Who wins the white house
Who wins the white house
by Timbalaned on Thu Feb 07, 2008 4:11 am
So from where it is right now who wants to predict who wins and if you are hella tight who is the VP?
Brauck Cullen
University of Oregon 2002-2006
Napa Youth Coach 2006
-----------------------------------------------------------
Don't ever take sides with someone outside the family...
University of Oregon 2002-2006
Napa Youth Coach 2006
-----------------------------------------------------------
Don't ever take sides with someone outside the family...
-
Timbalaned - All-America
- Posts: 1177
- Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 5:54 pm
- Location: OREGON
by KnoxVegas on Fri Feb 08, 2008 10:05 am
scooter wrote:if the election were being held today....One would have to think that McCain would get the nod.
Is this based on the fact that he had to once again convince his own party that he is a "true" conservation at CPAC yesterday? Or that the Conservative attack dogs like as Dobson, Malkin, Hannity, Limbaugh and Coulter have been assailing him for months? Is it because he is a war hero even though others in his party (read Bush, who claimed "alledgedly" that McCain was mentally ill during the 2000 SC primary)? Or possibly because some conservatives attempted to do him like John Kerry and say his military service was less than honorable? Or maybe that he has defended the administration's Iraq policy to the letter?
Or is it because he is just the last man standing and you don't think country is ready for a black man or a woman to be POTUS?
Dagger!
- KnoxVegas
- All-America
- Posts: 1762
- Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 12:03 am
by Beta on Fri Feb 08, 2008 11:36 am
Zeuslax wrote:If the election is held today McCain wouldn't win! Fortunately for him it's still a few monthes away.
Hilary?
Barry Badrinath: Oh man, that's the most disgusting thing I've ever drank.
Landfill: I doubt that very much, playboy
Landfill: I doubt that very much, playboy
-
Beta - Big Fan of Curves
- Posts: 1581
- Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 5:00 pm
- Location: A-Town Stay Down, GA
by Dan Wishengrad on Fri Feb 08, 2008 11:38 am
There is alot of time until November, and the political landscape could be quite different than it is today. McCain will be a formidable national candidate. But one of the undisputed truths of this primary season is that there is much more passion and marshalling of forces happening on the Democratic side than on the Republican. I channel-surfed on Tuesday night and even caught Karl Rove on FOX saying the exact same thing. So did Bill Kristol. From state to state -- even in the red ones -- the turnout has been much higher on the Democratic side in early 2008.
Compare the totality of the votes cast for Hillary and Barack in each individual state which has held a caucus or a primary with the total votes cast for Mac, Mitt and MB. Missouri is a good "bellwether" state, a state that often goes for the eventual Presidential winner. The contest between the top three GOP candidates was extremely tight, and JM, MR and MH received a combined 552,000 votes. Compare this with 405,000 for Obama and 394,000 for Hillary. This pattern is being repeated almost everywhere. It does not bode well for the Republicans, but as I said alot can happen between in the next nine months.
Compare the totality of the votes cast for Hillary and Barack in each individual state which has held a caucus or a primary with the total votes cast for Mac, Mitt and MB. Missouri is a good "bellwether" state, a state that often goes for the eventual Presidential winner. The contest between the top three GOP candidates was extremely tight, and JM, MR and MH received a combined 552,000 votes. Compare this with 405,000 for Obama and 394,000 for Hillary. This pattern is being repeated almost everywhere. It does not bode well for the Republicans, but as I said alot can happen between in the next nine months.
PNCLL Board Member 1997-Present
MCLA Fan
MCLA Fan
-
Dan Wishengrad - Premium
- Posts: 1683
- Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2005 1:47 am
by Zeuslax on Fri Feb 08, 2008 11:38 am
Hilary?
At this point in time, and if the election was held today you would have to say either Obama or Hilliary. The current turnout numbers speak volumes.
However, we have 9 months to find dead hookers, crack in hotel rooms, inmates released from prison that commit heinous crimes and tons of chances for Obama to look ridiculous wearing a funny M1 Abrams tank driver's helmet.
Anthony
- Zeuslax
- Premium
- Posts: 1144
- Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 2:36 pm
- Location: Pittsburgh, PA
by laxfan25 on Fri Feb 08, 2008 11:44 am
Dusting off the old crystal ball here...
I'd say that there is a 99.9% chance that the Republican nominee will be John McCain. The Democratic choice will not be decided until the convention, and I think the regular delegate count will not decide the eventual nominee - it will be decided by the superdelegates- the party powerful and current elected officials. My prediction? They will go with experience, and Sen. Hillary Clinton will get the nod. My odds on the VP slot - Richardson, Edwards, or maybe Joe Biden in a long shot. Barack will go back for more seasoning in the Senate, but will certainly be a force to be reckoned with in the future.
The national campaign will be "vigorous" (read, as nasty as any of the past ones - some things never change). While it won't be double-digits (and likely closer to the low singles), Hilary Clinton will prevail.
Reasons?
1) The Democratic party is MUCH more energized over this election than any in recent memory. I don't forsee lingering hostility from Obama supporters that their man was denied - they will unite behind the candidate just because they are so desperate for change. (Where have I heard that word recently??)
2) Those towards the right side in the GOP are very disappointed, and while most will swing over to McCain when it comes down to punching the chad, there will be a good number that will sit out the election or write in an alternate.
3) The economy is still heading downward to levels that are too depressing to even think about right now, and that never bodes well for the incumbent party.
4) The situation in Iraq will be no better than it is right now. The surge will be over, since the troops are not available to sustain the increase (which has been known since it was first put into place). The reason for the surge - to give the Iraqi gov't time to get it's act together - has been an utter failure. Nothing has been done or likely will be done on that front.
While the spinners have been touting the surge as a huge success since death tolls of Iraqi civilians have dropped considerably - there are several other equally or more important reasons why this has occurred. a) Much of Baghdad has already been ethnically cleansed. It is now a series of walled-off neighborhoods in which the people try to go about their daily lives of going to market and surviving just in their little areas. To venture out risks kidnapping or worse. b) US Troops have been pushed out into some of the neighborhoods to provide security to the residents. This is great, but how long can we serve as the Baghdad police, and what happens in the vacuum when we do leave? c) The Sunni Awakening has been highly touted, and many Sunni leaders came to the realization that the devil of Al Qaeda in Iraq is worse than the US occupiers. Oc course, money is also a bit of a factor in that equation as we now have 80,000 Sunnis on our payroll at about $300 a month to not shoot at us! We're happy to pay that protection money, but what happens if we stop? Not to mention that the Shiites who are in control of the gov't are casting a very wary eye at this. d) Al Sadr's Mahdi Army (THE most powerful force inside of Iraq) has had a cease-fire in place for several months. They don't want to engage in battle with the US. They know that they will be in Iraq long after the US leaves, whether it is in 1, 10, 50 or 100 years - they're not going anywhere. They have the numbers and the power to exercise their will when they choose. In the meantime they have a healthy revenue stream coming in from the neighborhoods they control, as they collect rent on houses they took from Sunnis and turned over to Shiite families. They also control much of the economy in these areas - gas stations, pharmacies, health clinics, etc.
For those that claim we are on the path to success - how do you define success in Iraq? What exactly is the exit strategy to get us out of this morass? How many more troop rotations or extended deployments are going to be needed to accomplish this mission? Our military has been broken over Iraq, and it's not gettting better. Mid-level officers such as captains are leaving in droves and the quality of new recruits is falling. If you talk to the military leadership they are very, very concerned.
In spite of what Mitt Romney said in his surrender speech yesterday about the Democrats surrendering to the terrorists (and I strongly echo Jon Stewart's retort to that on the Daily Show last night - "F* You!) - Iraq will be a millstone around the neck of whoever steps in the POTUS position. Even Barack Obama, who talks about bringing our tropps home in a year, is being a bit disingenuous, as he is referring only to combat troops - he would still have a force of about 80,000 in place to try to prevent the situation from deteriorating into utter chaos.
5) There is still a lingering issue with the ACTUAL 9/11 terrorists. 6 1/2 years on, and what have we done about Osama bin Laden?? More happy talk from Condi Rice about Afghanistan, while reality tells a different tale about a failed state that is likely to become a narco-terrorist haven again. We utterly squandered all of the goodwill and backing we had when we first went after bin Laden. Now we're doing some Predator attacks and covert actions - why wasn't this done six years ago? That's right, we had a little detour to take six months to knock off Saddam Hussein and begin the spread of "democracy" and regime change throughout the Mideast. Hmm, that really hasn't gone according to the neo-con plan, has it? There is also the issue with problems in the neighboring state of Pakistan - how do we plan on controlling that situation?
6) Turning our attention back home, there are some US citizens that are just a touch concerned with the healthcare situation as costs continue to sprial upward and tens of millions of Americans are still without any coverage.
Unfortunately, the budget fiasco will hamstring any efforts to bring about meaningful progress in a lot of domestic areas. The laughable numbers presented by GWB in terms of the upcoming deficits ("a balanced budget in 2012!") which don't include current spending on Iraq/Afghanistan and forecast ZERO spending their in 2010 and beyond (who has really given up there?) are so far from reality that you wonder who they think actually believes this crap?
Fortunately, there is one simple solution that will cure all of these ills - "Permanent tax cuts for the rich!"
So GWB will continue to try to hold out the illusion that we can actually "win" in Iraq and will try to push through a status of forces agreement with Iraq without the approval of Congress (i.e. "the people") that will further tie the hands of any incoming adminstration, so that he can claim on his departure that he left us on a winning course, and whoever steps in will be responsible for losing the war. I think most people are able to see through that fantasy.
In the end, as people head to the ballot boxes they will be asking themselves that famous question -
Are you better off than you were 8 years ago?
When they answer that question, I think that Hillary Clinton will be the victor in the election. Just don't hope for miracles, just hope for a turn in the right direction.
I'd say that there is a 99.9% chance that the Republican nominee will be John McCain. The Democratic choice will not be decided until the convention, and I think the regular delegate count will not decide the eventual nominee - it will be decided by the superdelegates- the party powerful and current elected officials. My prediction? They will go with experience, and Sen. Hillary Clinton will get the nod. My odds on the VP slot - Richardson, Edwards, or maybe Joe Biden in a long shot. Barack will go back for more seasoning in the Senate, but will certainly be a force to be reckoned with in the future.
The national campaign will be "vigorous" (read, as nasty as any of the past ones - some things never change). While it won't be double-digits (and likely closer to the low singles), Hilary Clinton will prevail.
Reasons?
1) The Democratic party is MUCH more energized over this election than any in recent memory. I don't forsee lingering hostility from Obama supporters that their man was denied - they will unite behind the candidate just because they are so desperate for change. (Where have I heard that word recently??)
2) Those towards the right side in the GOP are very disappointed, and while most will swing over to McCain when it comes down to punching the chad, there will be a good number that will sit out the election or write in an alternate.
3) The economy is still heading downward to levels that are too depressing to even think about right now, and that never bodes well for the incumbent party.
4) The situation in Iraq will be no better than it is right now. The surge will be over, since the troops are not available to sustain the increase (which has been known since it was first put into place). The reason for the surge - to give the Iraqi gov't time to get it's act together - has been an utter failure. Nothing has been done or likely will be done on that front.
While the spinners have been touting the surge as a huge success since death tolls of Iraqi civilians have dropped considerably - there are several other equally or more important reasons why this has occurred. a) Much of Baghdad has already been ethnically cleansed. It is now a series of walled-off neighborhoods in which the people try to go about their daily lives of going to market and surviving just in their little areas. To venture out risks kidnapping or worse. b) US Troops have been pushed out into some of the neighborhoods to provide security to the residents. This is great, but how long can we serve as the Baghdad police, and what happens in the vacuum when we do leave? c) The Sunni Awakening has been highly touted, and many Sunni leaders came to the realization that the devil of Al Qaeda in Iraq is worse than the US occupiers. Oc course, money is also a bit of a factor in that equation as we now have 80,000 Sunnis on our payroll at about $300 a month to not shoot at us! We're happy to pay that protection money, but what happens if we stop? Not to mention that the Shiites who are in control of the gov't are casting a very wary eye at this. d) Al Sadr's Mahdi Army (THE most powerful force inside of Iraq) has had a cease-fire in place for several months. They don't want to engage in battle with the US. They know that they will be in Iraq long after the US leaves, whether it is in 1, 10, 50 or 100 years - they're not going anywhere. They have the numbers and the power to exercise their will when they choose. In the meantime they have a healthy revenue stream coming in from the neighborhoods they control, as they collect rent on houses they took from Sunnis and turned over to Shiite families. They also control much of the economy in these areas - gas stations, pharmacies, health clinics, etc.
For those that claim we are on the path to success - how do you define success in Iraq? What exactly is the exit strategy to get us out of this morass? How many more troop rotations or extended deployments are going to be needed to accomplish this mission? Our military has been broken over Iraq, and it's not gettting better. Mid-level officers such as captains are leaving in droves and the quality of new recruits is falling. If you talk to the military leadership they are very, very concerned.
In spite of what Mitt Romney said in his surrender speech yesterday about the Democrats surrendering to the terrorists (and I strongly echo Jon Stewart's retort to that on the Daily Show last night - "F* You!) - Iraq will be a millstone around the neck of whoever steps in the POTUS position. Even Barack Obama, who talks about bringing our tropps home in a year, is being a bit disingenuous, as he is referring only to combat troops - he would still have a force of about 80,000 in place to try to prevent the situation from deteriorating into utter chaos.
5) There is still a lingering issue with the ACTUAL 9/11 terrorists. 6 1/2 years on, and what have we done about Osama bin Laden?? More happy talk from Condi Rice about Afghanistan, while reality tells a different tale about a failed state that is likely to become a narco-terrorist haven again. We utterly squandered all of the goodwill and backing we had when we first went after bin Laden. Now we're doing some Predator attacks and covert actions - why wasn't this done six years ago? That's right, we had a little detour to take six months to knock off Saddam Hussein and begin the spread of "democracy" and regime change throughout the Mideast. Hmm, that really hasn't gone according to the neo-con plan, has it? There is also the issue with problems in the neighboring state of Pakistan - how do we plan on controlling that situation?
6) Turning our attention back home, there are some US citizens that are just a touch concerned with the healthcare situation as costs continue to sprial upward and tens of millions of Americans are still without any coverage.
Unfortunately, the budget fiasco will hamstring any efforts to bring about meaningful progress in a lot of domestic areas. The laughable numbers presented by GWB in terms of the upcoming deficits ("a balanced budget in 2012!") which don't include current spending on Iraq/Afghanistan and forecast ZERO spending their in 2010 and beyond (who has really given up there?) are so far from reality that you wonder who they think actually believes this crap?
Fortunately, there is one simple solution that will cure all of these ills - "Permanent tax cuts for the rich!"
So GWB will continue to try to hold out the illusion that we can actually "win" in Iraq and will try to push through a status of forces agreement with Iraq without the approval of Congress (i.e. "the people") that will further tie the hands of any incoming adminstration, so that he can claim on his departure that he left us on a winning course, and whoever steps in will be responsible for losing the war. I think most people are able to see through that fantasy.
In the end, as people head to the ballot boxes they will be asking themselves that famous question -
Are you better off than you were 8 years ago?
When they answer that question, I think that Hillary Clinton will be the victor in the election. Just don't hope for miracles, just hope for a turn in the right direction.
-
laxfan25 - Scoop, Cradle, & Rock!
- Posts: 1952
- Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 12:06 pm
by laxfan25 on Fri Feb 08, 2008 11:51 am
I don't know about longest, (I've had some other doozies!) but certainly the most intelligent and cogent analysis of the upcoming election to date! 
I'll be interested in your thoughts after you DO actually read it!
I'm not a sound bite guy - more interested in food for thought. I must say that any politician that is actually up front about these issues with the American people doesn't stand a chance of being elected?
I'll be interested in your thoughts after you DO actually read it!
I'm not a sound bite guy - more interested in food for thought. I must say that any politician that is actually up front about these issues with the American people doesn't stand a chance of being elected?
-
laxfan25 - Scoop, Cradle, & Rock!
- Posts: 1952
- Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 12:06 pm
by Pinball on Fri Feb 08, 2008 11:56 am
I think people need to be more informed about Ron Paul and he could step into a front running spot instead of the distant 3rd that he is sitting in. I think he has some pretty interesting policies that I found about recently. I suggest for anyone who has a couple of minutes, go to youtube and check out some of the Ron Paul videos out there.
-
Pinball - All-America
- Posts: 631
- Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 2:40 pm
- Location: Uptown
by laxfan25 on Fri Feb 08, 2008 12:08 pm
Pinball wrote:I think people need to be more informed about Ron Paul and he could step into a front running spot instead of the distant 3rd that he is sitting in. I think he has some pretty interesting policies that I found about recently. I suggest for anyone who has a couple of minutes, go to youtube and check out some of the Ron Paul videos out there.
Yeah, THAT's gonna happen. He can choose John Anderson, Ross Perot, Ralph Nader or Mike Bloomberg as his running mate.
He does have SOME good ideas, but some other less than endearing features as well.
-
laxfan25 - Scoop, Cradle, & Rock!
- Posts: 1952
- Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 12:06 pm
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests