I think Hillary will be the next POTUS

[Paddy]

The last two elections were really, really close.  And since the 2004 election, the Republicans have 'lost ground', both politically and perceptionally.  The Iraq 'war' is a huge bone of contention and a problem the American people want resolved.  The subprime mortgage fiasco looks like it might ripen sometime next summer with as many as 2 million foreclosures.  The people's will was made known last year when they tossed out the Republican majority in both houses.  Bush & Co. have alienated their base (me included, I won't be voting.  Republican anyway).  None of the other Dems are even close to competing with Hillary (according to current polling data).  There are no formidable Republicans; none appeal to the traditional Reagan base.

She may be a one term President, but I think she's in the Oval Office come January 20, 2009.

[Monkeyleg]

Riley, if the elections were held today, I'd agree with you that Hillary would win.

But the Republicans were tossed out last year because of a number of factors, including Iraq, and the fact that they weren't acting like Repubicans.

The Democrats promised change, but I've seen very little in the way of change. The Republicans have been able to pretty much block Democrat proposals.

So, the Democrats next year will say "we haven't done anything yet, but give us two more years."

13.5 months is a long time. Hillary stepped in it yesterday with her HillaryCare proposal, but she has enough time to backpedal on that.

All in all, though, I still think the Republicans are going to take another beating.

[wmenorr67]

If we have another year of nothing getting done in Congress like this past year I think that is the best thing that can happen for the Republicans.  Right now Congress' approval rating is lower than Bush's.  Whoever is the Republican canidate should be able to jump all over that to crush either Hillary or Obama.

[Sergeant Bob]

If Iraq isn't looking any better, if the fuel prices are still consistently over $3 a gallon, if the housing market tanks and inflation becomes a factor (I just heard the Canadian dollar is at $.97! the highest its been since ), whatever party is occupying the Whitehouse is going to be in big trouble.

It doesn't matter who's fault it is, or why its happening, the President gets the blame.

[Paddy]

I know the thought of Hillary in the Oval Office is abhorrent to most of us, but most of us had great expectations of GWB, too, which didn't materialize.  Tell the truth, I'd rather see Hillary than Kerry or Obama in the WH.  I suspect she's a Marxist through and through and if elected will only serve one term, but, I don't think she'd hesitate to bomb the living crap out of anybody who attacked this country.  She's not a starry eyed blissninny peacenik like Kucinich or Obama.  The woman has balls, and, I think, a sense of duty to country (as miguided as it is).

[gunsmith]

Hillary would be better for gunnies then Rudy.
The last Clinton admin was often admired for being "the best republican presidency"
Ending welfare as we know it, executions, wars in Europe, bombing Iraq, all the fun stuff.
The dems get to do things the repubs only dream of and vice a versa.
Bush sends millions of dollars for aids in Africa, coddles illegal aliens, and prosecutes more soldiers then any other war in U.S history (afaik) ...all stuff I would expect from a liberal admin.

Hillary would be anti gun but largely ineffective especially if we have a republican Senate, Rudy would get bipartisan support for his "common sense" gun laws.

[Monkeyleg]

Riley, do you think that Hillary is more prone to use real military force than Bill was?

I don't care what she's said about the military years ago, what she said about using the military while she was First Lady, or what she says now. What she does will not hinge on what is best for the interests of the US, but what is in her own best interests.

If she has "balls" as you say, they're only reserved for her own self-serving pursuits. (Dang, that sentence conjures up all sorts of ugly mental pictures).

[Paddy]

Well, in the final analysis, what's good for the country is good for the President, dontcha think?

Bill used military force, albeit primarily air power.  In hindsight, I suspect he'd admit not using enough force.  If he had a second chance as 'co-president' to Hillary, I think he'd be much more aggressive.  Not foolhardy like GWB, sending troops into a meatgrinder, but more willing to use our military power.

[Monkeyleg]

"Well, in the final analysis, what's good for the country is good for the President, dontcha think?"

No.

"In hindsight, I suspect he'd admit not using enough force."

No, I think that most military people agree that keeping bombers in Serbia at 16,000 feet was a bad idea. But Bill Clinton was most likely watching the polls about US casualties, not Serb casualties.

This is all about the Clinton's, and keeping them in power. I told my diehard Democrat friends back in 2000 that Al Gore should have won the election, but the Clinton's didn't want him to win. My friends didn't believe me when I said that the Clinton's were preparing Hillary's run in 2008. They still didn't believe me.

In 2004, I told these same friends that it was the Clinton's who picked John Kerry, because they knew he couldn't win, and that Hillary could win after GW's second term. They didn't even believe that Hillary would run in 2008. They told me I was nuts.

Nuts? Here we are with Hillary as the front-runner.

One-term president? That depends upon a lot of factors we haven't even imagined yet, foremost of which is the Clinton's ability to manipulate the party faithful and the big donors.

[The Rabbi]

I am 80% convinced Hillary will be the nominee and 70% convinced she will be elected.  The GOP hasnt fielded anyone really solid (and I like Fred) and doesnt seem to have learned from the drubbing last year.
The only hope is a GOP congress.  4 years of gridlock under Pres Hillary sounds OK to me.  Certainly better than Pres Giuliani.

[HankB]

The dems get to do things the repubs only dream of and vice a versa. Bush sends millions billions of dollars for aids in Africa, coddles illegal aliens, and prosecutes more soldiers then any other war in U.S history (afaik) . . .

Fixed it for ya.

[Gewehr98]

I think Hillary will be the next POTUS

Great.  I didn't need breakfast today, anyways.

Hope she's got a strong, capable running mate when the attempt on her person happens.

Not saying that I'd do it, but somebody's gonna give it a "shot". 

[sm]

I don't seeing Hillary becoming POTUS.

She does not have the mesmerizing charisma Bill has.
While I agree many are easily fooled, many will remember the Clinton years, and many will have studied them.
I feel folks will be a bit more "hesitant" to repeat the mistakes of the past Clinton Administration.

Republicans, I feel will get the POTUS through Fred Thompson.  Just a gut feeling mind you.

Libertarians are "hesitant" to vote 3rd party, instead vote "lesser of two evils".

My gut says the Republicans will have a major something, to win folks over and at the same time expose the Clinton years, therefore diminishing Hillary's dream.

Politics - often has nothing to with WE The People, instead Politician's personal gains.

 

[Sergeant Bob]

Libertarians are "hesitant" to vote 3rd party, instead vote "lesser of two evils".

Here it comes........

[roo_ster]

She does not have the mesmerizing charisma Bill has.

Could that be the understatement of the month?

It's hard to be both charismatic and shrill.

Sure hope you're right on the election.

[Joe Demko]

I don't see Hillary getting elected.
There isn't an Elephant Party member alive who would vote for her.
ALL the Elephants will vote for whatever (ill-qualified, uncharismatic EINO) Elephant is running specifically because he isn't Hillary.
She'll lose some Donkeys who don't think America is ready for/should have a woman as POTUS.
She'll lose some Donkeys who believe she is a gun-grabber.
The third party folks will still vote for their third party candidates.
Obama faces the same set of problems except substitute "black man" for woman.

The Donkeys have a history of snatching defeat from the jaws of electoral victory.  This next election, based on widespread dislike for Bush, is theirs to lose...and lose it they will if they choose to run either Hillary or Obama.

Politically, that might even be a smart move.  The Iraq War is the equivalent of GWB [edited for language] the Oval Office and whoever gets elected next has to be the one to clean it up.

[Euclidean]

Libertarians are "hesitant" to vote 3rd party, instead vote "lesser of two evils".

Here it comes........

Haha!

Seriously I don't vote lesser of two evils or "gridlock" style any more.  (Gridlock voting is where, regardless of your actual political ideology, you try to vote in a Democrat prez/ Republican Congress or vice versa with the hope they'll pass very few laws as the two branches struggle with each other.  I don't think it works either.)

The hard fact of the matter is that libertarian ideas are never going to gain any traction until more people do vote third party in the big elections.  Now, it's not that a libertarian candidate will ever necessarily win, it's that the mainstream Republican party will have to reckon with libertarians if they find they're consistently losing elections because of that small margin.  That's why you should support and vote for the libertarian candidates even if they aren't likely to win.

The Socialist party never won a presidential election either, yet they got almost everything they ever wanted.

Hilldog, if elected, will serve 2 terms with a mostly Republican congress.  At the end of them, expect to lose your employer's health insurance and other benefits, over half your paycheck to taxes, and any firearms or at least the good ones.

[The Rabbi]

Libertarians are "hesitant" to vote 3rd party, instead vote "lesser of two evils".

Here it comes........

Haha!



The hard fact of the matter is that libertarian ideas are never going to gain any traction.....  Now, it's not that a libertarian candidate will ever necessarily win, it's that the mainstream Republican party will have to reckon with libertarians if they find they're consistently losing elections because of that small margin.  That's why you should support and vote for the libertarian candidates even if they aren't likely to win.

The Socialist party never won a presidential election either, yet they got almost everything they ever wanted.

Hilldog, if elected, will serve 2 terms with a mostly Republican congress.  At the end of them, expect to lose your employer's health insurance and other benefits, over half your paycheck to taxes, and any firearms or at least the good ones.

Fixed it for ya.
Gridlock worked pretty well under Clinton for about 6 years.
I don't see a gun control measure even if she's elected.  She just has bigger fish to fry and a lot of blue-dog Dems wouldnt be caught dead voting for it.
The GOP is going to lose because the Hispanic vote is decisive and they've done everything they can to run that off.

[Manedwolf]

The GOP is going to lose because the Hispanic vote is decisive and they've done everything they can to run that off.

Y'know, not all Hispanics are in favor of supporting lawbreaking illegal aliens. To the contrary, some are quite pissed because they have family waiting to enter legally, and resent the rewarding of cutting in line.

[The Rabbi]

The GOP is going to lose because the Hispanic vote is decisive and they've done everything they can to run that off.

Y'know, not all Hispanics are in favor of supporting lawbreaking illegal aliens. To the contrary, some are quite pissed because they have family waiting to enter legally, and resent the rewarding of cutting in line.

They (correctly) see a lot of the anti-illegal rhetoric as spilling over to them as well.  Plus, that "illegal" happens to be Uncle Gomez or whatever.
But the polls tell the story.  And they aren't running to the GOP side.  Bush won in large part because of it.  They are large voters in decisive states.

[sm]

I have never voted for a Dem; I have always voted Republican or 3rd Party.

Many people will get to the ballot, and the last second "twinge" change their mind about voting 3rd party.
I do not have a source or cite, just my gut feeling.

I do recall the Clinton election, he won, and after a bit it seems "nobody" would admit voting for him.
Some random inquires in various jurisdictions and the numbers did not seem to match what polling records revealed.

Hillary is so fixated on her Health Care Plan; this I feel will be her downfall.
Clinton's tell folks what they want to hear, to get votes from various types of voters.
They are both real good about words used, and how they define words.

My gut says, Hillary will use her "Socialist" Health Care Plan as THE big platform.
It will be so obvious, she skirts other issues, to get back to discussing this Health Plan.
Typical changing the subject, riding the fence, no straight answers to any other issues, but this Health Care plan will be akin to a distraction, delusional drug, smokescreen, whatever one chooses to call it.

Those against her, will bring this to voters attention, and parallel the Socialist aspect of this Health Plan, and warn the American public, this Socialist attitude will be applied to other issues.

My gut says, a lot of "dirt" and "skeletons" have been investigated about Hillary and Bill.
I mean going way back to when Hillary was with Rose Law Firm, and Bill was AG of AR.
The years when he was Gov of AR, Whitewater, and other matters.

Republicans and 3rd Party alike, have been sitting on all this, and secured all this information before Mark Stodola was elected to AG office in AR.  Stodola is dangerous, and is part of the Political Machine in AR.
Oh, he just happens to be a Democrat.

Too many questions over too many years.
Too many folks got hurt by the Clinton's.

My gut says, payback time, and hell is the currency of exchange.

It would be a helluva deal if Tucker, Hale, Hubbell and others just happen to sing like canaries - even if they did not - plenty of others that might be willing to.

I really feel some want to put down Hillary and Bill - and hard!

[Monkeyleg]

"My gut says, a lot of "dirt" and "skeletons" have been investigated about Hillary and Bill.
I mean going way back to when Hillary was with Rose Law Firm, and Bill was AG of AR.
The years when he was Gov of AR, Whitewater, and other matters."

Yeah, and the public has been over those issues again and again. Mention them, and the public's eyes will glaze over. As far as the voters are concerned, the issues are in the past. Done. Investigated. Too much press coverage, and Clinton scandal overload.

Besides, the scandals--other than Monica--were too complex for the average Joe to understand. Do you think the average Joe understands cattle futures? Or land deals?

It's because the Clinton scandals were so complex that Bill and Hillary were able to figure out how to stay on top. If Bill had $900,000 in the freezer in his home that was given to him as bribes when he was the governor of AR, that would be different.

The Monica scandal was something everyone could understand, although they apparently didn't understand the implications of the perjury charges. So Bill got a pass on that one, too.

Hillary is smart, ruthless and cunning; IOW, everything that becomes a Clinton. The Clinton's have been planning her 2008 run for over seven years.

[longeyes]

I don't seeing Hillary becoming POTUS. She does not have the mesmerizing charisma Bill has.

Since when do you need "mesmerizing charisma" to become President?

What Hillary has going for her is the momentum of the popular culture.  She and Bill are the flag-carriers for all the memes of the generation that wants to buy the world a Coke (or coke).  Hillary can be elected by disgruntled minorities, government workers, and the Young Single Woman (or all three at once).  Demographic trends are on her side.

But...  She may win but she will never govern.  She will certainly never be Commander-in-Chief except in name only.  She will, at best, be a one-term President who brings closure to certain adolescent impulses that have roiled this country for decades.  The country may fragment before that first term is over, hard as it is for many to believe.  I still believe, crazy as it seems, that secession is the future.

[Paddy]

But...  She may win but she will never govern.  She will certainly never be Commander-in-Chief except in name only.  She will, at best, be a one-term President who brings closure to certain adolescent impulses that have roiled this country for decades.  The country may fragment before that first term is over, hard as it is for many to believe.  I still believe, crazy as it seems, that secession is the future.

Sorry longeyes, I can't agree.  Hillary would will be no worse than GWB, and probably less destructive to the interests of the American people.

[longeyes]

I'm not saying Hillary will be worse than GWB, I'm saying she will be the end of a process that began some time ago.  It's a continuum and many people, both Presidential and non-, will have played their parts in taking us to the precipice.  GWB has set the stage for Hillary, just as Bill set the stage for GWB, etc.