Skip to comments.Dick Morris: Rice only one who can beat Hillary
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.
Legally, and by birth yes. She is oriented "Bi," but not adverse to taking matters into her own hands.
(Hence the "Great North East Blackout")
Wisconsin and Minnesota will be critical to the republicans in 2008. take Kerry's 252 EVs, put Richardson on the ticket, 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. Our side needs to take MN or WISC to thwart that.
Hillary can't get elected President because the married women of America think she is sleeping with a rapist.
I'd write in The Lump.
MN Gov. Pawlenty could take both MN and WI. Game over.
yes, but he also has to take Florida and Ohio. I'm not saying he can't, I just don't know enough about him. But for sure, MN and WI are key in 2008. Because with Richardson on the ticket, we are going to do worse in the southwest.
I was a bit on the deliberately provocative side to draw response, though I do believe what I typed.
I've been waiting for MI to come to its senses for a long time. The reappearance of Reagan Democrats was promised twice in a row and didn't happen. So MI, the home of the auto biz, supported Mr. "Earth in the Balance" by a stunning margin, and then supported Mr. Traitor, admittedly by less. I have a hard time imagining anyone who voted for those two NOT voting for Hillary.
The other two best chances for a turnaround for the GOP would be MN and WI. I know they were close this time, but again, what person who voted for Gore or Kerry won't vote for her?
I'm also deathly afraid that the nutbar portion fo the 50% of the population that doesn't vote will come out in droves in 2008 to vote for her. At the same time I think Karl Rove got as much of the GOP base out as anyone ever will.
Throw in the normal smattering of Democrat vote fraud, illegal alien voting, and the like....I must stop.
I agree. I think Pawlenty would definitely take MN, IA, and WI and probably take OH and PA, negating FL. An alternate strategy is nominating Rudy, who would definitely taking PA and MI and probably keep FL. Two very different candidates who'd both play well in the electoral rich north, for different reasons. Of course, Rudy is a very divisive issue around Republican blogs these days.
I'm bookmarking this for a good laugh in 4 years...
As a MI native, I can attest with at least some sense of certainty that states like MI and PA voted for Gore and Kerry in spite of their liberalism, not because of it. Gore was basically seen as a continuation of Clinton's centrism and the economic boom. At the time, we didn't realize how liberal Gore really was. Kerry was largely an anti-Bush vote. Reagan Democrats can be very Pat Buchanan-like on the war. They don't like Iraq and were mad at Bush for taking us there. Also, they were upset about the recession. Without any Bush baggage, the GOP should do better up there next time. And Hillary is widely known as a NY liberal, not a supposed moderate like her husband.
Rudy would take NY and NJ. If you look at the NY map, any Dem who wins has to have a large margin in 4 of the NYC counties. These are the counties that elected Rudy mayor. and NJ is full of NYers.
That said, a candidate like Rudy would be at risk in states like Missouri and Iowa for example. But still, I don't see how any Dem can make up the difference losing NY and NJ with other states.
But he probably cannot get the nomination.
Rudy would need a strong social conservative to balance the ticket, kind of like when Bush I picked Quayle.
Your prediction that FR will be here in 4 years will prove more correct than most of our predictions concerning 2008 elections.
I don't think either Hitlary or Rice would make good candidates.
Re: Hillary "utterly unelectable" and Condi won't run
so it's moot.
You're wrong on the first point, but right on the second.
the basic dynamics of the 2008 race, for the Dems, are set. barring some very strange events, its in the bag, Hillary/Richardson 2008.
Continuing the dynasty, lol. Electorally, it makes the most sense of any.
Does everyone think that ALL the Dems are just going to roll over because Hillary wants the job? Kerry, too? Edwards? Somebody is going to connect the dots about the problem with the party and it's not just a matter of packaging. Furthermore, there are a million feet of film showing Hillary being the egomaniacal, liberal, gay-loving, socialist micro-managing witch she really is. Think they can all be destroyed in just four years?
Alot can happen in four years.
Dick Morris gets it right by taking every side of the issue. If he had been a ouija board, it would have looked like a clock swinging back and forth between "yes" and "no" on every question.
I don't know how Rudy would play here. A lot of the ethnic Catholics here (myself included) are pro-Life and pro-2a which goes against Rudy. The Catholic life advocates are usually the most hardline against pro-abort Catholics. I don't think my mom will vote for Rudy under any circumstance because of the life issue alone. My dad's vote is easier for Rudy to get, but that's not a given either as he is also pro-life.
On the same note, Rudy's tough, and that is very popular here among much of the same crowd. John Engler's slogan was "Tough enough to bring Michigan back". If he wants to win here, he has to be very careful with the social conservatives here, and go hard-right with a populist streak on economic issues to gain some of those votes. Economic issues killed Bush here, along with the black turnout.
And I don't think Michigan blacks will warm to Rudy very much. I expect Amadou Diallo (shot at 40 times) to be rammed down the throats of voters in Detroit, Flint, and Saginaw to the same effect James Byrd was for Bush in 2000.
There are more social conservatives than economic conservative here, but both have to be staunchly united for a Republican to win here because of Detroit. Can Rudy do it? I don't believe so.
I understand that, back to back brothers as presidents creeps me out a little too. How ever, if the Bush II term is a success he could beat hillary. If nothing else, he would be a lock for the senate against Nelson in '06.
I'm one of the minority here who hopes she does run.
Step 1 - She needs to win re-election as senator in 2006 - and that could be a tall order if Rudy runs against her. This is where Giuliani can hurt Hillary the most and help the Republicans the most.......very high profile campaign, very expensive and, most importantly, her positions would become more evident to the electorate.
Step 2 - Along about the time of the 2006 election, Vice President Cheney steps down for a "u-pick-it" reason. Condi is chosen as VP. This does 2 things.....it will lessen the last two years as a lame duck status for GWB (Somebody has to be a threat to exact favors or "pounds of flesh" in Congress. It couldn't be Cheney since we know he won't run.). And, it gives Condi enough time to establish bona fides as a presidential candidate in 2008. So..........
If Hillary loses in 2006, she will be greatly diminished as a candidate. If she holds on to her senate seat, she will be tarnished and Condi will thump her badly. Finally......
Watch out for Bill Richardson or Evan Bayh....one of these gentlemen have every bit as good of a chance of being the dems nominee in 2008 as Hillary.
Just my take......
BTW - Rudy has a better shot against Hillary than Bill Richardson.
I love Condi, but Morris is full of crap. Hillary can't win. Remember the polls during the primaries, when there was speculation that Hillary would run? Her numbers were dismal.
Hillary couldn't get elected if she was the only candidate. her negatives have never fallen below 60%. Kwese Mfume could beat her.
That thing on the side of McCain's head.
Totally agree with your characterization of the state. Populist Republicans work well up there. I think McCain would have taken that state pretty easily. I always wondered if GWB was just too southern for some MI voters. Rudy would definitely have to make peace with social conservatives if he were to even get the nomination, let alone start worrying about which states he can win.
Hillary knows the political landscape has changed dramatically.
The political ground under her prez ambitions has shifted, and she is on very shaky ground.
I, for one, am not worried about any Dem candidate they would dig up. Losers, losers, losers.
Condi would have to establish some very serious conservative credentials ....as far as we know, she is not pro-life....and that is a must for a Republican candidate. She is out of the running is she so much as hints that abortion might be somebody's (gag) right.
Liz, perhaps you are right. But, I think the shift in the black vote and even the women vote would offset that and then some. Condi would be very, very formidable.
BTW.....I've been off the reservation for awhile myself. I hope you are well and looking forward to Christmas and the New Year.
If he's bottling whatever juju he has going to still have a gig, I'll take two cases.
UnFreakingBelievable that this dude gets face time and cred.
I don't think Giuliani will run against Hillary in 2006. He just started an investment-banking firm, and I doubt his partners would have gone for it without a promise of 2 years of relatively undistracted commitment.
I think Black conservatives---- who are very, very savvy and sophisticated voters----would be as wary of Condi as white conservatives, if she starts spouting liberal social issue positions.
I'm fine Lando, and busy planning for the holidays, thanks.
One 3 letter word, JEB, can beat Hillary.
I'm voting for Mark Sanford, currently governor of South Carolina.
Most Conservatives underestimate how good a campaigner Hillary is. She won New York when many thought she had no chance. Now she's campaigning around the state and later she will expand her campaing nationally.
One question is how Ms Rodham will use the Patriot Act and who she will appoint to the Homeland Security and Intelligence Czar's offices.
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).
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.