[rockthecasbah]

In general, I agree with you. However, I read a Freeper posting the other day that offered the following scenario: Hillary claims 43% of the popular vote just by showing up which is precisely the same % that got Bill Clinton elected in 1992. Say in 2008 that a third party candidate emerges who runs to the right on border control, guns, trade issues, etc; Say that third party can get 10 to 15% of the vote mostly by siphoning off votes from conservatives or moderate repubs. Wouldn't that set up Hill to win just like her husband did in 1992??

[Eagle of Liberty]

What if things really get stirred up and a candidate out there runs to the LEFT of Hillary if she tries to go to much to the middle?

[Dog Gone]

Theoretically that could happen, but remember that Hillary has the highest negative approval ratings of any potential candidate out there. There will be about 49% of the people voting to STOP HILLARY, and I think most people would cast their vote strategically in order to accomplish that.

[speekinout]

Hillary claims 43% of the popular vote just by showing up which is precisely the same % that got Bill Clinton elected in 1992.

I think that number is right on. That's the number who will vote for the Dem, no matter who it is. I don't think that many people who aren't committed Dem voters will vote for hillary.

The important thing is what the other 57% do. We haven't yet seen any signs of a consensus candidate. One might emerge, but it's equally likely that the GOP will pick a candidate that will be so unappealing that many will stay home or move to a third party.

I think a lot depends on whether GWB ends his Presidency with enough political capital to name his successor. And it will be years before we know that.