Conquer Club

Two GOP and two Democrats left in the race (for all practical purposes).

My thoughts...

Hillary is going to clean Obama's clock on Super Tuesday. Never underestimate the power of the Clintonista political machine, the parks are littered wtih the corpses (figuratively, and in the case of Vince Foster, literally) of their rivals.

Obama is not going to be her VP choice, it would be a smart move, but there is NO WAY that the Queen Bee is going to have anyone else on the stage with her to distract attention from her. Nancy Pelosi is the same way, just look who she picked to be the House Whip (I bet you can't name him, and if you could, could not tell me anything about him, because he's a NOBODY from NOWHERE, which is what Hillary's VP choice will be, a NOBODY from NOWHERE...and the house Whip is Jim Clyburn, a notably unnotable elderly congressman from South Carolina, I'm guessing that the wilds of South Dakota, Kansas, or some other 'fly over' state are being scoured now for a suitable running mate for Hillary).

Obama may get a choice cabinet post, or may just go back to the Senate. John Edwards is more than likely attempting to parlay his delegates in advance for a shot at Attorney General.

On the GOP front, I predict a McCain nomination, and in a 'Kennedy vs LBJ' moment where political enemies become running mates, Romney will parlay his 40% of delegates into a VP nod. Rudy will likely be either the AG or Dept of Homeland Security top kick (the deal has in all likelyhood been made) and Huckabee has evidently been promised something by McCain to stay in the race (which bleeds votes from Romney far more than from McCain), so look for Huckabee to get a choice cabinet post (and perhaps a VP nod if Romney does not want to play ball). There is no reason for Huckabee (who is out of money, and is not going to be able to raise more running a distant third) to stay in the race EXCEPT as the stalking horse for McCain, so the deals have probably been made and the fix is in.

In the general election I predict that it will be Hillary/nobodyyoueverheardof vs McCain/Romney (or McCain/Huckabee, but that is a very DISTANT possibility) and McCain will win all the marble, because at the end of the day we are all still very much afraid of the Islamic Facists who still want all of us dead, and McCain is the only one who has been consistently right about how to fight the war on terror. I think that the spectre of rampant inflation and unemployment (stagflation) that we havn't seen since the Carter Administration will play a HUGE part in how America votes overall, and the Democratic party has already shown that when they control all the marbles, the economy finds itself a handbasket and goes to hell in it.

If you currently pay anything in taxes, a vote for Hillary (or Obama for that matter) is a vote to raise your taxes in 2010. George Bush's 'tax cuts for the rich' expire in 2010, and they go to pre-Bush levels for EVERYONE (not just for the rich, because the cuts were across the board in every tax bracket). If you don't pay any taxes at all, then you are ok.

any thoughts?

I think the Final Four will be Kansas, Memphis, North Carolina, and Kansas State

brianm wrote:any thoughts?

Impressive analysis, with which I completely agree. A McCain-Romney or McCain-Huckabee ticket would really be a positive thing. That said, I'm not confident about the Republicans' chances come November. Most people will probably conceitedly think themselves particularly smart in not voting republican, robably spouting a load of nonsensical bullshit about not wanting another Bush.

Free Premium says Republicans will get ABSOLUTELY KILLED.
Who's going to see my Premium?!

Napoleon Ier wrote:

brianm wrote:any thoughts?

Impressive analysis, with which I completely agree. A McCain-Romney or McCain-Huckabee ticket would really be a positive thing. That said, I'm not confident about the Republicans' chances come November. Most people will probably conceitedly think themselves particularly smart in not voting republican, robably spouting a load of nonsensical bullshit about not wanting another Bush.

How would that be nonsense?

I think Kansas will win the final four next month

suggs wrote:Free Premium says Republicans will get ABSOLUTELY KILLED.
Who's going to see my Premium?!

I doubt it. In order for the democrats to win they need to gain a few red states. Unfortunaty, most red states vote 80-90% republican each year. So unless a place like Florida or Ohio becomes the one state that matters, it's gonna probably be the republicans.

I'm not saying that McCain/Romney was a GREAT IDEA (personally, McCain is the only person I have any enthusiasm for, and that's only because I think he will FIGHT the terrorists rather than politic the situation and run the war by focus group results). Other than that I think he'd be the best Commander In Chief of the bunch (from either party) there is only one other thing about McCain that I feel would be 'postive' (from my point of view), and that is that I think that he'd make good selections for judges (both for the federal benches and the Supreme Court). He believes in selecting Constructionist judges, and those tend to get less involved in judicial activism (the process of changing the Constitution is via amendment, not legislation from the bench).

I'm just calling the nominations the way I see it happening, and while personally if a Democrat was to be elected I would prefer it to be Obama, however, I think after Super Tuesday when we look back and see that Clinton won a plurality of delegates I'll be one of the few who can say 'I told ya so'...

I'd vote for Obama, but realistically, the Clinton machine is going to win, and it won't be nearly as close as you might think.

As for the pros and cons of each candidate, I'd rate them as follows:

GOP:
McCain - PRO:best Commander in Chief, would make good selections for federal judges, can work with the opposition party well (something Bush and Clinton never achieved, but something Reagan was excellent at). CON:questionable judgement in regards to immigration, may allow the Bush tax cuts to expire (or at the least, not push to have them renewed as hard as he should), won't listen to his advisors on most issues.

Romney - PRO:Washington outsider (less likely to try the same old same old, though that can be a double edged sword), has good grasp of what makes the economy tick, not afraid to shake things up. CON:won't be able to get the Pelosi/Reid hedgemony to do anything, no military experience (would still be tied with Clinton as second best choice for commander in chief), bad healthcare plan.

DEMS:
Clinton - PROrobably won't retreat from the terrorists, can make the Democrats in Congress toe the line, will piss off the Islamo-facists to no end that a woman will be in charge of our military...CONS:No military experience, aweful health care plan, judge selection will be activists, will tank the economy in less than two years (to be fair, with the Dems in control of Congress, this will happen if any Democrat becomes president).

Obama - PRO:Only candidate running who can actually be described as a decent human being, smart but in a practical and realistic way rather than idealistic way, will be able to work with the more moderate Republicans in Congress. Has a clue about what needs to be done to fix healthcare problems. CONSerhaps the worst choice for Commander in Chief of the bunch, will tank the economy in less than a year (though, to be honest he won't even know it because the damage will be from Pelosi/Reid allowed to run amock), I don't think he has the ruthlessness to fight the war on terror (will gut the intelligence community much the same way Bill Clinton did, just as we've rebuilt it), will more than likely gut the military budget (which would be a disaster while we are at war, which means we'll declare peace and just wait for 9/11 v2.0).

brianm wrote: CONS I don't think he has the ruthlessness to fight the war on terror .

Thats a pro...

Brian M you make some lunatic point about the economy "tanking" if the Dems win.
Remember a chap called Bill Clinton?
Remember the best EVER performance of the US economy in the 90's.

Shame really, as that devalues everything else you said to the status of "Complete Dribble".
All the best squire,
Suggs.

i have some reservations about romney and the economy to be honest. Now im not going to pretend he doesnt far and away have the most expereience, but the things he was saying...at least in michigan, about how he was going to revitalize the economy, seemed rather questionable in the context of what is and seems likely to be going on in the future.

Having said that suggs, bill clinton also stumbled into quite the internet boom which didnt hurt the economy while he was running the ship. I think no matter who the president is theres going to be a bit of a tough time with the economy in the short run, until the us can find another niche to have a competitive advantage. Interestingly, i think Green economics in the short run might do that, simply because there are going to be a lot of countries attempting to green themselves, so if you have the infrastructure and technology to do that you will probably do alright.

I would think the dems might have a better shot at that, being the naturally more environmentally friendly party, but i think everyone at least realizes theres a need to change energy sources, so i think anyone with the right leadership could start that road.

By the way, theres also an interesting discussion about the War on Terror here...Should you really vote or not vote for someone because they will fight it well. On a simple level the answer is probably yes in terms of national security. But the war on terror isnt a simple concept. You can do everything wrong, and if they arent going to attack its not going to happen. You can have done everything right, and someone with enough will and means will slip through the lines and attack. I find the whole idea rather disconcerting that people tend not to realize this.

suggs wrote:Free Premium says Republicans will get ABSOLUTELY KILLED.
Who's going to see my Premium?!

Please define what "getting killed" means. I might take you up on this. Losing a close election is not the same as getting killed. Plus, there's the congressional elections which the Republicans may win. You never know...it's a long time until November (in political time that is).

Fair points all.
I barely understand the system, so i'm a no-no for the Congressionals.
I guess i meant the Rublicans getting about 2/3 of the total votes than they did in 2000.
Which for you guys might be a bit meaningless, given the electoral college, but i would assume it should still convert to a hefty Democrat win.

[quote=got tonkaed]By the way, theres also an interesting discussion about the War on Terror here...Should you really vote or not vote for someone because they will fight it well. On a simple level the answer is probably yes in terms of national security. But the war on terror isnt a simple concept. You can do everything wrong, and if they arent going to attack its not going to happen. You can have done everything right, and someone with enough will and means will slip through the lines and attack. I find the whole idea rather disconcerting that people tend not to realize this.[/quote]

In my opinion, the defining issue of our times is how to handle the war in Iraq, and how to deal with our terrorist enemies (which includes Iran and Syria, and any other country that gives money or aid directly to terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda or Hamas).

The rest of it is fluff, and Congress will decide most of those issues anyway (really, the president has exactly ZERO input on legislation regarding abortion rights vs the rights of the unborn, it will either pass by an overwhelming majority in Congress or it will never make it to the president's desk).

So, while all of these various issues on where a future president might stand can be interesting, and may even give you a good idea of the philosophy and thought processes of the candidate, the only real issue that the president will have primary responsibility in setting and implementing policy will be homeland security, the war on terror, and the war in Iraq.

And on that issue alone, the Democrats all but disqualify themselves from consideration unless acceptable defeat or unilateral surrender is an option you can live with.

i personally think if those are the defining issues of our time....America will not have to worry in any way about thinking its a hegemon in the next two decades, as we will have been lapped by a number of countries, while be lost in a foolish assumption that the military complex is the most important thing for our country right now.

Yes national security is always important, but from a historical level, the war in iraq and a war against terrorism that has been quesitionably defined and has very bad parameters for success, is not something to hinge a historical destiny on.

Although who knows-the war in Iraq may turn out to be a good thing.

suggs wrote:Although who knows-the war in Iraq may turn out to be a good thing.

We are winning it, the iraqies have for the most part realized that violence only leads to more violence, which in turn has led to less violence. Unfortunatly for Mr. Bush, he probably wont get to take any credit for it because a democrat will probably be in office by the time full peace is achived.

Grooveman2007 wrote:Unfortunately for Mr. Bush, he probably wont get to take any credit for it because a democrat will probably be in office by the time full peace is achieved.

Oh yeah! Using your logic then...Nixon/Ford and the Republican Party would get blamed for the failure in Vietnam. Oh wait, that's already happened. Ok, you win.

suggs wrote:Brian M you make some lunatic point about the economy "tanking" if the Dems win.
Remember a chap called Bill Clinton?
Remember the best EVER performance of the US economy in the 90's.

Shame really, as that devalues everything else you said to the status of "Complete Dribble".
All the best squire,
Suggs.

Clinton just took credit for the policies set up by Reagan in the 80s.

Grooveman2007 wrote:Clinton just took credit for the policies set up by Reagan in the 80s.

Also, don't forget that he lied about the economy in 1992 when he said it was that Bush #41 had compiled the worst economic record in the past 50 years.

suggs wrote:Free Premium says Republicans will get ABSOLUTELY KILLED.
Who's going to see my Premium?!

Not me. And I hate Democrats.

Ah yes, well, perhaps if the Democrats get elected, we might get a few more civil rights in writing. What do you think?

Oh, and I don't want to hear about Democratic lies. Both sides are pretty ridiculous when it comes to untruths.

A thread titled "The Final Four", and everyone's talking politics.

got tonkaed wrote:i personally think if those are the defining issues of our time....America will not have to worry in any way about thinking its a hegemon in the next two decades, as we will have been lapped by a number of countries, while be lost in a foolish assumption that the military complex is the most important thing for our country right now.

Yes national security is always important, but from a historical level, the war in iraq and a war against terrorism that has been quesitionably defined and has very bad parameters for success, is not something to hinge a historical destiny on.

While it is true that we could do nothing and trust to luck that we would not be attacked, and we could do all we could possibly do and still get attacked anyway, I don't see how that is a logical arguement. Are you saying that it is best to leave all your doors open at night because if someone REALLY wanted to get inside they will do so anyway? That's foolish.

Liberals are always upset about the idea of fighting against evil (unless that evil is a Marine Recruitment center in Berkley California) but history has proven again and again that the ONLY way to defeat evil is that you must be willing to fight against it, accept that you may not win every battle, and fight until you break their will to continue the fight. This strategy has ALWAYS worked when it was tried (example, World War II, the Cold War) and the strategy of limited struggle or appeasement has ALWAYS failed when it was tried (example, the buildup to world war 2, the Vietnam War).

However, I do not think that it is an accident or a lack of will on the part of the international terrorists that they have not attacked us here at home again since September 11, 2001. I think that we have taken positive steps to intercept terrorist plots, and while I am sure that eventually one such attack will get thru to us again, it is better than allowing ALL attacks to get through to hit us. I also think that the strategy of taking the war to THEM in Afghanistan and Iraq has done a lot to bleed their organizations of their best and brightest members and of financial resources, and that too has contributed to us not having a major attack on our homeland.

In short, I can think of a lot of positive reasons to continue to fight the war on terror. I think that there is NO QUESTION that doing so makes us safer. The question is, do you HONESTLY think that we would be safer if we stopped fighting against Radical Islam?