First I think that Clinton will get the Nomination.
I think that Giuliani will get the Nomination too but I think that it will be a dirtier win than Clinton.

I think that within the Rep, "Values" votes will split around other candidates, because of his liberal social outlook. I think that in the general that there may be a values candidate which will not take alot of the votes but will hurt him in several key states and Clinton could hit 300EVs. 

I've done a map and a bit more analyses, I don't know how to put it on here. Sorry.

Well it's going to be a short christmas for the campaigns.
NH has set 8th Jan as it primary date.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/21/its-official-nh-will-vote-jan-8/

The "terrorists are going to kill you because you don't do what God told me to tell you" party.

I think that there is some confusion over this issue.

The EU is using the same standard. With Serbia the talks on association (the first step to accession to the Union) is suspended untill they are handing over to the war crimes court.

With Turkey, the Union has come out and said that Turkey need to remove Artical 301 from it's penial code, it's the one that makes it a crime to critize Turkey, Turkish officials and others. In the Unions view it's limiting freedom of speech. If Turkey does not act in a way which is in keeping with the principles of the Union then the talks will be suspended. Another example is the Cyprit ports issue. it's one thing to be part of the Union, but you need to accept and respect the other members of the Union.

If Turkey dosne't resolve these issues then talks will be suspended, like they are with serbia at present. If Serbia hands over Mladic and Karadzic then talks will start again with the Union.

I see that  unscientific poll of CPAC attendees are still unsure about who they would see as the Republican nominee is.

Thinking ahead to the 2008 presidential election, who do you think will be the next Republican nominee for President?

George Allen: 22%
John McCain: 20%
Rudy Giuliani: 12%
Condoleezza Rice: 10%
Bill Frist: 6%
Tom Tancredo: 5%
Mitt Romney: 5%
Newt Gingrich: 5%
Rick Santorum: 3%
George Pataki: 3%
Undecided: 4%

*All others tested received 1% or less

When asked about democrats this was the result:

Of the following whom do you believe Democrats will nominate for President in 2008?

Hillary Clinton: 62%
Mark Warner: 10%
John Edwards: 7%
Bill Richardson: 4%
Wesley Clark: 3%
Russ Feingold: 2%
Evan Bayh: 2%
John Kerry: 2%
Tom Vilsack: 1%
Other: 1%
Undecided: 4%

the full report can be found at:
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=12373

We're 11 years out, folks...

Predictions can be made...

A guess of John Kerry in '93 wouldn't have been too unreasonable [although I doubt many would have seen a nine-year Senator as "rising star" material]--but no-one would have been able to predict the situation in 2004 in 1993, certainly.

But in 1989, who'd have guessed that George W. Bush would have run for President in 2000.

Bob Dole in 1985--not unreasonable, although most people would have pegged him for '88, not '96.

Bill Clinton in 1981?  An unknown governor of Arkansas who served for a brief two years before being thrown out of office?

Michael Dukakis in 1977?  Maybe.  An up-and-coming Governor of Massachusetts two years into office...

George Bush in 1977?  People were thinking about him for 1980, if at all.

Walter Mondale in 1973?  Not too bad of a guess--a one-term senator who just won re-election in 1972 of all years...

Ronald Reagan in 1969?  Not a bad guess, considering he'd made an effort the previous year.  Although talk would have been more focused (and for good reason) on 1976.

Jimmy Carter in 1965?  An unknown Georgia State Senator?  I don't think so.

Gerald Ford in 1965?  Not the most likely of candidates, as House Minority Leader, but certainly could have been talked about (if quickly dismissed) in abstract terms.

George McGovern in 1961?  A former South Dakota Congressman who just lost an election for Senate?  Not very likely.

Richard Nixon in 1957?  Certainly, although few would have guessed 1968 for him.

Hubert Humphrey in 1957?  Certainly could have (and probably would have) been on people's lists (perhaps for sooner than 1968).

Barry Goldwater in 1953?  A rising star at the time (having unseated the Senate Majority Leader)--and, for once, a rising star who actually got the nomination down the road.

Lyndon Johnson in 1953?  Another rising star, the new Senate Minority Leader thanks to Goldwater's unseating of the prior leader.

JFK in 1949?  An Congressman from the Boston area--politically well-heeled, but unknown outside Massachusetts, certainly.

Nixon in 1949?  After Alger Hiss, he was certainly well-known at the time...

Stevenson in 1941/5?  An Assistant Secretary of the Navy?  No-one had heard of the guy.

Dwight D. Eisenhower in November 1941?  Some random Brigadier General--don't think so.

Thomas E. Dewey in 1937?  The new DA in Manhattan isn't a bad position for a Republican in 1937...but enough to consider him Presidential material?  Apparently, he did, as he ran in 1940 anyway.

Harry Truman in 1937?  Possible, as a freshman Senator, but not *that* likely.

Thomas E. Dewey in 1933?  Who?

Wendell Wilkie in 1929?  Some Democrat lawyer--least likely candidate ever.

Alf Landon in 1925?  Some random liberal Republican in Kansas...nope.

FDR in 1921?  Sure--akin to John Edwards, the guy who just lost his race for VP.

Hoover in 1917?  Well known, well-respected--why didn't he run earlier?

Al Smith in 1917?  Sherrif of Manhattan--perhaps significant--assuming he got elected Governor at some point.

John W. Davis in 1913?  US Solictor Generals make great Presidents, riiight...

Calvin Coolidge in 1913?  Some random State Senator...

James Cox in 1909?  Local Ohio newspaperman and freshman Congressman--not exactly highest caliber.

Warren G. Harding in 1909?  Local Ohio newspaperman four years out of a term as Lieutenant Governor.  Heck, if Harding had a chance, we should be considering Sherrod Brown for President come 2016...

Charles Evans Hughes in 1905?  A New York lawyer---hmm, I don't think so

Woodrow Wilson in 1905?  President of Princeton.


There have been cases when it could be predicted...but they're few and far between.

Calvin Coolidge in 1913?

Al Gore '89.

i agree 100%.......
i think that the one to watch, if he doesn't die or be found in a compromising position with a bowl of goldfish or the world doesn't end would be Sen. Barack Obama.....

my point was that hillary has been treated unfairly by the righties.

The same could be said about a ton of Democrats.

Yet the far lefties treat Bush and Republicans completly fair, huh?   What a load of crap!!   Democrats can practically take a bath in their own hypocracy. 

If anything, we're too nice to the worst President ever.

bush is the worst thing that America has ever fostered on the world and that includes Brittany spears.

I think that Hillary would be good for Americans.

Now compleatly off topic.

As for what Miss Catholic said about Americans travailing abroad, you have about 15% passport ownership compared to about 95% here in Ireland. i do think that you should get out more.  The University that i went to had an exchange program with St Marys and Notra Dame, and every year you'd see people come over and they majority would hang out with other Americans and not mix with the Irish and European students. The only thing that they seems to like was drinking and taking the piss and it was like that for the 4 years I was there and there is only one that I became friends with and I would consider her one of my best friends, but the rest kept to themselfs. so really what was the point in comming?

I was in NYC a couple of years ago and a station, I think it was called NEWS10, when they did "international" news there was a map of north and south America....what about the rest of us?? dose nothing happen to us? when the tsunami happened, i watched fox (i can only do it for about ten minuets before wanting to throw something at the TV) and they did the intro of what had happened (about 30sec) and then it was into what would happen if it happened in America? what way do you see the rest of the world? and the only time something gets on network news is if an American is killed or injured.
there is an old Japanese proverb "Mothers if you love your sons make them travel"

That seems like a fairly reasonable map.  I, however, would place Louisiana in the Republican column due to the events during and following the Hurricane Katrina disaster.

With all the anger at the Bushes? No way. LA will be solid Democratic next time around!

from some news reports, there is a fear in the state that congress and the WH is losing interest (do these guys have the attention spans of goldfish???) I think if that takes hold then the state will go Dem in 2008, if the Dems can make a policy platform on disaster relief then it could tip the balance.

wow.....i didn't think that this was so contentious......

let me explain, just in case anyone was wondering. taking the polls that I've looked at (about 50 over the last year from, what i would consider, Dem leaning Rep leaning and Neutral pollsters. using the general questions of the "which party would you support?" type, i came up with the figure of 9.2% lead of the Dems over the Reps. (I'm from Ireland and trying to do this in a muilty party system is a lot more difficult)....

I then looked at the results of the presidential elections (the last large test of public opinion) i reduced the Reps lead over the Dems (and also where Dems lead in a State increased there lead) as a guide of general disacification with a piticular party.

The intention was to try and get a guide for what may happen in 2006 and what could happen in 2008. and regardless Bush is going to be a factor in that election, just a Clinton was in the 2000 election. that answers you point kurstytheklown [q]Even w/ Bush being unpopular, we must realize that he won't be on the ticket in 2006 or 2008. [/q]

I think that post was a good example of why you shouldn't use the internet while stoned.

I was not stoned when doing this and it was a purly theoretical exercises

For the sake of humanity? Could you be any more of a hack?

No congress/presidency has done a worse job in my lifetime than the current Republican congress/presidency. Why do you think their poll numbers are so damn low?

I don't understand what you are saying here. this would be a win for the Dems....in here the Dems are in Red, I think that California it would be a dead giveaway.
As for being a hack...i take it that you mean that i am an armature and unknowing of politics and political procedures.....I've been involved with politics for over 20years, but local, national and European. I have just finished mt diploma in Politics and Government and am about to start an Honers degree in International Studies. I have a Degree in Physics and Maths (so i understand about modeling) and at present I work for a bank as a risk assessor. am i really a hack?

It is my feeling from watching US news, reading papers from all over the country and by reading formes like, this that there could be a shift like in 1994 in the upcoming midterms. I think that regardless of how the polls look now, that a Dem should easily win the WH in 2008, unless we have someone tainted by the war and the Reps make it stick and the Reps would only win by getting there support out in several swing states like Ohio, Florida, New Mexico, Iowa, Missouri and Arizona. where the next election will be fought. This is of course dependant on who the nominees are, i.e. if john McCain is the Rep nomination then Arizona wouldn't be in that list.

Even w/ Bush being unpopular, we must realize that he won't be on the ticket in 2006 or 2008.  Certainly the Iraq fiasco and other debacles will have some effect on the elections to come, but they could do so in two ways:
(1)  The Dems. fail to offer an agenda on tax REFORM (not "reform"), national security, health care, and energy independence.  Not just "America can do better" and "Anybody but Bush."  People don't need to be told their president has failed miserably and continued not to deliver the goods to social conservatives.  If the Dems. choose the no agenda scenario, then the electorate will only change in such a way that turnout is depressed, but of similar composition to previous elections (< 50% D).
(2)  Dems. offer a substantive (doesn't necessarily have to be detailed) platform (more progressive taxes, investing in alternative energy research, Soldier's Bill of Rights) while Republicans try in vain to debate the decision to go to Iraq (let's face it, Republicans love to have this fight, one of the ways they feign indignation).  In this case, it's a blowout (and perhaps a realignment.  This will require candidates like Tim Kaine was this year (not necessarily talking about religion, but comfortable in his own shoes). 
For 2008 examples:

I think that in the argument FezzyFestoon of the Dems not offering an alternative, when you are not in power it is very hard to get the microphone on the national stage unless it is like a hot-button topic like the war. but i would agree with the trust of you argument.

That seems like a fairly reasonable map.  I, however, would place Louisiana in the Republican column due to the events during and following the Hurricane Katrina disaster.

Hurricane Katrina is the reason that I placed Louisiana in the Dems column, I think that this issue and the resulting national disgrace of Americans being refugees in there own country should be a factor in explaining to the American People why Government is for and why taxes are needed, and that a strong government with programs to help those who have fallen through the cracks in society is a national security issue, because it is done for the security of the nations that is at stake. At least that is how it looks from this side of the Atlantic.

Blegh, it's time for Bush to get lost so we don't lose half our members.  I seriously hope for the sake of humanity that any election in the near future looks nothing like that...no offense.

No offense was taken.....if this was a map for my party then i would feel the exact same way.


o.k....i'm ready for your "backlash"......:>

I've been looking at a lot of polls for the 2006 election and polls comparing possible contenders for 2008. of the polls that I've seen and drawing a mean deviation from the difference between reps and Dem's, which is by my calculations is a Dem's lead over the Rep's of 9.2% (please remember these are drawn from polls!). this is the election map at the moment and i was wondering what everyone else thought of this? do you think that it is an accurate picture?

I'm using the results of the 2004 presidential election as a base and I haven't done a straight reduction accross the board and tried to guess local outcomes and factors.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/22/politics/22suit.html

the new york times is reporting that two people who were ejected over a bumper sticker which read "no blood for oil".

seems that this is also going to pull in the secret service as well.

It seems that in trying to control the message, he's put the orginizers in deep water if it's proved.

just thought that you should know.

Right, that's why something like 98% of people there voted that they strongly disapproved of Bush's presidency at midsummer.

What type of idiot still approves of Bush in 2005? That hardly makes anyone hard left.

The point is, about 35% of Americans approve of Bush now, and about 45% did at the time, which is a 40% difference between Kos and the real world.  It's certainly a leftist hangout.

I think at this stage of the game it's a little difficult to say who in and who out. I think that clark has a chance in the primaries. i don't know if he would win the nomination but i think that he has a good chance. I seen him on meet the press a while ago and he's certainly tacking around the center on a lot of issues. if the war in iraq starts to go really down hill (I actually think that it not even close) and if there is an organised anti-war movement gaining notice and popularity, i think that he could position himself as the "voice of experience" for pulling the troops out of iraq, which could play well for the left and the center of the party, with the polls saying that 60% believe that they were lied to about the reason for the war at this stage means that anyone who was involved in the decision to go to war are tainted. i think that you can see this in the recent "clarification" of the intelligence given to the senate by dem commentators. i.e. that they only seen what the WH gave out and not the whole story,

Feingold i'm not sure about him, seen him talk once and that was it. sounded good but it was only once. same goes for warner. edwards i don't think so, i think that after 2004 the dems would want to have nothing to do with the losing ticket. and while kerry has been active, i haven't seen much of him. also isn't he going through some family troubles? so that my be the reason.

hillary is going to be a dark horse. i think that she is going to get back into the senate next year, but i think that she is going to have problems on the left with her initial support of the war and trying to do a kerry; "i voted for the war before i voted against it" line will not wash (in fact i think that she didn't vote against it at all) and will not go down well with the party as a whole. I think that she will have problems on the "right" with her social positions and that doesn't leave much room left. i think that the best that she could hope for is a position in cabinet, but she doesn't want that.

and really......why did it take you so long to see what the rest of the world could see in bush....

I also think that the poll position that bush has right now is his core support......and that is going to drop......

1)  Many party switchers, ticket spliters and independents

it's a normal thing. i think that it is more to do with the decrees in loyalty to party and more chosing people on there own meret....if that makes sence.....

2) 3rd party candidates become more important in deciding elections

J. Strom Thurmond 1948, George Wallace 1968, H. Ross Perot 1992 were much biggrer in electoral terms than Ralph Nader or Pat Buchanan in 2000

3)The Electoral College Misfires

That is an institutional thing, not a trend of voters

4) Special interests groups become as important as goverment institutions in governing.

There has always been special interests and there always will be as long as we have different interests and dreams

5) Courts become more important than legislature in deciding issues facing the country.

I think that courts have been more important in changing the direction of socity and in protecting minority rights agains the status quo.

6) Increasing partisanship by the two parties in Congress.

Not anymore

7) Long periods of divided government or slim party control.

in ireland it's 25years since we has one party government. its the norm in europe, your actually joining the majority here.....but this is an outcome of you election process....

Age: 35
Gender: male
Race/ethnic compostion: European (Irish, Welsh, Italian and French; in decending order)
Religion: none
Height: 1.8m
Weight:  84kg
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Where you were born: Dublin, Ireland
Occupation: Banker, Student, all round fun guy
Person you most admire: i don't know.....
Favorite Band: many and lots
Favorite President: Bill Clintion (for northern ireland) and others.
Favorite Sports team: lenster rubgy team, Irish Team (when they are not being plastered all over the field)
Your other interests: computers, reading, writing, drinking and fun.

there was a thing in one of the sunday papers here about this. one point that was made was the belife that condi would eat into african-american and women. but i think that as far as being tainted by her closeness to bush, that is a given. she is close to bush and i think that the charge that she, chaney and rumsfelt were the ones pushing for the invasion of iraq....

"Each state contributes a certain number of electors to the electoral college, who vote according to the majority in their state. The candidate receiving a majority of the votes in the electoral college wins the election. The electoral votes are apportioned roughly according to states' populations, as measured by the census, but with a small but deliberate bias in favor of smaller states."

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/

The top five states where the tax burden as a percent of income is the highest are:
New York (12.9%): kerry
Maine (12.3%): Kerry
Ohio (11.3%): Kerry
Hawaii (11.3%): Kerry
Rhode Island (11.1%): Kerry 

The five states with the lowest tax burden as a percent of income are:
Alaska (6.3%): Bush
New Hampshire (7.5%): Kerry
Delaware (8.2%): Kerry
Tennessee (8.5%): Bush
Texas (8.7%): Bush

The United States average is 10.0%.

http://www.retirementliving.com/RLtaxes.html

But the following would lead me to think that those who votred for Kerry are the states which would make the larger contrabution to the Federal Budget, and those who would pay the least would pay the least. And only through the quirk of the electoral college would get a slightly greater clouth and that would not generally be much of a problem if it were not so close.

what i would like to see is the actual numbers of those who voted for each candaite and there incomes. Coz I think that taking presentages without the actual numbers is quoting that data out of context.

i think that looking it at the following, would give a greater impression of which income brackets voted for which canditate.

Ave. Income (per state) for Bush           $28,333
Ave. Income (per state) for Kerry           $34,672

I've included the data that I used for the caluclations and I have sorted it from the state with the largest average income per person to the state with the lowest average income per person.

states                Income/ person($)  2004 vote
District of Columbia   48,342             Kerry
Connecticut            43,173                   Kerry
New Jersey            40,427             Kerry
Oregon                     39,815             Kerry
Maryland                     37,331             Kerry
New York                     36,574             Kerry
New Hampshire            34,702             Kerry
Minnesota                     34,443             Kerry
Colorado                     34,238             Bush
California                     33,749             Kerry
Virginia                     33,671             Bush
Illinois                     33,590             Kerry
Alaska                     33,568             Bush
Washington            33,332             Kerry
Delaware                     32,810             Kerry
Wyoming                     32,808             Bush
Pennsylvania            31,998             Kerry
Rhode Island            31,996             Kerry
Nevada                     31,266             Bush
Hawaii                     30,913             Kerry
Wisconsin                     30,898             Kerry
Nebraska                     30,758             Bush
Vermont                     30,740             Kerry
Florida                     30,446             Bush
Michigan                     30,439             Kerry
Ohio                              29,944             Bush
Kansas                     29,935             Bush
Georgia                     29,442             Bush
Massachusetts            29,340             Kerry
South Dakota            29,234             Bush
North Dakota            29,204             Bush
Iowa                              29,043             Bush
Maine                     28,831             Kerry
Indiana                     28,783             Bush
Tennessee                     28,455             Bush
Texas                     28,372             Bush
Missouri                     28,252             Bush
North Carolina            28,235             Bush
Arizona                     26,838             Bush
Oklahoma                     26,656             Bush
Alabama                     26,338             Bush
Kentucky                     26,252             Bush
South Carolina            26,132             Bush
Louisiana                     26,100             Bush
Montana                     25,920             Bush
Idaho                     25,811             Bush
New Mexico            25,541             Bush
Utah                              24,977             Bush
West Virginia            24,379             Bush
Arkansas                     24,289             Bush
Mississippi                     23,448             Bush

"If Democrats get their candidate in in 2008, what do you think Republicans will do given what their voters pay in federal taxes for the Democratic voters?"

About your numbers, there is one think that i feel should be pointed out, there would not be the same number of people earning over $200,000 per annum as there would be for those who earn less than $15,000. So just because you earn alot of money dosen't make you right.

Also the question was about those states who voted for Kerry (Dem) and the ones who make a greater contrabution in tax to the federal government than the funds that the recive and those who went for Bush (Rep) are those who make less of a contrabution to the federal government than the funds they recive. so net contributers are funding those states that are, by the quirks of the election system, the ones that would be chosing a consirvate president.

If the Republicans get there canditate elected in 2008 and the states fall in the same way that they did in 2004. What do you think that those states that voted Democrat will feel like, or do, when you cosider that the "Democratic" states pay through federal taxes for the "Republican" states?