My 2008 Election Predictions
95% of the contested seats will go to the candidate who spends the most money on their campaign.
The presidential election will be won by the candidate who spends the most money on their campaign.
Just like 2004.
The presidential election will be won by the candidate who spends the most money on their campaign.
Just like 2004.
To translate it from the terms I put it in my own quixotic way in my blog, I essentially said that we would have huge numbers, outstandingly large numbers of voters in this election.
I stand pat on that statement.
I have to disagree for once on your assertion about the most money spent argument. If that were true, Mitt Romney would be the front runner for the Republican party having spent far more, something like $40 Million more than McCain in this election, but he did not.
If Obama wins, it will be because of charisma, message, and the blunders perceived by the public of the Bush administration over the last 8 years. Note that I am not accusing them of blunders, merely noting public perceptions that may influence some votes.
If Clinton overcomes the Bill factor and wins, it will be largely due to the latter factor, though charisma, and message will be factors too, and McCain's more centrist Republican views rather than being a more comfortable home for the ultra-conservative. Note in fact that some of those may prefer Obama to him. His VP choice will be crucial.
McCain has many obstacles to overcome, not the least of which is appearing a bit wimpy. He will especially have to overcome Republican wives for Hillary. Republican men better watch their tongues as the November election approaches if Hillary is the opposition or they may find quite a few quiet vote cancellations happening in their households, especially if they wind up so caught up at work that they don't make it to the ballot box and expect their sweetiers to vote for them.
But McCain has a lot of strengths, he just can't expect the Blue/Red tension to work so well this time. When the economy is bad everywhere, a candidate with too much money may look to rich to represent us. That could work to his favor over Hillary if she continues to raise huge dollars. He will also have to watch out for weakness in the Veteran camp, if its Obama, they love him, his service record is real, relevant, and he both talks the talk and walks the walk. His legislative record may not be extensive, but it includes a lot of work on both sides of the aisle in a very divisive state legislature (Illinois) where even the Democrats (upstate vs downstate) are often at each other's throats.
The real question, is how many people will see Obama as someone, a type of President whose time has come to lead us out of the problems we have mired ourselves into in the last 8 years?
Peter, Editor and Political Observer/Humorist/Satirist
The Peter Files Blog of Comedy Satire Jokes Commentary and Videos - The New Safe Blog For Thinkers Not Stinkers
http://thepeterfiles.blogspot.com
Reply
If that were true, Mitt Romney would be the front runner...
I don't believe the "most money wins" rule holds early in the election cycle, since the voters during that period are typically more well-informed and involved in the issues and candidates at hand. When the process is handed over to the public in general, though, the media exposure backed by campaign finances takes over.
It would thrill me to be wrong, so here's hoping.
I've also been framing it as a causal relationship, but that's not necessarily the case. Charisma and message are excellent tools for fundraising.
Reply
Leave a comment