Lets say that each pair has won the support of their party in the primary and has chosen the other, who was a former opponent in the primary, to be their running mate.
So- who wins and why?
2006-11-13 10:21:20 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
I think this question is bogus, because the assumption that Hillary is the front-runner for the 2008 Democratic nomination is, frankly, ridiculous.
Republicans would love to see her get nominated because they know she doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning.
Someday we will have a woman president. It's just not going to be Hillary. If the Democrats want to win back the presidency, they won't even let her be the V.P. nominee.
So to answer your bogus, ridiculous question -- in the matchup of your dreams, McCain/Guiliani would destroy Hillary/Obama.
But for the sake of this country, let's hope the Democrats aren't that stupid.
P.S. I think both sides would be wise to avoid nominating a U.S. Senator for president. A former U.S. Senator hasn't won a presidential election since Richard Nixon. The disadvantage for Senators is that their record on national issues is too easy for opponents to pick apart. Governors have a far easier time, IMO.
2006-11-14 04:53:33 · answer #1 · answered by got_da_scoop 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I have no clue! It would be a close one, I suspect, and if a credible Third Party ticket popped up, it could get even more interesting.
A lot of my fellow Third Party people need to look at a few other campaigns for notes. Perot had some valid points about campaign management, so the candidate would need that consult. Also the name game is important, when you're an unknown. Complicated names are proven to not turn out well. Another thing is to take advantage of all of the press as possible. a Third Party candidate will not receive federal monies, unless they garner 10% or better in the previous election (Which is utter BS aimed at keeping other parties from gaining seats in DC).
I could go on and on, but, this really isn't the topic for it.
2006-11-13 10:34:03 · answer #2 · answered by sjsosullivan 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
McCain and Giuliani would win (I hope) because they are both more connected to the common people. Hillary has been out of touch for a long time and few people know much about Obama at all. McCain however has high visibility, he has a high approval rating. He was a prisoner of war for years, so he understands war and how we should be treating prisoners. He's also worked with Democrats (a few times he shouldn't have) more than other Republicans showing that he is willing to listen to opposing viewpoints. Giuliani was a Republican mayor of a predominantly Democratic city. New York is the biggest city in the US and he turned the crime rate and its outward appearance around during his tenure. Also, New York being the main place that was attacked, he has the added perspective of being at ground zero and organizing the cleanup before the attacks were even over.
2006-11-13 10:30:19 · answer #3 · answered by Chris J 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Extremely difficult to predict, presidential elections are very unpredictable, but hopefully McCain/ Guiliani would win, they are very moderate would get the Independent vote, and the Republican base will come out against Hillary.
2006-11-13 10:47:43 · answer #4 · answered by asmith1022_2006 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Hillary will win. No one beats Hillary. She is a Bush supporter in Iraq, and no one complains.
The Democrats are afraid of her.
They don't want to end up like Vince Foster and dozens of people in Arkansas who blabbed a little too much.
Go Hillary. She is the prettiest man I've ever seen.
2006-11-13 10:27:04 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
I don't know who wins, but I can tell you that those combinations mean that America will LOSE if either of them are elected. I say we vote THIRD PARTY, the Constitution Party. We need meaningful change, not more bull$hit from professional politicians.
2006-11-13 10:23:14 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
oohh probably McCain. A) because our country is not ready for a female president. B) Because people don't like extreme opinions they prefer to be told that the president is bi partisan on most issues. The blurrier the line gets the better we like them as candidates seriously, as long as you give people general info without really standing up for any issue they like you. Hillary would be considered to extreme, plus she is a little to manly for some people. Not that this reflects my personal opinion, as i would vote for hilary over McCain anyday. But i like the fact that she takes a firm stand.
2006-11-13 10:26:18 · answer #7 · answered by TR 4 · 1⤊ 3⤋
I doubt that Hilary will win the nomination or win the election if she did. She is too polarizing. The Dems want a win this time. Maybe Edwards/Obama is the winning ticket. Guilliani has a lot of baggage. The far right won't accept him.
2006-11-13 10:24:48 · answer #8 · answered by notyou311 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Hillary/Obama,, because McCain, although a good man and a patriot embraced Falwell after he said he never would,, and Rudy is pro-choice and for gay rights,, the social conservatives would never vote for him,,
2006-11-13 10:26:07 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Talk about the lesser of 2 evils....
I like the old Richard Pryor's choice ...None of the above by a landslide!!!
2006-11-13 10:31:37 · answer #10 · answered by The Cheminator 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋