Posted on 12/20/2004 8:46:25 AM PST by DaveDCMetro
If GOPers want to continue to have elections that are decided within 3 pts and 50 electoral votes, they should definitely rule out anyone who is from a blue or purple state and who is not a White Anglo-Saxon Protestant.
A northerner and/or a Catholic (or other religious minority like Mormons) and/or someone who knows how to appeal to moderates would win in a landslide in 2008 over Hillary. Let's give states like Michigan and Wisconsin and Pennsylvania a candidate who they can relate to. Even just one of those states makes a Dem win nearly impossible. Look, I love the Red States. And I think the VP should definitely be from the Red States, preferably the South. But I think we have to be a bit bolder at the top of the ticket if we want to start winning those purple states that Bush lost by 5 pts or less in two consecutive elections.
I could not agree more. I was simply pointing out the problems with the current list of assumed fron runners.
As someone from NJ, who is likely surrounded by Catholics, do you think that's an issue with conservative Protestants anymore? I mean, do you think being Catholic is a liability with the GOP base?
I'm no Nostradamus, but I'd place good money that you're right. The only reason why Kerry is supposedly polling so high (of now) is because the campaign just ended and his widespread name recognition. There's bound to be a good number of folks that are still "jazzed up" about him--but that'll fade shortly as they seriously shift their sights to Hillary or if not her, some fresh, more appealing democratic faces (both literally and figuratively!).
Lest we forget, there was the same kind of buzz about Gore right after the 2000 election, many probably thought he would (or at least would stand a good chance of) be the dem nominee in 2004. I'm sure he even gave it serious thought, but one of the big reasons he didn't run is because he knew he wouldn't be able to just walk into the nomination a 2nd time (and hell, it'd be a huge embarassment if he didn't win it). He probably knew it'd be a dogfight, and if Kerry decides to run again, it'll be even more difficult for him to win the nomination among a slate of democrats who'll find that OPEN seat too tantalizing to not give it a shot.
It's not Kerry I'm concerned about. It's the Wicked Witch of NY! (cue Wizard of Oz flying broomstick music)
Nobody.. The RNC don't like straight talkers.. They like to trick people into voteing republican instead.. But then again, most of the straight talkers are one issue candidates..
SIDEBAR: When you get Hillary you get BILL too, as first gentleman.. Yup. Bill back into the White House again.. Hillary and Bubba and McLain in the White House,, jeese.. THEN maybe the revolution that is needed anyways might happen... NAH!... not enough brass balls in America left to throw a decent revolution... Thats it then... the political nightmare senario...
Definitely not. Tommy Franks would be my pick
Pataki?? Don't make me laugh. He'll never win another election for anything, period.
This is nothing more than name recognition at this point... Note that no Major Republicans were mentioned with high nationwide name recognition such as, McCain, Guliani, Arnold even though he's not elgible....
Way to early to put much credibility in such things...
.....among a slate of democrats who'll find that OPEN seat too tantalizing to not give it a shot.......
Yep, and I see Joe Biden of Del. a formidable threat. He's beginning to get lots of TV face time recently, and he looks good and sounds good (even though his tone seemed to be speaking down to you)
Hillary is and always will be dog-meat. Ain't no way she has a chance at the brass ring.
This Polling Data wouldn't have any influences from the outside, like the Polls that were taken during the last election?
Like the web-posted, basic, general opinion polls where MovingOn, DU, and ACT were E-Blasting their supporters to " jump on any poll on the web and make sure to overlaod them with YOUR votes " that would stress Democrat Ideals and agendas.
Or..are these polls using the same data collecting technique that was used in the " exit polls " this last election ? The ones that were so way, way off target, that the liberal press decided to run with because they liked the numbers.
Just because the elction is over and they lost that one--dosen't mean they all crawled back into their little Latte Cafes around Maibou and are licking their wounds.
Maybe I should have said; the liberals in NEW YORK haven't gone away just because they lost on purpose, just to set the stage for Hillary anyhow.
Chris
Jeb B. isn't running.
-------
And Arnold assured us just a few months before the CA recall that HE wasn't running, and look who we got stuck with.
We are just getting over being inundated with election stats, polls, speeches, etc. when the MSM starts in on an election four years away!! Enough, already!! Give it a rest, pundits! 2007 is too soon to start this crap again (at least for me)!!
I think there is a better than 40% chance that no one mentioned in this article ends up the standard bearer for either party...
On the other hand, I think that any one of Guilliani's liabilities are surmountable. Even several in combination.
But not all of them combined.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.