Will Hilary move from FLOTUS to PROTUS*?
July 29th, 2005
-
Is it going to be Hilary vs Rudolf or Hilary vs John
Even though George Bush’s second term only began on January 20th would-be seekers after their parties’ nominations are already talking with potential backers and putting visits to New Hampshire into their diaries in preparation for the 2008 race.
And because Bush cannot stand again there’ll will be fierce fights amongst both the Democrats and the Republicans to get the precious nominations.
-
If the UK betting markets have got this right then it’s going to be between the New York senator and no stranger to the White House, Hilary Clinton, and the former Mayor of New York Rudolf Giuliani. She’s currently at 4/1 while he is second favourite at 8/1.
Other names in the frame for the Democratic nomination are the V-P candidate from last time, John Edwards and Bill Richardson. Behind Giuliani in the betting for the Republican nomination is John McCain who was defeated by Bush in a rough fight in 2000. Last year there was much talk of McCain going on to the Kerry ticket in a bi-partisan approach but the Republican from Arizona kept well away.
Hilary’s strong position is based on the view, put lucidly by WBP on this site on Tuesday, that she has changed her public profile dramatically in the last few years and is pitching herself to the middle of the American political spectrum. She wisely kept out of the 2004 race and looks very strong, for the nomination at least in 2008.
-
Where the Clintons - Bill and Hilary - have always been brilliant is in developing a policy platform which will appeal and which is robust enough to stand the intense scrutiny of an American election campaign.
At the moment the UK betting markets have the Republicans ahead as the party most like to win the White House in 2008 which does not stand so squarely with the betting that makes Hilary favourite.
NOTE FLOTUS and PROTUS is the “shorthand” used by White House officials to describe the First Lady of the United States and the President of the United States. It is anybody’s guess what term they would give to Bill Clinton if he returned to Washington as the Spouse of the President - SPROTUS?
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
I would have to say No. Since the United States electoral system is based on votes from states I don’t see they way Hillary Clinton gets the 270 electoral votes to become President of the United States.
She would play well in the South which now composse about half of the nations electoral votes espcially Florida and many of the states one by Kerry are very very marginal. Also Hillary is just to polorizing to those on the right in the United States.
What are the volumes like on the UK betting? Doesn’t Betfair include US betting, so that you may be betting against someone in a different currency?
I was surprised to find just how small the volumes are on some markets. For example, there’s are a few tens of thousands traded on betfair on whether or not Brown will make it, but Hewitt is still under a hundred pounds. If the volumes are small the predictive power is slight.
The Democrats should really look to someone from the South or a Governor if they ever hope to get back into the White House.
Mike.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, Hillary Clinton is very very far from a sure thing for the democratic nomination. The polls and the betting markets this far out most reflecting name recognition hence the reason why Edwards, Kerry and Obama are still up there.
Hillary has been a very divisive and polarising figure in the past and remains a hate figure for many republican activists. This is not to say she has not begun to position herself as more of a moderate than the GOP’s caricature might suggest… on national security she has staked out hawkish stances, in her rhetoric she has sought to soften the edges of her positions on other social issues and has been making a big thing lately of being seen to work with republicans (and some pretty conservative ones at that on different initiatives) such as Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum and Bill Frist. Added to this Hillary could probably count on the greater part of the old “Carville political machine” that operated from Little Rock in her husbands two election campaigns.
But all this cannot take away from the fact that while Hillary could run a good solid campaign, and indeed a better one that John Kerry did, she would be a vulnerable candidate for the Democrats. If Bush succeeded in getting a high turnout from the conservative base against John Kerry, the would absolutely succeed in gaining a good turnout from its core supporters against Hillary which would probably (depending on the GOP’s candidate) allow the GOP’s nominee some freedom to cater to the political centre without having to worry about their base… Hillary would not have this luxury, on the left the “true believers” do not and never have trusted her and she would have to work to mobilise them to vote while on the right many conservative democrats would feel alienated by a ticket lead by a candidate so identified in their eyes with the left of the party. So while the GOP would be united and secure for its nominee, the Democratic base would be far weaker and less united mean that Hillary would have to spend longer patching up her base while the GOP candidate would be able to concentrate on the “vital centre”.
With Hillary probably facing a moderate southern conservative, such as Sn. George Allen or Governor Mark Sanford (Mike DO NOT BELIVE, that a liberal like Giuliani or a maverick like McCain would get the GOP nomination) the south will effectively be locked down by the GOP forcing the contest onto Democratic terrain in the Midwest (PA, MI, WI and IA) as well as the traditional swing state of Ohio. While Hillary would be stand a good chance at huge wins in the northeast and her native New York it is likely that the GOP would be able to appeal to a significant section of the blue collar “Reagan democrats” in states such as MI, OH and PA over the heads of the Democrats, while the loss of Bush from the GOP ticket might mean that the Democrats garner more Hispanic voters swinging states such as NV and NM this would make little difference the election would come down to the Midwest and here Hillary would be at a disadvantage and while nationally she would do respectably she would probably see traditionally Democratic states, dominated by blue collar, manual workers switching to a GOP ticket lead by a personable and charismatic, conservative such as Allen or Sanford…
I’ll have a stab at the GOP in a bit… but gotta go to work…
In answer to the topic: I don’t think so. But very possibly SCOTUS under a future Dem president.
BV [5] - I don’t think I want to know what those initials stand for…
Anyway, the GOP isn’t going to give up power. Apart from anything else, there’s this: http://www.blackboxvoting.org/
6 - Supreme Court of the United States.
Alternative view of Hillary’s “move to the centre”:
http://www.slate.com/id/2123392/
(scroll down to the July 26 posting)
FACDUP (Former and Current Democrat US Presidents)?
My own tightly argued and cogent analysis is that Hilary Clinton will likely be a - Future Under Consideration Keep Us Posted !
8 -
The acronym is actually ‘POTUS’, not ‘PROTUS’.
11 - AH, what are your views on Grieve’s Europhilia?
12 - Respectful disagreement, Tabman. Dominic and I are friends and have been for years; we simply take different views on the question of Europe. His mother was French, so his slightly more amiable views are understandable and to be expected in my opinion. It would be more accurate to say that he is an EUphiliac but a Eurosceptic.
13 - as in pro the institution but against the single currency? How did he slip under the radar?
He takes a more favourable view of closer economic and diplomatic cooperation in Europe than I do personally. Outside of this issue, there is no variance between his views and mine or the rest of the local association’s, for that matter. He was selected because he was the best of the applicants on offer, and still is - He didn’t ’slip’ anywhere - his views on Europe were fully known to us in 1997.
15 - it’s commendable that you’d let such a heretic become your candidate, Alastair; I didn’t know you’d been infected by Leigh’s virus
…got some time spare at last.
The GOP field in 2008, looks really interesting, for the first time in the last fifty years or more neither the incumbent president or vice president will be seeking election so both the nomination contests will be wide open.
Rudy Guiliani, has mooted that he might like to run for president and indeed has been attempting to build bridges with the godfather (no pun intended) of the religious right Pat Robertson… but being realistic a pro-choice, pro-gun control candidate who has only ever held the office of Mayor, such as Guiliani really doesn’t stand a “cat in hells” chance at the GOP’s nomination.
McCain on the other hand may stand more of a chance, he’s pro-life, fiscally conservative, capable of raising large quantities of cash, already has built up an impressive political team and most importantly could beat almost any candidate the Democrats might want to put up. I really have no idea why Kerry wanted him as his runningmate, yes he’s very popular but he’s a solidly conservative senator even if he is a maverick… no kind of political match for a Liberal such as Kerry, its possible that Kerry was just friendly with the guy and wanted to boosts his own rather dry persona, then again it was never serious. McCain will however face a great number on the religious right who will oppose him as they did in 2000 as well as many conservative activists who simply don’t trust his consensual, bipartisan style. But he would be seriously in contention unlike Rudy.
The other powerful candidate who is likely to run is Virginia Senator George Allen, a mainstream, southern conservative with a solid record as Virginia’s governor back in the 1990’s and now as one of the GOP leading Senator’s in Washington. His leadership of the GOP’s Senatorial campaigns was credited with allowing the Republicans to make an unprecedented six gains from the Democrats, including the seat of the Democratic majority leader Tom Daschle in South Dakota. As a result his stock with the party leader and money men is very hight, he enjoys broad support amongst the party grassroots while at the same time having a folksy manner and mainstream appeal that playwell outside of the GOP base.
While McCain will be a serious candidate, a large number of Republicans will want to stop him and are likely to rally round Allen, as the candidate best placed to “Stop McCain”. To suggest that the GOP nomination battle would be between a liberal like Rudy and maverick like McCain is, sadly, wishful thinking.
Re GOP; gopping is a slang-term: Adj. Disgusting, ugly.
Isn’t the phrase POTUS rather than PROTUS? All that West Wing must have come in handy somewhere (!)
WBP?
Re: 18 - Tabman
Surley you realise that “GOP” stands for “Grand Old Party” the old nickname for the Republicans
17- I have some money on George Allen for precisely those reasons! Although, ironically, if he doesn’t run for POTUS, then he might lose his Senate seat to Mark Warner. Although Warner himself might be in with a shot of being the ‘Stop Hillary’ candidate for the Dems. Vilsack has been cosying upto Hillary recently, so I can see him as a V-P pick, and Russ Feingold has gotta be more of a V-P pick than in for the big one.
McCain- there seems to be talk that he could be a VP candidate, and that is what Karl Rove has been working for.
George Allen- I am hoping, although not with much of a hope, that Gov Warner (D) will challenge Allen and, if polls are right, he would be beaten. Allen is a pretty horrid, very right wing guy- I see another Bush in foreign eyes.
Apparently many senior Republicans cannot see either McCain or Guiliani as their candidate- as said before it could well create infighting which is more common among democrats at this moment. There is a chance that the Dems could win one or two seats back in 2006- several vunerable republicans and a few open seats- which could give the Dems some momentum. Also, polls say that Americans want Dems in power again more than in recent years, due to poor congress.
What I find interesting is that, while Hilary is doing all the right things as far as getting the nomination, we have so many Dems going for it too. Look at Gov. Warner, Evan Bayh, Kerry, Edwards, Joe Biden etc. I can see a very crowded field.
I can only see Hilary, and perhaps a Republican who isn’t a household name will come through.
Surely the husband of the president would be the First Gentleman of the United States - FGOTUS - pronounced “forgot us”.
Stuck in Shanghai after abortive day at airport. Fan belt on Lufthansa 747 broke and had to send to Frankfurt for a new one!!
23 - but how will McCain perform when the chips are down?
25 - it’ll be like an oven for him.
BREAKING NEWS: Robert Kilroy Silk quits as leader of Veritas….
Is he starting another party where his genius will be more fully appreciated?
He is joining the Lib Dems.
OT - Thought you might amused to learn that BBC news are reporting that Kilroy-Silk has quit as the leader of Veritas.
Veritas now officially the most pointless party in political history…
It’s one in, one out… this and Donnachadh McCarthy resigning.
“It was clear from the general election result - and more recently that of the Cheadle by-election - that the electors are content with the old parties… we must face up to the truth.”
What a beautiful day!
I wonder what he will do next.
Here is the sad news in full:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4728941.stm
I think, as a tribute to the great man, we should all treat ourselves to a stirring rendition of his anthem:
http://eclectech.co.uk/veritasparty.php
It is the least we can do.
“I wonder what he will do next.”
Live off the Brussels gravy train, whilst ‘bringing it down from the inside’ by sitting around in Belgian bars doing Belgian things like eating nice chocolates drinking strong beer and perusing child pornography.
“…..the electors are content with the old parties… we must face up to the truth.” But didn’t another new party - New labour - lose it’s deposit at Cheadle. Perhaps RKS will relaunch Old Labour.
36 - he will use entryist tactics to oust George Howarth in Knowsley North. And finally the wheel will have come full circle.
24 , Icarus . No . The husband of President Hilary Clinton will be :
Clinton’s Intimate Gynaecological American Reefer .
http://www.middlebury.net/clinton
I promise I’m not inhauilng either ….. no cigar then ?!?!
36 , Icarus . Former leaders of Vainitus are :
Wretchedly Awful Nonentity Kilroy Enjoys Ridicule Shamelessly.
Quite frankly I couldn’t give a toss .
http://www.apex1.com/gifs/tosser.gif
Whilst moi is more this variety of the genre :
http://www.freespace.virgin.net/alan.bignose/tosser.html
“9. is this because wrapping himself in orange Dayglo posters is a cheaper way to top off his ‘tan’ (sic)?
Can we run a book on VeryTerse’s new leader? Pinky… Perky?
For what tis worth the three Americans I had lunch with today are all very left wing Democrats and they say that Hilary has no chance. But what she is doing is taking daylight from other good candidates rather as E Kennedy did after his little local difficulty in a non-swimming car and passenger. He was,after that, not a possible candidate but blocked the path of others that had more chance by simply being there.
41 , Blue2win. “…had lunch with … very left wing Democrats”
I’m shocked that you would sup with Tabman’s American cousins !!
Note that effectively Kilroy has put the boot in for the Veritas Party and its members.
To quote Kilroy’s statement:
“…the electors are content with the old parties and that it would be virtually impossible for a new party to make a significant impact given the nature of our electoral system. We tried and failed.
It is also the case that it is impossible to have an effective political party without a central administration and significant financial support. We have neither.
In the circumstances I would be misleading the members of the party and the public if I pretended that we could make progress. I’m not prepared to do that. We must face up to the truth.”
Effectively Kilroy has wound up the party.
I find this disgraceful for all the members of the party, however gloomy their prospects may look, who want to stay and fight for what they believe in in the party they chose to join. Many of them would have put in a lot of work or left other parties.
Kilroy’s departure is like that of David Owen leaving the SDP. Party members stood beside David Owen through thick and thin only to be kicked in the teeth by him when he left saying the party was “wound up.”
Kilroy’s speech gives the proof, if we needed it, that this was nothing but a vanity project for him.
I think that Hillary will not become President simply because she’s too anti-war. Although she voted for the Iraq war (but then again so did Kerry) she opposed the war in Afghanistan and has constantly changed her mind since the fall of Saddam. If the Republicans have any sense they would choose McCain who would be utterly unbeatable. Of course in a McCain v Hillary race I would still want Hillary to win (out of party loyalty - though I’m not American) but I would say that many more American’s support hawkish views on foriegn policy and pro-trade economic polices than Hillary’s views. The reason why Hillary is favorite to win the Presidency while the Republicans are ahead overall is because the race for the Republican nomination is more open.
Matthew - WTF?
Only one person in Congress opposed the Afghanistan War - Barbara Lee from Berkeley. And to reiterate, free trade is not an important issue in American politics, and insofar as it is, it is good politics to OPPOSE it. See the polling on the issue
I’m telling folks in Britain, Hillary is a tougher contender than some imagine. I agree that 30% or so of the public hates her, but this can backfire to in making her a sympathetic figure. She will do well to pull back some and turn out in greater numbers some of the constituencies Kerry struggled a bit with.
Finally, as to the GOP, Giuliani has no chance. None. I doubt he’ll even run. McCain would be a stong GE candidate but he has a lot of enemies within the GOP and he will not be a candidate of the Christian right. He could get the nomination, but I’d bet against it. He’ll also be 70 in ‘08 which may or may not be a factor.
For the GOP, I’d expect someone to come out of leftfield to cause a surprise, possibly running on an anti-immigrant platform. Its not clear if there’ll be a consensual Christian right pragmatic choice (like Bush in ‘00), but if such a person emerges, he’ll (or less likely, she’ll) be the person.
Ben P
16 - I’ve been away over the weekend on Grandfathering duties. Steve, may one ask what prompted your question? Opposition research? Are we a ‘target seat’?
