Peerless Frediction

Discussion in 'Miscellaneous' started by HatterDon, May 30, 2007.

  1. HatterDon

    HatterDon Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2006
    Location:
    Peoples Republic of South Texas
    or is that the other way round? In any event, I've been saying this for about 3 months now, but haven't committed it to paper yet. So here goes:

    The two "front runners" in each party -- Rudy and McCain; Obama and Hillary -- have one thing in common. NONE OF THEM will be in serious contention by April 1. Why?

    1. The Republicans will be concerned with bolstering their social conservative base. Neither Guiliani nor McCain reflect the core values that they're comfortable with.

    2. The Democrats will be concerned with widening their appeal beyond their social liberal base. Both Obama and Hillary are poison to any appeal to "the center."

    Who will it be? I have a good feeling for who the eventual Democratic candidate may be, but I'm puzzled about the Republican field. Every time they debate, I become even more puzzled. Newt Gingrich seems best placed, but he has almost as many "honey where's my checkbook" negatives going for him as does Hillary.

    Anyhow, thought I'd put that on "paper," and even though it is about US politics, I'd be interested in other opinions. [And these are MY opinions -- they're not regurgitated from any blogs or pundits.]
     
    #1
    HatterDon, May 30, 2007
  2. pettyfog

    pettyfog Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    I dont know whetehr it's individualistic views or if he's been around Democrats too long.. but McCain has almost NO poistitions that resonate with the conservative base that The GOP needs. Not a chance in hell.
    Rudy would be a good president, his positions that counter the base have been well explained and are acceptable to me. But Don is right.

    And they are getting further and further from the center. Of course they'll tack quickly toward the center once and if... but their speeches are recorded and easy campaign fodder, blame Move-On and Huffington and Kos
    Amazing how personal failings only count if you're a Republican... but Newt is only good as a core campaigner... no chance.
    And mine are? Research my links... I may be motivated by what I read in the blogs, but I LINK MSM while your replies are straight from HuffPo and MoveOn memes... whether or not you actually read them.

    Fred Thompson will make quite a run once he commits.
     
    #2
    pettyfog, May 30, 2007
  3. Spencer

    Spencer Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2005
    I can see it playing out that way. I think it could happen quite easily on the Democratic side, but I see either McCain or RudyG winning the Republican nomination.

    But yeah its so very unpredictable, all it takes is one big gaff by a front runner to throw a screw into everything. And the media is seemingly going this way and that way, hyping this candidate and another(why else would anyone be supporting Fred Thompson??). I think so much of it will be luck, who's got the hype. It all very unhealthy, the extent of the media's influence is dangerous.
     
    #3
    Spencer, May 30, 2007
  4. pettyfog

    pettyfog Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    The only candidate being 'hyped' by the media is McCain. As I said, he doesnt have a chance in hell of getting the nomination. he simply cannot be trusted to do ANYTHING he will campaign on.
    McCain-Feingold killed him politically and his stance on the border isnt helping. He simply doesnt get it!

    Rudy has more conservative support than you'd expect... if you're a 'Buchanan' conservative, maybe not but few actually ARE. And BTW, Don will doubtless be disappointed but the effects of VRWCC like James Dobson {against Rudy, for Newt} is vastly overrated, only outsiders and Dobson devotees think he has much influence.

    Some {libertarian, specifically} are afraid of Rudy's authoritarian attitude.. saying he'll take what Bush has done to 'expand presidential powers' and run further out. I reject the premise that Bush HAS expanded the powers.. he cannot do so without congress. and the 'checks and balances' were put into play.

    But if you dont understand WHY Fred Thompson, you need to read up. A real outsider, has forged no ties that will influence his decisions. You gotta like a candidate who left the Senate longing for the 'relative reality of Hollywood'.

    Now.. just waiting for the remarks on Fred's 'qualifications' ...
    :)
     
    #4
    pettyfog, May 31, 2007
  5. HatterDon

    HatterDon Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2006
    Location:
    Peoples Republic of South Texas
    A couple of points ... and 'fog, if you find anything in my first post or in this one that's partisan, you're amazing. I'm just stating facts here.

    The 2007 front runners have already served a lasting purpose in the campaign:

    1. On the Republican side, Guiliani's association with and constant referral to 911 and McCain's unswerving support of the president's "surge" in Iraq, have kept the most important lever towards keeping the Republicans in power at the forefront. National defense and the perception that Republicans are more likely than Democrats to keep the country safe is what is most likely to attract swing voters. Even though neither of these guys may be around next November, just on the evidence of the most recent Republican candidate debate, McCain's success in tying support for the troops to support for the war is going to make it impossible now for any emergent Republican candidate to soften that stance.

    2. On the Democratic side, Obama and Clinton have firmly wedged expanded medical insurance -- funded by cancelling "the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy" and [only implied so far] by ending the war -- as part of core Democrat-2008 strategy. Every Democratic candidate either has or is beginning to develop his own version of Obama and Clinton health care. There's no way that the 30-45 million uninsured will NOT be the Democrats talking point throughout the campaign.

    In this way, the "Big Four" will continue to impact the election even as their individual popularity wanes.

    I don't know how many realize -- and I know you caught it as quickly as I did 'fog -- just how much the president affected the 2008 race yesterday. In calling for Congress to increase funding towards the treatment of AIDs and AIDs-related health problems in Africa, and in explicitly labeling the tragedy in Darfur as genocide, the president has IN ONE DAY provided whoever is the Republican presidential candidate in 2008 with the means to answer his Democratic counterpart's attack on our foreign policy and our image abroad. Fantastic political move. The guy just doesn't care what his poll numbers are or that he's a lame duck. Amazing.

    As for Fred Dalton Thompson, he has a fine resume -- resembling more than anyone George HW Bush in 1980. His GREATEST appeal to the Republican hierarchy, and the reason why he's so popular to conservatives of every stripe, however, is that he's unemployed politically and has been for quite a while. As a result of his leaving the Senate to resume his acting career, he was out of the political arena during the period when Republicans in Congress became associated with the war, with Duke Cunningham, with Tom Delay, with rewriting laws after they'd been voted on, and with rubber-stamp support of the president. There isn't a single thing that he's done during the Bush administration that he can be called out on -- national defense, domestic security, immigration reform -- nothing. THAT is why he's popular. THAT's why he's the Republican most likely to get the nomination.

    TNT is going to hate him, though. If he does "throw his hat in the ring" the same rules will apply to him that applied to Reagan in the '76, '80, and '84 campaigns: his movies and TV appearances will not be shown during the campaign. Hard to imagine TNT without Law and Order
     
    #5
    HatterDon, May 31, 2007
  6. Spencer

    Spencer Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2005
    There not hyping Obama? Its cooled now, but for a while he was all they'd talk about. If they hadn't I think its quite possible that he would have never gotten into the race.

    For a while they were slobbering all over Edwards, and lately Hillary. On the other side they keep going on about Thompson and how he looks to be presidential and he's just what the republican base is looking for. I'm not saying its a predetermined thing but it does happen. One person in the media shouts Thompson and all the sudden the rest of the media gets all star eyed over Fred Thompson and for a month and a half they can't talk about anyone else.
     
    #6
    Spencer, May 31, 2007
  7. pettyfog

    pettyfog Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Some of us thought Fred should have run in 2000. Including me.

    I cant prove that now that matchnight's gone, but believe me... the 'media' has been FAR behind the bloggers about Thompson.
     
    #7
    pettyfog, Jun 1, 2007
  8. Team_of_McBrides

    Team_of_McBrides New Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2007
    Only positive of Hillary possibly gaining office is that Bill is once again back in the White House.

    Rugy G continually gains fair weather support from both sides. Can't see him taking office though.

    All in all I feel that the Republican party will pose little threat to the Democratic candidate come the election.

    My vote goes to Obama. Love his inspirational speeches, plans for the future and his general demeanor evokes a sense of confidence. He's an individual who I can see making wise choices with our nation's future in terms of health care, energy consumption, "global warming", war in Iraq, terrorism, social security and international diplomacy.
     
    #8
    Team_of_McBrides, Jun 2, 2007

Share This Page