How the GOP Could Win By Richard Cohen Tuesday, June 26, 2007; A21 There are two ways to predict the winner of the 2008 presidential race: Check the polls or read some history. The polls tell you that with George Bush's approval ratings abysmally low; with the war in Iraq becoming increasingly unpopular; with the GOP lacking a dominant candidate; and with the party divided over immigration, social issues and even religion ( Mitt Romney's Mormonism), the next president is bound to be a Democrat. History begs to differ. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/25/AR2007062501465_pf.html
How the GOP could win in 2008 is easy to figure out. The Democrats nominate Hillary Clinton as their candidate. Election over. With or without history or Bloomberg or Nader. Unless the Republican candidate is caught on tape eating small children for dinner the day before the election, she is unelectable.
I think if you look very narrowly at dissimilar situations, you might conclude the GOP has a chance, but not when the rest of us are so angry with the GOP. You aren't considering how anger is going to play into people's drive to go out and vote in 2008. The GOP only wins in low turn out years. They are a minority and can not win if the Dems are energized to vote against them. And they most certainly are this next election. Besides, many Repubs will stay home in 2008 making the Dems victory that much more certain. Keep grasping at straws, it might make you feel better. :kewl:
You are right, of course. Anger and being energized to vote against them worked out so well for Kerry. And, if Clinton runs, I am sure the Republicans won't bother showing up to vote at all.
^^^Once I saw a dog get popped with a BB-Gun on the rear because it was chasing chickens. It yelped "Yeltsin." Surprised the heck out of both of us.
I'd ask every individual who's of voting age to take a good long look at this picture. Then go to you polling place with an informed mind...
skm06, that's very out of line and hopefully you will have enough common sense to delete it. There have been a lot of shootings in the country and some folks with elementary school levels of humor just don't seem to understand that the world has changed and this is no longer funny. A completely unscientific way to figure out who has the best chance of winning, but a method that has a fairly high accuracy rate, is to examine the last names of the candidates. Historically, candidates with two syllable last names that end with the letter 'n' have had the best chance of winning over candidates with other names [Clinton, Reagan, Nixon, L. Johnson, Truman, Wilson, A. Johnson, Lincoln, van Buren, Jackson]. When no candidate has such a name, it still seems to be an advantage to have the 'n' [Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Harrison, Buchanan, Harrison]. When Kennedy defeated Nixon, that was an exception to the rule, but it generally holds up. I suspect that when the Republicans determined that H. Clinton was likely to win the democratic nomination, they felt it necessary to convince Thompson to run because McCain was too far behind in the polls and they needed an 'n' of their own to counter the opposition and at least have a chance. It may not be scientific, but it seems to be the way to bet.
Cloudsweeper, you are right, it was in poor taste. Though bruce, while telling me how out of line it was, felt it necessary to post it again. Now he needs to delete it.
That is like asking the question, "Do you want the pointy end or the blunt end shoved up your lower posterium?"
KV, You are right again, when you chase chickens they don't lay eggs! A lesson that I sorely remember.
