Republicans, if you absolutely had to vote for a Democrat in the next election, who would it be and why?

Answer 1

you're killing me with this question but I shall be brave and answer with John Edwards.

Answer 2

There could still be an aspiring presidential candidate to come forth besides the lousy group we have so far on both sides...I'm going to say "undetermined' who I'll put myself behind until it's all in. Hopefully, not waiting for' Godo" here?
I will say this. I don't vote for anyone I don't support. So if a Democrat or Republican ran that I didn't support his views, I would not vote for that person. No one has to vote for the democratic candidate if you don't agree. The electoral college is not swayed by majority vote. You see the Republic of The United States is not about majority ruling; but about inalienable rights majority voters cannot take away!
Who supports that?

Answer 3

I'm not a Republican but I'll answer anyway. I'm not a Democrat either.

We don't "absolutely" have to vote for anyone. We don't have to vote along party line. What is the point of your question? Are you trying to determine which Democrat woud be most tolrable by Republicans?

Weird quesstions.

Answer 4

I thought I could answer this question, but now that I'm at the comments box, I just can't get my fingers to type in any liberals' name. Maybe Joe Lieberman, (he's pro military and pro USA even though he claims to be a Democrat, and even though they "dumped" him in the last election, he's closer to being a Republican.

Answer 5

Bill Richardson. The only Democrat with any foreign policy experience and the only one who has a semblance of a brain in his head.

Answer 6

I am not a registered republican but I have generally voted that way over the course of my voting life. I would say that if I absolutely had to vote for one of the current nominees it would probably be Hillary. There would be several reasons for this, mostly it would involve why I am more concerned with other candidates.
Barack obama is a relative unkown to us. He has good sweeping rhetoric, but actual policy positions seem to be few are far between on his campaign trail. This concerns me because it means he can become beholden to any one group that pushes him through, leading to policies that can be written by groups to be signed by him. Also, the lofty rhetoric can often times become a bludgeon. IT makes it impossible for people to be seen as reasonable who stand against him, because who isn't for cleaning up politics and the audacity of hope. No one is against that, but many will probably be against his interpretation of those very abstract and lofty ideals that he totes all the time.
John Edwards is more concerning to me because he is beholden largely to trial lawyers. He might put in place laws that make it much easier to file suit for things like medical malpractice and whatnot. This creates even more risk in entering the medical profession and higher insurance rates, which keeps capable people from becoming doctors or nurses, simply because one mistake which ordinary people get to make at work sometimes, means that your entire career is gone. Certainly we need good malpractic law, but probably not the types of lawyer friendly laws Edwards would impose.
Also, I would vote for hiliary because more people do not like Hiliary. Essentially it would be easier for Senate and House Reps to build enough of a voting coalition to create gridlock, which historically has been good for the country (see Clinton 1994-2000). I think that Republicans would be able to oppose any initiatives like national health care etc., much more easily against Clinton than other more nicer and media loved faces.
She also probably will not start to pull out of Iraq soon, which (irregardless of how we got here and whether Bush lied) would simply create a very chaotic middle east, which would be even worse of America than what is ocurring right now. The simple fact of the matter is that Hiliary knows this based on several comments and whatever she says to get the office, she will stay in Iraq to at least keep the chaos from becoming so bad that it does even more harm throughout the region. She has said this, but then almost retracted it because several groups like the feminist against war (NOW maybe I dunno) got really upset with her. Anytime that happens though the politician is likely to go with what she said first rather than what they were forced to adopt later on.
So I would vote for Hiliary because at least I know her, and I also think she has (or at least appears to have) more stomach for dealing with Iraq and other tough Middle Eastern issues than the other two. I think she would move to military force a little sooner than Obama or Edwards if it became necessary (I am not saying that it will be, but in the event of it I trust her more.)

Answer 7

Bill Richardson. He has foreign policy experience and as a former Secratary of Energy can maybe get us headed away from oil as a fuel.

Answer 8

Is Mickey Mouse a democrat? How about Donald Duck? Reason they are popular in media just like Bill Clinton.

Answer 9

Joe Lieberman, but hes not running.

Answer 10

If you let an Independent vote.I'd go for Biden.