[QUOTE=spoke-]
I’m not thinking of a challenge from the religious right. I’m thinking more of a challenge from, say, Unity '08. (Wiki article.)
If the Unity '08 candidate gets a spot in the debates, he could draw off a significant number of votes. And right now I’m thinking those votes would be more likely to come from disaffected Republicans, or from independents usually inclined to vote Republican.
I stand by my prediction.
[/QUOTE]
It appears you are wise to do so.
Whaddaya talking? Ths Bushiviks are all about bi-partisanship and deeply regret the obstruction and gridlock engendered by the radical-liberal extremists! As soon as they bend over and touch their toes in the Posture of Acceptance, the Leader will immediately thrust the Instrument of Bi-Partisan Cooperation directly into the Orifice of Submission.
[QUOTE=elucidator]
As soon as they bend over and touch their toes in the Posture of Acceptance, the Leader will immediately thrust the Instrument of Bi-Partisan Cooperation directly into the Orifice of Submission.
[/QUOTE]
Whaddaya mean ‘will’? Unless I have memories of the future, I do believe this has happened quite a few times already. 
Prying the Instrument of Bi-Partisan Cooperation out of “Fightin’ Joe” Lieberman’s lips has proven problematic.
[QUOTE=elucidator]
Prying the Instrument of Bi-Partisan Cooperation out of “Fightin’ Joe” Lieberman’s lips has proven problematic.
[/QUOTE]
Use more “Freedom Lubricant”.
Here’s my “what, me cynical?” assessment:
When it comes right down to it, the mainstream Republicans know Huckabee can’t win states outside the Bible belt. McCain is too old, plus they’re disgusted with the way he’s kissed Bush’s ass, especially after the Bushies raped McCain in North Carolina in 2000. Rudy Guliani’s name is too ethnic to get the support of the old guard GOP. Thompson is a non-starter. That leaves Mitt Romney. He has an Irish name, he comes from Massachusetts, and the media has made a big deal of his religion; that reminds people of Kennedy and the Republicans have always wanted their own Kennedy. Romney gets the nomination.
Hillary can’t win, not because she’s a woman but because she’s Hillary; when the Democratic party is all alone in the dark, it will do whatever makes it feel safe. Safe means no Hillary, nobody named Obama, we’re talkin’ John Edwards, as Anglican a name and as safe a choice as they can make.
Romney vs. Edwards, Romney wins a razor-thin victory.
It all comes down to how people feel.
The Republican candidate will win. Doesn’t really matter who it is.
My personal preference: Obama wins the Dem nomination, selects Hillary as VP, she accepts. The Pubbies nominate, well, anyone, and they get creamed by Obama/Hillary, who have long coattails that increase the Dem hold on the Senate and the House significantly.
My prediction: I really don’t have a FREAKING CLUE who will take the Dem nomination at this point. There are just too many variables, and the candidates are too close to call. Hillary’s got a good machine, but she’s been screwing up lately. Obama is good, but is he good enough. Edwards is closing, but how close is he, really? I don’t freaking know.
My cynical self believes that Edwards is the best bet against any Pubbie candidate, because the vote will be decided by the undecideds in the middle, and even though Hillary’s policy positions are actually very center-right, she’s a WOMAN and the undecideds in the middle tend to be shallow and will have a lot of trouble pulling the lever for a woman when they have a white, male Pubbie candidate to select, even if he is a loon and his party is as corrupt as the Grant administration.
Obama has the same problem as Hillary … in spades.
Edwards is the best shot, realistically speaking, but I don’t know that he’ll get it.
Oh, if Huckabee gets the Pubbie nod, look for the Dems to REALLY whale on him as “Bush Part 2.” Religious zealot, fiscal liberal, someone you’d enjoy drinking a beer with but if you elect him President the hangover will last four years and it’ll hurt like hell for every minute of those four years, whether your a Dem or a Pubbie, liberal or conservative.
Should be quite effective.
Romney/McCain beat Clinton/Edwards
[QUOTE=Sunrazor]
Here’s my “what, me cynical?” assessment:
When it comes right down to it, the mainstream Republicans know Huckabee can’t win states outside the Bible belt. McCain is too old, plus they’re disgusted with the way he’s kissed Bush’s ass, especially after the Bushies raped McCain in North Carolina in 2000. Rudy Guliani’s name is too ethnic to get the support of the old guard GOP. Thompson is a non-starter. That leaves Mitt Romney. He has an Irish name, he comes from Massachusetts, and the media has made a big deal of his religion; that reminds people of Kennedy and the Republicans have always wanted their own Kennedy. Romney gets the nomination.
Hillary can’t win, not because she’s a woman but because she’s Hillary; when the Democratic party is all alone in the dark, it will do whatever makes it feel safe. Safe means no Hillary, nobody named Obama, we’re talkin’ John Edwards, as Anglican a name and as safe a choice as they can make.
Romney vs. Edwards, Romney wins a razor-thin victory.
It all comes down to how people feel.
[/QUOTE]
Yep. This is *exactly * what’s going to happen. Funny, I never thought of myself as a cynic . . .
[QUOTE=Evil Captor]
Obama wins the Dem nomination, selects Hillary as VP, she accepts.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t believe Hillary’s ego, which causes tides when she visits the seashore, would permit her to take the #2 spot nor do I believe that Obama respects her enough to give it to her.
[QUOTE=Sunrazor]
Rudy Guliani’s name is too ethnic to get the support of the old guard GOP.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t think it’s the name, it’s the guy that wears it. Some day you’ll see his picture in the dictionary under “dickweed”.
Even if he could, he doesn’t genuflect before the altar of tax breaks for the rich in perpetuity. That’s why the three piece suit and alligator shoes Republicans will never allow him the nomination.
The Des Moines Register recently released a poll with the following results.
Obama 32
Clinton 25
Edwards 24
Now, what are we to make of all of this? Obviously we’ve seen loads of polls by different organizations here with various numbers. Some have them all tied up, others have Clinton in the lead.
As far as I know, it all seems to boil down to prediction of who will show up. Likely caucus-goers is difficult to predict. Both Clinton and Obama are depending heavily on first-time caucus goers. Clinton is depending heavily on older women and younger single women while Obama seems to be hoping for younger people in general. Who will be more likely to show up? Good question! It’s impossible to say.
After reading some more stuff, apparently this new poll says that 40 percent of voters in the Dem. Caucus will be Independents and 5 percent will be Republicans. Only 55 percent will be Democrats. That’s why they have Obama winning. I believe the other polling organizations are using numbers more closely in line to past elections where only 20 percent or so were independents. That would be normal, except the DMR guys seem to think it will be different time time. I can’t wait to find out!
So my predictions? Obama wins Iowa tomorrow, this gives him the edge in NH, and also helps him win SC. After that? Who knows. Hillary may still be strong in the February 5 states after all of that. Obama obviously has no chances in Feb 5 states if he doesn’t pull out some wins before now though.
On the Republican side I see Huckabee taking it. Honestly all of their guys have no charisma except him. Romney? I’ve never seen someone so unappealing. He might win in MA but I think Huck will take over from the rest.
I see it boiling down to Obama vs. Huckabee. I don’t know who Obama would choose as a running mate. It won’t be Hillary. If he can beat her, he has absolutely zero need to have her in his campaign afterwards. Why? She has such high negatives. He can easily find someone with lower negatives, and more experience to fill out the ticket. Edwards probably won’t take the job either. If Obama loses he won’t take VP either.
That’s how I see it going down.
Also I wanted to add. I see a high chance of the Republicans having some kind of splintering going on here. If Giuliani gets it there’s no doubt that someone from the Christian right will run. If not the Xian right simply won’t go to the polls. They used up all of their gay marriage amendment get out of jail free cards last election. But Rudy probably won’t make it. Romney? I don’t know, he’s religious, but not the right kind for this group.
What about Bloomberg?
My personal prediciton. I think Bloomberg doesn’t get in the race if Obama gets the nomination. He had that breakfast with him once, which tells us that they are at the very least interested in each other. Obama seems to be preaching the same thing that Bloomberg is talking about. I don’t know if Bloomberg would want to be Obama’s VP or what, but I don’t see it happening. If we, on the other hand, end up with two candidates who are very polarizing for both parties, I can see Bloomberg running. I simply can’t see him winning though. Running as a third party candidate is so difficult here that I can’t imagine he’d come close.
[QUOTE=Merkwurdigliebe]
Also I wanted to add. I see a high chance of the Republicans having some kind of splintering going on here.
[/QUOTE]
That’s already happening. I am hearing a lot of sniping between the religious wing and the money/libertarian wing of the Republican party, and the amount of venom is surprising. It’s going to be very difficult for them to patch things up and close ranks after the nomination process is over.
[QUOTE=Ají de Gallina]
Romney/McCain beat Clinton/Edwards
[/QUOTE]
I don’t see Edwards settling for second place again.
I think Clinton will win in Iowa, Obama second. The final ticket will be Obama/Richardson (or Dodd) against Romney and ?.
In the general election, I think Obama will bring out the youth vote and the black vote and he’ll win in a landslide. The next four years will be very interesting.
I’m a little leery of a charismatic candidate though. Shouldn’t have read The Dead Zone all those years ago.
[QUOTE=RickJay]
The Republican candidate will win. Doesn’t really matter who it is.
[/QUOTE]
Most poll-watchers would agree with that, but with “Democrat” in the first sentence. What’s the basis for your judgment?
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Most poll-watchers would agree with that, but with “Democrat” in the first sentence. What’s the basis for your judgment?
[/QUOTE]
The problem we Democrats have is that there’s no Dubya to vote against this time. We Americans don’t blame the Republicans for the Iraq, we blame George W. Bush personally. And Americans are disappointed and disgusted that the Democrats didn’t have the balls to cod-slap the Republicans more on Iraq issues after the 2006 election (I know I am!) and that means, as a party, we’re not fit to lead the country. Republican = strength + action; Democrat = yakety + yakety. We’ve done it to ourselves.
[QUOTE=Sunrazor]
The problem we Democrats have is that there’s no Dubya to vote against this time. We Americans don’t blame the Republicans for the Iraq, we blame George W. Bush personally. And Americans are disappointed and disgusted that the Democrats didn’t have the balls to cod-slap the Republicans more on Iraq issues after the 2006 election (I know I am!) and that means, as a party, we’re not fit to lead the country. Republican = strength + action; Democrat = yakety + yakety. We’ve done it to ourselves.
[/QUOTE]
Unlike you, I can’t speak for “Americans” in general, but I personally like the nothing that the Dem Congress has done a LOT better than the something the Pubbie Congress did during their tenure. I wish the Congressional Dems were capable of doing … anything … but remember that President “I AM the Law!” Dubya has vetoed a lot of bills and threatened to veto more. With a hostile President and a bare majority in the Senate and no supermajority in the House, Dems can mostly just investigate, which they have done.
[QUOTE=Evil Captor]
Unlike you, I can’t speak for “Americans” in general, but I personally like the nothing that the Dem Congress has done a LOT better than the something the Pubbie Congress did during their tenure. I wish the Congressional Dems were capable of doing … anything … but remember that President “I AM the Law!” Dubya has vetoed a lot of bills and threatened to veto more. With a hostile President and a bare majority in the Senate and no supermajority in the House, Dems can mostly just investigate, which they have done.
[/QUOTE]
Agreed. In the general election for president and other federal offices, which candidates do you think are going to be more closely linked with this historically unpopular president?
The simplest strategy for the Dems is to constantly ask opposing candidates X “Do you support President Bush’s policy in Iraq/comments on the economy/handling of the federal budget?” There is really no way to dodge this question, and it will trump any of the usual fear/smear tactics the right can muster. Redstate candidates will be constantly on the defensive, the party base will split, and unless Hillary Clinton is photographed eating babies or Barack Obama swears public allegiance to Osama Bin Laden, the Democrats will easily sweep to election in most federal offices.
For eight years the right has hitched their wagon to Bush; they won’t be able to give it up now, and when Rove’s book is published later this year it’s going to get even worse. This will be a bad, bad year to be a Republican running for office.