn't been born yet. [[Lyndon B. Johnson]] was the last person to do so, just after writing off most of the South for the Democratic Party by passing the [[1964 Civil Rights Act]]. Still, the Democrats, as pointed out above, feel for the most part that this is their race to lose and may "let it all hang out" in the belief that any of their first-tier candidates (though probably not Gravel or Kucinich) will handily defeat a [[generic]] Republican candidate. | ||
Revision as of 18:19, August 16, 2007
The 2008 United States Presidential Election is scheduled for Tuesday, November 4, 2008.[1] The primary season for both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party officially begins on January 14, 2008 with the Iowa Caucuses and (as of March 16, 2007) ends on March 4, 2008.[2] The 2008 election cycle has seen a major shift to the primary election calendar, frontloading many primaries into early February.[3]
First election without incumbents since 1928
The President of the United States often runs for reelection. If not, the Vice-President of the United States runs after he leaves office. 2008 will mark the first time since the 1928 election in which there is neither an incumbent president nor an incumbent vice-president running for his party's presidential nomination and thus not running in the presidential election. In the Presidential contest in 1952, the race was between Republican candidate Dwight D. Eisenhower and Democratic candidate Adlai Stevenson. Vice President Alben Barkley sought but failed to win the Democratic nomination. Current Vice President Dick Cheney has repeatedly stated he will not run for President. "I will say just as hard as I possibly know how to say... If nominated, I will not run; if elected, I will not serve," Cheney said on Fox News Sunday.
Battleground States
The United States has become so regionally polarized that even though the 2004 presidential election was close nationwide, only nine states had outcomes having less than 4% margin between the candidates:
State, margin of victory, party that won the state in 2004
- Wisconsin, 0.38% (Dem)
- Iowa, 0.67% (Repub)
- New Mexico, 0.79% (Repub)
- New Hampshire, 1.37% (Dem)
- Ohio, 2.11% (Repub)
- Pennsylvania, 2.50% (Dem)
- Nevada, 2.59% (Repub)
- Michigan, 3.42% (Dem)
- Minnesota, 3.48% (Dem)
Republican Strategy
The Republican presidential nominee must win Wisconsin or Minnesota, and hold Iowa. The outcome in New Mexico, which has only 5 electoral votes, is irrelevant. Minnesota's margin of victory for the Democrats in 2004 probably places it out of reach for Republicans in 2008.
The inescapable conclusion is that the Republican nominee must win Wisconsin and hold Iowa in order to win the general election.
Declared Republican Party Candidates
Senator Sam Brownback, Kansas
Former Governor Jim Gilmore, Virginia, withdrew July 14, 2007.
Former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, New York City
Former Governor Mike Huckabee, Arkansas
Representative Duncan Hunter, California 52nd
Senator John McCain, Arizona
Representative Ron Paul, Texas 14th
Former Governor Mitt Romney, Massachusetts
Representative Tom Tancredo, Colorado 6th
Former Representative and HS Secretary Tommy Thompson, withdrew
Republican Party Members with Presidential Exploratory Committees
Former Senator Fred Thompson, Tennessee
Democratic Strategy
Evaluating the race in terms of the Electoral College forces caution upon the Democrats. Between the United States presidential election, 2000 and the United States Presidential election, 2004, only three states budged from one party to the other: New Mexico (from Democratic to Republican), Iowa (from Democratic to Republican) and New Hampshire (from Republican to Democratic). The American people would seem to be not only strongly divided, but in the vast majority of states, faithful over a period of years to their chosen parties. Not even the September 11, 2001 attacks could persuade the people of New York to vote Republican, for example, and it is highly unlikely that the depopulation of New Orleans will be considered a good reason for the majority of voters in Louisiana to become Democrats. The phrase Second Coming Republicans (or Democrats) takes on new meaning in light of the relative lack of party-switching in response to these events.
Had all three of the above swing states voted Democratic in 2000, and everything else remained the same, Al Gore would have become President in 2001, so this is the result Democrats should especially aim for. This does not necessarily mean they can let their guard down in the states that voted their way in both of the last two elections -- particularly if the Republicans nominate Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, or another candidate associated with one of those states.
Strategy for Democrats is a hot topic for debate among members of that party and independent pundits. Daily Kos can occasionally provide arguments on the strategy that should be pursued by Democrats, although most posts there are simply rants against the Republicans or Democrats deemed insufficiently liberal, which led Barack Obama to say in 2006 that he found the site "predictable." A majority of Democrats are confident that the declining popularity of President George W. Bush and particularly Operation Iraqi Freedom puts them in a highly favorable position for 2008, to the extent it may even be their race to lose.
Evaluating the race by historic analogy, the last Senator elected President and the last Northern Democrat elected President were the same person: John F. Kennedy, in the United States presidential election, 1960. If this pattern continues to hold true this cycle, the candidate best positioned this year is Bill Richardson, who is cast somewhat against type as a member of the National Rifle Association and also has the distinction of being from one of the three swing states cited above. In strong second place would probably be John Edwards, but it needs to be said that the Democrat who can carry Edwards' home state of North Carolina in a Presidential election probably hasn't been born yet. Lyndon B. Johnson was the last person to do so, just after writing off most of the South for the Democratic Party by passing the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Still, the Democrats, as pointed out above, feel for the most part that this is their race to lose and may "let it all hang out" in the belief that any of their first-tier candidates (though probably not Gravel or Kucinich) will handily defeat a generic Republican candidate.
Declared Democratic Party Candidates
Senator Joseph Biden, Delaware
Senator Hillary Clinton, New York
Senator Chris Dodd, Connecticut
Former Senator John Edwards, North Carolina
Former Senator Mike Gravel, Alaska
Representative Dennis Kucinich, Ohio 10th
Senator Barack Obama, Illinois
Governor Bill Richardson, New Mexico
Possible Democratic Party Candidates
VP Al Gore, Tennessee
Third parties
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has been frequently mentioned as a possible independent candidate for the 2008 presidential election and fueled that speculation when he left the Republican Party in June 2007. If he runs, he could put in over one billion dollars of his own money into the race.
Opinion polling
A big concern in the Hillary Clinton camp is whether or not she is electable. An Electability Poll in which the participants are asked in no certain order, a list of candidates from both parties, whether they would vote for candidate X or prefer someone else. Recent polling has revealed, of all major presidential candidates from both parties, Hillary Clinton is the only candidate to whom a majority of 52% would not vote for, or would prefer someone else. [4]
The poll results show majorities would consider voting for all other major presidential candidates or possible candidates:
| Who would you vote for, the candidate or somebody else? | |
| Candidate | Results |
|---|---|
| Rudy Giuliani | 64% - 36% |
| Fred Thompson | 62% - 38% |
| Michael Bloomberg | 61% - 39% |
| Barak Obama | 60% - 40% |
| John Edwards | 59% - 41% |
| John McCain | 58% - 42% |
| Joseph Biden | 57% - 43% |
| Bill Richardson | 57% - 43% |
| Mike Huckabee | 56% - 44% |
| Mitt Romney | 54% - 46% |
| Hillary Clinton | 48% - 52% |
The poll also revealed that Hillary Clinton is the only candidate to whom more voters view her unfavorably than favorably. 39% say they recognize Clinton favorably, while a larger number of 42% say they recognize her unfavorably. By contrast, every other candidate has a net-positive favorable rating:
| Do you view the candidate favorably or unfavorably? | |
| Candidate | Results |
|---|---|
| Rudy Giuliani | 43% - 17% |
| Barak Obama | 36% - 21% |
| John McCain | 33% - 28% |
| John Edwards | 32% - 28% |
| Fred Thompson | 25% - 12% |
| Mitt Romney | 24% - 20% |
| Joseph Biden | 21% - 20% |
| Michael Bloomberg | 20% - 18% |
| Bill Richardson | 19% - 15% |
| Mike Huckabee | 16% - 12% |
| Hillary Clinton | 39% - 42% |
The poll has a margin of error of +/- 4%.
See Also
Articles about the 2008 Presidential Election from previous "Breaking News"
References
- ↑ http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/calendar/
- ↑ http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/calendar/
- ↑ http://www.miamiherald.com/515/story/43160.html
- ↑ Poll: Is Hillary Electable?, by Mark Murray, NBC News, June 28, 2007. Retrieved from MSNBC.com June 29, 2007.