Okay. So I'm in with my estimation of the election.

It looks extremely bad for the Republican party. Even as better news trickles in from Iraq, polling data on Iraq continues to get worse. Recent negative polling data revealed that all four of the Republican frontrunners have higher negatives than Hillary Clinton. (Negatives measure the number of people who say they will never vote for you)

The likely Republican candidate will be either Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney. Fred Thompson has neither the popularity nor the money to break into this campaign now. John McCain is all but finished.

Romney has the highest negatives of any candidate in this election, hovering around 60%. He doesn't have a chance at carrying the anti-war libertarian conservatives, though he will probably hold the economic elite. And there's a strong sense that he will be unable to carry a large portion of the evangelist population due to his Mormonism and his flip-flopping on their key issues.

Giuliani has it worse. Large portions of the traditionalist conservative movement have already demanded a third (social conservative) candidate to run if Giuliani gains the GOP nomination.

In the 1960s and 1970s, the Republican party was rebuilt on two pillars -- libertarians and traditionalists. These two pillars have held up the Republican party for the past 40 years. In 2008, the Republican Presidential nominee is at risk of losing both of those constituencies.

There is, however, one thing that can unify the Republican voters. Hillary Clinton. Despite the flamethrowing, I sincerely doubt that the traditionalists or the libertarians will sit out the election and allow Hillary to become President.

Unfortunately for the Democratic party, it doesn't look like anyone is going to beat Hillary in the Primary. So expect the general election to last well into the night as we wait on results.. because it's going to be a nail biter between.. I'll say.. Hillary and Giuliani. I know, out on a limb right?

The ironic thing is that the Democrats will nominate Hillary because they think she gives them their best chance to beat the Republicans. And the Republicans will nominate Rudy because they think he gives them their best chance to beat the Democrats. And neither side is correct. Isn't that some ****?

How disappointing did this election turn out to be? The most wide-open field in the past 50 years and we end up with the same old crap. I hope the Evangelists do run their own candidate. Not because it hurts the Republicans. I just wish more groups would run a candidate that represents what they really want, rather than just voting against the party that you don't like.

Me not being American (Canadian) ill explain what i think is going to happen according to what I've heard.

-Obama and Clinton are the two best for the Dem's.

-Giuliani and Romney are the two best for the Repub's.

-I doubt the joint party, unity 08 or something, will have a chance to run. (If theyre running completely seperately, or what?)

My guess is the Dems will win, mainly due to the negativity of Iraq.

There are people who say "Bush was the mastermind behind 9/11, and staged it, then blamed Al-Qaeda for the attacks, who took the blame to look heroic to the other "Revolutionary" anti-Americans. Then he invaded, only for the oil. Yet, every other word i hear from said people about bush is "He's a FK'in idiot, and hes retarded".

So hes a..retarded masterminded idiotic genius?..

Anyways..

In the end, like i said, Either Obama or Clinton. But, personally, I'm hoping for Giuliani. I wish things would have turned out better for McCain, he was my favorite.

It's funny how alot of people want Colbert and Stewart to run, lawl. I just hope our conservative champion, Stephen Harper, gets Re-Elected for Prime Minister, because i can't stand liberals. The liberals are all for equality and such, but...the liberals vote against the funding of Faith-Based schools (Catholic Schools, etc), whereas the Conservatives wanted to fund them? Every other province has it..

Sorry for getting a little off the topic, but thats just my opinion on the matter. Oh, and the thing that bothers me most about liberals, aside from flip-flopping, is they're too damn soft on crime.

Barack Obama looks like the truest and best canidate. But Hilary will win the nomination and beat any of the republicans. If she's smart, she'll choose barack as her running mate.

If any of the republicans get elected the country will go into chaos.

Well as far as I know, Obama is the most popular candidates as of now.
Both Hillary and Barack support the war, but people ovveride that and say "I'm voting for Obama because he'll be the first black president".
People aren't thinking here!
Me and my family aren't gonna vote this year because either way, Hillary or Barack, this country is screwed. =p

Either way the country is screwed? :lol:

Well, I see your point, if Barack Obama wasn't black I'd support hilary.

I thought we weren't racially biased? :o

Go Hillary Clinton! :P

So far, she has the highest poll ratings for the Democrats.

Was watching the CNN Republican Youtube debate the other day. Rudy Giuliani was bashing Romney big time.

Well I am a little bit. There needs to be a black pres finally.

@sun weifei: I watched that too, all the republicans had dumb stuff to say about don't ask don't tell, even after that old man spoke about it.

I concur.

Personally speaking, I doubt there'll be a Republican president next year. I mean, polls, statistics, popularity. Republican leadership has drawn up heavy criticism for the past couple of years. They're being too conservative in times when there's needs to be change. We need Liberal leaders right now, because America has to change it's policy globally and domestically. It's utter chaos.

People have a rather high dislike for republicans now. The chances of one winning is very slim.

Saddly Hilary Clinton has the highest poll ratings and is the front runner by quite alot. Shes got like 16 percent on all other Dem. and Dem. have like 30 percent on Rep. so I dont think it will change that much unless she does something really stupid, in which I am praying for. Because Hilary Clinton will make a horrible president and America is screwed. I even have thoughts of moving out of the country.

At this point I will vote for whoever the Republican represenative is.
But I am hoping for Romney. He has very good views and would make a great president. People just need to take the mormonism aside and take him for his political views, because his religion would not take a part in the politics, so I dont understand why it is a problem.

We need another president like Regan. During his presidentcy the economy was good and he actually got things done. Truly one of our best presidents.

I think saying that romney's religious will not affect him in office is a lie. Republicans beleive in a merger of church and state.

and you'd vote for a republican? ewwww

I'm terrible...

I'll be able to vote for the up coming election, but I've never taken a side when it comes to politics. I'm quite apathetic about it...
But I do really want to vote, because it's a right, and I do want to make a decision.

I think I'm a liberal conservative of sorts... I really hate how everything has to be generalized into two parties. And then if you're an "independent" no one takes you seriously...

I dunno, hopefully I'll make a decision by next year...

You know what? As good as a black president would be, we should not lower ourselves to vote for them just for that reason! Vote for who you think is right! Vote for who would make the best decisions!

Jeez, maybe I should get into politics. O_O

You should!

Well I'm not saying the only reason to vote for Obama is the fact that he's black, I'm saying the fact that he is black, when all past presidents have been white, is a positive.

How is it positive? It should all just be the same. So what your doing is racial profileing.

*Claps* nice job. Obama shouldn't be president just because he's black. I mean, you seem to be in full support of Obama because the idea of black leaders{in western soceities} in history is non present but the idea of women leaders in ALL soceities is even more non-present. So why vote him over her in that case? Treating him in this way because he's black is saying that the blacks are better then the whites, when it's all about equality of races. Which is the reason why the hate laws disappeared.

The way I see things is that none of these guys are really going to do much to improve the country. Possibly to escape the state of poverty it's reaching due to that idiot Bush, but beyond that I doubt much improvement to the country will be done. Frankly, I find all of the politicians that are most likely going to win the election unworthy to lead the country.

Well Maybe I am :lol:

I kinda like Obama myself actually, he's very outspoken and I support some of his policies and ideas. Some people doubt his abilities, because he's a newbie to the political world.

He'd my second choice other than Hillary Clinton.

Me and my parents have come up with some nicknames.

Killary and Obomba

They both want to BOMB THE LIVING **** OUT OF SUDAN for Buddha knows what reason!

Kucinich cause the biitch sees UFOs like me <3

LOL, pretty sure it's because the Darfur situation. Genocide in Sudan, been going on for years now.

Obomba. :lol:

I really can't decide who to vote for. Obama sounds like the Rock. But Huckabee is endorsed by Chuck Norris! Hmm

I know!!! When I heard that I laughed, chuck norris is hilarious. Too bad he endorsed someone as dull and biggoted as huckabee.

Frankly, I don't care for any of the politicians for this year's election. I can't vote, obviously, but I wouldn't vote anyway even if I could. There's no one running there that I feel like giving a vote to.

I don't like Chuck Norris. He's just an actor. He's not funny.
He's racist and sexist. He's the Texas version of Charlton Heston. :P

@ drewthedude ~ *high five*

He's not a newbie in the political world. He's been in politics for quite awhile, and has the credentials to lead. Compared to some other candidates in the primaries, such as Mayor Rudy Giuliani (yes I know he's a Republican rather than a Democrat, but still), who doesn't even have experience in state politics (he was merely the mayor of a city, for christ sakes!), Obama has plenty of political know-how.

The notion that he doesn't have experience is merely a rumor propagated by his political rivals.

Personally, I would vote for him if I could, but I can't. I will be able to vote in the general election though.

WOW! So many Obama Supporters, go Barack Obama 2008!

Anyway, here's my interpretation of recent events.

Rudy and Hillary sailed through the summer and fall. But their poll numbers began to return to Earth in the winter when people began paying attention to the campaigns.

This wasn't helped by a series of missteps and scandals in both campaigns.

Obama is 1-7 points ahead in Iowa (first state to caucus)
Hillary's double-digit lead in NH is down to one percentage point. (statistical tie) (second)
SC is all tied up after months of a soft Clinton lead. (third)

I'm starting to think Obama is really going to win. If he wins Iowa I think it's over. And I know that seems weird. But the current situation is a domino set like we've never seen. An Iowa win has traditionally been a bit of a tidal wave of momentum. But all he needs in NH or SC is a bump. And both of those states give their own momentum bump to the winner.

Really look no further than 2004. Kerry came out of nowhere to win Iowa and the "tidal wave" won him the next ten straight or some ridiculous streak. And he was nowhere in the polls prior to Iowa. Obviously Clinton has a stronger political machine than Dean, but she's in a weaker position in the polls. Plus Obama has the added benefit of already being extremely popular, and the preferred second choice for most third or fourth candidate voters. And on top of that, the elections are stacked so close together this year, there's very little time for maneuvering between events.

The Republican side is a complete mess.

Romney spent like 10 million dollars in Iowa and was planning on momentum to carry him to easy victory in NH and Michigan and put him over the top in SC.

Giuliani had always counted on ignoring Iowa, make a strong showing in NH and win Florida, then the "semi-national" vote on super duper tuesday.

Thompson was probably going for some kind of "Southern Strategy" which for him probably started with a showing in NH and propelled to the forefront with SC and Florida.

McCain went from having no strategy.. to then trying to recreate his 2000 strategy by winning NH.. but with better results this time.

All of these Republican strategies have been ****ed by one man, Mike Huckabee. Huckabee exploded out of nowhere two weeks ago. (See Chuck Norris advertisement) He went from 20 points down in Iowa to 13 points up. He now leads Romney in Iowa despite the fact that he spent less than 10% of what Romney spent. In the meantime, he's moved into the lead in SC and a statistical tie with Giuliani in the popular. EVERYONE'S STRATEGY IS ****ED. This is the most chaotic primary I've ever seen. By FAR the most chaotic Republican primary.

If I had to bet money on it right now? I'd put my money on Huckabee. He's going to win it on the evangelical voters. Everyone said "the evangelicals are going to split up, they have no natural candidate" when all along Huckabee was obviously an ideal candidate for evangelicals. The problem for Huckabee is that he has very bad economic credentials (according to conservative economic values) and he's not pro-war. (not popular with the military conservatives)

Meanwhile the Democratic party is salivating at the chance to run against Huckabee. And Republican voters are still saying "I want to see which Democrat we're going to be running against before I decide who to vote for in the primary."

It's a mess. I love it.

It's amazing. I totally agree, with every single one of your opinions. You're so right that it's mind-boggling. The Republican side is indeed one heck of a mess. It's so confusing now that it's impossible to determine who's really on top. With the GOP, really anybody could end up on top, even the crazy Mike Huckabee. It's incredible that a socially conservative, slightly more economically liberal, and religiously fanatic candidate like Huckabee could even at one point achieve national renown, but the downfall of Brownback's candidacy, the endorsement from Chuck Norris, and his latest performances in several recent debates have boosted his popularity to unbelievable levels. It's stunning, really, especially since his governancy in Arkansas is marred with at least a few scandals regarding the way he used public funds.

And with the Dems...well, it went from looking like Clinton had a decisive lead to looking like things are still pretty much a three-way tie. I really thought Barack Obama didn't have a chance either, but his appearance on several shows and his recent surges in popularity have greatly helped him. A scandal regarding audience member planting by the Clinton campaign has also hurt Clinton's prospects, as have Republicans and fellow Democrats attacking Clinton for various other issues. But it's still a toss-up, and either Hillary or Obama or Edwards could still take the helm.

This has by far been one of the most interesting primaries in US history, in my opinion. It's definitely the one I know the most about, and am most interested to see the result of, especially since I will be voting in the upcoming election.

Random comment:

If we have a republican like Hilary Clinton win....

1980, HW Bush is VP
1984, HW Bush is VP
1988, HW Bush is Prez
1992, Bill Clinton
1996, Bill Clinton
2000, W Bush
2004, W Bush
2008, Hillary Clinton?

Come on. Doesn't anyone else see this as a major problem in a Democratic government? It's already going to be 28 years.

In all honesty I don't think it matters who will win. Yes, I do follow what the candidates do and say, so don't take me for someone who doesn't know a thing about it. In the end who wins is not important, it's what they do while they're in office. All presidents say they'll do things that never get done, and had little chance to begin with. I'd for once, like to see a candidate do everything they say they will. Which will probably never happen.

We're just basing our opinions on the politics with their political characteristics and how they do things while running for presidency. This is what we see as a factor of what their presidency would be like.

It's been noticed by many that if Clinton wins we will have had:

Bush
Clinton
Bush
Clinton

And yes, I do see something like this as an issue...

Uh, no they don't. That'd be going against the foundations of the US. Whether they be Republican or Democrats, they would totally agree 100% on separation of church and state. And what's wrong with Republicans? I'm a Republican... :ph43r:

Anyway, just by looking at the political environment and the stance of the people, the Democrats are going to be taking this one, for sure. After the whole Bush stint, I'm sure US citizens are ready for a change. As for who will be the actual winning Democrat candidate, I don't know myself but whoever wins, either Obama or Clinton, will be making some serious history. First US female or black president? Who knows...

Yeah, most don't believe in that nonsense. Although, I have serious problems with some of Huckabee's statements regarding religion...

By the way, Mister Majesty, that was a pretty offensive statement. I'm not a Republican either, but still; the US is pretty evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans, so mocking people for voting Republican is pretty weak.

Yeah My point about the Clinton-Bush dynasty is that Hillary Clinton would not even be in the top 3 candidates on the Democratic side right now if she were not a Clinton. The Clinton name is worth more today than all of Joe Biden's ability and all of Chris Dodd's intelligence. And that is simply idiotic. The fact that Hillary continues a dynasty isn't my problem. My problem is that the dynasty exists.

Name Recognition has historically always proven to be the biggest asset of a politician. How do you think George W. Bush became president? How do you think that Napoleon III became a leader of France in the 19th century?

I think there is no problem with me voicing my dislike for republicans. Just like I have no problem with you voicing your dislike for what I said.

It's one thing to say, "I don't like the GOP for such and such reasons." It's a totally different thing to say, "EEEEWWWW REPUBLICANS!" How would you like it if I said, "EWWWW DEMOCRATS?" It's not that you're not allowed to voice your opinion, but the way you presented it was pretty insulting.