Hillary Clinton will come out of the Feb. 5 primaries with a commanding, but not decisive lead. In the primaries that follow, Obama will not be able to overcome it, and she'll go to the convention with a majority (with or without Michigan and Florida).

On the Republican side, Florida will split its vote. McCain and Romney will finish 1-2; Giuliani and Huckabee 3-4. All four will carry on. On Feb. 5, Giuliani will win only New Jersey but will do well enough in New York, California and Illlinois to remain in the race. McCain will win New York and California narrowly and remain front-runner.

Romney will do well enough in all three states to remain in the race. Huckabee will do poorly in the big states but will get enough Southern votes to remain alive.

The subsequent primaries will not settle the issue. There will be four candidates going to the Republican Convention -- none with a majority. McCain will have the lead; Romney will be second; Huckabee and Giuliani will be well behind them but with enough delegates to be a force.

Since the primaries will be over, raising money will no longer be a factor. It will come down to wheeling-and-dealing for one candidate to drop out and support another.

Most likely: Giuliani will drop out to support either McCain or Romeny in exchange for the vice presidential slot.

[ 24 January 2008: Message edited by: Geneva ]

I think Obama would have a better chance of winning in the fall though. He is a very impressive speaker - his New Hampshire speech was the best oratory I've heard from a living politician since Mario Cuomo - and has a real ability to persuade people. If he truly has a reform agenda he is committed to implementing (and I'm not convinced that he does) he could, as President, rally people around an agenda in a way we haven't seen since in the US since FDR. If Edwards drops out sooner rather than later I think Obama could pick up enough of his followers to take the lead over Clinton (particularly if Edwards endorses him). It's more likely Edwards will hang in until the "Super Duper Tuesday" primaries though.

Clinton is a very polarizing figure - a hate figure for much of the American right the way Trudeau was in Canada but without the charisma - and in a two way race I think independents would be more likely to vote for McCain than Clinton giving him the edge (as scary a prospect as that is).

[ 24 January 2008: Message edited by: aka Mycroft ]

If Obama is the nominee he'll win by a much bigger margin. Even if all of his talk of change is exagerated, he'll still be able to do a lot more than Clinton due to this bigger margin.

The longer the race goes on, the better chance Obama has, and so i think Edwards staying in benefits Obama. If Edwards were to drop out after SC this Saturday (which i think is extremely unlikely), then Clinton can wrap things up on Super Tuesday. If it's a 2 way race going into Super Tuesday, then i think Clinton locks it up. If all three candidates head into a brokered convention then Obama comes out on top.

Don't count Romney out yet, i'm certainly hoping he gets the nom. Recent polls show him leading in Florida and now that Thompson's out his backers may be more inclined towards Romney and Huckabee than McCain.

quote:

---

Originally posted by West Coast Greeny:
If its Clinton-McCain, kill me.

---

Definitely the worst case scenario.
Liberal apologists may get weak-kneed about either of the two(aww abortion rights) but nothing changes their bloodtghirsty foreign policy views.

All in all, if either wins in November, several countries should start digging bomb shelters...

quote:

---

Originally posted by West Coast Greeny:
If its Clinton-McCain, kill me.

---

Story Highlights
Paper rips Rudy Giuliani as "a narrow, obsessively secretive, vindictive man"

Giuliani responds: I wouldn't be a conservative Republican if I did what paper wanted

Opinion piece says McCain will "end the George Bush style of governing"

Paper praises Barack Obama but calls Hillary Clinton more qualified for the job

[ 24 January 2008: Message edited by: Geneva ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by wage zombie:
[QB]I think if Clinton's the Dem nominee she'd still beat McCain, but it will be close. She will focus on the swing states to eke out a victory, basically looking for only 50%+1 of the electoral votes.

If Obama is the nominee he'll win by a much bigger margin. Even if all of his talk of change is exagerated, he'll still be able to do a lot more than Clinton due to this bigger margin.

The longer the race goes on, the better chance Obama has, and so i think Edwards staying in benefits Obama. If Edwards were to drop out after SC this Saturday (which i think is extremely unlikely), then Clinton can wrap things up on Super Tuesday. If it's a 2 way race going into Super Tuesday, then i think Clinton locks it up. If all three candidates head into a brokered convention then Obama comes out on top.

Don't count Romney out yet, i'm certainly hoping he gets the nom. Recent polls show him leading in Florida and now that Thompson's out his backers may be more inclined towards Romney and Huckabee than McCain.

Also i'm hoping that Paul runs as the Libertarian candidate. I have no idea if that's a likely scenario.

---

From what Paul says that's not likely, but I agree with your analysis otherwise.

From what I understand Edwards supporters are more likely to be white working-class as are Clinton's, and since that demographic primary-wise is one of Obama's weakest, even though Edwards himself favours Obama (which would help at a brokered convention), his staying in the race longer could actually help Obama. Edwards, even though another person would be more credible due to his previous centrist and pro-Iraq war stances, has taken on the laudable goal as the left-ish standard bearer. I could see those two working together far easier than I could Clinton/Edwards, or Clinton/Obama.

Even though she'd unite the Republicans, I think she's a strong enough candidate, with a favourable enough political climate that she'd likely barely win, even against McCain. I think McCain has agreed to take public financing, whereas Clinton didn't, so she'll have a monetary advantage that he won't. And I don't think corporate America will be afraid of donating to her campaign, in the same way that they would with Obama and especially with Edwards. Not to mention the fact that I don't think McCain would do as well with them as Romney or Guliani.

Anyways, back to Clinton vs McCain, even though McCain is polling the best against her right now, I don't think that will hold up as middle-of-the-road types are exposed to his "we might be in Iraq for 100 years" war record, and even though he holds that position, most of the far right still distrust him (for being an alleged moderate on social issues and illegal immigrants) so they're unlikely to be energized by him like they were by Bush, even with Clinton in the race. Of course Clinton's less than stellar position won't help her in the way it would Edwards and Obama in painting a contrast, but she has, along with the political winds, decided to call for withdrawal. I think she has the political skills of her husband, without the charisma or for Independents, likability.

As for the NY Times, that's not surprising. They're pretty establishment, not to mention the fact that Clinton is a local, and unlike Guliani, hasn't completely embarrassed herself during the primary.

[ 25 January 2008: Message edited by: Vansterdam Kid ]

quote:

---

In one of the more thoughtful essays in this volume, Jane Kramer writes:
"I continue to subject Hillary Rodham Clinton to the kind of scrutiny I would never think to apply to men. I look at the men running for president and ask myself if their politics are mine, or close enough to mine to be appealing. My interest in Barack Obama runs mainly to: Can you do the job? Are you brave enough for it? Do you have the vision for it? Can you take the heat? My question for Hillary Rodham Clinton is:
Why do you want the job? What kind of woman does that make you?"

---

[ 28 January 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

quote:

---

Are there any chances they will be reinstated? It looks like Clinton is the only candidate working these states.

---

quote:

---

Like Geller, most Florida Dems are furious with the DNC ruling; U.S. Senator Bill Nelson even sued the DNC last year, but lost. But many also believe the DNC is bluffing — that the eventual nominee, not wanting party divisions to spoil his or her convention moment, and not wishing to exclude the nation's fourth largest state from that moment, will pressure party leaders to include Sunshine State delegates. "At the end of the day, there is no way the DNC is not going to seat our delegates," says Ana Cruz, a Clinton campaign organizer in Tampa. "The nominee is going to have a big say in that." Says State Senator Nan Rich, a Clinton backer in South Florida: "The eventual nominee will have a big influence on the [convention] rules and will not allow Florida voters to be disenfranchised."

---

When they say Florida's 210 delgates will not be seated, does that include the ex-officio delegates? If not Clinton could be courting them by standing up for other delegates.Florida Boycott Heats Up

[ 28 January 2008: Message edited by: Pogo ]