At this point, Mike Huckabee is America's best hope.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

It's looking increasingly likely that John McCain will win the Republican nomination.

If he does, I think it likely that he'd beat Obama, and even more likely (although far from certain) that he'd beat Clinton (and I think Clinton is more likely than not to beat Obama). His well-known antipathy to Bush means that he's less tarnished by the last eight years, in the public's eyes even if not in reality, than most other Republicans.

Which places America in the unlikely position of desperately needing Mike Huckabee. I think he's by some margin the person best placed to step in, stop McCain, and give the Democrats the presidential election. Mitt Romney might conceivably manage it, but he might also conceivably win. At this point, Mike Huckabee is pretty close to being America's last chance.

But, frankly, I'm not optimistic. If I had to place money on the next US president, McCain would be where I'd put it.

[cali]

1. It's way to early to assume that McCain will be the next president

I think he's a tough opponent against Hillary (not as tough against Obama, but I too think she'll get the nom) but he's not invincible by any means. Clinton will get women voters out in number. I think that will give her the edge.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

4. Agreed, but that's a slightly different statement to the one I made.

The odds of McCain being president are less than 50/50.

They are, however, better than the odds of anyone else at present.

[MH1]

18. Clinton will also get the frothing masses out in number.

I know the republicans will try to cook up the similar froth whoever is the nominee, but it's already in place for Hillary.

[JI7]

2. yes, we need to help Huck become the GOP Nominee

we could beat McCain, but it will be a lot tougher . if we can try to get Huckabee to be the nominee it will help a lot.

[depakid]

3. Oddly enough, I agree

and would add that the Dems have shown a remarkable propensity over the past 2 decades of finding ways to grasp defeat out of the jaws of victory....

This despite the fact that on issue after issue, progressive positions have enjoy a substantial majority and sometimes overwhelming public support.

[Selatius]

6. It's because campaigns have often been centered over style, not substance or positions.

On the positions, progressives usually beat neoliberals, but there is a disconnect between the horserace mentality the news media plays upon, the way a politician is perceived, and ultimately his or her stances on the issues. I would say that Kucinich has the best platform out there, but our elections are not about platforms. Otherwise, Republicans would never win any house of congress or the white house. The establishment that we have handicaps progressives.

[NoBorders]

14. Most people don't give a shit about issues

The 95% of the population that doesn't obssess on politics like we do either go with a gut level 'feeling', do what their friends do, or just don't vote. That's why we can't win with a candidate who's a great policty wonk but doesn't connect with people. Which is exactly we did last time, and what we appear to be doing now.

[Skittles]

5. I agree with your assessment

it's very depressing

[PFunk]

10. I also agree.

As of right now it doesn't look good for us dems. Both canadates are not good choices for going up against McCain (if he is the canadate). Infact IMO seemed to be pushed on us by the corporate media to give the repubs the perfect canadate for them to go up agains (Kerry anyone...). Even if Huck (or any other repug) gets the nod over McCain it still wont be a slam dunk (no matter what many say otherwise).

Hillary has to many haters on her from both the democratic base (who will either vote third party or not vote at all) and the repugs (who will come out in droves to vote against her).

And Obama who IMO has shot himself in the foot big time with his Regan statement (which didn't down well at all with the base and gives a reason not to vote for him) along with his race (as more than a few whites-especially in the south just will not vote for a black man).


This whole entire thing has highlightes some serious fault lines witin the democratic party base itself that could badly harm it (if not break it apart) in the future. That is if the dems don't do some serious fence mending after this election to avoid this.

[JCMach1]

7. Not at all... it's Romney and McCain

[Azathoth]

8. Agreed n/t

[Essene]

9. The risk is... Mike Bloomberg. Beware what you wish for...

[EV_Ares]

11. Too early for those scenarios to be certain, they are possible but there are all kinds of

variables that can change the entire complexion of this race for both parties. Right now the economy is #1 on peoples minds. Who best to handle the economy, not much is being said just yet by most of the candidates. Hillary has called for a fix of the economy as Obama. The Iraq situation, it appears McCain wins hands down pretty much on that issue and will be tough to beat if you just took him head on that issue. One thing it seems the public admires about McCain is the fact that he has not flip flopped but has stayed dead fast on what he believes. Doesn't matter if you agree with him or not, everyone knows where he is on issues and feels he has longevity, knowledge and honesty.

Also, you mentioned Romney, he could be the toughest opponent when it comes to the economy. He speaks well, photogenic and has a strong knowledge of business, that is still a wait and see but he seems to have the religion problem with some voters.

Then Obama who is really the bright light in all of this. People realize his youthfulness and not sure about him on a lot of things whereas you have Hillary who people have known for several years now and has experience in the senate as Obama as well. Obama is the real change and hope for a new direction of this country for many.

Huckabee is the folksy guy and former governor of a small southern state and I think his fundamentalist religion will keep him from the nomination. The people feel we have gone too far to the right and religion has played too much of a part in our government already.

That said; I think there are still so many factors that can turn this election many times around before we get to the general election. If I was to pick a candidate from both sides, I would say Clinton and either McCain or Romney on the republicans.

[Island Blue]

12. I could not disagree more.

We don't want this crazy man to even have a CHANCE of ending up in the White House. The thought of that sends shivers down my spine. Do not underestimate how strong he could be (or how stupid voters could be)in the general election. You do not want this.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

25. It's a gamble.

I think that chance of Mike Huckabee winning x damage he would do if he did < chance of McCain winning x damage he would do if he did.

[nickinSTL]

30. Uh, I don't think so...

I don't think McCain would be good - his stupid commitment to the Iraq disaster is a major problem, but Huckabee - assuming he had as compliant a Congress as Bush has had - would be absolutely disastrous for this nation, IMO.

He seriously wants to establish a Christian theocracy - and I don't see Congress having the backbone to stand up to him. I'd rather risk McCain than let Huckabee anywhere NEAR the Presidency.

[mwb970]

13. The Republicans are all gloomy because the next prez will be a Dem.

And now we are supposed to be gloomy as well, because the next prez will be a Republican. I guess it's a bipartisan kind of gloom.

[rasputin1952]

15. Common Ground!...Gloom and Doom for everyone...

:D

From what I see in Nebraska...the GOP would be lucky to get 30% of the vote. bush has destroyed the Party, and Reagan will not rise from the grave to save it, and one should notice that it has been 7 years since anyone has said, that the GOP is the "party of Lincoln"...very telling...;)

[x-g.o.p.er]

16. Then America is fucked. n/t

[BadgerLaw2010]

17. You think it would be harder for Clinton to beat him than for Obama to beat him? HA.

Look at the "experience" question in exit polls. Even Democrats don't believe that Obama has any meaningful experience.

You want to run that against McCain? Get a brain.

[Dob Bole]

21. While I am loathe to respond to emotional posts like this...

Obama has been seen to increase turnout better than Clinton. But neither of them bring any particular red states to the table, except arguably Arkansas for Clinton, which is not enough to win a national election. For either of them, their strategy is again going to have to be targeting a few states like Ohio and Virginia.

[BadgerLaw2010]

23. Again, how is Obama stronger against McCain? That post was a non-answer.

Do you really think the current independent rock star stuff (which is overrated and really worked for him in exactly one state) is enough to cancel out the enormous, obvious attacks on his experience - and the reality of that weakness - when put up against McCain?

As I said, even Democrats don't perceive Obama as experienced. The ones that want that do not vote for him. McCain is perfectly willing to talk policy, and call people on BS (Rudy's 9/11 "experience").

Hillary isn't all that experirenced either, but at least people perceive her as being so.

And I would definately start with Hillary winning Arkansas. It's not a lot of electoral votes, but the Republicans don't plan on losing it in their math.

[Dob Bole]

24. If McCain becomes the nominee along with Clinton

he would simply focus on security and make it a contest of masculinity. If it were Obama, you're right that he would make it a contest of experience.

So far, though, Obama has been beating McCain among independents in the primaries. It isn't a direct match-up, but the independents have been deciding to vote in the Dem. primary for Obama instead of the GOP primary for McCain. Like Clinton, though, any contest against McCain would probably focus on a strategy of Ohio, Virginia, and probably Missouri.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

26. Actually, I'd like to run Edwards against him

But I think that Obama would have a better chance than Clinton - I suspect that they'd get roughly similar numbers of votes - possibly Obama a few more, due to Clinton alienating some people who might vote for A.N. Democrat - but that the big difference is that significantly more people will vote for anyone who runs against Clinton than anyone who runs against Obama or Edwards (my preference for Edwards is based on policies not electability; on that score I don't think there's much to choose between him and Obama).

If we could, I think there'd be a lot to be said for not running a candidate at all, and giving voters the choice of voting for or against the Republicans.

[totodeinhere]

19. A lot can happen between now and November.

We need to fight overconfidence no matter whom they eventually nominate. The stakes are just too high. I know that this is a big obvious understatement, but we just can't afford another Repug president right now.

[Dob Bole]

20. Two problems with your assessment...

First, there is the Bloomberg wildcard. Bill Clinton won twice by plurality, Hillary conceivably could as well.

Second, Romney would not be able to win, simply because of his Mormonism. Against either Hillary or Obama, the Bible-belt swing states (Virginia, WV, Tennessee, Arkansas, Missouri) would swing Democratic.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

27. I think Bloomberg is more likely to harm than help the Democrats.

Especially if it's Clinton against McCain, I suspect he'd attract more otherwise-Democratic than otherwise-Republicn votes.

[Th1onein]

22. The Republicans won't win again for a long, long time.

I don't think Americans are going to take a chance on a Republican in the top office for a long, long time. McCain ain't gonna win.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

31. I'm afraid I don't agree.

Prove me wrong. Please.

[robbedvoter]

28. The misuse of the word "Hope" here lately gives me whiplash!

As much as the re-lionizing of crazy old man McCain!

[zanne]

29. I can't believe how defeatist we are here!

A couple of primaries are won by a Republican candidate and we're ready to throw in the towel! Christ, people, keep your perspective! We've just had eight years of Republican rule. That didn't work out very well. Alot of Republicans are sitting this one out. (Check the numbers).
Come on, people! Snap out of it!

[moondust]

32. A 100-year war?

I think a lot of young people understand that if war pig McBush is elected there will have to be a draft to support all his wars and militarism. What better motivation to get out and vote against somebody?