Minnesota's in the Middle

All things Minnesota politics

Sunday, June 10, 2007

2008 Presidential election predictions

Hey it's one way to add a little content when nothing significant is happening.

First of all where is Unity 08? The idea that they can get a major Democrat and Republican to join their effort is laughable leaving Michael Bloomberg as their only credible option Given his financial resources he really doesn't need unity's extremely small base of activist, but if they don't do anything silly chances are Bloomberg will let them borrow his campaign assuming he does run.

As for the Democrats I see Clinton winning the nomination with Bill Richardson finishing strong and being picked as the VP candidate. I think Edwards will fade fast, and their are enough people out their that won't vote for a guy named Obama that he won't top Hillary no matter how strong of a campaign he runs.

The Republican side is a little bit more difficult to predict as Giuliani currently leads the polls although he doesn't represent the values of the Republican Party leaving things wide open for someone to pass him. McCain like Edwards is running a desperate campaign and will fade fast. Mitt Romney seems to be the best bet, but now with Fred Thomas drawing a lot of support it could be a 3 or 4 way battle that's so close that it will almost come down to luck. That being said I like Romneys chances his VP probably is not listed above and really could come from anywhere.

The Green and Libertarian parties and candidates are making no noise at all, the Constitution Party does have Alan Keyes so they may crack 1% but really the odds of those parties and others combining for even 2% is slim especially given Bloomberg will provide an avenue for protest voters.

So we have Clinton, Romney, and Bloomberg facing off. The real question is how well can Bloomberg do, he has the money to run a great campaign. He kind of strikes me as the kind of guy that will have a lot of good ideas, but will have a tough time selling his ideas the way Ross Perot did, so that leaves him around the 5-10% range I'll call it 6% for now.

So my early prediction

Hillary Clinton 47%
Mitt Romney 46%
Michael Bloomberg 6%
Other 1%

And your next president is Mitt Romney, cause Democrats just don't know how to win the south.


Blogger Chris Truscott said...

The Republican race will be very interesting. It's the first time since 1980 that it's been a really wide-open fight. I imagine you're right about Romney.

I think Hillary wins, though, as Democrats make gains in the southwest and Colorado.

For Republican VP candidate: Pawlenty. Why not?

For the Democrats: Virginia Gov. Mark Warner, who left office last year in that conservative southern state with a 76 percent approval rating.

Blogger mike said...

I was tempted to suggest Pawlenty as well. And your right that it really only takes one or two states to flip to sway things the Democrats way, heck Katrina the aftermath and the population shift may allow the Democrats to be competitive in Louisiana and Mississippi.

I just hate the EC to the point where I have to point out it's flaw, afterall if a family with 7 voters moves in next door they don't get their votes for mayor reduced to be more comparable to my household. In all honesty I haven't examined the head to head matchups to the point where I can make an accurate prediction other then the fact that it this level things are so calculated that it would be a shock to see a margain of more then 5%.

Blogger Chris Truscott said...

I don't mind the Electoral College, but it should be revised. Rather than actual Electoral votes, there should be electoral points.

I.E.: If Hillary wins Minnesota 52 to 48, she gets 5.2 to her opponent's 4.8 points.

That way candidates have an incentive to campaign nationwide because there are points to be scored everywhere, even if you still lose the state. Republicans can get something out of California, Democrats out of Texas.

I think something like a 5-percent minimum in a given state is a fair way to include candidates in the points process.

Blogger mike said...

Given that system why not just go with the popular vote, that way if tournout in Minnesota is 70% and turnout in Texas is 40% the extra 30% that turnout get their votes counted.

Unless the citezens can't be trusted to make the right decisions or empty fields deserve a voice the EC is pointless.

The argument is that it drives candidates to campaign in all 50 states, but all that means is the metro area or Fargo get an apperance, they will still ignore the places where voters don't exist.

The citizens of small states are represented by 2 senators, that should be enough. We can create any given random system but shouldn't it simply be up to the people.

The EC only has value when they intelligently and honestly vote against the citizens, short of that its a stupid way to try to reflect the popular vote.

Blogger broom4senate said...

The only way the Republican's even have a chance is to put Pawlenty on the V.P. ticket. That still won't change the fact that Hillary is taking over PERIOD. It is my job to know. I have a 100% track record on all of my Presidential, Governor, and U.S. Senate race picks. I think Pawlenty is doing a GREAT job.

Blogger broom4senate said...

Cris has a very good point on electoral points. I don't see that ever happening, but I would vote for a plan like that.

Since voting will be turning electronic sooner than later, now would be a good time to put that plan into play.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home