2008 Presidential Prediction
GOP: Rudy Giuliani (President), Mitt Romney (VP)
Democrat: Hillary Clinton (President), Barak Obama (VP)
Rudy takes California with the Governators support, and carries New York, giving him the biggest margin of victory in the last 4 presidential elections.
Warning: Subject to change without notice, up to 11:59PM Election Night. Not responsible for personal decisions and or verbal flatulence leading to changes in candidate viability.
On February 11, 2007 at 9:55 am, SVC Alumnus wrote:
Oddly enough, my prediction for the Republicans. I think it’ll be Obama-Clinton though - http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=19255 is worth a read why Hillary Clinton polarizes our country so much.
I just hope for our nation Hillary loses. As our man in NY said yesterday in Sacramento: "Presidents can’t do nonbinding resolutions. Presidents have to make decisions and move the country forward, and that’s the kind of president I will want to be." http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003566758_rudy11.html
Clinton II won’t make the tough decisions.
On February 11, 2007 at 1:30 pm, Playin' Possum wrote:
Well at least you’re not pushing that damned incompetent Rice…
Right tickets, wrong, ass-backwards results…
Guiliani is a catch-22: He only looks good to Repubs - or anyone else - because of the damned phony war on terror… Everything else about him sucks to the religious right and their neocon buttbuddies… But there is a real war going on and we’re losing it. Furthermore, there’s better than a 50/50 chance, IMO, that mad king George will start at least one more war by 2008. Paramount Warmonger William Kristol implied on FoxNews Sunday that he believes at the least "We’re electing a war president in 2008"…
If we’re still at war in Iraq in 2008 - worse, if we’re losing a second war with Iran as lose we will if we invade - Repubs shouldn’t even bother to run…
Digression: Rudi might beat her in NY but for the unforeseeable but expectable bad events which will all go against the Repubs. That particular "New York" dynamic won’t matter anywhere else.
Clinton / Obama - my personal pick as Dem "dream team" for 2008 - gives a nation utterly enamored of the symbolic two symbolic firsts: The first woman President and the first black VP… People who try to attack them in any but the most "positive" ways will be eviscerated as misogynists and racists - and since a lot of the attackers will be in fact misogynists, or at least documentable anti-feminists, and racists, or at least paintable as such, the counterattack will stick… Revenge for Swift-boating… these two aren’t wishy-washy…
The race will congeal in the publics’ mind as a contest between yesterday and today, with yesterday represented by a champion of a lost cause and a mormon throwback and tomorrow by the two firsts…
And one of the great core constituencies of the Repubs - the religious right - will be fragmented like never before… Their self-appointed moralist hypocrite leaders like Pat Robertson will face a quandary: They will either have a "sudden revelation from god" that a mormon VP is OK… Or they will stick to their previous guns and come out against Romney as the practitioner of a heretic cult - which he in fact is… Robertson and similar piles of puke will make complete fools of themselves with their reversals and obfuscations or they will start a brawl. Either way the base will be divided and the spectacle will alienate any of the center not already alienated…
The Governator - a RINO anywhere except California - will probably support the first feminist - his state certainly will, especially with that damned mormon on the Repub ticket… California has two female and very feminist senators and Speaker Pelosi… [those who really know mormonism will point out it treats women like cattle] And the Repubs in California are represented by fucking idiots like Dana Rohrabacher…
Finally, the first feminist to be will, in any case, rip Rudi’s [political] balls off and probably eat them on primetime TV during any debates or confrontations. By 2008, she will have humble-pied her way out of any culpability for the war debacles but as Repub standard bearer Rudi will have to go down with the ship… She’s smart and is married to the best political strategist - and one of the best political debaters - anywhere, and he owes her…
Aggravations and wildcards, political and otherwise, such as:
If we don’t go after Iran, the Israelis probably will and this will provoke an international crisis along with a huge new war which will exacerbate the political divides in the US and especially in NY, where the Jewish block - and their money - will be in turmoil. Not all jews support Israel, and if Tel-Aviv starts another war on no more evidence than some paid-for intelligence and loudmouthed threats - especially if they use nukes - that may be the last straw for many liberal jews. The Jewish vote, their money and influence matters to both parties but it matters more to the Repubs in this context. Repubs lose politically if Israel attacks Iran. They will be subjected to more hate from the left and the far right will be pissed the Repubs didn’t do Tel-Aviv’s dirty work for them…
Another effect of an aggressive war started by Israel against Iran - especially if it involves nukes - will likely result in huge backlash among Arab Nations who may not like Iran but like Israel less. We’ll stupidly support the Israelis… I wouldn’t foresee an embargo, but I do expect a pullout of dollar-denominated investments. If any major holder pulls out, others will follow; the Euro gains… Joe Average American actually wins in the long run because a collapsing dollar makes him more competitive but Wall Street’s bloodsuckers - whose interests, remember, are not the same as those on Main street - will be devastated. Then interest rates will rise as the Treasury - which MUST borrow - is forced to pay more for at the T-bill auctions…
A terrorist attack - a big one. It’s hard to see this going for the GOP. If it is prevented, most of us who are convincible will, based on the shrub’s record of lying - OOPS! I should say being naively mislead and misleading in his turn - will paint him as crying wolf… If the attack succeeds, the Repubs get blamed for utter incompetence of a criminal scale…
Then there are natural disasters. Another Katrina or bad storm season will go against the Repubs on two fronts: First the global warming thing, then the incompetence perception. Bet your ass the Feds won’t be ready… They never are… Some people among the anti global warming crowd grouse global warming has become a religion… If it has, then so much the worse for its detractors… Take it from somebody who has been on the unpopular side of a lot of religious arguments - you can’t argue against faith with facts… From now on, the weather is caused by man… Now genuflect…
Any of the above, or the shrub’s planned war on Iran, will tank the economy, which is, Wall Street be damned, on its lips anyway. Every time the Fed whispers interest rate hikes, the brokers all simultaneously soil their knickers… That’s because the whole mess is a house of cards. Unreasonably low interest rates coupled with unscrupulous lending practices and old-fashioned greed have led too many people into hawking themselves to the hilt and too many brokers to play too much with margin. We’re to the point that things manifestly good for the middle class are bad for Wall Street and any number of uncontrollable events could flatten the card house. Foreclosures will skyrocket as the economy tanks, the Dems will pass legislation banning them and the shrub will veto it. A lot of people will end up dispossessed of their property and perhaps even homeless. Repubs - especially on top of their "bankruptcy reform" - which Hillary opposed - will be blamed.
I could keep going but my fingers are getting tired. My central point is I can’t think of a single event that will be "pro-Republican." That’s what the incompetence and corruption of the shrub and the neocons have wrought. The 2006 elections iced the cake. Any good news will be attributed to the new Democratic Congress’ better management - they are already up 14 points in recent polls from the pre-election lows and are now more popular than the lame duck in chief. Any more bad news pulls more feathers off the duck and jams them up his parties’ butt…
Can you say "Madam President?"
On February 11, 2007 at 1:35 pm, Playin' Possum wrote:
Sorry about the formatting… Blame Word…. Genuflect…
On February 11, 2007 at 3:51 pm, Aurelius wrote:
Strangely enough, I think we will agree on one point: As far as the War goes (and I am talking about the WAR as in the current incarnation of the Crusades - the War against Militant Islam) I would be happy with HIllary in the white house. They probably dont realize it, becuase she is "just a woman", but I think the Islamokazes would find her to be far more rougher opponent than your average man.
And a side note on the Governator, keep in mind that he will also be running against Boxer for the Senate…
It’s going to be SUCH an entertaining election season!
On February 11, 2007 at 3:59 pm, AndrewsDad wrote:
Giuliani and Romney, two social liberals from the North East on the same ticket, aint gonna happen. A female and a black man on the same ticket, lots of traditional Democrat voters in the South and Mid West, while in the privacy of the voting booth will have a hard time pulling that lever.
On February 12, 2007 at 9:50 am, Aurelius wrote:
Good point on the Geography issue on Giuliani-Romney. Could be an issue.
As far as the D;s go, the South has not been fertile ground for them in recent times, so I think their strategy will continue to be the Blue states - large Urban (liberal) populations along the coasts.