NationStates Jolt Archive

It is widely believed that Hillary Clinton will run for President in the next election. She is very popular, currently moving philosophically toward the center, and has an excellent chance of winning the nomination if she decides to run.

So, the question is; who in the Republican Party would stand a good chance of beating Hillary in the general election? Please tell us why you believe the person you choose could win over Hillary. I have two nominations.

Condi Rice. She is a lady who is very savvy in politics. A brilliant woman with a lot of experience in international affairs. The fact that she is a woman and would be running against a woman would be a definite plus. Because she is a minority, she could pull some votes away from Hillary’s minority base.

Colin Powell. Excellent resume. A lot of experience in running the military (a large organization) and good experience in international affairs. Well respected internationally. Politically more to the center than to the right. Could pull votes from Hillary’s minority base.

Rudy Guiliani :)

jeb bush--current governor of florida

*shudder*

Pretty much all of them?

Our party leader at the American Fascist Party - Seth Tyrssen. Just read my thread on the AFP an I'm sure you'll see why.

http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/B000176MS6.03.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

lols.

ANY of them! Heh!

John McCain, or Rudy Giuliani

It is widely believed that Hillary Clinton will run for President in the next election.

She won't run.

We're not concerned with '08 right now, though. Think '06 .... it comes first.

Rob Simmons with a good enough campaign. That would be sweet.

Rudy Guiliani :)

Why do you think so?

jeb bush--current governor of florida

*shudder*

Why could he defeat her? I'm not sure the country is ready for another Bush though.

What Republican could beat Hillary Clinton?

All of them.

Our party leader at the American Fascist Party - Seth Tyrssen. Just read my thread on the AFP an I'm sure you'll see why.

He is not a Republican thought and the question was which Republican could beat Hillary. Your man may be a very good candidate, however it is very unlikely that any third party candidate will win the Presidency. Unfortunately, they can't even get on the ballot in many states.

http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/B000176MS6.03.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

lols.

Possibly a good candidate, but not eligible to run.

John McCain-Duh, everyone loves him
Rudy Giuliani-Same goes
Bill Frist-Doctor by training, Senator, all around acceptable dude. Saves lives and makes policy.
Jeb Bush-If it weren't for his brother's two terms, he'd be a shoo-in against Hilary. But as such, I'd bet he won't even run.
Colin Powell-If he decided to run, it would be a landslide. But he won't. He's tired of government.
Condoleeza Rice-Possibly. An unknown.
Arnold Schwarzenegger-If he were allowed to be president, that is. But he's not, so that's another "not going to run."
George Voinovich-An Ohio traditional conservative, very popular with many a moderate, if he wanted to run, which he doesn't (as far as I've heard).

She won't run.

We're not concerned with '08 right now, though. Think '06 .... it comes first.

You should be concerned with 08 instead of 06, as basically nothing will happen in 06. Republicans will keep both houses.

Oh and btw, you seriously don't think she'll run? Why is she trying so hard to get away from the left and move to the center?

Rice/McCain ticket would be nice.

Rob Simmons with a good enough campaign. That would be sweet.

Who is Rob Simmons?

Oh and btw, you seriously don't think she'll run? Why is she trying so hard to get away from the left and move to the center?
Hillary Clinton lived on the left? I always thought she was right wing like Billy. She hasn't done anything vaguely left-wing since about 1993.

John McCain, or Rudy Giuliani

They should run as a team. Between the two of them they've got the balls and brains of a single human being.

Hillary Clinton lived on the left? I always thought she was right wing like Billy. She hasn't done anything vaguely left-wing since about 1993.
Well, from the American centrist standpoint, both Hillary and Bill are somewhat left-wing. Justified or not, the popular perception is that Hillary is quite far left, again from an American viewpoints. This perception isn't totally true, but its there, much like for Howard Dean.

Rice/McCain ticket would be nice.
anyone that would trust rice is a ntucase, i wouldnt let her anywhere near the friiggin presidency

She won't run.

We're not concerned with '08 right now, though. Think '06 .... it comes first.
Yeah, when your party is on the ropes, you need to have low expectations. A good message and some vision wouldn't hurt.

anyone that would trust rice is a ntucase, i wouldnt let her anywhere near the friiggin presidency
You could say the same thing about McCain. He's probably as much of an opportunist as Clinton was.

You should be concerned with 08 instead of 06, as basically nothing will happen in 06. Republicans will keep both houses.


Just keep telling yourself that ... it will make our return to power easier if none of the Republican types vote because they are secure in their dominance.

Oh and btw, you seriously don't think she'll run? Why is she trying so hard to get away from the left and move to the center?

She's never been on the left. She's always been centrist. She has given absolutely no indication that she will run. She's actually said, quite emphatically and in plain English, that she will not run.

... i wouldnt let her anywhere near the friiggin presidency

Why not? What is your reason for making that statement?

anyone that would trust rice is a ntucase, i wouldnt let her anywhere near the friiggin presidency
I think rice is a good smart politician she seems to be getting off to a nice hard but fair stance as sec. of state. However I feel that the office of President of the United States should be reserved for a man, its been an unwritten rule since the beginning of our nation, no woman has ever come close. Now I am not one of those people that think women are inferior to men I believe woman have equal but separate roles in certain cases. Sure being a conservative if push came to shove and it was rice and hillary in 08 i'd hold my breath and hope for the best with a woman president.... hmm maybe i'd even move to canada? lol

anyone that would trust rice is a ntucase, i wouldnt let her anywhere near the friiggin presidency
I think rice is a good smart politician she seems to be getting off to a nice hard but fair stance as sec. of state. However I feel that the office of President of the United States should be reserved for a man, its been an unwritten rule since the beginning of our nation, no woman has ever come close. Now I am not one of those people that think women are inferior to men I believe woman have equal but separate roles in certain cases. Sure being a conservative if push came to shove and it was rice and hillary in 08 i'd hold my breath and hope for the best with a woman president.... hmm maybe i'd even move to canada? lol

She's never been on the left. She's always been centrist. She has given absolutely no indication that she will run. She's actually said, quite emphatically and in plain English, that she will not run.

She is just now moving back to the center where she pretended to be when Bill was running for office. She knows she cannot remain on the left, where she truly is, and get elected.

As far as any politician saying, "I will not run," if you believe that you are gullible. Politicians make their living by never meaning what they say, and never saying what they mean. :headbang:

However I feel that the office of President of the United States should be reserved for a man, its been an unwritten rule since the beginning of our nation, no woman has ever come close.

And it used to be a written law that women couldn't vote. :( Would you like to return to that time?

Women (mostly anyway) wouldn't vote for a women president. Not sure why, maybe jealousy? Anyway It doesn't matter who the republican candidate is, Jesse Ventura is a shoe in :) ;) .

My pet rock, which I have on good authority is Republican. My pet grass has never let me down before. Although, if my pet rock was elected president my sea monkeys would probably try to secede.

Why not? What is your reason for making that statement?
she is a main reason behind all the bullshit that is going on now. "what was the name of that memo?" "i beleive it was bin laden determined to attack in the us". she sats around advocating war, driving off our allies and gung ho for going around blowing shit up, then she gets appointed sec of def and goes around like nothing happens trying to fix everything she crewed up

Yeah, when your party is on the ropes, you need to have low expectations. A good message and some vision wouldn't hurt.
Quit giving them tips. They probably won't utilize them, but still.

ah-hem.

http://www.chopperware.com/godzilla54/action/g54train.gif

http://www.horrorcards.org/images/kingkongtestfront.jpg


Godzilla/Kong 08!

Unfortunately, I think the following people could stand a chance at beating her:

1.John McCain

2.Rudy Guiliani

3.Bill Frist


I think the only one I could see elected without crying would be McCain.

Two words: Colin Powell.
For so many good reasons, this man could steal the rug from under her feet without half the effort other candidates would need to pour into campaigning.

I'm not personally a huge fan (although I like him), he'd still kick her ass back to New York.

she is a main reason behind all the bullshit that is going on now. "what was the name of that memo?" "i beleive it was bin laden determined to attack in the us". she sats around advocating war, driving off our allies and gung ho for going around blowing shit up, then she gets appointed sec of def and goes around like nothing happens trying to fix everything she crewed up

She has not been appointed Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld still has that job. What is she responsible for? How did she drive off our allies? What allies has she driven off?

Rob Simmons with a good enough campaign. That would be sweet.

Yes, Mr. Phoenix.

ah-hem.

http://www.chopperware.com/godzilla54/action/g54train.gif

http://www.horrorcards.org/images/kingkongtestfront.jpg


Godzilla/Kong 08!

I didn't know they were Republicans. I thought they might run on the Independant ticket. :D

Sadly enough, Hilary Clinton probably won't run, but if she does, she'll be beat out by a Republican DUDE. Life sucks. Time for my medication! (J/K... really... ;) )

Yeah, when your party is on the ropes, you need to have low expectations. A good message and some vision wouldn't hurt.
Well, if you'd care to look, it's right up there in the title of the DNC's website, "Moving America Forward." They've also come up with the themes of helping the middle class and the poor, and other things along the like. Honestly, it's not that they don't have a good message, it's that people don't care whether or not it's good, only if it plays into their interests. People aren't that interested in progressivism right now, so that doesn't draw in many customers, but that doesn't mean that it's not a good idea.

Of course, if you mean that they need a 'good' message, as in one that would be more politically valuable, then yes, you're right.

She is just now moving back to the center where she pretended to be when Bill was running for office. She knows she cannot remain on the left, where she truly is, and get elected.
Well, from the American centrist standpoint, both Hillary and Bill are somewhat left-wing. Justified or not, the popular perception is that Hillary is quite far left, again from an American viewpoints. This perception isn't totally true, but its there, much like for Howard Dean.
You keep saying she and Billy are left-wing, but how so?

Didn't Bill, while president, push through the extremely pro-corporate NAFTA and trash the welfare system?

Didn't Hillary recently come out with some über-conservative recommendations on immigration policy?

I think you just call them "left-wing" because they are Democrats. No other reason.

Not that it matters anyway.

He is not a Republican thought and the question was which Republican could beat Hillary. Your man may be a very good candidate, however it is very unlikely that any third party candidate will win the Presidency. Unfortunately, they can't even get on the ballot in many states.
Actually, Badnarik was on the ballot everywhere but New Hampshire and Oklahoma. And New Hampshire was unusual, since there's a Libertarian in their state legislature.

It is widely believed that Hillary Clinton will run for President in the next election. She is very popular, currently moving philosophically toward the center, and has an excellent chance of winning the nomination if she decides to run.

So, the question is; who in the Republican Party would stand a good chance of beating Hillary in the general election? Please tell us why you believe the person you choose could win over Hillary. I have two nominations.

Condi Rice. She is a lady who is very savvy in politics. A brilliant woman with a lot of experience in international affairs. The fact that she is a woman and would be running against a woman would be a definite plus. Because she is a minority, she could pull some votes away from Hillary’s minority base.

Colin Powell. Excellent resume. A lot of experience in running the military (a large organization) and good experience in international affairs. Well respected internationally. Politically more to the center than to the right. Could pull votes from Hillary’s minority base.

-duh! the governator! ;) (he is republican, right?//)

Jesse Ventura! If he's Republican that is...

Rob Simmons with a good enough campaign. That would be sweet.
Don't you mean Richard Simmons? He seems sweet enough. Besides, the name is already familiar ... and i think he'd get the elderly vote.

Rob Simmons with a good enough campaign. That would be sweet.
Or do you mean Gene Simmons, whose real name they had on Family Guy and i'm not cultured enough to spell it correctly. He'd get the headbanger/dopesmoker/"satan"worshipper vote out. Maybe a few others.
Note - Knights In Satan's Service? A coincidence?
Besides Bush and his f*ckhead never-question followers are already doing a good job trying to bring 'round Armageddon. Bleah.
Oh yeah, that tongue of his ... the female (and a few male) votes?

You keep saying she and Billy are left-wing, but how so?

Didn't Bill, while president, push through the extremely pro-corporate NAFTA and trash the welfare system?
He pushed for NAFTA but welfare reform he vetoed twice - it was pushed mainly by the Republican congress. He raised taxes on the rich and was liberal on most social issues.

Didn't Hillary recently come out with some über-conservative recommendations on immigration policy?
Sort of. They're conservative in the sense that they're to the right of both major parties, but thats because both parties desperately want the Hispanic vote. She's probably more in line with the general public than GWB or most other national politicians are on that issue.

Why could he defeat her? I'm not sure the country is ready for another Bush though.


Americans are on the whole stupid people, branding works so well with consumer products that it stands a good chance in politics.

It would be interesting to have 36 years of bushes and clintons running the country.

I think it would finally convince all the reasonable intelligent people to leave.

It is widely believed that Hillary Clinton will run for President in the next election. She is very popular, currently moving philosophically toward the center, and has an excellent chance of winning the nomination if she decides to run.

So, the question is; who in the Republican Party would stand a good chance of beating Hillary in the general election? Please tell us why you believe the person you choose could win over Hillary. I have two nominations.

Condi Rice. She is a lady who is very savvy in politics. A brilliant woman with a lot of experience in international affairs. The fact that she is a woman and would be running against a woman would be a definite plus. Because she is a minority, she could pull some votes away from Hillary’s minority base.

Colin Powell. Excellent resume. A lot of experience in running the military (a large organization) and good experience in international affairs. Well respected internationally. Politically more to the center than to the right. Could pull votes from Hillary’s minority base.


#1: Rice.
#2: Powell.
#3: Guiliani.
#4: Bob the Popcorn Salesman.
#5: Doug the Autoshop Worker.
#6: Anybody else who is NOT HILLARY!

As you can see, I don't think Hillary has ANY chance of winning the Office of President.

America will never vote for Hillary Clinton. The democrats don't even like her. Every democrat that I've spoken to has said that they'd never vote for her.

He pushed for NAFTA but welfare reform he vetoed twice - it was pushed mainly by the Republican congress. He raised taxes on the rich and was liberal on most social issues.

Ah yes, liberal on the social issues. Like all those times he showed how much he supported the death penalty, right?

Ah yes, liberal on the social issues. Like all those times he showed how much he supported the death penalty, right?
Like abortion, affirmative action, gun control, and healthcare.

Bill O'Reilly is against the death penalty, but he's still a right-winger.

You should be concerned with 08 instead of 06, as basically nothing will happen in 06. Republicans will keep both houses.

Oh and btw, you seriously don't think she'll run? Why is she trying so hard to get away from the left and move to the center?


Wow, that's an assumption. Traditionally, the midterm elections go very strongly in favor of the party that is not currently in power. Besides, liberals learned our lesson, we won't make the same mistakes twice.

It helps to be a Political Science major, you learn to keep your chin up when all evidence points to an enormously successful group of democrats in 06.

Newt Gingrich. He is launching a political comeback right now, and has experience in slay]iing Hillary. He did it with universal healthcare, and he can do it again with the president. Besides, he was popular in his heyday, and I bet he can bring that back.
John McCain might be able to, but he might not wanna run because of his health. Jeb Bush may be able to, but some Americans are turned off by three Bushes in the White House, and might fear a dynasty forming. His best bet is to recast himself, as he is different from the other Bushes. He is way more conservative, very intellectual, a convert to Catholicsm (if that's possible), and has a Hispanic family, so he may gain appeal there.

Americans are on the whole stupid people, branding works so well with consumer products that it stands a good chance in politics.

It would be interesting to have 36 years of bushes and clintons running the country.

I think it would finally convince all the reasonable intelligent people to leave.

I'm sure you would not be one of those lined up to leave. :D

Pretty much all of them?

Agreed.

Wow, that's an assumption. Traditionally, the midterm elections go very strongly in favor of the party that is not currently in power. Besides, liberals learned our lesson, we won't make the same mistakes twice.

It helps to be a Political Science major, you learn to keep your chin up when all evidence points to an enormously successful group of democrats in 06.

I'll disagree with you here. I think the Democrats have moved so far to the left, you'll see the Republicans pick up some seats in the House and Senate in the next election. They will be the more moderate Republicans, more toward the center like McCain.

Newt Gingrich.
Actually, when I said "any Republican could beat Hillary" I was thinking "except Newt". He is an insta-lose because there is so much dirt the Dems could dig up.

A contest between Hillary and Newt would be amusing to watch, just because of the mudslinging. Election 2004 would look like a peace-and-love gathering compared to that hatefest.

America will never vote for Hillary Clinton. The democrats don't even like her. Every democrat that I've spoken to has said that they'd never vote for her.
You don't ask democrats enough. Are you sure they aren't RINO(Repubvlican in name only Democrats-DINOS? (Democrats in name only).

Actually, when I said "any Republican could beat Hillary" I was thinking "except Newt". He is an insta-lose because there is so much dirt the Dems could dig up.

A contest between Hillary and Newt would be amusing to watch, just because of the mudslinging. Election 2004 would look like a peace-and-love gathering compared to that hatefest.

Name something she and not her husband did. That counts? Everything during Clinton can easily be called Bill's ideas. Nothing linking them to her directly.

The real question is, what would they beat her with?

The real question is, what would they beat her with?

Pro-life picket signs, prolly.

The real question is, what would they beat her with?
nothing heavy enough to hurt her, she is a robot

You don't ask democrats enough. Are you sure they aren't RINO(Repubvlican in name only Democrats-DINOS? (Democrats in name only).
Surely it is only the "DINOs" that really like the right-wing Clintons?

The real question is, what would they beat her with?
I could lend them my pet rock.

nothing heavy enough to hurt her, she is a robot
Padded pro-life picket signs then.

Wow, that's an assumption. Traditionally, the midterm elections go very strongly in favor of the party that is not currently in power. Besides, liberals learned our lesson, we won't make the same mistakes twice.

It helps to be a Political Science major, you learn to keep your chin up when all evidence points to an enormously successful group of democrats in 06.

Then I suggest you read the elections of 1996! The dems did very well in the mid term elections. Then look at 2002! The republicans also did quite well in the mid-term elections.

Just because the normal trend goes to the party not in power, doesn't necessarily mean its a rule. I'm also a Poli Sci major Di Capitalist Pig and I've studied the two midterm elections! I think the trend is now going the other way.

As to the thread, if Clinton ran, anyone could beat her.

Name something she and not her husband did. That counts? Everything during Clinton can easily be called Bill's ideas. Nothing linking them to her directly.

ROFLMAO!!!!

(click to see just some of Hillary's dirt) (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/whitewater/whitewater_1-10a.html)

Oh yes, and then there is the fact SHE WAS AND STILL IS MARRIED TO HIM!!!!

Even on her own the big H has had more than enough dirt dug up about her. Her recent political 'flexibility' demonstrates her lack of conviction on her core beliefs. She's say or do whatever she thinks will make her popular.

Hillary would lose to anyone, even Perot (if the Republican's didn't siphon off his votes - lol)

ROFLMAO!!!!

(click to see just some of Hillary's dirt) (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/whitewater/whitewater_1-10a.html)

Oh yes, and then there is the fact SHE WAS AND STILL IS MARRIED TO HIM!!!!

Even on her own the big H has had more than enough dirt dug up about her. Her recent political flexibility demonstrates her lack of conviction.

Hillary would lose to anyone, even Perot (if the Republican's didn't siphon off his votes - lol)
Bozzy is back!

Ok, let's see who would and would not vote for Hillary. http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=395477

ROFLMAO!!!!

(click to see just some of Hillary's dirt) (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/whitewater/whitewater_1-10a.html)

Oh yes, and then there is the fact SHE WAS AND STILL IS MARRIED TO HIM!!!!

Even on her own the big H has had more than enough dirt dug up about her. Her recent political 'flexibility' demonstrates her lack of conviction on her core beliefs. She's say or do whatever she thinks will make her popular.

Hillary would lose to anyone, even Perot (if the Republican's didn't siphon off his votes - lol)
So standing by her man is wrong somehow? Man one would think that would show integrity.

And White water is just one thing. Not enough dirt.

So standing by her man is wrong somehow? Man one would think that would show integrity.

And White water is just one thing. Not enough dirt.

Yeah. Politicians have to be a lot dirtier than the average citizen before we throw them out.

So standing by her man is wrong somehow? Man one would think that would show integrity.

And White water is just one thing. Not enough dirt.
So you focus only on infidelity? Hmm, odd. I wouldn't even call that 'integrity'. "Come on honey, have some 'integrity' you only caught me doing it once!"

WJC had his hands plenty dirty and HRC's hands were holding his the whole time. Plenty rubbed of.

oh, and Whitewater was not even close to the only trouble HRC got it. Memogate? Tracvelgate? Helllooooo Mcfly? Butthead!

So you focus only on infidelity? Hmm, odd. I wouldn't even call that 'integrity'. "Come on honey, have some 'integrity' you only caught me doing it once!"

WJC had his hands plenty dirty and HRC's hands were holding his the whole time. Plenty rubbed of.

oh, and Whitewater was not even close to the only trouble HRC got it. Memogate? Tracvelgate? Helllooooo Mcfly? Butthead!
Okay, so you blame Hillary for Bill cheating...blaming the victim how noble.

And you name call how much defense you give for your stance.

Look if you want to lose the argument and resort to attacking viewer that is your choice. Some of us believe actually debating.

ROFLMAO!!!!

(click to see just some of Hillary's dirt)

Oh yes, and then there is the fact SHE WAS AND STILL IS MARRIED TO HIM!!!!

Even on her own the big H has had more than enough dirt dug up about her. Her recent political 'flexibility' demonstrates her lack of conviction on her core beliefs. She's say or do whatever she thinks will make her popular.

Hillary would lose to anyone, even Perot (if the Republican's didn't siphon off his votes - lol)

That article is old, when investigations were still pending. All of them have been resolved by REPUBLICAN appointed investigators to determine that neither of the Clintons had done anything wrong. Such investigations were only brought up by a Reblican Congress to weaken a democratic leader. In contrast, Bush's administartion, which has been caught in questionable practices ranging from Cheny's Energy task force, Bush's request to raise Arsenic level caps in drinking water, pre-911 ignoring intelligence, post-911 fabricating intelligence, the leak of a an Active duty CIA agent's identity (wife of someone pointing out war intelligence was bad before the war started, Robert Novack knows who did it but he's not being forced to talk), and the Abu Griab prison scandal (what, you think the guards brought their own leashes/bags all the way to Iraq? They were obviously supplied to them.) has had no investigations because of the same republican controlled Congress, and no one with voice is paying attention or wants to pursue the isssue.

Okay, so you blame Hillary for Bill cheating...blaming the victim how noble..

I said nothing like that, but if you are so desperate as to pretend I did so you can feign indignation be my guest.

And you name call how much defense you give for your stance...

Um, huh? Sense any making you not. Calm down, breath into a paper bag, take one of your pills and try again.

Look if you want to lose the argument and resort to attacking viewer that is your choice. Some of us believe actually debating.
Before I can do that I must lower my standards to your level. The argument is always easier if you don't bother to listen (not just hear) the other side. Your life must be very easy indeed.

That article is old, when investigations were still pending. All of them have been resolved by REPUBLICAN appointed investigators to determine that neither of the Clintons had done anything wrong. Such investigations were only brought up by a Reblican Congress to weaken a democratic leader. In contrast, Bush's administartion, which has been caught in questionable practices ranging from Cheny's Energy task force, Bush's request to raise Arsenic level caps in drinking water, pre-911 ignoring intelligence, post-911 fabricating intelligence, the leak of a an Active duty CIA agent's identity (wife of someone pointing out war intelligence was bad before the war started, Robert Novack knows who did it but he's not being forced to talk), and the Abu Griab prison scandal (what, you think the guards brought their own leashes/bags all the way to Iraq? They were obviously supplied to them.) has had no investigations because of the same republican controlled Congress, and no one with voice is paying attention or wants to pursue the isssue.

No, old is vietnam era records. That took up plenty of space during the last election. You'd be foolish to consider Hillary's 'gates' over with. But then, since you've so willingly bought the party line on so many other things, maybe I overestimate you...

Pretty much all of them.

A potted plant. I'm sure even it has more conservative values than she does.

any republican

but as i said in another thread THE UNBEATABLE REBUPLICAN TICKET :

Pres: Rudy Guiliani
VP: Colin Powell

to bad neither will ever run

One Word: Arnuld! :D

Colin Powell. Excellent resume. A lot of experience in running the military (a large organization) and good experience in international affairs. Well respected internationally. Politically more to the center than to the right. Could pull votes from Hillary’s minority base.
Unfortunately he messed up at the UN, but maybe that wouldn't matter if Hillary was opposite him on the ticket.

McCain!!! :D
....Too bad he'll never run :(

pre-911 ignoring intelligence,
Even Richard Clarke, Mr. 20/20 himself, stated that had they done everything possible for them to do about the 9/11 incident based on the info they had it still would not have stopped the operation.

"Then I suggest you read the elections of 1996!"

Those weren't midterms. Bill was re-elected that year.

As for 2002, that was an anomaly.

Also, this year, a lot of Dems were elected at the state and local level. Montana now has a Democrat governor, and my district in North Carolina elected a Democrat who's an open lesbian to the state senate. So who knows what'll happen in 2006.

All I knows is, it should be fun to watch.

"Then I suggest you read the elections of 1996!"

1998 was and it went to the Democrats though they didn't gain control of the House, they did gain some seats.

Those weren't midterms. Bill was re-elected that year.

So he was.

As for 2002, that was an anomaly.

You would say that but I don't think it was an anomaly considering what happened in 1998 when the Dems cut it close.

Also, this year, a lot of Dems were elected at the state and local level. Montana now has a Democrat governor, and my district in North Carolina elected a Democrat who's an open lesbian to the state senate. So who knows what'll happen in 2006.

Correct, no one knows. I'm willing to bet though that Bush will retain House and Senate and maybe add one or two seats in the Senate. That is my early prediction.

All I knows is, it should be fun to watch.

I will agree with you here.

I'm betting the farm on Jeb.

Successful governor of a key state, solid public speaker, foreign policy buff, managed Florida through a few serious hurricanes, etc.

Bottom line, Hillary is a terrible public speaker, with a grating and often shrill tone, a NY carpetbagger, and a potentially disastrous candidate. No amount of swinging to the right will overcome her past stands, which will be used to bash her on grounds of inconsistency.

Conclusion: Bet the house on ole uncle Jeb in '08. He's got the wind at his back, althought I'd like to see him drop about 20 lbs... he's looking kinda plump.

Also, the handicappers have a 2-seat Republican gain in the Senate in '06 right now, and for good reason. More democrats are up for re-election, including a few freshmen and 4-7 potentially beatable ones. The Republicans only have 15 up for re-election, and only 2 can conceivably be beaten with some bad luck, and we currently have 4-seat lead, so.... in short, we got 8 more years on top, minimum. :)

"Then I suggest you read the elections of 1996!"

Those weren't midterms. Bill was re-elected that year.

As for 2002, that was an anomaly.

Also, this year, a lot of Dems were elected at the state and local level. Montana now has a Democrat governor, and my district in North Carolina elected a Democrat who's an open lesbian to the state senate. So who knows what'll happen in 2006.

All I knows is, it should be fun to watch.
Maybe you oughta. Clinton nefver received a plurality. Withour Perot he would not likely have been president.

Correct, no one knows. I'm willing to bet though that Bush will retain House and Senate and maybe add one or two seats in the Senate. That is my early prediction.


I will agree with you here.
The Dems have more seats at risk than the Republicans. If you assume a 50/50 split, they will lose seats. I'm not sure what the breakdown is by district, but I suspect that there are many more close calls among the dem seats than the republican seats, which can make it skew more to the republicans.

Withour Perot he would not likely have been president.

I don't think so. Perot pulled as many votes away from Clinton as he did Bush. Unfortunatly, he just didn't pull enough votes to win. :)

I don't think so. Perot pulled as many votes away from Clinton as he did Bush. Unfortunatly, he just didn't pull enough votes to win. :)

Bush and Perot got more votes than Clinton did.

Perot and Dole got more votes than clinton did.

Ofcourse that is combined but anyway......

I said nothing like that, but if you are so desperate as to pretend I did so you can feign indignation be my guest.


Um, huh? Sense any making you not. Calm down, breath into a paper bag, take one of your pills and try again.

Before I can do that I must lower my standards to your level. The argument is always easier if you don't bother to listen (not just hear) the other side. Your life must be very easy indeed.

you said and I quote;

So you focus only on infidelity? Hmm, odd. I wouldn't even call that 'integrity'. "Come on honey, have some 'integrity' you only caught me doing it once!"
[quote]
So you attacked her integrity because Bill cheated. Gasp, and than you deny doing it. You are too much like Bill :P


WJC had his hands plenty dirty and HRC's hands were holding his the whole time. Plenty rubbed of.

So you are name calling her dirty as I said you did. I have no pills. You should learn to give proofs of your reasonales not say I need pill, etc.

oh, and Whitewater was not even close to the only trouble HRC got it. Memogate? Tracvelgate? Helllooooo Mcfly? Butthead!

You called me Butthead. You lie and say you didn't?
You aren't listening. You are just name calling. Not telling what in Travelgate connects to her and what she personally did.
Likewise every other event. Than you say I don't listen when it is you who is already not listening and name calling.
So to not name calling is lower standards... is this opposite day?

BS, clean up your quotes, they are unreadable as they currently stand. Some of your message could use editing also to clarify meaning. I won't berate you for it, only give you the opportunity to fix it.

(BS - lol, how apropriate)

Bush and Perot got more votes than Clinton did.

Perot and Dole got more votes than clinton did.

Ofcourse that is combined but anyway......

Are you insinuating Clinton is a looser? :D

You called me Butthead. You lie and say you didn't?
You aren't listening. You are just name calling. Not telling what in Travelgate connects to her and what she personally did.
Likewise every other event. Than you say I don't listen when it is you who is already not listening and name calling.
So to not name calling is lower standards... is this opposite day?

Children, children! Stop that squabbling or I'll have to stand you in the corner.
:D

That campaign would be far dirtier than the previous one. I would like to think that NY'ers would realize she was just using us to get into a position of power to run but I doubt they're smart enough to pick up on that. Oh well at least I realize it. But I think she'd wind up beating herself with the things she has said & done in the past. I'd love to see what her voting record is. I wouldn't doubt it to be abyssmal.

That campaign would be far dirtier than the previous one. I would like to think that NY'ers would realize she was just using us to get into a position of power to run but I doubt they're smart enough to pick up on that. Oh well at least I realize it. But I think she'd wind up beating herself with the things she has said & done in the past. I'd love to see what her voting record is. I wouldn't doubt it to be abyssmal.

Go here to check it out http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=WNY99268

Interest group ratings for Hillary.

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=WNY99268

A lot of people seem to think McCain or Giulliani will be running...

Giulliani will NEVER win the Republican primary because he is pro-choice. To win a Republican primary you MUST be pro-life.

McCain won't win, simply because the GOP does not want him to. They will destroy him like they did in '00.

Frist is most likely going to be the Republican candidate.

However, a lot of people seem to think Hilary is going to be the democratic candidate...that is unlikely...in '08 Democrats will betrying to appeal to the southern, white, male. Hilary clearly does not appeal to them...I expect to see an Edwards/Richardson card for the democrats in vs Frist/Santorum in '08

Interest group ratings for Hillary.

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=WNY99268

2002 On the votes that the Citizens Against Government Waste considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Clinton voted their preferred position 6 percent of the time.

Now that's irony. She's never in favor of tax reform huh. I find it funny too. She's always critical of the war in Iraq and this and that but never fails to vote in favor of more $ for it. I have a feeling that this is only for "Hey I voted for the war" claims.

Here's another one. She's all for blacks & hispanics but what about Arabs?

2003 Based on the votes, co-sponsorhips and other leadership actions that the Arab American Institute considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Clinton acted in accordance with their preferred position 0 percent of the time.

Hillary on English as the national language for the United States?

2001 On the votes that the English First considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Clinton voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.

United Nations?

2001-2002 On the votes that the Campaign for U.N. Reform considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Clinton voted their preferred position 29 percent of the time

I would like to know more about this but from the top level she isn't too much in favor of private property, though I could be interpretting this one wrong.

2003 On the votes that the League of Private Property Voters considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Clinton voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.

2001-2002 On the votes that the League of Private Property Voters considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Clinton voted their preferred position 10 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the League of Private Property Voters considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Clinton voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.

Those national journal things are pretty awesome. Rankings aren't easy to make.

Thanks for this site, it'll help a lot!

IF Hillary decided to run the democrats would love it if we put woman up against her, but he republicans are smarter than that. A woman has almost half as much a chance as winning than a man, and the republicans would take full advantage of that fact if the democrats were dumb enough to nominate a woman to run. However, I don't believe the democrats would risk that because after these next four years the republican candidate will have to work doubly hard to win as it is.

I'm not really political and am pretty much basing this on common sense and not idealism, so I could be wrong about having a hard time believing a woman would win the presidency.

I'd probably vote Eutruscsa, (and whoever I vote wins:D:D I am all that matters in 2008... JK)

More important question: who would lose to HRH Hillary.
Not many of potential 2008 GOP candidates. (And not a single one of the likely ones!)

More important question: who would lose to HRH Hillary.
Not many of potential 2008 GOP candidates. (And not a single one of the likely ones!)
Everyone of them would lose. Hillary would win. She's smart enough, Moderate enough, and darn gone it people like her (you don't count lol).

Everyone of them would lose. Hillary would win. She's smart enough, Moderate enough, and darn gone it people like her (you don't count lol).

She might be moderate in the perception of the more liberal western european nations, but not to americans.. to most of us she's a die-cast left-winger.

She wanted us to have universal health care, for cripes sakes! If you think our unemployment % is bad, imagine what it would be if people got free food, shelter AND health care. It would be bad for the productivity of America. IMO. She is a "chicken-in-every-pot" left-wing American Democrat. She'll get some votes by promising things to people who think that government should be responsible for them. But to those who do not espouse tons of social spending, she will be anathema.... that group of people comprises probably at least 60% of the country. (figuring 30% are solidly Democrat, 30% solidly Republican... and i'm guessing that maybe a quarter of the remaining moderates would support a near-straight-socialist plan to running the country highlighted by an increasingly large governmental hand in the taxpayers' pockets.. taking from the productive and giving to the non-productive. Probably nearly everyone (myself included) supports welfare for those who cannot help themselves, but HC would likely greatly expand the definition of "those who cannot help themselves".

I think that McCain, Colin Powell, Jeb Bush, and a handful of other Republican candidates would beat her.

Everyone of them would lose. Hillary would win. She's smart enough, Moderate enough, and darn gone it people like her (you don't count lol).

Pass me your crack pipe! Sounds like you're smoking primo stuff!

Everyone of them would lose. Hillary would win. She's smart enough, Moderate enough, and darn gone it people like her (you don't count lol).

She'll get massacred

[QUOTE=NOTBAD]IF A woman has almost half as much a chance as winning than a man, /QUOTE]

Where did you come up with this? Besides if both parties ran a woman one of them would have to win. I doubt many people would vote for a third party candidate just because a man was running.

[QUOTE=NOTBAD]IF A woman has almost half as much a chance as winning than a man, /QUOTE]

Where did you come up with this? Besides if both parties ran a woman one of them would have to win. I doubt many people would vote for a third party candidate just because a man was running.

Don't be to sure about that. I'm sure many would.

[QUOTE=NOTBAD]IF A woman has almost half as much a chance as winning than a man, /QUOTE]

Where did you come up with this? Besides if both parties ran a woman one of them would have to win. I doubt many people would vote for a third party candidate just because a man was running.

I agree. I think women have taken a successful leadership role more often in recent years. Most people have overcome old-fashioned male dominant attitudes and realize and appreciate women's contributions and capabilities.

[QUOTE=Celtlund]

I agree. I think women have taken a successful leadership role more often in recent years. Most people have overcome old-fashioned male dominant attitudes and realize and appreciate women's contributions and capabilities.

I know that I appreciate them :)

I'm getting worried folks. News like this: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/Election%202008--Kerry,%20Clinton,%20Rice.htm will only encourage Hillary to run.

In a very early look at the 2008 Presidential Election, Senator Hillary Clinton leads Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice 47% to 40%. At the same time, Secretary Rice leads Senator John Kerry 45% to 43%.

This was conducted by Rasmussen, whose polling was mostly accurate this past fall.

Surprisingly, Kerry does better among women than Rice. Obviously, Hillary does MUCH better among women than Rice. Given Dick Morris' dire predictions that "only Condi can beat Hillary", it's not looking so good for everyone who wants Hillary to stay in the Senate (me being one of those people).

Can anyone stop her? :(

I'm getting worried folks. News like this: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/Election%202008--Kerry,%20Clinton,%20Rice.htm will only encourage Hillary to run.



This was conducted by Rasmussen, whose polling was mostly accurate this past fall.

Surprisingly, Kerry does better among women than Rice. Obviously, Hillary does MUCH better among women than Rice. Given Dick Morris' dire predictions that "only Condi can beat Hillary", it's not looking so good for everyone who wants Hillary to stay in the Senate (me being one of those people).

Can anyone stop her? :(

Isn't that the same firm that said Bush would lose to any democrat back in 2003?

A potted plant. I'm sure even it has more conservative values than she does.
Damn straight, you can't really get more conservative than dirt and clorophyll.

Maybe you oughta. Clinton nefver received a plurality. Withour Perot he would not likely have been president.
Clinton got a plurality in both 1992 and 1996, but he never got a majority. I think that Clinton probably would have been elected without Perot. Perot was ideologically closer to Clinton than Bush, and the incumbent president ran a lazy campaign.

Pass me your crack pipe! Sounds like you're smoking primo stuff!
yeh i want some too

I'd vote McCain or Powell over Clinton probably. I don't really care for anyone else in the Republican party.