Who do you think will become the US president?

This is about your prediction, not who you wish becomes the president.

Not that i care, but i think it will be McCain

I think whoever McCain picks as a running mate is crucial. I heard today that Condoleza Rice wouldn't rule out a VP offer - I don't know if she would be good or bad for McCain.

Why isn't there an "LLC" choice?

Jesus, I accidentally clicked McCain in attempt to select Obama, only to find he's already in the lead.

That's yuckier than it is surprising.

All those in the list have funding sources that extend beyond New York public fountains

Considering that McCain has been trying to distance himself from the Bush White House....Rice as VP is a shitty idea. Why tie oneself to anything connected with toxic waste?

As for the poll, is this asking who I want to be President, or who I think will win?

If its McCain/Hillary, McCain will win.

If its McCain/Obama, Obama will win.

EDIT - People voted for Hillary?

It is who you think will win...

Ya, if these DAM Democrats keep F..cking around, McCain will become President. I really don't think he will though. Not with a Republican President being in office for the last 8 years and the country in the shitter the way it is.

I can only predict as I see it at this point. If Clinton wins the Dem Nomination I think McCain will win, if Obama wins the Dem nomination I think Obama will win.

Anything can happen in the next few months. In my view, right now McCain is getting pretty much a free ride. Once the Dems get a candidate it'll tighten up the polls between the two. McCain won't have it so easy after that. Afterall, what's politics without the dirt.

Anyway, I'll go with Obama.


TIS

McCain.

Another Pezzanovante.

I think Obama will beat McCain.

It has historically been extemely difficult for one party to remain in the presidency for more than two terms. The election will hinge on two main issues: the U.S. economy and the Iraq war.

Ronnierocket is correct: the last thing McCain needs in a running mate is someone like Rice who is so intimately tied to the Bush-Cheney administration. Although it would be helpful to have a minority running mate if the opposition is Obama, Rice is not the correct minority candidate to choose.

I also agree 100% with TIS: If Hillary somehow were to obtain the nomination, whether by superdelegate controversy or just by blowing by Obama in the last primaries (not likely), she will definitely lose to McCain. She is a lightning rod within her own party, let alone the right-wing haters she has accumulated.

It all comes down to voter turnout. Much of the Democrats lead so far is based on the youth vote. I'm not confident that they will turn out in large numbers to support Democrats.

McCain has a crucial advantage: he's already got the GOP nomination. Now he's focusing on messages of "unity" and "bipartisanship," reaching out beyond the GOP while the Dems are still bashing each other. Clinton or Obama could end up in the general election with only their current supporters on their side, while McCain captures the undecideds.

Do you think McCain's age might be a issue?

True to some extent. But don't you think that all of the bashing keeps the Dems stimulated and on the front page?

Barack Obama

Obama

TB there is something else at work here. McCain has the GOP nomination, but he has it with as much enthusiasm from the GP base as George Bush Sr. had it 1992. His findraising is anemic. Plus the more "bipartisan" and "centrist" he appears, the more he will cause the nut cases to stay home. He is moderate on abortion (pays lip service to being against it, but no one believes him) does not believe in torture, believes in global warming, believes in free trade (which hurts among "Reagan Democrats") and is willing to reach across the aisle to get things done. These are IMHO good qualities, but for the far religious right they are not, and I see them not raising money and staying home.

His big issue is experience and basically "Who do you want as commander in chief in the next four years?" This is what the GOP always wins on, and for the Dems to win they have to be able to counterpunch. Here I think Obama may have a huge advantage. If he picks, as I think he will, Senator Webb from Virginia, a man of impeccable miliary credentials, their "outside the box" response to the anticipated "Democrats are weak" is this: McCain's concept of "strength" and "national security" is flawed and out of date. By focusing so much on "winning" Iraq, we face a pyhrric victory. The army is almost broken. Mid level officers are leaving in droves, and the next generation of generals will be second raters. We face danger elsewhere, and we have put all our eggs into one basket, which basket is a flawed policy. Better a sensible way out of Iraq even if there is Iraqi bloodshed and a shift in the balance of power in the Middle East to more shia strength (actually this might be a good counter balance to the Sunni extremeists), than an ongoing expensive war without end. Bottom line... if we bleed to death in Iraq, and wind up with a broken and weakened army, AND have bad economic consequences at home are a weaker or a stronger nation? It can be made into a compelling argument and it can winn in November.

Intersting points, Dontomasso. I hope you're right about the right-wing extremists not supporting McBush in November. Amazingly, McCain is still trying to talk about all the warring factions in Iraq and continues to make the same mistakes (as recently as yesterday) about who is fighting. This, to me, is the result of a much bigger problem - McCain is, as Sollozzo once famously said, "slippin'." Big time.

I haven't heard much of Webb's name since we won in 2006 over the opponent who made "macacca" fau paux. Whomever Obama chooses, it has to be somebody viewed with a formidable resume and credibility.

If McCain gets sworn in, do you think there'll be a rise in sales of his oven chips?

Another name I've heard is Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen, who's main schtick has been healthcare.....a major election issue looming this fall.

John McCain

The danger that the Dems face is the same one that caused the Goldwater debacle in 1964, and an exact repeat by McGovern on the other side of the aisle in '72. In both cases, they captured their respective primaries and conventions on the shoulders of fervent, partisan supporters who were influential and well organized--but constituted only a minority of the electorate. And, in the general election, both Goldwater and McGovern spent most of their time "preaching to the choir"--those already committed to them. They didn't reach out to the midde of their own parties, to the uncommitted, and to those in the other parties.

The fact that the GOP right wing is lukewarm on McCain could be a big asset in the general election: most GOP voters (and most Dems, too) aren't religious fundamentalists, anti-abortion, pro-war, etc. I hope that once Clinton or Obama nail the nomination, they'll reach out to those constituencies, too. But for now, while they're of necessity being heavily partisan, McCain is making hay while the sun shines.

Obama is the current fund-raising champ. But what if, once he wins the nomination, his givers decide that it's all over, or that they gave enough? He'll need money from people who haven't given to him yet--people McCain may already have locked up.

TB, keep in mind that unlike Goldwater and McGovern, the Dems primary stats are huge. Also, fundraisers will tell you that those who gave once are very likely to give again.

I disagree, Turnbull, about the comparison to McGovern. Unlike that election, the Democrats are not running against an incumbent president. It's been well documented the lengths to which Nixon went to discredit anybody and everybody who was trying to take his place. Nixon wanted the weakest possible opponent (and did not want to run against a third Kennedy) and got his wish with McGovern, who was as weak a candidate as Dukakis or Mondale.

The other aspect which I think this election is different lies with the fact that Obama has the ability to reach across party lines and certainly toward independents. I agree with you that McGovern did not do that in the '72 election. McCain has demonstrated this same ability and for a longer time than Obama, but Clinton cannot come close to reaching across party lines as McCain & Obama do. At the end of the day, people will fundamentally be choosing between more of the same (McCain) policies of the past 8 years or an alternative direction (Obama).

Regarding the fundraising, McCain is much more apt to pick up big donors, who contribute in the thousands. Obama has, and I believe will continue to, get the working and middle class donations. I feel that Obama has demonstrated more fundraising appeal to the Joe Averages out there than either Hillary or McCain. McCain will reaching out to the same big corporate donors and lobbyists that Bush received.

I have not exhaustive research. However, the few states that I have reviewed leads me to believe Obama is not as strong as perceived in crossover Republicans nor independents. The states I have looked at hard returns and county by county results have shown he has beat HRC in tradional Democratic strongholds. Likewise in the traditional Republican strongholds he has done poorly. Intersting when you look at county by county election returns and color in the map. Let's say HRC is pink (call me a cheuvenist :)) and make Obama blue. Go across the U.S and color in the map by county and you will see a lot of pink.

Take my own state Missouri, Obama won the state vote. However, he won only 5-6 counties (he trounced HRC). HRC, on the other hand won handliy in the other 105 counties.

Caucases are an anamoly and cannot be considered as it is easy to scew the results one way or the other.

However, the other states I have looked at (and granted I have not seen them all) have this same trend.

If Obamaa gets the nomination (and I am ASSuming he will), I am not sure he will be able to garner enough support in the Democaratic areas to overcome the Republican areas.

Further -- think about it -- we are only talking about battles in about 10 or 12 states. The others are so strongly entrenched either Republican or Democratic that it does not make a difference.

Just an observation -- I dont suport either candidate!

Hillary lacks the crossover appeal that McCain holds for Democrats, and, coversely, that Obama holds for Republicans. It's quite an interesting phenomenon.

Well, assuming that he gets the Democratic nod, I'm sticking by my guns with Obama, although I believe it will be a verrrrrrrrry tight general election.

You raise good points Partagas. I agree that we shouldn't be so quick to extrapolate a caucus win into carrying a state in November. But it appears, and we all know looks can be deceiving, that Obama can win a few states that went Republican in 2000 & 2004. Whether this plays out, we'll see. But I think Clinton's approach of just trying to win the big states and hoping for a win in either Florida or Ohio is flawed.

I picked McCain to win. I appears the Hillary balloon is losing air. So let's assume it's BO. Will the youth (or should I say younger) vote and the minority vote be enough to offset all of the folks who still can't get themselves to vote for a Negro? I know my die-hard Democrat in-laws in Pennsylvania will have a hard time pulling the lever for a man of color. They just stopped using the n-word a few years ago.

Well, she's campaigned in just about every state, not just the big ones (remember New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina).

The electoral vote scenarios are endless. Winning big electoral vote states cannot be ignored. With 20% of the electorate now consisting of Independents, I'm guessing that most of those Independents are apostate Republicans. So, I think they could be attracted to Clinton rather than Obama.

Not trying extrapolate at all with caucases. I think those are extremely scewed and should not be looked at all when thinking of November. I mean give me a break -- Obama took kansas with 70% of the caucas -- you think he could carry Kansas?

I think the real question we have here is, which candidate has the most baggage?

If it becomes McCain/Obama this fall...which candidate is representing the party associated with both an economic downturn, the party now even admitting they "sorta" fucked up the planning and staging of the Iraq War, and that conflict going nowhere soon at this rate...

Then you have the GOP, which many disgruntled conservatives can tell you, haven't done jack shit in the last 6 years they had Congress before losing it in 2006 during Bush's Presidency, and they can preach and sermon about how the evil Democrats will raise your taxes....and this time, they just feel empty.

I mean, when Bush is your biggest spending Presidency since LBJ....someone fucked up along the way.

I think Obama could win not simply whatever he's the better candidate or not, but 2008 is a year when the public will be asked, "Do you want a Sequel to Dubya?"

As for Obama/Kansas....again, we're mistaking the forest for the trees.

Obama won't necessarily win red states, but he could threaten them, such traditionally soft GOP turf that McCain will have to spend cash and time to tend fortifications for...and cash is which he is sorely lacking, compared to Dubya the last two elections.

Everyone keep in mind that caucuses are party functions. Nationally, they're only indicative of the possible numbers that will turnout to vote. The Dems have the lead so far, but, again, the Indepenents willprobably be pivotal.

I said "we" but meant the "media" in regard to extrapolating the caucuses to the general election - my mistake. No I do not think that Obama will take states in which there have been conservative strongholds. I merely meant that he has a chance in the states that were teetering in 2000 & 2004 and went Republican.

As was pointed out earlier, the election, I think, may well be determined by the states, which typically aren't locked in as a Dem or Rep state. These include, but are not necessarily linited to, Florida, Ohio, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Colorado, Nevada, Virginia and Wisconsin. Of those states, I think the Democratic candidate wins all, except Florida, Missouri and Virginia, and wins the election with about 294 electoral votes.

I will predict that the state with the closest race will be Missouri.

Keep in mind it is very early and a lot can happen.

McCain Erases Obama Lead

Apr 10, 1:39 PM (ET)

By NEDRA PICKLER

WASHINGTON (AP) - Republican Sen. John McCain has erased Sen. Barack Obama's 10-point advantage in a head-to-head matchup, leaving him essentially tied with both Democratic candidates in an Associated Press-Ipsos national poll released Thursday.

The survey showed the extended Democratic primary campaign creating divisions among supporters of Obama and rival Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and suggests a tight race for the presidency in November no matter which Democrat becomes the nominee.

McCain is benefiting from a bounce since he clinched the GOP nomination a month ago. The four-term Arizona senator has moved up in matchups with each of the Democratic candidates, particularly Obama.

An AP-Ipsos poll taken in late February had Obama leading McCain 51-41 percent. The current survey, conducted April 7-9, had them at 45 percent each. McCain leads Obama among men, whites, Southerners, married women and independents.


(AP) Republican presidential candidate, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., addresses the crowd during a town...
Full Image

Clinton led McCain, 48-43 percent, in February. The latest survey showed the New York senator with 48 percent support to McCain's 45 percent. Factoring in the poll's margin of error of 3.1 percentage points, Clinton and McCain are statistically tied.

That is funny!

If McCain gets sworn in I predict that he'll have a heart attack from the shock.

I don't really know that much about US politics but Mr. McCain was in the UK press saying nice things about us Brits so he gets my vote.....even though i don't have a vote

You Brits are great cooks and you tan better than anybody.

True. But in the meantime, here are some of the primary voting stats by party. As you can see, the Dems are doing pretty good.

Date State Turnout
Jan. 3 Iowa (D)118,696 (R)354,355
Jan. 8 New Hampshire (R)288,058 (D)527,376
Jan. 15 Michigan (R)592,261 (D)1,481,761
Jan. 19 Nevada (D)44,315 (R)161,874
South Carolina (R)532,468 (D)978,145
Jan. 29 Florida (D)1,924,346 (R)4,239,350
Feb. 1-3
Alabama (D)554,248 (R)1,090,541
Alaska (D)15,000 (R Proj.)23,621
Arizona (D)527,335 (R)970,659
Arkansas (D)226,001 (R)780 (G)537,696
California (D)2,932,811 (R)46,022 (A)35,844 (G) 16,858 (L)6,444 (P)9,068,415
Colorado (D)65,400 (R)185,401
Connecticut (D)146,333 (R)483,602
Delaware (D)49,281 (R)143,956
Georgia (D)963,447 (R)2,024,214

McCain was pretty cool on THE VIEW the other day.

Watching him and Barbara Walters reminisce about the Civil War brought a tear to my eyes.

Ooooh....you get my vote also

Well it doesn't really matter who I think will win the truth is that no matter who wins this nation will be f*cked.

Ice, I always love your optimistic view on things

Yogi,

Just out of curiosity, is our election "big" news there and, although they don't have a say, is there any one candidate that the Brits seem to prefer? One that they think will work well with your leader? I suppose this question could apply to anyone here on the BB that is from another country.

TIS

As fucked as the last 16 years?

This country has spent most of its time since JFK's assassination completely and totally fucked.

Senators and presidents don't f*ck people over...

Who's naive Kate?

Yes.

I thought this was a funny picture.



CROWN POINT -- Hillary Clinton showed her Midwestern roots by enjoying a couple mugs of Old Style on Saturday night at Bronko's restaurant.

The presidential candidate also drank a shot of Crown Royal whisky with mayors David Uran of Crown Point and Tom McDermott Jr. of Hammond before settling in for pepperoni pizza in the bar.

I saw her down the shot on tv. She'd fit right in at one of our sitdowns. I'd love to see her sitting down to drink next to AppleOnYa.

Hey TIS,

Yes your election is big news over here but the media are obsessed with the Clinton/Obama tussle. Mr. McCain rarely gets a mention.
Our leader Mr. Brown is such a snivelly,crawly little worm that he would get on with whoever wins the election. He will just tell whoever wins that he was behind them the whole way

Brown is'nt popular over here. He has'nt actually been chosen as a Prime Minister. He simply took over from Blair when Labour were already in power. Funnily enough he refused to call an early election which could have cemented his position (if he won of course,which may be in doubt)

Maybe he was scared of losing and just wanted to make sure he got at least a couple of years as PM in first.....

Do the tories have someone who can defeat Brown?


As for over here, I just took a peek at the poll.. no a lot of love for Hillary. Not that I can blame anyone, she can be soooo grating.

Please let it be Obama

The present leader of the tories is a chap called David Cameron who is riding high in the opinion polls these days!

Chances are he may beat Brown next time.