I was wondering if anybody has any predictions as to who will be the nominees for both president and vice-president in each of the two parties next year. Here are my predictions:

Republican Presidential Nominee:

I predict that Mitt Romney will be the nominee, and not Rudy Giuliani. That's because even though Giuliani is currently well-ahead in the national polls, Romney is well ahead in the early primary states of Iowa and New Hampshire. Without exception, history has shown that if a candidate wins both of these states, then he gets incredible momentum that completely changes the dynamics in the primaries of the other states (and results in victories in those other states). Additionally, I do not believe Giuliani can win the nomination because he is pro-choice; as unfortunate as it is, the reality is that Republicans will only nominate somebody who is pro-life, while the Democrats will only nominate somebody who is pro-choice.

Personally, my first choice for president is John McCain, but sadly his campaign is in shambles. My second choice is Giuliani: not only do I like him, but I also believe that he is the only Republican who has any chance of beating Clinton in the general election. If (as I prediced) Romney is the nominee, then Clinton will win in a landslide.

Republican Vice-Presidential Nominee:

The only two candidates with any realistic chance of winning the presidential nomination are Giuliani and Romney. And, when either of them wins the nomination, he will need to pick a strong conservative from the South in order to make the base of the party happy. For obvious reasons, the base feels extremely unfortcable with Giuliani. However, they also do not completely trust Romney, due to his past flip-flopping on abortion and other social issues.

Out of all of the possible Southern conservatives out there, I predict that Giuliani or Romney will choose former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee as his running mate. Huckabee himself is currently running for president, and he started off as a complete unknown who barely made a dent in the polls. However, his poll numbers--particularly in Iowa, where he currently is in second place--have recently surged as a result of effectively being able to connect with religious voters. And, while I think that he still has very little chance of winning the presidential nomination, his strong showing (which I believe he will have in the primaries) will made him the obvious choice for vice-president.

Democratic Presidential Nominee:

Obviously, Hillary Clinton will get the nomination. Really, how can there be any doubt when she continues to hold a 30-point lead in the polls?

I personally believe that Clinton's solid lock on the nomination is largely due to her being the husband of Bill Clinton. While Hillary does have many of her own die-hard supporters, the fact of the matter is that every single Democrat is still in love with Bill. The Democrats honestly believe that he is one of the greatest presidents ever (something that I think is very far from the truth), and feel that seeing Hillary win will be a continuation of his presidency.

Democratic Vice-Presidential Nominee:

I'd first like to state that the VP nominee will definately not be Barack Obama (even though he is always rumored to be a likely running-mate). Electorally speaking, Obama will add absolutely nothing to the ticket, since (1) the Democrats always get 90% of the black vote and (2) his home state of Illinois is heavily Democratic. Another reason why Obama will not be chosen is because presidenital nominees (especially somebody as egotistical as Clinton) absoultely hate choosing a running-mate who will outshine and overshadow them.

Although I am not 100% sure by any means, I believe that New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson (who is currently running for president, although his showing in the polls is microscopic) will get the vice-presidential nomination. For one thing, Richardson is a long-time Clinton loyalist (who served in Bill's cabinet). Additionally, Richardson is somebody who will not overshadow Hillary in any way. However, most importantly (however) is the fact that he is Hispanic: with him on the ticket, the Hispanic vote will be galvanized like it never has been before, which will virtually guarantee that Arizona, Colorado, Florida, New Mexico, and Nevada (all states carried by Bush in 2004) will vote Democratic in the general election.

However, there is one reason why Richardson still might not be chosen: he has a tendency for off-the-cuff remarks (which can be damaging politically). All presidential nominees, and Hillary in particular, want a running made that won't go off on tangents but instead will completely stick to the script. However, despite the fact that this is a weakness for Richardson, I still believe he will be the vice-presidential nominee because the electoral benefits he brings to the ticket (as explained above) outweigh his negatives.

Edited November 17, 200718 yr by Max

Mulder, I am sincerely sorry that I offened you. However, please keep in mind that I am upset that you automatically assumed that I was a Bush-loving neo-con. Note that while I am a conservative Republican, I am not a neo-con, and I feel that Bush has been a major disappointment as president. The Iraq War (which I initially supported, because I believed Bush when he said that there were WMD) has been a major disaster, and has damaged the Republican Party to the point that it will take many years to recover. And, of course, I believe that Bush and Cheney are very egotistical.

Mulder, I also want to say that Evan Bayh as the Democratic VP nominee is an interesting choice. He is definately a solid moderate who will not overshadow Clinton in any way. However, I do not believe he will get chosen because Indiana is a heavily Republican state, and his being on the ticket will not be enough to make the state vote Democratic in the general election. (For instance, North Carolina is also a heavily Republican state, and Bush still easily won that state in 2004 despite John Edwards' presence on the ticket.)

And I apologize for my hot-headed response. I'm sorry. And I shouldn't have called you a neo-con without seeing more of your posts on the matter. You're response proves you are not a neo-con. I again apologize, so sorry man.

If Hilary is smart, she'll pick Joe Biden as her running mate. Obama is 100% out of the question because he will overshadow her, in addition to the attacks. Edwards said he won't accept VP, not that anyone would offer it to him.

I would love Joe Biden as VP. He's actually one of my faves running.

Mulder, there is no need for this. Once again, if you disagree with someone, fine.

The stuff you are saying here is vey disrespectful.

Let's keep this civil, like everyone else is pretty much doing.

Sorry Roman. This is why I don't talk politics much in person. I'm too hot-headed about my Democratic beliefs.

I apologize again to Max, Roman and anyone else that I've offended in this topic.

Edited November 19, 200718 yr by Mulder

Mulder, that was HUGE of you to do that.

No problems, my man.

Thank you guys for mentioning that the "change" that I myself has seen in John Edwards. He's comes across as just plain mad and desperate these days.

Here's my guesses:

Democrat: Clinton as President. Obama as her running mate.

Republican: It's a toss up between Huckabee and Guiliani(sp). I'm a moderate (more liberal), but the only Republican who remotely interests me is Ron Paul. The rest are all just wealthy rich white old men who are trying their hardest to impersonate Ronald Reagan.

Does anyone eles think the so-called issues, possible scandals within the Dems, supposedly fostered by other Dems, are really Republican tricks?

Does anyone eles think the so-called issues, possible scandals within the Dems, supposedly fostered by other Dems, are really Republican tricks?

Wouldn't put it past them.

Michael, I respect your opinions. But, I just don't think this country will vote for a woman and a black man on the same ticket.

I can see why you'd think that.

What would have to happen is that the 18-30 age group would have to come out en mass and vote for them. Also, the Vietnam generation still hasn't quite taken over. We still have either the Good Ole Boys or the racists who will just block that.

I just don't see that happening. In this country, a woman sitting in the big chair is something I thought I would never see. Let's do that one first, and then move on to the next one later.

Good point, Roman. I was born in the US and hold dual citzenship, so I try to follow US politics as much as I can. But even in liberal Canada, we have not yet "elected" a woman into the prime minister's office.

And it's a shame, TC, that Great Britain and Europe has dealt with the crap we are still holding ourselves back on.

It is a terrible shame, but if we compare to Western Europe(excluding England), at least the US and Canada have a better record of electing people of African heritage on most other legislative levels. There is hope, but as you say, it's unrealistic to expect it all at once.