Why I think the Republicans (Giulani) will pull off a stunning upset.
 

Remember, you heard this prediction from SeattleUte first. Everyone thinks it's a democratic party election because GWB is such a terrible president and the Iraq war is such a disaster. But right now the press is creating the reality. Here's what I predict is going to happen (but I wouldn't bet over a dollar on this).

When people get ready to pull the trigger on their vote, the red states will go with preservation of their culture, and the country will vote for the candidate who they think will keep them safest, who is the most ready to make a scorched earth out of the Middle East if needs be. I'm not making a judgment about whether the assessment that Republicans will keep the country safer is true. I kind of doubt it, actually. But remember, it's all about perception. The democrats' constant anti-war drum beat will take its toll. I hate the Iraq war and think it's foolish, but opposing the war is risky. This is not like the Vienam era. There is no draft. This is a war fought mostly by the underclass, who are much less prone to vote.

Giuliani now leads in places like South Carolina only becuase they think he'd be a tough war mongering president and put the clamps on domestic terrorism for good. Also, the economy won't be in the tank then. I say Giuliani is the next president, upsetting Hillary Clinton. It won't be as big a shocker as Truman-Dewey, but thinking back to today people will realize it was an upset win for Rudy G.

I believe the Republican party will vote for Rudy because they think he is the only candidate that can beat Rodham. If he can hold the right together he will pull in a hell of a lot more of the middle then Rodham will. The only thing that could work against him is if the far right wing brings in a third party candidate. By doing this they would just be giving the presidency to Rodham.

This depends on how serious the "values voters" are about voting for a 3rd party candidate if Rudy wins the nomination and how powerful they are as a voting bloc.

Dobson and his crew are threatening this very thing:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/04/op...=1&oref=slogin

Rudy has his foibles, but I honestly believe that of all the candidates in the field for both parties he's the only one with potential for true greatness a la Reagan, Truman, FDR, and right now we need a great president. He has had an astonishing life and career.

He would get my insignificant vote, and if the Right screws us, then to hell with them.

I think the fundies are a lot more realistic than the Ralph Nader folks.

I never, ever thought these words would come from you.

I think you are right because seems to me that the Dems will make a huge mistake by not nominating someone more middle-of-the-road. Where I sit people are tired of politicking by both sides and important business of the country being left undone in the process -- like the current budget. The Dems putting a very left candidate out there, such as Hilary, is going to cost them big in an election that might otherwise be theirs on a silver platter. The war is an issue, but the timing of the troop withdrawals is such that by next November that should be well on the way, and the war will be less of an issue unless something really bad with the war or the withdrawal plan in the meantime.

Damning with faint praise. Remember, the Nader people decided they'd rather vote for Nader than have Gore beat Bush. How nutty is that? It's a demonstrable, mathematical fact that Nader's candidacy brought about Bush's victory over Gore. Could there be a more pro-environment mainstream candidate than Gore?

Demopublicans or Republicrats. They're pretty much all the same.

Guiliani would be a worse president than Bush. I will vote for the dem sight-unseen before Giuliani.

LOL. I will let the midwest know.

The dems will overplay their hand as they are wont to do. They think they can put up their dream northeastern paleo-liberal ticket with a plank for revolutionazing health care because the Republicans are on their ass. Wrong. It will be like USC v. Stanford.

I predict that there will be a terrorist attack, with terrorists hoping to effect the outcome, hoping for a GOP win.

Al Qaeda and the GOP are actually symbiotic creatures, each gaining in power and influence from the other.

And people are too dumb to see it.

IMO, someone who leans libertarian shouldn't even consider an authoritarian like Giuliani. His track record as mayor showed disdain for the 1st, 2nd and 4th amendments. Given some of the statements he's made in regards to the partriot act, guantanamo, etc., I don't think he's a big fan of the 5th either. He would not be better than Hillary on anything except maybe taxes.

Giuliani is the only candidate besides Reagan that I've ever seen who when running for office had the courage to say that if elected he was going to do something positively revolutionary to change the world, got elected, and then did it. Reagan said that he would change the balance of leverage and power in the Cold War and bring the Soviets to their knees. He did it. Giuliani said he would rescue New York from insolvancy, rampant crime, a disintegrating infrastructure, and overall moral decay, turn it once again into a glorious, world-class city. He did it. Giuliani was also a remarkably successful U.S. Attorney in the most important district, the Southern District of New York.

It's shameful you hate him becuase you impose your personal moral standards on him. I wonder if Reagan was faithful to his first wife.

SU, I'm getting tired of your boring schtick. You are Haddow without the guts.

What is this if not a "schtick"?:

I have guts enough to address the merits of any issue without guilt tripping you or saying I will sick the Lord on you.

Gosh I have railed on Bush for what? Three years? Harping on just a handful of related issues almost the whole time. And you can't figure out how that applies to Giuliani.

Have you had a recent concussion?

They are worlds apart. Not the same people at all, down to the soles of their feet. Do you think Giuliani can win the nomination saying Bush is an idiot? Actually, I have seen him gently suggest the war has been incompently prosecuted. Giuliani is a realist, a practical non-idealogue. Bush is a spawn of the neo-cons and fundies, and winning them over is Giuliani's biggest challenge. He has inherited this stupid war. What would you have him say/do about it, where he sits right now? I bet he wouldn't have gotten us mired in Iraq. BTW, the last line of my post that set you off was a joke, in response to your symbiosis posturing.

I still don't think there is any way he is the nominee from the Republican party. He has nothing in common with that party other than national security.

I do think the dems could lose the election if Hillary is the nominee. I am convinced Republicans have evidence of more adultery by Bill and are sitting on it until she is nominated. If I am right, and if it is then released, there is almost no way she wins the election.

Obama is the most electable Democrat out there, followed closely by Edwards.

I disagree. I think Hillary is the most electable, because of all the stuff that she brings to the table (the Clinton money and policy machine). Besides the adultery angle has never been a winner for the Reps because it makes them look petty.

Personally I think Obama is the least electable, at this point in his career. He is a bit of a loose cannon and has not developed the ability not to listen much to the super left wingers.

IMHO the next most electable, when subjected to the bright lights would be Edwards and Richardson. But they ain't ever going to get on the big stage. Barring unforseen catastrophe, Hillary is the man.

I agree with this but Hilly will lose the GE.

I don't know who will win. You heard it here first.

One thing I am pretty sure of is GOP losing a lot more seats in Congress.

I don't know about that. The Dems haven't delivered what they promised they would and their approval rating suggests that keeping control isn't necessarily a lock.

He is the only person in the Republican field who strikes me as having honest to goodness leadership qualities. I think that regardless of where we go on foreign policy, we need someone who will do it with a strong hand and not a finger in air. Someone who is informed by principles (like Bush) but who is also flexible (like B. Clinton).

If Romney has a strong personality, I have not yet seen it. If the race is truly between Gulliani and Clinton, I think you will have two candidates who are ideologically more similar than any in my lifetime, regardless of what they say from the stump.

I could get used to the idea of either as president. I think that both get underestimated in terms of gravitas.

I think Bush is exhibit A on why someone who has a "strong hand" is not necessarily a good decision maker.

I think that Hillary's opponents would take a cheap shot like that at great hazard. Keep in mind that Hillary is a woman and that it is far harder to take shots like that at women in our culture. Think of the election (was it ths most recent or the first?) where her opponent got too close to her on stage physically and it was key in losing him that election? I think there is a parable in that.

I agree with the "not necessarily" part of your post. That is why I say you have to ALSO have the flexibility of a Clinton. I think we agree.

Bush's problem has never been that he is unprincipled, it has been that he has been unable to assimilate new information and make even the tiniest shift in his paradigm.

Yeah I don't see how a GOP shot at Bill for philandering hurts Hillary. Rather it gives her the chance to counterattack, to grieve, to appear more human.

Geez, especially if Giuliani is the nominee. I really doubt Giuliani would want to start that fight. LOL. Cali, such a bright guy but sometimes he comes up with some screwball notions.