Originally Posted By markymouse Yes, of course, I know that we aren't done with 2008. I don't mean to imply I know what will happen next Tuesday. But what do people think will be going on two years from now and four years from now? I remember the Republicans retaking the House two years into Clinton's first term. The party not in the White House often gains in mid-term elections. What do you think will happen in the Congress two years from now? Who do you think will be running for President on the GOP side in 4 years? Sarah Palin? Jeb Bush? Mitt Romney? Who do you think will be running for President on the Democratic side in 8 years, if Obama wins? One point I've thought about is the Biden isn't the sort of V.P. who would take the mantle in 8 years. As much as he wants to be President, I just can't imagine him as the standard bearer of the progressive party eight years from now. Would Biden step down four years from now to give the V.P.'s pulpit to someone else? Cheney never stepped aside to give that position to a possible Bush successor. Of course predictions are pretty useless because so much changes so fast. I remember not that long ago thinking we might see a Clinton-Obama ticket followed eight years later by an Obama-Richardson ticket. How different the details worked out. How impossible to predict what is around the next corner. I mean, really, Sarah Palin, who saw that coming? Oh, and will we still be in Iraq?
Originally Posted By mawnck My predictions, which are based on what really is going to happen: The Dems won't quite get their 60 seats in the Senate this go-around, but will have just enough reasonable Republicans to get the best stuff to Obama's desk. The mid-term election will depend on the economy, IE whether the Ponzi scheme has been adequately shored up to make people feel like they'll be OK. If it hasn't, or if (gasp!) the Dems decide to let the fat cats take their medicine and concentrate on getting us proles through the mess like they ought to be doing, then the GOP will pick up some more seats, mostly consisting of Evil Republicans. This will gridlock things again. One thing that might change that - an assassination attempt on Obama. Successful or otherwise. I think THAT would stick the fork in the Republican party, permanently peeling off the last stragglers of the Ones That Can Be Reached, and leaving them with too few supporters to make a serious run for the Presidency or for control of Congress. Running for President in 4 years? I think Sarah and Mitt are likely candidates (literally), whereas I can't imagine anyone named Bush EVER getting to the White House again - not in a thousand years. And Hillary. Seriously. Dems in 8 years? I wouldn't dare guess, except probably Hillary. And definitely Sarah, as the nominee of the Neo-GOP. (Which has kind of a ring to it, come to think of it.) We will still be in Iraq in some capacity. Even if they try to kick us out. This is absolutely, positively what will happen. Unless something else does.
Originally Posted By jdub >>Running for President in 4 years? I think Sarah and Mitt are likely candidates (literally), whereas I can't imagine anyone named Bush EVER getting to the White House again - not in a thousand years. And Hillary. Seriously.>> You think Clinton's going to run independently against President Obama? That'd be, uh, SOMEWHAT egg-on-her-face-y after how hard she's come out FOR him. Plus, I do think he'll be nominating her for something special. YES, even MORE special than a Safeway Kookie Klub Card.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>Plus, I do think he'll be nominating her for something special.<< A wise move, that. And, c'mon. Nobody REALLY believes Hillary wants Obama to win, do they?
Originally Posted By dshyates Bubba is stumping pretty hard for Obama right now in Otown. A very lively speech, Bubba is giving.
Originally Posted By WorldDisney Its no way Hillary would run against Obama in 2012. I mean, how would it look to the rest of the party?? I also think she will probably have some role in Obama's presidency anyway if he wins.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Who do you think will be running for President on the GOP side in 4 years? Sarah Palin? Jeb Bush? Mitt Romney?*** Jeb? No way. I think that's why Daddy Bush was crying in his speech about "his boys" that one time...the wrong boy got into the White House and ruined everything (I think George Senior rightly believes that if it had been Jeb first, George could've slid in later). I wouldn't say "no way" about Hillary, WD. After all, Kennedy ran against Carter in 1980 (and almost beat him!). Obama would have to really blow it though. If he's strong and successful, you're right she probably wouldn't run.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I believe that Sarah Palin's days as a presidential candidate are done. It would take an enormous amount of effort, time and money to erase the dingy image most non-GOP hardliners have of her. She has distinguished herself in this campaign by being nasty. She scoffed at the concept of "fruit fly research" as an example of government waste in a recent stump speech, not understanding that fruit fly research is exactly what lead to the breakthroughs science has had in mapping DNA. This ignorant, anti-science, shoot-from-the-hip stuff isn't charming anyone outside of, maybe, those die hard supporters of President Bush still in the room. Such ignorance carries life and death consequences, and Sarah Palin's condescending smirk and shrill rantings would go nowhere fast in a presidential election. In fact, she is Stephen Colbert's character brought to real life, life imitating art. All bluster, theatrics and attitude, yet completely clueless below the surface.
Originally Posted By dshyates I like how she said that she would put money into studing important stuff like Autism not silly stuff like "Fruit Flys". Even though some of the biggest advances in studing Autism came from the DNA mapping we got from studing ........wait for it.......fruit flys.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan That's exactly the type of ignorant one-liner that she has demonstrated during her 2 months in the spotlight. Sure, "fruit fly research" sounds funny, and when you smirk at the audience and roll your eyes about it, you'll probably get a lot of ignorant people clapping like trained seals. But it's serious stuff.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***According to the Mayan calendar isn't 2012 when everything ends?*** Pretty much. I figure Barack will transform into a being of energy and light, and teach us all to do the same.
Originally Posted By Mr X What really amazes me on the fruit fly thing and other ridiculous stuff she has said is...she NEVER retracts any of it. Are we supposed to believe that she thinks she was RIGHT? Or, that she's so dumb she never paid attention to any of the rebuttals from the media? Or, that she doesn't concern herself with the media to the point where she... Ugh. Never mind. I really, really hate this chick! I hope she goes back to Alaska and is never heard from again (outside of Alaska, I mean...). On the other hand, she really is comedic gold.
Originally Posted By WorldDisney <<I figure Barack will transform into a being of energy and light, and teach us all to do the same. >> ROFLMAO!!! You want to know what's even stranger? I predict this will happen ;D.
Originally Posted By Mr X Either that, or we'll crash and burn into a post-apocalyptic Thunderdome type of society...but I'll still blame the Republicans.
Originally Posted By WorldDisney If we end up in into Thunderdome type society, we can just blame it on the Bush tax cuts .
Originally Posted By markymouse "What really amazes me on the fruit fly thing and other ridiculous stuff she has said is...she NEVER retracts any of it." That's something that annoys me about political campaigns in general this time around. The approach is rebut nothing/ deny nothing. If your opponent says you hate kitties, that leads the news for three or four hours. Then it slips down. But if you make the mistake of saying "Of course I don't hate kitties" then the issue gets another three or four hour rotation. "(Your name here) denies hating kitties." Palin actually screwed up. Yeah, I know, surprise. Her handlers wanted her to ignore the clothing issue, stick to Obama palling around with terrorists. But she was in her "rogue" phase and actually addressed the issue. Sure enough, not only did she give the media cause to give the story another cycle "Palin addresses clothes controversy" but they then got to give a cycle to "Palin shows inexperience by giving air time to criticisms against her." I hate that candidates are conditioned to never address problems, because to do so gives the problem more air time. Biden says Obama will be tested and needs your help. We all think "What the?" But to explain what he meant would give the gaffe another news cycle of coverage. So he says nothing about it. We just get to keep wondering. So that's why, I think, you'll almost never hear Palin retract anything. Her handlers would much rather she just keep talking about all the terrorists Obama parties with.
Originally Posted By WorldDisney Wow, good point Markymouse and I never thought about it that way . Still though, when you say something that is a bold face lie, it SHOULD be retracted, period (not necessarily the stuff about Palin and the palin around comment, just in general). But when its more subtle or misquoted, I can see why they just ignore it and move on.
