[Richard Kimball]

Good vanity. One thing about Clinton, though, is that in both elections Ross Perot ran.

The big question is who do the Republicans run? Despite all the blather about Zero's popularity, if the Republicans had run a decent candidate, they would have won. Clinton ran first against a wounded GHWBush. Bush was bloodied by Buchanan in the primaries and Ross Perot ran on a platform specifically designed to steal the most votes from Bush. In Clinton's second election, he ran against Bob Dole, who's campaign slogan was, "It's my turn."

Republicans cannot run lackluster aging party insiders who have no fire or vision. Six months in, there are plenty of reasons to vote against Zero. Can the Republicans give voters a reason to vote for them?

[SmokingJoe]

“Despite all the blather about Zero's popularity, if the Republicans had run a decent candidate, they would have won”

No question Juan McCain was about the worst candidate the Republicans could have put up.
It wasn't so much that conservatives were voting FOR McCain, conservatives were voting AGINST 0bama and for Sarah Palin. McCain by himself, certainly deserved to lose.

[altair]

Republicans cannot run lackluster aging party insiders who have no fire or vision.

Bump for truth. I attended a Bob Dole campaign rally and "lackluster" is probably the nicest word I could apply to it.