baron-pierreIV Posted January 20, 2007 Report Share Posted January 20, 2007 So, with Chicago definitely a formidable contender for (1) the USOC nomination; and (2) if selected, certainly as strong an opponent as Tokyo; now comes word -- as I've predicted all along -- that the power of the US in the next few years could possibly come from Illinois politicians. Will the 2nd decade of the 21st century be Chicago's decade? Let's look at the dates and events... not too far off: 2008 - Democractic convention. The junior senator from Illinois and the senior senator from New York (altho originally from Illinois) square off. With the help of the all-woman powerful Californian trio (Boxer, Feinstein and Pelosi); Clinton carries the day! Edwards is chosen as the running mate, to possible carry the South. Obama graciously concedes and everybody knows that if Hilary lasts 8 years in the White House, at least Obama will be the heir-in-waiting; possible ready to lead the Democracts in 2016. 2009 - selection of the 2016 Olympic host city. President H. Clinton leads the US delegation in Copenhagen. Who does Tokyo send? Midori Ito? ). And the rest is history. So I think..the heavens are aligning for Chicago. Now, if they could only win a SUper Bowl or a World Series. Comments? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted January 20, 2007 Report Share Posted January 20, 2007 Well, the Bears are only 2 wins away from winning this years' Superbowl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LA84 Posted January 20, 2007 Report Share Posted January 20, 2007 *ugh* You reminded me of the Super Bowl. I am already on pins and needles for tomorrows game bewteen the Saints and 'da Bears. But here's the other scenario. Three of the most powerful women in America, Di, Babs and Nancy are ALL dems from California! Will Hillary align with them and the four group together for a big 'ole canasta fest and bring back the games to California? I am so confused at this point . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolshundle Posted January 21, 2007 Report Share Posted January 21, 2007 I'm definetly an Obama supporter.... I would LOVE to see him get the nomination, but if her doesnt, I'll settle for VP. I think he's a more attractive VP candidate than Edwards is. And lets face it, the Democrats are not winning a single state in the South (aside from maybe Florida) no matter who the nomination is. Although, Obama on the ticket makes things real interesting, considering states like Mississippi are 40-45% black. The Bears are going to the superbowl, 2016 seems to be heading our way, the Pumpkins are reuniting, and we're gonna have the tallest building in America. The stars are definetly aligned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted January 23, 2007 Author Report Share Posted January 23, 2007 *ugh* You reminded me of the Super Bowl. I am already on pins and needles for tomorrows game bewteen the Saints and 'da Bears. So, how much of a mention will the Chicago 2016 bid (altho still domestic) get on Superbowl? Might some Bears (which, BTW, is the Official California State Animal) fans' sections do a little 2016 promoting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LA84 Posted January 24, 2007 Report Share Posted January 24, 2007 So, how much of a mention will the Chicago 2016 bid (altho still domestic) get on Superbowl? Might some Bears (which, BTW, is the Official California State Animal) fans' sections do a little 2016 promoting? 'Fraid not. I have been on the phone and e-mailing all my friends there this week and everyone is beside themselves about the Super Bowl. Don't think they are thinking about much else at this point. Now if I were going I would turn Chicago's 2016 torch logo into a hat and wear it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Attrill Posted January 24, 2007 Report Share Posted January 24, 2007 I think the stars are definitely aligning for Chicago (although I see a President Obama in 2009 - but any Democratic candidate would have some ties to the city - and ANY of them would be an incredible improvement over the current administration). It is great time to live in Chicago - White Sox FINALLY winning the world series, Bears going to the superbowl, our first presidential candidate since Paul Simon, skyscrapers going up like crazy again (best being Calatrava's spire - which I don't think he'll finalize until he sees the height of the tower going up in Dubai ), and now a solid bid for the Olympics. Chicago has a good momentum going right now, and I hope it carries across to our bid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenadian Posted January 26, 2007 Report Share Posted January 26, 2007 Picky of me, but isn't Hillary the junior Senator from the Empire State? I think the other Senator was elected first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted January 26, 2007 Author Report Share Posted January 26, 2007 Picky of me, but isn't Hillary the junior Senator from the Empire State? I think the other Senator was elected first. She is but I think he's ahead by only 1 term, and he doesn't have star power. And what people are fogetting is that, by herself, she can carry 3 states (Arkansas, Illinois, and New York...and most probably, the biggest state of all, California, with the all-woman mafia of CA). Obama is really only tested in Illinois. The Dems will need Edwards for the Veep ticket because a Hillary and/or Obama CANNOT win Texas. And except for Florida; the rest of the South will NOT vote for a woman and/or a man of color. So Obama really can NOT win. He'll get the states that traditionally go for Kerry -- the liberal states...Massachusetts, Minnesota. I think Hilary can carry Florida but Obama won't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Attrill Posted January 30, 2007 Report Share Posted January 30, 2007 She is but I think he's ahead by only 1 term, and he doesn't have star power. And what people are fogetting is that, by herself, she can carry 3 states (Arkansas, Illinois, and New York...and most probably, the biggest state of all, California, with the all-woman mafia of CA). Obama is really only tested in Illinois. The Dems will need Edwards for the Veep ticket because a Hillary and/or Obama CANNOT win Texas. And except for Florida; the rest of the South will NOT vote for a woman and/or a man of color. So Obama really can NOT win. He'll get the states that traditionally go for Kerry -- the liberal states...Massachusetts, Minnesota. I think Hilary can carry Florida but Obama won't. Ummm.... I REALLY don't see Hillary taking Illinois, she left here years ago and never looked back, and Obama is insanely popular here - even in Republican counties downstate (he carried counties that have not voted for a Democrat since before Lincoln). Anyways, not that any of those states will matter in the primary at all. And "he doesn't have star power"?!?!?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolshundle Posted January 30, 2007 Report Share Posted January 30, 2007 She is but I think he's ahead by only 1 term, and he doesn't have star power. And what people are fogetting is that, by herself, she can carry 3 states (Arkansas, Illinois, and New York...and most probably, the biggest state of all, California, with the all-woman mafia of CA). Obama is really only tested in Illinois. The Dems will need Edwards for the Veep ticket because a Hillary and/or Obama CANNOT win Texas. And except for Florida; the rest of the South will NOT vote for a woman and/or a man of color. So Obama really can NOT win. He'll get the states that traditionally go for Kerry -- the liberal states...Massachusetts, Minnesota. I think Hilary can carry Florida but Obama won't. Baron, no democrat, not even a southern one will win Texas. And that pretty much goes for the whole south excluding some states mentioned below. Texas may not be statistically the reddest state of all (Utah is actually), but it is symbollically. Attril, in the Illinois primary, which might be moved up to an earlier date, Obama is a lock. There were only a couple small counties Barack did not win; and he won in some of the most republican counties with huge margins. And if Hillary is the nominee for the 2008 general election, she WILL win Illinois easily. It has become one of the most predictable blue states in the country... Kerry won with a margin over 10%. As for the other states, I dont think Hillary can take Arkansas. But even if she did... so what? its only a measly 6 electoral votes. Considering the current political trends and shifts going on in the country, the following states will be blue for sure in the 2008 race: California, Oregon, Washington, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Maryland, New York, Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Hawaii, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, and Maine. States that will for sure be red: Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Utah, Kansas, Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, West, Virginia, Kentucky, Indiana. States that I and most political pundits are calling as the battleground states of 2008: Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, Iowa, Missouri, Ohio, Florida, Virgina, North Carolina. From the results of the elections in 2004 and 2006, the most vulnerable states for democratic takeover are Ohio, Nevada, New Mexico, Missouri, and Colorado. That's the way I and most others are seeing things. Forget about the South- the South became solidly red the day LBJ signed the Civil Rights Bill. This has only been exacerbated by the Republican Revolution of 1994 and the "wedge politics" the Bush administration has used for the past 6 years. Obama can win: Technically all he needs is Ohio, which has already started shifted blue in this election. But he take a combination of some of the rocky mountain states, high in hispanic population. Also, Iowa and Missouri can shift easily with Obama: Obama is from neighboring Illinois and is well-known in those states as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Attrill Posted January 30, 2007 Report Share Posted January 30, 2007 Attril, in the Illinois primary, which might be moved up to an earlier date, Obama is a lock. There were only a couple small counties Barack did not win; and he won in some of the most republican counties with huge margins. And if Hillary is the nominee for the 2008 general election, she WILL win Illinois easily. It has become one of the most predictable blue states in the country... Kerry won with a margin over 10%. Agreed - I thought the original post refered to the primary, whoever the Democratic candidate is in the general will carry Illinois, no doubt at all. I was pretty amazed at the rural counties that Obama carried. Actually, I agree with your analysis overall - Texas and Florida don't really matter at all, and states like Ohio and Colorado will make up the difference from 2004. Obama has already done what needs to be done for a Democrat to take Ohio - voted against CAFTA and spoken out about some of the problems with NAFTA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted January 30, 2007 Author Report Share Posted January 30, 2007 Ummm.... I REALLY don't see Hillary taking Illinois, she left here years ago and never looked back, and Obama is insanely popular here - even in Republican counties downstate (he carried counties that have not voted for a Democrat since before Lincoln). Anyways, not that any of those states will matter in the primary at all.And "he doesn't have star power"?!?!?! But in terms of electoral votes, where is Illinois? 1. CALIF; 2. TEXAS; 3. NY; 4 - 5 - EIther PA/Florida; then I think 6 is Michigan; then maybe Illinois (7) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolshundle Posted January 30, 2007 Report Share Posted January 30, 2007 But in terms of electoral votes, where is Illinois? 1. CALIF; 2. TEXAS; 3. NY; 4 - 5 - EIther PA/Florida; then I think 6 is Michigan; then maybe Illinois (7) Illinois is actually number 5: California- 55 Texas- 34 New York- 31 Florida- 27 Illinois- 22 Pennsylvania- 21 Ohio- 20 Michigan- 17 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guardian Posted February 9, 2007 Report Share Posted February 9, 2007 This is how the BBC sees it. Link: BBC-> Washington Diary: Windy City To White House? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted February 9, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 9, 2007 And I am sure the fact that the 2 front-runners currently in the Democrats (who seem poised to take the White House no matter what) has not exactly gone unnoticed by the USOC (with an eye towards 2009), AND especially as Mr. Uebe is originally from Illinois himself. So, it might be a tandem of original Illini who might bring the 2016 Games to the Land of Lincoln finally!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted March 2, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 2, 2007 3 big events that portend good things for Chicago: 1. Daley got re-elected by a landslide. 2. The 2016 fundraiser last night raised $9.4 million -- thrice the anticipated $3 million the committee was hoping for!! 3. UPS (of Atlanta) canceled their standing order of ten A380-cargo airbuses. Who is the only other maker of cargo aircraft? Boeing. WHere is Boeing headquartered? You guessed it -- Sheekago!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolshundle Posted March 6, 2007 Report Share Posted March 6, 2007 The Barack star power begins: "Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama turned up the star power Tuesday, lending his support to Chicago's bid to land the 2016 Summer Olympics. A videotaped message from the Illinois senator greeted an 11-member U.S. Olympic Committee evaluation team when it arrived at Soldier Field for an all-day session. "I can think of no better place to hold the 2016 Games than in this most American of America's cities," Obama said" http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/03/06/ap3489639.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolshundle Posted March 6, 2007 Report Share Posted March 6, 2007 If you want to see Obama's address to the USOC, follow the link below, and scroll down to the right to the little video screen and click on "Obama's message to USOC" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolshundle Posted March 6, 2007 Report Share Posted March 6, 2007 Whoops, forgot the link. Here it is: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion...-home-headlines Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted March 6, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 6, 2007 Whoops, forgot the link. Here it is:http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion...-home-headlines Yeah, I saw the video. Pretty good actually. Fits close to the 'Stir the Soul' theme. It's a good start. Even without Hollywood muscle, Chicago has shown they can deliver a very workmanlike film with substance!! I think the hip "All That Jazz" would be a really good soundtrack to the int'l version that will eventually be shown to the IOC. Yeah, I definitely think Chicago's star and flame will shine soon!! (Even I am getting excited.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.