2008 Presidential Election

President Bush, the unofficial chief-of-party (the Constitution makes no mention of political parties), has said that Hillary Clinton will more than likely become the Democratic Party's presidential nominee. Considering the frontloaded 2008 primary schedule, such a political prognostication is most likely correct.

Bush should know something about having the aura of inevitability imbedded within a presidential campaign. His march to the Republican nomination in 2000 was one in which he raised an unprecedented amount of money. Sure, he traded on his father's name and the funds from the elder's generous backers, but after 8 years of a Clinton White House, Republicans wanted to unite behind a winner; George W sure looked like a winner. And the more money that poured into his campaign, the greater the perception was that Dubya was going to be the Republican juggernaut squashing Al Gore in the general election even though it was Gore who ended up winning the popular vote.

Bush talked the conservative talk and fervently courted the Evangelical vote. When asked in a Republican primary debate which philosopher he admired the most, Bush replied, "Christ, because he changed my heart." While I was in Washington, D.C., in 1999, carefully following the Republican primaries, I actually threw my support behind the socially conservative Gary Bauer. Bauer was nowhere near as big as Jerry Falwell, who founded the Moral Majority in 1979 (which happens to be an answer on your Economist exam), but his message was very similar. Although he did favor a flat tax and was an economic conservative, Bauer was known mainly for his staunchly pro-life and anti-gay marriage positions. And, I perhaps saw in him someone to move Bush to the right (socially, that is) on certain issues. Because the reality was that George W. Bush was anointed to represent the Republican Party in 2000 and nothing was going to get in his way.

The only thing that stood in Bush's coronation was John McCain and his Straight Talk Express. Bush's campaign strategy, as designed by Karl Rove, was a 50-state campaign. To give you an overview of presidential campaign strategy, one must understand the primary calendar. The first presidential electing contest that really matters ( D.C. technically goes first) is held mid-late January. One controversy brewing in Wyoming is that state's decision to move its delegate selection date to January 5th. That might sound like it's not that big of a deal, but national party rules prohibit having dates earlier than the caucus and primary held in Iowa and New Hampshire, respectively.

Iowa is where John Kerry basically wrapped up his nomination in 2004, and John Edwards solidified his status as the VP frontrunner with a strong 2nd place showing while liberal darling Howard Dean flamed out. It's where George H.W. Bush defeated Ronald Reagan in the 1980 contest and famously quipped about having the "Big Mo," which ultimately didn't help him in securing the Republican nomination.

The second place where a candidate needs to succeed is in New Hampshire, which traditionally holds the first presidential primary contest. New Hampshire prides itself on its political independence and requires of its politicians to diligently court its vote. Or, perhaps, there's just a big anti-Bush population in the state; Pat Buchanan actually won the 1992 primary over Bush Senior.

New Hampshire was where Bush lost to McCain in 2000 and had to muster his conservative support in South Carolina to regain his status as "The Anointed One." There was no way to spin this in Bush's favor. Bush's 50 state campaign strategy hit some turbulence in New Hampshire, and his campaign found the extra drive it needed in South Carolina.

This year will be a lot different. Right now, moderate Rudy Giuliani leads all Republican candidates in national polls. Here's the problem, though. Republicans do NOT nationally elect their candidates. The contest is won in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina and perhaps Wyoming. It appears as if the Mormon candidate Mitt Romney will win Iowa. He was the only "major" candidate to campaign in the Iowa straw polls, so he's the favorite there. John McCain will do his best to recapture his 2000 magic to win in New Hampshire. But it appears that Romney is the most well-positioned to win the early states with his strong fundraising and appeal to conservatives. If he is able to convert social conservatives into voting for him and looking beyond the "Mormon factor," Romney will be the Republican to beat in '08.

Here's the problem. Because California and 20 or so states will hold its primary on Tuesday, February 5th, this front-loaded primary schedule will serve to help moderates such as Giuliani who are going to make the appeal that they are best suited to slay Hillary Clinton.

So what's my take on all this? I'm hoping that the Republicans will take a strong stand on principle over flexibility in the '08 election. I've actually been selected as a delegate to represent Dr. Ron Paul should he manage to wrest away the nomination from Rudy McThomabeeney. I want a Republican who stands for either its social or economic values and stands firm. Does Paul have a shot at winning the presidency? Probably not. I actually talked to a faculty member who was libertarian at heart yet refused to consider supporting a candidate like Paul. In a way, I see his reasoning. What's the point in supporting someone you know probably won't win? Why throw away your vote? I'll tell you why - because I suppose the only causes worth fighting for are the lost causes...