NationStates Jolt Archive

How will the elections come out for the next President?

Is it enough to say, "We hate Bush!" (which seems to have worked quite well in the last election), or "Bush fucked up!" (which also worked in the last election)?

Does that work if you're not running against Bush?

http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=27187

Looking Ahead to 2008

Democrats capitalized on their advantage in partisanship by winning both houses of Congress in last fall's midterm elections. Now they have their sights set on capturing the White House and earning partisan control of both the federal and executive branches of government for the first time since 1993-1994, during Bill Clinton's first two years as president.

In its April 2-5, 2007 poll, Gallup asked Americans if they would rather see the Republicans or Democrats win the 2008 presidential election if the election were held today. The public chose the Democrats by a solid 50% to 35% margin.

Democrats show stronger party loyalty on this question than do Republicans -- 96% of Democrats (and 91% of Democrats and Democratic leaners) want their party's candidate to win, compared with 84% of Republicans (and 80% of Republicans and Republican leaners).

That apparent Democratic dominance does not emerge, however, when Americans are asked to choose among actual candidates. For example, when Gallup tested preferences between the two leading Republican contenders (Rudy Giuliani and John McCain) and the two leading Democratic contenders (Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama), in only one of the four match-ups did a candidate have a statistically significant lead among registered voters, and that was a Republican (Giuliani) over a Democrat (Obama).

More recent surveys conducted by other polling organizations show the same general pattern -- a tight race if not a Republican lead on these general election trial heats. In fact, a Democratic candidate only leads when matched against a relatively unknown Republican candidate, such as Mitt Romney or Fred Thompson.

The relatively poor performance of the specific Democratic candidates in comparison with the generic ballot may be because, as of now, the leading Republican presidential candidates are viewed more favorably by Americans than are the leading Democrats.

Currently, Giuliani has the highest favorable rating of the major presidential candidates, at 61%, followed by McCain, at 57%. All of the major Democratic candidates' ratings hover around 50%, including Clinton and Al Gore who also have the highest unfavorable ratings.

In particular, Clinton's favorable rating has declined in recent weeks. It had been 54% in early March and 58% in early February. After she released her autobiography in 2003, her favorable rating went above 50% and had not gone below that mark until last month.

Romney and Thompson have low favorable ratings but are still largely unknown figures, as at least half of Americans are unable to give them a rating. Thompson is viewed much more positively than negatively by people who are familiar with him, while views of Romney are about evenly split.

Based on these poll results, it is unclear which party would win if the election were held today. Clearly, the political environment favors the Democrats, given their advantage in party affiliation and their generic preference for a Democratic president. But the partisan political conditions may be less of a factor in presidential elections than in midterm elections. Because Republican candidates are able to offset, if not completely overcome, the existing Democratic advantage in the head-to-head match-ups against the Democratic candidates supports this notion. However, it should be noted that these trial heat match-ups are generally not good predictors of what will happen on Election Day this far out, particularly when the candidates are not well-known.

These figures will certainly change over the course of the campaign season, but I'm wondering - if you're not running against Bush, and you're not running against a current Senator or Congressman who is in DC, what high power lever will Democrats have that will inspire the same sort of rush to the polls that gave them last fall's victory?

It seems that "hate the other candidate" gets a lot of mileage, as does, "the incumbent fucked up".

Simple -- you run on your merits. And IMHO, the Republican field seems much more dysfunctional this season than the Democratic one. Almost every GOP candidate I can think of has something serious holding them back.*

*Giuliani: can he make it through the primary?
McCain: he's flip-flopped a lot lately
Romney: ditto, plus his Mormonism won't sit well with the fundies...
Brownback: another right-wing whacko
Gingrich: he's just an ass...
Ron Paul: little name recognition

etc.

Simple -- you run on your merits. And IMHO, the Republican field seems much more dysfunctional this season than the Democratic one. Almost every GOP candidate I can think of has something serious holding them back.*

*Giuliani: can he make it through the primary?
McCain: he's flip-flopped a lot lately
Romney: ditto, plus his Mormonism won't sit well with the fundies...
Brownback: another right-wing whacko
Gingrich: he's just an ass...
Ron Paul: little name recognition

etc.

Running on your merits seems to be dull and uninviting, however noble it may be.

You need something to galvanize people - hate usually works best.

The other guy is from the same party as Bush, and therefore is basically his clone!
I'm from the other party, and are therefore the exact opposite of him in every way!

Running on your merits seems to be dull and uninviting, however noble it may be.

You need something to galvanize people - hate usually works best.

And that is why we have a 40% voter turnout.

It is a known fact that smeer campaigns do not do anything for voter turnout.

And that is why we have a 40% voter turnout.

It is a known fact that smeer campaigns do not do anything for voter turnout.

Apparently, they do galvanize "the faithful" on either side.

Look at it this way - you know that if Hillary runs, the Republicans are going to be able to galvanize Hillary-haters (and they exist).

And if Bush were running (or his brother), the Democrats would be able to galvanize Bush-hate.

Looking at the numbers on the link, it looks like the even race would be Obama - McCain - although I could argue that you could manifest plenty of McCain hate.

Kind of hard to galvanize Giuliani hate - nowhere near the level of Bush hate. And Giuiliani isn't a Washington person - not a Bush administration person. Hard to tar him with the brush.

If the far right republicans can see the big picture and select Guliani as their candidate they have a shot, almost anyone else will have the "neocon/bush supporter etc" tag stuck on them. I know if Guliani is the Republican candidate i will vote for him if the Democrats have anyone other then Obama as their candidate. So far my preferred president is Obama, then Guliani. They are the only ones that stick out for me.

Pretty much every other republican candidate has serious faults and other then Obama the potential democrat candidates are not looking much better.

My prediction is that the republican ticket will be Guliani/McCain (if as i said the republicans can be smart enough to choose Guliani). The Democrat ticket will almost certainly have at the very least Obama OR Clinton. Maybe even Obama/Clinton(preferably) or Clinton/Obama.

Apparently, they do galvanize "the faithful" on either side.

Look at it this way - you know that if Hillary runs, the Republicans are going to be able to galvanize Hillary-haters (and they exist).

And if Bush were running (or his brother), the Democrats would be able to galvanize Bush-hate.

Looking at the numbers on the link, it looks like the even race would be Obama - McCain - although I could argue that you could manifest plenty of McCain hate.

Kind of hard to galvanize Giuliani hate - nowhere near the level of Bush hate. And Giuiliani isn't a Washington person - not a Bush administration person. Hard to tar him with the brush.

I can't say that you are wrong. The problem is most people are sick and tired of the style of campaigning that has infiltrated the American election system.The people are tired of the hatefilled elections and thus stay home.

I bet you once you get rid of negative campaigning, people may have more faith in the election process and thus will know more about the candidates.

How can we expect anyone to know anything about the candidates when all we are is hate speeches against their opponet?

So far the least negative people are Obama and Guliani and that in itself earns points with the public.

So far the least negative people are Obama and Guliani and that in itself earns points with the public.

It is somewhat amazing isn't it?

Republicans don't have a candidate at this point. Romney doesn't have a prayer, Rudy is entirely too liberal for the right wingers. McCain becomes a bigger joke every day.

So far the least negative people are Obama and Guliani and that in itself earns points with the public.


I like Obama, I'm not sure about Guliani.

Republicans don't have a candidate at this point. Romney doesn't have a prayer, Rudy is entirely too liberal for the right wingers. McCain becomes a bigger joke every day.

Neither do the Democrats. We won't know the candidates until there are only 2.

Though I like Obama, he should not skip a debate. That could hurt him later on.

its not just a "bush sucks" thing.

the question for the republican party is whether or not bush's disastrous policies have poisoned the whole party in the mind of the voters.

id say that the answer is YES for anyone associated with this administration, including republican members of congress.

to have a real chance the republican candidate has to be seen as an ethical outsider. to even GET the nomination, he has to be conservative enough for the republican base. its hard to imagine who can get past both those hurdles.

When the news first started placing bets on who would be the next president, it was all democrats.

"Who do you think will win, Obama or Hillary?

"Eh, what about the other guy?"

"What, Edwards?"

"No, the republican nominees."

"You can't be serious."

its not just a "bush sucks" thing.

the question for the republican party is whether or not bush's disastrous policies have poisoned the whole party in the mind of the voters.

id say that the answer is YES for anyone associated with this administration, including republican members of congress.

to have a real chance the republican candidate has to be seen as an ethical outsider. to even GET the nomination, he has to be conservative enough for the republican base. its hard to imagine who can get past both those hurdles.

Yes, and of the frontrunners the only one that fits that description is Guliani. And the problem with the Republican party's best shot at the white house is a lot of republicans don't agree with his views. And they have to either get over their differences and unite behind an electable candidate OR watch as someone like McCain or Brownback crash and burn when they have to go up against someone like Obama.

Perhaps just perhaps an option could be Guliani choosing McCain as VP on the ticket, that way the right wing of the GOP gets a Republican who is popular with the mainstream public AND a republican that is popular with the Rumsfelds and Cheneys of the world.

Hmm, I think Bush-hate is what got Kerry nominated. Too much of a waffler. People knew what to expect from Bush. Didn't like him, but they knew what to expect. Kerry was too unpredictable and was used because he wasn't Bush. I think the democrats realized that "anyone but Bush" was a horrible unofficial slogan. That and there's an amendment to the Constitution against third terms. Blame Roosevelt for Bill Clinton out of office.

I don't trust Obama. Not the name. I just think he's too inexperienced and young. Running too much on personality and not enough on, you know, other qualities.

I don't trust Obama. Not the name. I just think he's too inexperienced and young. Running too much on personality and not enough on, you know, other qualities.

Since when has other qualities been needed in a Presidential Race?

Hmm, I think Bush-hate is what got Kerry nominated. Too much of a waffler. People knew what to expect from Bush. Didn't like him, but they knew what to expect. Kerry was too unpredictable and was used because he wasn't Bush. I think the democrats realized that "anyone but Bush" was a horrible unofficial slogan. That and there's an amendment to the Constitution against third terms. Blame Roosevelt for Bill Clinton out of office.

I don't trust Obama. Not the name. I just think he's too inexperienced and young. Running too much on personality and not enough on, you know, other qualities.

Opposing the Iraq war even back when it was "cool". Back when most of the democrat party including Hilary were all for the war. Obama was saying "this is a stupid war." Back in 2002 Obama was against the war that took most of the rest of the politicians a lot longer to realize. Good judgement like that is a quality a President needs, he has it. Willing to go against what his Party thinks because he belives it is the right thing to do is another good quality he has.

The following can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama#Political_advocacy

"I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings."

Is that not what almost everyone is thinking now. He was right on the foreign policy issue that is dominating this decade and the Bush presidency. He was right years before everyone else got it. That kind of judgement and intuition is what has got me supporting him. McCain or Hilary or almost every other major candidate was wrong about Iraq. They supported Iraq and were wrong. Whats stopping their being another war in their Presidency that they will be wrong again.

Obama for President!

Opposing the Iraq war even back when it was "cool". Back when most of the democrat party including Hilary were all for the war. Obama was saying "this is a stupid war." Back in 2002 Obama was against the war that took most of the rest of the politicians a lot longer to realize. Good judgement like that is a quality a President needs, he has it. Willing to go against what his Party thinks because he belives it is the right thing to do is another good quality he has.

The following can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama#Political_advocacy

"I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings."

Is that not what almost everyone is thinking now. He was right on the foreign policy issue that is dominating this decade and the Bush presidency. He was right years before everyone else got it. That kind of judgement and intuition is what has got me supporting him. McCain or Hilary or almost every other major candidate was wrong about Iraq. They supported Iraq and were wrong. Whats stopping their being another war in their Presidency that they will be wrong again.

Obama for President!

As right as he may be, when have Americans ever elected someone that smart? Remember Adlai Stevenson?

Yes, and of the frontrunners the only one that fits that description is Guliani. And the problem with the Republican party's best shot at the white house is a lot of republicans don't agree with his views. And they have to either get over their differences and unite behind an electable candidate OR watch as someone like McCain or Brownback crash and burn when they have to go up against someone like Obama.

Perhaps just perhaps an option could be Guliani choosing McCain as VP on the ticket, that way the right wing of the GOP gets a Republican who is popular with the mainstream public AND a republican that is popular with the Rumsfelds and Cheneys of the world.

giuliani is very popular with the general public.

however, he still has to get the nomination when he is soft on all the christian fundamentalist issues--abortion, gay rights, probably even prayer in school, flag burning, and faith based initiatives. he is a thrice married philanderer.

so can he persuade the republican base that its more important to nominate a guy who can win than a guy they believe in?

Opposing the Iraq war even back when it was "cool". Back when most of the democrat party including Hilary were all for the war. Obama was saying "this is a stupid war." Back in 2002 Obama was against the war that took most of the rest of the politicians a lot longer to realize. Good judgement like that is a quality a President needs, he has it. Willing to go against what his Party thinks because he belives it is the right thing to do is another good quality he has.

The following can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama#Political_advocacy

"I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings."

Is that not what almost everyone is thinking now. He was right on the foreign policy issue that is dominating this decade and the Bush presidency. He was right years before everyone else got it. That kind of judgement and intuition is what has got me supporting him. McCain or Hilary or almost every other major candidate was wrong about Iraq. They supported Iraq and were wrong. Whats stopping their being another war in their Presidency that they will be wrong again.

Obama for President!
Strongly seconded. I also like the fact that he reaches out to the opposition and works with them rather than marginalizing and demonizing them.

Strongly seconded. I also like the fact that he reaches out to the opposition and works with them rather than marginalizing and demonizing them.

That is Bushs style of choice. He tells congress what to do then when they say No he does his best to ignore them and blame them for his mistakes. Like the particularly laughable notion that it is apparenty congresses fault that Iraq is going so bad.

As right as he may be, when have Americans ever elected someone that smart? Remember Adlai Stevenson?

We enjoy hurting ourselves. It doesn't mess up the carpet as much as cutting ourselves does. I must admit i voted for Bush in '04. But the Democrats really shot themselves in the foot in that one. Kerry was an awful candidate. But i didn't vote for him in '00!

As right as he may be, when have Americans ever elected someone that smart? Remember Adlai Stevenson?

QFT. Stevenson was successfully villified for being "an intellectual" (code for Communist).

The problem the Reps have is they have to run hitched to Bush and that's like dragging a dead horse. Everything they say or do will be compared to Bush. Anything that they say that is similar to Bush will be pushed to the front.

The problem with the Dems is they have Hillary which has a huge hate factor and Obama who's black and young or Edwards that doesn't have the "it" factor.

Kind of hard to galvanize Giuliani hate - nowhere near the level of Bush hate. And Giuiliani isn't a Washington person - not a Bush administration person. Hard to tar him with the brush.
He hasn't even been in political office since December 31, 2001.

Hmm, I think Bush-hate is what got Kerry nominated. Too much of a waffler. People knew what to expect from Bush. Didn't like him, but they knew what to expect. Kerry was too unpredictable and was used because he wasn't Bush. I think the democrats realized that "anyone but Bush" was a horrible unofficial slogan. That and there's an amendment to the Constitution against third terms. Blame Roosevelt for Bill Clinton out of office.

I don't trust Obama. Not the name. I just think he's too inexperienced and young. Running too much on personality and not enough on, you know, other qualities.

If 'Bush Hate" was what fueled the nomination in 2004 it would have been Dean or Kucinich. I think it was capitulation that fueled the 2004 nominations and that's what didn't work out.

Opposing the Iraq war even back when it was "cool". Back when most of the democrat party including Hilary were all for the war. Obama was saying "this is a stupid war." Back in 2002 Obama was against the war that took most of the rest of the politicians a lot longer to realize. Good judgement like that is a quality a President needs, he has it. Willing to go against what his Party thinks because he belives it is the right thing to do is another good quality he has.

The following can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama#Political_advocacy

"I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings."

Is that not what almost everyone is thinking now. He was right on the foreign policy issue that is dominating this decade and the Bush presidency. He was right years before everyone else got it. That kind of judgement and intuition is what has got me supporting him. McCain or Hilary or almost every other major candidate was wrong about Iraq. They supported Iraq and were wrong. Whats stopping their being another war in their Presidency that they will be wrong again.

Obama for President!
Which is exactly the reason he hasn't a chance in hell of winning... perhaps because people are too fucking shallow that appearances are all that matter to them... it was used to great effect in ancient rome and it's still being used now. It's this mindset that permeates our entire culture that as long as it looks okay it's fine (leading of course to ignoring things that don't fit neatly into our little boxes). I want Dion (canadian liberal) to win so bad it's ridiculous, but I really don't think it will happen.
I have very little faith in our species.

And that is why we have a 40% voter turnout.

It is a known fact that smeer campaigns do not do anything for voter turnout.If memory serves, we've had close to 60% for the last couple of elections, and it's never been anywhere near 40% of registered voters.

As to the OP, all that poll shows is that people are identifying with party and aren't really paying attention to candidates yet, probably because the earliest primaries are still over half a year away, and the general election is a year and a half away. In other news, water is still wet, Saddam Hussein is still dead, and George W Bush is still the most inept US President in history.

The other guy is from the same party as Bush, and therefore is basically his clone!
I'm from the other party, and are therefore the exact opposite of him in every way!

Jack Johnson: It's time for someone who has the courage to stand up and say,
*slams his fist on the podium*
Jack Johnson: "I'm against those things that everybody hates!"
John Jackson: Now, I respect my opponent. I think he's a good man. But quite frankly...
*slams his fist on the podium*
John Jackson: I agree with everything he just said.

:)

The Dems could just run on a "return to values" slogan.

The Dems could just run on a "return to values" slogan.

And say "borrow and spend Republicans" as many times as possible.

If a Democrat has to be president, I hope it will be Hillary Clinton. She is a divisive figure even in her own party, and she would start out with that much less political capital and hopefully some potential for gridlock (which will unfortunately be gone with Bush.) I hope that Obama and his cookie-cutter platform stay as far away from the White House as possible.

If the Democrats don't get better at picking candidates (seriously, you lost to that guy? TWICE?), the Republicans will win again.

Obama and Edwards are both solid candidates. Obama has the greater charisma and is and has been consistently right on the Iraq issue, while Edwards has far more substantive policy formulations at the moment and has consistently been right on the failure of the economic boom of the last 14 or so years to raise the fortunes of the vast majority of Americans. Hillary's continued serious candidacy is to my mind the strongest evidence yet that we live in a world gone mad, as she's been the engineer and supporter/cheerleader of the two biggest issues the Democrats need to face, which are the War in Iraq and the increasing stratification of America into the have mores and the have little-or-nothings.

The Republican Party has the Millstone stamped Bush/Cheney tied around its neck, and at the rate it's going, it will have it for the next generation. The Republicans decided to ally themselves with theocrats who have only a tenuous tie to democracy at best, and now they are stuck between campaigning for the votes of people who support torture, oppose the rule of law, and would like to do away with that darned Sixth Article part of the pesky Constitution that eliminates religious tests for office, campaigning for the votes of people who like war but don't feel the need to pay taxes to actually pay for that war, and campaigning for the somewhat more sober 60-70% of the country.