Joe Trippi Talks 2008
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Elections, General PoliticsThis comes, oddly enough, from MSN’s tech blogger Robert Scoble:
In the 2008 election he expects that Hillary Clinton will be a lockin for the Democrats. He doesn’t see anyone who can challenge her from the Democratic side. On the right side he’s expecting a far more conservative than even George Bush is. Why? His reasoning is that the powerbase that put George Bush in power is mad that they haven’t gotten things done, for instance, repealing of abortion and other conservative issues. He doesn’t think that a moderate Republican has any chance in getting nominated at all. If that weren’t bad enough, he theorized that a Democrat would split ranks and run as an independent. He isn’t sure how this would play out, but it probably wouldn’t be good for Hillary, who’ll have a tough time getting elected anyway.
Frankly, I think Trippi is full of it.
He isn’t really seeing the big picture. Bush’s support was an anomaly because 9/11 and the war. And since there are no more battles or terrorism, he’s had to rely on people supporting his ideas for the nation. And we’ve seen what that’s done for his poll numbers. Obviously, the majority of Americans aren’t too keen on Bush’s strategies. Just 40% approval? Seriously? Ouch.
Also, I believe Dems will and are grow tired of Hill, even though she has a big war chest and a great last name. And I think the Dems don’t want a Bush v. Clinton thing. They want something new. After all, they are liberals.
Also recent poll numbers show fewer Dems want Hill to run. That’s why I think a guy like Mark Warner has a good shot at the nomination. He’s well spoken, self effacing and he worked with Republicans in Virginia to get things done. And all Dems know that if they can pick up Virginia and maintain all the other states they won last time, the Oval Office is theirs.
Of course, things are never that simple…
On the Republican side, I still don’t see how McCain can’t get the nomination. It’s now or never for this guy and he’s already getting some big love from the Republican ATM. And I can’t imagine that Republicans are truly going to go with an “abortion” candidate. That doesn’t seem likely at all. They want somebody who will bring some fiscal sanity back to the Oval Office…even though I think that’ll be the Dems strong point in this next election. Yes, I think they’ll pull a Rove and use the Republican’s ideological strength against them as a weakness. God knows Bush hasn’t put his party in a very good position to have that fight.
But what about the social conservatives, you ask? Well, the National Ledger has some thoughts on that:
McCain does not believe that the Republican Party should be advocating traditional moral values. He hopes to so co-opt mainline conservatism, while also gaining acceptance from liberals in the Party, such as former New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, New York Governor George E. Pataki and former New Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman, that he can afford to lose the Religious Right. Besides, the McCain camp reasons that if Hillary is indeed the Democratic nominee social conservatives would be so alarmed about her becoming President that they likely would vote for McCain anyway.It is a bold strategy, yet given the fact that the values voters do not have a candidate around whom they have thus far rallied, McCain’s view of the world may indeed prevail. Social conservatives presently enjoy unprecedented influence in the White House and most especially on Capitol Hill, where the leadership in both the House and the Senate is very sympathetic to them and their issues. A McCain Presidency likely would change all that.
Shortly before he died in 1998 and after he left the Senate in 1986, Barry M. Goldwater, the father of modern conservatism, denounced social conservatives, saying they had no business trying, as he put it, to make the Republican Party into a church. McCain took the Goldwater seat. He is out of the same mold. Goldwater all but broke with his party, mainly over moral issues. Perhaps at last, through John McCain, the party will be re-made in Goldwater’s image. It is happening and happening fast. McCain now holds all the cards.
Hmm, that might seriously piss off some Reaganites since he basically brought the religious right into the mainstream of the Republican party. But honestly, I think a lot of Republicans are getting fed up with the social issue aspect. Of course, the evangelicals are the people who come out and vote…so it’s highly doubtful that McCain can ignore them. In fact, he simply can’t, and he won’t. He’s too savvy for that.
In any event, just a few thoughts.
Got any predictions?
This entry was posted on Wednesday, February 22nd, 2006 and is filed under Elections, General Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
February 22nd, 2006 at 5:21 pm
Bush’s support was an anomaly because 9/11 and the war
Seems to me he was president before 9/11.
And since there are no more battles or terrorism…
Oh. I get it. This post is sarcastic.
February 22nd, 2006 at 5:23 pm
Trippi’s right. My prediction: Clinton v. Sen. Allen (Va). For moderates, another frustrating election, trying to divine who is the more moderate candidate.
February 22nd, 2006 at 5:36 pm
The only reason McCain and Hillary have all but been anointed as their respective parties’ candidates by the MSM is by default - they are the most prominent members of their parties, and no one else has yet mounted a serious effort to change that.
On the other hand, remember that for most of 2003 and the first few weeks of 2004, the all-but-anointed Democratic candidate was Howard Dean, and John Kerry was barely even on the MSM’s radar. My gut feeling is that the same thing will happen with one or both major parties in 2008.
February 22nd, 2006 at 5:56 pm
Well true, but this rundown of the poll numbers should shed some light on what I’m talking about. And you will notice that the numbers spike when we got attacked or when we went to war. That’s all I meant.
February 22nd, 2006 at 6:08 pm
I voted on the war in 2004. I’ll be voting on the war in 2008 and 2012 as well. Iraq is only a small part of the clash of civilizations.
February 22nd, 2006 at 6:18 pm
I voted on the war in 2004. I’ll be voting on the war in 2008 and 2012 as well. Iraq is only a small part of the clash of civilizations.
Reread 1984. There is no war. Congress never declared war…they abdicated thier responsibilities by passing “resolutions.” This war is a fiction of the Bush administration that they are using to push a centralization of power that is, quite frankly, antithetical to the Constitution.
What we are facing is a long series of law enforcement and intelligence actions that seek to thwart the actions of non-government related individuals we belong to a radical creed bent on the destruction of eveyrthing they disagree with…The only difference between the Fundamentalist Christians and Fundamentalist Muslims is that the Christians currently control the man in the White House.
February 22nd, 2006 at 6:23 pm
I think that we will see a somewhat different set of issues in 2008 than we have the last two presidential elections. A focus on a balanced budget (something that Bush has not had) will be likely from both Democrats and Republicans, health care, and international relations and domestic security will still play a major role, I think, but there will be a greater choice as to what path to take.
Also, a previous comment made a good point that the 2008 election is a long way off and we may well see candidates who now are not well known possibly getting the nomination.
February 22nd, 2006 at 7:20 pm
I would like to see a Mark Warner/Wesley Clark ticket in 08
February 22nd, 2006 at 9:49 pm
McCain as a Goldwater clone? Um…I think…no?
McCain is a waste hawk, and a ethics hawk (at least nowadays), but thats about as far as it goes. His ideal government would be considerably larger than Goldwater’s - which puts him in with most of America. Remember - Goldwater lost.
February 22nd, 2006 at 9:52 pm
OMac - McCain would wipe the floor with Warner/Clark. Warner was a very good governer, but comes off on TV as a dope. McCain would slaughter him in the debates. Clark, frankly, never knew his kiester from his elbow. For the life of me, I never saw people’s attraction to him.
February 22nd, 2006 at 11:02 pm
Tom: Agreed, Warner would get creamed by virtually anyone, purely because of his presence on TV. His quirks are even more jarring than some of Bush’s, and a lot of Bush’s are forgiven simply because a large portion of his support base is so fanatical about their support. The Democrats will never be that forgiving. Which is something of a shame, because he sounds like a pretty darn effective guy.
February 22nd, 2006 at 11:28 pm
This business of anointing a can’t miss candidate two years before the election is nonsense. The reason the Democrats don’t have a clear leader right now is because they are out of power (which is why it’s also silly to fault them for not having one coherent message.) Would anyone have said in 1998 that George Bush was the can’t miss candidate? My recollection is that there was no clear cut leader. The primaries have a very effective way of shaking out the field, and most importantly, determining who is and isn’t a good campaigner.
February 23rd, 2006 at 3:27 am
So who then for the Democrats?? John Edwards?? Should Al Gore make another try at it???
Or is it Hillary or bust??
February 23rd, 2006 at 11:04 am
From an international perspective, it seems the US needs more friends around the world. The best way of doing this is perhaps to elect a leader that the world sees as fair, intelligent, compassionate, and strong. Hillary Clinton is that leader.
For the sake of all of us, please US citizens, PLEASE elect Hillary in 2008 :)
February 23rd, 2006 at 11:12 am
Watch for Warner to end up as a VP candidate. Same way John Edwards was. A good guy, but just not convincing enough to be President….yet. Other than that there isn’t a Dem out there right now that stands head and shoulders above the rest. There are certainly some future stars, Obama, Feingold to name two. But neither is ready for a Presidential run. What could be a dark horse candidate is Bloomberg. And he has a huuuuuge war chest. What we really need is someone at the top that can choose a good cabinet, and good folks to run the nation. The polar opposites of Chertoff, Brown, and Bolton.
February 23rd, 2006 at 2:47 pm
Sam,
Where are you from? Do you think that most people from your country like Hillary the best for 2008? Is that why you named her?
I think it’s really interesting to have the perspectives of people from all over the globe about which US leaders are favored and disfavored and why.
February 23rd, 2006 at 9:35 pm
First off, it’s too early. That the general point that I would second, especially given the world turbulence right now and the controversies and polarization it is sparking here. I think the volatility is likely to be reflected in the political realm for some time, and tendency of all but the most hard-core voters on both sides to postpone focusing will be exacerbated.
(And then, there is some suggestion that there are some economic wild cards hovering on the horizon which potentially would have quite a bit of effect, though in which direction that would accrue is isn’t something I can predict.)
Also, for what it’s worth–and this is strictly anecdotal and limited by my personal, and therefore by necessity, narrow experience–what I’m hearing among the politically opinionated “every day folk” here in Iowa strikes me as quite familiar, especially on the left side, to what I’ve heard since 2000, but most particularly during the run-up to the caucuses in the last election.
Now, what does that mean? Beats me in any truly meaningful way, except for random thoughts. Read into it what you will that there is a nostalgia for a Dean-type (and in some quarters someone more overtly progressive, even) and for a Gore. The former type I think would be disastrous for the dems on the national stage, and the latter–if it were he specifically who ran–has made some terrible decisions over the past few years, and not just his recent speech in Saudi Arabia.
Where does that leave Hillary? Well, this is a terribly unformed thought, so I reserve the right to withdraw or refine it at any time, but she’s got a problem in that she could, in fact, position herself in a number of ways. Each position, from what I can see, would be attractive to a constituency here–but unfortunately, it would be a very tough row to hoe to fully appeal to all of them. Perhaps that’s possible, and I think it’s a mistake to underestimate Hillary. The problem is, the effort–and what it would reveal–could be very problematic for later in the campaign.
On the Republican side, while there are certainly religious right elements, there’s also–and perhaps more so, but I suspect this varies elsewhere in the state–a strong “Main Street Republican” pull, in which “good government” (and smaller) is more of the issue, and family values has a much more broad and tolerant meaning, but still is very much of importance.
Again, you should take me thoughts as ONLY ruminations in progress, and with veritable chunks of salt.
Also, for context, I am NOT an Iowan, though we’re at the 10-year mark. Though raised in the Midwest (other states, not this one) for my first decade and possessed of many family members who are lifetime residents of flyover territory, I then spent about 25 years on the East Coast. In addition, both of us are registered as “No Party” here, so we have no particular axe to ground, but also no directly working-for-either-party experience.
(On the other hand, it’s a tad amusing–and perhaps telling–that most people tend to assume we’re one party or the other, specifically whichever one they espouse, and so they speak freely. Interesting phenomenon. And no, we’re not deceptive.)
February 23rd, 2006 at 9:39 pm
Wow! Is that a record for typos, skipped words, and wrong ones?
Well, for those of you for which that sort of thing bears on credibility, I did use the phrase “veritable chunks of salt.”
May 27th, 2008 at 10:15 am
[...] find out how I felt things would shape up, click here. This entry was posted on Tuesday, May 27th, 2008 and is filed under 2008 Election, Blogging, [...]
May 27th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
dude you predicted Mark Warner and I said Hillary — me thinks this was so early Obama had not yet entered race — good luck with all your predictions!
May 27th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
Hmm, I think I was a lot more right than you were.
First, Warner is much more in the mold of the “unity” newcomer than Hillary. And I called Dems’ resistance to Hillary. You didn’t. I also predicted McCain right and the mood of the Republican primary voters. Again, you didn’t.
One last note about my thoughts on Obama…see this post from 2005.