Hillary... Is It Possible??
- Thread starter Evader1
- Start date
:barf:CarbineCaleb
New member
- Yes I think she'll run
- Yes I think she has a chance at the Democratic nomination, but she is no shoo-in; she is very clever, and has name recognition and a potent advisor, but women face an uphill battle for US President, and from what I have seen of her public speaking, I don't think she has the people skills that her husband has
- I think her chances of winning the national election are smaller
- If she makes it, who knows? I am not a New Yorker, and so haven't really followed her very closely.
There is a chance of course that Condoleeza Rice will run for the Republican nomination... if both women were to win the nominations of their parties, now that would shake things up a bit, to say the least. I am pretty neutral on the idea of a woman President in general - have personally seen enough women as business leaders to be used to the idea... we'll see - if Hillary and Condoleeza end up going 1:1 in Presidential election debates, I will be watching, that's for sure.
She will run, without a doubt (99%).
She will most likely (95%) win the primary. The moonbat left is fully behind her, so are the big-money Hollywood types and billionare George Soros, and so far the other democrats who might run are second/third rate losers.
Will she win the general election? That depends on who runs against her. If the republicans run a second string candidate, then she will win without a doubt. If they run a top-notch candidate, and they can paint her as unlikeable (which shouldn't be that hard to do), then she'll lose. I think that she's a woman is a wash, some will vote against her because of it, but some will vote for her just because.
The wildcard is McCain. He will run in the primary, but will lose (100%). Will he run as an independent after that? That's the question, if he does all bets are off.
She will most likely (95%) win the primary. The moonbat left is fully behind her, so are the big-money Hollywood types and billionare George Soros, and so far the other democrats who might run are second/third rate losers.
Will she win the general election? That depends on who runs against her. If the republicans run a second string candidate, then she will win without a doubt. If they run a top-notch candidate, and they can paint her as unlikeable (which shouldn't be that hard to do), then she'll lose. I think that she's a woman is a wash, some will vote against her because of it, but some will vote for her just because.
The wildcard is McCain. He will run in the primary, but will lose (100%). Will he run as an independent after that? That's the question, if he does all bets are off.
leadcounsel
Moderator
Hhhmm.... I'm admittedly not as informed as I like to be. However, here's my impression.
I vote Republican. I would LOVE for Hillary to run because she would get crushed.
While the left LOVES her and LOVED Bill, I don't think she'll run for two reasons:
1. The nation is not ready for a woman president. Independent men will likely vote against a woman because (no offense women) they are seen as weak in many respects, including national security, war, etc. and due to pure bias.
2. Hillary doesn't do anything to attract "middle of the road" votes, where the true fight for the whitehouse is. In the last several elections, the fight is won and lost on a few votes in most states. If history is a lesson, one must put up the most neutral candidate with no known bad past or dumb ideas or positions; a real "nobody" if you will. Hillary (or any Dem.) will secure the Dem votes. However, she won't attract many Independent votes which will doom the Dems. And she is HATED by the right and it will COMPELL the right voters to head to the polls. Amongst indifferent voters, men who don't care will vote against her just because she's a woman. I don't think women will necessarily vote for her just because she's a woman, however.
I vote Republican. I would LOVE for Hillary to run because she would get crushed.
While the left LOVES her and LOVED Bill, I don't think she'll run for two reasons:
1. The nation is not ready for a woman president. Independent men will likely vote against a woman because (no offense women) they are seen as weak in many respects, including national security, war, etc. and due to pure bias.
2. Hillary doesn't do anything to attract "middle of the road" votes, where the true fight for the whitehouse is. In the last several elections, the fight is won and lost on a few votes in most states. If history is a lesson, one must put up the most neutral candidate with no known bad past or dumb ideas or positions; a real "nobody" if you will. Hillary (or any Dem.) will secure the Dem votes. However, she won't attract many Independent votes which will doom the Dems. And she is HATED by the right and it will COMPELL the right voters to head to the polls. Amongst indifferent voters, men who don't care will vote against her just because she's a woman. I don't think women will necessarily vote for her just because she's a woman, however.
leadcounsel
Moderator
That said, the Republicans are in real trouble and need to play catchup in a big way.
I'm for liberating the middle east, but it's not going well and the Republicans need to stop the bleeding, like yesterday.
Whether we agree or not, the sitting President takes blame for national crisis. I believe there are many others to blame for mishandling the NOLA situation, but Bush is taking the majority of the heat. He needs to "rescue" the NOLA to win favor and increased poll numbers for the next Republican candidate.
It's not his fault, but oil prices are spiking and Bush will take the blame. You can bet the next candidates will blame Bush for the oil surges.
The Mexican border is a crisis situation and needs immediate attention. Before he leaves office, Bush must address this with a solution.
IF any of the above (IRAQ, NOLA, oil, and the Boarder) are not 'fixed' by '07 or '08, the Dems have a good chance at winning.
I'm for liberating the middle east, but it's not going well and the Republicans need to stop the bleeding, like yesterday.
Whether we agree or not, the sitting President takes blame for national crisis. I believe there are many others to blame for mishandling the NOLA situation, but Bush is taking the majority of the heat. He needs to "rescue" the NOLA to win favor and increased poll numbers for the next Republican candidate.
It's not his fault, but oil prices are spiking and Bush will take the blame. You can bet the next candidates will blame Bush for the oil surges.
The Mexican border is a crisis situation and needs immediate attention. Before he leaves office, Bush must address this with a solution.
IF any of the above (IRAQ, NOLA, oil, and the Boarder) are not 'fixed' by '07 or '08, the Dems have a good chance at winning.
Chiming in from NY I can say I hope she runs. If she does she has to resign her NY Senate Seat according to NY law. That being said I am not certain she will run. She would take the primary (90+% certain) as the primary is determined by the party radicals in a large part and they love her. If you doubt who controls the Democrats look who is the national chairman...
Even though she would win the primary she really needs to think about if she could win the whole nation. If she looses she would have lost not just the presidency but her current job as well. Her fight to get that seat back would be a lot tougher if she had already resigned it. Guliani may even have it by then or be running against her for it.
Her re-election as senator now is a shoe in. Pirro, her opponent, is nothing more than a speed bump to make her spend money and attempt to get her to say on the record that she would not seek higher office. Hillary will not eddress that question and the morons in the majority of this state will not push for an answer or hold her accountable of any she gave. As a senator she seems to have done well as I have seen nothing "bad" about her in the local press. I don't like her mind you but she does know how to play the game here.
Even though she would win the primary she really needs to think about if she could win the whole nation. If she looses she would have lost not just the presidency but her current job as well. Her fight to get that seat back would be a lot tougher if she had already resigned it. Guliani may even have it by then or be running against her for it.
Her re-election as senator now is a shoe in. Pirro, her opponent, is nothing more than a speed bump to make her spend money and attempt to get her to say on the record that she would not seek higher office. Hillary will not eddress that question and the morons in the majority of this state will not push for an answer or hold her accountable of any she gave. As a senator she seems to have done well as I have seen nothing "bad" about her in the local press. I don't like her mind you but she does know how to play the game here.
jeff_troop
New member
im afraid she could be our next president. look how many people voted for billary the 2nd time around. positive proof the left will elect anyone. the wackier the dem candidate, the more likely they will win. the left seems intent on degrading the office of pres by putting an immoral, greedy, dishonest or just plain stupid person in that postition. the right is only slightly better because at least they lean towards support of the 2nd amm.
the most honorable, moral candidate we have had in years, bob dole, got buried. not scandalous enough i reckon.
the most honorable, moral candidate we have had in years, bob dole, got buried. not scandalous enough i reckon.
There is no "The Primary." There are a lot of primaries. The decision as to a party's nominee is decided at their convention, and the convention doesn't have to nominate the person who wins the most primaries.
Be careful what you wish for. There are a lot of sheeple in this country, who don't stand for much of anything and just vote with the "flow." The "flow" can be controlled by current events and the media.
Be careful what you wish for. There are a lot of sheeple in this country, who don't stand for much of anything and just vote with the "flow." The "flow" can be controlled by current events and the media.
leadcounsel
Moderator
While I don't like Bill Clinton, let's agree that he was not a left wing nut, but instead presented himself and his ideas in a very middle of the road approach and that's why he won twice. Look at the people he ran against in his own party; they were the real lefties.
In many small ways, he was an okay president. However, in the ways that really COUNT, he was aweful. Overall he was one of the worst presidents we've had. He neglected his duty as commander in chief, he committed adultery in the oval office, he ignored attacks against the US, and he helped erode an important constitutional right.
1. He basically ignored the signes leading up to 9/11 and cut military and CIA funding, paving the way for 9/11. On his watch the WTC was bombed in '93, killing several and injuring hundreds. The US Embacy in Kenya was bombed, the USS Cole was bombed and the Oklahoma Fed building was bombed, and WACO occurred, and the Somolia disaster occurred. I'm sure I'm forgetting several things.
2. He allowed the Brady Bill to become law and was very anti-gun.
3. He lied to the American people under oath and should have lost his job.
I'm certain there were other things that he loused up, but the above comes to mind.
I don't see Hillary as winning unless the Republicans screw up the next few years and put up a loser. What platform will she run on? What's her "record" of doing anything positive? She really did nothing as a first lady for 8 years. She's done nothing as a NY rep. She did not leave Bill after his rather public and numerous affairs. She's weak and doesn't stand up for herself. She's anti military and anti gun.
In many small ways, he was an okay president. However, in the ways that really COUNT, he was aweful. Overall he was one of the worst presidents we've had. He neglected his duty as commander in chief, he committed adultery in the oval office, he ignored attacks against the US, and he helped erode an important constitutional right.
1. He basically ignored the signes leading up to 9/11 and cut military and CIA funding, paving the way for 9/11. On his watch the WTC was bombed in '93, killing several and injuring hundreds. The US Embacy in Kenya was bombed, the USS Cole was bombed and the Oklahoma Fed building was bombed, and WACO occurred, and the Somolia disaster occurred. I'm sure I'm forgetting several things.
2. He allowed the Brady Bill to become law and was very anti-gun.
3. He lied to the American people under oath and should have lost his job.
I'm certain there were other things that he loused up, but the above comes to mind.
I don't see Hillary as winning unless the Republicans screw up the next few years and put up a loser. What platform will she run on? What's her "record" of doing anything positive? She really did nothing as a first lady for 8 years. She's done nothing as a NY rep. She did not leave Bill after his rather public and numerous affairs. She's weak and doesn't stand up for herself. She's anti military and anti gun.
Wildalaska
Moderator
O she is far more qualified than any of us I reckon...shes a power crazed lying jerk off, but she is as qauliifed as any of her competition.
WildandmorethanmetooAlask
SpringfieldHandgun
Inactive
hopefully she'll be too ill or die before then. she's done nothing for NY. i wish she would move back to arkansas.
Well I'm not the most "politically savy" guy but from what I've seen of her. She's all about her and on a major ego trip. Just by the look in her eyes I don't trust her. Perhaps she thinks she can try and do something different then good old Billary did??? Most of what I've seen her doing is tearing apart Bush. Has she even been to NO yet anyone know?????
leadcounsel
Moderator
Hillary vs. John Kerry,
I voted for Bush. I did not like Kerry whatsoever. But Kerry had alot going for him.
He was a Vietnam vet that "earned" rather received many awards. He earned the votes of many war vets. +1 Kerry. Hillary will not get these votes. I think these votes were significant.
Kerry was a veteran Senator from a Liberal state. He served for two decades and didn't make any waves, good or bad. Hillary was a "do nothing" wife of a popular president, and a "do nothing" one term Senator (soon to be two terms." His "experience" gave people comfort in him.
People were indifferent to Kerry before the election and he barely won the primary because nobody really knew whether to like or dislike him. He was liberal, but came across as appealing to mainstream American voters and the independents. Hence, he got alot of votes.
With Hillary, you KNOW what you're getting either good or bad. You either LOVE her or HATE her and there's really no middle ground. That said, I think her main following is the left and right coasts, which are shown to not be enough to win an election.
Hillary is an easy target on many issues, even her personal life and staying with a cheating lying husband clearly for power. Very weak.
I want her to run. It'll be Kerry all over again. Just as he had to resign, as someone pointed out, she'll have to resign from her NY rep post and it'll make her out to be a liar by running for president if she says she isn't going to. but noone will care. If the Reps put up a good candidate, it'll be a sound victory.
I voted for Bush. I did not like Kerry whatsoever. But Kerry had alot going for him.
He was a Vietnam vet that "earned" rather received many awards. He earned the votes of many war vets. +1 Kerry. Hillary will not get these votes. I think these votes were significant.
Kerry was a veteran Senator from a Liberal state. He served for two decades and didn't make any waves, good or bad. Hillary was a "do nothing" wife of a popular president, and a "do nothing" one term Senator (soon to be two terms." His "experience" gave people comfort in him.
People were indifferent to Kerry before the election and he barely won the primary because nobody really knew whether to like or dislike him. He was liberal, but came across as appealing to mainstream American voters and the independents. Hence, he got alot of votes.
With Hillary, you KNOW what you're getting either good or bad. You either LOVE her or HATE her and there's really no middle ground. That said, I think her main following is the left and right coasts, which are shown to not be enough to win an election.
Hillary is an easy target on many issues, even her personal life and staying with a cheating lying husband clearly for power. Very weak.
I want her to run. It'll be Kerry all over again. Just as he had to resign, as someone pointed out, she'll have to resign from her NY rep post and it'll make her out to be a liar by running for president if she says she isn't going to. but noone will care. If the Reps put up a good candidate, it'll be a sound victory.
Wildalaska
Moderator
Au contraire, she has delivered the bacon for NYers and is well liked for her abilities by NYers of all politcal persuasion. Her politics suck, her organziational abilites are superb
Doing stuff for your constiuents is what keeps Senators in office
WildneveruderestimatetheenemyAlaska
John Kerry did not resign, and in fact, is still the junior United States Senator from Massachusetts. Joe Lieberman did not resign from the Senate when he ran for VEEP with Gore in 2000. John Edwards did resign, but IIRC that was his personal decision, not a requirement of U.S. or North Carolina law.