Four strongest parties fight for the White House...

The Green Party nominates Ralph Nader to head its ticket, with Peter Miguel Camejo once again as his veep nom.

Thompson's Hollywood luster fades. He drops out. Giuliani runs into a far-right buzz saw in the primaries and gets out relatively soon as well. The Republicans nominate Mitt Romney, who then selects Gov. Haley Barbour of Mississippi as his running mate.

Despite a close delegate scramble by Edwards and Obama, Hillary Clinton becomes the Democrats' nominee, and selects New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson to be her veep nom. The ticket has a 90s Bill Clinton Cabinet feel to it.

Michael Bloomberg jumps into the race as an moderate Independent, choosing former Senator David Boren of Oklahoma as his running mate. He announces he's prepared to spend "as much as it takes" to win the White House.

There are other parties who also nominate tickets but these four are the heavy hitters. All but the Green Party have serious money, and the Greens have a much-improved grassroots organization and ballot-access apparatus this time.

Who wins, and in what order do they finish?

It will be very difficult for the Republicans to win. My nightmare scenarion is that Cheney resigns or is removed, Romney becomes VP, Bush resigns or is removed, then Romney becomes President. In this case, Romney would have a reasonable shot.

and then possibly moving up to president.

But it is possible, and that's frightening.

Agree with you that in such a scenario, he would be more difficult to defeat than if he were one of say 4 candidates in an open race.

He's very, very smart, power-hungry, and perfectly amoral - a recipe for very bad stuff. Bush at least had the saving grace of being shatteringly incompetent. I'm afraid Romney won't make that mistake.

Like a radioactive cockroach somehow connected to a super-computer.

Robotic, glaring-eye intensity, and as you say, "perfectly amoral."

I'm just as creeped out as you are over this guy.

I can't see the GOP welcoming the prospect of Sm*rk as an ex-pResident - he's a loose cannon. Once deprived of the narcissistic supply of the White House and sycophants as far as the eye can see, Sm*rk is a melt-down away from the looney-bin.

He's far mor "useful" to the GOP as a martyr - their JFK. If he's "offed" in 2008 and the selected puppet is in as VP, the 'sympathy' vote could swing it.

A Huckabee-Tancredo ticket would have me boarding the first airplane to the Seychelles.

Then the humans will be force-marched into concentration camps for re-education and to have new Real ID chips implanted. Since the kinder, gentler form fascism is no longer working, THEY will resort to older methods.

doctor the images in strange, lurid colors. Here, you just run a normal shot of the guy.

Odd.

___________

Great image, as usual. Yes. I worry about the conservative media's hold on ideas and how those ideas are presented. I get frustrated at local newscasts even more, though. They're generally abominable. I try to skip them when I can and just hit the web sources. Better for my mental health!

I just laugh at it all. If I didn't, I might have done something regrettable during Katrina.

there was no reason any American had at all to trust the Bush administration.

CNN -- in one of their rare moments of clarity and good journalism -- did a split-screen thing with Michael Brown on one side, blabbering about all the things he had done to help the residents of New Orleans -- and on the other side they ran footage of bodies literally floating down Canal Street.

That split-screen set of images got piped into a lot of living rooms across the country.

We talk a lot about Bush's foreign policy failures on DU, and god knows he's a huge failure in foreign policy, but he's just as much a failure in domestic policy also, and New Orleans bears witness to that.

CNN has returned to their regular format - propaganda.

I do not trust this government nor the media at all, and I'm very skeptical of my fellow citizens, as I see how my city is continually neglected... my mistrust is hardening.

If I had a choice, I would have left the country over a year ago.

terms. I share your frustration.

There is a higher ground to the U.S. experience of citizenship, and George W. Bush's administration has not led us toward it at all.

I do feel that 2008 is looking like a Democratic year, and that buoys me a bit. I'm looking forward to the primary season. I don't the GOP has much of a chance with a field as weak as the one they have now.

Jeb Bush would be a star player in any year other than this one, since his older brother has stunk upthe joint mighty bad. This just ain't gonna be Jeb's year.

And Gingrich? I don't think he stands a chance. I think he thinks he does, but I don't think it will persuade a lot of voters.

John Danforth would be the Republicans' best hope for a strong candidate, and they won't touch him with a ten-foot pole.

So there's a light starting to flicker on in.

edit:

At least in Guantanamo people can get medical attention.

whomp the Republicans.

I think that will happen. The trendlines favor our side this time, by a considerable margin. Bush has cooked his own goose, but he's cooked the whole GOP's too, really.

Universal coverage will eventually make it here, but I don't know when. A better chance with more Democrats in the Senate than if the numbers don't change there. I don't think voters are going to let the issue die, that's for sure. Michael Moore's film SICKO is already having an effect, and probably will keep the pressure on going into the election.

I'm not going to just wait for my fellow citizens to stand up and demand equal treatment for all. At least I know there are other countries that celebrate the concept of caring for the less fortunate or, God forbid, middle class folks who can no longer afford a doctor's visit. I look forward to seeing America's response regarding Michael Moore's "Sicko." I was treated FOR FREE in Costa Rica, France, Brazil for accidents, scuffles, scrapes, bruises. I think I paid a couple of bucks in Cataluña for some medicine once, a few pennies in Mexico with my great-grandma, que Dios le bendiga. O8)

I'll give it a few more years. I want to see what it's like to have a progressive Democrat as president before making any drastic decisions. ;)

and we're all better off for it.

Paul Krugman's article in the New York TIMES this morning talks about universal care -- and there's another piece in the issue that says all arguments against universal care seem to have been exhausted and that the only inevitable outcome is to actually have it.

I don't have the TIMES subscription so it won't let me download it, but if you're near a library or newsstand or something, it might be worth a look. Krugman's no dummy, and health care is one of his pet issues. I'm going to sneak over to the library and try to have a look later today.

'Am meeting a friend for a lemonade at lunchtime. He's a crack meteorologist and dislikes Bush for many reasons, but especially because of the anti-science stance the administration takes on nearly everything.

He believes the country's refusal to adopt universal health care is anti-science. I definitely agree with that.

I'll join you in watching our Democrats to make sure the issue stays front and center.

I think that their nominee will be someone who surprises a lot of people...

whining by Ralph Nader.

I honor the guy's smarts but I'm damned sick of his whining.

Do you have a candidate in mind for that Green Party nomination if it's not Nader? This could get interesting.

chat with from time to time told me that it would not be Nader, but that the Party was going to go for "big name recognition". That was all I could get out of her. I was wondering about any number of progressive, disgruntled Democrats who might be persuaded - depending on who gets the nomination in the Democratic Party. Also, Bloomberg could really light things up if he ran with Hagel or one of the Concord bunch. And don't forget that "Unity" ticket that Sam Waterson is hawking. This could be a real barn-burner before it is over...

on that one. I don't think Bloomberg will take a Dem running mate--he's already said he will still support the Repub party in his state, and David Boren wouldn't really add anything to the ticket or make up for Bloomberg's weak areas, unless Boren's a military affairs/foreign policy wonk that I'm not aware of. I'm willing to bet Bloomberg will lean Republican and go with Hagel as originally rumored, which I think (hope) will help peel away some votes from Romney, who doesn't seem especially beloved by the GOP base as it is. With that rosy scenario, Hillary wins. If Bloomberg does lean Dem and take a Dem running mate, it would hurt us, I think.

Agree with you about Boren vs. Hagel. It will change the number and tone of any potential Bloomberg campaign, depending on which he chooses. I realize he might choose someone else, or choose not to run after all, but a Republican would give him a different demographic than a Democrat.

And would pull votes to or from our ticket accordingly.

I find that I don't dislike Michael Bloomberg. Still will be voting for the Democratic ticket, but as New York City Republican mayors go, I much prefer Bloomberg to Giuliani.

Actually the entire Republican field is a major freak show. The whole lot of them are frightening.

and pragmatic, and not especially partisan or political. Which can be a bad thing, if not-so-loyal Dem-leaning voters end up feeling the same way about him, AND aren't thrilled with Hillary--that could be a recipe for our loss, but we'll have to cross that bridge later, IF he runs. He might be an awful campaigner--who knows? My gut is that he doesn't want to be responsible for handing the WH to whatever Repug freak ends up winning the nom, though--if he thinks that will happen, maybe he'll stay out. As slick as Romney is, he seems like he kind of hit a wall, lately--might be Mormonism, or the doggie ghost of Seamus coming back to haunt him, who knows. Thompson seems afraid to officially get in the race and endure the debates and the slings and arrows--his handlers seem to want him to avoid scrutiny for as long as possible, which tells me he's got some weaknesses--right now his candidacy is riding on dreams and folksy Southern sayings. Rudy is still the man to beat, and I'm not sure Hillary can do that.

Iowa caucuses.

Good observation on Thompson. He strikes me as a lazy-ass. Maybe he isn't, but if he isn't, where the hell is he? I bet you're right on his needing to keep certain things tucked under wraps as long as possible.

For some reason I think Giuliani is a weak sister in the GOP race. I think Romney's bucks will sustain him longer than Giuliani's conversion to "conservative." If Bloomberg jumps in, he automatically gives voters a reason to prefer his leadership over Rudy's. You're right -- Bloomberg is competent. Where Rudy is kind of hysterical and thuggish.

The four-party scenario I set up changes also depending on which of our candidates gets the nomination.

If Gore jumps in, I think he defeats Clinton for the nomination and goes on to slaughter everybody else in the field for November.

money, god knows.

I don't know if he can translate it into votes.

I'm guessing that if he runs as an independent, he won't even have to fight in any primaries. He can pay massive legal fees for ballot access and run all the ads he wants.

Agree with you. He could be a problem.

I refuse to enter your nightmare...(yet)

a potential scenario with 4 parties clamoring for the top job.

I'm using New Hampshire's current polling to set the winners for nomination, then guessing at possible veep noms.

My own choices, as you've surely guessed, would be different.

I thought your scenario was :scared: I hope nothing even close to that comes true...

And yes, I pretty well knew your choices would be far more in line with mine. :toast:

:toast:

The Super-Duper Tuesday primaries on 2/5 will involve so many big-delegate states that the power of the Southern GOP base will be offset significantly.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-oped0701primaryjul01,1,470538.story?coll=chi-opinionfront-hed

I'm calling Rudy/Huckabee as the ticket.

bye. If Bush attacks Iran you can put up a tombstone for the Republican Party. They'll never recover. Conservatism will have to come back under a new name like Libertarian or whatever. Most likely it will split off a Conservative Christian party of some kind.

I think your scenario is pretty much spot on. Foghorn will drop out as his support fades. He's a lazy man fighting a losing cause. He'll quit the first time the going gets tough.

Rudy and Mitt seem to be the eventual GOP nominees. Two blue state Republicans on the ticket isn't going to get the deliverance wing out on election day.

Bloomberg might be the anti Rudy/Mitt candidate for a lot of dissatisfied Republicans. He might even get more popular votes than Rudy/Mitt but he won't finish any higher than second.

Hilliary will likely beat out Obama for the nomination and despite all the people who swear they won't vote for her they'll show up on election day. Her VP will either be Edwards or Richards.

It would be the end of the Republican Party as we know it.

It's pretty weak right now to begin with and I don't think another inhumane assault on a Middle Eastern culture is going to help anything or anybody.

and having heard, every damn time I turn on the radio, the near-orgasmic shudders of those white male swing-vote Bubbas going nuts over him. I think he'll stay and Hillary can't beat him. :(

However, she MAY beat him if, as your scenario says, Bloomberg's in the race. He may siphon off some of those swing-vote Bubbas, but I'm not sure with Nader siphoning off our greens. Hopefully, our greens learned from 2,000 and won't vote for him again. :shrug: