One year from today is the the 2008 election. This is the thread for you to post what you PREDICT what will happen. This has nothing to do with your preferences. It is simply where you say how you think it will all turn out.

You can predict as much or as little as you would like. Predict who wins the general election. Who they defeat. By how much. Who wins the House? The Senate? Who are the running mates of each candidate? Any significant 3rd party candidates? Why does the winner win? Key issues affecting the outcome? Who does the President-elect name to the top cabinet positions? As well as any other questions you can think to answer.

It'll be interesting to see how everything plays out and how our predictions do or do not come to fruition.

lol well this thread is destined for greatness.

I'm gonna predict that Democrats gain seats in both the House and the Senate. But lose the Presidency. It takes a rare lack of skill to manage such a feat, but I have confidence in the Democrats to manage it.

I'm gonna take Rudy Giuliani as the winner. His VP will have to be a real right wing Bible thumper to keep the Christian Coalition happy. I haven't decided who that will be yet.

Rudy beats Clinton. Poor voter turnout. Nobody likes either choice, but Republicans mobilize their voters better, so they win again.


And I subsequently move to Australia early in '09.

Well I love your prediction....Rudy is my choice for President, but the GOP race is wide open.

I don't see how Hillary Clinton fails to win the Democratic nomination. She took a few lumps at the last debate, but nothing that will derail her charge towards being the Dem candidate. Obama has the money to stay in the race but as this has panned out it doesn't look like he either has the experience voters would want or has the desire to really go after Clinton. John Edwards is going after her consistently and very well (in a polite way...."Hillary is smart and has done a great job in the senate, but..."), but despite that his campaign has slipped and he has resorted to taking public funds. He'll drop out after South Carolina if he fails to win beforehand.

As for Clinton's running mate, that's tough. Bill Richardson is the first name that comes to mind, but his campaign has been terrible. He has a great resume, but seeing that Hillary will have Bill to answer any experience questions, I don't know if she will pick him. Beyond that, I don't know who she would pick. Not Obama, as he could overshadow her as he is very personable and likable. Edwards...nope. Biden is a better fit as Secretary of State. Chris Dodd is a possibility. Ultimately, I think she'll choose someone who will help her pick up votes in an area of the country that will consist of swing states.

As I said, the GOP race is wide open. Giuliani is the clear front-runner but he is weak on the social issues (personally that's what makes him so appealing to me....release the deathgrip the Religious Right has on the party) and won't play well in the South. Also, there is that ongoing threat from the Evangelical leaders to run a third-party candidate if Giuliani gets the nomination (that might be enough to scare Republican voters off of Rudy). I really can't make a prediction on the Republican side. I have this nagging feeling that it will come down to McCain and Thompson...but who knows.

The Democats will maintain hold on the Congress....they'll pick up 6 seats in the Senate and around 12 - 15 more seats in the House. Lots can change a year from now....but I don't see how the Republicans could pull off winning the majority back as everything stands right now.

As for third parties....I still have a feeling that Michael Bloomberg (Mayor of NYC, facing term limit) will get into this because the primaries will be over by mid-February (the GOP race might last a while longer) and there is going to be serious buyer's remorse on both sides. A viable third party cadidacy is a real posssibility....a person who will blast both parties as corrupt and offer real change. Bloomberg could spend half a billion of his own money on such an effort. Ralph Nader's platform from 2000 would really resonate this election cycle....he is old news now.

Leninflux, I enjoy reading your predictions/opinions on the candidates. Very interesting, even for a non-American.

I'm going to say that the Democrats retain the Senate simply because there's a 2-1 ratio of GOP seats up for grabs versus Dem seats.

Other than that, I have no fucking clue.

I saw poll results a few days ago that said if it came down to Clinton-Giuliani, she would actually win the south. I'm not quite sold on that, but it could make things very interesting.

I really can't figure out who Clinton's running mate would be. I'm pretty sure Edwards has said he wouldn't run as VP again. Obama would rather wait for his moment in '12 or '16 I think. The other primary candidates I think are all pretty weak and wouldn't really pick up votes for her. So I think it could end up being somebody else within the Democratic establishment. Who? I don't know.

Richardson.

He sure wants to be. But what does he bring to the table for her? Hes Latino. Thats cool, except its kinda like Gore picking Liberman in '00, you already have that vote. The only Latin demographich they don't have is Cuban, which they could realisticly make significant ground in this election. But I don't think Richardson would be significant to that one way or the other. I suppose he could help to carry Arizona which could be pivotal. Then again, he is a minority, and she is woman...she might feel pressured to have a good ol' white northern liberal as her running mate both to show she isn't too centrist, and well...because people will make a huge deal of a woman-minority combo. That might be too much to overcome, sadly.

Did you see that Latino voter thing I posted a couple weeks ago? Basically the theory was that the Democratic candidate has won all of the states that Gore won in 2000 (except New Mexico and Iowa) in each of the last four elections. They are considered essentially locks. Add New Hampshire, which is no longer the last GOP stronghold in the northeast, and is in fact as blue as can be, and that gets the Dems within about 20 EV of a majority. Then you take the swing states with large Latino populations in the southwest (Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado) and you have a majority WITHOUT OHIO AND FLORIDA. The same majority can be reached with 3 of those 4 plus Iowa. And if the Democrats can swing Florida, which has a Latino population that is increasingly trending Democratic, then you have a majority for many elections to come.

Richardson will deliver New Mexico, no doubt. He is very popular and well known in Arizona. Colorado and Nevada are close enough already that I think that the combination of demographic change since 2004 and Richardson will push those into the blue column. Arizona will be the toughest to swing, but there are big changes going on here.

I still think a better running-mate could be found, but Richardson appears to be angling for the job, and he's an old Clinton friend, so he seems a logical choice.

I wouldn't say Hillary is a shoo-in for the nomination. I think Edwards will do surprisingly well in the early primaries and Obama has the money and charisma to get some of his mojo back. Regardless of who get the nomination I can see Richardson getting the VP slot.
For the Republicans I would bet on either Rudy or Romney. I think Huckabee could be a good balance to the GOP ticket for either candidate.
The Dems certainly have a talking point with Iraq. But I think domestic issues may be more of a draw. Health care is a big topic and the economy may take more of a prominent role, remember the '92 line "it's the economy, stupid"? With the dollar weak against everything, gas at over $3 a gallon, the housing & credit busts, all of those are strikes against the GOP. I think the Democrats will take the White House and keep control of Congress. The Bush administration has really hamstrung the party for years to come.
All bets are off though if there is another large scale attack.
On a personal note can you think of anything that has *not* gone up in price in the last few months?

Kodos ftw.

bart d. ftw.

i like mike gravel a lot but i don't think he has a chance :/

i don't know which would shock me more, the patriots not winning the super bowl or hillary not winning the election.

I think if the dem's focus on domestic issues they can be almost assured wins across the board

now are they smart enough to do it right?

Wrong. Oh God, so wrong.

When Democrats focus on domestic issues, they put teh electorate to SLEEP. It ALWAYS happens that way. Yeah, the voters overwhelmingly agree with Democratic domestic policies, but to talk about them is boring as fuck.

The Democrats have a GOLDEN opportunity to have a foreign issue that is big and exciting and that teh public is overwhelmingly on their side, and if they don't stay on that point and hammer teh GOP to death on teh war, they will not do nearly as well as they deserve to in 2008.

This should be a main stumbling block for Clinton's campaign for the Democratic nom, but it isn't. People are completely willing to overlook her terrible record on these issues, based on some vague notion that she's been this closet Eleanor Roosevelt all these years. My mom is a good example. Hates the war on a fundemental moral level, dispises pretty much everything Bush stands for, but whose picture is on her fucking fridge? The candidate who represents the least amount of change.

Well, during one of the past debates all three leading Democratic candidates were asked if they would pledge that all troops would be out of Iraq by the end of their first term as President, and none of them would....so this isn't just about Hillary Clinton, although she is the most "hawkish" of all the Democratic candidates. My wife is the same way....hates the war, hates President Bush but loves Hillary Clinton.

As to the issue of the war...perhaps it isn't as big an issue as people are making it out to be. I don't see this big push back from the Democratic base every time a funding bill is passed as, say, when the Republican base went ballistic over the comprehensive immigration reform bill. Sure the vast majority of the country is against the war, but the Democrats must feel pretty safe labeling it as "George Bush's war" and keep the funds rolling in without fear of reprisal. Likewise, none of the top tier Democrats will vow to get all the troops out by 2013 and that stance hasn't helped other candidates like Dodd, Richardson or Kucinich move up to a level of viability. Conventional wisdom would say that any Republican who supports staying until "victory" is achieved (I don't know what that is anymore) will get killed in the general election, but I don't know if that's the case....or at least that issue alone will spell doom.

Wouldn't it be stupid to promise a total troop withdrawl during their presidency? I mean, basically, wouldn't that be like promising to stuff all the toothpaste back into the tube? Who knows what it's going to take, or how long?

Well, the way it looks now, following a time when Iraq is secured, we will still have a relatively small number of troops there for a LONG time. So, they really can't promise to have out ALL the troops. Even if everything in Iraq becomes a huge success, and progress is made at a much faster level than currently, I would suspect that any candidate with even a small chance of victory realizes that there will be some troops left in Iraq for awhile. What they should be willing to promise is that they will have the fighting forces withdrawn and an end to major hostilities in Iraq during their presidency, while admiting that a small "security force" or some other euphamism will be needed in Iraq to ensure peace and stability.

The real question mark that throws everything out the window is Iran. I really think whomever wins the presidency is inheriting just about the worst situation of any new president in American history. I see no easy solutions in the making.