« In defense of Martinez for RNC Chairman | Main | Senate Republicans choose McConnell, Lott »

A Republican Will Be Elected President in 2008

The Democrats are having great fun this week. Flush with the "mandate" of an historically-average gain in the Midterm elections, the Democrats have convinced themselves of many myths. Inside of two years, however, the appeal of that fantasy will wear away to show the hollow core of the Democratic Party, a lie even in its name by now, and the nation will find its hope once again on the Right side of the aisle.

There are a number of reasons why this will happen. Part of this comes down to the devil's deal the Democrats made, giving over their leadership to extreme Liberals - simple demographics prove that the American people have little interest in Leftist causes, and will not be quiet if/when the Democrats attempt to impose Socialism on them, as villains like Clinton, Pelosi, and Murtha have already hinted they mean to do. If you lie to take control as the Democrats did, by presenting yourself as "moderate", you will find yourself hard-pressed to gain the trust of the people when your fraud is discovered.

Another part of this is apparent in the article I posted yesterday regarding Joe Trippi's presumed field for the 2008 Democratic Nomination for President. This far ahead of the election, you'd expect a wide open field with a wide variety of ideas and policy courses to consider, but just as in past years, the Democrats have already begun to lock themselves into assumed choices; they love the box of conventional leadership, even if it means rehashing proven losers and candidates experienced only in posture and trash talk. By closing the door on any consideration of candidates not already anointed by the DNC, the Democrats not only reduce the scale of their approach to the people, but demonstrate a refusal to listen to the people whose voice will decide the matter in 2008. Certainly the Democrats may realize their mistake and correct it before the 2008 primaries get going, but their behavior now suggests they have committed themselves to the front-loaded process, even now that they know such a tactic leads to serious error and electoral cost.

Another part of this is simple history. One popular theory of why people vote for certain candidates or parties is called Voter Fatigue, and it is at least generally valid. The problems for Democrats are these - first, with the Democrats having grabbed the House and Senate, Voter Fatigue of the GOP has already been addressed and if it plays a role, it would be a reaction against the Democrats. But the historical example is also important. The White House changes hands between the parties, but most of the time there is a clear reason why it does so. In 1968, the Democrats had split against themselves and it cost them the White House; the Republicans did the same thing to a lesser degree in 1992, but with the same result. In 1976, the Democrats grabbed the White House but only an idiot would fail to understand that this was the result of clearly illegal actions by Richard Nixon - while extremists on the Left use the word "illegal" to describe Bush's actions in office, they do not have legal support for their charges. If someone thinks that a Democrat vendetta against Bush, pursuing impeachment for his Iraq policies and decisions, would help them in 2008, I would remind the reader that while Bill Clinton later admitted to the truth of the charges in his own impeachment, there was nonetheless a political impetus as a result of the proceedings - in favor of Clinton and therefore the Democrats. Few people familiar with the evidence have any doubt that an attack on President Bush would end up hurting the Democrats.

In 1980, Reagan won the White House in a unique set of circumstances - double-digit Unemployment and Inflation, along with a sense that Carter had weakened American military strength and resolve. It is unlikely in the extreme that the Democrats could hope for a similar condition in 2008, especially since they now control the funding between now and then, and so would be blamed if the economy or the military collapsed from today's present health.


Another thing which hurts the Democrats is the sense that they have gained the Congress, sort of "balancing" the scales. This would encourage many "moderates" to keep a Republican in the White House to make sure the Democrats did not get too much power - the Democrats are fooling themselves, if they believe that anger against the Republicans would equal blind trust in the Democrats. While Bush and Clinton both enjoyed elections with their party in control of Congress, Clinton's re-election came with a GOP House. And historically, many Presidents have been perceived as a check on Congress - the public flat does not want a perceived extremist in the Oval Office - Dean, Pelosi, and Clinton have their fans, but they will none of them ever be President.

While I am thinking about it, I should also address the lie that President Bush's approval poll numbers cost the GOP the election. First, while it is true that Dubya's numbers were down in the fall of this year, they were rising for most of the late campaign, and most credible polls had the President around 40%; not impressive, but significantly better than approval numbers for either the Congressional Republicans or Democrats. While President Bush was not able to pull GOP candidates of the hole to re-election, they dug that hole themselves. It is therefore unreasonable to think that a "blame Bush" strategy by Democrats will bear much fruit in 2008, although I do expect all the Democrats to play that card at some time in their campaigns.

In the end, the only way the Republicans could fail to win the White House in 2008, would be if they completely lose their focus and nerve, and nominate some dolt along the lines of Olympia Snowe or Lincoln Chaffee - there are a number of salient avenues to the White House, though I sincerely pray that we will nominate a true Conservative and Reaganite, because no matter what condition we find the balance of power in 2009, the nation needs a leader whose backbone and vision are strong, and who will not play politics with the will of God. I trust the Republicans will once again make the right choice.

  • Currently 0/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rating: 0/5 (0 votes cast)


Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):

AddThis Feed Button

Comments (15)

If you think that any Repub... (Below threshold)

If you think that any Republican can win in 2008 then I suggest you put down the crack pipe and step away from the computer.

What state did John Kerry win that the Republicans can pick up in 2008? Do you think that the Republicans can hold Iowa, Ohio, or Missouri? The Republicans will be luck to hold onto Indiana.

The demographics are totally against the Republicans. In 1992 Bill Clinton received 43% of the popular vote. That means that 14 years ago the Democrats could counrt of 43% of the popular vote no matter what. Now the number would be closer to 46%. For the Republicans to win no only to they have to appeal to the independents, they have to win much more than a majority of them.

The big worry, for Republicnas, will be if the Democrats can elect enough Senators to have more than 60 Democratic Senators. If the Democrats win enough to have that level of majority, then it will be all but over for the Republicans. Why? Because here comes public financing of elections, McCain-Feingold II, Fairness Doctrine, etc which will all be designed to make any political party other than the Democratic Party irrelevent.

I think you're mistaken but... (Below threshold)

I think you're mistaken but I hope you're right.

One thing that will factor in to the 2008 elections is a strong third party candidate. That will be either McCain or Rudy. Neither will get the Republican nomination but both probably want to run very badly.

The question is will they take away more votes from Mitt Romney or Hillary Clinton?

The new Dem Congress is get... (Below threshold)

The new Dem Congress is getting to more fun day by day. If this keeps up, 1994 will seem like a minor dustup to the Democrats.

Here's what I see shaping up for them:

Cut-and-run from everywhere
"New" direction - means putting old-time, left-wing kooks like Alcee Hastings, Carl Levin, John Conyers, Charlie Rangel, and Henry Waxman as the face of the party
Push for gay rights (Casey wants to amend federal hate-crime laws as first order of business) - remember gays in the military
Push for Kyoto agreement - it's Boxer's top priority
Hillary is back with Hillarycare
Robert Rubin pushing for tax increase

All this within seven days. Reminds me of 1993.

To paraphrase one of the he... (Below threshold)

To paraphrase one of the heros of the right wing, the Honorable Spiro Agnew: You righties and nattering nabobs of (idiocy) these days.

Rarely do you see one of you loons attempt an honest analysis of why your cause was rejected....soundly rejected by the way. The overall % vote for democrats far exceed that of the Boy Emperor's in 2004.

Why don't you nattering nabons take some advice from newt Gingrich, get honest and admit the message of rejection just handed to you.

It's 2006 you nit. The Boy Emperor has 2 more fun filled years to further drive us into ruination. `And there can be no doubt but that he will. It's just the tip of the iceberg, finally the Congress will do what it is supposed to do. Oversee and act as a check on Boy george (little g no accident). What you nits are really doing is having wet dreams about a year too early.

Chicken Littles you folks surely are. This is so much fun.

Yep, bring on Shrillarycare... (Below threshold)

Yep, bring on Shrillarycare.

Yep, bring on tax increases.

Yep, bring on Alcee Hastings and Charlie Rangel.

Yep, bring on gay rights.

Yep, bring on Kyoto.

It's going to be one big hoot. Absolutely loving it.

Man o man, is it going to b... (Below threshold)

Man o man, is it going to be fun with the Dems in slim majority of Senate and House. The first part of the Rush Limbaugh show today was amazing on this. It does look like the GOP is poised well for '08.

"It is unlikely in the extr... (Below threshold)

"It is unlikely in the extreme that the Democrats could hope for a similar condition in 2008, especially since they now control the funding between now and then, and so would be blamed if the economy or the military collapsed from today's present health."

I'm sorry to disagree, but I must. I can think of three reasons why the Democrats won't be blamed:

  1. The Democrats, assisted by the MSM, will accuse the President of "excessive partisanship" and the people -- sheep that they are -- will largely believe it.
  2. The Democrats, assisted by the MSM, will claim that "two years just isn't enough time to clean up the mess the Republicans left.
  3. You're counting on the middle 10% or so of the electorate to actually think about the composition of the Congress, and the relationship of the Congress to the President and to the control of government. Please.

The next president may well be a Republican. If that happens, it'll happen because of a desire of the people for a "balanced" government. Of course, those are the same people who complain of things "not getting done" in Washington. So you're counting on them to connect the dots and blame the Democrats for something as obscure and arcane to them as appropriations bills?

I have serious concerns tha... (Below threshold)

I have serious concerns that the GOP will nominate either Romney or Rudy - and thus devastate the social conservative base.

At the same time - I fear the Dems will nominate someone like a Clinton (say from Iowa?) that does not have the name recognition or baggage of the big-timers - and who will be able to lie through his teeth about being a moderate, and rather conservative on social issues (again, like Clinton 1992)

Of course, he won't govern that way - and we will then either clean up in Congress in 2010 or will throw him out after one term, assuming we nominate someone the base will like.

"The base" is not the probl... (Below threshold)

"The base" is not the problem. "The base" may not be satisfied with either the GOP Congress or the President, but they turned out to vote because they understand Democrats are much worse than half-assed Republicans.

We lost because the independents who usually support us, faithfully enough that we include them in our GOTV efforts, voted the other way.

We won't regain the swing voters by turning inward.

Jim,The base is go... (Below threshold)


The base is going to be a SERIOUS problem in 2008 (which is what I was talking about - not this last loss) if we nominate the wrong guy.

If you remember the 2004 election (and compare it to the 2000 election) might I simply remind you of the evangelical voter who stayed home in 2000 due to perceived character problems with Bush, and who then in turn not only voted, but were major factors in the GOTV effort that won Bush the victory in 2004.

But by all means - lets screw up the formula that delivers in Presidential elections for the GOP and nominate an aborion on demand mayor who marches in drag in gay pride parades....and lets do so against someone like a relatively unknown midwest or southern governor on the Dem side who will lie through his teeth about his views.

And while I realize that we lost the independents last week - what may I ask is your evidence that many in the base did not in fact also choose to stay home? I ask only because I know turnout to be far lower than 2004 (as expected of course) - and wonder if you have any stats that show the social conservative did vote to the same extent as 2004?

Surely, now that the election was a disaster, we are not going to continue to kid ourselves that Foley and Abrahamof and our assorted other scandals did not hurt us...

NOBODY voted to the extent ... (Below threshold)

NOBODY voted to the extent they did in 2004. It was a midterm, not a Presidential election. But turnout percentage did beat 2002's very slightly - to become the highest since 1982.

We lost the independents, who we had been winning in the recent past. No, I don't have handy links. I read many dozens of articles every day, and this has been noted in several since the election, so it should be easy enough to find.

I'm a pro-life, pro-sanctity of traditional marriage, anti-embryonic cloning for research, old values, gun-owning social conservative myself. I have no problem with Guiliani, and neither do most of the social conservatives I have talked with in this deep south state. We disagree with those positions of his, but he is a born leader, and right on the most important issue of our time: our national security vs. Islamist terrorism.

That's not to say we wouldn't jump to support a well-qualified candidate with better conservative credentials. We just haven't seen one mentioned yet.

Methinks that Hugh protests... (Below threshold)

Methinks that Hugh protests too much.

Such a Dem "mandate" would be more believable if:

1) Many of the Dems who did win, did so by more than a 1000-2000 vote margin. (This assumes all Dem votes were honest, which is as likely as Michael "Osama" Moore being a spokesman for Weight Watchers).

Sorry for bringing up voter fraud. We know how you Dems love to cry wolf, chad and Diebold whenever the Sandbox Party doesn't get it's way.

2) The GOP lived up to it's name of "The Stupid Party". Like the Minnesota Vikings, they cannot stand prosperity.

They got fat, drunk and happy on power and started acting like the Dems they threw out in 1994. Most people do not like arrogant corruption and this election helped prove it. GOP or Dem, you do enough of it and you will get your butt thrown out of office.

As for '08, it will be interesting. Although, as I have said for the last 3 years, I would bet more than even $$ that Hillary is not the Dem nominee in '08. In spite of how people are threatened, killed or how many cats disappear or how many tires are slashed.

Are we figuring in the BDS?... (Below threshold)

Are we figuring in the BDS?

In view of the question con... (Below threshold)

In view of the question concerning social conservatives who would vote for Guliani... I'm from Missouri/Arkansas/Oklahoma/Kansas (right in the corner) and haven't met one person who would vote FOR Guliani. What you would see, at least in these four states, is massive amounts of people voting for third party or not voting at all. Missouri would almost definitly flip to the blue (especially with the voting trends in recent years) and there's a big chance Arkansas would as well.

On a personal note, I'm a socially and fiscally conservative Republican, but I will never support Guliani or Pataki or anyone else of that vein for President. I would rather vote for Hillary Clinton, and indeed I would if the polls were close in Missouri (where I'm a resident) because at least SHE can't destroy the Republican party as Guliani would. I would much rather the Republicans be out of the White House for 4 years than to destroy all the hard social policies we've worked for. Admitedly, there are only a handfull of social conservatives that I know who would actually vote for Clinton over Guliani, but there are literally hundreds I know who would simply not vote at all.

Remember Dole? Let's not make an idiotic mistake by nominating someone who simply won't deliver. We have to find someone who is tough (both on terror and immigration) and who is sociall and fiscally conservative. Guiliani doesn't fit that description.

My question was misundersto... (Below threshold)

My question was misunderstood - I know we lost independents, my point was that given turnout was lower than 2004 (again, as expected in a non-Presidential year) how do we KNOW that some of that lesser turnout was not due to the values voter staying home out of disgust of GOP scandal?

But put that aside and lets move on.

We have not had an election where we at least won something since 1992 (even as bad as 1998 was, we held power in Congress)

Just like our last true loss of 1992, there are many on our side who think the way to court independents and moderates is to move more to the left. Pete Wilson was the poster-child for this commentary in the early 90s (when in fact he was just real lucky his reelection was in 1994 when he got to ride the GOP wave against Kathleen Brown)

We are seeing it now as well. Screw the values of the social conservative base - even though they have and WILL stay home (as very recent history shows)

Jim, I recognize your beliefs and where you live in the South - however, I wonder if the South is not a little different from the typical religious-right voter in other states (especially the light red, purple kind) After all, the South, despite strong Christian views, still continues to send Democrats to Washington - though fewer than before.

I am in the wilderness here in CA - but I travel in the circles of the religious right, believe me, I am a card-carrying member. Like Gandalf above - I have never met one who would be happy with Rudy as a candidate.

We lost the independents due to the war - so it seems if our only goal is to win them back, we shouldn't nominate the one guy whose real only positive to the party's beliefs is his tough stance on the war.

Finally, it takes votes, but also money and volunteer time to win a Presidential election, and independents do neither. How much money and time did evangelicals give to Bush and the GOP in 2004? It was a LOT - and even if Rudy got some of their votes (he would get mine, because I always vote as a matter of stewardship before the Lord) he would not get one dime or one hour of volunteer time from me or most of my brethren.







Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]


Monthly Archives

Wizbang Politics Blogroll


Publisher: Kevin Aylward

Editors: Jim Addison, Bill Jempty

All original content copyright © 2007 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

DCMA Compliance Notice

Powered by Movable Type 3.35

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Site Meter