Lord_Morningstar wrote:What’s the chances of the nominee being someone entirely different to Hillary and Barack?
axordil wrote:What were the chances of Bill Clinton in 1992? It's always risky predicting this far out.
This is a very different situation than in 1992. In 1990 at this time, Gulf War I was just starting, and it was clear that the political landscape was going to be greatly altered (for good or for ill) over then next 18 months. After the initial success, it looked like George I would be unbeatable in 1992, and that whomever the Democrats ran would be just trying to beat the spread.
Of course, the collapse of the US economy, and George I's refusal to do anything about it (he kept insisting that it was fine, which it was: for rich people!) sent him from one of the most popular to one of the least popular presidents in a matter of months, and leaving a few Democrats who wished that they'd tossed their hats into the pool regretting the fact that they did not. After all, both lost (even if Gore really won), and having lost once, they are forever tarnished.
This time, the Dems are going into this knowing that they've got an excellent chance of winning, which means that the biggest and most promising guns will be running. Really, the only obvious alternative to Obama and Rodham-Clinton is John Edwards, the Democartic Veep nominee last time. Gore might run again, as might Kerry, but the party will be reluctant to push them, even if so many people know think that the country (and the world) would be in so much better shape if either of these two were currently president.
What really will decide it is fund-raising. Obama and Rodham-Clinton will reap in the bucks. Edwards will get stronger backing from the party old-guard: as a white southern male, they will think that Edwards has a chance of getting some people who might be disgruntled with the Republicans, but who are too bigoted to vote for a woman or a black man.
Voronwë_the_Faithful wrote:Another thing that Obama has going for him is that while virtually all of the other primary Democratic challengers (including Clinton) were voting in favor of the Iraq war in 2002, Obama went on record as opposing the war at that time.
This is very true, and as things deteriorate further and further over the coming months, Rodham-Clinton and others will have to spend more time defending their vote and trying to explain that they did not really vote for what Bush did: Bush, in fact, greatly over-stepped the bounds of what the Congress approved. However, politics is like humor: once you have to start explaining yourself, then you are in real trouble.
Obama was speaking at anti-War rallies in 2003. Now, this will outrage the "my country right or wrong!" crowd, but none of those people would ever vote for anyone with post-Cro-Magnon African ancestry, anyway.......
Voronwë_the_Faithful wrote:The fact that he wasn't a senator at the time probably will work to his advantage, because I don't know that he would have been able to sustain that position if he was, but I think he will be able to make a lot out of that.
Jon Stewart said it best: the Democrats took the last election by sneaking out of the room while the proverbial mom berated the other brother for burning down the garage. The 2006 vote was anti-Republican, yes, but it was also anti-incumbant. As the international situation and the US economy deteriorate over the next two years, this will only increase. Moreover, as a lot of the reasons for this are (will be) due to factors that are now out of the hands of a single senator, Obama really would do well to present himself as the outsider. In another 6 years, he will appear to be another Beltway Insider.
Voronwë_the_Faithful wrote:I think if he can translate that message to the campaign trail, it will be very attractive to the American voters.
It's hard to say. The bigotry card will be strong: the Republicans still can play it as the "pro-marriage" and "anti-immigration" cards showed in the elections two and a half months ago. Obviously, a little subtlety is required, but they will do everything that they can to play upon many white American's fears of blacks. Sad though it is to say, it is still very real: witness the numerous reports of black rioting throughout Louisiana that were taken for granted as true, and not simply by Fox News.
The upside is that this will not cost votes: these people already vote Republican. However, the real question is, will it inspire unusually high voter turnout among this crowd, and will Obama's charisma inspire high enough voter turnout elsewhere to compensate for and overcome this?
Just to add my two cents, I actually am fairly impressed with Obama. He is very intelligent and knowledgable, and the arguments that he articulates indicate an excellent ability to think critically. His priority is for the greater good rather than the good of particular groups (which separates him from many Democrats as well as nearly all Republicans) and that he actually speaks in terms of decades to come rather than "now." I actually voted from him for senator (I am quick to vote Green or other 3rd Party, just to provide context, and there was not even a danger of Obama losing, as his opponent was Alan Keyes!) My only real knock on him is that he seems to be fairly religious!
Shown the gun? Then shoot it! But remember that one shot has many effects.....