I’m curious how a reporter could write this article and fail to mention that her hubby won in 1992 with 42 percent of the popular vote. Hillary’s best chance is for a three-way race to allow her to win by plurality. Any article that fails to raise that possibility is rather lacking.
I’m curious how a reporter could write this article and fail to mention that her hubby won in 1992 with 42 percent of the popular vote.Worth repeating. Over and over and over again.
Correct. Say Giuliani takes the primary early and a conservative enters as an independent... that could be more than enough for her to win the election.
Of course, the other possibility of a Hillary victory is if the Republican candidate just isn't ready for prime time. The only possible candidate on either side who has been throughly vetted is Al Gore and to a lesser degree John Edwards. Like him or not, Al Gore did run a very viable campaign in 2000 and came frightfully close to winning. I still think Gore is the most viable candidate the Democrats could run.
Never fear. The Clintons most likely have a Ross Perot II waiting in the wings with enough of a fake, know-it-all, conservative platform to siphon off enough Republican votes for her to win it. Add that to some manufactured “scandal” involving the Republican nominee at the last minute before the elections, after it’s too late for him to recover or disprove it - and there you have it - President Hillary Rodham Clinton - Her Highness Potentate. She wouldn’t be running without the assurance of winning. The danger is in underestimating how low they will go to win. Never forget it.