Disunity
Simon Tisdall, writing in the Comment is Free section of the Guardian, spends rather a lot of his column today pointing out that the Republicans are having a number of difficulties right now - all of which is quite true. But he also spends a little bit of time toward the end of the piece pointing out that the Democrats are actually not in any better shape, really. They have some serious problems as well.
But the Democratic field does not lack similar difficulties to those the Republicans face. Mr Obama remains inescapably what he is - a young, inexperienced, and occasionally faltering prospect whose time has probably not yet come. Ms Clinton remains a nationally divisive figure with the highest unfavourable ratings of any candidate, averaging around 50%. If that stays unchanged, she could easily win the Democratic nomination - only to prove unelectable in the general election.
In another indication of the wide-open nature of the race for both party nominations, the Democrat candidate who is currently advancing fastest is, as yet, no candidate at all.
Support for Al Gore is up to 34% in the Pew survey, only 10 points behind Ms Clinton, even though the former vice-president continues to say he has no plans to stand. Other polls indicate a similar Gore surge.
The focus until now has been on an all-New York showdown, between Ms Clinton and Mr Giuliani. But perhaps more attention should be paid to Nashville. If Mr Thompson and Mr Gore have anything at all in common, it is Tennessee — the southern state both call home - and the advantages of the dark horse.
The ridiculously long campaign is eating up a lot of money in the preliminary stages already. I suspect that some candidates on both sides of the aisle will begin packing it in sometime in the early fall. The thing that Tisdall mentions that should worry both parties at this point is the poll numbers for independents. (This ties in directly with my previous post about the report card Kimberley Strassel wrote about the Democratic-led Congress.)
Worryingly for both main parties, 77% said they would "seriously consider" supporting an independent candidate like the New York mayor, Michael Bloomberg, should he decide to run.
That really should be a wake up call to both parties. But especially to the Democrats right now. That block of independents is what brought them to power in the 2006 elections. If they lose them, they are in real trouble.
By syn, Friday, 6 July , 2007 @ 9:45 am
Applying the term ‘independent’ with Nanny Bloomberg is ridiculous. Plus the guy is two-faced on everything.
He believes cigarettes are evil, imposes a ban on private property yet collects cigarette tax to fund his collectivist health care policies.
Restaurants are not at all happy with the idea that in a few short years many will go out of business due to his health nazis crying next about how soy causes life threatening allergies.
He campaigned on ‘tough on terror’ only to profile old ladies in the subway, then he goes up to Capital hill demanding that NYC receive the majority of homeland security funding because the Big Apple is the main target for terrorism yet when a terror plot is foiled he tells everyone that terrorism is no big deal, people have heart attacks all the time so get a life.
He underfunds our police force but pays a higher salary to some Central Park puppet entertainer than what a rookie police officer is paid.
Nyer’s children are as stupid as ever yet he openly adovcates tax-funded Islamic madrassa in Brooklyn.
The lights go out in Queens for a third time, twice in Mahnattan during his adminstration yet all he can do is ridicule those suffering in Queens or those stuck on the subway for whinning about being out of power for weeks but praise Con Ed for the fantastic job they are doing.
Americans cannot be serious about Nanny Bloomberg as President of the United States can they?
By Sam L., Friday, 6 July , 2007 @ 2:07 pm
What SYN said! I have the feeling that Bloomie is a wine that won’t travel well. He could get elected in Frisco, though.