Who Can Win in November?
Rudy Giuliani
Pro
His moderate positions on issues and his 9/11 calling card would sit well with pro-choice swing-state independents worried about national security.
Con
Rudy's strong support for the Iraq war, promise to appoint anti-abortion justices in the mold of Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia to the Supreme Court, and backing of President Bush's veto of the children's health bill would negate his appeal to moderates in Blue states. And his profiteering off 9/11 and ugly personal life make him a fat target. Expect New York City firefighters to appear in ads trashing him, which would undermine his message.
Bottom Line
Unless the United States is attacked again by terrorists close to the election, a risky choice for Republicans.
Mitt Romney
Pro
The former Massachusetts governor, a proven vote-getter in a liberal state, looks and sounds presidential. His record of success in business would play well in debates, and his personal fortune could help close the Democrats' spending advantage before post-convention public financing kicks in.
Con
He's got no common touch. He's easy prey as a flip-flopper. And as much as a quarter of the electorate—mostly Republicans whom he must have—say they could never vote for a Mormon, which is more than three times as many as those who say the same thing about a female or African-American candidate.
Bottom Line
If anti-Mormon Republicans stay home, it's hard to see how he makes it in November.
Mike Huckabee
Pro
Likable, silver-tongued, strong on middle-class economic issues that appeal to Reagan Democrats, speaks "American" with a series of amusing stories and folksy metaphors that will not seem threatening to the nonreligious when they get to know him. His background as a Southern Baptist minister could help him tap churchgoers who don't usually vote.
Con
Gaffes on foreign policy already dogging him, and his Arkansas ethics problems may undercut his theocon image. With Rush Limbaugh and Republican regulars trashing him, might not hold the secular pro-business part of the GOP base. Could lose nonchurchgoers who usually vote.
Bottom Line
A big risk, but he's got potential appeal to Reagan Democrats, which might be the only way for the GOP to hold the White House.
John McCain
Pro
Appealing, moderate, experienced, especially on foreign policy and national security, and his maverick streak and war hero status have long made him a favorite of independents and even some Democrats. Might put Blue states in play.
Con
At 71, he'd be the oldest president, and looks it. In a "change election" he would seem like a figure from the past, especially on domestic issues. GOP base would be lukewarm about its nominee.
Bottom Line
If there's major news from abroad in 2008, he's the GOP's best shot. If not, he's not.
DEMOCRATS
Chris Dodd
Pro
Seasoned, accomplished, presidential.
Con
If he can't light fires in Iowa or New Hampshire, he lacks the mojo to win.
Bottom Line
Highly electable, but not gonna get the chance.
Bill Richardson
Pro
Experienced as a governor, congressman, cabinet secretary, diplomat. Could wake the sleeping giant of American politics: the Hispanic vote.
Con
Not connecting, and would be vulnerable in debates.
Bottom Line
Probably won't be veep, either.



Loading Menu
Member Comments
Posted By: ducdebrabant @ 06/13/2008 8:00:01 AM
Comment: Upstate New York is Republican, but as a matter of fact she did very well there both times. An international investigation of the Bhutto assassination would have been an excellent idea, since the dictatorship there was perfectly capable of having a hand in her killing, and the JFK assassination took place in the United States, which you appear to think no different than Pakistan. We are not a dictatorship, we are not a rogue nuclear state, we do not have Taliban operating freely within our borders, and JFK was a sitting President, not a rival to a sitting dictator. Just so lyou know.
Posted By: s. valenti @ 04/14/2008 8:32:56 PM
Comment: I meant to add that I too went through a course of chemotherapy a while ago. The difference, though, I tried to avoid complicated issues that required full cognitive abilities. Doesn't look like you followed suit. I do wish you good health and a return to full cognitive function. In the meantime, you'd do better than to weigh in on the nuances of the 2008 race.
Posted By: s. valenti @ 04/14/2008 8:25:07 PM
Comment: Now I get your huge bias toward Obama. Too bad your analysis about McCain proved so wrong. You're about to see that the huge numbers you forecasted for Obama (as in landslide) are about to occur. The only problem - those numbers are heading south.
p.s., I'm a current Newsweek subscriber. My subscription ends in August. I'll be saying adios to Newsweek thanks to your non stop bias against Clinton and your attempt to sideline "babyboomers". Your bias was too over the top. And, reviewing these predictions, you're not so hot on analysis either.