even a RudyG and FredT ticket for the Republicans could only muster 25% at best counting all their family members plus the ones in jail who are all former RudyG appointments.
a Green Party ticket of John McCain and Mitt Romney would do better than any Republican ticket in 2008.
What are your thoughts?
2007-07-11 03:47:28 · 26 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
My thoughts are: Where did you find those so-called stats? Are they clairvoyance or wishful thinking?
2007-07-11 03:51:17 · answer #1 · answered by amazin'g 7 · 6⤊ 1⤋
The US is a divided society as we readily saw in the 2000 election. Even with the war in Iraq sapping the ability of the president to get any domestic agenda passed, no political party or candidate will garner 75% of the vote.
The last Democrat to get 50% of the vote was Al Gore, and he barely managed that, although he fell short in the electoral college--the group that actually elects the president. In reality, the voters elect the electors who meet in December to formally elect the president. Bill Clinton himself failed to win 50% of the vote in either election, though he won a commanding majority in the electoral college and is generally viewed as having won a resounding victory in both wins.
Both parties are guaranteed to win about 43-45% of the vote. The election battle is over the roughly 10% that are truly independent. Others claim they are independent or tell pollsters that because it makes them somehow sound smarter than the general public. I'm not sure that holding your finger in the air and seeing which way the wind blows makes them any smarter than voting for a candidate from a major political party.
John McCain and Mitt Romney are Republicans and will not support the agenda of the Greens who are largely socialist and totally anathema to the ideals espoused by these two candidates who remain steadfast Republicans, despite the recent troubles McCain has been having in fundraising.
Giuliani and Thompson are serious candidates as I am sure Clinton, Obama, or any other Democrat will tell you. It's always best not to underestimate the opposition, something Bill Clinton found out when he lost an early election to be Governor of Arkansas. He never made that mistake again--something I'm sure was not lost on his politically astute wife. They take it seriously because everybody knows it will not be a cake walk for anybody.
If anybody were to get 75% of the vote, the closest would be NOTA--none of the above--because the public is fed up with their choices.
2007-07-11 11:26:28 · answer #2 · answered by opie68 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Everybody is all up in arms about this question a nd how ridiclious it is. Have any of you watched CNN or MSNBC or FOX when they show recent polls. Clinton is the leader if the pack in every one that I've seen. Way in front of Obama. I even saw one that said if Gore ran on his own he would cut Clinton's following in 1/2 atleast. So this question is very valid. The best chance for Rudy is to go green. People are going to vote anything but Republican this election.
2007-07-11 14:06:51 · answer #3 · answered by guf0923 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Wow, Al Gore is so bad that if he and Hillary run she will not get the 25% that are his family members, and those in Jail who did not get pardoned by Bill?
Seems a bit high, but if Hillary was expecting 4 votes, and one is a relative of Al Gore, how happens to be in jail, you may be right.
2007-07-11 11:04:15 · answer #4 · answered by heThatDoesNotWantToBeNamed 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Al Gore is a frickin wacko!But you are right, I mean correct about the Republican ticket ..it sucks.I am a republican but I have no idea who I would vote for if the election was today.However I can assure you that it would not be another Clinton/Gore ticket.Have fun
2007-07-11 11:19:28 · answer #5 · answered by Charly B 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
A "Hillary/Al ticket" would not receive 75% of the vote even if no one was running against them. Gore has shown he only has one agenda (Global Warming) and Hillary has too much baggage to garner a large percentage of the undecided vote.
Your other pairings will not occur because the candidates are too fundamentally different from each other.
2007-07-11 10:55:15 · answer #6 · answered by Truth is elusive 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I can not see Al and Hillary gaining anywhere near 40% much less than 75%. They are both disliked by too many of the American public.
2007-07-11 12:26:19 · answer #7 · answered by honshu01 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think it's time for an independent o come in the race. But the fact that Rudy Guiliani is running as a republican is kind of making me say, give this guy a chance. Hey, he experienced 9/11 almost first-hand. If he was an independent...
2007-07-11 10:51:00 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
I'm thinking you would be more accurate if you flipped those numbers. In the first place, Hillary will never play second fiddle to Al and Al will never work for another Clinton again.
2007-07-11 10:51:04 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
Polling consistently shows that half of the electorate would never vote for Hillary. You do the math on that one.
2007-07-11 13:58:22 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
definitely. people realize al gore is full of it. he takes credit for things as soon as they become popular (i.e. the internet, global warming, rock concerts) when in reality he didn't start the internet, he flies his private jet around and he led the charge against rock musicians during his "parental advisory explicit lyrics" rant in the 90s.
Hillary comes across as an icy scathing beyotch that prances around the midwest like she's from there when in reality she can't even garner support from staunch liberals from the northeast where her bread and butter should be.
2007-07-11 10:52:57 · answer #11 · answered by sandman 4 · 4⤊ 0⤋