Do you think the Republican party should just give up on the next election?

Question

As much as I dislike Hilary, I really can't denies the fact that she have a very high chance of winning; I mean look at it, the media are all over her, negative or positive, it doesn't matter, she basically has all the attention. I like Obama, but I highly doubt that he could overtake her. Another thing is, I don't think America have a very favorable opinion of the Republican party right now (we can all thanks Bush for that).

In all, her chance is far better than I'm comfortable with, mainly because I don't see anybody that could beat her from the Republican side.

And oh.., lets not forget the fact that American voters aren't very bright(the majority of them anyway)

So do you think the Republican party should just give up on the next election?

How will Hilary bring back common sense?, please don't make me laugh

Answer 1

Well considering in all the polls, the republican candiates are leading.

And considering how many democrats think the election is in the bag, and probally won't vote because they think its already won.

I'd say the republicans have a better than even chance of winning in 2008.

After all, romney and giuliani din't vote to authorise the war in Iraq like hillary and edwards did.

Answer 2

Absolutely! They should be hanging their heads in shame for ever believing in old Dubya. He has made a mochery of the Republican party, and really made a mess of our economy.

American voters aren't very bright? I don't think that is a fair statement. What is unfortunate is that the conservatives have allowed themselves to be brainwashed by the Bush Mentality, and can't seem to get their heads wrapped around the fact that he is an idiot, and doesn't have a clue what he's doing. The rest of us have plenty of smarts, because we are smart enough to know a snake when we see one.

Of course Bush never would have been elected in the 1st place if his baby brother wasn't the Govenor of Florida at the time. Al Gore actually one the popular vote, but because of the stupid Electoral College, Florida's voters really didn't have a say in the matter. Oh how we tried, believe me. The Republican Party did it's level best to disenfranchise voters, lie, cheat, and anything else they had to do to get Bush elected. The plan began when Clinton was 1st elected and they went on a witch hunt, and finally succeded with of all things a sex scandal. They slowly poisoned the minds of many Americans, and that is how Bush won the election.

Now we see the true colors of the Republican Party/ultraconservative self serving right wing for what it really is. They are all for anything that will make them lots of money, by making the rich richer, and keeping the poor poor, as best they can. Even a lot of Republican party members are very dissapointed in the way Bush has run things, so I really don't think they have any chance of a candidate getting elected in 2008. They've made complete assess out of themselves for the last 8 years, and they blame everything that has EVER gone wrong in this country on Bill Clinton, because he has become their "fall guy"

I think American's are ready now for a drastic change, and Hillary Clinton is the one to bring it on. We need a women President to bring some common sense back in to our society, and one who is not afraid of anything. I think a Clinton/O'bama ticket would be the best bet. Her experience and his fresh approach would be a dynamic team.

Answer 3

I disagree that voters are stupid. The overwhelming majority of voters are not committed to one party or the other and few are liberal or conservative. This is a moderate country and that is why we end up with Dem and Repub Presidents. Bush was elected twice by carrying millions of Dem voters. Twice. Hillary is not a shoo in on the Dem ticket but you are right the media is working hard to sway people in that direction. Like a good propaganda machine the media is trying to make it appear that Hillary is a foregone conclusion and you should not consider anyone else. However, Edwards seems to be performing well in the polls and has major labor endorsement. Obama is simply not qualified and his statement that he would invade Pakistan if elected was crazy. The most qualified, electable candidates are Edwards and Richardson on the Dem side. There has never been a candidate in recent times more qualified and proven that Gov. Richardson but he is not the media darling so we are not hearing much about him. On the Repub side, Thompson could be a contender simply because he communicates so well and is a moderate Repb. Voters have rejected the wacky candidates of the Dem Party in the last two elections and might again if the ruling elite in the party picks another wacky candiate that they love but the voters don't. Most voters in the US are sort of liberal on social justice issues, courts and welfare but conservative on isses of the economy and security. Dem candidates have not been very good on either for a long time. And thats how Bush got elected. He is a moderate President you know as was Bill Clinton.

Answer 4

Those American voters put Bush in twice, I'd be careful about calling them stupid unless you wish to imply they voted for Bush because they recognized a kindred IQ.
I think the Republican party doesn't want to win the next election, no matter who else you think is stupid, they aren't.
The next president is going to have to do things that are unpopular, like paying for this war is going to require taxes, and some of the so-called tax cuts go away with the new administration, and the sensible leaders know they will not be renewed, automatically making the headline, "President Raises Taxes" a shoo-in. Who wants to be burdened with that?
Republicans get their votes from Fundamentalist Christians and Conservatives who no longer know what that means.
So, who do they put up for election?
Men who make live flounder look stable on topics the base loathes. Abortion and gay anything. Romney and Giuliani are both social liberals no matter how they dance around it now. Thompson lobbied for a pro-abortion group. Not going to cut it with anyone in the Church. All of them are except Romny are many times married, that's not going to play well with religious women, nor men when it comes to the three times married one.
I think the put up weak, alienating candidate because they know that the next president isn't going to be liked or re elected and its better to skip this one than be the one who has to be the country's disciplinarian.

Answer 5

I would not depend your chickens. Bush and the Republicans are ambitious competitors and I wouln't depend them out. Some unusual matters are going down at the battle entrance, now that Bush has bent a bit of over the troop withdrawal hassle. No one in Iraq rather wishes the US out of the nation, we're nonetheless pumping billions into their econopmy and now not all of it's accounted for. How can or not it's? Accountants do not drag thier counters into the wrestle subject. Iran has quietly agreed to the nuclear inspections after Mr. George Bush planted the American flag in Iran with a high-quality exhibit of provider and fleet drive. What has occurred to Kim jon lee in N Korea? China, in the back of the lead of our presidednt gave him the phrase to place his toys away. The strong roar of legions to get out of Iraq is now a subdued peep. Let me be the primary to record that that is no lame duck president however one that has proven determination and braveness whilst each person else made up our minds it was once time to fold up our tents and abandon Iraq. Don't make the equal mistake the U S made with George Sr. He was once no wimp. Is it feasible this guy might but end up the genius of the democratic process? The U S will have elected a president who would go away the subject of wrestle with the entire marbles? Finally, there may be Lybia's retreat from its former terrorist insurance policies. At residence the plots of enemies are failing in view that of the tough paintings of the intelligence group and the FBI. Our President stood in the back of his employees he must have fired for enabling their president to be misled. Bush under no circumstances blamed however took responsiblity for his or her grave mistakes in judgment, downplaying their value. Some of those errors might have introduced down a lesser guy. These are the tips, and with a high-quality quantity of citizens expressing distaste for the Democtratic entrance runner, the Republicans would good repeat in 2008. You may also be certain it may not be the anticipated land slide for the Democrats. Even the modern day scandal within the Senate is usually a victory for the Republicans as they swiftly pull the rug from underneath the incumbent. This indicates a willingness not to lengthen however indicates unity in getting him out of the general public eye swiftly. The citizenry is also able to pick a Morman president. It simply is not able to pick the only going for walks for workplace now. Mr Romny isn't used to listening to the phrase no; he comes off as an elder who apologises for being a Morman through protesting an excessive amount of. Shuck the iron pants jive and rent a few PR humans that know the way to reward a winner. The church does not want your support as you run for president.

Answer 6

Don't you think you are being a bit premature. The election is more than a year away and a lot of things can happen before that time. The American voter is very fickle. A major world event (a terrorist attack, Iran attacking Israel or Iraq, economic improvement,) could completely change the way people vote.

Answer 7

1) Hillary has the same chance of winning as every other candidate. It's not even 2008 yet and you're saying this? That's pretty ignorant if you ask me.

2) "And oh.., lets not forget the fact that American voters aren't very bright(the majority of them anyway)"
- So what you're saying is that the majority of American's aren't bright? And if you mean only voters, then you're saying that those who DON'T vote, yet sit around and think they have the right to criticize who is in office, ARE bright? Again, ignorant.

Answer 8

I have voted republican in the past but, i do believe things are in alittle mess in this country and who else but a good woman can clean a mess up...lol!.. So i plan to vote for Clinton for the Iraq issue's and the Health Care issue's. The republicans have spent eight years in war and we the people have been put to the side. I am an American not a political party! We the people should take our country back! Now that's a party that should be in charge...we the people!

Answer 9

No, but I do think that around the time of the primaries and caucuses, the focus of the election is going to dramatically changed.

Our time is up people, unemployment (contrary to BS biased, "adjusted" government statistics) is skyrocketing. Major companies are shipping more jobs overseas than they are creating here, the experiment of allowing credit companies to charge whatever they want is failing and many, many average (former great credit ) Americans are going to be filing bankruptcy and losing everything they own.

I fully expect this to blindside the candidates when the focus shifts from abortion, gay marriage and Iraq, to jobs, jobs, food and jobs.

Good luck to us all and they are all rich, privileged, paid for life idiots and it truly does not matter which side you support.

Answer 10

Well its more likely the Dems will win because we're so unsatisfied with Bush right now. BUT, there's ALWAYS a possibility the Republicans could win. Especially with Fred Thompson. The number one reason people vote who they do vote for is name recognition. He was an actor on Law & Order and played a president. People could get the wrong idea of him because he looks like he could do the job. But in reality, he was just reading a script