2008 Election Predictions

[Aileron]

I've come up with a theory. The next president of the United States will be Huckabee. Here's why:

 

On the Republican end, there are two candidates left. McCain and Huckabee. Since most conservatives don't like McCain, I suspect that they will all vote for Huckabee, and after he gets some momentum, Huckabee might just pull the Republican primary. Meanwhile, on the Democratic primary, people are realizing that they don't have to vote for Queen Hillary if they don't want to. I think Obama is going to win that one.

 

What's going to happen however is that Hillary isn't going to settle for that. She's been the queen of the Democratic party since 1992, and they have been planning on running her for 2008 since then. They fixed the 2004 election so she wouldn't have to compete with a democratic in!@#$%^&*bent, and fixed the 2008 primary by only giving tickets to a bunch of inexperienced morons. Additionally, the Democratic congress has done absolutely nothing, because they want any successes to be attributed to Queen Hillary. Clinton seems to believe that she is somehow owed the presidency, as if she rightfully inherits the position from her husband and that the desires of the country should cater to that.

 

Point being, if Obama takes "her" nomination, she'll get angry and run as an independent just to screw up his chances, and to improve her chnaces at 2012. She'll run as an independent, split the liberal vote. We'll have a three-way race between Obama, Huckabee, and Clinton, and Huckabee is going to win.

[rootbear75]

hmm... interesting theory...

 

i doubt that though..

 

i do think the democrats will take it simply for the fact that a lot of americans have lost faith in the republican party (blame dubya)

[sil]

Interesting if Huckabee does get the Republican nomination as he asked Colbert on the Colbert Report if Colbert would be his running mate. Sure at the time he was not sitting to high on the list, but that would sure be interesting now if he goes through with that and makes Colbert his running mate (!@#$%^&*uming he'd even get the nomination).

[AstroProdigy]

Huckabee can't get the nomination even if he wins the entire south. Mccain already has half the votes he needs and the super delegates would give Mccain the win even if Huckabee makes a very dramatic comeback. It just goes to show how messed up our primary systems are.

 

Aileron you clearly have a very warped view of Hillary Clinton. For all her faults you seem to have taken things to a crazy extreme. If Hillary lost the nomination there's absolutely no chance whatsoever she'd run as an independent. If she were to purposely cause a Republican to win any popularity she has will be long gone. Speaking of fixing elections who's the one who stole Florida in 2000? Yeah thought so.

[SeVeR]

Alot of what Ail said about Hillary makes sense. She does think she's owed the Presidency in my opinion. If she wasn't called Clinton then she wouldn't be where she is. And yes, they've been planning to put her on the throne for quite some time. I don't want to see the Bush-Clinton dynasty continue for any longer. Get Obama in there.

[Hoch]

That's an interesting prediction Ail.

 

With respect to Huckabee, I think you run into the

problem of the state primaries that are up for grabs.

No doubt his support is with the core conservatives

of the Republican party but most of the core has

already voted. I do not think we will see that much

support for him outside of this core. This is also why

McCain is in a better position, not to mention the fact

that he has quite a good lead anyway.

 

Hillary Clinton running as an independent is a wee

bit of a stretch. And when I say 'wee' I really mean

to say not bloody likely. If she doesn't grab the prize

for the Democrats, which I think she will, she may

try to eat crow and take the number two job (not out

of the question; likely--doubtful).

 

I think the Republican Party would rather see Clinton

over Obama. For the most part, Republicans hate that

woman and I mean hate. Some would rather chew off

their own foot before voting for her. So I would not ex-

pect anyone crossing party lines with her. But Obama

may be able to grab the Republicans that straddle the

fence.

 

In short, diehard Republicans may not see eye-to-eye

with McCain on some issues but at least he is not Hillary

Clinton. They can live with him. If you take into account

that historically Republicans vote more often in the gen-

eral election (the Dems have been doing better than ex-

pected in the primaries) than Dems Hillary would be a

godsend. Though I still have my doubts that a Republican

will be back in the White House. Funny election this time

around.

 

Just my two pence,

 

-Hoch

[rootbear75]

watch a repeat of Election 2000 happen again

[Aileron]

I'm definitely sure you people are counting the Republicans out way too quick. Under scrutiny, the Democrats are nothing but whiners. All the democrats have been doing was complain, criticize, fillibuster, undermine, and generally oppose the established strategies of Bush. Without Bush, the Democrats have no one to oppose and thus have no platform. That will become apparent in the secondary debates.

 

Hillary Clinton is definitely NOT going to be anyone's running mate. She's too old for a VP position.

[ThunderJam]

I agree Hillary wont VP for anyone.

 

Altho I think Mccain has this one in the bag for republicans. Heres why, outside of the super conservative core, you have the republicans who like huckabee, but don't think he has a chance to win if he got the nomination. I was a Romney person. I actually agreed with Huckabee's values more, but I think Romney was more electable. Our primary was yesterday, and I just didn't vote for either person cuz I think huckabee is a waste of time and I don't really care for Mccain.

 

Mccain is liberal enough that if he gets the nomination, he could win cuz he could draw some of the democratic votes. Huckabee doesn't have that. It will def come down to Obama v Mccain (Obama for all the reasons in previous posts).

[PoLiX]

I'm still in the middle on which way I'll go. Republican or Democrat. Typically always have fallen behind the Democrats, but I really sit in the middle (as MANY of those boredom "where do you sit tests" would agree), not siding with either.

 

Hillary, the world isn't ready for a superpower like the US having a woman president. Although most seem to just want bush out no matter what.

Obama, that would be major history if he got in, cause barely over 40yrs ago, his people we're fighting just to have the same rights as everyone else. I think there is too many people that would vote McCain just because he is white if Obama got it... sad, but true.

 

McCain, I dunno. He just seems like a Bush replacement so far to me.

Huckabee is probably one of the 1st repubicans in years that has really gotten me listening and agreeing with some of his ideas, although others kind of scare me more than the rest.

 

I'm really tired of all of their promises, as they can't do jack without congress behind them. They need to stop promising things, and talk about what they we're able to do with their local congress, cause that's really the accomplishment. If they could get their local congress to sway and work with them, then it gives better chance the US Congress might be persuadable for them.

 

Just my 2 cents.

[Traced.]

I was raised Republican. After 9/11 my father became deep into politics like it was his religion. That made childhood fun >.<

Politics this Politics that...

 

I take alot of my influence on politics from my father. This is my first year voting, and I asked him who he taught i should vote for, b/c im not htat deep in it like he is. He told me Romney. I of course asked why, b/c i thought he was gunna say Mc Cain. He told me one that there are few republicans that want Mc Cain to win. One: b/c of the 50 cents tax he wants to put on gas and Two: they don't think hes really Republican. Only other good option is Romney.

Well, i knew from the start that Romney would fail, and not make it very far.

Honestly, if i had to decide who i think/want to win it would have to be Obama. One:he seems more in tune with people. Two:Hillary is a !@#$%^&*.

So i asked my dad, and he said although he would rather have Obama, He would rather Hillary take it. Confused i asked why and he said, "well b/c we don't want Republicans hating on the first black man now do we". >.< He's right...BUT HILLARY IS A !@#$%^&*!

 

So, sigh, looks like im voting for Micky Mouse my first year...

[jacob hunter!]

meh... I didn't go vote. owell. only thing that matters to me is we have a good secured leader that will make this country more powerful.

[Aileron]

I don't like Obama because this isn't a high school student council election. If you looked at the list of Obama's accomplishments, it would be a blank piece of paper. If Obama had previously championed a bill or two, maybe.

 

Again, it goes back to the Democratic Party leadership deciding the outcome of this primary in 1996. Obama is their intended 2012 or 2016 candidate. The idea was to get his name out now, get him to do some executive-style stuff within the next 4-8 years, and then run him for President for real when he's more well-rounded.

[Falcoknight]

It's going to come down to McCain vs. Obama, I'd honestly be happy with either, though happier with Obama.

 

Hilary..Just...No.

Ron Paul is crazy.

Huckabee seems like a personable guy, but anti-evolution? Sorry bud, I couldn't live with my conscience if you were the leader of the free world.

[Aileron]

That statement is entirely wrong. Personal beliefs are secondary to ability and duty which can only be shown by accomplishment. Now, it would be fair to say Huckabee doesn't have a lengthy list of accomplishments either, but its wrong to judge somebody on personal beliefs.

 

This is academic though. Huckabee is out of the race as McCain has clinched the Republican nomination...and Ron Paul was never really in it to begin with.

 

I actually agree with Huckabee on that evolution thing. I don't like the Theory of Evolution. It has its flaws which biologists simply won't address because to question evolution is heresy against atheism. Not flaws as in 'throw out the theory', but small flaws - sort of the type of flaws in Newtonian Physics which caused Einstein to create Relativity. I do think that without this strict devotion to Darwinism status quo, biologists would have a more sophisticated set of qualifiers on the theory.

[Falcoknight]

but its wrong to judge somebody on personal beliefs.

 

Not at all.

Someone could be entirely capable of running this country, but if at the same time they thought that all black people were inferior and should be treated as such, I'd say that should be weighed heavily in people's minds before voting for him.

 

Personal beliefs come second to policy and competence, but they are still a very real factor.

[SeVeR]

I have to agree with Aileron on that last point. I would have voted for Ron Paul even though he is pro-gun, anti-abortion and has been known to question evolution. One man's view on these issues means next to nothing. The economy and foreign policy are far bigger nuts to crack.

 

I disagree with Aileron on just about everything else. I wasn't in the least bit surprised when you said "I don't like Obama". The thought occurred to me that the less corrupt someone is, the less you like them.

 

Biologists won't address the concerns of religionists about evolution for so many reasons. The obvious one is: How can someone question a scientific theory when they believe in an alternate theory that is based on no scientific explanation whatsoever. Hypocrisy comes all to easy to a Christian.

 

Secondly, there is a big reason for religionists to attempt to pick holes in evolution, and no reason for biologists to be bias in favour of evolution - so who is full of !@#$%^&*?

 

Finally, a biologist doesn't claim evolution as fact. If only Christians knew what "theory" meant, we'd all get along fine. Evolution is incomplete, but we have alot of evidence in support of it. All religionists can do is say "there is a piece missing here", as if this missing piece hasn't had hundreds of scientific papers written about it already. It's why it's a theory.

 

Oh, and then come the intelligent design wackos who got their !@#$%^&*es handed to them in a court of law. They tried to prove that something had to be designed and were proven wrong; such is the desperation of religionists to discredit evolution.

 

If there was one shred of evidence AGAINST evolution then i'd be with you. There is no alternate theory.

[»D1st0rt]

It looks like Ron Paul didn't get enough exposure in time to win the GOP nomination, so our only hope appears to be resting with Obama.

[ThunderJam]

Finally, a biologist doesn't claim evolution as fact. If only Christians knew what "theory" meant, we'd all get along fine. Evolution is incomplete, but we have alot of evidence in support of it. All religionists can do is say "there is a piece missing here", as if this missing piece hasn't had hundreds of scientific papers written about it already. It's why it's a theory.

How old are you (being completely respectful, im not tryin to spite you)? Cuz I would say the average high school graduate these days doesn't realize this cuz it is taught as if it is fact and no alternatives theories can or do exist :/

[Slipped]

Well, I would post on the whole evolution-creationism thing, but this isn't a religious debate. That can be saved for another topic at another time.

 

Personally, I'd be happy with either McCain or Huckabee. I voted for McCain in my state's primary, simply because I agree with much of what he stands for, including the fact that he's pro-military. I hate Hillary with a passion and I'd much rather see Obama in the White House over her, even with his lack of experience. Thoughts of a foreign country will be running through my head quite a bit if Hillary ends up winning the election. I could live with Obama, but I really don't want to see him as President either. When it comes down to it, Hillary is a dumb!@#$%^&* and Obama is inexperienced.

 

I also like Huckabee and almost all of what he stands for. I agree with him on just about all of his views on things, so I think he'd make a great President. To be honest, the more and more I read/hear about Huckabee the more I like about him.

[Aileron]

I have no problem changing the topic though. Veg can move as he sees fit.

 

First off, if a biological theory has validity, it doesn't need to be propped up by lawyers. That court case in Dover exactly describes what I am talking about. Rather than discuss the matter like biologists, evolution is propped up by ACLU laywers who sue anyone who disagrees with them. The whole incident was set up as a legal intimidation tactic. In fact, the Judge of the case, John E. Johns, copied his opinion from the ACLU. The ACLU proposed a "Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law" in the case, and the Judge's opinion was a copy of that nearly ad verbatim with 5,458 of the 6,004 words of the Judge's findings being the same as the ACLU do!@#$%^&*ent.

 

What really annoys me regarding this matter is that conservatives want a discussion, liberals want to censor, but liberals will turn around and act like they are being the fair-minded ones on this issue.

 

But, I didn't even mention intelligent design. Read my last post...Did I mention intelligent design at all? All I'm saying is that 120 years ago Darwin made a theory. Since that time, it has gone nowhere. It hasn't changed. It hasn't been proven. Subsequent theories haven't been developed. There have been questions like "How was the eye developed?" for which the vague answer provided today are the same one provided by Darwin in the original theory, but in all of that time no one has actually proved the process. Infact, some of the most famous proofs of the theory, such as the Peppered Moth Experiment, have been since discredited. (The experiment didn't take into account the moth's natural behavior.)

 

There has also been an experiment where two batches of fruit flies, one who would eat a poison, one who wouldn't, were studied in an environment where that poison was present. As it turns out the poison-eating flies survived. It was regarded that the gene to selectively not eat poison caused too many 'survival costs'. This means that if a population of fruit flies tries to evolve into a more intelligent creature, survival costs will pull it back down. Now, a questioning scientist would ask "Does this 'survival cost' impact other species as well?" My gut tells me this would probably apply to most if not all insects, but I don't know because no one ever bothered to find out. The next question would be "How does intra-species evolution occur if every time a population strays too far from the norm it starts incurring survival costs?". I'm not saying those questions don't have an answer; they probably do. What I'm saying is that biologists, intimidated into compliance by the ACLU, are not asking those questions, nor are they experimenting. The experiment should have led to a dozen or so other experiments, but instead it was quietly silenced and ignored.

 

If this were physics, the theory would have been shot down by now! But, it hasn't been. I'm not saying we all should get on the ID bandwagon, but I am saying that biologists are simply unwilling to apply any sort of discerning opinion regarding Darwin's Theory. Its not the outcome of the theory I have a problem with, it is the process used to arrive at that outcome.

[NBVegita]

I won't split the topic as long as the posts don't become singularly about that, as if you are arguing about it in support of one candidate or another that would still be on topic.

[Hoch]

Perhaps one of you non-McCain supporters or one

that leans towards the Republican Party can explain

to me why you seem to gravitate towards Obama,

who by all accounts is left of centre as compared to

all the Republican candidates.

 

-Hoch

 

A propos, I would split this thread.

[Aileron]

Well, as a Republican I want Obama to win the Democratic Primary for the following reasons:

 

1) Clinton is much more likely than Obama to run as an independent if she loses the primary.

2) When the debates for the final take place, McCain is going to make Obama look like the idiot he is.

3) I just don't want to see another Clinton in the White House.

4) I don't believe being a housewife qualifies somebody for presidency. Both Hillary Clinton and John Kerry were housewives, and I think it would be a bad precedent for a political party to nominate candidates based upon who they are married to.

5) Obama is at least consistent.

6) Hillary Clinton puts her party before the country. The reason why most Democrats voted yes to going into Iraq is because if the war didn't happen, they wouldn't have anything to protest. The plan was clearly to support Bush going into the war and then double-back and oppose it in the middle.

7) The Clintons have access to many illegal campaign funds from felons and such. Those funds would be unavailable for Obama should he get the nomination.

If Hillary wins the primary, two decades from now Chelsea is going to run for president.

9) People tend to become more conservative as they mature. Obama is young and likely to swing closer to the right as he ages. Clinton is clearly undead and not liable to change her policy ever.

10) If Clinton makes the presidency, the duo will be receiving the biggest retirement pension in the history of the US government, useful for writing books, making museums, and a bunch of other annoying things I don't want to see.

[ra$ta420]

both are !@#$%^&* one is a women other is named obama