I need some baseless speculation.....

[junkiebrewster]

I have a paper for a Political Science class due in a couple of weeks and though I would run it by the *ahem* braintrust here. (The "ahem" is sarcasm.)

We are supposed to predict who the nominees of both parties WILL BE for the 2008 presidential election based on all of the relative factors. (strength of candidacy, position on issues, fundraising, etc.) The choices can be culled from current nominees and those who are undeclared.

Then, we are supposed to name who the nominees SHOULD be, rather than who it will eventually be. We do not have to worry about VP candidates, unless we feel so inclined.

Thus far, I am leaning towards:

Will be:
Republican: Romney (fundraising strength, young, almost middle of the road.)
Democrat: Clinton (last name recognition, fundraising strength)


Should be:
Republican: Guiliani (broad appeal but too many skeletons)
Democrat: Gore (obviously, he's already won once.)

Bear in mind that this should be done without interjecting personal opinion of the candidates, so please keep them to yourselves.

Anyhoo, anyone have any thoughts?

*Edit for clarity

[Sammy Pepys]

1. Do the "will be" and the "should be" have to be different necessarily?

It seems like that question assumes that the party is going to get it wrong no matter what, if that's the case....which I don't think makes for a very good research topic.

I'd approach it this way: name recognition, fundraising ability, political comity with the party. That will get you your "will be".

For the "should be", reverse it: political comity, fundraising ability, name recognition.

Chart it all out, and move from there.

[junkiebrewster]

2. No....

They can be one and the same. It was MY assumption that the parties will get it wrong. Based on history, of course!!!!

Thanks for the suggestions. That seems like a solid approach.

[Sammy Pepys]

6. Hope it works!

My thinking behind the formualtion that parties concede some of their platforms to appeal to indys, moderates and other folks who might be on the fence. That's your "will be."

The "should be" is the candidate that, broad appeal aside, would be the most likely pick of the unwavering party faithful.

[SteppingRazor]

3. My picks:

Will be:
Republican: Romney (fundraising, behind-the-scenes party support, more amenable to fundie voting base)
Democratic: Obama (recent fundraising annoucement puts kibosh on Clinton's primary raison d'etre, views more amenable to Democratic primary voters)


Should be (by should be, I want to see the person who best represents the extreme of that party. That is, the Republican candidate should be very conservative, with little or no regulation of business and a great deal of regulation of social issues, while the Democrat should be the opposite, regulation of business combined with civil libertarianism).
Republican: Newt Gingrich
Democratic: Dennis Kucinich

[trumad]

4. Gore--- Hagel

[junkiebrewster]

5. I forgot about Hagel

But that makes sense, given his Iraq war stance.

[Czolgosz]

7. Will be Obama vs. Romney; should be Edwards vs. Chafee

Obama may win the Democratic nomination because he combines hopeful talk with moderate votes in a manner that is non-threatening and he has a good campaign structure.

Romney may win the Repub nomination because he has the Bush Repub machine pushing him and he stands the best chance of holding together the Repub coalition of Christian fundamentalists and neocon corporatists.

Edwards should win the Democratic nomination because he has the most substantive answers for the most serious problems plaguing us and his ideas on health care and other issues should have cross-party appeal (Obama may edge him out because a positive image and vague plans may surpass a more detailed plan which admits that there will be actual costs associated with fixing out problems).

Chafee should win the Repub nomination because he's about the only Repub I can stomach (Romney will win over Chafee because Chafee is not running and, if Chafee did run, he would get slaughtered in the Repub primary which is no place for a reasonable person to seek validation).