Pessimistic Politics: Let the Games Begin… Predications for the 2008 Presidential Elections

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: I watch politics the way other men watch sports.

It’s not as if I think we’re all doomed if the Yankees win, or that America’s last hope for salvation rests in the Patriots winning the Super Bowl. Neither do I really believe any politician is going to dramatically change things in my lifetime. Sometimes we humans are just driven to pick a side in order to feel like we’re making a contribution.

To pursue the metaphor further, student council is like little league. If you’re a really good player, you might get picked for the local, state or national team, although it’s rare you’ll find any group of guys willing to go out Sunday morning for an impromptu game of touch-voting.

Having no true state or local affiliation myself (at least until 2009, when I plan to settle permanently in Augusta, Georgia), I tend to immerse myself in the national level. Another downside to politicking, whereas every other sport gets its own season every single year, the politics fans have to wait two years between games, including midterm elections, which are akin to spring-training for the national league.

The season started early this year, as I’m sure everyone noticed, though all it really amounts to is an extended practice. The real showdown won’t begin until the Iowa Caucus, January 3^rd, which is getting an impressive buildup even now. If you want to know my prediction, and this is just a guess, really, it’s that the same candidate that takes Iowa is going to sweep New Hampshire and Michigan on the 8^th and the 15^th. I say this because the race is currently so tight that one win will be all it takes to tip the balance, a view I have heard echoed by pundits everywhere.

(I don’t talk much about the Republican Primary only because my pick, Barrack Obama, is currently on the blue team, and I’m not planning on picking a second favorite until he’s out.)

I further project that the Democratic nominee is going to be either Barrack Obama or Hillary Clinton, though I’m vastly surer of this than I am the other. John Edwards might be a great player, but he’s been trailing the front runners from the very beginning. At this point, there’s virtually nothing he can do to attract more press than either of the front runners, and the only way he can get around their lead is if one of them falters.

Not that I’m dismissing this possibility. In 2004, Howard Dean looked like a virtual shoe-in until Jan. 19, when he let loose his trademark “Yeeargh!,” at which point the media pounced on him, making him look aggressive and unstable. For this reason alone we lost our best candidate, but managed to go the rest of the way with John Kerry, who lost his own battle when a Republican funded group of swift boat veterans stabbed their commander in the back by implying he was not worthy of his war record, something which nobody pointed out his competitor did not have.

Not that I am bitter.

Back to this year. I have a sneaking suspicion this year’s faux pas has already been committed, and Clinton did it. If you read the news, you’ll notice Obama’s campaign against Clinton has mostly been about her sense of entitlement, as though she had inherited the throne already. In comparison, Obama has been working in government longer (he joined the Illinois legislature in 1997, though Clinton had already been First Lady since ’93, a role some might consider political in nature) but only recently determined he would be a good candidate for president.

Hillary, retaliating, pointed out that when Obama was in kindergarten, he wrote a paper about what he would do if he were president. I wish I were making this up. For the record, when I was in kindergarten I sincerely wanted to be an astronaut, and I hope nobody ever thinks to drag that out when I say I’ve always wanted to be a writer. Going to these lengths to try and discredit your opponent seems more indicative of your character than theirs.

We’ve yet to see any major fallout from this one, but the fact that it’s been in the news shows that it’s on the minds of the voting public. It also shows how nervous both candidates are becoming as January 3^rd draws closer and closer.

Should a sweep such as I have predicted not occur (there’s still a lot of time for something to go wrong), the primary battle is almost certain to come to a head by “Super Duper,” or “Tsunami” Tuesday, February 5th. On this single day, 20 states, constituting 40% of the electorate, will make their decisions, effectively tying up the race (though other states will continue to vote in onesies and twosies up until June 3rd).

In life, there are no certainties. But until February 5th, there isn’t even a trend. I stand by what I’ve said, but again, it’s just my opinion, and I’d be happy to hear a dissenting one.

I’ll be your commentator till it’s over.

Let the games begin!

Addendum

I feel bad not putting in at least a little something about the Republican National Convention, as though anyone were actually expecting me to write a nice, balanced informative piece.

At any rate, it would at least serve to more deeply ingrain the obviously biased opinion you’ve already seen. That and some of these facts may scare you.

I project that, if he is nominated, Giuliani WILL win the general election and the presidency. While Giuliani is running as a Republican and has their endorsement, many of his social views are very much in-line with Democratic planks, including gay and abortion rights. At the same time, his foreign policy is staunchly conservative, and he has quite possibly the best record of anyone in the world when it comes to fighting terrorism.

Which, if you haven’t noticed, is a pretty big issue for all comers.

He’s got the fundamentals to attract both the majority of Republicans, who seem to stick harder to party lines, and immense crossover appeal to Democrats, such as myself. He’s also got a huge edge should Clinton win the nomination, who has coasted this far mainly due to her opponent’s reluctance to attack her. Call him what you will, but Giuliani ain’t weak, or likely to hold punches, and he’s got a firmer claim to New York City, having actually lived there and worked through the ranks, rather than swiftly jumping in and establishing power.

And if Obama is the man to beat? It pains me to say this, but I think Giuliani still has the edge, though both candidates have crossover appeal. However, that’s not a scenario I want to examine too closely until we determine if it’s likely.

The reason it’s not likely, as I’ve insinuated, is because in order to run in the general election he’s got to first win the primary. Though he’s been the front runner for months before now, he’s currently losing ground to Mit Romney and Mike Huckabee in the battleground state of Iowa, where the first caucus is held, and which one generally assumes is an indicator of electability.

Romney, however, is likely to lose. It’s unfortunate we feel we have to call into question any candidates religious beliefs, but being non-religious by nature, I’m not allowed to be involved in this argument. Romney, if you didn’t already know, is a Mormon, and that’s not sitting well with a lot of mainstream Christians, or with anyone who’s ever driven through Salt Lake City.

Giuliani is playing a dangerous game in this case, taking a risk no one has attempted since the formation of the Republican National Convention. Rather than devote all his attention to the next battleground for about a week beforetime, Giuliani is going in early on Florida, California and New York, who each have over a hundred votes (if Florida hadn’t moved their primary before Super Duper Tuesday and been penalized), in an effort to seal up the nomination. What he’s hoping is that the early states will not drastically alter public opinion, not with his already substantial name recognition, and that he’ll pull in the really big fish at his leisure. One hopes he’s right.

At any rate, Giuliani WILL LOSE Iowa, Wyoming and New Hampshire on the 3rd, 5th, and 8th of January, though each state has but 40, 12 and 12 votes to their name. However, he WILL WIN Florida’s 57 votes on the 29th, then California’s 173 and New York’s 101 on Super Duper Tuesday.

I also believe, for no really good reason, he’s going to go into a flurry of campaigning after the New Year and pull in most, if not all, of the states involved in Super Duper Tuesday.

And after that? Well, I’d rather not guess on that until we see how the playing field has leveled. It’s either candidates race to lose.