Stick your neck out and let us chop it off

Paul Gronke

I know Jeff warned us all about the dangers of the horserace, but it can be fun to handicap the race, right?

So what is YOUR most outrageous prediction for the primary contest?  What unexpected event will surprise us all? 

Here's mine: Mike Huckabee will beat Mitt Romney in Iowa.  There, I said it.  And I'm sticking by it.  I'm actually in print making this prediction two months ago, but it's a bit easier to go public now with the recent polls.

  • Jamais Vu (unverified)

    Obama "wins" Iowa, but without an outright majority. Edwards is third to Clinton but close enough to justify staying in. The other "D" campaigns lose there and again in New Hampshire, effetively making it a 3-way race. Clinton wins Nevada but comes in a distant 3rd in South Carolina behind, respectively, Obama and Edwards, who finish neck and neck. Dodd and Biden drop out, Richards angles for the VP position and Kucinich keeps on going like the Energizer Bunny but without any serious chance--at some point he stops getting invitations to debate.

    Republicans--Romney loses Iowa and NH back-to-back to Giuliani in both, but with Huckabee close in Iowa and McCain doing well enough in NH to stay in the race. Thompson doesn't do great or badly and stays in because he's bored and his campaign isn't really costing him anything anyway. T's hope is that Romney gets desperate enough to utterly sabotage Giuliani or that the G-man does something monumentally stupid. Hucakbee gets creamed in Nevada but puts everything he has left on a bid to win the Christian Fundamentalist vote in S.C.--a state McCain, Romney, and Giuliani have no real chance of winning unless evangelicals stay home.

    Final tickets: Obama/Edwards vs. Giuliani/Huckabee

  • (Show?)

    Yeah Paul, the Huckabee phenomenon-in-waiting has been a puzzler to me too. As a former Evangelical who has watched two of the Republican "debates" I've been asking my Christian friends why they aren't all over this guy.

    He's wa-a-a-a-y better at playing a Compassionate Conservative on TV than any candidate ever put up by the Religious Right.

    One point is that he's pissed a lot of 'em off with his inclusion of a couple of progressive/New Testament ideas, which the old war horses fear will dilute the central messages of hatred and intolerance that they've been so successful with in the past.


    Predictions? Too chicken except to say that if Hillary Clinton gets the Dem nomination, my doggy Ronny will be running as an independent.

    Please make a note of it.

  • Piggy Back (unverified)

    Jamais Vu:

    Everything in your prediction is entirely plausible, except that Obama will not pick Edwards as his VP. Obama will need an "elder statesman" with the gravitas and experience that he lacks. Edwards contributes almost nothing to an Obama ticket and will be viewed as "used goods" after losing two presidential and one vice presidential bids.

    Obama will pick between Ed Rendell (Pennsylvania governor), Ted Strickland (Ohio governor), and Wesley Clark for VP.

  • (Show?)

    As a clarifier--I love horse race stuff. I obsessively read (a fave of Paul's, if I'm not misreading things).

    The Huckabee prediction isn't shockingly bold, though. Consulting Pollster, we see that he's spiking while Romney is flattening out. If trends persist, the man from Hope has plenty of time to catch Mitt. (Paul, question: why do you think Huckabee has the organization on the ground to muster this upset, rather than pulling a Dean?).

    Here's my prediction: Hillary wins Iowa pretty soundly, which shocks everyone who have now come to expect to be shocked by Iowa. This is my reverse psychology prediction--I'm hoping Obama shocks me and gets it done. If he does, as Jamais Vu predicts, I agree with his next few predictions. I'd say even more boldly that Obama will win NH if he wins Iowa, because all the indies can vote for Dems and indies like Obama (and dislike Hillary).

    Still, it won't be enough: Hillary picks up Nevada and Florida and comes out of Super Tuesday with enough big prizes--Cal, NY, NJ--to offset Obama's pickups in Illinois and the Southern states. Obama can survive to Feb 5, but I don't think he can survive much longer--it's really set up badly for him.

  • LT (unverified)

    Huckabee either wins Iowa or does a Eugene McCarthy--doesn't beat the expected winner but comes so close that the press coverage is all Huckabee.

    His appeal is very easy to see. The guy is as likeable and down to earth as someone else we are familiar with. When asked before the polls turned in his direction why he thought he had a chance as a former Gov. born in Hope Ark., he said "Well, it has worked before" or something like that.

    There is a book called the Innovator's Dilemma about products (like computers) which continually are "new and improved" until the point they are too expensive AND people don't like the complicated features. Then, out of nowhere, a new product comes along which is simpler, easier to use, and competes with the "new and improved" product.

    Look at the GOP front runners. They all have a target audience which requires obedience to certain issues, and each going after that audience has gotten rigid, sarcastic, not realizing they have to reach a wider audience.

    Then along comes a guy who has been a local minister and says (which may sound to some like heresy) that there are voters out there whose lives have been tough, and who are financially struggling and didn't have enough income to benefit from the Bush tax cuts. Sounding like he wouldn't have supported Dick Armey and the Measure 30 crowd, he actually believed it was OK to raise taxes to fix a budget shortfall. He believes teachers are professionals with professional degrees, that they deserve more support esp. in their beginning years when burnout and leaving teaching is a real problem. Not only that, school district management is responsible for their actions! "If the state of Ark. had to take over a failing school, we would fire the superintendent and tell the school board their services are no longer needed". Tell that to the folks who say teacher salaries and job performance must be scrutinized under a microscope, but there should be only vague criteria for evaluating administrators!

    On top of that, he's the only one in the race with Reagan's cheerfulness and optimism, but he apologizes for some of his Reagan-like zingers. "Call me Metaphor Mike" because he sometimes engages in hyperbole.

    The guy has the people skills of a small town pastor, he has the wit and intelligence to deflect questions like Jesus and the death penalty by saying Jesus would have the good sense not to run for public office, and he plays electric guitar.

    At a time when many pundits and others were convinced there was nothing new under the sun, that they had known since maybe July that the 2008 nominees would be Hillary vs. one of the top 3 Republicans, lo and behold a surprise in the race! Pundits should have known there could always be a surprise, esp. after how Huckabee did in the Iowa Straw Poll. People like a guy who is not tops in fundraising. What a concept!

    Of course some of his views would turn off moderates and independents. But on the other hand, if anyone in the Republican party ever does anything as stupid as this

    there is no need to get angry. All anyone would have to say is "so you disagree with Mike Huckabee on education, is that what you are saying?" and then if it is an encounter in person, just walk away as the person's mouth drops open.

  • (Show?)

    Hey Piggy Back,

    Perhaps Edwards is "used goods," but he's also a white southerner. If Obama wants to win the White House without carrying at least some southern states, well, I wish him luck but it'd be a stretch.

    Of the possible VPs you list, Rendell's and Strickland's northern roots would seem to rule them out. Wesley Clark, I agree, would add a lot--regional appeal (he's from Oklahoma, isn't he?) and international experience.

    I think an Obama/Clark ticket could be pretty strong.

    Hilary/Anybody is looking pretty weak to me vs. Giuliani/Huckabee. Those are two charming men, and I'd put money on Huckabee as anybody's first choice as VP.

  • (Show?)

    Sorry, I'm being stupid--you don't need the organization if you're in the GOP. The process is quite a bit more streamlined for them.

  • (Show?)
    Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Nov 30, 2007 12:04:15 PM The Huckabee prediction isn't shockingly bold, though. Consulting Pollster, we see that he's spiking while Romney is flattening out. If trends persist, the man from Hope has plenty of time to catch Mitt.

    Agreed. I have said in many venues for months now that I thought Huckabee would eventually get more traction and finally break-through (possibly their nomination), and should be the one on the GOP side to keep a very wary eye out for. That he is now polling in 1st in Iowa doesn't make this diarists prediction all that bold.

    The key reasons Huckabee has not been embraced fully by the GOP is 1) he has an economic populist history which means the GOP old guard and corporate interest don't like him and 2) his positions are fairly moderate (for the GOP) on immigration, which make him not well liked with the nativist/law & order crowd.

    That said, I think he is still the one to watch out for. It will be interesting to see what happens as Giuliani implodes because of scandals and the evangelical right rejecting him as Huckabee gains traction. Where will Giuliani's support go? McCain, Romney, Huckabee?

    Thompson is dead-man walking already and Tancreado is (and has been form the get-go) in Gravel/LaRouche territory.

  • (Show?)

    My background is similar to Pat's and I agree with what both he and LT said about Huckabee.

    I think Huckabee eventually wins the GOP nomination. Probably not but this is about sticking my neck out on something that I think could conceivably happen. So there it is. I think Huckabee has been vastly underestimated.

    On the D's side I agree with the gist of what Jamais Vu said. It'll quickly boil down to Obama, Hillary and Edwards with Obama and Edwards both doing better than the polling numbers would seem to indicate.

    Final tickets...

    Huckabee/McCain/Guiliani - some combination of two of 'em. Sorry, can't be more specific other than that if I was willing to risk money on a long-shot that probably would pay off then I'd put it all on Huckabee.


  • (Show?)
    Posted by: Jamais Vu | Nov 30, 2007 12:09:17 PM Wesley Clark, I agree, would add a lot--regional appeal (he's from Oklahoma, isn't he?

    Born in Chicago, but raised in Little Rock Arkansas from age 2 until he entered West Point.

  • LiberalIncarnate (unverified)

    It will be Obama/Richardson. There are simply too many undecided voters to predict primaries yet. Most Democrats want a fresh face that will unify the country. Richardson will keep NM in play and put NV and AZ in play.

    I love Edwards a great deal, but his "southern" has been dead for quite sometime now. He will not be able to carry a single southern state.

    And the California Proposition to split the electoral college vote will get on the ballot for June and will fail quite soundly. California Democrats are not that stupid.

    On the Republican side, Guilani will take a fall one scandal after another. I am betting either Huckabee or Romney will pull off the ultimate win, but it will be very close.

  • Peter Bray (unverified)

    Clinton will get the Dem nomination, and select Bayh or Richardson as a running mate.

    Giuliani will get the GOP nomination, and select Huckabee or Pawlenty as a running mate.

    Clinton will win the general election with 52%.

    Gordon Smith will win in Oregon. Dems will retain control of the House and Senate and pick up a few seats in each, but nothing spectacular.

    There won't be a SC opening until after the general election.

    Bloomberg will not run as an independent. Nor will Ron Paul. And neither Gingrich nor Gore will announce their candidacy.

    Conventional wisdom is usually right...

  • (Show?)

    Outrageous prediction? Ron Paul gets at least 10% in New Hampshire.

    Less outrageous? Edwards picks up Iowa, thanks to shifting Dodd-Biden-Kucinich voters, and South Carolina.

  • trishka (unverified)

    huckabee's going to win. chuck norris said so.

    remember, he doesn't do pushups, he pushes the earth away from him with his arms.

  • (Show?)

    Outrageous prediction? Ron Paul gets at least 10% in New Hampshire.

    That's not that outrageous. If we're really going to stick our necks out, I'll one up you: Ron Paul wins New Hampshire.

    I say that only half jokingly.

  • (Show?)

    Hillary will select Ohio Governor Ted Strickland as her veep.

  • John Reed (unverified)

    Outrageous Prediction: The secret Obama/Edwards deal plays out, the one who receives fewer votes in Iowa leaves the race endorsing the other and suddenly their is only one top-tier alternative to Hillary.

  • (Show?)

    Interesting idea, JR. Here's some polling data to back you up. It shows the combined support for Edwards & Obama in Iowa and New Hampshire is greater than support for Clinton (and Obama is on top in Iowa anyway):

    Iowa: Clinton - 25% Obama - 27% Edwards - 23%

    NH: Clinton - 34% Obama - 23% Edwards - 17%

    I suspect that voters backing Edwards or Obama at this point are not voters who would easily transfer their votes to Clinton as their second choice, so if Obama or Edwards do as you say, it would make it hard for Clinton.

    But Clinton is looking less and less like a sure thing anyway.

  • (Show?)

    I would agree with that, Jamais vu. I prefer Obama but Edwards is and has long been a very close second for me. I would be very happy with either of them as my next Prez.

  • Garlynn -- (unverified)

    Here's one: Richardson takes third in Iowa, thanks to a large disconnect between Edwards and the rural Iowa population.

    Could happen. But the polls don't pick it up right now.

  • Bill R. (unverified)

    It's Hillary second in Iowa, first in NH, and takes the nomination. She will choose Wes Clark as VP.

    Giuliani is toast! He's peaked and the exploding scandals will take him down. Huckabee will take Iowa, second in NH but take off in the South. The fundies are hungry for one of their own and they still control the Repug party ( and they don't like Mormons). I think Huckabee has a real shot at the nomination, but not the presidency.

  • (Show?)

    Bill R.

    I agree with your assessment on the GOP side of it, but not sold on your scenario on the Dem side. Plausible sure, but I think things are far to much in flux on the Dem side. That said, given the topic of "sticking your neck out"... your post is a valid one.

  • Chris Lowe (unverified)

    Hmm, Obama needs a white southerner with gravitas & extensive relevant experience for a running mate?

    Holy Al Gore, Batman! Obama follows the Cheney super-VP president and puts Gore in charge of energy education and policy.

  • Chris Lowe (unverified)

    Umm, Super VP precedent ...

    Hope you're right, John Reed.

    A Huckabee-Clinton match-up could be tough. His apparent relative populism on economic/class issues could end up putting a sharper point on mobilizing a largish chunk of unenthusiastic D base voters behind Clinton over the Supreme Court & defense of women's rights >>> also help mobilize R cultural conservatives again on same issues.
    But her general centrism still doesn't get Clinton that much with independents, due to combination of personality issues (however unfair) plus her corporate ties.

  • Sally (unverified)

    Hillary wins the nom, selects Clinton to be VP, then puts him on the 1st Sup Court vacancy (to get him out of the 'House). He doesn't win the Senate confirmation vote 23 yes (all Rs), 77 no, so Hillary goes with Edelman as backup.

    Huckabee wins the R nom, selects Lieberman as VP, wins 51% of the popular, but misses the Electoral College by 5 votes.

  • (Show?)
    Posted by: Sally | Nov 30, 2007 5:57:57 PM Hillary wins the nom, selects Clinton to be VP...

    Not possible. Bill Clinton is ineligible to be Vice President because of the 12th Amendment which states that:

    " person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."

    And since a person can now only be president for two terms after the passage of the 20th Amendment which states:

    "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once."

    ...means that Constitutionally, no person can be elected to be Vice-President who is not eligible to be President and since Bill Clinton is no longer eligible having served two terms... it is not legal for him to be the Vice-President.

  • Chuck Butcher (unverified)

    Hillary can't win the convention vote, goes home to NYNY to pout, Leibrman's new BFF Edwards won't be anybody's VP Horsetrading at convention, E & O trading for what and who knows who wins. Richardson plays kingmaker.

    Guiliani is toast, close between Romney & Huckabee, Ron Paul as Huck's VP?

    Hillary wins nomination, Dems lose Prez. Probably the only Dem other than Dennis who could manage that.

    How many activist Dems are going to hold their noses and work for Hillary? Holding nose gets tiresome after awhile.

  • (Show?)

    Clark is Hillarys vp. he's old friends with the Clintons, an Army general, southern enough, and classic ticket balancer for her -- in two ways. 1, male, military, etc. 2, he's much more progressive than Hillary and will help pull back the angry Dem/indies left. people wonder why he didn't run for pres? cuz he's Hill's friend and wasn't going to get in her way.

    of course, that all assumes Hillary wins the nomination. so the real question is: who will Obama pick? as long as it's not as stupid as Gore picking Liebermann (and it won't be), it'll be a good pick. personally, i have a favorite for it, hopeless as it would be: Kitz. he'd be wonderful, apart from being an unknown, less national experience than Obama, and would want the job for anything.

  • (Show?)

    Edwards wins Iowa. He's got the highest poll numbers among those who have participated before, and he crucially holds the highest number of #2 choices as well--which is important in caucuses.

    Hillary has a big machine, but if she can't get people to come out who have not before (which is where her biggest leads are), she will have trouble. Also as noted, with her as the presumptive frontrunner there is a lot of pressure for those below to work in concert to topple her by pledging mutual support.

    Hillary wins NH after that, but it gets messy. But Edwards wins Iowa.

  • (Show?)

    Here's my neck stuck out. If it doesn't come true, this was all fun and games. If it does, remember you heard it from me!

    Republicans: Romney survives a brief scare from Huckabee in Iowa, but goes on to win New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada by benefiting the most from Giuliani's scandal laced implosion. Super Tuesday cements his victory, and he cruises to the nomination.

    Democrats: Obama scores a surprisingly strong victory in Iowa because the caucus system favors his strength as everybody's second choice. The resulting media hurts Hillary's sense of inevitability. She looses New Hampshire by a squeaker, but Nevada is her savior, giving her a solid win. The front loaded schedule then plays to Clinton's strength, which is money and organization. By Super Tuesday, she's taken New York, California, and has done surprisingly well in southern states like Arkansas. Obama wins most of the midwest, and the rest of the south.

    This leaves the possibility open for a while for a brokered convention, for which there is much media speculation, but Edwards (who takes votes from Obama) refuses to concede, and this allows Clinton to squeak in over the top.

    Romney chooses Huckabee as VP to shore up support among evangelicals. Hillary goes with General Wesley Clark, who has military credentials and southern support.

    Hillary wins the general by dint of the fact that she says she'll end the war, the economy going south, Bill Clinton campaigning her as an unindicted co-President, and Romney being boxed in by his previous statements (and his base) into unpopular support for staying in Iraq.

    Clinton has no coattails however and can't make many real changes to health care (the hard left accuses her of not wanting to). She spends most of her term just digging us our of the hole Bush made for the U.S. John Edwards leaves politics after his wide, Elizabeth, succumbs to cancer.

  • (Show?)

    Steve, I actually think your neck is not that stuck out that far on that one (actually reads as fairly plausible) ...though I sincerely hope your are as wrong as humanly possible as to the reason Edwards leaves politics.

  • Robert Harris (unverified)

    In Iowa its Obama and Clinton neck and neck with Edwards a dissappointing 8 points back as the second choices break towards Obama.

    In New Hampshire, and Nevada though the privacy of the ballot booth matters and Clinton gets solid wins as the democratic women go overwhelmingly for Clinton. Clinton looks like an early lock, but Edwards is forced to withdraw after he fails to do well in South Carolina, and decides to devote his life to issues related to health care and poverty, not seeking further government positions. So he does the unconventional thing, endorses Obama, the underdog, not the presumptive nominee, and campaigns for him in the primary. But Clinton wins the nomintation anyway.

    Romney wins the Rep Nomination with the overwhelming financial support from Wall Street after he faulters early, as they see him as the Candidate they thought GWB was in 2000. Pro business, purportedly moderate (OK they were wrong about GWB) personable, and smart (OK they were very wrong about GWB)

    In the general election, its very very nasty. The public, who thought they'd get a chance to vote for change, are disgusted by their choices. In the end, while most people wish that the VP's were at the top of their party's tickets (Bayh and Huckabee), and while the polls are close, in one of the lowest turnout elections ever, Clinton wins with by a surprising 6% of the popular vote and an overwheling electoral victory largely because while many moderate Republican women are reluctant to publicly support Clinton or support her when being polled, as they stare at their ballots the last thing they think is...its about time.

  • Daniel Spiro (unverified)

    Prediction? That the Dems wise up, nominate someone other than Hillary and that, as a result, I keep up my string of always voting Democratic.

    Or at least that's my hope. Seriously, I have no idea what's going to happen on the Democratic side, but I see Rudi -- despite being a scandal magnet, and despite struggling in the first two contested races -- winning the GOP nomination. I will also predict that he wins the General Election if he goes against Hillary, but that he would otherwise lose to either Obama or Edwards. I don't see any other Dem having a chance to wrest the nomination from Hillary Republicrat Clinton, even in a brokered convention.

  • Peter Bray (unverified)

    I guess I am the only one who puts his full faith in and the free market??? After all, what most of you are saying (Obama winning, Giuilani losing) is so far out in left field that it kinda scares me at how disconnected fellow Dems in Oregon actually are about facts on the ground!

  • Bill R. (unverified)

    Intrade hasn't kept up with Rudy's legal problems. I think Rudy may be spending time in the "Big House" and not the White House. It's a felony in New York to misappropriate govt. money to spend on your mistress and your secret trysts with her, to pay for NYPD to provide a private chauffeur and walk her dog, her trips (alone) to Pennsylvania to visit her parents etc. Good documentation here by Josh Marshall Thus far Rudy's team is unable to disprove any of this.

    I repeat, Rudy is toast! I think it's either Romney or Huckabee. Romney for the corporate Repugs and Huckabee for the fundees.

    I said Hillary would get the nomination. That said, things are volatile and Obama has the energy right now. A real wind could catch his sail. Polling and organization don't beat the magic of charisma and a powerful story and hunger for change.

  • Frank Carper (unverified)

    After all, what most of you are saying (Obama winning, Giuilani losing) is so far out in left field that it kinda scares me at how disconnected fellow Dems in Oregon actually are about facts on the ground!

    Peter, aren't you the guy who wrote on your blog that there was a 75-percent chance Measure 49 wouldn't be on the ballot? Just checking!

  • (Show?)

    What fun, but cannot anyone come up with a scenario that makes the Oregon primary vote decisive.

    Another scenario: the 2008 elections could be driven by unexpected international events and their domestic impact. Consider a year in which: (1) In late January and February following its "elections," Pakistan falls into chaos. The US sends in troop to "safeguard" Pakistan's nuclear weapons. Gas prices hit $4.00/ gallon in US. (2)In March Taiwan passes a referendum to join the UN under the name of Taiwan. Mainland China becomes upset and attacks several Taiwanese naval ships in the Strait of Taiwan. Tensions rise but no general war follows. Gas hits $5.00/ gal. (3) Late July, Bush administration attacks nuclear weapons development sites in Iran from the air over several days. Gas hits $6.00/gallon. (4) In September, Al Qaeda launches a successful anthrax terrorism attack through the US mail on 20 sites in 20 US cities. Panic follows. Gas now at $7.00/ gal.

    Against that background, Clinton takes Demnocratic nomination after big win on super Tuesday. Guiliani weathers scandals and takes GOP nomination. National security issue dominate general election. Guiliani win 55-45%.

    The scary future.

  • Holly Martins (unverified)

    “Against that background, Clinton takes Demnocratic nomination after big win on super Tuesday. Guiliani weathers scandals and takes GOP nomination. National security issue dominate general election. Guiliani win 55-45%. The scary future.”

    Scary, yes – but the future? No, I don’t think so.

    25 to 30% of the republican base are still drooling-at-the-mouth fundamentalist Christians, and they detest, DETEST, Giuliani. All a clever Democratic Party strategist need do is run ads in the Bible belt with Giuliani in drag, bragging about being pro-choice, and talking smack about gun control, and the full-mooners will stay home or write in Jesus on their ballots. And, poof, faster than your can say “Jim Dobson” states that really ought not be in play suddenly are.

    I actually think that some of those on the right would love to see Giuliani win the nomination so they can say, “Told you so” if he loses. Then, they can engage in a nice little (root) Beer Hall Putsch, and then the Republican Party becomes even loonier than it is now (Yipee).

    Of course, Giuliani will cause Clinton to worry some about California, and New England, but she’d not lose those states, but in the end, it’s Clinton by 2 to 3%.

    Now, of course, if it’s Obama or Edwards (my first choice) then the percentage goes up.

  • Chuck Butcher (unverified)

    There are a couple things going on with Hillary that affect early polling numbers,

    She has the highest name recognition, she is female, the media beat the "inevitable" candidate drum flat.

    Each of those plays less as time goes on, yes, including the gender thing. Name reconition goes up for candidates as they spend advertising dollars in states. The "inevitable" thing has worn out with the media as well as poll numbers shifting. The female thing is a gut reaction, that wears off with exposure, assuming policy differences with the candidate exist.

    I don't count Hillary out, but she has nothing to offer in a brokered convention and none of the other candidates are Hillary fans, except possibly Richardson. I think we'll see some interesting things.

  • (Show?)

    first of all Peter, most of us are not saying Obama wins. that's a minority view. second, what's so left-field about that? he's ahead in Iowa, gaining in NH, and victories there can easily swing momentum. the national polls don't reflect local realities, and current local polls have little to do with circumstances as they will be on elections days, after the first set of primaries.

    saying Obama can win is not as easy as giving it to Hillary, but it certainly is a crazy viewpoint. like saying Kucinch or Paul can win. now that's real left-field stuff.

  • cwech (unverified)

    Most outrageous? Ok, you asked for it.

    Kucinich wins the Democratic nomination and chooses Ron Paul as his running mate, meanwhile Tom Tancredo wins the Republican nomination and chooses Mel Martinez as his running mate, shortly thereafter Tancredo delivers his speech accepting the nomination in which he blames hispanics for everything wrong in America. Martinez for reasons no one can figure out, remains the VP nominee. In the meantime a frustrated Hillary Clinton runs as an independent and wins the Presidency with 538 electoral votes.

  • Abe (unverified)

    Tancredo and Richardson win their respective noms and during the debate Tancerdo askes Richardson "How do we know you're not an illegal immigrant?"

  • Deja Vu (unverified)

    Ron Paul finishes third in Iowa, behind Huckabee and Rommey. Clinton finishes a close third in Iowa, takes almost half the vote in New Hampshire. Obama disappoints in both states and Clinton opponents rally around Edwards. Its too little, too late and Clinton steamrolls to the nomination, selecting Richardson as her running mate.

    Huckabee wins the Republican nomination. He runs as a Washington outsider and a compassionate conservative who will end the partisan bickering and divisiveness that characterizes Washington. A close election will be decided by absentee ballots in Florida. With polls showing the military vote going against him, Huckabee will insist absentee ballots have postmarks. The initial count will still show Clinton winning. But after a recount in a handful of counties, Huckabee will be slightly ahead. The US Supreme Court will order the recount stopped, but allow the new counts for counties already finished to stand, handing Huckabee the election.

    Democrats will blame Ralph Nader.

  • (Show?)

    Peter, forget Intrade, the IEM (Google it) is my guide. Hillary's still way out in front, but she's begun to lose ground to Obama. Dems have been consistently out front (60%-40% since April). Keep in mind, too, that the ultimate winner doesn't win in Iowa every time. So, while Giuliani is favored to win the election, no one thinks he'll win Iowa (according to the IEM). So Hillary's advantage overall doesn't mean she'll win Iowa. Rudy, incidentally, is back in a slide.

  • Matthew Sutton (unverified)

    Senator Obama wins in Iowa. He has superior organizational strength there and Iowans have got to know him first hand. Hillary, who has done one disingenuos thing after another to turn Iowans off, comes in third behind Edwards.

    Senator Obama eeks out a tighter victory in New Hampshire, where polls show him gaining on Hillary quite substantially. Hillary comes in a close second, with Edwards a distant third. Biden and Dodd drop out of the race.

    In the Nevada caucus--yes its a caucus not a primary, Hillary earns her first victory with Obama coming in second and Richardson a close third. At this point, Richardson drops out.

    That brings us to South Carolina where Obama wins a very close victory over Hillary, and gains the momentum heading into super Tuesday. A dissappointed Edwards drops out without the momentum or the funds to compete.

    Heading into Super Tueday, the national pundits will still be spinning for Hillary. Her campaign's attacks on Obama will make her recent ones look mild. But Barack hangs tough. He continues to build his organizational strength in these states that is ahead of Hillary even now as we write. While many you may not have noticed, he has been opening offices in the Super Tuesday states left and right with excited supporters, including places such as Utah, North Dakota, Idaho, Alabama, Georgia, Arizona, Missouri and many other places where Hillary has not yet established an official presence.

    On Super Tuesday, excitement, organization and the community organizing grassroots approach win out over the "machine" and name recognition, giving Barack Obama a decisive victory and propelling him to the nomination. Hillary drops out.

    On the Republican side, who cares. Since all these guys look like they are poised to repeat the mistake that was Iraq, the American people aren't buying. Although violence will continue to be down in Nov. 08 and the Repubs will claim "victory", the Dems will nominate a man with judgment that assures people that this deceitful blunder won't be repeated.

    Senator Obama wins the general election by a commanding margin There is a possibility that he will have an anti-war anti-war Republican as his running mate. His campaign wins in states that Dems haven't won in decades, including several Southern states. His early and active implementation of Chairman Dean's 50 state strategy pays big dividends. So too does his cross-over appeal to Republicans and Independents.

  • (Show?)

    My dear mentor Mike Dukakis enters the NH primary in the last week of the campaign and pulls a surprise victory. I shall see you dear friends on the hustings!

  • (Show?)

    personally, i have a favorite for it, hopeless as it would be: Kitz. he'd be wonderful, apart from being an unknown, less national experience than Obama, and would want the job for anything.

    Nope. If it's Edwards, I might look to Kitzhaber as a veep pick -- after all, they share a consultant: Joe Trippi.

    There's a little tip for those playing the veepstakes already -- look to the consultant client lists. After all, the consultant is usually someone the candidate trusts completely... so they have unusual influence in the choice, and they'd likely want someone who won't mess with their role.

    (And as for Hillary/Strickland? I'm no Hillary guy, but if she's going to pick a Mandate Media client as her veep - I'd love it!)

  • (Show?)

    Obama & Bloomberg meet for breakfast

    from the NYTimes:

    For Mr. Obama, according to a senior aide, the meeting was a chance to share the common theme of believing that there is too much game playing in Washington and not enough problem solving, rather than, say, auditioning a potential running mate. “I’m not sure that’s the relationship we had in mind,” Mr. Obama’s spokesman, Robert Gibbs, said laughing.

    not sure that's the relationship i want, either. but i don't know a lot about Bloomberg, either. an interesting tidbit, however.

  • (Show?)

    eek, a big typo i just saw: i meant to say Kitz would not want the VP job for anything. i don't think he wants to live in DC, especially with his young son.

  • Gil Johnson (unverified)

    Did anyone notice Huckabee's poll numbers started rising about the same time Pat Robertson endorsed Giuliani? Kiss of death?

    Huckabee will enjoy a short-lived success in Iowa and maybe South Carolina and then will collapse under scrutiny of his past and his goofy ideas. It will come down to Romney vs. McCain and it's very possible McCain will pull it off. So that's my neck stuck out.

    On the D side, as much as I like Obama and Edwards, it looks like Hillary, since the MSM wants her so badly.

  • Michael Morrow (unverified)

    I agree with Peter that Sen. Clinton, per the "big money" already having made the decision, will most likely get Democratic the nomination.

    But win with 52%? Is that before, or after, the 3% flip in voting machines? If it is before, she loses with 49%.

    And I think new revelations, added to the previous laundry list, makes Guiliani more of a longshot. Romney will fall on his face on Thursday trying to "explain" Mormonism. (Jesus visited America...really?) And faux 'good ol' boy' Fred is indeed "dead man walking." Could Sen. McCain become "dead man resurrected"? With an attractive #2 (e.g. Huckabee), and no major 3rd party candidate, this could be the R's best ticket hope.

    So neck's out: Clinton/Clark v. McCain/Huckabee

  • Matthew Sutton (unverified)

    Just out of curiosity, have you "it looks like its going to be Hillary" folks been following Iowa and New Hampshire lately?

    Presuming you have been, could you please explain how you think she will recover from a loss in Iowa?

  • Matthew Sutton (unverified)

    Peter Bray, what "facts on the ground" are you referring to?

    Obama has the strongest organization than any other candidate in Iowa. 37 offices and an energized group of volunteers. He dominated the critical JJ dinner, both with his oratory and the show of force of his supporters. He just picked up the endorsement of the Des Moines mayor and I could go on and on.

    Are you referring to Iowa? If not, please specify what ground and facts you are referring to.

  • Matthew Sutton (unverified)

    While I am still waiting for those "facts on the ground" about how Hillary will get the nomination, here are some things to consider.

    Last week, in response to being behind in the Iowa polls, she began attacking Barack personally, questioning his character and integrity. You can read all the attacks here as the Obama campaign has started documenting them.

    Well this overly aggressive approach has already started to backfire. One of her first attacks on Barack was saying that he was being dishonest about his health care plan, saying that he was falsely describing it as universal.

    Today, Robert Reich, former Sec. of Labor under Bill Clinton, called her on the carpet on these tactics in his blog entitled "Why is Hillary Stooping So Low". But this was more than an admonition to Hillary to play nice. After reviewing both health care plans, his conclusion was that Barack Obama's plan actually covers more people than Hillary's plan.

  • Matthew Sutton (unverified)

    "I guess I am the only one who puts his full faith in and the free market??? After all, what most of you are saying (Obama winning, Giuilani losing) is so far out in left field that it kinda scares me at how disconnected fellow Dems in Oregon actually are about facts on the ground!" --Peter Bray

    Peter, since you are a member of Hillary's "Oregon Steering Committee" I imagine that you are in touch with more "facts on the ground" than I. As such, I truly look forward to hearing from you about these "facts on the ground", as I am sure that many others are as well.

  • Frank Carper (unverified)

    Peter Bray isn't on Hillary's steering committee (Obama supporters should be so lucky!). You're thinking of Peter Bragdon.

  • Matthew Sutton (unverified)
    <h2>Oops, my bad!!</h2>

connect with blueoregon