Saw this morning Hillary is leading Obama by a point in some survey, with the rest pretty far back. Why is it that they keep wanting to nominate people that few moderates will want to vote for? Why do they insist on nominating candidates who have no destiny other than losing yet another national race?
2007-06-05 01:42:06 · 9 answers · asked by thegubmint 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Klaspecter made some good points. First, I'm a moderate more than willing to split my ticket, always have, always will. You're right in that Clinton's administration ended up a fairly moderate one, but that was only after the debacle of his first two years with a decided left wing tone, after which the people tossed the Dems out. After that, he did a very nice job of co-opting Republican ideas and working with them to do what needed to be done. That stopped after the Monica deal though, unfortunately. Unemployment was basically the same as it is now, as was the poverty level (percentage-wise). I'd also argue that the economy grew so much in spite of Clinton, not because of him, and that his downsizing included the intelligence agencies, which had later negative consequences.
George Bush has addressed some social issues: No Child Left Behind and AIDS funding come immediately to mind. It's just that his Presidency has been one of conflict overshadowing anything else.
2007-06-05 02:22:33 · update #1
I have asked this question a thousand times! If Democrats would nominate a moderate Democrat the Republicans would never win a presidential election. Yet the Dems insist on nominating left wing liberals who fail time and time again to win elections.
A nice moderate to conservative southern Democrat is unbeatable in a national election. But I'm a Republican so I hope they never learn!!!!!!!!!!!
2007-06-05 01:56:49 · answer #1 · answered by Whatup??? 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Its really hard to figure out your point of view from your question. Are you a moderate who feels that the democratic candidates sit too far to the left, or too far to the right?
For the past six years or so, the pendulum has been pretty much stuck on the right. George Bush hasn't considered a single social issue since he took office, except opening our lands to 15,000,000 illegal aliens. And this, if anything, would have to be considered a liberal position for a foreign country, and a damaging position to our country.
The democratic candidates now are placed in an almost impossible position. Move too far to the left, and they can recreate a conservative America for the republicans. Move too far to the right and they can alienate their democratic base. So they are stuck, smack dab, in the middle...
If you take a look at the 8 years under President Clinton, you will see that by and large, we had a moderate democratic America. The economy grew by gangbusters. Unemployment became virtually non-existent. America eliminated all its budget deficits and actuallly began repaying long term debt. The country was pretty happy, war-free, and was actually able to downsize a large and expensive standing army.
The democrat who makes it through the primaries will lead much like Clinton. Gone will be the years of the jackel, George Bush, who set the clock back sixty years.
2007-06-05 02:06:43 · answer #2 · answered by Kiaspecter 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think people are unfairly pre-judging what kind of President Hillary could be. She is the exact opposite of George W. Bush who most Americans are against at the moment. Given all the shenanigans the Republicans pulled to put Dubya in office, it would be poetic justice to elect Hillary.
2007-06-05 02:43:37 · answer #3 · answered by Matt3471 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Not a huge Hillary fan but compared to Romney or Gulliani she is the best option. Those moderates you talk about should vote for the best candidate and stop voting strictly along party lines.
2007-06-05 02:15:30 · answer #4 · answered by ndmagicman 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Unfortunately I have to agree with you. Hillary's negatives are off the charts (up to 48% in Zogby poll) and I do not believe that this country will elect a black president. John Edwards is portrayed as a pretentious, left wing liberal. The only guy I can see that could win in the general election is Gore, and even then, I think it's close.
2007-06-05 01:54:24 · answer #5 · answered by neuromansuperhero 2 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Dems are in a perpetually tough position. They have to go left to appeal to their base so they can get the nomination, then swing right for the general election. Opens them to flip flop charges. Ticks off their left base who will run off to the Nader types.
2007-06-05 01:57:58 · answer #6 · answered by nileslad 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
That's your opinon. I thin kshe stands a better chance than MiItt Romney or Rudy Guiliani. They are the front runners in the GOP race and neither of them can win because of this stances on things like abortion or this political history.
2007-06-05 01:46:22 · answer #7 · answered by Louis G 6 · 1⤊ 4⤋
Why worry about, I hope they nominate Hillary because she will lose and I hope that happens.
2007-06-05 01:45:58 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 2⤋
As long as Obama doesn't get in. The US does not need a Muslim in the White House.
2007-06-05 01:50:29 · answer #9 · answered by thatwench 5 · 4⤊ 5⤋