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

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

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 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.

[Detroitdad]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

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.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Detroitdad

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.

[MikeWaters]

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.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

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.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

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 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.

[MikeWaters]

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

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

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.

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.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

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

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.

[MikeWaters]

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.