Jump to navigation
In the USA in 2008, New York Senator Hilary Clinton will run for President against California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. Hilary will, alas, not win.
I have lived too long.
Hilary will pick Dick Gephardt for reasons of party unity, and Arnold will run with Colin Powell to give the ticket some gravitas. A close race, it will come down to a few hanging chads in the Santa Monica Valley
Clinton and Clinton.
Bill becomes the first Pres to become V-P, rather than the other way round...
New York Senator Hilary Clinton will run for President against California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Possible, but only if they take care of [url=http://slate.msn.com/id/2079204/]this[/url] little constitutional matter first.
A close race, it will come down to a few hanging chads in the Santa Monica Valley
Come on, oldgoat, "hanging chads" are [i]sooooo[/i] 2000. By '08, it'll be cyber-voting all the way -- the better to fix an election without those annoying paper trails! (They're probably already planning the "results" of the next half-dozen elections as we speak! [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img] )
[ 12 July 2003: Message edited by: beluga2 ]
beluga2, you are right. Without reading your link, I remember: only native-born USians can run for prez, and Arnie is -- Austrian?
But does that include the Vice Presidency?
And I agree, I think that is a really obnoxious rule.
Maybe the Republican-friendly Supreme Court will change the rules so that you can't run for President [i]unless[/i] you're a right-wing Austrian-born movie star who makes really violent movies!
Anything to keep that Feminazi Hilary out of power... [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]
Is Arnie a Republican? Darn. That's sad.
Oddly enough, he married into the Kennedy clan -- Maria Shriver, daughter of one of JFK's sisters.
Those must be some family reunions.
It does not apply to vice-presidents. But there certainly would be a practical problem with a vice-president who cannot succeed the president.
Think optimistically. I say President Dean running for re-election against Jeb Bush. [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img] If I'm wrong, you'll have Hillary running against Jeb. [img]frown.gif" border="0[/img]
Who is this Dean person?
(Sorry, but I'm a Canadian, and I've been out of touch lately anyway.)
Howard Dean, former Vermont Governor, has been surging lately in the Democratic race due to his opposition to the Iraq war and his call for the Democratic Party to get off its knees and strike back at Bush and the Republicans.
And being Canadian is no excuse. [img]tongue.gif" border="0[/img] But being out of touch is.
[ 12 July 2003: Message edited by: josh ]
I met a fellow on the street at Pride this year in Toronto who was all rigged out in Democrat and Howard Dean paraphernalia. He was trying to get dual citizens and Americans who are residing in Canada to sign up to vote.
So you figure he'll be the one, huh?
Too early to say. But I think it will either be him, John Kerry, Senator from Massachusetts, or Richard Gephardt of Missouri, former Democratic leader in the House of Representatives.
josh, for twenty years (1960-80) I could have astounded you with my detailed knowledge of every notable figure, elected or non-e, in successive USian admins, courts, etc. During Watergate, I even had a crush on Peter (?) Rodino! [img]eek.gif" border="0[/img]
But then Reagan got elected, and, I dunno, something sort of drained away ... The feelin's gone, and I just can't get it back. Y'know?
Hee hee! Not much of a betting man, huh? Really took a chance on that prediction. [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]
Hey, there are nine candidates running!
Skdadl, I think that's fair. I knew little of Canadian affairs in 1983 when compared to 2003.
I like Dean. But I liked Bill Bradley too, and supported him (as best I could as a remote electronic activist....hey, it's worth a try), so I certainly called that one wrong [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]
The Washington Post has been producing long-form profiles of the candidates on Saturdays, and here's what's been published so far:
[url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59559-2003May30.html]John Kerry : Senator (MA)[/url] (30th May)
[url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27835-2003Jun7.html]John Edwards : Senator (NC)[/url] (7th June)
[url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58482-2003Jun14.html]Joe Lieberman : Senator (CT)[/url] (14th June)
[url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18457-2003Jun21.html]Dennis Kucinich : Rep. (OH)[/url] (21st June)
[url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44463-2003Jun28.html]Al Sharpton : Rev./activist (NY)[/url] (28th June)
[url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A11710-2003Jul5.html]Howard Dean : former Gov. (VT)[/url] (5th July)
Mmm hmm. A likely story, josh. [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]
There were seven candidates running in my riding one federal election (I think it was 1993). They were:
PCLiberalNDPReformChristian HeritageNatural LawGreen
I'm sure I could have narrowed my winning prediction down to two or three candidates at the time. Let's see, I probably would have guessed PC, Liberal, or NDP.
[img]tongue.gif" border="0[/img] [img]tongue.gif" border="0[/img]
[ 12 July 2003: Message edited by: Michelle ]
Easier to pick in the general than in the primary. After all wouldn't you say it was harder to pick who would win the NDP leadership than which party will win the next election?
Well, I'm sure I could have narrowed it down to Layton, Nystrom, and Blaikie. [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]
But the truth is, I did predict the winner for that one too - I predicted Layton.
Not only that, but just because you can predict which party will get a majority in an election doesn't mean you can necessarily predict your riding easily.
And the 1993 General Election actually WASN'T quite so cut-and-dried at the time. For a long time Kim Campbell looked pretty good, up until the last couple of weeks with those attack ads on Chretien. And the Reform Party getting that many seats was a huge upset if I remember correctly.
Actually, Michelle, if you were in Kingston in 1993 you might recall that, although the NDP held the seat provincially, NDP voters were so scared of Reform that they mostly voted Liberal and the NDP came fourth. As they did elsewhere in Ontario for the same reason.
Oh, I know that. I had originally picked PC, Reform, and Liberal when I wrote that but then thought, what the heck, I didn't think the Reform guy had much of a chance in Kingston while the election campaign was happening.
I didn't think the NDP guy would win either though. I was pretty sure it would be PC or Liberal at the time.
Holy Moley, bump is right...
I Am A Lawyer, but I'm intrigued by the VP qualification in the light of Presidential qualification. Arnie and Bill both: potentially great VP candidates, yet neither could succeed as President. I think. Is the rule that one may not be, or that one may not stand as a candidate for, the President, if one is foreign-born (Arnie) or has previously served two terms (Bill)...? I'll check.
Meantime, anyone who thinks Hillary ever had a chance is ignoring his/her own reactions to the sight or sound of her...my farm is bet on Obama.
Almost nothing about the VP, and nothing relevant about qualifications (hence Cheney's ability ot argue that the VP both is and isn't part of the executive branch, I guess).
Arnie misses out:Article. II. - The Executive Branch Section 1 - The President No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
"Not eligible": doesn't matter how he'd get there, whether by vote or succession as VP.
Bill however...:Amendment 22 - Presidential Term Limits. Ratified 2/27/1951.1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. …
Not to "be elected" more than twice. To [i]become[/i] President a third time, in a manner other than election -- no rule against that.
So -- yay! Only, he can't do it as First Husband, because not only is Hillary unelectable, electing a married couple would be too weird even for the US...surely?
Oh. Humanities and Science. Small bump. So the point is the way rules work...no, eh? I'll start a new thread in, I guess, International.