My 2008 Prediction.....What's Yours?

[Lincoln Republican]

I see no way around it.  The Democrats seem determined to nominate former first lady and New York Senator Hillary Clinton for President.

The Republicans are crumbling more each day. 

The Iraq war, young Americans and Iraqis are dying every time you turn around.

Bush is intransigent is his stand on the war.

There is no such thing as "incremental progress" being made in the war.  Face it, the war is lost.  You cannot defeat an enemy you cannot see.  For every insurgent, thug, or terrorist you kill, there are 100 just like them ready, willing, and able to take up the cause of terrorism, from many different countries around the world.  I am not being defeatist, I am simply being realistic.  No matter how long you stay in a place like Iraq, no matter how many more troops you pour into Iraq, the situation will not change.  The troop surge is not working, had no hope of working from the beginning, and will never work.         

The Libby issue, a public relations disaster.  Bush refuses to rule out a full pardon.

Bush's poll numbers are spiralling into oblivion, with no hope of turning around.

No Republican candidate can overcome the obstacles put in their way by a Republican President.

The war, which will become only more and more and more unpopular as time goes on into 2008, with more and more and more young Americans being killed, will seal the fate of the Republican candidate in the 2008 Presidential election.

Any of the major contenders for the Democratic nomination will defeat any of the contenders for the Republican nomination in the election, due mainly to Iraq, and Bush's unbending attitude in this matter.

Therefore, by process of elimination, meaning Bush has eliminated any hope the Republicans had of maintaining the White House in 2008, and by virtue of the fact the Democrats seem absolutely determined to make Hillary Clinton the nominee, Hillary Clinton is elected President in 2008.

Predictions as to who will be elected President in 2008, and reasoning behind the predictions, if desired, please.

[Likely Voter]

i generally agree with the above

I think the dems will just portray any GOP nominee as being 'a third bush term' with pictures, quotes, etc of that nominee supporting Bush, hugging bush, talking up the war, etc (all the things they had to do as a loyal republican and run for the nomination)

In a sense Hillary is lucky....she could never win except in this climate, her negatives are too high. But Bush's negatives are higher....and all she has to do is successfully define her opponent as 'Bush 3.0'. The less known the GOP candidate the easier it will be. Giulliani would be the hardest for her to beat, but even he can be attacked for his Bush connections.

Possibly the only way out is for the GOP nominees to break with the party and start openly attacking Bush soon, but that might be suicide in the GOP nomination.

But you certainly do not hear them volunteering to talk up Bush...look at the debates his name never comes up, except to say 'mistakes were made' in Iraq (but lets stay the course anyway)

[tarheel-leftist85]

Well, this will probably get bashed by such an anti-Edwards crowd (I guess Edwards is pro-shrinkage if Richardson's pro-growth!  You can obviously tell that NM is like SC when it comes to education just by hearing him blather...I'm about to forget he was governor so he better remind me soon.), but I think he will get the nomination.  Obama's base is comprised of young college students who, you know, like totally hate Bush (b/c all their friends do, not b/c he's another Reagan except bolder)...so, like, they'll totally forget to vote b/c they have a, like, a thing that day.  Clinton's base is composed of CEOs and Republicans that answer as Democrats on national surveys (they're infatuated with her b/c her candidacy is a win-win for them, like Richardson's--they might get their Goldwater after all).  The people that will actually remember to/take the initiative to vote and/or be eligible in closed primary states will largely be Edwards supporters.

For the Republicans, either Romney or Thompson will get the nomination.  Romney can keep bankrolling his campaign, and Thompson can abstain from being accountable to putting his "knowledge," "skills," and "values" up against the other ten clowns'.  Either way, they have the support of the mainstream media and can play the cultural populist act pretty well, though I think it's more transparent/hollow than it use to be.   This is why you can expect to see such an impressive erosion of Republican support in the Rust Belt, to the Great Plains and Outer South.

The "liberal" media will, undoubtedly, work to end Edwards candidacy in the primaries, and they will brand him a "liberal extremist" once he has the nomination while branding the Republican as either a "centrist" or "one of us."  It won't work b/c *enough* (I'm not saying all of them) voters have already turned against the M$M, and realize they're not getting much news from it anyway (e.g., I haven't heard about the contracting and "reconstruction" of Iraq except when it's buried in the back of a newspaper, while you'll just hear upper-class bureaucratic drama on CNN and MSNBC and talk a "booming economy", and outright fascist propoganda on Fox News).  As long as Edwards has enough money to stay in the game and focuses on connecting with people instead of buying ads where they won't be seen or on plush campaign offices that overlook Lake Chicago, he'll be alright.  The good thing about an Edwards candidacy is that, with him on the top of the ballot, Democrats can also hope to pick up some senate seats with liberal-leftist-progressive candidates (in OR, NH, CO, NC...at least) and, perhaps, 20 house seats.  We'll not only have a liberal president, but a functional liberal majority in Congress.

Here's my map:

Edwards--441EV (55.2%)
Thompson or Romney--97EV (44.1%)
Others--0EV (0.7%)

Senate (7 pick-ups, Landrieu loses--NET 6)--53 or 54 reasonable Democrats, 43 Republicans, 3 or 4 turncoat "Democrats"-->Sherrod Brown becomes majority leader

House (24 picks-ups, lose 2 seats in the Deep South)--255 Democrats, 180 Republicans, Nancy Pelosi remains speaker

This election is going to be more like '64 than '00 or '04, because the Red state/blue state narrative crafted by the corporate media doesn't hold water to the fact that overwhelming majorities of Americans support liberal and leftist values and policies--probably everywhere besides the Deep South klan kountry and select portions of the militant interior west.  You might say leftism and liberalism are more mainstream than the corporate m$m/DLC/Clinton conceptualization of centrism.

[AndrewTX]

^LOL, gurl you so crazy!

[Alcon]

Other than disagreeing with the map overall, I think you should take a closer look at NE-1.  Although...I do appreciate optimism. 

[opebo]

Yes, Hillary's timing is good.

[RRB]

In the end I believe that the above explanations will all have their merrit.  National polls are tied right now, But wait until the Dem candidate does a Granholm.  For any of you who saw the ads here in MI, it had republican Dick DeVos's face morphing into the face of GWB.  It was genious - and worked. 

ALL the Dems have to do is compare the republican candidate to Bush and they win the election.  It is a 100% winning strategy, and I am sure that they know it.  As for the map, take a look at the '96 election, and you will have the '08 election - for the most part.

And lets not forget, in a divided country,  a swing of just a few people per hundred who vote Dem because they want something "different" can make all of the difference. 

I have always said, we need to stop wondering who will be president in 2008 and wonder if Hillary is re electable in "12.

[HardRCafé]

^LOL, gurl you so crazy!

Post of the week.

[TomC]

Clinton/Richardson beat Thompson/Romney 315 to 223. Clinton picks up OH, IA, MO, AR, CO, NV, MN in addition to the Kerry states.

[CultureKing]

Clinton/Richardson beat Thompson/Romney 315 to 223. Clinton picks up OH, IA, MO, AR, CO, NV, MN in addition to the Kerry states.

Wait, MN voted for Bush last election?

[Person Man]

NM, silly goose.

[auburntiger]

 once the Dem and GOP nominee have been thoroughy scathed during the primaries, assuming it's Hillary vs. Rudy, it'll be a tossup as to who wins in November. Yes, it will be an uphill battle, but it's not over til it's over...if Rudy can distance himself enough from Bush, he could pull it off.

Elections always go in cycles. Starting in 1952, the only time the same party kept the white house for 12 years was during the 80's - basically because of Reagan's popularity, which carried over to Bush in '88 as Reagan's third term. Even Clinton, with his popularity and who won electoral landlides in the 90's...it wasn't enough to produce a third term for Gore.

All that to say, looking at how history repeats itself, I would bet my chips on the Democrat taking the white house next year. As mentioned above, yes Hillary's time couldn't be more perfect. any other year, she'd go down in flames

This could be like a 1976, where Hillary (like Carter) barely gets in, mainly because of Republican disillusinment with Bush (I, myself, am included here, but I will still vote GOP in 2008). People will want to see how the Democrats can handle the war on terror...Face it, no matter who takes office in 2009 will have to prove him/her self strong on national defense. If the Democrat can't do it in four years, then it could be another 1980 style election (of course this is just what I'm hoping for deep down), until then, we must find that next Ronald Reagan to save the party

[Person Man]

That's a risky proposition. What if Hill-dog doesn't mess up? That's how political movements get started.

[auburntiger]

Of course it is risky...just an opinion

[bonncaruso]

My prediction:

Your initial assessment is very good. 2008 will definitely be a realignment election. Much as the Reagan sweep of 1980 and re-sweep of 1984, the campaign may start close between the two major parties, but will break wide open for Clinton in October 2008. I predict that Clinton will take all of the Gore states (with landslides in states that were marginally for Gore, like MN, IA, WI) plus FLA, OH, NV, AZ, CO, MT and perhaps AK, even IN. She may lose NH, as Gore did. The GOP will keep GA, but barely. GA will be the next southern state to slowly move back into the blue column. I predict a similar vote turnout as in 2004, around 130,000,000 voters, and Clinton will take well over 70,000,000 of them.

The huge paradigm shift in the west will become more and more obvious, with MO slowly turning blue and the SE states of NM / AZ / CO (yeah, I know, is officially a mountain state) falling reliably into the DEM column. Clinton will sweep the east coast with figures over 70%, likewise California.

Her running mate? Could be Richardson, but I have a feeling she will tip Evan Bayh. Bayh has the perfect look for a VP and could win IN for the dems. Another candidate for VP: Gov. Strickland out of Ohio, who is on his way to becoming the most popular Governor in Ohio history. He is also a methodist minister and practically untouchable in the "family values" category.

Kucinich will fight up to the nomination and then will go into the trash heap of history. Likewise Gravel.  The first middle-tier candidate to jump off the bandwagon will be Richardson, followed by Biden. Obama will stall in mid-campaign and at some time, Edward's "I'm for the poor" routine will no longer play.

[bonncaruso]

sorry, where I wrote "MO", I meant "MT". Typo.

[Tender Branson]

The campaign may start close between the two major parties, but will break wide open for Clinton in October 2008

...if the current climate against the GOP continues ...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I agree with the first, but not with the latter. She´ll not take MT, AK or IN whatsoever. She "maybe" gets 45% in IN, yes, but that´s all.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nope. She´ll win NH - and by a decent margin.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Georgia isn´t going anywhere but GOP next year. GA is a conservative hell and still trending GOP. No chance for Clinton there. Yes, the turnout will be close to 130 Mio. votes, but Clinton will only take about 50% of them, as I predict a close election. Remember that Bush won with 51-48 ...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

MO will be closer, some Western states may flip to Clinton (NM, NV, CO) but not AZ. Clinton landsliding the west with 70% is ridiculous. But the Westcoast should generally be in the Clinton=55% column.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think her VP will be Tom Vilsack.

[Person Man]

The campaign may start close between the two major parties, but will break wide open for Clinton in October 2008

...if the current climate against the GOP continues ...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I agree with the first, but not with the latter. She´ll not take MT, AK or IN whatsoever. She "maybe" gets 45% in IN, yes, but that´s all.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nope. She´ll win NH - and by a decent margin.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Georgia isn´t going anywhere but GOP next year. GA is a conservative hell and still trending GOP. No chance for Clinton there. Yes, the turnout will be close to 130 Mio. votes, but Clinton will only take about 50% of them, as I predict a close election. Remember that Bush won with 51-48 ...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

MO will be closer, some Western states may flip to Clinton (NM, NV, CO) but not AZ. Clinton landsliding the west with 70% is ridiculous. But the Westcoast should generally be in the Clinton=55% column.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think her VP will be Tom Vilsack.

It would be interesting to see how an adopted child would affect the DEM ticket.

[Tender Branson]

The campaign may start close between the two major parties, but will break wide open for Clinton in October 2008

...if the current climate against the GOP continues ...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I agree with the first, but not with the latter. She´ll not take MT, AK or IN whatsoever. She "maybe" gets 45% in IN, yes, but that´s all.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nope. She´ll win NH - and by a decent margin.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Georgia isn´t going anywhere but GOP next year. GA is a conservative hell and still trending GOP. No chance for Clinton there. Yes, the turnout will be close to 130 Mio. votes, but Clinton will only take about 50% of them, as I predict a close election. Remember that Bush won with 51-48 ...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

MO will be closer, some Western states may flip to Clinton (NM, NV, CO) but not AZ. Clinton landsliding the west with 70% is ridiculous. But the Westcoast should generally be in the Clinton=55% column.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think her VP will be Tom Vilsack.

It would be interesting to see how an adopted child would affect the DEM ticket.

Not much I think. Better adopted than aborted.

[Person Man]

You know, if the Republicans pull this off, this would be the first time a president was both reelected AND was replaced by a loyal successor that wasn't a part of the original president's jurisdiction in 132 years and first time EVER, if the GOP wins both the EVs and popular vote.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

If the GOP wins expect the northeast, west coast and Hawaii to walk out of the union.

[MasterJedi]

If the GOP wins expect the northeast, west coast and Hawaii to walk out of the union.

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha, that's so stupid!

[Bacon King]

If the GOP wins expect the northeast, west coast and Hawaii to walk out of the union.

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha, that's so stupid!

It's Straha. Rule number one of the Atlas forum is to put him on ignore so you don't have to see what he types.

[Jaggerjack]

If the GOP wins expect the northeast, west coast and Hawaii to walk out of the union.

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha, that's so stupid!

It's Straha. Rule number one of the Atlas forum is to put him on ignore so you don't have to see what he types.

Is it just me, or is he trolling a LOT more now than he was before?

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

If the GOP wins expect the northeast, west coast and Hawaii to walk out of the union.

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha, that's so stupid!

It's Straha. Rule number one of the Atlas forum is to put him on ignore so you don't have to see what he types.

Is it just me, or is he trolling a LOT more now than he was before?

Is it me or are you failing alot more than before? Oh wait its not me. Its you.