I’ve heard speculation that just as Hoover was the direct cause of 20 years of Democrat rule following his administration, Bush is poised to do the same.
However, my gut feeling is that unless Gore finally really does jump into the race, the winner next year will almost certainly be a Republican.
I’ll give you a few hints. He also came from Illinois (though not born there), had most of his experience in the state legislature and came to prominence because of a few good speeches. Oh, and no significant military experience.
BTW, I’m not an Obama supporter, but IMHO experience is overrated. What was Truman’s experience, for example? (For his first term, I mean.)
His first elected term as President? He had the experience of having been President. His first term as President? He had the experience of having been Vice President.
For less than three months.
Ah, right… Good point. :smack:
If Bush is assassinated in the next 18 months or takes an incapacitating shot, say in the ass: %100.
0.0001% is my high end estimate. Seriously.
If the electorate is sick of the Iraq fiasco now, they’ll be double dog sick of it in another year. That and the corruption that unfolds more with each passing day is going to make it impossible for a Republican victory.
Serious points should be made seriously.
I think there is a non-remote chance Bush will die in office and hence, in answer to the OP, the next president will be a Republican in that circumstance.
Who’ll next be elected; that’s a whole other.
Unless Bush goes hunting with Deadeye Dick Cheney, I think his chances of dying in office are indeed remote. He’s in arguably the best physical shape of any occupant of the White House and barring something like cancer I just don’t see him dying in the next 20 months.
Mwahahahaha!
Seriously, though, Bush’s early overindulgences could return to affect him and he might feel it right to resign the presidency due to ill-health.
Actually, you’re talking about the Usual Suspects, where anybody-but-Bush is all the strategy you need, and all you got.
Didn’t work out so well in 2004, when Bush was actually running.
As to the OP, it is too early to tell. And will be for the next year. You want a meaningless number? 40%.
Regards,
Shodan
Ah, but it worked DAMN well in 2006, when Bush wasn’t running, as will be the case in 2008. And with Bush continuing to stink up the place, it will probably work just as well … probably even better … in 2008. I well remember all the people offering “helpful” advice prior to the 2006 about how the Dems should offer a concrete alternative to the Pubbie agenda, instead of simply running on the basis that they weren’t the Pubbies. And of course running just on “we aren’t the Pubbies” is what the Dems did, leading them to take the House AND the Senate. Given that the only real thing that’s changed is that the Dems are now in a position to investigate all the Pubbie malfeasance that’s been going on over the last six years, I think things are smelling very, very good for the Dems.
The public wants a lot more than just investigations, you know.
What is the approval rating of Congress right now?
I agree strongly with you regarding Obama to collapse in the early primaries.
I am completely baffled by people who think he could win in the general election.
Exactly what states in the south and the west and southwest would he win in the general? ZIP. And I believe folks will come to that conclusion when voting in the primary. Therefore; they won’t vote for who they like, but for who they think can win.
(this will happen to both parties).
And as I’ve said several times, I think the Dems choice will be John Edwards…
But that’s just a theory. Come February I may find I was wayyyy off. 
I agree strongly with you regarding Obama to collapse in the early primaries.
I am completely baffled by people who think he could win in the general election.
Exactly what states in the south and the west and southwest would he win in the general? ZIP. And I believe folks will come to that conclusion when voting in the primary. Therefore; they won’t vote for who they like, but for who they think can win.
(this will happen to both parties).
And as I’ve said several times, I think the Dems choice will be John Edwards…
But that’s just a theory. Come February I may find I was wayyyy off.
WTF?
Looks like a dead heat to me. I’m fully expecting a Giuliani-Clinton face-off. Romney and McCain look to be dead in the water. Both Clinton and Giuliani really smart, and as competent as you can expect a politician to be. They’re also quite polarizing.
I think the more moderate pubbies will come out of the woodwork. The fact that their candidate is a jerk with a hell of a lot of baggage won’t bother them; never has. The dems will have a hard time getting past Clinton’s irksome personality, the fact that she’s a woman, and (IMO) the fact that she’s been publicly humiliated (read: cuckolded) by Bill. But the Clinton machine is strong, and Bush and his war have really put a stink on the pubbies, so the dems may be able to overcome these obstacles.
If the Democrats nominate anybody besides Clinton (with the remote possibility of Gore), the Republicans are in. Rove will do something to de-stinkify the war at the last minute, just like Kissinger and Nixon did way back when.
What experience did the current President have that either Edwards or Obama lacks? Please don’t say “He was Governor of Texas.” The power in Texas does not rest in the governor’s mansion.
I think you underestimate the ability of Hillary Clinton to motivate conservative ABC (Anybody-But-Clinton) voters.
Its pretty much a silly question at this point…its WAY to early too tell. My guess, based on the candidates thus far is…its anyone’s contest to lose. I haven’t been all that impressed with the Dem candidates…but then, I’m unimpressed by the Pub’s candidates so far too.
Best guess? The Pub’s have a better than even chance of winning at this point. That will go up if the Dem’s follow the strategy layed out here by some and run against Bush again. 
Personally I’m checking None of the Above when I vote in '08…
-XT