Somehow if Agnew managed to beat Shriver in a vice-presidential race I would have already lost all faith in Humanity.

And Shriver would have become President half way through Nixon's term.

Actually I think most of these would be easy on who would win:
2004: Edwards (easily)
2000: Ackkk, Lieberman
1996: This would be close, errr Gore
1992: Stockdale
1988: Bentsen (easily)
1984: Bush (easily)
1980: Bush
1976: Dole
1972: Shriver
1968: Muskie (easily)
1964: Who is Bill Miller? Humphrey
1960: Lodge

Past 1960:
1956: Kefauver
1952: Nixon
1948: Warren
1944: Truman
1940: Bricker
1936: Knox
1932: Curtis

At this point I wouldn't be surprised if someone no-one has ever heard of gets the nomination. Unless Al Gore runs. In which case, Tier 2.

I was a 'guest' for a while before registering a few days ago.. and I did look at some old threads..

Cleveland = Badnarik
Harrrison = Kerry
Bryan = Nader
McKinley = Bush
Roosevelt = Kerry
Taft = Kerry
Wilson = Bush
Debs = Cobb or Brown

This presumes no party loyalty...

Harding: Bush
Coolidge: Bush
Hoover: Kerry
Garner: Kerry (Party loyalty)
Truman: Kerry
Dewey: Kerry
Eisenhower: Kerry
Nixon: Kerry

Bush the Younger - Bell
Kerry - Douglas
Buchanan - Breckenridge
Nixon - Douglas
Clinton - Lincoln
Kennedy - Douglas
McCain - Bell
Roosevelt - Lincoln
Bush the Elder - Bell
Dean - Lincoln

I imagine if Unity 08' manages to run a serious candidate, especially if it's Bloomberg (he'll get it if he wants it) then it's the end for Giuliani's chances of getting the Republican nomination and would probably favour more social conservatives.

Or has this foreigner read the situation wrong somehow?

Presuming that all the states where Bush has a negative approval rating vote for Kerry... (which wouldn't happen):



I guessed the percentages.

1997:


Blair\Prescott (Lab) 392 Electoral Votes
Major\Hesseltine (Con) 122 Electoral Votes
Ashdown\Beith (Lib Dem) 24 Electoral Votes

Well obviously all sorts of things would be different such as culture\race issues, for that reason I think that tories would win the southern white vote.

Here's my map for 1983.. Discuss it length. Though I doubt Michael Foot would really do this well in America. I felt kind to him.



Thatcher\Whitlaw (Con.) 383 Electoral Votes
Foot\Healey (Lab.) 88 Electoral Votes
Steele\Owen (Lib\SDP.) 64 Electoral Votes

The Percentages though are probably way offf...

Around here O'Donnell losing her seat was seen as a near-certainty until McDowell's "No single party goverment" campaign. Kitt + Brennan are safe. As is Olivia Mitchell. Then it's between Shatter\O'Donnell\Ryan\Labour Candidate for the remaining two seats.

In saying that Dublin South is natural PD terriority (unlike Wexford) so it wouldn't be surprising in the slightest to me or anyone if she survived. It will of course all probably depend on tactical voting and the last few weeks campaigning.

[Likely to lose Seat:]

For as long as I can remember that's all FG's message has ever been...

Such is the joy of Irish politics. Remember all that hype over FG's demise after 2002, especially after Pat Rabbite took over labour? And how we're finally going to get a functioning opposition? Yeaaaaaaahhhhh......

Too bad the only thing I can remember Pat doing recently is his constant pimping of Labour to FG.

To my mind this is the PD's in order of danger of losing their seat:
Likely to lose Seat:
Sexton (Longford-Westmeath) [As yet unconfirmed if running.] (Winning the seat in the first place was quite the stroke of luck to begin with.)

Marginal/Too early to call
T O'Malley (Limerick E) [As yet unconfirmed if running.]
Grealish (Galway W) [As yet unconfirmed if running.]

Lean Safe
Harney (Dublin MW)
F O'Malley (Dun Laoghaire)

Safe
McDowell (Dublin SE)
O'Donnell (Dublin S)
Parlon (Laois-Offaly)

The PD's, at this stage, are highly unlikely to pick-up anywhere. Note, for example, high-profile candidate Colm O'Gorman's abismal 1% showing in the TNS mrbi-Nuacht TG4 Wexford poll just the other week.

So, I would suggest that they'll be returned with between 5-7 seats next time out. Enough to end McDowell's leadership? I think the deciding factor in that regard is not the number of seats (unless they return 5 or less) but whether or not they are in government next time out. I doubt McDowell could last a term in opposition (Parlon and O'Donnell are too ambitious to allow that).

Will they be in government? FF's first choice for government will be the PD's and the FF-leaning independents á la 1997. It's unclear whether or not these numbers will add up but at the moment is probably the most likely outcome in my book. FG would have no problem with the PD's but Labour and the Greens would need some convincing - the electoral maths would probably demand that they are necessary for a stable government. Taking all of this into account, I'd imagine that it is probable that the PD's will be in government this time next year, and so probable that McDowell will still be leader. But then, predicting things like this rarely works out for me.

I don't see any real possibility of a merger with FF in the short to medium term. McDowell and Parlon's inclinations would be toward FG and they would take the vast bulk of the party membership with them in the unlikely event that the party was to collapse.

Well as a Dublin Southian I doubt that O'Donnell is safe - likely to hold on to her seat? Yep. But not purely safe.

First off, welcome to the forum. You've just doubled the Irish population.

Yay!

I think it's far to early to be sure on just about anything about the formulation of the next government. (I think the October polls represented a bit of a sympathetic pro-Bertie blip.) We're still 5/6 months off an election - anything could happen.

True. But Bertie has alot of momentum at the moment. Plus it seems like people are really waking up to the weaknesses of the opposition. Enda Kenny needs a message better than We're not as  incompetent or as corrupt as Fianna Fail.

SF - I feel are unlikely to actually form part of a government next time out. Though their numbers could make electoral maths difficult after the election. Only FF would consider taking them on, and then only if the PD's, Labour and even the Greens couldn't/refused to form a coalition with FF themselves. Even then, their role may be less than full partners - maybe similar to the post-1997 pro-FF independents.

I'd agree with that - I was just being Fatalistic.

Unlikely that the PD's will be wiped out, but very hard to see them holding their 8 seats. It's unlikely that a campaign like last time ('Watchdog on FF') will work again.

No I don't think so, Just enough so that McDowell loses his leadership (Unlikely, I know) would be good. Though if they do that badly they might aswell do the long awaited merger with FF.
I don't really hate the PDs as much as some people, though they are still way too friendly to big business (more so than the other parties) and are run by an Authoritian fool - plus they have been in power way too long at this stage.

As for me, I plan to vote for either FG\Lab as my first preference. Simply because they are not the other guys.

So would I.

It looks like the Coalition will return at the stage, or at least FF will - never underestimate FF's Get out the vote and media machine.

*sigh*

Would seriously think of emigrating if SF got into goverment, which isn't totally impossible after the election.

Hopefully the PD's will be wiped out - I hope.

Well I imagine that Communitarians would be in favour of what is known in the states as "state's rights" and decentralized power structures and weak central goverment - which are things their supposed opposites ("Libertarians") are in favour of. I would prefer Authoritian (that's not really perfect either... I can't imagine any one saying their a proud Authoritian.) Or maybe "Christian Democrat"\"Traditionalist" or something.

Communitarism is a new philosophy anyway, one's that just emerging with the past 20 or so years.

Thanks. I plan to stay for a bit.

Weird Thread.

I fancy "G" if it's a democrat, "H" if republican, though I was hoping for "F" out of the major contenders - but he's not running now.

Pre-Plantation Celtic Ireland was far, far from anything that could be Anarcho-capitalist.

More like a decentralized system of feuding tribes, ever heard of Brian Boru? And the Viking warlords were hardly "Anarchistic".

(And I wouldn't call such a society a great success, though it was more prosperous and educated - presuming one was with the church - then anyway else in Western Europe at that time. But that's like comparing Iraq - minus oil - in the 80s with Iraq today.)

1789: Washington (None)
1792: Jefferson (Jeffersonian)
1796: Jefferson (Jeffersonian)
1800: Jefferson (Jeffersonian)
1804: Jefferson (Jeffersonian)
1808: Madison (Jeffersonian)
1812: Clinton (Federalist)
1816: King (Federalist).. I think, maybe only in retrospect.
1820:<no vote>
1824: Jackson (Democratic)\Adams (Jeffersonian).. Unsure.
1828: Jackson (Democratic)
1832: Wirt (Anti-Masonic) in protest.
1836: Van Buren (Democratic)
1840: Van Buren (Democratic)
1844: Birney (Liberty)
1848: Van Buren (Free Soil)
1852: Parker Hale (Free Soil)
1856: Fremont (Republican)
1860: Douglas (Democratic)
1864: Lincoln (Republican)
1868: Errr... Ehmm.. Probably flee.
1872: O'Connor (Straight out Democratic)
1876: Tilden (Democratic)
1880: Weaver (Greenback Labour)
1884: Cleveland (Democratic)
1888: Cleveland (Democratic)
1892: Cleveland (Democratic) or Weaver (Populist) Depending on state
1896: Palmer (National Democratic)
1900: Bryan (Democratic)
1904: Parker (Democratic)
1908: Hisgen (Independence)
1912: Wilson (Democratic)
1916: <no vote>
1920: Debs (Socialist) in protest.
1924: Lafollete (Progressive)
1928: Mexico again. Or third party.
1932: Harvey (Liberty)
1936: Roosevelt (Democratic)
1940: Wilkie (Republican)
1944: Roosevelt (Democratic)
1948: Wallace (Progressive)
1952: Hallinan (Progressive)
1956: Andrews (States Rights) In protest.
1960: Kennedy (Democratic)
1964: Worst Choices Ever
1968: Gregory (Peace and Freedom)
1972: McGovern (Democratic)
1976: McCarthy (Independant)
1980: Clark (Libertarian) Or maybe Anderson..
1984: Berglund (Libertarian)
1988: McCarthy (Consumer) Or maybe Ron Paul..
1992: Perot (Independant)
1996: Nader (Green)
2000: Browne (Libertarian)
2004: Cobb (Green)

To Be honest this isn't really a party in American History which has come to close to my progressive-Enviormentalist Libertarian views. That's why the Greens and the Libs are interchangable for me despite widely different platforms. My opposition to Imperialism prevents me from voting "R" - especially after WWII. While the centralizing and corrupt nature of the Whigs and it's offspring - the Republicans in the 19th century warns me against them.

To introduce Meself here:

Economic: -0.52
Social: -8:00

Though there is something very wrong with a test which puts me beside John Kerry (*shudders*).

Also this test isn't very good at the extremes - No way was Hitler a far-leftist - good at formulating mainstream American opinion I imagine.

May I ask who are all the people on the graph, I'm too lazy to look through the thread but..

Statist: Hitler, Oswald Moseley (?)
Communitarian (Not really a perfect term for people in that spectrum): ,
Liberal: FDR, John Kerry
Radical: Noam Chomsky, Mandella (who is nowhere near as radical as Noam)
Anarchist: Rothbard, Leo Tolstoy.. I think (Anarchist isn't really extreme right either)
Libertarian: ,
Conservative: , Goldwater
Reactionary: ?, ??
Moderate: Clinton, ??

Am I right so far...

don't worry, these are people who make assumptions based on what they think they know, not by what's real.
Anarcho-capitalism is in no way authoritarian as it is against force.  Force is what makes something authoritarian.
It also isn't pro-corporation above individual rights.  When the red avatars learn that individual rights and business rights are aligned together against government.  Not government and individual against business, they could then undertand that it is government that elevates business to the level where they could become monopolies.  The only way a monopoly can exist is by means of government.

Great Post.

Too bad alot of libertarians seem to be "I don't want to pay my upkeep to society" types. That, and they seem to think that Africa is an inspiring economic model for us all.

Own Philosophy, btw.

At that stage  Kerry would have still won the nomination. Dean Downfall was due to his hype and him believing in it.

Ironically had he not been installed as the media favourite there would have been no scream and he would have had a chance. But in reality he was far too associated with the netroots\left-bloggers at that point. Many just wanted him to fail.

I would have preferred him to Kerry though.

Would have been much better if TR was President at this time instead of Wilson.

I imagine that anyone who had slightly more charisma (not hard) than Kerry or at least seemed more on touch on the issues could have beaten Bush.

Kerry's own bland wishy-washiness was his downfall imo.