Republicans in '08
Marshall, Plumer, Schmitt and Lemieux weigh in on the candidacy that was McCain. As a reminder, here's how I called it last March :
...Neither Frist, Romney, Allen, or McCain will be the Republican nominee in '08.
Frist lost the nomination the day he danced the Schiavo shuffle.
A Republican candidate from New England? Get serious. The Dems can't even nominate a candidate from New England.
[George] Allen's got some personal data that's already giving push-pollers wet dreams.
McCain will again get swiftboated in the primaries. Dude will never, ever learn.
If I was a betting woman, I'd be taking a hard look at Huckabee, Hagel, Brownback and Graham. As a candidate straight from the Senate hasn't taken the Presidency in eons, smart operatives will be pushing Huckabee.
At the time, Amy Sullivan was dubious of my prognostication:
Who will be the nominee? I have no frickin' idea. But I wouldn't count out John McCain or George Allen. Never discount the willingness of GOP leaders to make a pragmatic choice.
But what do I know? I'm neither an activist nor an academic/intellectual blogger. I'm just a fucking prole.
Oh, and Gingrich? Dude divorced his wife on her deathbed. Yeah, that'll fly.
If Evangelicals sit out the next election, then couldn't McCain still win?
Posted by: Beth | 20 January 2007 at 07:54
When's the last time they sat one out? 1976?
Posted by: Roxanne | 20 January 2007 at 11:23
What about that guy, what's his name, that crazy guy - Italian last name... Tancredo... that's it. If he throws his hat in, I'm thinking he could take the whole thing. He speaks the typical right-winger's language like nobody else.
Remember, even the evangelical freaks aren't actually motivated by their religious convictions - hatred and fear of "the other" in what binds ALL right wing scum. Religious differences, economic differences, racial, and so on.
20 months of immigrant bashing by Tancredo captures the republican nomination. And the best part? Hispanics, who will soon be the majority in this country, will be hard core dems for decades.
Posted by: Joe | 20 January 2007 at 11:35
Beth,
The evangelical swine in this country will never sit an election out.
Posted by: Joe | 20 January 2007 at 11:37
Atrios sent me over.
Of course, you're right. My prediction: the Dem nominee will not be Hillary or Obama, either.
Posted by: mjshep | 20 January 2007 at 12:07
BTW: Senator Clinton is officially in the race.
Posted by: Roxanne | 20 January 2007 at 12:17
If the RNC had any brains at all, they'd beg Hagel to run. Which is of course why they'll wind up with Huckabee, but only after the first truly wide-open GOP nomination process in living memory.
Posted by: Phoenix Woman | 20 January 2007 at 12:19
I don't think one would normally announce a presidential campaign on a Saturday, unless that particular Saturday had some symbolic meaning...
...like January 20...
Posted by: Matt | 20 January 2007 at 13:26
D'oh. Good point.
Posted by: Roxanne | 20 January 2007 at 13:35
I don't want to be uncouth, but while I think you're right about McCain and Romney (and obviously Frist and Allen) Amy Sullivan was right about Graham. Not gonna happen.
Posted by: Matt Weiner | 20 January 2007 at 14:29
How is disagreeing being uncouth?
Posted by: Roxanne | 20 January 2007 at 15:39
Um, um, I don't know.
Fine. I'll link to this again. That'll be uncouth.
Posted by: Matt Weiner | 20 January 2007 at 16:10
Oh, you'll have to do better than that.
Posted by: Roxanne | 20 January 2007 at 16:11
Is that a dare?
Posted by: Matt Weiner | 20 January 2007 at 16:41
Oops, go here.
Actually I think attempting to restart the YouTube wars counts as uncouth all by itself.
Posted by: Matt Weiner | 20 January 2007 at 16:44
Richardson, fwiw, announced yesterday and immediately became my preferred candidate--for Edwards's VP.
Posted by: Ken Houghton | 20 January 2007 at 16:55
I used to listen to Kate Bush all the time. Recently, I watched her videos on youtube, and it ruined virtually ever one of her songs for me.
The scary thing about the republican nomination is that it's possible that one of these reprehensible midgets will become president. To think that Allen might have become president is very scary.
Posted by: Eric U. | 20 January 2007 at 19:36
Mark my word
s: Brownback.Posted by: nitpicker | 20 January 2007 at 21:22
There is one gigantic factor that will determine who wins, and it's hard to predict that factor right now.
When will this war be over?
I'm laying odds it won't be over before November '08. Given that, we can assume that whomever wins, it won't be a pro-war candidate. That eliminates the presumed favorites, Hillary and McCain. All the flip-flopping and posturing in the world won't help them if Bush drags us through a year and a half more of this crap.
On the other hand... If the war is over by Christmas of this year, (which I find unlikely, but who knows?) the status of the pro-war-but-critics may go up. As Iraq dissolves into even worse carnage, the pro-war-but-critics will shake their heads and go, "oh, if only they had done it MY way, we would have won!" The viability of this ploy, however will depend on the actual timing of the withdrawal.
Posted by: Dumbo | 20 January 2007 at 22:50
I've really grown to like "The Dreaming" video. At least it's heartfelt.
Posted by: Matt Weiner | 20 January 2007 at 23:19
I don't mind Kate Bush's videos at all.
Posted by: Roxanne | 21 January 2007 at 00:30
If California really bumps up their primary, gonna throw a wrench into whatever conventional wisdom is out there.
Posted by: PSoTD | 21 January 2007 at 13:47
Flip-flopper!
Posted by: Matt Weiner | 21 January 2007 at 15:39
Ah, c'mon. They're a scream. So bad you love to hate them. Or something.
Posted by: Roxanne | 21 January 2007 at 16:41
Oh, I agree absolutely.
Why are you saying something I agree with absolutely? How uncouth!
Posted by: Matt Weiner | 21 January 2007 at 18:41