Looking for serious answers well thought answers, they would be appreciated.
2007-10-30 07:52:42 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Wow, I should pay attention to my typing lol.
Okay, correction:
Looking for serious, well thought out answers. Whew! I probably already got tagged by one of the spelling/grammar critics lol.
2007-10-30 08:00:50 · update #1
Trouble:
Right, that's why we regularly send Condoleeza Rice as our Secretary of State to deal with our Middle Eastern problems. Doh!
2007-10-30 08:02:10 · update #2
BigSky:
I think Rudy is the worst choice for the Republicans. Far right Christians have been VERY vocal about not coming out to vote at all should he get the nomination. Many conservatives will vote for him to try and keep Hillary out but they will be missing their evangelical base who insist they will simply not vote for anyone pro-choice. And to top that off, he is receiving more criticism than anything else for running on 9/11. The first responders will come out against him in force. Add his cheap novel personal life into it, and the fact that his own children won't even stand on the same stage with him and it adds up to big trouble for Rudy. Not that I want Hillary to get beat, but I think the only Repub who has a chance to beat her is McCain and you all keep rejecting the guy.
2007-10-30 08:48:35 · update #3
There is no Republican currently running who can beat her. The liberal states will vote for her over any of them. She needs to win another big state like Ohio.
2007-10-30 08:09:26 · answer #1 · answered by tribeca_belle 7 · 3⤊ 3⤋
Hillary **is** a strong choice. Though to some she seems way on the left, the fact is that a good number of Dems disagree with her views on the war (i.e., they want the troops home sooner than they believe she'll get them back to U.S. soil.) However, if she is the nominee, they will not abandon her.
I think that Giuliani has a good chance, as he has a less conservative stance on some social issues. Both have some family issues that they may prefer not to discuss, and so they can mutually agree to no mudslinging in that regard. He will need someone from a different geographic region (McCain?) as vice president.
2007-10-30 08:06:19 · answer #2 · answered by jdalessa 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
To keep the Republican base from splitting, they have to go with a pro-life candidate. I don't think the far right considers Rudy any better than Hillary and will not vote for him out of principle.
2007-10-30 08:04:57 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
I think Mitt Romney would be the best president but I think that McCain or Rudy have the confidence to debate Hillary and win. When Romney says that Hillary has never run anything in her life, he is making a great point. He has run a corporation, a state and other business ventures. CEO's make better politicians than professional politicians.
2007-10-30 08:09:52 · answer #4 · answered by Luv2Answer 7 · 1⤊ 4⤋
I think Giuliani has the best chance. He has enough moderate stances (gun control, abortion, gay rights) that he would attract a decent number of moderate democrats who are turned off by Hillary's expensive far left proposals. Plus he has the whole ground zero, 9/11 mayor thing going for him. And let's be honest, the VAST number of people who would even CONSIDER voting republican abhor the very notion of Hillary Clinton in the top seat. The religious right and social conservatives will hold their noses and vote the lesser of two evils in this election, and they consider ANYBODY less evil than Hillary. The trick for republicans will be running a moderate such as Giuliani to attract democrats while putting a hard core conservative in the VP slot to appease the religious and conservative blocs. That might be McCain, although Romney would work well also.
Edit-
Just to be clear, I really don't support any of the republican front runners. Or democrats for that matter. If Ron Paul and Mike Gravel don't get the nominations (ha ha ha, what do I mean IF?) then I'll most likely vote Libertarian. But think about it for a second. Why have the evangelicals been so vocal? It's because they don't want a CANDIDATE who's pro-life. They don't want to have to make the choice. They claim they won't vote for one, they claim they'll go to a third party, blah blah blah. Who would they turn to? The Constitution party? I doubt it. Simply say, "Vote for anyone other than the republican and you cast a vote for Hillary Clinton." And almost all of them will fall for it. I happen to think they're bluffing, as the specter of Hillary Clinton will overwhelm them. They'll ***** and moan, they'll be up in arms, but at the end of the day they'll hold their nose and do it.
Regarding the first responders, I don't see it happening as you say. Take a look at the story I put in the sources, where in South Carolina, "Firefighters and emergency responders lavished praise on Mayor Giuliani here yesterday, calling him the "face of the 9/11 response" and telling him that he saved New York. They even made him an honorary fire chief." His claims about being at ground zero as often as the fire and police workers will hurt him as a candidate for the republican nomination, but if he gets that then the story will die as he becomes a presidential candidate. And remember, the IAFF almost routinely supports democratic candidates. They're a union, afterall. Overall I don't think it's near the blow you think it is. That he was there at all will play well in 49 states.
His personal life, while certainly a soap opera, can be easily played against Clinton's. That his children don't like him can be spun as showing how free thinking and independent he's raised them. Let's be honest, how many conservatives have children who don't rebel? If Clinton takes a shot at him she'd be opening a can of worms that I don't think she'd be willing to open. I think both of them would try to stick to their official persona simply because they both have skeletons galore.
At the end of the day I think you're underestimating just how deeply republicans and a lot of moderates truly loathe Hillary Clinton. I think ANYBODY who ran against her would stand a chance. But McCain's strong support of Bush's Iraq policies will keep a lot of moderate democrats who don't love Hillary still voting for her, and winning the moderate democrats will be the key to this election. I personally reject him because I think he's as authoritarian as she is. If it comes down to Rudy vs. Hillary I'll contribute money to Giuliani's campaign. But I won't vote for him. Bet you a nickel I'm in the minority by doing so.
2007-10-30 08:07:29 · answer #5 · answered by Bigsky_52 6 · 2⤊ 5⤋
It won't matter. The Republicans could nominate Homer Simpson and still beat Hillary, purely based on the anti-Hillary vote. The Dems will be committing election suicide if they nominate either her or Obama. They'd better start looking seriously at candidates like Bill Richardson, someone who the middle of the roaders would consider actually voting for.
2007-10-30 08:03:56 · answer #6 · answered by thegubmint 7 · 1⤊ 5⤋
Rudy or Fred,but the only way either could win is if cons/repubs ignore their own stance on certain issues. They may be willing to sacrifice their beliefs out of hatred of Hillary. I hope she don't win,but we the people may not have that choice.
2007-10-30 08:02:56 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 5⤋
Any rational thinking population knows that we must negotiate with the middle east . Since women do not have the ability to do so in regards to Middle eastern leaders , during such troubling times as these, no one should vote for her unless they want world war three . .
2007-10-30 07:57:50 · answer #8 · answered by TroubleMaker 5 · 3⤊ 5⤋
I don' think any of them can legitimately beat her. The key word here is LEGITIMATELY.
2007-10-30 12:24:54 · answer #9 · answered by mstrywmn 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Im not sure who the person is....but for a republican to win they will have to distance themselves from the current administartion and have to be committed to getting out of Iraq....
2007-10-30 08:01:59 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 3⤋