He'd win by a huge landslide, right?
2007-10-04 02:45:11 · 21 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Answer: By running Hillary, you folks are in fact running him yet again...aren't you...
WOW! I'll wager that the conservatives never even see that coming!
2007-10-04 02:49:08 · answer #1 · answered by trumain 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
You are not correct. You see, if you look at the actual numbers during both of Bill Clinton's campaigns he would not have won had Ross Perot not been acting as a spoiler. Bill Clinton received less than half the total votes cast. That means more people voted against him than voted for him. This is very telling especially when he ran for re-election and people knew him better. Compare that to Ronald Reagan who received a record breaking landslide in a head to head liberal vs. conservative election against Carter and then won even bigger in the re-election against Mondale.
Factually speaking, Bill Clinton would not win in a landslide nor would he win in a head to head election against any of the Republicans. Hillary is going to get more support than Bill got mostly because some people are intrigued by the novelty of a female as President.
.
2007-10-04 09:57:20 · answer #2 · answered by Jacob W 7 · 4⤊ 2⤋
I wouldn't vote for him. I'm tired of the two family cabal that has been running this country for the last 19 years. They've completely dismantled our industry and, under their control, we are well on the way to completely losing our sovereignty. If Hillary gets in there, the experiment of government of, by and for the people is over.
2007-10-04 09:51:42 · answer #3 · answered by Crystal Blue Persuasion 5 · 4⤊ 0⤋
He really wasn't a very good president. The only reason people think he did a good job while president was because the House was mostly Republicans who really where running the country and using his sexual episodes to get bills signed.
I am sure that is why he never got impeached. They had a good understanding between the two parties. lol
Peace everyone!!..lol
2007-10-04 10:05:56 · answer #4 · answered by tiny b 3 · 4⤊ 2⤋
He only got 43% and 49% of the vote in his elections. Bush got 49% and 51%. He probably wouldn't win, but if he did, it would not be a landslide.
2007-10-04 09:51:18 · answer #5 · answered by Aegis of Freedom 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
It depends on who his opponent was. He left office with an approval rating of 65% (Reagan left office with 64%). He and Reagan both had average approval-disapproval ratings of 57-39. Maybe Reagan could beat him if they ran against each other, but certainly not Bush.
2007-10-04 09:50:12 · answer #6 · answered by M M 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Impossible to know, but, he still carry's a 60% approval rating among Americans, and, I suspect this is the REAL reason behind Hillary's lead in the polls.
2007-10-04 09:48:23 · answer #7 · answered by alphabetsoup2 5 · 5⤊ 2⤋
yes, of course, he currently has a 66% approval rating in the USA, (he could also run for *President of Earth For Life*, and win in an enormous landslide)
I wish he could serve one full term without Ken Starr breathing down his neck, but I will settle for him moving back into the White House with Hillary
2007-10-04 09:48:45 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 5⤋
Noooooooooooo, he was a shameful president with a head of a hypocrite.
2007-10-04 09:49:03 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
It won't erase the fact that Clinton was a better president than Bush.
2007-10-04 09:48:20 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 4⤋