Jump to content

Who Will be Next President of the USA?


McBif

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 53
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Rudy is an ex-gangster by the sounds of it (which puts him in with a chance scarily enough), Hillary is just dull, nuts and REALLY irritating, Obama isn't white (always a problem for the majority of whites who are covertly racist). Gore is an ego maniac, but has a shot. McCain sounds like he makes oven chips, which is never a good thing. The others (are there others?) i don't know of.

 

Whoever it is will suck, maybe not as much an da fuhrer, i mean Bush (read Cheney), but they'll have an impossible task facing them and need to be mind bogglingly intelligent and creative...none of the current batch have any real wit, charisma, intellect or anything new to say...it's going to be shit...big piles of it. It's going to suck more than a starving leech on an obese American.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its the Dems election to lose. They have the upper hand but the Democratic party has always been a splinterd, fractious group. Sometimes they beat each other up so much in the primaries that the winner ends up being too wounded to mount a good national campaign. The republicans usually rally behind a candidate the leadership with the purse strings have decided on: Reagan in '80, Bush Sr in '88 and Dubya in '00. The party money was always going to support those guys and also they have what is termed the '11th commandment', thou shall not speak too ill of another republican. That is changing but they are not as vitriolic as Dems. Its their strength but it makes them eerily prussian and autocratic.

 

Edwards has the best chance. Not saying he's the best candidate but he has the best chance against just about anyone the Republicans can mount. Any Republican has to campaign partially as a person who is the 'anti Bush' candidate ideologically and be opposed to the war. He can't have too many connections other than party affiliation to Dubya and Company. Any Dem worth his salt will try and marry that person to Bush in the general election.

Guiliani has the best chance to distance himself from Bush and the party and having people buy it. Problem for him is he's not conservative enough for the extreme wing of the party. McCain seems to have gotten closer to Bush in terms of perception than he did in '00. His age is cited on here but I am not sure if its going to be a big of an issue as it was for Reagan.

 

Hilllary is such a polarizing figure, I don't see how she can win. Her nomination will be the best thing for Republicans. She will get the moderate Republicans to vote and there are signs some of them may opt out as they are fatigued from Dubya. The centrists who decide elections may go against her as well. The middle elects presidents and they will vote for either party. People call California and New York democratic states whenever a national election is happening but people forget that those people who voted for Democrats Gore and Kerry in '00 and '04 also voted for Republican governors of both states (Schwarzenegger and Pataki) during that time as well.

 

The Dems are making it hard for themselves. Bush is handing them the election by being himself but they may find a way to lose it.

 

My guess is they'll win it and it will be Edwards...but its a guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Dems could well blow it, doubt Hillary and or Obama can win...too many closet racists out there, frankly, I don't really like Hillary...Someone mentioned Collin Powell...no way, he is too close to the dirt and the Iraq mess...oh, and he's black.

 

See who the Libertarians run...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its the Dems election to lose.

 

That's for sure. I think it's generally agreed that the next prez won't be a Republican. The Dems could put up Homer Simpson and he would win. - lookit Jimmy Carter.

 

BTW, coming from a country with a pariamentary tradition, I always wondered, even as a kid, why unsuccessful candidates in the States were usually tossed on the scrap heap after an election. I mean, he's supposed to be their best guy, right?

 

I know of course they are different systems.

 

It's changing now, though. I don't know about Australia and NZ, but here in this Dominion and over in the Mother Country the days when a guy would lead his party for years and years through thick and thin are gone. I can't, for example, keep track of the U.K. Tory leaders.

 

U.S. exceptions are Nixon and....? Can't think of another example. So, in one way, it would be reassuring to me if the Goremeister made a comeback.

 

Small mercies...

 

Big Al in '08!

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

New Hampshire Union Leader

27 Jun 2007

 

New Hampshire Dem leader is . . . Al Gore!

 

 

Boston â?? A New Hampshire presidential poll by WHDH-TV and Suffolk University shows that local Democrats prefer Al Gore to any of the current contenders.

 

Hillary Clinton has a solid lead over the rest of the current Democratic field. The poll, released this afternoon, shows 37 percent of likely Democratic voters backing Clinton or leaning towards her. Barack Obama was at 19 percent, with both John Edwards and Bill Richardson at 9 percent.

 

Al Gore, however, could enter the race as the leader. When his name is added, Clinton loses more than a quarter of her support, while Gore is backed by 32 percent.

 

Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani lead the GOP field. The former Massachusetts governor is supported by 26 percent of likely GOP voters, with Giuliani slipping to 22 percent. John McCain and Fred Thompson are both at 13 percent, a major move backwards for McCain. Romney's support, which relies heavily on younger voters, is up 7 percent from a comparable poll in March, when he trailed Giuliani (37 percent) and McCain (27 percent).

 

The poll, which has a 4.4 percent margin of error, surveyed 500 likely voters from June 20 to 24.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is going to be a bad election...I hate all repubs...and frankly am fed up with them...Hilary I fear her image as "the American Evita." Obama, he could do it maybe, but he can't win...I also don't like the idea of 2 families running the country (Bush and Clinton) for so long...Gore...eh maybe...but he is more less tied to the Clinton era...which might not be bad for international relations...tough choice...wonder who the rest of the world would like to do business with...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...