Um, on a related note, here are some preliminary polls:

Quinnipiac Univ. 2/3-7. MoE 2.8%.

Clinton (D) 61%
Pataki (R) 30%

Clinton (D) 50%
Giuliani (R) 44 %

Rasmussen January 29-30, 2005

Hillary Clinton 47%
Condoleezza Rice 40%

Sorry to burst your bubble, I really am.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA
Whatever lets you sleep at night. Take a poll for an election 4 years away. Thats like trying to predict the weather for Feburary 15, 2009

how true is that

it's about as funny as those bumper stickers

HERE IS A POLL TAKEN IN MY HEAD

Arnold Swartshanager. 99%
Hilary 1%

Um sorry Zylo, "Swartshanager" can't run for President, seeing as he wasn't born in America. Besides the fact that he would never survive red-state republican primaries. He'd be eaten alive before he made it to super tuesday.

Thats why people are trying to change the law about a forein born person becoming president. And why would the red states preliminaries destroy him? he won California as a governer. for a person to win the presidency they pretty much only have to win 2 of the three big states. California, Texas, and New York. Seeing as how he would win California I don't think things would get to tough for him.

He is a poor politician. Since i would be of legal voting age then. And lets say a new law was passed and he came up on the ticket.... i prolly wouldn't vote for him. Oh, and i don't think republicans are stupid enuf to put him on the ticket over better politicians.

Originally posted by Zylo

---

Thats why people are trying to change the law about a forein born person becoming president. And why would the red states preliminaries destroy him? he won California as a governer. for a person to win the presidency they pretty much only have to win 2 of the three big states. California, Texas, and New York. Seeing as how he would win California I don't think things would get to tough for him.

---

There are several key flaws in this. Amending the Constitution requires 2/3ds majority in congress and since Republicans only control half, thats not happening anytime soon. Second, he won California, one of the most liberal in the country for three reasons:
1. Gray Davis was corrupt.
2. Arnold is super moderate.
3. He's a celebrity.
If Arnold somehow did get the nomination, California would STILL vote for the Democratic candidate. Its just not going to swith for an Austrian celebrity. Third, Arnold would be crushed in the Republican primaries because of the deep south, the midwest, and super-red states like Utah. They simply will not stand for a voice of moderation in the Republican party. Fourth, John Kerry won California and New York and lost the presidency, Al Gore won California and New York and lost the presidency, so the two out of three idea is debunked.

This page has some funny ones...
http://www.jarabina.com/infamous.htm


THE CLINTON YEARS

"SEX BETWEEN THE BUSHES"

I think its funny how liberals are all for equality. But when a forign conservative politician has a shot at office they switch thier ideals.

P.S. LMFAO!

well, you wouldn't want to change a law that has been in place for so long and has worked so well so far....

right?

Your right about the ultraconservatives in the red states, but if he wins... and is the lesser of two evils... Not that we should vote for somone just because he is the lesser of two evils. But I think Arnold isn't that bad of a polotician. Did you see his speech at the republican convention? It was some pretty good stuff, I would vote for him just because he called the one people in California "Girly Men" LOL I thought it was Hilarious. While he is kind-of for abortion I don't think he would lay his hands on it. Good or bad. If he runs on a conservative platform I think he would have a good chance. And he would be able to get swing votes as well as votes from across the Aisle(I have no clue how to spell it) The democrats in congress wouldn't all vote against the bill. It just makes good sense, and some of them would/could see logic. As for the three big states its pretty much a proven fact. Florida is also a big one and Bush got that in both elections.

California = 55
Texas =34
NewYork = 31
Florida = 27

55+34+27 = 108 votes and thats ALOT of votes!

What is the smallest number of states you have to win to be president? 10. A candidate who wins the following 10 states gets 271 electoral votes and thus wins: New Jersey, North Carolina, Michigan, Ohio, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Florida, New York, Texas, and California

Also you just can't go by the recent past. Just think if Bush won California? California would have swayed almost any election towards the republican side. Bob Dole for instance, or think about how bad Bush Jr. would have beaten gore?

Originally posted by John

---

I think its funny how liberals are all for equality. But when a forign conservative politician has a shot at office they switch thier ideals.

---

I have no problem with a competent foreign born president with American priorities and values at heart, but until one comes along, we shouldn't bother changing the laws.

Originally posted by Zylo

---

Your right about the ultraconservatives in the red states, but if he wins... and is the lesser of two evils... Not that we should vote for somone just because he is the lesser of two evils. But I think Arnold isn't that bad of a polotician. Did you see his speech at the republican convention? It was some pretty good stuff, I would vote for him just because he called the one people in California "Girly Men" LOL I thought it was Hilarious.

---

Oh yeah, that was great politics right there. Nothing draws in the middle like making childish insulting comments about the other party. And just last week he called Democrats "evil" "drug addicts". Way to appeal to the moderates Arnold!

Originally posted by Zylo

---

If he runs on a conservative platform I think he would have a good chance. And he would be able to get swing votes as well as votes from across the Aisle(I have no clue how to spell it) The democrats in congress wouldn't all vote against the bill. It just makes good sense, and some of them would/could see logic. As for the three big states its pretty much a proven fact. Florida is also a big one and Bush got that in both elections.

California = 55
Texas =34
NewYork = 31
Florida = 27

55+34+27 = 108 votes and thats ALOT of votes!

What is the smallest number of states you have to win to be president? 10. A candidate who wins the following 10 states gets 271 electoral votes and thus wins: New Jersey, North Carolina, Michigan, Ohio, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Florida, New York, Texas, and California

---

OK, I've decided to humor you and give you a BEST CASE scenario for a hypothetical Arnold run in 2008. Democrats are most likely going to run a popular southerner or westerner as northeaster liberals have failed them time and time again. Lets say he runs against Virginia governor Mark Warner.


Warner: 286
Arnold: 252

Warner is HUGELY popular in Virginia and would likely swing at least a portion of the south into the blue column. Midwesterners would connect far more with Warner than a rich Austrian as well. I'll give Arnold California even though he would NEVER take it. All the 2004 red states that I turned blue have been trending Democrat anyway. Regardless, this is the most generous scenario I can give to Arnold. He simply would not win in the primaries. He simply would not win the Presidency. At least not in this time of polarization.

(By the way: California turning blue would have not allowed Bush Senior or Dole to win. Clinton would have still won by around 100 electoral votes both times. I'm glad you know what you're talking about, it gives me a lot of confidence about logic of the rest of your statements. )

Edit: I edited my post to remove my background as the text was hard to see.