:-)

And that is why, short of another terror attack(which isn't all that unlikely), whoever the Democrats nominate will be a shoe-in at the general election.

Convention wisdom would agree but...the polls shows a different story.

From RealClearPolitics, Showcasing Most of the Polls, Except Otherwise Cited (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html). The RCP Average is an "average" of all the polls, so I don't judge it to be quite that accurate, but eh.

I'm going to post the polls where Republicans are either winning outright or there is a win on the Democratic side that is near or within the margin of error (about +/- 3%), meaning that the Democrat may very well not have that lead. I'm not going to pair Semi-Modreate Democrat to Very Religious Republican, where the Republican doesn't have a high chance of winning according to the polls:

(Guilani versus Clinton): According to the RCP Average...Guilani has 44.4% and Clinton holds 44.6%. The margin of error is probraly far higher than Clinton's lead, so I don't count this as a "shoe-in".

This may be because Clinton is considered a polarizer. While many Republicans might stay at home during this election, some Republicans might decide to go back to the polls...just to vote against Clinton.

When you add in Bloomberg, this changes (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_giuliani_clinton_bloomberg-344.html). Bloomberg, accused to be a RINO, seems to steal much of of Guilani's Support. According to the RCP Average, Guilani's support goes down to 37%, Bloomberg gets 11.6%, and Clinton keeps 42.6%. Overall, if Bloomberg enters, Clinton wins the popular vote (NOT the election, Bloomberg might gain some electroal votes).

I actually don't think Bloomberg would enter into such a contest though, only because, from what I hear, Bloomberg actually likes both Guilani and Clinton, and sees them both as moderates.

(Rudy Giuliani vs. Barack Obama) Obama gains a slight edge over Giulani here. Obama has 45.6%, Giulani has 41.8%.

(John McCain vs. Hillary Clinton) John McCain has 42.3%, Hiliray Clinton got 46%. Note that this is due to the Clinton factor. When McCain is paired against any other Democratic candinate, McCain suffers badly, altough, when compared to the other candinates, he loses less badly.

(Rudy Giuliani vs. John Edwards) Dead heat. 44% to 44%.

[Conclusion, Rudy Giuliani may very well sweep the Republicans to another victory in a tightly contested election. That is, if Rudy Giuliani wins the nomination. Problem: Rudy Giuliani has democratic views on social issues. This means, if the Republicans nominate Rudy, they are nominating a RINO here, which is, well, defeating the purpose of being a Republican. It's Democrat-Lite. Bah. This does indictate that if Giulani gets into office, the Republican party will shift Left, which often time good for Liberals everywhere.

Also, if Clinton wins the nomination, there will be an anti-Clinton backlash that will hurt the Democrats. She is often accused of being a DINO by some liberals. NOTICE: Clinton is against violent video games. If you are a videogame player against censorship of violent video games, please make a political statement and vote against Clinton in the next election. Thank you.]

Also remember that polls, well, can change. They represent what people will vote for...today. Not on Election Day.

NOTICE: Clinton is against violent video games. If you are a videogame player against censorship of violent video games, please make a political statement and vote against Clinton in the next election. Thank you.] Thanks for the information, but I think there are many bigger issues than Hilary Clinton stopping me from playing violent video games if elected. Bush allows me to play them, but with his energy policy driving up the cost of gas playing video game is all I can afford to do.

We heard over and over about the backlash Clinton would receive. Even Bill Clinton was supposed to get this large backlash and not receive a second term. Hilary Clinton is a polarizing political figure, but no more than our current President. She like her husband will move closer to the center in order to have a realist chance at the White House and then stay there in order to get a second term.

I don’t know if she will win, but after the current President I don’t care about the issues I’m voting for the Democrat even if O.J. Simpson gets the nomination with Britney Spears as his running mate.

We heard over and over about the backlash Clinton would receive. Even Bill Clinton was supposed to get this large backlash and not receive a second term. Hilary Clinton is a polarizing political figure, but no more than our current President. She like her husband will move closer to the center in order to have a realist chance at the White House and then stay there in order to get a second term.

It is possible, but according to those polls, Clinton is having a hard time when battling against most of the Republican candinates. If someone else was running, then well, that other Democrat nominee has an easier time of winning.

Not that it matters anyway. To be fair, I'm sure that once people know about the other candinates, and the negative campagins kick in, the Democratic candinates will find support harder to sustain. The campagin isn't over until the Supreme Court sing.

I'm dreaming of a Libertarian President. :D

If i had set up the goverment in the first place, i would have made it a rule that the winng president must have 80% of the votes. anything less, and it would have to be a stalemate. this would help with keeping most of the nation supportive of the president, whihc wqould lead to less politial problems among citizen opinions, and less media attacking the president like they did to bush so cruelly.
But a shoe-in would likely cause major problems. half of the entire nation would be again 'insert presidenttial candidate name here' and visa versa with the other half.
I'm republican, but i wouldn't mind seeing an independent president take the whitehouse either. i bet people will be cheering like maniacs of seeing Bush leave the whitehouse, or simply booing him out, whihc is just plain insane and wrong, but will likely happen when that event occurs. how many times has bush been attempted to be assassinated? i don't know. a bunch i guess with how much civilans seem to be hating him.
that guy who says he's a christian but is a democrat, Barack Osama i think was his name?, he's not a Christian at all. he's under false teachings, a false form of chrisitianity right seemign to border right on the edge of islamic religion. i don't think the population will want an partially islam believing president as leader with that known to them now will they?
Now, hilary clinton? no way do i want her to get the elections. If she wins, i'd be really mad, but i wouldn't go try to assinate her eor anything stupid liek that. I want to get Halo 3 when i comes out. and if she becomes presient, that likely won't happen.
Rudy guilani: he'll kill the republicans unintentionally.
The other guys? i dunno know. we neeed a leader that will mediate perfefctly between democrats, republicans, etc. None of these candidates seem to be like that, so i looks like we're in for another term of crazy presidency problems.

If i had set up the goverment in the first place, i would have made it a rule that the winng president must have 80% of the votes. anything less, and it would have to be a stalemate. this would help with keeping most of the nation supportive of the president, whihc wqould lead to less politial problems among citizen opinions, and less media attacking the president like they did to bush so cruelly.

I don't know if any President has received 80% of the popular vote, so that might not work.


how many times has bush been attempted to be assassinated? i don't know. a bunch i guess with how much civilans seem to be hating him.Every president, unfortunately, faces this risk, which is why they have Secret Service protection even after leaving office.


that guy who says he's a christian but is a democrat, Barack Osama i think was his name?, he's not a Christian at all. he's under false teachings, a false form of chrisitianity right seemign to border right on the edge of islamic religion. i don't think the population will want an partially islam believing president as leader with that known to them now will they?
You're likely getting your ideas from a false email that circulated around late last year/early this year; Snopes discusses the various errors (http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp). I found it by googling 'Barack Obama's religion'. Here's the Statement of Faith of the United Church of Christ (http://www.ucc.org/beliefs/statement-of-faith.html), which I found by googling 'United Church of Christ', which is the church at which Obama worships. I don't know about you, but I don't see any borderline islamic teachings there.
Also, why would we not want a 'partially Muslim' person serving as President if he or she was the most qualified for the position?

Now, hilary clinton? no way do i want her to get the elections. If she wins, i'd be really mad, but i wouldn't go try to assinate her eor anything stupid liek that. I want to get Halo 3 when i comes out. and if she becomes presient, that likely won't happen.
So, with the Iraq war, the crisis in healthcare, inequalities in gender and race, problems with global warming, and government reform concerns, do you really believe that your concern about whether you, at age 15, should be allowed to buy a rated M game is just as important? I checked out the 'issues' tab on her website (http://www.hillaryclinton.com/), and there's nothing there about banning video games. How would she keep you from playing a rated M game anyway if your parents bought it for you? Do you think she's planning on developing the "Rated M Game Police" and go raid people's houses, looking for kids under 18 playing a rated M game? If anything, she'd merely be enforcing an already existing regulation on the _purchase_ of rated M games.

Rudy guilani: he'll kill the republicans unintentionally.And where did you get this little gem?

The other guys? i dunno know. we neeed a leader that will mediate perfefctly between democrats, republicans, etc. None of these candidates seem to be like that, so i looks like we're in for another term of crazy presidency problems.

No one can mediate perfectly between such a diverse group of people. We have 300 million people in the US, all with their own opinions and ideas. There is no possible way to mediate perfectly without making _someone_ unhappy.

I'm not too familiar on the American Presidential system but from my own experiences the more people who think a certain thing will happen, then it probably will. For example most people i know believed that Gordon Brown would become our next PM after Tony Blair stepped down, and that was exactly the thing that happened, Gordon Brown stepped into power pretty much uncontested. So, basically it's down to the people to keep the Republicans in power, however if the people have had enough of the Republicans (sorry to any Bush fanboys/girls here, but i really can't stand your President, as with our last PM, Tony Blair) then the Democrats will probably step into power.

Not that it matters anyway. To be fair, I'm sure that once people know about the other candinates, and the negative campagins kick in, the Democratic candinates will find support harder to sustain. The campagin isn't over until the Supreme Court sing.

Very true, but Hilary Clinton and John McCain are the only candidates the American people believe they know. The negativity is already built into both of them and the poll numbers already show this for both of them. As the American people get to know more about Guilani, Thompson, Edwards and Obama their numbers will suffer too. Remember that Hilary has Slick Willie on her side and no amount of negativity every stuck to him (at least at the polls).

George Washington took the office of President in 1789 and when (and if) George Bush steps down in January 2009 we will have had 220 year of men leading this country. I would just like to see a woman elected so I can blame them too for the problems in this country.

I really don’t see anyone running now that I would whole heartedly support. Of the ones that had a vote they all voted for the war in Iraq with the exception of Ron Paul and you can’t support him for that as he votes against anything and everything.

It's possible but unlikely. The conservatives that supported Bush don't seem to be that thrilled over the current selection of moderate Republicans. The question is: will they stay home or vote for someone they don't support just to keep their party in power?

And of course, you have to consider this scenario (http://youtube.com/watch?v=YqOHquOkpaU) as well. :)

And of course, you have to consider this scenario (http://youtube.com/watch?v=YqOHquOkpaU) as well. :)

That was great. That is exactly why I believe which every win the nomination will have to give serious consideration to the other as their running mate.

I just hope people won't vote for Barack Obama just because he is african-american or for Hillary Clinton because she's a woman.

That was great. That is exactly why I believe which every win the nomination will have to give serious consideration to the other as their running mate. I think they do. I think it's almost a given that we'll have some iteration of Clinton-Obama or Giuliani-?.

I just hope people won't vote for Barack Obama just because he is african-american or for Hillary Clinton because she's a woman. Agreed. However I think we have to accept that this is precisely what will happen to some degree.

I wonder if Hillary would be faring as well if she were running on her own as opposed to being one half of Team Clinton. :)

I just hope people won't vote for Barack Obama just because he is african-american or for Hillary Clinton because she's a woman.

By the same token I hope we as a country are past voting against someone for no other reason than their race or gender. I actually might be more inclined to vote for Obama or Clinton because I know most of the Bubba vote will be against them just because of their race or gender. Is that wrong? Yes, but just as wrong as the Bubba vote.

So, with the Iraq war, the crisis in healthcare, inequalities in gender and race, problems with global warming, and government reform concerns, do you really believe that your concern about whether you, at age 15, should be allowed to buy a rated M game is just as important? I checked out the 'issues' tab on her website, and there's nothing there about banning video games. How would she keep you from playing a rated M game anyway if your parents bought it for you? Do you think she's planning on developing the "Rated M Game Police" and go raid people's houses, looking for kids under 18 playing a rated M game? If anything, she'd merely be enforcing an already existing regulation on the _purchase_ of rated M games.

As a Senator, Clinton has called for more regulation of Violent Video Games, which sort of offended many video game advocates, like Mr. Costikyan. I suppose the truth is that she is for a bit more regulation...

I just think that video game players have to find some way of entering into politics, even if it is just for this single-issue. After all, if they don't do anything, then they get to suffer. I know not many people care about the Iraqi War, crisis in healthcare, inequalities in gender and race, problems with global warming, and government reform concerns...as long as they get to play video games. Their priorities are different, but in the end, those problems are likely going to stay exactly the same regardless of whatever President wins (my view, though). So, in the end, if nobody really changes, except the fact that violent video games get a bit harder...then maybe nothing should happen at all.

Plus, if Video Game Advocates don't do anything, then Clinton could continue to do her campagin of regulation, which will harm volent video games, and their players. Not that I actually care about the regulations of violent video games (I want to kill people, I don't want to see blood!), but it is something that people should at least be informed about.

EDIT: Anti-Clinton Properganda by Costik. For infromation purposes only. Be warned, ranty, biased.
http://www.costik.com/weblog/2005_03_01_blogchive.html)

I just think that video game players have to find some way of entering into politics, even if it is just for this single-issue. After all, if they don't do anything, then they get to suffer.
Proud Member here and I urge anyone who is a voter, and gamer, to join and become active :)

http://www.videogamevoters.org/)

I still don't like any of the "serious" candidates in this race. Unless things change, I'll probably vote for whoever the Libertarians nominate.

Of course, a Giuliani-Paul ticket would be rather interesting, and it would work out nicely if the republicans could capitalize on Dr Paul's internet-based support.

Of course, a Giuliani-Paul ticket would be rather interesting, and it would work out nicely if the republicans could capitalize on Dr Paul's internet-based support.

What is the fascination with Ron Paul? He is a very nice man, but some of his strongest most passionate ideas are pure lunacy. He strongly believes we should go back to the Gold Standard, which makes sense until you think about who could control the world market price of gold. He is my congressman and I do vote for him as I personally like him, but would never want him to be the President or a heart beat away from the office. I know one thing if he ever became President he would set the record for vetoes as he votes against everything.

Ron Paul is an example of someone that no one really knows and once they do his quite charm quickly goes away. Of course if you like the Libertarians you’d like Ron Paul because he certainly should not be considered a Republican.

What is the fascination with Ron Paul? This is an excellent question.

This is an excellent question.

Answer? He's different. It's really a Vote of No Confidence in the current system. Might as well have the "No Confidence" Party...which offers "No One" as a President candinate. It ensures that people don't have to boycott the polls to show their displeasure with any of the candinates.

(If No One actually does win, um, we'll just move onto the Second Place winner instead.)

Answer? He's different. It's really a Vote of No Confidence in the current system. Might as well have the "No Confidence" Party...which offers "No One" as a President candinate. It ensures that people don't have to boycott the polls to show their displeasure with any of the candinates.

(If No One actually does win, um, we'll just move onto the Second Place winner instead.)

I'd disagree with that, to an extent. I really cannot abide in good conscious how far the US constitution has been stretched(some would say violated) to create the bloated entity that is the modern federal government, or how the 10th amendment is ignored and individual rights are trampled underfoot on a daily basis.

I think Paul is a good alternative within the two-party system to an actual Libertarian party candidate. I hope that the Paul campaign will turn into a revived interest in limited government, but that's probably a pipe dream.

My views on this were wrong on this in my previous post here- i apologize.
I just want a completely brand new goverment setup.
the 80% of votes for election rule would conjoin with the 'no confidence' idea.
i'd like to see a senate that is balanced. and a completely redone ecomomy.