posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 09:37 PM
Justin has a point, but 2008 is still a long way off and the way things change between now and then can make a lot of difference.
The Democrats will probably take the house this November, and the Senate is going to be very close. It could be 51-48-1 or 50-49-1 in either party's
favor. I see the Democrats holding all of their states and winning Montana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Missouri to make it 50-49-1
Republican- of course Sanders will vote with the Democrats but Cheney will hold the tie-breaker then.
If it goes 50-49-1 Republican though, I think John McCain might declare himself an independent in a bid to get on the ticket with Hillary. They can
sack the sneate leadership that way too, which I'm sure would make the black sheep of the Republican party feel pretty vindicated.
That's a big deal. With the house alone, the democrats can purse-string the war in Iraq to a slow pullout. All they have to do is announce their
intention and start cutting supplemental appropriations.
This means that pro-war and anti-war will cease to be a major issue in the Democratic primaries. It will still be an issue in the general election,
but there's no reason for the Democrats to fight amongst themselves over who was pro war when the war is ending; it will be most important to present
a united front against the war for the general election, since their congress is killing the war and that's what they have to live with. (and I
stress purse-stringing slowly instead of an outright shutdown of funding because the democrats need to 1. Keep it as a reason to vote against the
Republicans in 2008 and 2. Deprive the Republicans of a fiasco over there to point at.)
So yes, a Democrat who is considered "Pro-war" will probably get the nomination, but it won't be such a big deal.
McCain's fundraising abilities after defecting and losing the ability to take from Bush's contributors will be in the toilet as far as ideology is
concerned, but it would cure the curse of seeming weak and lend credibility to Hillary's campaign, probably a good thing for the ticket's overall
The Republican warchests for 2008 will develop. They'll have the country's attention anyway by running a novelty candidate, and there's no such
thing as bad publicity- being attacked the way Tancredo would be is just free advertising, because Republicans see it too the very things the
Democrats will be saying against him will be the things the Republicans want to hear about him.
The big problem in my ametuer analysis is that the Republican candidates are going to be spending more than they'd like just to win the primary, so
they'll be spending less and running more on the recognition they've already established then.
The usual suspects, people like Rice, Frist, and Guiliani, will probably command more money but "insurgents" who would represent more of a change in
the Republican party like Tancredo, Gingrich, or McCain (if he stays Republican) are actually a little better understood already (perhaps not as much
when compared to Condi though), and may command more loyalty from the voters just on recognition.
I think money will matter less in the general election though if the ones I've called "insurgents" bag the nomination. Any one of them has a
built-in ability to attract a segment of the party that might not bother showing up to vote for Frist, for example, so spending on getting out the
vote will be slightly less important.
Back to the topic, it will be a 'pro war' democrat, except that there's no such thing anymore.
It's really could be a clean-slate election if the Democrats have the spine to challenge the war once they take congress. Instead of war centered
(unless the democrats want to waste money campaigning against a lame duck) I think it could be much more about reshaping the respective parties. Dare
I speculate that we may actually be asked to vote "FOR" a candidate rather than against one for the first time since 1988.
Both parties need to redefine their bases anyway.
The Republicans need to get back in touch with popular middle class issues like border policy, fiscal responsibility to bring peope in from the middle
and reduce their dependence on evangelicals.
The Democrats need to get back into Bill Clinton mode with specific plans to deal with crime and poverty. While they're at it they need to downplay
security issues without ignoring them by trying to revive the post-gulf war myth of the all-powerful coalition air campaign.