Posted on 12/09/2004 5:38:16 PM PST by SussexCountyDE
Dick Morris just predicted on Fox that the Dem '08 nominee is Hillary in a walk off. Says only R who can both get nominated (sorry Rudy)and elected is Condi Rice.
We are too racist and sexist a nation to elect Condi Rice.
Yeah but Hillary's a centrist by NY terms. Nationally she's very liberal. She also won NY by 10 pts while Gore won by 25.
Despite Rush Limbaugh's ongoing rant about the Clintons the Democrats would be fools to run her in 2008. Of course the Democratic party could win prizes for stupid decisions. They would, I would think, feel the need to come up with a more palatable candidate. Even they should figure out to run a moderate governor not from the east.
Forgot the point about Gore doing better in NY than Hillary, even though Bush was a better candidate than Lazio.
I'll sleep a little better tonight.
A trial poll out a few weeks back had both McCain and Rudy beating Hilly by at least ten points - Morris predicted the R's would pick up thirty congressional seats in the '98 elections - they actually lost three or four - that tells me all I need to know about his powers of prediction......
"We will take from you for the common good."
Please, ABH (anybody but Hillary)!
We need to nominate someone who is charismatic and can win.
It's never good to underestimate the competition. We will need to act like she could easily win, to make sure we work the hardest to ensure she never wins.
Although not a dirty player, Sean Hannity would make mince meat out of her in a debate. Hannity for senator!
One thing about Dick. His track record makes Zogby's look good.
Ms Rodham did well with men in NY though: Women voters provided the margin of victory for Hillary Rodham Clinton. Men split their votes evenly between Clinton and her opponent (49% for Clinton and 49% for Lazio) while women overwhelmingly preferred Clinton to Lazio (60% for Clinton and 39% for Lazio).
Right but I think that's missing the point. Gore won NY by 25 while tying nationally. That means the NY electorate, both men and women, are significantly to the left of the national electorate. So if Hillary only won by half Gore's margin in NY, it's hard to see her winning nationally against...anyone.
For all of Dick Morris's denials, he is obviously enraptured by the Clintons. Mrs Clinton, or does she use Ms. I suppose, would be the same "lightening rod" as Howie Dean if not more so, she would need even tighter "reigns" on the media to suppress the skeletons in her closet.
She exemplifies all the wickedness that a HARD leftist relishes in. Her acting skills seem too modest to even attempt hiding her contempt of the core constituents of our country...her written books comments come to mind "I could hardly breathe"...please! That performance couldn't even land a Soap opera appearance.
Forget about her, the same forces which overcame Kerry would be galvanized against Hillary...even more so. This is the media's attempt to take focus off the issues which exist NOW...and to shorten the thankfulness we owe to God and the wonderful people of this great nation who re-elected the man for our times, George Walker Bush.
Lets address Hillary in '08 and focus on issues that really matter.
"Regionally Rudy would play well in places like MI and PA, where there are lots of northern ethnic Catholics who can relate to Rudy. Also, Rudy does have values --- personal values like leadership and courage. Values aren't just one's political position on abortion."
No, but values are also family values, and getting divorced twice, including once to marry your mistress, that is going to be a difficult sell to many conservative Americans. I don't think that Giuliani's personal morals are much better than Bill Clinton's.
Now, in terms of geography, I agree that Giuliani might perform better than Bush across the northern industrial states, including PA, OH, MI, WI, and perhaps NJ or DE.
But he needs to hold the South. And, while everyone is talking about Hillary, what happens if the Dems actually do something smart, like running Governor Bredesen of TN or Governor Easley of NC? Or Evan Bayh of IN? Then we will have a pro-choice New Yorker running against a "Southern" Democrat. And it could be a landslide, perhaps in our favor but more likely in favor of the Dems (running on a platform of "change" after 8 years of Republican control.)
And that's not even including a third party in the analysis. There are a lot of conservatives who will NEVER vote for a pro-choice candidate. Practicing Catholics are NOT ALLOWED to vote for pro-choice candidates. And, there will be a lot of good conservatives, who feel that their conscience forces them to look elsewhere. And that's not even considering immigration, gay marriage, and other issues where Giuliani is not a conservative.
She won't get past '06 if she has to take on Guliani- and will become just a footnote!! sHillary is no Nixon!
"Hillary/Richardson will make a play for AZ, NM, NV and CO - 3 of 4 of those get them the 19 they need to win."
They will also go after Florida. Put together an immigration-control platform and her likely exploitation of Social Security reform, and she will have a real chance.
"Step 1 - She needs to win re-election as senator in 2006 - and that could be a tall order if Rudy runs against her."
Exactly. I would argue, though, that if we can't get Giuliani or Pataki to challenge her, we shouldn't bother. Running another weak candidate (like Lazio) just gives her a platform for publicity, and she will be able to exploit her "landslide" victory to win the nomination.
The immigration thing didn't hurt Bush much, who has run as one of the most pro-immigration presidents in awhile. Rudy's big liabilities are abortion and gay marriage. He can explain the 2amdt stuff by saying that he needed tougher laws in NYC but wouldn't support them nationally. That said, I still don't know who can deny him the nomination. The conservatives seem ready to split between about a dozen governors and senators, which would give Rudy a real chance at amassing enough delegates to win the nod.
Geographically, the biggest fear, as you said, is the Dems do something smart for a change. Mark Warner, Evan Bayh, and that TN governor are actually Democrats who could win. They would probably flip red states away from Giuliani while he flipped blue states from them. Anything could happen. What I'm curious about is what would Red America do if it was Rudy v. Hillary. He's certainly closer to their views than she is. I suppose a third party type could run but I don't know who'd actually do it. Rudy would have to pick a strong prolife running mate and he couldn't pick a fight with the Christian Coalition the way McCain did in 2000. That was McCain's biggest mistake.
Then again, like Eisenhower and Wilson, Condi teethed on academic politics which are the worst of all, because so little is at stake.
However, I seriously think that Powell could have it without having run before by virtue of, by 2008, twenty years of being in the forefront of military and international politics.
I agree, and feel that Jeb is more likely to wind up in the Senate. His term is up in 2006, when he should wrap things up as a popular incumbent, which leaves him open to go to the Senate (like I said, if he wants it).
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.