« New Writers Joining Wizbang Blue | Main | Bill Clinton's Last Days in the White House »

Republicans Heading for Disaster in 2008

A while ago I mused that the Republican Party could go the way of the Whigs. Conservative columnist Bob Novak has an equally upbeat appraisal of the Republican Party's prospects in the 2008 elections.

"All the stars are aligned against the Republicans in 2008," Bob Novak told the assembled masses at the Americans for Tax Reform's Wednesday meeting, causing a subtle gasp to leak out of the conservative faithful.

Early polling data from PollingReport.com shows the Democrats leading in the generic party preference question by an astounding 16 points, 52-36%. Independents prefer the Democrats by a whopping 20 point margin, 47-27%.

An LA Times poll asked voters about their preferences in the 2008 Presidential race. By a 10-point margin voters said they preferred a Democrat to a Republican:

When all voters were asked whether they would prefer a Republican or Democrat to be elected president in 2008, 49% favored Democrats, compared with 39% favoring the GOP.

It's very early of course and a lot can happen between now and then, but it's very clear that things are not looking good for the Republicans at this point in time. There is no light at the end of the tunnel in Iraq, the economy is slowing and a new slew of corruption scandals is likely to erupt this summer. My prediction: the Republicans haven't hit bottom yet.


Note: Wizbang Blue is now closed and our authors have moved on. Paul Hooson can now be found at Wizbang Pop!. Please come see him there!

  • Currently 3.7/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rating: 3.7/5 (3 votes cast)


Comments (7)

cirby:

The funny thing is that, while "the people" might like the idea of voting for a Democrat, you run into a real problem when it comes to the individual Democrats who are likely to run. Ask them about it, and you get, "I like Democrats. Which ones? Oh, I don't like any actual Democrats, just the imaginary ones."

Hilary, the front-runner, is a complete disaster for the 2008 Democratic run for the White House. While she polls really strongly among dedicated Dems, the Right AND the crossover voters generally hate her (as much or more than the Left hates Bush). Most of the rest of the Democratic potentials are in much the same boat. Obama's busily falling apart, for example, and it's not even 2008 yet.

On the GOP side, though, there are a handful of fairly good, moderately to very well-liked possible candidates, which is going to make that "generic" Presidency pretty iffy for the Dems who are supposed to be in the running.

Outside of the Presidential run, the Dems are busily screwing up the major issue from the last election, the one that got a lot of them in - corruption. They ran against the "climate of corruption" in the Republican Party, and then turned right around and got noticeably more corrupt then the guys they chased out (and disinclined to air out their own dirty laundry).

ke_future:

i'd be really interested in knowing the why's of that poll. if people are perfering demo's because of their position on taxation, the environment, health care, foreign policy, etc, mostly what people believe the role of government is. that's the basic difference between the parties. then the republicans may be in for some term trouble.

if, on the other hand, it's because of war weariness and issues about corruption, then the numbers will correct themselves. it would just be a question of when.

to be honest, i really don't don't have a feel for what the national feelings are on a variety of these issues. i just know what i believe in philosophically. and that leans me towards the republican party.

"On the GOP side, though, there are a handful of fairly good, moderately to very well-liked possible candidates, which is going to make that "generic" Presidency pretty iffy for the Dems who are supposed to be in the running."

By "good candidates" are you referring to the tele-evangelist flip-flop artist, the chimp in the Senator suit, or the guy who wears dresses?

FMK:

"By "good candidates" are you referring to the tele-evangelist flip-flop artist, the chimp in the Senator suit, or the guy who wears dresses?"

Two questions for Lee:

1) Would you care to attach a name to the above descriptions ?

2) Have you ever had an adult opinion on a subject ?

If you can't figure it out, FMK, stick around. You'll learn a lot about the candidates that Cirby thinks are "fairly good" as we approach the elections.

FMK:

Lee,

I asked you two questions, and you answered neither.

I am quite certain that I have a broader understanding of the election process than you do. Your 'faux' concern about my knowledge of the candidates is is not my problem.

Paul Hamilton:

I wrote a long response to this but was doing so on the laptop so naturally, I touched the touchpad and it closed my browser and I lost it all. So here's the Reader's Digest version:

1. Voters like *generic* Democrats, but when you actually give them flesh-and-blood people to choose from, they are much more Republican. That indicates to me that our candidates aren't exactly getting the electorate excited.

2. You are exactly right about Hillary. Her negatives are higher than her positives and will remain so forever. To nominate her would be to guarantee a Republican win in '08. Barack Obama is a much better candidate but he talks over people's heads sometimes and he's not a "seasoned politician." By that, I mean he hasn't yet learned The Old Bob and Weave.

3. Rudy no doubt gives a lot of Republicans hives, but he can win in November. Watch the non-goofball money in the Republican primaries. The religious nuts will never support him, of course, but if the corporate money starts to go his way, it will be a hint that they will be telling the RNC that pandering to the fringe is pointless because they'll vote Republican anyway. Nominate someone that the swing voters can get behind because right now, they're almost 2:1 in favor of the Dems.

...and finally, 4. If Iraq is still as big a deal a year from now as it is today, the Dems will be a mortal lock. Therefore, and especially following that "intervention" by the Pub congressmen (thank you, Bill Maher), I look for this thing to be settled soon. Bush has about one more good posturing in him but then he needs to face political reality or his own party will turn on him with far more venom than the spineless Dems ever have. Bush is retiring in January of '09 but there are lots of other politicians who would like to keep their jobs and there is no way in hell they'll let him drag them down. Possible exception is McCain, but he's dog meat anyway.


Advertisments

Categories

Archives

Technorati



Add to Technorati Favorites

Credits

Publisher: Kevin Aylward

Editors: Lee Ward, Larkin, Paul S Hooson, and Steve Crickmore

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

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.