NationStates Jolt Archive

Supposedly national preference polls (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=536&e=1&u=/ap/20050506/ap_on_el_pr/presidential_poll) put Hillary Clinton and Rudy Guilliani at the top of their party's national tickets. I'm glad it's still a couple years until 2008. That would be one tough choice for straight ticket voters.

They're both conservative, if conservative = right wing.

It doesn't matter whether they are conservative or liberal. All that matters is what party they run for.

It doesn't matter whether they are conservative or liberal. All that matters is what party they run for.
You're right. I wasn't thinking about it in the right way. It'd be a tough sell for Rush and Hannity, though. On the positive side, it might just be what the Libertarian party needs to be a real third party.

Hillary can't win, the nation isn't ready to accept a woman as president.

However, I wouldn't mind either Giuliani or McCain (ranked second) being president. Both are more moderate, intelligent republicans who would be a breath of fresh air after Bush. It's Jeb who scares me.

Personally, I don't think either of those two will end up being the candidate after the primaries. Guiliani is far too moderate to garner any of the right wing voting block. If I remember, he's also a Catholic, which rarely plays well with the right. Guiliani, as a New Yorker, won't gather the necessary voter interest from the southern, Bible belt states.

Clinton, on the other hand, is viewed by many in the party as bringing too much baggage. She is viewed as too liberal for the mainstream, even though she's as much a moderate as Guiliani. She doesn't appear to have the voter interest of the north central states, which is a Democratic stronghold.

If both of these ended up being the candidates, I think Clinton would win for a few reasons. The first being that Guiliani being the Republican choice will lead to voter apathy in the Republican stronghold of the south. The Republicans would be falling into the same trap that the Democrats did last election. It seems that candidates out of the Northeast just don't fare very well. In this scenario a strong third party candidate from the Constitution or Libertarian party could really suck away conservative votes.

Personally, I think that the Republicans will go with a candidate out of the southern states, possibly South Carolina, Mississippi, or Alabama. I think the Democrats are also leaning towards that route as well. My early hope is that Virginia's Governor Warner is the next president. A strong Democratic candidate in a Republican state. He is smart, articulate, and an excellent negotiator. The moderates from both parties would gush over him while the conservative right and liberal left would sit and wonder why their needs were forsaken.

It's Jeb who scares me.

Or Bill Frist.

You're right. I wasn't thinking about it in the right way. It'd be a tough sell for Rush and Hannity, though.

I think we can safely assume that the candidate nominated by the GOP will immediately assume a conservative image.

On the positive side, it might just be what the Libertarian party needs to be a real third party.

Hopefully it will tone down its platform and start representing fiscally conservative moderates.

Hopefully it will tone down its platform and start representing fiscally conservative moderates.
That's supposed to be the Republican party's job, isn't it?

The Libertarian should represent fiscally conservative liberals. But I agree that they need to moderate (that's a verb). For example, take "legalising child porn" and "getting rid of public schools" off their manifesto.

That's supposed to be the Republican party's job, isn't it?

The Republican Party has moved a long way away from social moderates. They maintain a significant portion of moderate votes through demonization of the Democratic Party. Therefore, most moderates (myself included) get hit with what they feel is a "lesser of two evils" choices. A third party that appealed to those people directly could rise quickly.

The Libertarian should represent fiscally conservative liberals.

Most liberal movements have deep established ties to the Democratic Party, and I would surmise that they would, at least initially, continue to associate themselves with the Democrats.

But I agree that they need to moderate (that's a verb).

I may be American, but I am still fluent in English.

For example, take "legalising child porn" and "getting rid of public schools" off their manifesto.

Completely agreed.

Or Bill Frist.
Wasn't Frist the one who wrote that family history that seemed to advocate eugenics? If so, he's rather scary.

EDIT: Yes, he's the one.

Bill Frist is a politician of the worst degree. He is a soft money baron, and he would exploit his own mother to receive an extra demographic.

Wasn't Frist the one who wrote that family history that seemed to advocate eugenics? If so, he's rather scary.

Not all eugenics is bad. The only evil kinds are those which as government-mandated programmes.

Optional abortion is a good form of eugenics because it leads to less crime 20 years down the line.

Hillary can't win, the nation isn't ready to accept a woman as president.

I don't know about that. I think it's more that the nation isn't ready to accept *that* woman as President...

I don't know about that. I think it's more that the nation isn't ready to accept *that* woman as President...
It will prove that anti-Clintonism is alive and well.

Bill Frist is a politician of the worst degree. He is a soft money baron, and he would exploit his own mother to receive an extra demographic.
I don't know too much about Frist, but you're starting to make me concerned. I was worried about John McCain. I'm not quite sure what he stands for.

It will prove that anti-Clintonism is alive and well.

Yep... and let me tell you, NY State is less than happy (mostly) about NYC's choice of a Senator.

At this point Hilary is unelectable and as for the Republicans my money would be on Frist.