You are dreaming. 52% of the voting population has stated that will not vote for Hillary under any circumstances. They need to nominate Richardson if they want a chance at the White House in 08. Hillary is a gauranteed loss for the Dems.
2007-07-05 02:46:22
·
answer #1
·
answered by booman17 7
·
1⤊
3⤋
Good possibility: one of the best things about the ticket is geographical disparity. Clinton will carry New York, New Jersey and other Northeastern states, the South and midwest will go republican (but they were going to do that even if Edwards was Presidential candidate), Richardson though tips the ballance in Western states such as New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, and an outside possibility of Texas. Swinging those states is a more pragmatic focus than selecting someone from the south. Clinton-Richardson is probably a good ticket in terms of balance: geographical and expertise (Richardson provides necessary foreign policy cred to the ticket).
2007-07-05 03:01:34
·
answer #2
·
answered by C.S. 5
·
0⤊
2⤋
Mrs. Clinton may be able to finally get the U.S.A. some kind of national health care or non profit HMO's which is sadly needed. Richardson seems capable but unknown basically. Let's hear more about him. Hillary is very intelligent. It is time for a woman. She has guts, class and staying power and the experience of her husband to consult with.
2007-07-05 02:49:11
·
answer #3
·
answered by Ed ward R 1
·
0⤊
2⤋
Hillary will not win and it will sink any chances Richardson (the only really talented Democrat in the whole field) has of ever becoming President in his own right.
If you feel that that group can do "'great" for America, then I'm really troubled about the future of this nation.
2007-07-05 02:48:46
·
answer #4
·
answered by TheOnlyBeldin 7
·
0⤊
2⤋
which would be unusual on condition that Hillary Clinton maximum probable should not be choosing a vice presidential candidate and that she should not be choosing somebody (Richardson) that Jim Carville stated as Judas Iscariot.
2016-10-19 21:42:40
·
answer #5
·
answered by kelcey 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Exceptionally marketable if you factor in a high hispanic voter turnout. Otherwise, it would probably be destined for failure as this "immigration" issue seems to have the bulk of Americans panties in a bunch - it would lose the swing vote, the independents (if there is such a thing), and definately the moderate Repubs fed up with their party.
All things considered though, I'd vote for it in a heartbeat.
2007-07-05 03:23:25
·
answer #6
·
answered by Rather Notsay 2
·
0⤊
2⤋
Richardson could be the compromise candidate. Hillary is not likable. Edwards is a joke, Gore is a buffoon, Obama is not electable. If not Richardson then a certain Republican victory.
2007-07-05 05:56:27
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋
That looks good on the drawing board, but think about this one. The Governor of New York running for president, and the governor of California as vice president. Arnie can't be president, but he can be vice president. They run on the Independent ticket. That means both parties can vote for them. They are both tight friends already. That would really be something, also. There's alot of talk about that, here in the midwest.
2007-07-05 02:52:29
·
answer #8
·
answered by Dennis B 5
·
0⤊
3⤋
It sounds awful; a great victory for La Raza. Richardson is pandering to his Latino comrades in promising to tear down the border fence, and Hillary is not much better. If a Dem becomes president, he or she will give amnesty to all the illegal alien invaders in our country. They have promised La Raza that they will do so.
2007-07-05 02:48:02
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
3⤋
I have known many presidents - including the Clinton(s).
We (my family and I) have already decided that if another Clinton becomes president, then we will become immigrants LEAVING THE U.S.
2007-07-05 02:46:56
·
answer #10
·
answered by idplmali 4
·
1⤊
2⤋