Do you think the next President of the United States of America will be Hillary Clinton? Obama? Rudy? Someone else?

I love the democrats and I strongly believe that either Hilary or Obama would be an amazing president. But you have to keep in mind that our country is really conservative in certain areas and therefore I doubt whether the nation would vote for a woman or a non-Caucasian person.

In short, I would not be surprised if the (damn) republicans win again. If the republicans win, i would want McCain to win.

great response Mirza. lets see what the rest of the site thinks. Should be some great replies :)

thanks mindsmack

I might give a different answer if you'd asked a different question. Rather than asking, "Who would you like to see elected?", you asked who we think *will* be elected. After reading his book, "Dreams from my Father," I would love to see Barack Obama elected President. As to who I think *will* get elected? Unfortunately, the cynic in me says Fred Thompson. It's perfect, don't you see? A nation that is obsessed with celebrity is almost sure to choose a man whose best trait is playing a prosecutor on TV over someone of substance like Obama.

Very true seqdeha, And thats my answer as well.

Of course our country has always had a thing for electing actors...

Obama would probably be the best for the country. I've read his book and been to a couple of the debates (the two dem. debates that were in sc..I was at) and I really think he might be what we need to fix this place. Of course, he's black, which throws a kink in things***. But I think he has great ideas, and he's managed to convince me he'll actually try to follow through with those things.

***( Okay, sidenote. Isnt that^ sad?! I mean really people, get over it, Some people don't look like you, they may not even think like you, but take the time to get to know someone before writing them off because they don't look like you. I think its a sad day in our country when it's still an issue that a candidate is black.)

Unless something drastic changes, the defining issue will be Iraq, and on that issue the Republican candidates have a distinct disadvantage. That's why my money is on a Democrat in 2008. Which Democrat? Clinton is the strongest right now, followed by Senator Obama but don't count John Edwards out. He is strong in the early states (Iowa, New Hampshire) and that could help him build momentum. All told, however, right now if I had to, I'd bet on Senator Clinton becoming the country's first female President in 2008.

Yup, who "will" win is a much bigger question than who I "want" to win. I really don't think conservative opposition to Clinton and Obama has very much to do with their gender or race. (I'm not making that as a general statement about conservatives and gender and race, but specifically Clinton and Obama, as there are so many more important reasons why conservatives are opposed to Clinton and Obama than gender or race) The opposition to Clinton is not just conservatives, there are a number of liberals who are secretly scared to death of her as well. The Clintons are Clintons first and Democrats second, and the Dems have been messed over by the Clintons on many occasions. Clinton's problem is she just isn't likeable to and scares a wide spectrum of voters. She has been consistently strongly opposed by about 35% of all voters in most polls since Bill's first term, regardless of her positioning on issues. She consistently loses to just about any named Republican in polls. She keeps getting a pass on some of the most amazingly stupid lies. I don't think she is electable in the general election unless the GOP candidate really messes up, no matter what she does. This creates a problem for Democrats, as who is going to tell her she isn't the candidate? Can she do what it takes to beat Obama without becoming distasteful?
Obama certainly is an attractive candidate in many ways, but a significant number of Americans question whether he lacks experience, and its disappointing he couldn't steer clear of apparently questionable business dealings with someone as notoriously corrupt as Tony Rezko. I really don't think his race (and in Chicago, they're pushing his Irish heritage) is going to matter, people will either decide to trust him or they won't.
On the GOP side, Romney has some strong credentials, but his Mormonism may hurt him (which I, frankly, find offensive that professed religious faith is considered by some to be a disqualification, what happened to the liberal position Kennedy's Catholicism shouldn't be a disqualification?). McCain has the experience, but frequently comes off as your friend's cranky grandpa that you always thought might smack you one. Giulani has credentials, but absent the presence of Hillary, may have done better as a Democrat than a Republican. Thompson has more of that "presidential" personality than anyone in either party, and what is frequently ignored is he has solid credentials.
Final prediction? Assuming no public relations surprises, and assuming it doesn't get really bloody between Clinton and Obama and he doesn't have any more skeletons, Obama is the primary favorite with the voters, but Clinton calls in some favors, makes a few backroom threats, twists a lot of arms, and Obama is either persuaded to take the Veep slot by promises of, say, the presidential nod when the Clintons finally retire plus a war chest of millions, or possibly sainthood, or he gets stabbed in the back (figuratively) just as the Clintons did Gore, and starts the "I should've been President" speaking circuit with Gore and Kerry.
Assuming Thompson really decides to campaign hard, Thompson edges out Giulani with Romney a distant third in the GOP primary. If Thompson doesn't compete, either Giulani or McCain edges out the other, depending on which one cuts the best deal giving the VP slot to Romney. Giulani/McCain would be the nightmare ticket for the GOP, as nobody, not even Republicans, would vote for that combo of testiness, and which one would take the #2 spot?
In the general election, either Thompson beats Clinton by a lot, or Thompson/Obama is too close to call, but may come down to a voting backlash still against Bush, which would be ridiculous but still possible. The "secret" issues of this general election will be Republican base anger against abandonment of conservatism by Republican leaders (which only Thompsen or Romney can survive) and Democrat base anger against a lack of specific ideas and abandonment of liberalism by Democrat leaders (which only Obama can survive).
My overall guesstimate is the most probable (but barely the most probable) result is Thompson over Clinton by a narrow electoral but large popular vote margin, and second most probable is Obama over Thompson by a very narrow electoral margin and even narrower popular margin, or possibly even a popular vote loss.
My dream result? Obama and McCain both get dumped at the conventions for Clinton and Thompson, and both decide to run as independents, making an immensely entertaining four way race, resulting most probably in 1: Thompson (R), 2: Obama (I); 3: Clinton (D) and a very distant 4: McCain (I).

Wow, hossman, are you a political analyst by day? I'm as progressive as they come, but I used to be attracted to McCain back in the "straight talk" days. That is, before he sold his soul for the chance to become president. After the way Dubya's campaign smeared him in South Carolina in 2000, it just sickens me to see him suck up to the neocon establishment.

Hilllary Clinton will most likely win

I'm not sure it's the neocons McCain is sucking up to, but rather he has become a media harlot. He just can't bear to not be on the Sunday news shows. And if anybody is the Manchurian Candidate. . .

An EXTREMELY conservative friend of mine likes to use what he calls the "Antichrist" analysis, meaning that in any primary or general election, for every office, he votes for the candidate least likely to be the Antichrist (he's not really serious about the candidate actually being the Antichrist, it's just a metaphor he likes to use).

We were talking about this election, and his Antichrist analysis goes: McCain is sufficiently wacked out to be the Antichrist, but is probably too old. Obama very well could be the Antichrist (good looking, intelligent, charismatic, broad based appeal, well-educated). Thompson is mildly likely to be the Antichrist (good communicator, charismatic). Giulani is mildly likely to be the Antichrist (mildly sinister looks, comes from New York). He isn't sure about Romney as he doesn't know whether Mormons have an Antichrist. Clinton is most likely to be the Antichrist (Messiah complex, plays hardball and dirty pool, knows the best place to bury the hatchet is right between the shoulder blades, still married to Bill).

My response is Clinton is the least likely to be the Antichrist, as the Antichrist would be the person who least appears to be the Antichrist, and Hillary would be way too obvious, thus I would have to go with Obama as "Most Likely to Satisfy Revelation and Bring About Armageddon." Except maybe the ears. I can't see those being the ears of Evil Incarnate.

It now occurs to me that last post may be ill-advised, as using the term "Antichrist" in proximity to the presidential candidates has undoubtedly bumped me up on the "let's keep an eye on his e-mails and cell phone calls" list at the NSA and Secret Service.

And it now occurs to me that referring to those two fine government organizations devoted to protecting liberty, justice and the American Way in proximity to the A word hasn't helped either.

@hossman, First rule: when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging! :^)

I totally think Dr. Ron Paul will win the election. His principles, beliefs, ideas, and message are from the heart of the original American experiment. Something most all of US believe in. He is an intelligent and passionate man of integrity. He awesome, and worth spending a few minutes on you tube to see what he's about.

Hossman, from your posts I think you should definitely check out Ron Paul. If you don't like him you can kick me in the nuts.

***********************************************************************************************
From yahoo answers:

Ron Paul will be elected as the president. People who know who he is tend to agree with his message (those who don't are mostly either partisan hacks or paid astroturfers who work for one of the other campaigns), he's the only Republican who is against the War (which makes him the only Republican who can win in November, as 70% of the country opposes the war and you can't win an election with 30%, unless you're Abe Lincoln), and he's also the only candidate talking about real issues, such as eliminating the IRS and Federal Reserve that are looting the Middle Class and the Poor for the benefit of the Wealthy. He's the only Congressman in history who has never voted to raise taxes, never voted against cutting taxes, never voted for a pay raise, won't take his pension, doesn't take junkets, votes against all gun control (which the vast majority of Americans now oppose, realizing that it leads to more crime as victims can't defend themselves), and is the Champion of the Constitution (he voted against the Patriot Act and the War on Iraq from the start, rather than flip-flopping for political reasons, ala Hillary Clinton).

The stars are perfectly aligned for Ron Paul to be elected as our next president. Its just a matter of getting out the vote at this moment.

Look for McCain to run as an independent and choose Leiberman as his running mate. This will siphon off conservative voters and lead to a landslide Democrat win in 2008. You read it here first…

I wonder whether an independent McCain/Leiberman ticket would siphon off more conservatives from the Republican or Democratic voters? Because I don’t see the more conservative wing of the Republicans voting for McCain/Lieberman unless Giuliani is the Republican candidate. It would be more likely for liberal or anti-Mormon Republicans (and given how much conservative Christian Republican voters have been attacked for their faith, you’d think they’d be a little more tolerant of a Mormon candidate) to vote McCain/Lieberman if Romney took the Republican nomination on a long shot.

On the other hand, I can see a lot of conservative Democrats voting for McCain/Leiberman regardless of who receives the Democratic nomination. Some of those conservative Democrats have been looking for a way to stick it to the Democrats since the shameful way the left wing of the Democratic Party treated Lieberman in his last run for the Senate. The most important question would be how many so-called “moderates” and “independents” would be attracted to a McCain/Lieberman ticket, and how many Democrats of any type would vote for McCain/Lieberman as part of the “I hate Hillary” vote, if Hillary receives the Democratic nomination.

If Giulani or Romney get the Republican nomination, and Hilary gets the Democratic nomination, McCain/Lieberman would have a better 3rd party shot, in my opinion, than Perot or Nader did, not through any great distinction on their part, but as the “lesser of 3 evils” candidates. A lot would depend on how many voters are so turned off by their party’s candidate that they won’t vote for that candidate, but still can’t bring themselves to vote for the other party’s candidate. Hmmm. . . seems like a good topic for a thread.

Mr. T.