dy156

Been awhile since I've posted, but impressed with the politics board of late...

There's a big long meaty thread here about whether it will be "the economy, stupid" as a major campaign issue again this year as it was in 1992. There are plenty of other parallels to that presidential campaign as well. (please- no comments about long and meaty)

It might be tempting to draw parallels to the '92 campaign- A very unpopular president named Bush was struggling to avoid a deep recession resulting -in part- from a war in Iraq- and through the president's efforts (I predict) the economy will turn around just in time for the new president to take credit.

But I think '96 is the better example based on the Republican field. Here's my observations/predictions why:
Giuliani = Forbes; a NY social liberal and economic conservative who exits relatively early.

Romney = Phil Gramm; the "thinking conservatives'" logical choice who is "right" on all the issues but kind of creepy with some baggage as an individual- Romney has lasted longer because let's face it- he looks and sounds more presidential.

Huckabee = Buchanan; social conservative who strikes a chord with many and does surprisingly well early on, but is alarming to the big-business Republicans

McCain= Dole; war hero and perennial presidential primary loser who no one is really excited about but gets the nomination, only to show his lack of political savvy in losing to someone entrenched in power but tainted by allegations from the past with a last name of Clinton.

Sorry, can't think of as many parallels on the Democratic side. John Edwards is no Paul Tsongas. Perot jumped in (again) but just as an afterthought, just as billionaire Mike Bloomberg is rumored to be considering doing this year. Obama has a little more credibility than Jerry Brown did.

just consider it "deep thoughts... by Dy156"