Presidential Primary Predictions

[Superman Returns]

Yes, I know, Presidential speculation can be overdone. However, on my blog I usually write my political predictions for the new year. I just wanted to see the opinion of DU members on the matter. Who do you think will win the Democratic and Republican nominations for President? Not who you want, but you think will win it.

I'm still deciding on the Democratic side, but as far as GOP, I think McCain has it.

[Mark E. Smith]

1. Edwards Vs. Brownback

You heard it here first.

[waiting for hope]

3. And Edwards will win.....

He has my vote and my RW father's too if you can believe it - that's why I'm saying he'll win. I think he'll pull a lot of Repuke votes for the only reason is that he's likable.

[William769]

2. Hillary Clinton (D), Condi Rice (R).

[Warren DeMontague]

14. You've gotta be joking.

Er, do you understand who runs the Republican Party? Hell would freeze right the fuck over before Condi Rice (or Rudy Guiliani, for that matter) would EVER become the GOP nominee. Wanna know why?




...they're pro choice.


As for Hillary, she's not gonna get it either.

I say Al Gore and who the fuck cares, 'cuz this time Gore is gonna win by a large enough margin that it can't be stolen.

[Nikki Stone1]

24. But if Hillary should win the Dem nomination, the Pugs might need to put up a woman too

...

[Lex]

28. Oh please don't let it be Liddy Dole.

:puke:

[Nikki Stone1]

48. I don't think Liddy Dole has enough oomph. It would have to be Condi

She could play up her international record. We would laugh but many Pugs would find it convincing.

[Warren DeMontague]

30. Then they'd find a pro-life one.

Hey; I'd be absolutely astounded to be proven wrong... but the day the GOP nominates someone admittedly pro-choice for President will be the day I eat my hat.

Literally. If I don't have a hat to eat, I will buy one and eat it.

[flaminbats]

31. when have Republicans ever nominated a pro-life candidate?

they've nominated plenty of Republicans who seek to throw women in jail for deciding whether or not to have babies, but pro-life?

show me a Republican candidate who supports universal healthcare, opposes this war in Iraq, and is willing to even raise taxes for a balanced budget...then I'll show you a pro-life Republican with morality who I'll vote for!

[Warren DeMontague]

32. Okay, yes. We all know that "pro-life" doesn't mean PRO LIFE.

We also all know what the term "pro-life" is political shorthand for in this sort of political discussion.

But without wanting to get too derailed by semantic wrangling, I agree 100%.

[WI_DEM]

50. No, they don't need to put up a woman just becuz Hillary is nominated

in fact they probably would be able to beat Hillary easier with a man.

[demosincebirth]

4. Edwards/Clark vs.McCain/Guiliani

[Rowdyboy]

5. Edwards-Richardson vs Romney-Huckabee

[Zynx]

6. I think Clinton collapses and Obama fizzles making room for Edwards

to jump in and take it all. McCain collapses on the Republican side, Giuliani does the same when they find out his positions, Romney gets blacklisted by conservatives when they find out his more moderate past and his Mormonism, then Brownback sneaks in with solid backing from all conservative groups, both economic and social.

Edwards beats Brownback in the general election.

[PADemD]

7. Obama/Edwards vs. Huckabee/Brownback

[jefferson_dem]

8. Obama vs. McCain

In General Election, Obama-Clark defeats McCain-Giuliani. Mark it down.

[illinoisprogressive]

9. I don't think McCain will get it.

He has pissed off too many. I think that Giullianni will get the gop.
I think Obama will get the dem.
Why? Because Hillary is despised on the left as much as the right. Edwards has a very spotty record in the senate and will not be able to keep up.
The other don't inspire people to vote for them as they are the tired troops of the democratic party forever.
Obama is smart, has done alot of work, and is able to articlate the issues well.

[flaminbats]

10. asking Republicans who they'll back in the primary..

I asked some Republicans this Christmas. One said he'll back Condi Rice or Jeb Bush in the primary, another said Saxby Chambliss, and the one who has been a Republican the longest suggested Romney or McCain.

All of these Republicans loathed Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, all love the Bushes, and all loved Newt Gingrich when he was Speaker. When I mentioned Newt as a possibility, they only laughed. When I mentioned Cheney, they acted surprised and asked if he'll run. When I mentioned Bill Frist, only the Republican from Tennessee seemed interested. But all said this war is a huge mistake and our troops need to be brought home as soon as possible! Yet all think Bush is our greatest President! :crazy: And only one thinks healthcare reform is an important issue.

I know who I'll probably support in the Democratic primary. Mike Gravel, Russ Feingold, and Dennis Kucinich are all Democrats I hope to see nominated. But strangely enough..those who I support in the primaries rarely win the nomination. ;)

[Neshanic]

11. Obama Clinton Edwards...Ambien personified.

What a mind numbing group of bores that you would pay to escape from if they cornered you in a room during a party.

The next two years are going to select the person that has the voice that we need to lead us from this triad of tedious republican enablers. The war will continue, the republicans will get desperate, the economy will tank, and it is going to take more than word parsing getalong democrats to get us out of the mess that is coming down the pike.

None of these people are electable for President....and none deserve it.

[illinoisprogressive]

12. I noticed you don't say

who you support.

[Neshanic]

13. Because it is too early to do so. The next year will reveal the person

that will not carefully dance around all the crap that will be coming.

The Democrat that confronts what will surely be the next trying year, the corrupt and twisted republicans, and calls them out, and does not pull the "Democrat instant apology when demanded" gets my interest.

None of the above fit that. I am hopefull the times will provide the leader, not insertion of flavor of the month.

[flaminbats]

16. I think Edwards and Obama are both electable..

but I have my doubts about Hillary.

Of these three possible candidates, I believe Edwards is the most electable. I believe Obama is electable, especially after hearing a Republican I know announce "Obama is the most honest Senator we have in office now!"

Strangely enough..that Republican also thinks Condi Rice should be the nominee in 2008.

I don't believe Hillary, Edwards, and Obama are the best or most electable Democrats for President. But I didn't believe Bill Clinton was the most electable Democrat either.

[Neshanic]

17. Obama and Edwards are not tough enough.

They talk a great game, but the next year will give us the person we want. The things that will go on and that will be revealed will make it so.

[illinoisprogressive]

22. You cannot come out of Chicago politics and be faint hearted.

It is tough. very tough. In order to survive you have to be tough. Don't let his smile fool you into thinking he's soft.

[Neshanic]

23. It's not his smile. He will say anything to be elected. Not what we need now.

[flaminbats]

25. then why does he support universal healthcare?

universal healthcare may win someone the nomination, but it doesn't always win a candidate the election!

if Obama only cared about getting elected...then he would promise universal healthcare while supporting unlimited tax cuts like Bush. But unlike Bush, maybe Obama believes in paying for what he promises! Does that really make him more electable?

[Neshanic]

26. Guns, God , Gays and the war. Your thoughts Mr. Obama?

Quick without seeing any test groups...

[Lex]

27. Disparging Democratic candidates is so

:yawn:

[goclark]

37. I really get bothered with the putting down of our candidates

We should be happy that they are willing to be in the debate and take the time/energy/lack of family memories to do this for us.

All we are doing is giving Rush ideas to focus on ~

[Neshanic]

39. The reality of who will/can lead us is not a put down exercise.

[goclark]

41. Some of the threads that I have read are put downs

based on poulling up one candidate to put down the others.

The Republicans sure know where to come to get their material.

[Neshanic]

43. I do not support any put forth. I will be voting for a worm if need be

but it will be a Democratic worm. You see us gays have no choice.

So being part of a captive group that almost exclusive votes Democratic can kick a bit, when force fed our blandest of the bland.

[goclark]

47. African Americans will be voting for the Democratic Ticket

because our hopes do not rest in the Katrina Party.

I truly understand what you are saying.

PEACE in the New Year.

[flaminbats]

29. Guns, God, Gays, and the war?

sorry...but nobody I know votes on those issues. :eyes: well, maybe on this tax-free war!

[jefferson_dem]

33. "He will say anything to be elected."

Cute line of attack.

Zero evidence to support it.

[Neshanic]

34. Correction. He will carefully fence straddle to get elected.

[jefferson_dem]

40. We'll see. So far, however, i hear passion and princple not fence straddling.

Here's an example, as he was running for the Senate in 2002.

Remarks of Illinois State Sen. Barack Obama Against Going to War with Iraq
October 26, 2002

I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances. The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil.

I don't oppose all wars. My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil.

I don't oppose all wars. After September 11, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again.

I don't oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne. What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income, to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power.... The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him. But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors...and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars. So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure that...we vigorously enforce a nonproliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

http://www.barackobama.com/2002/10/26/iraq_war.php

[Neshanic]

42. Gay rights? .....crickets chirping. Nuff said.

"The battles against ignorance and intolerance."

The above offer not valid when discussing homosexuality, gay rights, or anything gay related.

[jefferson_dem]

44. Well, you did not specify any particular policy area in your initial criticism.

I consider his position on Iraq to be fairly "principled", eh.

On gay rights, Obama's position is about identical to what Kerry's was in 2004. I wonder if you heckled Kerry as a "fence straddler" then...

[Neshanic]

45. Uh, yes Kerry got it too. It comes with the territory of having a solid block of gay supporters...

and I did not bring up the "gay" thing that our party never discusses rationally if a moderate is within a mile, because then we get accused of being "one issue gays".

Is it not enough that you have the lock on the gay vote? Just give us someone we can rally behind with you, that is not a clone of moderation and carefull group testing, and we will still, at least for me, vote gladly for them, and not bring up the "gay thing."

Is that too much to ask? Just give us a fighter...not a warmed over TV dinner.

[jefferson_dem]

46. Ok. For the record, i totally appreciate your position.

I am also hopeful that our candidates have the courage to stand up and for justice - and will say/do what's right on the issue of gay rights. On that, we agree.

[Warren DeMontague]

15. If he gets in, the nomination is Al Gore's for the taking. I say Gore vs. McCain

but don't underestimate the degree to which the knuckle-dragging, 6,000 year old Earth, birth control criminalization fundy Xtian crowd -the folks who run the GOP- absolutely hate McCain.

[Neshanic]

19. ...and the right of center Democrats that dislike McCain.

That monkey suck up spectacle pretty much made everyone throw up in their mouth a little.

[Warren DeMontague]

20. But... But... He's a "rebel"! He's a "maverick!"

He's "Luke Skywalker, flying into the Death Star!"



If, you know, instead of blowing up the Death Star, Luke Skywalker had landed on it, went to work for the Emperor, and stuck his tongue in Grand Moff Tarkin's ear.

[Neshanic]

21. Even the old folk in the Sun Cities will stop having sex in the parks to vote against McCain.

Not a easy feat!

[Lex]

18. Edwards vs. McCain

is my prediction at this point.

[madokie]

35. I think it will be Big Al versus the bottom of the barrel, slime ball McCain

With Al the winner for the reasons stated above

[Neshanic]

38. That is actually plausable, instead of "Nathan Therm" candidates

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

36. Clinton/Obama vs McCain/Guiliani

[WI_DEM]

49. on GOP side I'm fairly confident McCain will be the nominee

on the Democratic side I'm not sure. I think it may well come down to Obama and Edwards (if Obama runs), for some reason I think Hillary will be eliminated fairly early.

[mnhtnbb]

51. Edwards v Hagel (Yes, a stealth candidate) No clue on Veeps

I think Hillary is going to decide she likes the Senate. Obama needs more experience.

I think the R's are going to realize that McCain has been too cozy with Bushie and that they need a more independent voice. Hagel fits the bill: from the midwest, military background, successful businessperson, record of speaking out on the Iraq war. Once the media machine got going with Hagel, I think it would be tough for any Dem to beat him.

I think both McCain and Guiliani are beatable.