Whitechapel - Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

warrenellis — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 10:39:14 -0800

Right now, I'm calling it Obama/Bayh for the Dems, and Guiliani and the ghost of Idi Amin for the GOP.

What do you say?

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

Ariana — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 10:44:36 -0800

I know it makes no sense at all, but I've still got a sneaking suspicion we're going to get this:

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

warrenellis — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 10:47:31 -0800

Six cans of Red Bull says he gets flushed in mid-Jan.

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

Lee Newman — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 10:50:59 -0800

Edwards would not suprise me, the US isn't ready for Obama or Clinto (and really who wants Hilary anyhow), the republicans will be the ex mayor or the actor.

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

graphicartistx — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 10:52:08 -0800

If Biden can be trusted, I think he'd be alright as President. But that is the question, isn't it?

I bet it'll be Clinton/Kucinich just to throw us off for the dems, and I hope to God it's not the case but, Rudy/Paul for the reps. Either way, we'll still be Yanks getting screwed...

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

Ariana — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 10:52:27 -0800

You know damned good and well I'm not dumb enough to ever bet against you. I've just got a sneaking suspicion is all. Based on nothing more than a vague notion that he's the aesthetic the Dems probably don't want to admit is wanted, really.

And there's no way I wasn't going to find a reason to post that photo.

(No doubt on Guiliani, obviously.)

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

warrenellis — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 11:02:53 -0800

Well, I'm not betting yet -- I don't bet until after the nominations. But I'm convinced Bayh/s waiting in the wings.

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

gdwessel — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 11:08:01 -0800

Bayh would probably be more likely to be a running mate of Hillary, if his being part of her Iraq entourage is anything to go by.

That said, Bayh being on the ticket would already swing one Red State into Blue territory, regardless of Clinton or Obama (Or, please, Kucinich?) being the nominee.

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

Kinesys — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 11:10:49 -0800

I think the DLC is massively underestimating how pissed off the progressives are and how mobilized they are. Dean won't and i suspect you might see a groundswell of real support for Kucinich this time around, whether he can ride it out is another question. I will say he's got way more stage presence than Nader ever had. I think if Edwards wants to be a real contender, he'll make some deal with Kucinich. Right now both are flying under the radar, Clinton and Obama are under the GOP microscope so anything they do wrong is going to be blown up into the first few pages of the book of Revealations by the GOP base.

As far as the Grand Orifice Party is concerned, Most of them are acting like they are playing a zero sum game anyway. Mccain of all people probably has the broadest support. He's like everybody's third choice. I look for Ron Paul and Mitt Romney to flame out at some point. Guiliani is just throwing good money after bad at this point.

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

Mike Black — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 11:32:46 -0800

I know I'm a dirty Libertarian/Constitutional Republican and subject to ridicule, but Ron Paul will run as an independent to keep pushing the ideals of the former Republican party in the face of the Neo-Cons. Hopefully he can force the smart ones to stop fucking around with the Religious Right.

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

AlephNought — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 11:58:38 -0800

I expect: Clinton and Giuliani (and fear for the already horrible state of American liberty). I hoped, for a while, that the recent exposé of Rudy's trysts would have had some sway over the "moral majority" and put him out of the race for good. Then I recalled the average attention span of my countrymen (board denizens excluded, of course ^_^) Time will tell. No clue for veeps, yet.

I would prefer: well, I'd prefer to be my own autonomous entity shuttling around the galaxy meeting strange new life forms and generally not bothering anyone by proxy. I'd prefer to be the first human to walk naked on the surface of Mars (and live, mind). Even independently wealthy operating a small science lab dedicated to finding out exactly what Nikola Tesla was really up to would be nice.

But as far as politics...Obama seems the most theoretically-successful "I could vote for him/her" candidate to me at this point. Kucinich and Paul...well, a ticket with both of them (either way, really) would be interesting for a number of reasons. It'll be interesting to see how strong Paul's campaign remains if he doesn't get the GOP nod (which in my mind is still quite the long shot).

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

warrenellis — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 12:43:25 -0800

Ron Paul's not going to be playing in 2008.

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

graphicartistx — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 12:51:17 -0800

For once you've given me a glimmer of hope, Ellis. Do you feel well?

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

Kinesys — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 12:55:22 -0800

It worried me mightily that Kucinich was worried enough about his campaign to consider Paul as a running mate. Hopefully this will put the boots to that.

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

gdwessel — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 12:57:28 -0800

Wow, a man many consider to be the "ONLY HOPE" for the GOP against the neoCon hordes that have taken over is, SURPRISE!, a racist anti-Semitic paranoid fuckstick after all. Quelle surprise.

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

TechnocratJT — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 13:01:18 -0800

Still think its going to be Clinton for the Dems. I rather see Obama or Edwards myself, but I will vote for whoever they cough up.

The right is harder to say, Guiliani seems a safe bet, but scary-as-crap Huckabee looms in the background and Romney seems to still have traction despite the fact the RR thinks Mormon's are scary. Thankfully Thompson's campaign seems still born.

I still have bizarre hopes a Guiliani run will make Bloomberg throw his hat in...

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

AlephNought — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 13:09:09 -0800

Hmm. Bears further research. Obviously an unsupportable position if it is his, but preliminary searching suggests that it may not be (see final paragraph).

More info as it arrives, of course.

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

Mike Black — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 13:10:05 -0800

Ron Paul's not going to be playing in 2008.

I got nothing....

Other than "To point Republicans back to their Constitutional roots, this isn't really going to do much. He's only stealing votes from Republicans, than, isn't he?"

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

C.c. — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 15:00:20 -0800

I sincerely doubt Edwards will get the nomination. My vote goes to Obama, but he's got a road ahead of him. It's too soon to make any proper guesses, but I throw my favor to him.

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

CaBil — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 15:15:33 -0800

I don't know about Giuliani, he finally may have hit a scandal he can't shake. Because it is the kind of scandal that American news people love. It has waste of money, something that appeals to people's selfish interests, he tried to hide it, which lets people know that it was wrong, and it involves sex, which is pure ratings gold. The only thing that would make it better was if she 18 year blonde, so they could splash the photos all over the place like they did with Gary Hart.

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

hank — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 15:20:22 -0800

Democrats
I don't want Clinton, she could be promising hookers and blow for all Metro commuters and she would still not get my vote. She's too willing to nannystate us to death.

Obama is interesting, but I am not sure how he will be. Ill wait for the mud to fly and see how he reacts to getting smacked around some.

Dodd talks a good game, but at the same time I smell some bullshit.

All in all its harder to get a good candidate out of the Democrats because the party is incredibly diverse. Its the thing that keeps the party from picking well at times.
______
GOP:

Huckabee, Paul and Romney are interesting, could be good for the White House in a less fascist way, but they are still GOP.

McCain has alienated the moderates lately. Though at least he has the balls to stand up and say "Fuck you weasels, waterboarding is torture..."

I cant decide.

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

Tom Spurgeon — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 15:29:01 -0800

A weird thing about the 2008 election as it's developing is that maybe the best VP match for both Democrat front-runners is an Indiana politician, Evan Bayh. Bayh would pair up well with Obama in a kind of "new young different" way, while he not only matches well with Clinton as an experienced politician with a certain amount of personal charisma there will be pressure on Clinton to choose him as payback to the party regulars who asked Bayh to sit this one out, party regulars she'll have needed if she's won the nomination.

The weirdest thing, though, is that you can argue that the best match for the Republican front runners... is an Indiana politician, Richard Lugar. He's whip-smart, so conservatively well-credentialed he personally dick-punched Phil Gramm out of politics in 1996, balances well against an east coaster, and is dripping in foreign policy experience.

Hillary will probably try to prove she's her own person and pick someone insane, like Gary Locke.

If I were running the campaigns, I would have the Democrat winner name Oprah and the Republican winner name Catherine Bell from JAG, which would energize the 75-year-old Republican base even though it's off the air.

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

warrenellis — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 15:36:08 -0800

I've been convinced that Bayh's the key for a while now, not least because he's going to be sitting on a packet of markers arranged by Daddy. He's endorsed Hillary, but he'd benefit Obama enormously.

But, like you say, Hillary will go somewhere else -- not least because she and Bill will see a clear opportunity to finally remake the Democratic Party in their own image.

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

Tom Spurgeon — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 15:59:11 -0800

Yeah, I think the only way that doesn't happen is if one of the Clintons' close advisors makes a personal issue of it and uses the example of Gore choosing Lieberman over Bayh as an example of how that can be poorly done to nudge her in the safe-choice direction.

Considering the general question, Warren, I think it's really hard to know yet, because the one thing we learned last time is that the nomination process begins after Iowa, as Kerry was in no one's serious picture of the Democratic outcome until the day after the caucuses. No one I remember, anyway. But even that becomes super-weird in that both Democratic front-runners seem like disciplined enough politicians not to pull a Vinko Bogataj like Dean did, but my sense is that either Republican front runner might potentially wipe out after a few weeks of performing under expectations with the heat of delegates being at stake.

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

Kinesys — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 06:23:30 -0800

You know Dean could have defused that whole "Scream" thing just by coming out and saying, "Hey, i was a little exuberant with my people. What's your damn problem?"

God. The american people need someone in office who isn't scared shitless. Also smart and competent would be nice.

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

BenMiller — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 07:47:04 -0800

There was a fascinating article in NYTimes the other day on the blood war that never happened when Guilliani dropped out of the Senate race in 2000 and the fact that there is a good possibility we may get it now. Almost made me wish for that face off.

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

cjh — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 07:57:44 -0800

I've been convinced that Bayh's the key for a while now, not least because he's going to be sitting on a packet of markers arranged by Daddy. He's endorsed Hillary, but he'd benefit Obama enormously.

I grew up in Indiana (not something that I often admit) and the Bayh name (his daddy was a politician at the State and Federal level for quite a while) has as much political clout there as the Kennedy name has in New England. I was seriously disappointed when he backed out of his go at the President but I think that he can bring a lot to a Democrat ticket. He can really ground some Yankee, Beltway politician with the farmers and Middle America. I think that anyone who overlooks Bayh deserves what they get out of their results.

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

Jason Michelitch — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 08:28:57 -0800

Kerry was in no one's serious picture of the Democratic outcome until the day after the caucuses. No one I remember, anyway.

I remember Al Franken running around squealing about Kerry well before the caucuses, which was why I wasn't surprised when he emerged out of Iowa.

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

Redwynd — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 08:40:38 -0800

I hate to be the one to say it, but I sincerely doubt that Obama is going to get it. He is black, or close enough to it, to split many parts of "middle America" enough into the GOP's favor, and the Dems do know this. And those "obama's a muslim" emails are getting just enough press to plant the suggestion, which will also work against him. In my opinion, he's the best candidate, but there you have it. But then again, the same can be said about Clinton. America may be free, but that doesn't mean the thinking is.

End of the day, I'm predicting a GOP presidential win. Every candidate, from both parties, are putting out scarily hawk-ish rhetoric, which seems to be lining up (in conjunction with the media going on about Iran, the worsening of Iraq, etc) that issue for the crux of the campaign, and in Hawk-isms the Democrats have no traction.

I'm probably wrong, and not American, but that's the view from the Great White North. Now somebody prove me wrong, Guiliani + Harper = bad mojo.

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

Scribe — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 08:43:28 -0800

I am waiting to see who the actual candidates are. For the primaries I am picking Obama on the Democratic side, and the Republican nomination is up for grabs. Who actually wins the Presidency is dependent upon who the third party candidates are, and which party they play spoiler for.

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

Jason Michelitch — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 08:52:07 -0800

Right now, I'm calling it Obama/Bayh for the Dems, and Guiliani and the ghost of Idi Amin for the GOP.

The Democrats are a weird toss-up to me right now - they might just be stupid enough to nominate Hillary, therefore giving us at least four years of President Romney. Obama is gaining, but Edwards is working very, very hard in Iowa. It's currently not inconceivable that Clinton takes third place in Iowa and has too close of a margin in New Hampshire to prevent the race from turning on her and becoming Obama v Edwards. And while I like the fact that Edwards talks more about poverty than any other candidate, I've never trusted him, and I'm going to be pissed-off if I end up having to vote for another White Male Southerner. Not to mention the fact that on the same stage with the GOP nominee Edwards comes off as a petulant little boy, and I don't see him taking the General. Anecdotally, I've noticed a lot of people warming to Biden (of all people) - I don't see it actually ending up reflected in numbers, but it interests me nonetheless.

I think the ghost of Idi Amin has more of a chance than Giuliani at this point. He's doing well nationally, but primary voters who get close to him see him for the crooked, lispy, troll that he is. I'm still calling it for Romney - Huckabee is sucking all the evangelical oxygen out of the room but doesn't have the chops to go anywhere else with it, with the net result being him simply preventing the strongest anti-Mormon vote from going to any candidate who has a chance. Romney getting "caught" being rabidly anti-Muslim is not so much an actual political problem for him as it is another distraction away from Mormonism. And I think the shenanigans with the fake push polling isn't going to break with the kind of hard evidence needed to torch his campaign. Honestly, the fake push polling makes me even more certain oh his eventual winning, because it's exactly the kind of unabashed evil Nixon's PR team would have pulled. Romney clearly believes in only two things: money and winning. And those are the two core beliefs that get you a GOP Presidential nomination.

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

art4899 — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 09:16:52 -0800

I think it's going to be Hilary/Biden and Rudy/who cares, unfortunately. I'm desperate for something to happen at the Iowa caucus that causes me to change my mind.

Hilary is not Bill and, after 8 years of the worst Presidency on record, we need someone a little further off the beaten path to get this country back on track.

Of course, that ABC internet site that asked you questions and then recommended a candidate told me I should vote for the UFO spotter.

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

dansolomon — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 10:45:24 -0800

That's a neat link on Paul. I think most of his supporters are going to wish it away, and he'll still do well in the primary, but it sure as shit hobbles his hopes of ever actually winning. Which were non-existent, anyway. Paul's best hope is to come in a convincing second or third place in the bulk of the primaries, with a win or two tucked away, so he can safely say that he did much better than anyone could have possibly expected and force the Neocon wing of the Republican Party to take him and the Libertarians seriously. If he wants to actually gain something from this election, his best bet is to lose well. If he were somehow able to score the nomination, he'd be trounced so thoroughly that Libertarianism would be dead, at least on a national level. Which is kind of okay with me, except that I like a divided Republican Party much more than the united Neocon front that the world has endured for nearly a decade. A strong showing in a loss means that he's a big-name player and Libertarianism gets a seat at the Republican table, and if the Democratic Party's been split for so long, it seems only fair to see the same happen to the Republicans.

The Republican race is exclusively Giuliani, Huckabee, and Romney, in terms of who could actually get the nomination. Thompson's worse than useless and has managed to translate his momentum into absolutely nothing; McCain is laughable and is going to reap what he's sown for the past eight years of selling his unearned credibility. Hunter and Tancredo are non-entities, and Paul's been discussed.

I wouldn't lay odds between Giuliani and Romney at this point. Huckabee's still a long shot, but I expect him to surge. I think Iowa comes down to Romney and Huckabee, and Giuliani may regret sitting that one out.

As for the Democrats, nobody ever lost money betting that the white guy would be nominated for President, and I think Edwards is still the likely pick.

--d

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

Jason Michelitch — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 17:34:08 -0800

I have seen a disturbing number of black men walking around with Ron Paul buttons. And I've had one openly acknowledge Paul's crazy racist rants and still support him.

This world terrifies me.

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

Scribe — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 17:59:52 -0800

Take Ross Perot, mix with David Duke and throw in a dash of George W Bush, stir lightly and poor over ice and you have yourself one Ron Paul. The man really is a contradiction of himself. He says he believes in non-interventionism, which is just another word for isolationism, but wrote H.CON.RES.231 which allows the US to call the Panama Canal Sovereign US Territory after the lease ran out and Panama fulfilled their obligation. He says he is a strict Constitutionalist, but wants to limit the ability of the Supreme Court to hear cases that interpret the Constitution (HR 300, HR 4379, HR 5739, HR3893, HR1547, HR 4922, HR 5078), even though this power is given to the Supreme Court via the Constitution.

If Paul won the nomination - it would Democrat's dream come true.

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

comicfoil — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 18:09:07 -0800

The Dems love showboating Clinton and Obama but I don't believe the party truly believe either can win the majority white male vote. And despite every politcal candidate, regardless of party affiliation, playing to their favorite "minority" group, the truth is you can't win the presidency in this country without getting the white male vote. So I think Edwards will be the surprise nom coming out of this as the party falls prey to their own insecurities, rather than go with the best candidate... unless Oprah's support behind Obama can somehow both overcome his nascent political stumblings AND bring in larger demographics in key voting groups - then he might have a chance.

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

Adam — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 18:18:35 -0800

I know this is irrelevant, but here in Australia we just had a regime change last weekend, actually. Tyrant Howard was ousted, and Overlord Rudd has been seated upon the Dread Throne. And it was a long time coming. Too much procrastination on environmental issues, and sweeping our institutional human rights abuses under the rug, finally caught up with Howard. It gets to a point where The Economy (Howard's speciality and main platform) takes a backseat to more human issues.

In any case, Howard's economic management was never as rosy as he's portrayed it to be. All of the talk about how great the now former government had been for the economy was greatly exaggerated. When Howard first came into power, the interest rate was 6.5%. He inherited a relatively low interest rate from the Labor Government. He didn't click his fingers and magically bring them down. Admittedly rates were high during the Hawke-Keating government but this was hardly a problem experienced only in Australia.

Net Foreign Debt has increased 12%. Household savings as a percentage of household income have reduced from 7.4% under Hawke-Keating to 0.5% under Howard. Household debt has risen from 52% under Hawke-Keating to 116% under Howard.

ON AVERAGE Australian interest rates are 1.3 basis points higher than the global average implying that you pay 23% more for your money in Australia than you would for the average of the rest of the world.

Doesn't really sound like great economic management now does it?

So I for one welcome Overlord Rudd, and his glorious new regime.

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

warrenellis — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 19:40:03 -0800

"I have seen a disturbing number of black men walking around with Ron Paul buttons. And I've had one openly acknowledge Paul's crazy racist rants and still support him."

Hey, there were black men who supported George Wallace.

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

Zachary Cole — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 20:12:16 -0800

Oh hell, I kind've like Kucinich. You see, in the US guys like him are immediatley labled "fridge candidates", and I guess the fact that he looks like a weary wood elf doesn't help matters much. But there's a part of my mind that screams "Go with a winner! What, wou want *Romney* tearing through civil rights like Jack Bauer after his girlfriend is assasinated by Dirty Arab Terrorists?" That said, Ole Weary Wood Elf has shown himself to be a bright guy and knowlegable.

As to who would get my actual vote? Obama. The best writer of the bunch, which at least suggests that he cares for the things that come out of his mind. And his experience hints at an awareness that, yes, we have a Constitution and no, it's not just just a tool that liberals (cohorting with Dirty Arab Terrorists, no doubt) use to make America weaker.

So yeah, Obama. Or maybe Fred Thomspon, just to watch a man mumble into a stupor during his first State of the Union address.

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

Jason Michelitch — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 20:56:40 -0800

I am fond of the fact that Obama taught Constitutional Law. [Edit]: And that he apparently has a larger hand in speech-writing for himself than most candidates.

I'd like to see him get the nomination. He may not win, but I honestly think he has a better chance than either Clinton or Edwards, regardless of race.

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

jigsawjones — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 10:16:07 -0800

that ABC internet site that asked you questions and then recommended a candidate told me I should vote for the UFO spotter.

A political video podcast took that ABC site and plugged in answers based on the most recent national polling data. They found that the vast majority of Americans would, based purely on the issues, vote for the UFO spotter.

Poor bastard. I mean, I understand -- I have also seen an object flying through the sky that I couldn't identify. It doesn't mean either of us think flying saucers are buzzing the planet. It just means we don't know everything.

edit: found the link for the aforementioned video. Political Lunch

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

Jay Kay — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 10:42:26 -0800

I'm starting to like Kucinich--anyone that squirrely looking able to bag a hot girl like Elizibeth must have something going for him. Seriously, he's the type of crazy we need right now.

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

Adlai — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 11:11:35 -0800

I'm really hoping it's Obama, but i think this is unlikely as he is actually human. Clinton seems to be the most likely as a) she shouldn't really qualify as a human and b) she's basically a republican posing as a democrat.

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

dcasino — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 13:18:25 -0800

I know it makes no sense at all, but I've still got a sneaking suspicion we're going to get this: [Edwards]

More likely than you think. Here's the experiment (we last ran it in October): half the people in the survey get questions about race and gender relations before being asked about the Dem nomination, half get the questions afterwards. What happens: Hillary and Obama both drop, pretty substantially. Bottom line: Americans are still racist, and sexist, and enough of both to throw it to the top white guy.
Results here:
href="http://www.thepublicmind.com/drags/index.html">
Yes, even among Democrats. Best estimates put 94% of white adults as racists, at least on a subminal level. Give 'em a reason to vote against a black man, and they'll take it, even if they don't know that's why they're doing it.
Of course, Hillary is still the presumptive nominee for the Dems, but I think that Edwards is more likely than Obama if she can't hold it together through February. I have no idea who the veep is going to be, but I'd say Richardson if I had to go out on a limb.
For the Republicans, I'm saying Huckabee. Romney and Giuliani take each other out, and he's left to pick up the pieces. He wins big in Iowa, carries it into New Hampshire, and splits the February 5th vote with Giuliani. From there, long, brusing primary, with all of us laughing ourselves silly as they manage to alienate the entire electorate.

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

Fractal — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 14:15:35 -0800

(Disclosure: I'm a slightly flawed but mostly left-wing Canadian.)

This election is a fascinating trainwreck. If I had to pick it, I think I'd go with Hilary Plus X for the Democrats and...god, I've no idea for the Republicans. Giulani is a crook, Romney is a Mormon, and Huckabee is from Arkansas. At least Huckabee has a sense of humour. Let's say Giulani / Huckabee, in a feeble effort to drag the evangelicals along, with Hilary-Bot 2.0 winning it.

For me, the thing about Hilary is that a lot of people are going to look at her as Bill's third term...and after EIGHT YEARS of George W. Bush, Bill looks awfully good.

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

Adam Violent — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 14:43:28 -0800

I think the fact that Hillary is a woman is overshadowed by the idea that she can be used to the advantage of the ruling class in America. Maybe it's just my screwed up brain, but I see her as a malleable candidate, the kind of thing that has gotten more recent past presidents elected. Don't pick steadfast sides unless it outwardly supports the red states and for everything else remain on the fence and exactly like your opposing candidate.

I have trouble completely trusting Obama because he's being shopped to "young people" so goddamn much that he feels like a Mt. Dew commercial sometimes. But I have to say based on all the options, he's the one I would root for right now.

Which means I think it'll be Hillary/Bayh vs. Guilani/someone that doesn't matter. Rudy's got the whole 9/11 shit working for him, which makes me sick, and the red staters either never heard of nor care about all of his terrible, just god awful policies and actions as mayor before that day. And as screwed as it is, I honestly believe that the Dems will give it to a woman before they vote in a black man because that's what they see the majority of America doing.

Which is why I may not come back from Tokyo in 2008.

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

Jason Michelitch — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 15:14:56 -0800

Giuliani is doomed. Huckabee is spoiling Iowa and McCain is spoiling New Hampshire, pushing Giuliani into third and putting Romney out front after both contests are through. George H.W. Bush pulled out a third-place showing in Iowa only by winning New Hampshire. Both Dole and Bush Jr. went second in NH but won Iowa. Reagan went second in Iowa but first in New Hampshire.

If history is an indicator, you can lose one of these states, but not both.

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

John Smith — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 17:42:53 -0800

"Hey, there were black men who supported George Wallace."

I remember living in east Texas around the time David Duke was running for governor of Louisiana. A surprising number of black were voting for him-- it was a strange thought process, something like him being able to keep an eye on him in the Governor's Mansion.

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

John Smith — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 17:48:13 -0800

America's best matchup: Obama/McCain
America's worst matchup: Clinton/Giuliani

My take? One from column A, one from column B. I can't imagine both parties are going to pit the two candidates with the single most negative images at each other-- especially not the Republicans. Center the focus on Rudy for a few weeks and let the American people learn about the pigheaded asshole who they've canonized because he made the only smart PR moves on 9/1.

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

F. David Swallow II — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 18:15:50 -0800

coming from iowa myself, i would be upset if obama didn't get it. As for the other side i bet Rudy, but if huckabee got it, i have this strange feeling that people would flock to him.

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

John Smith — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 18:20:37 -0800

Karl Rove to Obama: How to Beat Hillary

"Her record is weak, her personality off-putting and her support thin. If she wins the nomination it will be because her rivals – namely you – were weak when you confronted her and could not look her in the eye when you did."

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

allendeche — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 18:42:15 -0800

If Clinton gets the nomination look for General Wesley Clark as her VP, and a solid pick in my mind at that.

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

John Smith — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 19:11:37 -0800

@allendeche -- I dunno, hasn't Clark been off the national stage for a bit too long?

Even though I don't rate it as likely, a Clinton/Obama ticket would be a good sell. I say it'll wind up being someone like Richardson or Biden, both of whom are essentially running for VP at this point.

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

Scribe — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 19:12:43 -0800

coming from iowa myself, i would be upset if obama didn't get it. As for the other side i bet Rudy, but if huckabee got it, i have this strange feeling that people would flock to him.

I agree about Huckabee. Republicans have a way of circling the wagons once they pick a candidate, and I believe they will do it for anyone except Ron Paul. Right now the three legs of the Republican party keep threatening to withhold support if so and so gets nominated, but I think it's all a smoke screen for political posturing of their beliefs.

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

John Smith — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 19:16:15 -0800

Oh, they'd absolutely flock to Huckabee. He's one of the few with legitimate evangelical credentials. I've got to think that the scariest thing for the RNC right now is Rudy's pro-choice, pro-gay marriage stance.

Y'know, Huckabee's getting the resurgent press right now but I feel like we shouldn't completely count McCain out.

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

erudite_ogre — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 20:40:42 -0800

I say that it doesn't matter: the power structure wins regardless. The ongoing institutionalization of surveillance and the condensation of power in certain nooks and crannies of the government means that whomever gets it inherits a state apparatus that will almost certainly corrupt them. Unless someone extremely committed to changing that system gets the position, it won't really matter. The two-party system is too invested in the way things currently work, and each party will do their best to put someone in charge to enhance their standing and clout. Everyone running right now except for Kucinich, Mike Gravel, and I think Ron Paul is a slick politician just trying to grab the big seat and give their cabal control.

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

John Smith — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 20:45:42 -0800

@ erudite ogre

There is only one man in America plausibly capable of doing that-- the sort of man beholden to no one but himself. He is the six billion dollar man, and his name is Mike Bloomberg. But he's not running because he knows that even he can't win in this system.

So, we're left to hope that the least of these many evils somehow sneak into office.

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

Zachary Cole — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 20:54:29 -0800

Glad to see the strong support for Obama. Out of the likely candidates, he's the only one I see who's not ashamed to be identified as a liberal. Who the hell knows how it gained its venomous quality.

- Zachary -

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

Adam Violent — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 21:35:49 -0800

Even if Huckabee was a viable candidate, I don't think I could get behind him because all I think of when I hear his name is Naomi Watts whispering "FUCKABEES."

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

John Smith — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 04:07:14 -0800

Technically unrelated, but still great.

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

Jason Michelitch — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 05:19:08 -0800

There's no way Richardson gets to be VP under either Obama or Hillary, as neither of them are stupid enough to cut White Males completely out of the ticket. Richardson could be VP under Edwards, but if Edwards gets the nomination the GOP takes the election anyway, so that hardly matters.

I agree with Warren that Bayh is an obvious and likely pick for either Clinton or Obama, but I wouldn't discount Clark either. He has a lot of affection from the left and a distinguished military record. He would balance out both Hillary's conservatism and Barack's inexperience. Hillary may go with Clark instead of Bayh to consolidate power in her part of the Democratic Party (Clark is a Clinton man, from way back), and I could see Barack being forced to go with a Clinton VP pick in order to keep her from sitting out the general after she loses.

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

dansolomon — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 05:33:08 -0800

Jason, which Republicans do you think beat Edwards outright in a general election? Huckabee would thrash him, obviously, but Edwards is a stronger candidate than Romney or Thompson, and certainly not a gimme against McCain or Giuliani.

Good insights on Clark, though. I was surprised to see him sit this election out - I would have put money on Clinton riding high as a top-dog senator and letting Clark run for President. I think Clinton/Clark is almost inevitable, if she gets the nomination. They had to offer him something decent to get him to stop the pseudo-campaign he'd been running since 2004, which had been gaining steam in 2005 and the first part of '06.

--d

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

John Smith — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 05:51:16 -0800

@ dansolomon

I'd forgotten about Clark's lapdog status with the Clintons. Still, I'm honestly skeptical that he's got much pull. He certainly wouldn't harm the ticket, and I'd much rather vote for him than her. Might make her a little harder to criticize on foreign policy decisions, but I don't see him adding much more than that.

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

warrenellis — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 06:49:34 -0800

Hillary may go with Clark instead of Bayh to consolidate power in her part of the Democratic Party

Yeah, but she needs to consolidate power across the entire Democratic Party, and for that, you need the guy whose dad wrote the ERA and saved Ted Kennedy's life.

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

Jason Michelitch — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 12:46:38 -0800

Warren: I agree that Hillary needs Bayh. I'm just not sure that, after a hard-fought primary, a combination of bloodlust and hubris might not push her towards a scorched-earth power-grab. Instead of working to consolidate the party, simply demanding the party line up behind her because she's the "strongest".

Dan: Edwards may compete on paper, but put him on a stage next to any of the GOP candidates and he just looks and sounds like a little boy. The voters who swing the election will view him as the weak pretty boy who didn't win last time either. Even next to Romney, the closest parallel on the GOP side, Romney looks sculpted, Edwards looks coiffed.

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

screaming meat — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 12:40:48 -0800

We all know who'll really win

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

Alan Tyson — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 13:16:34 -0800

Very nice, meat.

I'd like Obama vs. McCain, as those are the only two candidates who I really think believe what they say. I definitely like that they are both moderates for their parties, because frankly I'm getting sick of one party screwing another over for votes or PR, while screwing the very voters over as well. But to be honest, I guess I'll be OK with anybody but Mitt Romney.

Seriously. Who names their kid "Mitt?"

Edit: Never mind, I guess his real name is Willard. I now have an image of the White House swarming with millions of tiny rats, gnawing on aides and spokespersons. It will not leave my mind.

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

zachary.wilson — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 18:41:46 -0800

you want to see the real thing that damns Ron Paul in my eyes?

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-4379

here's the wikipedia translation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_the_People_Act

read section 3 - basically it says that a state can make a law regarding things like religious tests for office, and so on. It's a pretty slippery slope from here to total statewide bans on gay marriage, mandatory postings of religious texts in public spaces, etc. Why does Ron Paul want this, and I mean want this as he has introduced it 3 times? He's almost as crazy for this as he is for the gold standard.

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

screaming meat — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 18:44:59 -0800

Apologies for the frivilous nature of the last post.

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

Jason Michelitch — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 20:27:47 -0800

Maybe I've been wrong, and Romney really isn't up to playing at this level.

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

shansen — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 01:27:28 -0800

It's hard to read the Dems but the GOP seems pretty straight forward- McCain will never hold public office past the US Senate ever and either Romney or Giuliani will get the VP slot to Huckabee. It's hard to see which one is more of a liability though.

-SH.

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

Zachary Cole — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 02:09:47 -0800

Yes, this is the man who I want to have signing and veto powers over bills on scientific research.

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

warrenellis — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 03:47:42 -0800

Turns out it may take a strong political stomach to hand any gig to Huckabee. Fraction sent me this link overnight:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/05/exclusive-the-complete-h_n_75373.html

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

Pete Martin — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 04:13:31 -0800

Huckabee not only got Chuck Norris's support, but now ancient dog meat wrestler Ric Flair.

This is real life. He's trying to be president.

And I'm waiting from two GOP candidates to drop out before any serious numbers can be taken. Right now, its looking like trying to choose who the least disappointing is.

Did anyone see Kuchinich say he wanted Paul as his running mate?

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

warrenellis — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 04:14:54 -0800

No, but that's the sort of flaky shit I expect from Kuchinich.

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

reasonableman — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 04:19:53 -0800

An article from 2005 about the Huckabee Dumond thing.

If you search for Wayne Dumond on wikipedia it forwards you to Huckabee's page. Here is the section about it.

It's all pretty damning.

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

zachary.wilson — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 04:23:22 -0800

Here's an interesting exercise:

Ask yourself, have you ever met a Hillary supporter? This is different from a democrat who is going to elect the presumptive nominee. I'm talking about someone who brings up Hillary's platform at dinner, and wants to talk about it. I don't think i've ever seen a Hillary 08 sticker on a car (but then again I live in manhattan and don't own a car). I don't think Hillary has any actual supporters - she's "Not Bush", or "Not Republican". I don't know what that means, but it reminds me of John Kerry. I hope Obama gets the nom.

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

kmcleod — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 04:25:57 -0800

I thought that Ellis meant Evan Bayh rather than Birch. There are blacks who also back the anti-immigrant Tancredo, just because he was the only one to show up at a Republican debate sponsored by the NAACP. I wish there was time to talk to all of my people at once.
Huckabee's a great name for a 19th century president.
Has anyone mentioned the Ron Paul Liberty dollars?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/16/AR2007111602267_pf.html

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

zachary.wilson — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 04:35:59 -0800

Here's more Ron Paul fun, basically a breakdown of every bill he's introduced to congress:

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/11/ron-pauls-record-in-congress.html

Sorry to post so much anti Ron Paul crap, I know his major support network is "Arrogant Nerd" and "Rich White People With Victim Complex"

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

reasonableman — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 04:39:26 -0800

Can I ask the democrats here why you are not supporting Kucinich. Or everyone in general, what is it that makes him an unattractive candidate?

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

Kosmopolit — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 07:34:47 -0800

Clinton/Richardson win decisively over Guliani and either Thompson or Huckabee.

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

hemlock_martini — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 09:25:51 -0800

zachary--my wife's grandmother, who is eighty-summa-humma years old, a hardcore Rosie-The-Riveter-style proto-feminist, and so tickled that a woman is running for president that she'd vote for Hillary even if she sprouted devil horns and shot fire and death metal out her nostrils on live TV.

We actually ordered a "Hillary 2008" button for her. From the internet. We love grandma.

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

warrenellis — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 10:35:25 -0800

"Kucinich. Or everyone in general, what is it that makes him an unattractive candidate?"

From my perspective, he's not an electable candidate. He's got no clout -- he's a congressman, and he was mayor of Cleveland for about ten minutes in the 1970s, which is not the same thing as, say, being mayor of New York City. He is a bad public speaker. And, most importantly of all in terms of electability, his face looks like a used bag.

Also? Yes, hot wife. Yes, both of them are cool with hot wife being a foot taller than he is. Everyone else? That's prime political comedy.

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

Alan Tyson — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 11:35:37 -0800

she'd vote for Hillary even if she sprouted devil horns and shot fire and death metal out her nostrils on live TV.

Hell, I'd reconsider my vote. If we're gonna have a demon from hell in office (most candidates) at least Hillary would be open about it. Also, I'd just want to see someone shoot death metal out of their nostrils.

I'm glad to see Obama is ahead in the Iowa polls for the Democrats, but as a guy who grew up in Iowa I'm pretty ashamed that Huckabee is doing so well. Yeah we've got a lot of Christian conservatives here, but most of them are German, so I was hoping they'd be PRACTICAL Christian conservatives. Evidently not. And that thing about the rapist pardoning scares me - I'm going to be sure to tell my voting-age friends about that.

And ditto to much of what Warren just said. Supporting Kucinich at this point would just be taking votes away from someone who might be able to do something with them.

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

erudite_ogre — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 12:02:11 -0800

@John Smith:

I'm not sure I would want someone who seems to crave power like Bloomberg does in the office. But, on the other hand, they all crave the power, so I guess the only difference would be that he might not be kowtowing to a party structure. Although I have a feeling that would change if he ran. . . .

I find it hard to call it. It is going to be close, which is stupid. After eight years of horrifying mismanagement and abuse of power, why people do not defenestrate the Republicans is beyond me. While the Dems are timid and disheveled, they would have to try really hard to fuck things up any more. My fear is not that they would do more damage, but that they would solidify some of the measures taken by the Bush gang and continue us farther down that noisome path.

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

DocJuris — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 13:58:55 -0800

Somehow it feels to me that it's inevitable that Clinton will be the Democratic nominee. She's too damn conservative for me, and it its the same old message from her that I heard from Kerry and and Gore. Obama at least sounds fresh and I like a couple of his policy points which I have heard.

I can't see myself giving a vote to any of the Republican monkeys. I just can't.

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

shansen — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 20:43:20 -0800

Can I ask the democrats here why you are not supporting Kucinich. Or everyone in general, what is it that makes him an unattractive candidate?

He's not electable, and even if I agreed with his gun control policies he would have a gridlocked congress regardless of whatever party controlled the floor. Which would mean our economy would continue to falter against every other first/second world country out there. Additionally his take on national security is idealistic at best and while I agree that it's useful to , you know, foster good will to my country(and stopping ineffectual/illegal interrogation techniques that date back to Dynasty era China) there are certain intelligence gathering apparatuses he's already said he'd scrap.

Anyways, back to unelectable: He can't make himself seem sane compared to men on the other side of the aisle who would like to go back to the good old days of stoning heretics. His handling of a bad question from Tim Russert (the UFO deal) pretty much illustrated that. He could've said "I saw an object that I didn't recognize, it could've been an experimental plane, a piece of debris or my eyes playing tricks on me", instead he said "Yes, I saw it". So yes, a stupid question but it was answered by a man who can win a district the size of my thumb, not an entire country. Especially one as Schizophrenic as ours.

-SH.

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

andrewhein — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 22:35:51 -0800

For the Dem's I'm going to say Edwards/Richardson.

Edwards, because I think the party isn't going to want to risk losing to prove a point by giving the nod to a women or a black man. Richardson, because he is perhaps the most qualified man ever to run for President, which means he'd be a perfect VP.

For the Republican's I have to go with Romney/Gingrich. Mitt just looks too much like the President from a a TV show. As for Newt, he's seen what Dick's done with the second in command and knows how much power the second-in-command can have with the right empty shirt ahead of him.

Either way this country is fucked.

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

kmcleod — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 04:23:14 -0800

Qualifications have little do do with who becomes an American president. Edwards/Richardson is a ticket made for politics that are based on rational thought and tempered judgment.

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

Jason Michelitch — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 05:38:49 -0800

As much as Edwards is Richardson's only chance for a VP slot, it won't happen, because Edwards is not going to want Richardson's experience overshadowing his own. You don't pick a VP candidate that makes the Presidential candidate look like a lightweight. Plus, Edwards and Bayh are jogging buddies, so The Man From Indiana rears his head there, too. You can't escape him.

If Iowa goes willy-nilly with their crazy "second choice" rules and the race gets flipped upside down like it did for John Kerry, and we end up with Joe Biden or Chris Dodd or some other, older white man, then you might see Richardson getting some opportunity. But none of this is that likely.

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

Kosmopolit — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 07:02:38 -0800

"You don't pick a VP candidate that makes the Presidential candidate look like a lightweight."

Possible counterexamples: Kennedy and Johnson; Reagan and Bush (41); Bush (43) and Cheney.

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

Kosmopolit — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 08:31:10 -0800

I think Romney just blew the Republican nomination.

In the course of a speech aimed at reassuring Christian conservatives that he was Just Like Them Mitt felt obliged to pay lip-service to the idea that he found praiseworthy and admirable elements in all major religions.

Including Islam.

Now the specific example he gave "frequency of prayer" is pretty anodyne (what's next: praising Anton Le Vey's successors in the Church of Satan for their exquisitive penmanship), but I suspect he's alienated enough Jesus-shouters to lose Iowa.

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

Jason Michelitch — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 11:09:04 -0800

Kosmopolit: Your counterexamples are interesting, but I don't think are particularly analogous to an Edwards - Richardson scenario.

Kennedy was forced to swallow Johnson and Johnson delivered the South...Richardson has neither the clout nor the electoral power to create this kind of scenario.

Bush Sr. was more experienced in government than Reagan, but Reagan had been a Governor and Bush had not, which counts for a lot in Presidential politics. Senators and Representatives always appear weak on leadership in comparison to Governors, and this would hurt an Edwards/Richardson ticket, making it bottom-heavy on leadership.

Likewise, Bush Jr. had been a governor and Cheney had only ever served other Presidents...and also chose himself as head of the Vice Presidential selection comittee, something Richardson is not going to be in a position to do.

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

Kosmopolit — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 15:24:20 -0800

Analogies are never exact but while Richardson can't deliver anything like the votes Johnson could, he may be able to deliver New Mexico and one or more of the other inland south west states to the Democrats. That whole area has been progressively changing demographically to make it more winnable for the Democrats (more urbanisation and more Latinos essentially).

If Edwards gets the nod over Clinton and Obama he may also feel the need to demonstrate that the Democratic Party is still interested in diversity and equal opportunity - like Kerry and Lieberman.

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

unclesean — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 15:51:42 -0800

Dems: Clinton and Edwards
GOP: Romney and ... someone ...

I was involved in the local Democratic Party back in '02 and '03 (in my small and not influential in presidential politics state) and there were already mutterings of hopes and dreams of Clinton running in '08 at that time. Clinton's campaign for the nomination started when Bill took office in '92. I don't doubt that she'll secure the Dems nomination, and though she has more personality than the last two presidential candidates they picked she doesn't have the charisma to get people to actually vote for her (as opposed to casting a vote for her because she's a democrat or because they don't like the alternative). Also, she'll keep Bill tucked away out of fear that people will only be reminded of the whole blowjob debacle and wanting to appear to be an independent woman not reliant on her husband. They'll pick Edwards because of the Gay Marriage stuff (last I saw he was pretty clear about being only for marriage between men and women) as a misguided attempt to try to draw from the GOP's base, but instead alienating their own and effectively driving their supporters to vote for third party candidates. I think the Dems will gift wrap the '08 election for the GOP and it doesn't matter who the GOP have running. Enough of the electorate is so piss scared of gays, women and anyone not white or Christian that they'll vote for anyone they think will save them. The rest of the electorate will divide out with just enough on the GOP side to tip the scales in their favor again.

Not that I think the Dems winning would make any kind of difference. Regardless of who wins we'll see more power collected in the Executive Branch; increased invasion of privacy; no solution to health care, poverty, or energy concerns genuinely explored; and no end to the fear-mongering.

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

Jason Michelitch — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 17:55:26 -0800

New Mexico has the potential to go Democratic even without Richardson on the ticket. Indiana, on the other hand, has over twice as many electoral votes and Bayh has the potential to turn it blue for the first time in 40 years.

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

ScottBieser — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 19:07:17 -0800

No way would we ever see Giuliani and Paul on the same ticket. Those two are farther apart ideologically than Giuliani is with any of the Democrats, and Paul doesn't play machiavellian power-games.

I don't think the race card is going to stick to Paul. The newsletter rantings have been explained away as having been written by staffer who was terminated. And besides, being called a racist doesn't hurt in the Republican contest. It would hurt if he actually got nominated.

The best thing going for Paul is his consistent and persistent opposition to the Iraq War, and the fact that all the other GOP candidates are still for it (and I don't see that changing, ever), and none of the Democrats except Kucinich are convincingly against it.

That said, he won't win the nomination, and afterward will go back to winning re-election to Congress. What I don't know about is where all that crazed-cult energy now surrounding him will go.

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

Kosmopolit — Sun, 09 Dec 2007 00:02:41 -0800

I just realised who I want to get the nominations: Obama and Huckabee.

Battle of the funny names '08.

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

Dirk Deppey — Sun, 09 Dec 2007 00:33:37 -0800

Clinton vs. Giuliani after the conventions. No other Democrat has a chance in November 2008, and Giuliani has a better shot with Republicans during the convention than does McCain. I wouldn't want to guess who wins -- too many variables, and it depends upon who's the most hawkish after said conventions. Giuliani has the edge, but Clinton still has a damned good shot.

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

Oddcult — Sun, 09 Dec 2007 03:55:43 -0800

Apologies for what might be some stupid questions, but I haven't been following things too closely. However, it seems to me that Clinton/Obama would be a dream ticket for the Democrats.

I'm wondering what's to stop this happening. Is the fact that they're campaigning against each other at this point too divisive in terms of them coming together to take the job. Obama's young enough to run next time around anyway, but if he struck a deal to take the VP job, this would put him in a better position next time, and also counter questions about his lack of experience.

I'd actually prefer to see Obama take the top slot, but I don't think America is ready for either Clinton or Obama on their own. Together, they could almost certainly take it, though. Is this a fair assumption?

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

aike — Sun, 09 Dec 2007 14:03:23 -0800

Personally, I don't think Ron Paul is racist and it really hasn't been able to stick, hes got the most straight voting record there is, and hes got enough weird support he might well go somewhere with it. Now, as to whether that is a good thing or not... He would make a fantastically amusing President as he sat in office for four years vetoing every bill and attempting to tear down all the institutions around him. Dr. No with the power of veto is a hilarious idea. If we suffer from a stagnant government now, that would be a total dead in the water scenario. The other side is that the man would damage the government entrenchment and establishment so badly it would be reeling for years, as he prompted the judicial to go after everything and everyone and introduced legislation dismantling every institution known to american politics.

I honestly dont think he has a realistic shot at office though, which is probably a good thing while I still live here.

My bets on the GOP are Huckabee, I dont think Rudy can fly anymore, with all the ballast he keeps revealing. Romney is all shiny and polished and a mormon, thats too freaky for too many people. The moderates dont want someone in office that thinks the garden of eden was in missouri ( i live there currently, nice place, but no Eden), and the religious right dont want anything other than a christian. On the democrat side it might fly, on the republican... no.

Now the Democrats... yeah. Hillary support is basically an entrenched standoff, shes hurting herself with the nasty stuff right now, but who knows. I'd wager Obama pulls ahead in Iowa and then Clinton catches up. I doubt Edwards can really pull it off... too young, too much attachment in the 'he didnt make it last time either' department.

Wes Clark is actually a valid wild card. If anyone makes that call soon enough, they will grab a lot of support, he is popular, has military credentials, a consistent stance and has been slowly feeding the fires over the last few years with his book and TV appearances and things. Bayh is an extremely valid wild card, though I expect Clarks military experience might trump him. We will see.

I no doubt will be wrong :)

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

warrenellis — Sun, 09 Dec 2007 14:35:01 -0800

"Apologies for what might be some stupid questions, but I haven't been following things too closely. However, it seems to me that Clinton/Obama would be a dream ticket for the Democrats."

I think they're going to savage each other to the point where it'd be hopeless, when the running gets tough. But:

In general -- I've heard people say that they're a tough enough sell on their own that putting a white woman and a black man into the White House at the same time would be impossible.

The traditional wisdom is that the VP candidate is selected because he can bring a broad swathe of land with him. Lyndon Johnson disturbed the fuck out of JFK, but he could deliver the south. Jimmy Carter needed Fritz Mondale to deliver the north. Al Gore's centrism and Old Party credentials meant he could reach the parts that Bill Clinton couldn't.

As has recently been seen in California, Obama and Clinton are working pretty much the same demographics in an awful lot of places. Both are divisive enough, as candidates, that they'll need (or be told they need) unifying forces as their VP candidates.

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

Randy74 — Sun, 09 Dec 2007 14:43:09 -0800

Paul is not a crazy racist, ive seen the link Warren posted, hes explained and apologized openily for allowing the writer of those comments to go unchecked and accepted responsability, im sure they are saving that dirt on him and i don't think he has a chance...but im voting for him just to pretend that it matters, had to change my registration to republican from Indipendent to vote in the primarys here, Diebold will take care of the rest.

I really can't belive anyone would vote after 2000, but i voted for Nader in 04...trying make my statement which is..im not really sure i even care anymore.

ron Paul is brave for trying to let everyone know how the Fed works, and openly stating his allegiance to the people and the constitution. No one is perfect but he's far from a racist, or kook.

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

warrenellis — Sun, 09 Dec 2007 15:11:38 -0800

http://www.realchange.org/ronpaul.htm

"In 2001, as Paul moved to the mainstream and rejoined the Republican party, he disavowed these comments and blamed them on an unnamed ghostwriter. But when Paul ran for Congress in 1996, as a Libertarian, his opponent brought these up to show that Paul had fringe ideas. At that time, Paul told the Houston Chronicle that he opposed racism and his commentaries about blacks came in the context of "current events and statistical reports of the time." In other words, he didn't deny writing the Ron Paul column in the Ron Paul newsletter, profits of which go to Ron Paul, until many years later. Then he claimed that his campaign aides thought it would be "too confusing" to tell the truth, so he had to lie and accept responsibility."

Ron Paul on same-sex marriage: "an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty."

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

Randy74 — Sun, 09 Dec 2007 15:22:11 -0800

Either way Warren, that part about him saying that it would be confusing might be true..he has stated thats several times, thats someone was writing for that newsletter/column...

I don't buy for a minute that hes a bad man, we have had much worse. Obama has no problem with the idea nuking other brown people so maybe hes a racist too.

Im not a Ron Paul fanatic, but exposing the Federal reserve proves hes not an elitist puppet to me. All the waxing theoretical about wether he actually wrote those statements or not don't mean anything to me. His voting record, stances on imigration, limited government, free trade, and national soveriegnty won me over..ive researched the writings as much as one can on the net, past affiliations ect... i am inclined to belive he may not have even written those words.

Your right about what opposition might do to use that whole thing against him, but right now he has some really serious momentum akin to what Howard Dean had going.

I honestly agree with him on almost everything he has a stance on, and thats rare..im not changing my views to fit his ideals, at this point in my life hes the candidate that i can see voting for.

I know a lot of very enlightened folks can't understand why so many are flocking into backing him and are trying as hard as possible to find flaws in his ideology. Most often pigeo-holing him as an isolationist, super-nationalist, or radical...

Honestly none of thsoe terms apply to anything hes been proposing in his current campaign..

The abortion issue will be big, but hes stated his views clearly on that matter as well..on The View he did pretty well with the limited time he had and Whoopi breathing down his neck.He left them confused about how they really feel, but im not even touching that.

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

graphicartistx — Sun, 09 Dec 2007 15:24:35 -0800

I'll bet you a dollar Paul lets loose a primal yell and ruins his campaign. (Which is a very sad thing to lose your campaign over...)

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

Jason Michelitch — Sun, 09 Dec 2007 15:28:12 -0800

There's a pretty thorough disemboweling of Paul from Daily Kos over here.

I had respect for him for about a minute, when I first heard him speak. I disagreed with almost all of his concepts of the use of government, but I respected him for having his own ideas and proclaiming them. After researching him even the slightest bit, though, it was into the bin with him. First the hideous racist newsletter (and, seriously, claiming it was ghostwritten doesn't absolve him - who wants a President who has his opinions ghostwritten?), and then I came up against his intense love of pork-barrel earmarks, which he publicly decries.

What Paul does is, at first, no different than what most congresspersons do - he inserts amendments and add-ons to legislation which send federal money directly to his district. What he then does, however, is loudly decry the practice of inserting said amendments, and makes a point of voting against the legislation. Of course, being a seasoned congressman who understands the workings of the legislative body, he knows damn well the bill will pass without his vote, and his district gets the money anyway. Thus, he can hypocritically eat his cake and have it too.

Faith-based devotion to the sanctity of the free market, isolationism except when we can make a profit through trade, Pro-Life and Anti-Gay. The number of ill-informed liberals who get excited when Paul speaks out against the war and pledge devotion to him drives me absolutely up the fucking wall.

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

Randy74 — Sun, 09 Dec 2007 15:38:16 -0800

Neat, placing faith in what website columnists write is almost as bad as the mainstream media...

Im not gonna defend him, but like i said im not ill-informed, im not a liberal or conservative...

Im a tax paying, businessman,american citizen and patriot, i love my country, hate politicians

Its nice to slap a label on everything, but its all about perception, neat little packages work nicely for those who want to argue or ignore something.

I mean between CFR affiliated hopefuls like Biden and Hillary, The Military Industrial candidates, Rudy and his ties to Quatar thorugh his Security firm... who else is a citizen thats well informed maybe also a paranoid conspriracy factualist gonna vote for?

im sorry im not into Thomas Friedman's version of Globalism, WTO, Nafta, Gatt, Cafta, ...none of that stuff

nope

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

Oddcult — Sun, 09 Dec 2007 15:38:38 -0800

In general -- I've heard people say that they're a tough enough sell on their own that putting a white woman and a black man into the White House at the same time would be impossible.

Understood. I just wonder how much mileage there is in the converse of that and also how it might be enough of a divergence from the norm to get women and black people who wouldn't normally bother to vote to turn out.

In other words, he didn't deny writing the Ron Paul column in the Ron Paul newsletter, profits of which go to Ron Paul, until many years later. Then he claimed that his campaign aides thought it would be "too confusing" to tell the truth, so he had to lie and accept responsibility."

Having done a bit of political copy writing I can actually believe this. You get a handful of scribbled notes and maybe a rushed phone conversation, and are expected to turn this into prose that they'll put their name to. They'll probably scan read it, and sign it off, or even have someone else authorised to do so. It was a game to try and insert as much innuendo or double entendres in there as possible - or to just get them to turn statements they'd made in private that expressed their true opinions, which they couldn't later deny, but which they didn't necessarily want made public either, into copy.

I can well believe that a copy writer might push things fairly far out of mischief or spite and it getting published due to incompetence.

However, he might well be dodgy enough to have done it in the first place...

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

aike — Sun, 09 Dec 2007 16:16:36 -0800

Huh, interesting posts... well, it all simply doesn't match up, seems too big a disconnect somehow. Definitely is information missing. Either way, I ain't voting for him... I dont think racism is what disqualifies him (that would disqualify any GOP and many Dems), but the fact he wont actually be able to do anything and if he has power neither will anybody else. Well and the fact hes a republican..

On that note... isnt it a sad state when racism doesnt even seem to matter as a presidential quality?

Now the question is... if the GOP wins, do I apply for Albanian, Mongolian or maybe Togoan citizenship? (or does anyone else know any citizenships that are reasonably easy to get without marriage or any drastic measures like that?)

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

roque — Sun, 09 Dec 2007 18:02:19 -0800

Hillary will get the Dem nomination and then lose the election. the media are telling everyone that this is the way it has to be, and the majority of Americans (whether or not they'll admit to it) apparently still believe the media, so. it doesn't matter who gets the GOP nomination, but I'm guessing Giuliani. whoever it is, he'll win, and then stumble through four years and then get reelected, because we're at war-- and thanks to Dubya, will continue to be at war for a good long time. and we must vote to support our troops.

do I sound bitter and/or insane? I might; I've had no coffee today.

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

Sarpedon — Sun, 09 Dec 2007 18:14:00 -0800

Which is a very sad thing to lose your campaign over...

That was really depressing. I was pulling for him in the run up to Iowa, I thought he'd be the Dem to beat Bush out a second term, if anyone could. I was sorely disappointed. I couldn't stomach voting for a man who's face looks like a horse's.

I, like most Americans, have not been paying terribly close attention. [though I reslove to do so, reading this thread has been at least something of an education, seems like people outside the US know more about our politics than most Americans and I'll be damed if anyone over here can even say who the prime minister of the UK is now, let alone Canada or Australia. people here being an exception.] I didn't pay very close attention last time around either but this whole thing feels like a much bigger clusterfuck than it did in '04.
I can't get a good feel for anyone except I still lean toward the impossibly un-electable dream that is Kucinich. (+/- Gun control and his blathering about Impeachment over the last couple of years.)
Obama and Hillary feel too much like they're getting the "anything but Bush, elect a liberal" support at this point and both lack much of a highly mobilized base, like the novelty will perhaps wear off under close analysis of either. They seem too busy taking bites out of each other to take stands on issues, but maybe that's just what early-game presidential races are about? I haven't been watching closely enough to know. I haven't been able to discern any good reasons to vote either for or against either of them. I wouldn't be surprised if it went to John "400 dollar haircut" Edwards. Generally it seems too early to tell, the Democrats may even spoil them mid-term gains by failing to defeat the GOP again, they barely snuck into the House and Senate, if i recall correctly and even then, not much has gotten done in Iraq or at home (people have been kicking around the word recession a lot) and that'll piss off voters I'd guess.

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

ScottBieser — Sun, 09 Dec 2007 20:47:08 -0800

Warren,

Ron Paul did not run for Congress as a Libertarian in 1996 nor in any other year. The only time he was a Libertarian Party candidate for any office was in the Presidential election of 1988. After that disaster he returned to his obstetrics practice for a few years, published a gold-bug newsletter, and then ran for Congress again as a Republican in 1996 and won.

I find that RealChange.org is not always a reliable source.

Is Ron a racist? Hard to say -- when I got to know him back in 1980 he didn't strike me that way, but I was 23 and fresh out of college, and not particularly sensitive to subtle cues. In the part of Texas he has represented most of his career, white racism simmers just beneath the surface, and frequently busts out in some unexpected places. His claim that it was a former staffer who wrote the infamous newsletter articles is plausible, but one must ask why he didn't disavow those writings much sooner. His anti-immigrant position certainly does him no credit. (I have long believed that at the bottom of every anti-immigrant argument is the fear that some dark-skinned people are going to move in next door, and their children will date your children.)

Paul finds himself with enemies on two sides -- the neo-conservatives who hate his anti-war and anti-corporate welfare positions, and the anti-war left who are really pissed off that the most visible public voice against the war is a conservative Republican, not a liberal Democrat. There is a former staffer, Eric Dondero Rittberg, who split with Paul over the Iraq War, is running against him for Congress (in Texas you can run both for Congress and for President, thanks to Lyndon Johnson), and is likely the source of a great deal of whatever dirt on Paul surfaces in the coming months.

By the way, I've said this before but probably should repeat it now: I'm not supporting Ron Paul or any other candidate for President. As an anarchist, I don't support people who seek to rule over other people, even if I happen to agree with some of their ideas. Furthermore, while I think Paul will make a stronger showing than the opinion polls are projecting, he's not going to win the nomination.

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

Kosmopolit — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 02:51:50 -0800

It'll be interesting to see how the new shortened primary seasons impact on the candidates.

My understanding (and it may well be totally wrong) is that Democrats opted for a short season with something approaching a national primary on Super Tuesday in the belief that it'd help them choose an "electable" candidate with national appeal. Which I read as "Hillary and the DLC want to provide as few chances as possible for an alternative candidate to strengthen their position and to ensure that the nomination goes to the candidate with the most money and most party machine backing."

It looks to me as though the Republicans were pretty much forced to match the Democrats to avoid in-fighting amongst Republicans after the Democrat candidate was already nominated.

I tend to think the early and compressed primary season will favor the early front-runners. Hence my prediction of a Clinton/Giuliani match-up.

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

badger — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 10:47:38 -0800

Ron Paul scares me. He is not a harmless kook. He will not be held in check by Congress. All of this talk about shrinking big government is straight out of the Grover Norquist handbook. It's not about individual liberty. It's about increasing the hegemony of corporations, even if he's trashtalking NAFTA.

That being said, my brain is bleeding from this blog post declaring that Ron Paul's favorite comic book character is Baruch Wane. Is this a parody or a weak effort to distance himself from Stormfront among the geeks online? The comic itself makes me uncomfortable for reasons i don't care to get deeply into now... equating Nazi Germany with actual socialism. Ack. More Norquist arguments.

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

Randy74 — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 11:47:42 -0800

He shouldn't scare anyone, and socialism, communism and fascism are more closely related than many colleges and academics care to educate or admit. Many have explored the realtionships these forms of government share, most notable among them is G. Edward Griffin, Eustace Mullins and a few others.To generalize they are scientific dictatorships based on some components of Darwinism and other philosphical hypocrites doctrines or writings like Marx ripping of Victor Considerante, Hegel, Lennin & Stalin, Irving Kristol, hell even the neo-conservatives (trotsky-ites) of this current administration here are inspired by. Ron Paul does espouse and support individualism not unlike the ideals of Ayn Rand, which i still identify and sympathize with even though in her later life she admitted many times that ultimately the theories/ideals are flawed in many cases she made.

Paul wants to de-regulate corporation which would not be in favor of corporations as your implying but instead would take away the loopholes and corporate welfare they recive which is something like 99.3 percent of welfare, ending the welfare state and trading freely with other nations including Cuba as he has proposed are not radical or scary polcies or ideas. Re-authoring treatises and free trade agreements to be enforced and apllied equally for both trader and tradee, free market capitalism can and will work, but here in the USA as Eisenhower warned us of the Military Industrial Complex's influence, that is what our economy has been based on for the last 50 odd years, oil and industry, arms and conflict working towards the ultimate goal of a Global Socialist Government, call it what you want but the steps have been taking place for years..NWO or not.

Im not saying that social programs are all bad, or thats some bits of socialism injected into a democratic republic are bad things, or even that our system is the best or the best ever.

Im just stating my opinion, that i personally belive in individualism above all else, collectivism makes me ill at ease as does globalism as it would exist in favor of the elitists.

Early Guesses: Who Gets The '08 US Party Nominations?

warrenellis — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 12:00:24 -0800

At which point, we've gone waaaay off the track, and some people are asking to be fitted for tinfoil hats.

We'll start again in January, I suspect.

-- W