1- Name the 2 ultimate candidates, IE the candidate for the Democratic party and the candidate for the Republican party. Who versus whom.

2- Name the winner.

The person who correctly predicts both of the above will receive an invitation to the Inaugural Ball.

Note: So that you are not tempted to change your mind (a la post) I will be copying and pasting your predictions here. Thank you for your understanding.

mosheshmeal:
1- Hillary VS Giuliani
2- Giuliani


Bookworm418:
1- Hillary VS Thompson
2- Thompson


krumlikeapretzel:
1- Hillary VS Huckabee
2- Hillary


Psychodad:
1- Obama VS McCain
2- Obama


Commander In Chief:
1- Obama VS McCain
2- McCain


nondenom:
1- Obama VS McCain VS Bloomberg
2- McCain


The Rabbi:
1- Hillary VS Huckabee
2- Hillary


Moshi:
1- Obama VS Huckabee
2- Obama


Natanel:
1- Hillary VS Ron Paul
2- Ron Paul


goyishrebbe:
1- Obama VS McCain
2- McCain


Rachel8:
1- Obama VS Giuliani
2- Obama


Elana:
1- Obama VS Giuliani
2- Giuliani


accolade:
1- Obama VS McCain VS Bloomberg
2- Bloomberg


sle123:
1- Obama VS McCain
2- McCain


mosheshmeal
.

Fred Thompson VS Hillary Clinton

Fred will win in 08

1. Clinton vs. Huckabee
2. Clinton

The liberal media's wet dream....

Nah..

The liberal media's real wet dream would be John Edwards vs. Chelsea Clinton

Obama v McCain

Obama

Obama v McCain

McCain

obama v. mccain v. bloomberg

mccain

Please clarify. You can only choose 2.

mosheshmeal
.

why 2? bloomberg will run as independent, if he runs.

I predict the media will sensationalize the most trivial developments. Thats less a prediction than a certainty.
I predict Clinton vs Huckabee and Clinton will win.

Obama v. Huckabee

Obama

Well, I doubt he will, but fair enough.

mosheshmeal
.

Ron Paul vs Hillary

Ron Paul

Obama versus McCain-Huckabee. The McCain-Huckabee ticket prevails in the general election.

Obama vs. Giuliani

Obama

Obama vs Giuliani

Guiliani (not exactly a prediction as i'm not following all this very closely. am i dreaming? does he have a chance?)

Obama vs. McCain.

Bloomberg.

Please clarify.

mosheshmeal
.

I sure hope not. I would be hard pressed to vote between those two. It's like a contest between Joe Stalin and Old Scratch.

Obama and McCain seem like party front-runners.

I will vote for Bloomberg when he runs as an independent candidate. And my prediction desire is that he will win.

Lovely, accolade. Now please answer the original question. Thank you.

mosheshmeal
.

1 - Obama. McCain.
2 - Bloomberg.

Bloomeberg can't win if he's not a candidate.

mosheshmeal
.

Someone recently suggested to me that he might be a dark horse candidate.

My point to accolade was that if he thinks Bloomberg will run, he should include him in the first part too.

mosheshmeal
.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? You asked us to predict the candidates for the Democratic and Republican parties. You also asked us to predict the winner of the presidential race. The winner does not necessarily have to be from either party, as you know.



I do not think Bloomberg will run as a Democratic or Republican candidate.

Kindly see my retraction in post #13, and modify your post accordingly.

mosheshmeal
.

With pleasure. Obama vs. McCain vs. Bloomberg, with Bloomberg winning.

Thank you, sir.

mosheshmeal
.

That would be pretty much the end of the world as we know it. I couldn't think of worse candidates. Fortunately the idiot Bloomberg has no chance of winning. I'd like to see him in the race only because it would mean him spending some of his millions and it might distract him from more damaging occupations.

Putin vs. Musharaf

Musharraf is an OK guy. He's managed to survive in a pretty difficult part of the world.
I was thinking about people who were likely U.S. presidential candidates. There are no end of horror stories who could be presidential candidates. Anyone likely to run for prime minister of Israel would be right up there.

mosheshmeal
.

Boy is that the case.
Only Hillary and Obama promise change, meaning that'll be the only thing left in your pocket once they've raised taxes and increased regulation.

Well, I hate to refresh your memory, but remember how good the economy was when Clinton left office? You have here the effects of 7 years of the GOP...

Well, maybe Hillary and Obama are promising change since perhaps Romney, Giuliani and Thompson would go after your last penny and offer it on the altar of corporate America. 

Huckabee would raise taxes so I assume the joke was not pro-Huckabee.

The only candidate who is remotely for "change" is Ron Paul, and I'm not even sure how much...
The only argument between them is how to best squander our money and how brazen to be about doing so.....

First off, I recall you aren't living here. So butt out.
Second, the economy is actually better now than it was when Clinton left. Unemployment is lower and salaries are higher. What we are experiencing now is the effects of the business cycle and the Democratic Congress that has blocked anything worthwhile in tax relief or regulatory relief.
Thompson is the only one I like, small gov't, less taxation, and a robust foreign policy. Romney and Giuliani aren't really Republicans.

Thanks for keeping the level of discourse friendly.

Starting off "I hate to refresh your memory but" isn't guaranteed to garner friendly responses. But I appreciate you not responding to something you really have no stake in.

While he has no chance of winning he can very much upset the election. Ross Perot was the reason Clinton won in 92. Personally, I think Bloomberg would be an awful president, and I do not think too much of his mayoring skills either...

that's debatable.

I think it had much more to do with people being deeply dissatisfied with Bush Sr. plus Bill Clinton's natural charisma. If you think charisma is a small thing for a president, you should 
remember that it's probably the only trait highly popular former presidents like Clinton, Reagan, Kennedy and FDR had in 
common.

Don't worry, the possibility of a Jewish president is exactly 0. It could be argued that had Gore chosen a differnt running mate than Lieberman he would have won a couple of other states, making Florida irrelevant and thus not making him vulnerable to electoral fraud...

It could be argued that Gore actually won Florida. It could be argued that Gore lost because he was against guns, and therefore couldnt carry his home state of TN. But of all the crack-pot theories, the idea that Lieberman was a negative to his campaign is the least likely.
Clinton was not an especially popular president. Nixon had a lot of charisma in person and none on TV. He also won by a landslide, twice.

right, the guy with the highest end-of-presidency approval rating of any postwar president wasn't especially popular.

yeah, 43% in 1968 was a landslide for sure.

Republicans were mad at GHWB, for going back on his word. Ross Perot was seen as the More conservative option. a large part 0f his 6% of the electoral vote was disgruntled republicans. Had there been no Ross Perot, those same republicans would have likely held their noses and voted against Clinton(as opposed to for bush).

Third party candidates do not do much more then act as a spoiler for elections. I can only hope that Bloomberg sees that he doesn't have a snowballs chance in H3ll and keeps out of the race.

Don't waste your time. Offering facts to counter ideological mythology is an exercise in futility.

what are you talking about?

true, but if i have the facts on hand i might as well present them so that the community at large is not unwittingly misled by the ideologue's rhetorical flourishes.like i said, it's debatable :shrug:

mosheshmeal
.