Posted on 12/19/2004 6:38:55 PM PST by nj26
Frist is unknown by most American voters; outside of the Northeast, so is Pataki. Jeb Bush is unelectable -- Americans will not vote for a Bush as the 44th President.
There are stronger Republican candidates. Guliani is one. I'd love to see numbers head-to-head against Sen. Clinton for that.
Also, do bear in mind -- in 1997, who would have suggested that George W. Bush would run for President in 2000? Trying to identify who will run in 2008 is a tricky proposition at best, and more likely an exercise in futility.
Bring it on PIG
Likely voters? Registered voters?
The 2008 primaries haven't been held yet. She hasn't won any state races yet.
Hillary has a critical election to win in 2006 and it is not clear that she has won that election yet.
Are we looking at four years of the old media being in the tank for Hillary since the one plus years that they shilled for the democrats before this past election did not have the desired effect of defeating President Bush?
I agree with you about Frist. He's a non-starter in terms of presidential politics. The voters won't go for a third Bush, and Pataki is another non-starter. McCain is far too unreliable, though electable. Absent the emergence of a new star, I think we have to go with Rudy.
The poll simply reflects name recognition and the leftism of the Democratic base. Hillary will be a strong opponent for us in '08 -- contrary to some smug predictions, she is quite electable, sadly enough. But we can beat her.
"There are stronger Republican candidates. Guliani is one."
The problem with Giuliani is that he's a pro-choice, anti-gun social "moderate." There will be a third party conservative on the ballot if Giuliani runs, mark my words. Mark and Denise Rich will provide the financing, if necessary. And then Hillary can win with the 43-45% of the vote she is garnering in these polls. Just like her hubby, who won with 43% in 1992.
We need to nominate a pro-life, pro-2nd-amendment, anti-illegal-amnesty conservative. She will divide and conquer this party, otherwise.
Hillary can't lose in 2006 - either she runs against the usual "no-name" NY republican, and wins in a landslide. or Rudy runs against her, and she drops out of the Senate race and just moves right into the 2008 presidential run.
either way, she will not lose the 2006 race.
Thought aliens, legal and illegal, were mostly Republican these days....
I'd wait until at least the inauguration before making any predictions for 2008!
"Hillary has a critical election to win in 2006 and it is not clear that she has won that election yet."
As far as I can tell, the GOP can't find anybody to run against her in 2006. Pataki now hints he is running for reelection, and Giuliani seems likely to wait for the presidential race in 2008.
Not sure if it was likely or registered voters.
Hillary is dangerous. Very dangerous. Freepers underestimate her. There's a big, big cult surrounding her. Just ask the Freepers who Freeped her book signings and saw hordes of women literally weeping in her presence.
By the time Hillary runs as a Republican, she'll get 60% of the vote.... stranger things have happened.
HRC's right to worry about what the VRWC has on her. She can't survive it.
We are already taking these polls as if they matter? Good grief.
correct. many women, especially single women who would not have otherwise turned out to vote, will turn out in big numbers because of the "chic" idea of electing the first women president.
she won't be running as a political candidate - she will be running as a celebrity.
Its to early to make solid predictions of course - but rght now, I feel that if we run someone like Frist or an unknown governor against her, that the odds are that she and Richardson win it in 2008. We need to mix it up, we need Rice on the ticket for example.
This scum should be in Leavenworth, with her no good husband and janet reno. How in the hell could anyone vote for her. It boggles the mind....
LoL...
Actually, I expected G.W. to be the candidate in 2000 even before '97.
I have no clue at this stage who will be the candidate in '08 for either party. Nor do I particularly care, as it is my opinion the RNC candidate will be dependent on a strong four year Republican record to have success in '08.
Therefore, focus needs to be on strong accomplishments of policy, rather than a "star" or whether or not Hill will even win the DNC nomination at this stage. The strongest competitors for the nomination will emerge in time, and likely not among the favored at present.
don't underestimate the princess of darkness ... and most of the republican names are not well none (G. Allen, Frist, etc.) ... or are loose (and rusty) cannons (Hagel and McCain)
You are correct. I've felt all along that Hillary will find a way to fund a 3rd party conservative candidate. It's the only way to get a Clinton elected.
ClickDecember 13, 2004--If the next Presidential Election were held today, 46% of voters would vote for a generic Republican candidate over Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. A Rasmussen Reports survey found that 39% of voters would cast their ballot for Senator Clinton.
The New York Senator holds a narrow 45% to 42% lead among women, but trails by 17 points among men.
The national telephone survey of 1,500 Likely Voters was conducted by Rasmussen Reports December 3-5, 2004. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.