How likely is your party of winning the 2008 election.

[kashifsakhan]

How likely is your party of winning the 2008 election? Perhaps you could venture a guess about what sort of electoral and popular vote your party will get in 2008.

[Speed of Sound]

0.000000000000000000000000001% chance

0 electoral votes

<0.1% of the vote

Best state: I guess California or Massachusetts or Vermont or something

FTR, I belong to the Socialist Party, for the few that dont know

[Reaganfan]

The Republicans hold the electoral votes. Currently, we tend anywhere from 279-259 without Iowa or New Hampshire, and 290-248 with Iowa and New Hampshire. If we won the 2000 vote exactly in 2008, we would come out 278-260...more than even in 2000.

If we had a good candidate, like Pawlenty or McCain...and we could pull Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Maine, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and all of the Bush 2004 states...and come over the 350 EV mark. If the democrats run a bad candidate, even candidates like George Allen and Mitt Romney would be able to cross well over 300 EV.

[Gustaf]

Kind of hard to say this early on...I guess the Democrats have a decent shot, but I doubt that they can get more than 300 EVs. THe probability of Democrats winning is in the 45-55 range, the PV, excluding 3rd party candidates, will probably be 49-51.

[Vasall des Midas]

0%

[© Tweed the Younger]

40%

[Yates]

35%.

[Nym90]

The Republicans hold the electoral votes. Currently, we tend anywhere from 279-259 without Iowa or New Hampshire, and 290-248 with Iowa and New Hampshire. If we won the 2000 vote exactly in 2008, we would come out 278-260...more than even in 2000.

If we had a good candidate, like Pawlenty or McCain...and we could pull Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Maine, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and all of the Bush 2004 states...and come over the 350 EV mark. If the democrats run a bad candidate, even candidates like George Allen and Mitt Romney would be able to cross well over 300 EV.

If Bush's approval ratings stay where they are, 350 electoral votes is a fantasy for the Republicans, regardless of who is nominated. Even 270 would be highly unlikely.

Of course, 2 and a half years is a lifetime in politics, so we'll see what happens. But I think it's a bit unrealistic to think that Bush and people's opinions of him won't be a factor in the 2008 election. A lot of people seem to be assuming that the election will be decided simply on the basis of the candidates involved without considering this factor.

[MODU]

My party has zero chance of winning.  hehee . . . I don't have a party.

[skybridge]

44.5%

26 elections won / 53 elections participated in = 49%
15 elections won / 37 elections w/current major party opponent = 40%

  49%
+44%
-------  = 44.5%
  2

[Frodo]

It would depend on how Democrats use their majorities in Congress vis-a-vis President Bush.  If, like the Republicans of 1994 (assuming Democrats gain control of both houses of Congress by similarly lopsided margins this November), they overreach themselves in pandering to the extreme Bush-hating elements of the party, we could see a possible Republican resurgence in 2008, which could also affect the presidential race.

[Nym90]

It would depend on how Democrats use their majorities in Congress vis-a-vis President Bush.  If, like the Republicans of 1994 (assuming Democrats gain control of both houses of Congress by similarly lopsided margins this November), they overreach themselves in pandering to the extreme Bush-hating elements of the party, we could see a possible Republican resurgence in 2008, which could also affect the presidential race.

That's true; the chances of the Republicans winning the Presidency in 2008 would probably be increased if the Democrats take control of Congress this year.

[Max]

0%

dito.

I don't expect the SPD to win

;-)

[Gabu]

0%, unless the Liberal Party stages a hostile* invasion of America and becomes dictators in 2008.

*by hostile, I of course mean by Canadian standards, which means that we don't bring enough maple syrup for all the prisoners to put on the pancakes we'll give them.

[Frodo]

It would depend on how Democrats use their majorities in Congress vis-a-vis President Bush.  If, like the Republicans of 1994 (assuming Democrats gain control of both houses of Congress by similarly lopsided margins this November), they overreach themselves in pandering to the extreme Bush-hating elements of the party, we could see a possible Republican resurgence in 2008, which could also affect the presidential race.

That's true; the chances of the Republicans winning the Presidency in 2008 would probably be increased if the Democrats take control of Congress this year.

Which is why I think Democrats would be better off to gain seats in both houses of Congress this year, while leaving Republicans with enough of a majority that they would be blamed for whatever happens as the party in power, but not enough to overcome Democratic opposition to whichever policies they choose to pursue.  This would be the worst possible outcome that would befall Republicans this November.  They will get very little -if anything- done, but they will get all the blame for the war, rising deficits and debt levels, inaction on global warming, as well as being stuck with an increasingly unpopular president, all of which could combine to give us a perfect storm that would enable us to take control of not only Congress, but also the presidency in 2008 (assuming we nominate Mark Warner). 

[12th Doctor]

Unfortunatly... the Labour Party is a non-entity in the US, as are the Christian Democrats...

That leaves the Republicans... that remains to be seen.

[Hatman]

0%, unless the Liberal Party stages a hostile* invasion of America and becomes dictators in 2008.

*by hostile, I of course mean by Canadian standards, which means that we don't bring enough maple syrup for all the prisoners to put on the pancakes we'll give them.

The Liberals are not currently capable of invading a Tim Hortons at this moment let alone the USA.

Besides, there is a good chance we may have an election in 2008