Who do you think will win the upcoming Presidential elections (in the US) and why?
Bush, I am sorry to say. He'll withdraw most of the army from Iraq before the summer (regardless of stability / constitution / ...), suddenly see the huge threat that Syria is to the US (they will have at least 10 A-bombs and are capable to hit anyplace in the US within 45 minutes!), invade Syria over the summer, conquer the country easily (Syria's army is in ruins) and then he'll be reelected as a victorious war-president. Of course, then there will be a hostile country filled with US troops and the attacks will start all over, but he won't have to worry about that until after the elections.
Yep! I agree, the coalition should station troops in Syria as well as Iran.
Bush - with the economy booming, he couldn't possibly lose.
The trouble in Iraq is being caused by an insurgency less than one tenth the size of our deployment in a country with a populous that considers us the lesser of two evils.
In Iran, the insurgency would be 2 to five times larger than our deployment, and the populous would have an absolute visceral hatred of us. Why don't you paint a target on your back and go to Iran Geniere.
Nothing that happens between now and next July will have a direct impact on the election. People won't vote against their tendancies unless the memory of something nasty is still fresh. Today's events have only an indirect impact by affecting fund raising. However, Howard Dean has had little trouble raising a decent amount of money.
I'd say Bush has the advantage in that he can direct some events somewhat to his liking. If the economy is a political draw, Bush can direct events in Iraq to his liking. His challenge is to pull out with an appearance of accomplishing the objective of a stable, cooperative (not necessarily friendly) Iraq. The two ways to do that are to really accomplish the objective, or to create the appearance, and have the election come between when we pull out, and events go to hell. I will give George the credit that he is trying for the former, but I think he'll accept the latter rather than keep a large deployment through the election.
The economy is a tricky matter. It can go either way. It has been very poor though most of his tenure, but people don't remember more than a few months ago. Sitting presidents can usually take advantage of this short memory by taking short term quick fixes and pushing the fed to lower rates near elections. Bush can't do this. The fed can't push rates any lower, and any pork Bush publicly endorses will explode in his face in light of the awful deficits we are now incurring. Bush is in the tenuous position of needing a genuine recovery.
Plus, there is always the chance that his brother Neil will get caught banging sex-slaves in Thailand again just before the election.
My response was directed to the posters of the many inane “hypotheticals” found in these forums. Not the more considered postings of others such as yours; just a satirical response to another ill-conceived scenario.
Incidentally Njorl, have you ever considered running for political office? I’m sure you're doing well in your scientific field but would urge you to consider it. From the content of your many posts, I judge your political posture to be quite different from mine, but nevertheless, some one I could vote for as well as for the equally adroit Russ_Watters.
You know Njorl your right aabout this "...but people don't remember more than a few months ago." Thats how the the populous can be so easily swayed by the hype the media puts out.Still, I don't think Bush will be elected this time... either.
I could see myself whispering in the ear of a candidate with nice white teeth and a good haircut, but I'm sure if I ran for anything I'd screw it up royally.
Njorl: Hi vote for me and that baby you're expecting will grow up in a better world, ma'am.
Voter: What baby? AND WHADDYA MEAN MA'AM!?!?
Njorl: Uh, sorry sir. Can I stil count on your vote?
Separate names with a comma.