Donkey v. Elephant: The Spread

I usually shy away from predictions and forecasts for the simple reason that most things in life cannot be predicted or accurately forecast. Presidential elections are no exception to this rule. However, with the 2008 presidential election season just days away from kicking off with caucuses, I thought it would be kind of fun to put my predictions down in writing and then come back to them in November of next year when the dust has settled.
All debates aside and in spite of formal primary voting, I believe the democrat and republican machines have already chosen their candidates. These two political machines ultimately fingered their candidates before the primary season has even had a chance to begin. This time around, the candidates were anointed right after the 2006 mid-term elections.

Although Sen. Barack Obama, D-IL, is generating a great deal of fervor in the democratic party, the donkey will ultimately nominate New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, who has had the Democratic National Committee in her back pocket since hubby Bill won his first of two elections in 1992. The only way for Obama to steal the nomination would be for Hillary to screw up royally. This, of course, is a possibility—albeit a remote one. Then again, if the Obama camp can find enough Hillary flip-flops, he may just score enough late in the game to beat the buzzer and win the nod. Bill Richardson is the dark-horse candidate here. We won’t really know how well he fares in the race, much less what his chances are, until caucus results start coming in and the primary season is in full swing. As he stands right now, Richardson has little to no chance, given the fact that he is still a relatively obscure candidate who has not gone out and gotten the exposure that Hillary and Obama have. Yet, Richardson may serve a greater purpose than viable candidate: He could give Obama the nod, especially if he is able to take votes from key states like Nevada, California and Iowa away from Hillary. With his Hispanic background, Richardson could easily take latino votes that might have otherwise gone to Hillary.
Nonetheless, despite all the drama building up to Iowa and New Hampshire, I believe Hillary will weather the storms—not because she has the strength to, but because the DNC wants her to. The democratic ticket for 2008 will either be Clinton-Obama or Clinton-Richardson. All nastiness will be put aside for the good of the party.

When it comes to the republicans, the choices seem to be this empty suit, that empty suit or the other empty suit. Between Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, John McCain, Fred Thompson and Mike Huckabee, there is an awful lot of lip service being paid to the republican base and not enough substance to back up their boasts. All seem to give very scripted, political responses to tough issues. Rhetoric is what we get in return for demanding answers to the tough questions: abortion, illegal immigration, the war on terror, fuel, trade and taxes. More thought seems to be put into how something is said, rather than on what is said. There is flip-flopping and flop-flipping going on to an annoying degree in a vain effort to cover the broadest range of voters. The only republican candidates not paying lip service to the base are guys like Dr. Ron Paul and Duncan Hunter, who state their views very plainly and do not sugar-coat them. And their votes in Congress reflect these views. Unfortunately, they will not win the republican nomination for president; neither will Thompson, Huckabee or McCain, for that matter—albeit for different reasons.
As with the democrats, the republican machine has already narrowed its list down to two candidates: Giuliani and Romney. One has celebrity (Giuliani), while the other has the look and swagger (Romney) of a presidential candidate. The rest of the field can and will try in vain to secure the nod, but in the end, the machine has its man: Rudy Giuliani. Romney is a very close second; but he will only be second. The reason I believe Rudy will get the nomination over Romney is because of the latter’s religious affiliation and the fact that he displays it proudly. There is a very negative perception about Mormons within mainstream America. We hear the jokes all the time. When it is all said and done, few will take Romney seriously simply because he is a practicing Mormon. If not for that one major detail, I’d say Romney would pummel the rest of the field in a landslide; this includes Giuliani. Don’t get me wrong: the race will be very close out west and in the northeast. But Iowa is key: If Huckabee takes Iowa, then whoever wins New Hampshire’s caucus wins the nomination. That will not be Huckabee. Rather, it will come down to Giuliani and Romney, who will probably win out west. But again, I believe the Republican National Committee feels that it owes the nomination to Rudy, who has hung tough against the democrats in a heavily democratic region. Besides, who best to defeat Sen. Hillary Clinton in New York than the most popular NYC mayor in recent history? Giuliani also would give Hillary a run for her money out in California, considering his “progressive” views on gay marriage (San Fran, anyone?) and illegal immigration (the largest per capita population of which resides in the Golden State). However, should Romney somehow win in Iowa and keep control of the west, all the votes in New Hampshire and the northeast may not be enough to give Rudy the nod.
But Iowa, full of Midwest protestants, is more likely to vote for Huckabee, a Baptist minister. Huckabee and Iowa are the functional reasons why I believe Giuliani wins the nomination. But the real reason is because it is Rudy’s time and the RNC owes it to him. Look for a Giuliani-McCain or Giuliani-Huckabee ticket for the general election.

Now that we have the horse race down to two candidates, a fair assessment of their chances is warranted.
Hillary will win Illinois, especially with Obama as her running mate. She also will likely win Ohio, Michigan, Florida, Washington, Pennsylvania, Maryland and Colorado. She may take Louisiana and Tennessee in the south. If her running mate is Richardson, she will probably control much of the southwest, except for the Lone Star State. Just because she is Hillary and a democrat, Texas belongs to Giuliani.
The key states, however, in this year’s race are New York and California. Flip a coin and call it: that will probably determine who wins either state and the electoral votes needed to secure the presidency. Personally, I think it could go either way in both states. If Giuliani can woo enough gay and latino voters by maintaining progressive stands on issues important to these groups, he could snatch California out from under Hillary’s nose. His appeal in New York City is probably less questionable than throughout all of New York State. But win NYC and you probably win the state. Yet, Hillary proved how easily NY voters could be duped (after all, they voted in a carpet-bagger for U.S. Senate, didn’t they?) and manipulated into doing her will.
So, all this speculation leads up to my prediction….drum roll.
The next President of the United States will be….Rudy Giuliani. I think he will defeat Hillary narrowly by virtue of winning California. He will get a boost and endorsement from Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who may end up receiving a cabinet post in the Giuliani Administration for his support.
Giuliani will also carry the southwest, including Nevada, Arizona and New Mexico. California will be the next Florida, in terms of controversy as allegations of helping illegals to vote at the polls will be leveled against the winning candidate.
In the end, many of the smaller states out west, in the south and in the midwest—whose electoral votes helped Bush obtain and retain the White House—are not ready for a woman president. Therefore, the republicans win yet another close presidential election.

But wait: There may be a wild card in play here. In every presidential election since 1992, there has been a third-party candidate, whose votes have meant the difference between winning and losing for the two major political parties. In 1992, H. Ross Perot and his Reform Party garnered 11 percent of the popular vote to award democrat William Jefferson Clinton the White House and deny President George H.W. Bush a second term. In 1996, Perot’s votes also cost Sen. Bob Dole a possible upset of Clinton. Recall that in 1992 and 1996, neither of Clinton’s victories was considered a landslide, despite the third party votes. In 2000, it was Ralph Nader and his Green Party that took away precious votes in key states like Tennessee and Florida from former Vice President Al Gore. Even though the blame was placed on the U.S. Supreme Court for ruling in favor of George W. Bush, the culprit was likely the three percent of the popular vote that Nader denied Gore. And in 2004, Nader supporters further denied Sen. John F. Kerry votes in key states like Nevada and Ohio. This resulted in a Bush re-election.
Look for a third party to arise from either the left, right or both. A four-party race would indeed make this an interesting election season. Suddenly, the fringe elements would be critical to a democrat or republican success or failure. Nader sounds like he may enter the fray again, so beware democrats. And if Ron Paul’s supporters convince their candidate to separate himself from the Republican Party, then I would predict a likely democratic victory in November. Why? Because right-sided third parties tend to generate more votes than the left-sided ones historically.
Provided there is no third party to spoil the republican candidate’s chances, then Rudy should win by a nose. As for Hillary, well, let’s just say she’s not even close to her husband.