If you were wagering $500 of your money on which party will win the 2008 presidential election...which party would you put that money on (regardless of party loyality)?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(huskers @ Aug 24 2006, 03:09 PM) [snapback]308976[/snapback]</div> McCain
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(huskers @ Aug 24 2006, 04:09 PM) [snapback]308976[/snapback]</div> depends on the candidates. not knowing who will head the tickets I would bet Repubican. at the current clip the Democrats are headed towards running another McGovern which would not be good for them. if its Hilary, its a Republican sweep with at least 40+ states going their way.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(huskers @ Aug 24 2006, 03:09 PM) [snapback]308976[/snapback]</div> There's no way I'd bet on either one right now. The members of both parties are so busy running around shooting themselves and each other in both feet it's impossible to guess. I really, really wish we could pull a chain, flush them all down the commode they've earned, and start over. There have been a few newbies elected in the last few cycles who have gone in promising to change things, discovered that doing so is akin to pushing a rope, and then discovered the perquisites of the position. In attempting to get anything done, they start playing the games, and the old hands drag them down into the cesspool with them. Twits.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(glenhead @ Aug 24 2006, 04:19 PM) [snapback]308983[/snapback]</div> AMEN!
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(glenhead @ Aug 24 2006, 01:19 PM) [snapback]308983[/snapback]</div> Took the words right out of my mouth.
Republicans. There's no defense against dirty fighting and they know how to sling mud better than anyone else. Plus they have the most money to throw at a problem. A lot of corporate money goes into the GOP coffers....because it pays for itself when elected officials pass corporate-friendly legislation. Money buys advertising and average voter has proven to be stupid. Say it enough times and they'll believe anything. I have no confidence the majority of voters will get any smarter in 2008. They say they're fed up and want change, but they'll continue to re-elect the same old same old.
Im going to do what I always do, vote for the lesser of the other evils.. I dont look at what party they are independent, deomocrat or republican I look at what their agenda is then go from there (as long as its not to the extreme Left or Right).. Go Ralph Nader! :lol: :lol: If he could do it to the Corvair he can do it to the middle east!
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Aug 24 2006, 03:14 PM) [snapback]309047[/snapback]</div> What she said. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Norman H. Renehan @ Aug 27 2006, 07:50 PM) [snapback]310396[/snapback]</div> And, if Hillary runs, it will SURELY be the Republicans again. Hillary is a distraction, not a viable candidate. Hmmm...lessee...a heavily "baggaged" Democratic woman with a black man? Yup. Sounds like a REAL winner to me. ...Speaking of shooting one's self in the foot... I am very upset that I can see NO viable Dem candidates yet...OTOH, I don't see any viable Reps either. But, my conspiracy radar got bumped along with the "terror" level. Lessee...just a few months before midterm elections. A huge roundup of "potential" terrorists in England. Nobody can now fly with bottled water. And, look, what a surprise...Rep's #s go up in the polls. Anybody else notice that, among the alleged Brit plotters, who were going to board transatlantic flights and blow them up, at least a couple of them had NO PASSPORTS? "We have been watching them for some time, but NOW seemed to be the best time to put a stop to this." Uh huh. And how do you feel about the tooth fairy?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rufaro @ Aug 31 2006, 03:56 AM) [snapback]312071[/snapback]</div> Yeah, the Dems are a mess. They need a total tear down and rebuild. Hillary is a non-starter. The red-team has McCain, and as much as it pains me to say this, Jeb could pull it off too. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rufaro @ Aug 31 2006, 03:56 AM) [snapback]312071[/snapback]</div> Yeah, it's Orwellian alright.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(huskers @ Aug 24 2006, 01:09 PM) [snapback]308976[/snapback]</div> Right now, I think the Democrats have an edge for a few reasons: 1. Bush Fatigue: Just as the country was ready for a change from a reasonably successful administration and snubbed the VP for someone everyone thought was a lightweight in 2000, the country is tired of the new "cold war" rhetoric about the global war on terror and will vote for a lightweight in foreign policy in a domestic issues campaign. (If the GWOT escalates, and we are attacked again in a fashion like 9/11, then this one is off and the Republicans win again). 2. Political Diversity: For some reason, we tend to like swapping the Executive back and forth between parties, and the sway a party has on the Legislative branch doesn't seem to help ... in fact, it may hurt the eventual Republican nominee that the Republicans have held both houses of Congress nearly uninterrupted since 1994 and haven't delivered on their promise of smaller government, balanced budgets, and strong domestic security. 3. Domestic Issues: With all the focus on foreign policy, it will be easy for a Democrat opponent to gin up another "crisis" such as healthcare, health insurance, social security, or unemployment "crisis" and promise to spend a lot more of other people's money to try and save the day Unfortunately, environmental and security issues will not be at the forefront unless something newsworth intervenes (God forbid).
I don't gamble. But since this is a fantasy bet, and I'm not actually putting my own real money on it, I'd bet on the Green Party, because right now, I'd probably get 10,000-to-1 odds.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rufaro @ Aug 31 2006, 03:56 AM) [snapback]312071[/snapback]</div> I deleted the conspiracy-theory stuff, but thought I'd address this one statement. There are quite a few viable Democrats who may be running, including Evan Bayh, Joe Biden, Christopher Dodd, Bill Richardson and Mark Warner. Biden and Dodd might have a hard time, as they are perceived as more liberal than President Clinton was, but I think Warner, Bayh and Richardson could cultivate a favorable moderate image that would appeal to most voters and might, just maybe, be able to get past the looney left fringe that dominates the Democrat primaries.
I'm gonna say it's a toss-up right now. I think Republicans have put a LOT of money and effort into the practice of "winning", but I think they'll lose that edge because of all the messy mistakes of the current administration.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ichabod @ Sep 3 2006, 10:09 PM) [snapback]313752[/snapback]</div> I do think that 2006 might be just as important. We seriously, honestly, totally need a divided govt. Having everything going the way of Bush is like handing the credit card to the prositute. Anyone who has an iota of concern has to admit that the current congress is a complete & utter bunch of spineless wimps. Look at the way they are turning on Bush/Rove now - only when it looks like its hopeless. / GAYS!!! // TERRISM!!!
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ichabod @ Sep 3 2006, 07:09 PM) [snapback]313752[/snapback]</div> One can but hope. Me, I have my bags packed to move elsewhere, when, suddenly, before November 2008, the Bushies decide that "the time is not right for an election," and (continue to ab)use executive privlege to suspend the '08 elections...and start handing out yellow "L" armbands.
