2008 Election Predictions From Republican Who Says He Has Been Repeatedly Correct
Paul M. Weyrich, Chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Research and Education Foundation, says he has been repeatedly right in his election predictions and that others know that and want to know his take on 2008.
And it won’t make GOPers happy.
Writing in Townhall, he says:
Last week on my radio show Representative Mike Pence (R-IN) discussed the Fairness Doctrine, an important issue currently being debated in Congress. During the show Representative Pence mentioned that he and other Members of Congress were nervously awaiting my election predictions.
With little more than a year remaining before the next presidential election, I have some ideas about who will win and who will lose. My record to date has been remarkably accurate.
So he gives them. First, he details his impressive record on election predictions. And then he writes:
I believe that the Democrats, most likely with Senator Hillary R. Clinton (D-NY) as the nominee, will win. The Republicans, regardless of who they nominate, will lose because of the war in Iraq. Voters want to punish the Republicans for Iraq.
I also believe the Republicans will lose seats in the Senate. Their incumbent candidates are weak and they have few, if any, potential challengers to Democrats who may be successful.
The House of Representatives is different. If the Democrats do not fulfill the promises they made to their base and the country, the Republicans could win the 16 seats needed for a majority. This will be difficult but it is not impossible.
There you have it. If I am wrong, I will change my phone number. If I am correct you can expect to hear about it again.
His prediction about the House is perhaps the most interesting. To be sure, there are growing signs of anger at the Democratic House leadership among Democrats. Just as voters who felt it didn’t matter if they voted for Ralph Nader did so in 2000, there may well be some Democrats who want to punish the party leadership and in doing so the House will be won by Republicans. Also: some of the Democrats elected to the House in 2006 came from districts not usually inclined to Democrats and some of those voters may return to the fold.
23 Responses to “2008 Election Predictions From Republican Who Says He Has Been Repeatedly Correct”
I don’t think the Dems have to worry about losing the House. Reason I say this is:
1) I do not think the Dems will want to punish their leaders in 2008. They have seen what it means to show their dissatisfaction by voting for a third party thus giving power to Republicans. The majority will stay with the Dems for 2008 and that they should not have to worry until the 2010 election when the voters actually have a record of accomplishments (or lack thereof) to judge them by.
2) Democrats in the House have actually done most of what their base has asked them for, the problem is with the Senate where those bills are filibustered by the Republicans. So there is more of a positive in what Democrats have been able to accomplish so far despite Republican obstructionism. The only point the base is upset about is that they will not cut funding for the war, which I do not remember them promising leading up to the election, though they have done their best to chip away at Republican support for the war and will hopefully have enough votes in the Senate after September to begin to bring it to an end.
The Republicans could lose up to 30 additional seats in the House. If Giuliani is nominated if could be even worse since he will probably have negative coat tails to conservative Republicans running in swing districts.
The real question is whether the Republicans can maintain more than 40 Senators. They will lose at least four and possibly more. If the number is exactly on 40 I am sure that the Democrats can flip a Republican such as Snowe or Collins from Maine and get to 60 seats.
The real question is whether the Republicans become irrelevent in 2008, 2010, or 2112.
What he also does not discuss is that the democratic winner will be so far ahead in daily tracking polling that it will be obvious that the Republican candidate for President will have no chance of winning and thus suppress Republcan turnout.
I agree with Ashen Shard. The House has passed its 6 for ’06 agenda, but filibustering by Republicans in the Senate, where the Dems have virtually no majority, have kept all but one initiative from becoming law. The public is ignorant of this, of course, but Chris Van Hollen may be able to highlight this in the ’08 House campaigns. Pelosi has done what she said she would do- but I was disappointed that she didn’t pass the legislation forcing a vote in order to get legislative approval for Bush to attack Iran.
“The Republicans, regardless of who they nominate, will lose because of the war in Iraq. Voters want to punish the Republicans for Iraq.”
Exactly the point I have been making since the midterms: “It’s the War Stupid”. Republicans have exactly one chance and one candidate that can avoid a wholesale sweep for the Democratic Party in 2008 – that would be a high integrity, highly qualified, mainstream anti-war Republican. Only Chuck Hagel can save the GOP. Unfortunately, he has no chance of getting past the remaining 25% “loyal bushies” to get the nomination. This could be the end of the Republican Party. We’ll see what emerges from the ashes in 2010 and 2012. Probably new parties.
The Republicans need a hero but chuck Hagel is the last person who is going to do it.
The Republican party can survive on momentum through 2112 but when they are routed in 21112, the money will completely disappear and then the Republicans will disappear.
However, I doubt that a new party can start due to the loyalty of so many of the core Democratic groups. Also, getting a national party start is so hard since such a party needs to find thousands of candidates.
A more likely scenerio is that politics becomes like local politcis in Maryland or DC where the Democratic primary will be the real election and the general election can just be ignored.
I hate to seem picky but…
This is not very honest. Unless of course we also think two congressmen discussing where to go for lunch are “debating in congress” about the relative merits of McDonalds.
I really doubt the Republican party simply goes down in flames to never be relevant again. Will they suffer a ‘Bush Beating’ probably yes, sure… But lets be real. Think about not how long ago was it we were wondering if the Democratic paty was no longer relavant. So you see, things change far more rapidly than one my think. An dyou have to factor in the practically inate ability of the Dems to muss up a good thing too.
1) 2008 can be mitigated if they renounce Bush. And do so largely unified publically and legislatively. A tough choice there, and agaisnt everything they have done to build their position to this point… But they absolutely (IMHO) need to define themselves as something other than W&Co, and do it rather quickly or…
2) Failing that, I bet some loses in both senate and house, and a likely “D” checked by the name of the next president. But I doubt 60 seats for Ds in senate maybe they pick up 4-5. As to the house goign R??? I would bet that if given a choice, the Dems will vote for a non-incumbant dem candidate over a Rp – if they are pissed by the current performance of their rep.
3) However, there are too many special interests (behind both parties really) to let one completely disappear. The Rs do appear to need sort themselves out and find there new/old mission. The current one won’t play and anything that sounds like the current W crew will defiently remain un-electable for a while (from D or I camp). But, the R are organized in a way that the Dems could only dream of. Sure, the machine is essentially ‘headless’ right now, but they will find a new head and regroup.
Regarding the House: remember, the Democrats took some seats that were in clearly Republican districts. Those could be lost easy, making the current majority slimmer than it already is.
Neocon fundie enabler Paul Weyrich has about as much credibility (at least, outside of the nutosphere) as does Limbaugh. Actually, Limbaugh probably has more.
Weyrich would flip to Ron Paul in a skinny minute if he thought that Paul had a chance.
Anyway, Pence was blowing smoke, too. A stake was driven through the heart of the Fairness Doctrine a few weeks back, and Pence was swinging the hammer.
You’re forgetting money. The DCCC, the main fundraising committee for the House, is crushing the RCCC so far. Without money, it’s very difficult to mount a national oppositional campaign.
To be sure, there are some Democrats at serious risk: Lampson (TX-22), Mahoney (FL-16), Boyda (KS-2). But most of the other Dem pickups last year came in districts that have structural advantages for the Democrats. I don’t see any of them falling to the Republicans. Meanwhile, there are a bunch of seats the Dems could still pick up, especially in Ohio where the Dems left a bunch of winnable seats on the table by falling just short.
The only thing that will save the Republicans is, frankly, the Democrats, which have a habit of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. The Dems must be careful not to get too aggressive and overreach in 2008 or they will end up alienating independent voters that are so crucial to winning elections. Independent voters are solidly against the GOP atm, but if the Dems pander to the rabid base too much they could easily loose that advantage.
Yes. The Dems need to represent mainstream American values. For example:
Which party is more in step with these “mainstream values?”
SD says:
What is wrong with Hagel as a Republican, other than his war stance. VoteSmart and others list him as a conservative on most issues. He’s the Republican version of Biden, but he doesn’t eat his foot as often. please explain the problem with Hagel, he’s a more intelligent version of Walter Jones.
I’m surprised so many people think a Republican president is such an impossibility. Never underestimate the power of Diebold voting machines to come up with a Republican winner.
I like Hagel, and was pleased that in the You-tube debate, Sen. Biden said that he would consider asking him to be his Vice President and asking Sen Lugar to be his Sec of State. My respect for Biden went up a notch, because of that answer, and because he didn’t try to sugarcoat his answers on the war.
Kritter,
I agree on Biden, and his partition plan is growing on me as well. Of course, he doesn’t have a snowball’s chance against the Clinton/Obama Juggernauts.
KR – Be careful, Hagel is to the right of McCain per his voting record. I just find it refreshing that a Senator from “the middle of no where” would make foreign relations a serious intellectual endeavor. He is a serious politician in comparison to Kucinich and Trancredo. Maybe President Clinton will nominate him for Secretary of State or Defense.
The comments in this thread regarding Hagel are instructive. Hagel would pull from independents and Democrats. He likely would win the general election, and I believe is the only Republican who has a chance of knocking off the inevitable Clinton/Obama ticket. Yet in this thread there is one voice of unqualified opposition – the most right leaning contributor in the thread. This is the electorate in a fishbowl. Hence the conundrum: Hagel, the only Republican who could win the general election, cannot be nominated by Republicans.
mw – In todays environment Hagel couldn’t even win a Republican primary. The debate were torture and a bigger Gitmo shows the level of debate in the Republican Party. IMO Hagel may be working on a Cabinet post in the next administration. He’s got about as much chance of Paul to be Republican POTUS. However, these two make the debate more interesting.
[...] Hey, better late than never. I was live blogging the live bloggers during the debate on DWSUWF Monday night, but decided to spare Donklephant readers the real-time experience. You can thank me later. After a couple of days reflection and surveying the blogosphere, I distilled my conclusions into a more digestible form. Concluding thoughts: Biden was best, again. Richardson exceeded low expectations. Obama fell short of high expectations. Edwards fell short of low expectations. Kucinich met zero expectations. That other guy has white hair. Mike Gravel’s shtick is not as entertaining as YouTube videos. YouTube questions were better and more entertaining than Britt Hume. YouTube questions were not that entertaining. It is Hillary Clinton’s nomination to lose. She didn’t lose it Monday night. Chuck Hagel is the GOP’s only hope. The GOP has no hope. None. [...]
Rudi,
I’d like to see Hagel get in the debate before I reach that conclusion. It would help to have him on that stage and ripping the rest of the Republican lineup a few new ones.
I’ll admit I am grasping at straws, but even with Thompson in the mix, the leading candidate among Republicans is None of the Above. I’m hoping those are Hagel Republican.s
DaveA is rt. SD and others have ben trumpeting the end of the R’s for mos.
Yet, assuming Hillary gets the nom, cd the R’s ask for a better rallying point?
When about 40% of the registered voters are Indys, and the registered voters number less than 50% of the possible electorate, such claims are silly.
They also point up then ignore the dualistic nature of the American voters. They do not want real change, lest they wd not ping pong back abd forth between the duopoly.
I agree with MW, that it would be helpful to see Hagel in a debate. He might be too conservative on many issues, but at least he doesn’t waffle or sell-out on what he stands for. Right now, that would be worth a lot to see someone in the GOP debates (besides Ron Paul) who has the courage of his convictions.