My 2008 prediction....

[12th Doctor]

If Bush wins:

Democratic Ticket: Hillary Clinton/Evan Bayh
Republican Ticket: Bill Frist/ Lamar Alexander

Turnout is record low, and Frist wins by a hair.  everybody hates both candidates.

If Bush loses:

Democratic Ticket: John Kerry/John Edwards
Republican Ticket: Jeb Bush/Condi Rice

Kerry wins re-election.

2012 (if Kerry wins two terms):

Democratic Ticket: John Edwards/Erksine Bowles (Who gives a crap if they're from the same state)
Republican Ticket: Lamar Alexander/George P. Bush

Alexander wins.

Frist and Alexander can't be on the same ticket.

[12th Doctor]

Since my ELECTION 2004 election prediction was a few weeks ago and I promised I would do a 2008 prediction, here it is. The 2004 part might be new:

In November 2004, John Kerry and his running mate John Edwards lose to President George Bush and his VP Dick Cheney in a 405 to 133 race. Soon, it is 2007 and time for a new election. Running for the Democratic ticket are:

Former Senator Hillary Clinton (NY)
Senator Evan Bayh (IN)
Governor Gary Locke (WA)
Governor Jim Doyle (WI)
Governor Mark Warner (VA)

Republicans running for the ticket include:

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
Senate Majority Leater Bill Frist
National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice
Senator Rudy Giuliani (NY)
Governor Rick Perry (TX)
Governor Mike Huckabee (AR)
Governor Kenny Guinn (NV)

By early 2008, front runner for the Democrat's is an unexpected winner in Iowa Caucus: Jim Doyle. Second is Hillary Clinton, and third is Gary Locke. After a New Hampshire win, Doyle seems to be in the lead.

The Republicans in Iowa have their three places filled as: Third place: Condi Rice, second: Donald Rumsfeld, and first: Giuliani. New Hampshire goes to Rumsfeld. All this still has no clear frontrunner for the right.

By late spring, the Democrat list loses two candidates: Jim Doyle, and Gary Locke. Left are Bayh, Clinton, and Warner.

The Republicans have lost Perry, Guinn, Huckabee, and Frist. A hard choice is put up for Republicans: Giuliani who led NYC through 9-11 and as Senator of NY for 2 years after beating Clinton in 2006, Rumsfeld who served as Secretary of Defense for 8 years, or Rice who served as National Security Advisor for 8 years.

Nomination goes for the Democratic ticket..... Senator Hillary Clinton after a near loss to Mark Warner. She chooses Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey as he running mate.

Nomination for the Republican ticket......... Rudy Giuliani! He chooses Condoleeza Rice as his running mate.

In the debates, Clinton wins one, while Giuliani wins two. In the vp debate, Rice badly beats Lautenberg, after all she does have a very smart IQ. On election night, polls show Clinton 44%, Giuliani 56%. Giuliani-Rice beat Clinton-Lautenberg 300 to 228. Two months later, we have Vice President Rice and President Giuliani.

WHAT DO YOU THINK? FUN TO READ, I WOULD LIKE TO READ YOURS. WRITE YOUR PREDICTION NO MATTER WHAT THE OUTCOME.

You mentioned Gary Locke's name and I had to run to the nearest toilet and vomit.

LOL that's great.  I don't think he would run.  He is having problems in Washington right now.

[12th Doctor]

While a Rice run is a possible situation, Giuliani is more likely since he says he might run for NYC SENATE in 2006.

Giuliani isn't thinking about it.  He is doing it.  I believe he already announced it.  Correct me if I'm wrong.

[12th Doctor]

That's what I mean't.

I hope Hillary loses to Rudy in 2006, because then we can get a halfway electable canddiate for 2008.

As I have said numerous times, Hillary won't run against Rudy.  She'll sit-out and say she is putting all of her energies toward her presidential campaign.

[12th Doctor]

Some thoughts:)

EC Map favors GOP.  Dems have to win all gore states and then pick up 7 EV to get to 2000 levels.

Next I think it will be close at this point, but you must also remember, Bush is playing defense now and hasn't even started to tap his war chest or actively campaign to a great extent.  Kerry is essentially still paying bills as he raises money.  yes not locked in by caps, but funds are still short, especially if he needs to spend some on expensive Mar 2 days.

Kerry is a liberal, Bush is a conservative, plaina nd simple.

So that said, Kerry's record in the senate and anti-war after his return home will not play at all int eh SOuth and Kerry has said essentially he will write it off.  So for Dems to win they have 2 strategies, win int he SW> NM, AZ, NV   or Midwest> picking up an Ohio or MO.  

Bush will be able to concentrate his funds primarily on OH, PA, the upper Midwest Gore states and the SW also.  This is a big advantage as Dems MUST hold PA, MN, IA, NM which Bush has already been making a huge play for.  

Plus economy is improving, not roaring yet, but improving.  Unemployment has gone from 6.2% int he fall down to 5.6% after 9/11, corporate scandals and cheap labor overseas.  If 100k plus jobs continue to be created Bush will look very good for the election.

Terrorism/For policy.  Bush is strong here.  We caught another one of Iraqi most wanted today (#41), up to 45/55.  Plus if we would catch OBL or other key leaders in afghan raid planned for spring, WMDs are found, or countries such as Libya, Iran and N Korea continue to move towards compliance this all looks good for Bush.  Plus if power is succesffully handed ove rin Iraq, all potential pluses.  There are potential downside effects but none are on the horizon.  Plus Kerry's weak record on defense will be amplified.  he has voted agianst 27 weapons systemt he military now sees as vital, he voted to cut CIA funding and wants to rely heavily ont he UN.

Cultural issues:  a definate Bush plus category.  Kerry is all over the place on gay marriage which is coming out of his home state, OUCH!  


Int he end i think Bush still wins, as Dems need the map to fall just right for them to win.

I’m afraid Reaganfan I just don’t see such a big win for Bush… The economy is hardly roaring back into life and jobs continue to fail to be created quickly enough, In Iraq it seems very questionable that a national government with its own capacity to defend its self will be in place in time to hand over control in the summer, Bush seems to have questions over his credibility and while the “AWOL” story is hardly very serious it would seem to further undermine Bush credibility as a war leader… The ballooning deficit is one hell of a problem and Bush’s spendthrift attitude to Government spending is very worrying while at the same time he introduces massive tax cuts that further inflate the Budget Deficit…

Now don’t get me wrong personally I see Bush as decent guy (would never vote for him) but don’t see anything duplicitous in his character… having said that I would argue that the public with the failure to finds WMDs, with the AWOL issue are beginning to see him not quite as straight  forward as they where lead to believe however this feeling seems directed more at the Administration than the President however the two are entwined to such as degree it may be difficult to separate them in voters minds.

Kerry as we see has problems but he seems to be able to aggressively campaign and rebut any Republican attacks on him…he has an excellent war record that will help personalise him for many voters while interestingly also shifting him away from his liberal record in the Senate…his problems are that record and his perceived “aloofness” however I cant see the old “liberal spendthrift” attack working this time a more sophisticated line of attack is needed and his aloofness seems to have been easily corrected as a drawback during the primary campaign…

In the end I see this race (barring any unforeseen scandal or upset) as higly competitive however a Bush win will be based on securing a few marginal states not sweeping entire regions… In many states which where close last time between Gore and Bush the “Nader factor” was very important (I strongly doubt a Nader showing even half as strong as last time seeing as how he is running (if he in fact runs) alone as an independent) In States such as Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Washington, Oregon, New Mexico, New Hampshire and Florida Nader effectively held the balance his supporters would have either boosted Gore into a solid win or as in the case of NH or FL won the states from Bush…. Bush efforts to win over Hispanics could lead NM into his column in November while in Iowa he would seem to have a good shot…Opinion polls and the 2000 results would suggest that Minnesota will go Dem, While the State government and Congressional delegation in WI is overwhelming Democratic at the same time NH showed in January that Dems and Independents are highly motivated, with the total turnout in NH coming close to what would have been required to win the state in 2000 based on how many voted then…

So finally a highly competitive race however they said that about Dukakis in 1988… but I did hear a statistic that stated that every incumbent President who has been re-elected has always lead in the polls throughout the year leading up to the election and Bush has not… but then again these arguments based on bast elections are generally bogus like “Republicans have to win Ohio” or “Democrats have to win five southern states and have a candidate from the south” are all bogus…

Well There you go… Any Thoughts?                                      

acctually, they have ot pick up 10 to win.

[12th Doctor]

She's an attractive, young, conservative republican and Secretary of State for Florida. Why not?

1) She's 43 and looks like a rat.



2) She's a member of congress

That photo is doctored by the way.  Harris even said that she deon't own blue eye shaddow.