Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The betting is on another Clinton presidency
From Economist.com ^ | Dec 27th 2007 | WASHINGTON, DC | Reuters

Posted on 12/28/2007 2:51:07 PM PST by Forgiven_Sinner

THIS much is sure. Americans will elect a new president to replace George Bush on November 4th. The election process will be a weird mixture of the old and the new: of flesh-pressing in Iowa and guerrilla warfare on YouTube. The presidential election will dominate the nation’s—and the world’s—attention, though the way the new president governs will also depend greatly on the outcome of the House and Senate elections which take place on the same day.

The primary season will be unusually front-loaded. The citizens of Iowa and New Hampshire will vote earlier than ever, probably in the first half of January. Other states have been tripping over each other to move their primaries forward. The season will also feature a new do-or-die date, February 5th, when a score of states, including giant California, will hold elections. The primaries will then give way to the longest general-election campaign in the history of presidential politics—and the most expensive, too.

It is a golden rule of American politics that every election season brings at least one big surprise. Nevertheless it looks highly likely that this will be the Democrats’ year. The Republican Party is in serious disarray—unpopular with the electorate, plagued by scandals, tarnished by incompetence and unsure which way it is heading. Five years ago America was evenly divided by party identification: 43% for each party. By 2007 the arithmetic had evolved to give the Democrats an advantage of 50% to 35%. By October 2007 Democratic presidential candidates had raised about 70% more money than their Republican rivals. Ohio, Virginia and Colorado are all leaning Democratic—Ohio, which tipped the election for George Bush in 2004, decidedly so. Whoever wins the Democratic primary will most likely end up in the White House.

The betting is that that person will be Hillary Clinton. Mrs Clinton enjoyed a sustained lead in the opinion polls of 20 points or more over her nearest Democratic rival, Barack Obama, for most of 2007. She proved to be an impressive performer in debates and, to a lesser extent, on the stump, always in perfect command of policy details. She was also supported by the best political machine in the country.

This is not to say that she will be a shoo-in. Mr Obama or John Edwards could make a breakthrough in Iowa (where they are running neck and neck with Mrs Clinton). The Republicans may be able to rally around a “Hillary slayer”. Yet both Mr Obama and Mr Edwards come across as too lightweight (America tried lightweight in 2000 and came to regret it). Al Gore, should he change his mind and enter the race, is a proven loser (except when it comes to Nobel prizes and Oscars). The potential Hillary slayers on the right all have significant weaknesses. Rudy Giuliani, who tops Republican polls, has plenty of skeletons in his closet, including two previous wives and a pack of problematic cronies.

The possibility of Mrs Clinton’s return to the White House will dominate the political debate more than anything. If she wins, she will break all sorts of records. She will be America’s first female president. She will be the first president married to a former president (who will in turn be America’s first male “first lady”). She will be the second Clinton in a row to take the keys to the White House from a Bush. If Mrs Clinton is the candidate elected in November, members of the Bush and Clinton families will have been president for 24 years on the trot.

The battle for control of Capitol Hill will be even more one-sided than the battle for the White House. The Democrats will comfortably maintain a working majority in the House of Representatives: polls show the public prefer Democratic candidates for the House by 7-12 percentage points. The Democrats will also expand their majority in the Senate from what has been a measly margin (provided by two independents who normally vote with them). The defence will not hold

The Republicans will be defending 21 seats in the Senate compared with the Democrats’ 12. Several of these will be open seats thanks to a rash of retirements, including Pete Domenici of New Mexico and, belatedly, scandal-soiled Larry Craig of Idaho. They will have much less money than the Democrats. And they will be defending a tarnished brand, thanks to out-of-control public spending, presidential incompetence and a rash of sex-and-money scandals.

Even so, the Democrats will be lucky if they hit the 60 seats needed to give them a filibuster-proof majority. But they will win a majority of six or seven seats (including picking up seats in once-Republican states such as Virginia and Colorado). This will make it much easier for the Democratic president to enact their agenda.

What will this agenda be? The centrepiece at home will be health-care reform. Abroad the focus will be on repairing America’s fraught relations with the rest of the world (Mrs Clinton has already pledged to make her husband a roving goodwill ambassador).

Anyone who expects a dramatic lurch to the left will be disappointed. At least, the Democrats will not march as far to the left as Mr Bush and the Republicans did to the right. Mrs Clinton’s health-care reforms, for example, are modest and market-based. And on foreign policy she has carefully refused either to pledge herself to removing American troops from Iraq or to tie America’s hands when it comes to the problem of Iran. The November election, for all its drama and passion, will usher in a period of pragmatic caution rather than tub-thumping ideology.


TOPICS: Editorial; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: clinton; economist; hillary; liberalbias; wishfulthinking
I keep remembering the humorous and objective Economist articles from 15 years ago and keep going to their web site to read them. Then I read dreck like this.

They get the some large items right and miss important things--Mrs. Clinton endorsing market based health care? George Bush a light weight?

1 posted on 12/28/2007 2:51:09 PM PST by Forgiven_Sinner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Forgiven_Sinner

If Hillary wins , I agree with Boortz. She’ll be President Hillary Rodham. The Clinton will be gone ... in more ways than one.


2 posted on 12/28/2007 2:53:18 PM PST by K-oneTexas (I'm not a judge and there ain't enough of me to be a jury. (Zell Miller, A National Party No More))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Forgiven_Sinner
If Mrs Clinton is the candidate elected in November, members of the Bush and Clinton families will have been president for 24 years on the trot.

Reason enough to vote against Hillbilly, even if she wasn't a witch.

3 posted on 12/28/2007 2:54:03 PM PST by Philistone (If someone tells you it's for the children, he believes that YOU are a child.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Forgiven_Sinner

If Hillary wins, then who do we blame?


4 posted on 12/28/2007 3:02:30 PM PST by AmericanMade1776
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: K-oneTexas

Yeah, her name will be President Hillary Rodham.

The Arkansas Clintoon will have nothing further to benefit her.


5 posted on 12/28/2007 3:03:11 PM PST by Ole Okie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Ole Okie

Won’t happen in the first term


6 posted on 12/28/2007 3:05:48 PM PST by RS_Rider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Forgiven_Sinner
Hillary has an unfavorability rating of 48 percent. Most of the news media don’t seem to like her. She is going to draw Republicans out of the woodwork on election day. John Kerry was favored by most pundits and he gave Republicans a majority they didn’t know they had.
7 posted on 12/28/2007 3:20:00 PM PST by Brad from Tennessee ("A politician can't give you anything he hasn't first stolen from you.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Forgiven_Sinner

And just what the tarnation is the Economist basing this on. Ooooo....scandals. Why is Hildebeest a sorta shoo-in with these people when she hasn’t even won a single primary. And I’m sorry - the Republicans may carry some baggage, as they say - but Hillary brings with her years and years of illegal campaign funds, an impeached spouse, and newer slides by the minute.

I still don’t think she’ll win the nomination. Even if she does, I think B.J.’s appeal is over-rated and once she’s in the debate with a Republican candidate, they’ll wipe up the floor with her. Why the MSM likes the Clintons completely escapes me - they’ve done as much to destroy the dinosaur media’s credibility (with its kid-glove handling of B.J. and spouse) as the TANG memos.


8 posted on 12/28/2007 3:21:20 PM PST by Right Cal Gal (Remember Billy Dale!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Forgiven_Sinner
At least, the Democrats will not march as far to the left as Mr Bush and the Republicans did to the right.

That right there shows you what a load this article is.

9 posted on 12/28/2007 3:23:09 PM PST by darkangel82 (And the band played on....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Forgiven_Sinner
Enough people recognize clintons for the slime that they are: If herself "wins," it will be through voter fraud.

clintons CHEAT

10 posted on 12/28/2007 3:25:14 PM PST by bannie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AmericanMade1776

“If Hillary wins, then who do we blame?”

The stupid, illiterate, non-reading American public.


11 posted on 12/28/2007 3:26:37 PM PST by txzman (Jer 23:29)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: txzman
txzman wrote: “If Hillary wins, then who do we blame?” The stupid, illiterate, non-reading American public.

We will only have ourselves to blame for not educating the illiterate, non-reading American public on Hillary, and the Republican Party for not being more cohesive in their approach in the Republican Primary, and forgetting who the enemy is.

12 posted on 12/28/2007 3:30:51 PM PST by AmericanMade1776
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: K-oneTexas

When will the Repub’s realise that the nominee has yet to enter the race? Oh, yes!


13 posted on 12/28/2007 3:41:59 PM PST by hkp123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Forgiven_Sinner
The elephant in the room for the next administration will be the aging baby boomers and their impact on domestic spending.

Neither party has a clue how to deal with this, and whatever health care plans may be enacted it is Medicare that will be a budget-buster for the next four, eight, twelve, sixteen and twenty years. The Hillary voters don't want to talk about it, but within a couple of years of the new administration Congress won't be talking about much of anything else.
14 posted on 12/28/2007 3:49:33 PM PST by cgbg ("2009-2017: Gnarled and ugly,loud and preachy, fiscally and morally depraved.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Forgiven_Sinner

Sounds like time to make a wager against the Hildebeast.


15 posted on 12/28/2007 4:00:57 PM PST by FastCoyote (I am intolerant of the intolerable.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Philistone

I’m afraid the American people think they must follow each failed Bush with an arrogant Clinton who will be proclaimed in advance as a certain success. They don’t know any better.


16 posted on 12/28/2007 5:24:43 PM PST by Theodore R. ( Cowardice is still forever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: AmericanMade1776

You will have GWB to blame!


17 posted on 12/28/2007 5:25:32 PM PST by Theodore R. ( Cowardice is still forever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Ole Okie

It might not be that easy to get rid of the Controller-in-chief even by the, sick though it be, Commander-in-chief.


18 posted on 12/28/2007 5:26:40 PM PST by Theodore R. ( Cowardice is still forever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: AmericanMade1776

We blame many Pub purists who would not vote for Mitt, Fred, John or Rudy because of one issue voting. Then we blame a dumbed down voter who wants socialism and pacifist appeasement to keep ourselves Fortress American without the Fort! The media will, of course, vote and push Hil or the Empty Suit from Ill. no matter who wins that nomination. That will encourage dumb voters to zombie-like vote for her even if it means that we slowly become a Third World nation.


19 posted on 12/28/2007 5:30:25 PM PST by phillyfanatic ( tH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
Theodore R. wrote: You will have GWB to blame!

Not me, because Pres Bush is not to blame for the Republican party letting a few idiots like Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee act like they are relevant, so that the main contenders in the Republican Party can not take the reigns for the Next Presidential Election. I will blame you, Theodore R. for letting Hillary win, by bad mouthing President Bush and supporting lame Conservative Candidates.

20 posted on 12/28/2007 5:47:22 PM PST by AmericanMade1776
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: phillyfanatic

agreed


21 posted on 12/28/2007 5:48:23 PM PST by AmericanMade1776
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: AmericanMade1776

Republican will be coming from around the Globe to vote against Hillary Clinton. The world has never seen such Republicans. I will pay for Republicans from China to come vote. If Democrats can get dead people to vote then I have the right to get people from China to vote.


22 posted on 12/28/2007 6:00:57 PM PST by Mojohemi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Forgiven_Sinner
They appear beholden to the conventional wisdom. Nothing much of substance here, and nothing new.
23 posted on 12/28/2007 6:29:50 PM PST by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Forgiven_Sinner

24 posted on 12/28/2007 6:35:40 PM PST by Revolting cat! (We all need someone we can bleed on...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AmericanMade1776

Alas, it always happens: the failures of HST led to Ike; the perceived failures of Ike led to JFK. The failures of LBJ led to Nixon. The failures of Ford led to Carter. Carter’s woes led to Reagan. GHWB led to his good friend Clinton, etc. So why would 2008 be different?


25 posted on 12/28/2007 7:57:04 PM PST by Theodore R. ( Cowardice is still forever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: AmericanMade1776

History shows that all voters know to do is vote out the “ins” and put in the “outs”, and nothing really changes. Some just “feel” better than others at all times. Mencken had a quote about that in the 1940s.


26 posted on 12/28/2007 7:58:18 PM PST by Theodore R. ( Cowardice is still forever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson