Hillary/Giuliani in dead heat

One of the reasons she'll win is she not only wins the battle of words with the cons she looks dominant.
The dem men try the well I'm sorta tuff to line and they look like complete idiots.
When it gets down to Hillary vs Rudy
Do you really think the country want Bush lite II
 
She already survived 16 years of the GOP attack machine beating on her, and she is still neck and neck with Rudy.
 
But now hurricaner turning gayness caused 911 MR. Pat Robertson has endorsed Rudy. Some religio-nuts will jump off the fence now.
 
Hillary would definitely lose to Giuliani. The same idiots who elected GW Bush will always select a jingoistic demagogue like Giuliani over a wishy-washy, emotionless statist like Hillary Clinton. I have a distinct feeling that Giuliani will be even worse than Bush...should Ron Paul not win the GOP nomination. :)
 
Hillary would definitely lose to Giuliani. The same idiots who elected GW Bush will always select a jingoistic demagogue like Giuliani over a wishy-washy, emotionless statist like Hillary Clinton. I have a distinct feeling that Giuliani will be even worse than Bush...should Ron Paul not win the GOP nomination. :)

I belive a lot of the Bush idiots have learned there lesson and may stay home, or vote third party. Remember Bush's two elections were very close! Rudy is pro-choice so he will loose a percent or two from the whackos.
 
One of the reasons she'll win is she not only wins the battle of words with the cons she looks dominant.
The dem men try the well I'm sorta tuff to line and they look like complete idiots.
When it gets down to Hillary vs Rudy

Do you really think the country want Bush lite II

I think 40% of the country does. And probably virtually the entire GOP base - each nominee is trying to out-bush Bush. Its up to whoever the lame democratic nominee is, too make sure the GOP candidate doesn't get 51%.
 
And that's BEFORE the GOP attack machine beats her to a pulp for 6 months:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21676399/

I still don't think Hillary is electable. Her candidacy would be a gift to Republicans...her negatives are just too high, and she is too polarizing.


I agree.

The dem primary voters are making the biggest mistake of all of our lives if they don't nominate Edwards, who the republicans cannot beat. Period. I don't give a crap what Top or any pundit says. They cannot beat him.
 
I still plan on voting for Edwards, although Senator Clinton impresses me every debate.
 
i dont even like rudy.. but if hes up against Hillary i will go vote for him. If its Obama versus rudy or Edwards i would either vote for them or for third party.

Hillary will cause allot of right leaning indi's to vote for rudy.
 
Her negatives are almost insurmountable. Every time they do a poll of likely voters, she's close to 50% on the "wouldn't vote for her under any circumstances" question.

That's a big hill to climb.

It's hard to understand why a lot of Democrats can't see this. She has too much baggage, and offers too many opportunities for the GOP to just tee off on her. It's time to break the Bush/Clinton/Bush cycle, and the Democrats actually have solid candidates this year to do that...
 
gop base is down to mostly just religious nut jobs and ultra conservatives
I read that repubs are below 35% dems are above 50%
 
Her negatives are almost insurmountable. Every time they do a poll of likely voters, she's close to 50% on the "wouldn't vote for her under any circumstances" question.

That's a big hill to climb.

It's hard to understand why a lot of Democrats can't see this. She has too much baggage, and offers too many opportunities for the GOP to just tee off on her. It's time to break the Bush/Clinton/Bush cycle, and the Democrats actually have solid candidates this year to do that...


The deal is that most Democrats are not as pragmatic as that, they vote for who they belive is best for the job, not so much for who is likely to win. Senator Clinton is very impressive in the debates, I like her but I dont like the Clinton/Bush cycle and I belive Edwards would be as good of a president.
 
The deal is that most Democrats are not as pragmatic as that, they vote for who they belive is best for the job, not so much for who is likely to win. Senator Clinton is very impressive in the debates, I like her but I dont like the Clinton/Bush cycle and I belive Edwards would be as good of a president.


LOL im not so sure about that. You give to much credit to the democrat base. If the dems chose the candidate that would be best for the job and for our country they would not be selecting a former first lady and jr. senator who has a checkered past and is nothing but a politician. They would more likely be looking to Bill Richardson or something.
 
i dont even like rudy.. but if hes up against Hillary i will go vote for him. If its Obama versus rudy or Edwards i would either vote for them or for third party.

Hillary will cause allot of right leaning indi's to vote for rudy.
Thats cause your a dumbass.. if americans cant vote for the right candidate for the wrong reasons then fuck the whole lot of you...
 
LOL im not so sure about that. You give to much credit to the democrat base. If the dems chose the candidate that would be best for the job and for our country they would not be selecting a former first lady and jr. senator who has a checkered past and is nothing but a politician. They would more likely be looking to Bill Richardson or something.

If you listen, achually listen to the canidates talk, Senator Clinton sounds the most reasoned, and educated canidate on the subject. If you belive the canidates and the former president she has experience as she was a very hands on first lady. She lived with the president and in the White House for 8 years.
 
If a portion of his platform was a Balanced Budget Amendment I might vote for him. Otherwise it will likely be the Libertarian candidate.
 
Her negatives are almost insurmountable. Every time they do a poll of likely voters, she's close to 50% on the "wouldn't vote for her under any circumstances" question.

That's a big hill to climb.

It's hard to understand why a lot of Democrats can't see this. She has too much baggage, and offers too many opportunities for the GOP to just tee off on her. It's time to break the Bush/Clinton/Bush cycle, and the Democrats actually have solid candidates this year to do that...

I think the two reasons they are sticking with her are....

1) She is a woman and they are hoping that will sway female voters to elect the first woman President.

2) They know the most influential Dem right now is the other Clinton (with the possible exception of the boar) and are hoping that he can somehow persuade the public that she isn't a complete fraud.
 
If you listen, achually listen to the canidates talk, Senator Clinton sounds the most reasoned, and educated canidate on the subject. If you belive the canidates and the former president she has experience as she was a very hands on first lady. She lived with the president and in the White House for 8 years.

I don't doubt Clinton's ability. In many ways, she is the most commanding, articulate, and competent presence on that stage in the debates. I mean, she's so good, that she makes Bill Richardson look like he should be running for a city council seat somewhere.

My problem, is with her judgement and her values. Its the triangulation crap that allowed her to enable the iraq war, to enable bush to possibly wage war on iran, and I don't think she is fundamentally at her core, focused on the true needs of american working class families.
 
Back
Top