Who do you think will be the next President of the US?

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Winston
* Winston puts mark in calendar for totally agreeing with Sir Ralph, turns attention to possibly spotting blue moon

This thread is not about who you wish to be the next president, though. I'd prefer Obama over all others anytime, just I believe in a last minute screw-up of the Dems... not that this would be a first.

[Dinner]

In fact, last minute mishaps seem to be a specialty of the Democratic Party. The last two elections were sure things as long as they nominated competent candidates but the nomination process is so convoluted that it seems good candidates seldom make it through.

Not that the Republican process is better; they're just more willing to lie and slander their opponent while Democrats, being educated liberal weenies, go on long winded diatribes about why the other guy isn't correct and is being unfair. In America's sound bite culture where voters are normally ignorant of facts other then what they hear in sound bites a constant "He sucks! He'll kill your baby and have sex with your wife!" beats a 20 page well reasoned and nuanced response.

[Alexander I]

Well, honestly, I think there's more to it than meets the eye. here's my thoughts on the only real contenders.

Clinton: A strong, capable contender. The IA loss hurt her, but there's still a strong chance she could win, especially with the disjointed Republican opposition.

Obama: Charismatic. The face of "change." His win in IA could help him take the lead, but it's a toss-up with Clinton. It'll be interesting to see how the race card plays against the gender card.

Edwards: Not likely. He has to fight off two stronger, more popular candidates. More likely to get stuck as VP candidate again.

Huckabee: Got a boost from winning IA, but will have a hard go of it. Half his party (religious conservatives) loves him, the other half (fiscal conservatives) hates him. He has to beat out all the other GOP candidates everywhere, not just in the evangelical hotbed of IA. He could win the nomination, but he might scare enough independents into voting a Dem in.

Romney: Capable conservative, and still going moderately strong. He's the candidate that the religionists and economists could best rally around, as he's both a religious man and a big businessman. The trouble is, some people don't like his religion, and Huckabee's taken advantage of it. Also has a bad reputation as saying what he thinks people want to hear, which people think looks fake. IA hurt him pretty badly, and the media wants it to look even worse. NH is a must to pull out of his rut.

McCain: Probably too liberal for many conservatives. Could win in NH, but all that would accomplish is Romney's demise, not his own success. Many think his time has come and gone. He can't get enough support from his party to beat out the Democrats, as many of his potential independent/moderate supporters are just as likely to vote Dem. He can't be the candidate of innovation when he's "so 2000."

Giuliani: Big name. Everybody's heard of him. 9/11 and all that. If he does well on Super Tuesday his campaign could pull out of its very big rut. Nobody's paying any attention to him right now, though, and that could kill his campaign outright. Besides, he's too liberal for the social conservatives.

Thompson: Silly old fool. That may not be what he is, but it's how he appears to many through the media. With a rep as a tired, bewildered, lazy old fogey he won't be able to beat out the others. He's probably as capable as some of the other candidates, but it certainly doesn't show. All he's managing to do is pull down the numbers of all the other candidates in his party. He'll be straight 3rd or 4th place across the board, which is not enough to win.

Paul, Banana, etc.: Just not supported enough to win. Too many people feel [insert minor candidate name here] is just too nuts to vote for.

Summary: The Dems are in a strong place with two powerful candidates vying for the nomination, and could easily take advantage of the GOP's current weaker state of fragmentation. In order to pull out a win, the GOP needs a candidate who can unite, not divide, the two halves of their party. If the GOP is split in the election, the Dems win.

So there's my two cents. Am I right?

[Dinner]

Obama spent a huge amount of time in Iowa & New Hampshire hoping that wins there would give him a big enough bounce to carry him through the remaining 48 primaries. That remains to be seen. Hillary has always had the large urban states as her strong hold so she didn't spend much time and money on two small rural states. She's raised $100 million dollars (more then Bush's record setting 2000 campaign had at this time) so she's in good shape especially since the special interests and party elites are backing her. I like Obama and will vote for Obama in California's primary plus he's also raised $100 million dollars (mostly through small donations while Hillary has mostly collected big checks from the usual special interests) so he might have the resources to capitalize on early wins. Time will tell.

On the Republican side, Huckabee maybe an uneducated clown who thinks Pakistan is some where near Mexico but evangelical voters pushed him over the top in Iowa. New Hampshire is notoriously anti-fundimentalist Christian and McCain took second in Iowa so if McCain also shows well in New Hampshire, and McCain has spent nearly all of his money on those two states, he could become the leader if Huckabee doesn't do well as is predicted. Romney is in do or die mode. He won't take Iowa or New Hampshire so he needs a strong second in New Hampshire to help his fund raising going into South Carolina or else he's in deep water without a life raft.

Guiliani is, as predicted, a no show in either Iowa or New Hampshire but he throw in the towel on those states weeks ago once it became clear he couldn't win a position as city dog catcher in either state. Guiliani remains something of a natural choice for GOP voters since he is the self declared Mr. 9/11 the problem is, as always, he is trying to claim credit where credit isn't even remotely due. The man won't even be able to carry his home state, and there are excellent reasons why New Yorkers loath him so much, so he's likely to just fade away.

In summary it is Romney on the ropes verse Huckabee & McCain front runners on the Republican side while the Dems still have a worthless and unelectable Edwards attempting to act as spooler between the outsider Obama and the party elite favorite Hillary.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Alexander I
Now there's an interesting question. Who would each candidate choose as a running mate?

I don't think Edwards wants to play second fiddle again, and Hillary would be humiliated. Romney certainly wouldn't be Huckabee's or McCain's VP.

Just spitballing:

Hillary - Richardson or Wesley Clark

Obama - Possibly also Richardson , possibly Brian Schweitzer (iconoclastic, populist governor of Montana; would help with the West and keep up the theme of "change"). Long shot possibility: Evan Bayh

Huckabee - he'd be smart to court McCain, but I don't think McCain would bite. At any rate, he'll need a DC insider. If he's running against Obama, having a woman vp could be an interesting move - Kay Bailey Hutchison, maybe? Otherwise not a Southerner (except a Floridian).

Giuliani - pretty much the same as Huckabee, but he does need a Southerner.

McCain - needs a veep from the south and not tainted by DC. Huckabee's an obvious choice; if not him, I can't guess.

[Zkribbler]

As long as Colin Powell gets to be Secretary of Defense.

[snoopy369]

Somehow I don't see that happening...

[Alexander I]

In other news, Romney won the Wyoming caucuses today. I don't know that it'll do him much good, but then I always thought it was silly that the race focused so heavily on such minor states as Iowa, New Hamsters and now Wyoming.

[onodera]

Are there even any people in Wyoming apart from national park caretakers, nuke operators and 35 million Russians?

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Some observations/predictions:

McCain's done, even if he wins New Hampshire; he doesn't have the organization or the money to keep going, and it's very hard to see what his next win after NH might be. Maybe the Maine caucus, maybe. But then he's toast.

Romney needs Michigan, bad. If he loses NH and Michigan, he heads into February without a single win (except the Wyomong Stealth Caucus). If that happens, my bet is he bows out after Super Tuesday.

And if that happens, it's a two man race: Giuliani and Huckabee -- and given that each appeals to a different part of the GOP, and each is anathema to the core supporters of the other, that could make for a very long, hard fight, reminiscent of Mondale-Hart in 1984. edit: Actually, scratch that; it would be more like Rockefeller-Goldwater in '64. Clinton-Obama is shaping up more like Mondale-Hart, and for many of the same reasons.

On the Dem side, Hillary's still in good shape, even if she loses NH; she's poised to take Michigan the folowing week, Nevada the week after that, and Florida the week after that (though Obama could catch her in South Carolina that same week, giving him a win on the eve of Super Tuesday).

The biggest danger to Hillary right now would be Edwards dropping out right after NH. If he does, his organization and supporters will overwhelmingly defect to Obama, creating a huge disruption in the Clinton camp's calculus for Super Tuesday. If Edwards stays in til the end of January, however -- possibly hoping for some traction in South Carolina on the 29th -- Hilary should come out of Super Tuesday well ahead of Obama.

Unless, of course, other things happen

[dannubis]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


Most people (in the US at least) don't know anything about the science and evolution is as much an item of faith to them as creationism.

JM

The fact that he is a creationist however means that he is willing to dismiss cold facts in favour of his personal beliefs.

And I think the most powerful military nation and the world has had enough of that the past 8 years.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by onodera
Are there even any people in Wyoming apart from national park caretakers, nuke operators and 35 million Russians?

I didn't notice any Russians when I was there last time. I have seen tons of Russians living in Southern California and Florida though. I guess having already lived in a cold place they've decided to move some where warm and sunny.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by dannubis


The fact that he is a creationist however means that he is willing to dismiss cold facts in favour of his personal beliefs.

And I think the most powerful military nation and the world has had enough of that the past 8 years.

Very true. We need a non-******.

[Sandman]

Huckabee will win, since he seems to be the dumbest of the main candidates.

[MOBIUS]

It worked for Bush jnr - twice!

So, do you think Hillary has blown it already?