Posted on 03/15/2006 8:57:03 AM PST by Jean S
Hill is director of Hill Research Consultants, a Texas-based firm that has polled for GOP candidates and causes since 1988.
I don't pretend to see what the future holds, but I am fairly sure, from talking to liberal friends, that those who think of themselves as either "liberals" or Democrats will go ahead and vote for Hillary. But she may well scare a lot of the fence sitters and less political types, and I doubt she'll have any ability at all to get crossover votes. I guess you could say that I'm guardedly optomistic and fearful both at once.
On one thing I agree with Mrs. Clinton - any major events that occur during W's presidency are potentially larger vote getters than any amount of political rhetoric.
"Sens. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska"
I think you have to actually be a Republican before you can run in a Republican primary. Is there ANYTHING Hagel supports the president on? I can't think of a one.
We can't underestimate Hillary or the Dems, but she does suck up all the oxygen in the room. I'm sure many Democrats are secretly fuming.
But she may well scare a lot of the fence sitters and less political types, and I doubt she'll have any ability at all to get crossover votes. I guess you could say that I'm guardedly optomistic and fearful both at once.
That's why we need to pick a candidate who can grab up the fence sitter voters, like McCain, Guiliani and even Rice. A nobody like Allen won't interest them, so they'll fall in with Hillary. If we give them a reason not to vote for Hillary like providing them with a strong GOP candidate and not some goober who says all "the right things" and is from "the right part of the country" (the South) but can't debate his way out of a paper bag and has all the charisma of a slug, then the GOP will take the indy and swing voters. But we have to give them the right candidate.
Hillary is the best thing to happen to the Republicans.
She cannot win any states except the ones that were won by Kerry in 2004. Which means one thing.
The RATS will once again try to steal a state.
Yeah... like we did with Bob Dole!
That's an example of having gone with the wrong candidate.
If we could get Colin Powell to run, in spite of the rather negative opinion of him held by many freepers, we'd blow Hillary completely out of the water. I believe Giuliani and McCain would also win. I guess a question is, do we have any candidates who are more solidly "conservative" than those three? I'm not up to speed on Mitt Romney's politics, but there is surely name recognition there at least.
It's all very interesting.
do we have any candidates who are more solidly "conservative" than those three?
We do have candidates who are more conservative, but they're not candidates that would excite anyone or that most people have even heard of. And none of them have any particular ability to excite voters. I really can't think of any rock solid conservative with the name I.D., campaign skills and ability to connect with voters who could run in '08. I know people on Free Republic keep throwing around the name Mike Pence, but I couldn't pick his face out from among a crowd or tell you much of what he believes and I'm a political junky's political junky.
The problem with a blank slate candidate going up against a known quantity like Hillary is that you have a "better to go with the devil you know" factor that helps the known candidate at the expense of the unknown candidate, probably enough so to cost him or her the election. Plus in a year when Republican candidates might be radioactive, and I have a sense come 2008 Americans will be looking for a change from the Bush years (I don't get it either. Americans have never had it so good or had their security against terrorism so well protected) which means voters will not be willing to vote for a guy they don't really know just because he's a Republican. In fact that will probably be a reason to vote against him. That means we need to give them a strong, known and popular quantity like a McCain, Guiliani or Rice to incentivize them to vote Republican. With popular candidates like that, their party affiliation even in a year Republicans are not popular will not be a negative for them.
You just cannot run an appliance bulb against a superstar.
I got it. I was just commenting...
Does Hagel have a following of his own? Or is he just a fall-back option for McCainiacs in case McCain decides not to run (or can't because of his health)?
I don't know that I'm a McCainiac, but right now unless a more viable option presents itself I am supporting McCain because he's the only candidate who I can see who will keep Hildabeast out of the White House. I figure I don't like everything McCain does, but then I don't like everything Bush does, or doesn't do, either yet I am still able to support him. In any event, I think McCain will be as strong as Bush on the WOT, Iraq, keeping tax cuts low (though if he pledges to raise taxes I will not support him) and better than Bush on cutting spending, particularly pork spending. So though I was irate about his position on torture and a few others, I was at the same time grateful that he wasn't hopping on the Bush bashing bandwagon over the ports deal and wiretapping like so many Republicans were. And he has been really helpful to Bush in both of his campaigns. So I've weighed both the good and the bad in McCain's history and decided on balance he's with the GOP and the president enough that I can support him in 08.
Hagel is another matter. Though I hate the term "RINO," if it applies to anyone it applies to him. I don't like the term because so often it's just indiscriminately wielded against people like McCain who aren't locksteppers, but are with the GOP more often than not. But in Hagel's case he is almost NEVER with the president or the GOP including on Iraq, the WOT and wiretapping. Hagel is a total liberal with a Republican tag so he could win a Senate seat in a GOP state like Nebraska. I believe inwardly the man is secretly a Democrat. I would never support him as a fall-back if McCain were to drop out. He unlike McCain is a complete, rancid Bush basher.
By the way, if you're interested to learn more about McCain's voting record, check this out. It's fairly conservative if you look down the list of issues: http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=S0061103
Given the prospect of a long, bruising Presidential run with an uncertain outcome, of the certainty of hundreds of millions of dollars in the bank, I think Hillary! would certainly take the money and run, leaving the Donks in the lurch.
Wouldn't that be sweet!
Amen to that. I've seen Allen now beat to a pulp in separate political chat show appearances with Barbara Boxer, Chuck Schumer, Sen. Jack Reed of R.I. and Congresswoman Jane Harman over the last 6 or 7 months. I mean, if you can get destroyed in a debate with a brainless twit like Barbara Boxer, you're just not ready for prime time. All 4 of those I mentioned ate Allen for lunch and what they were saying was imminently refutable. But he seemed totally scripted and unable to respond to their blatant lies. I was yelling at the TV during his appearance with Boxer about what he should be saying to rebut her and all he did was look like a deer in the headlights and went back to his script! It was as troubling as it was embarrassing.
I saw Allen was on I think Fox News Sunday this last Sunday with Joe Biden. I just couldn't bring myself to watch. This is going to be a miserable campaign for our party in '08 if this dimbulb Allen is our candidate.
Romney would be somewhat better than Allen. He's at least bright and able to think on his feet. He comes off well at least and I think he's got some name I.D. Allen doesn't. Plus he won't have the baggage of coming out of the Senate like Allen does. Senators just don't win presidential elections. Governors do. So I'd rather match a governor against Senator Clinton than another senator. So if the GOP makes the mistake of not going with a big name candidate, I guess I could be comfortable with Romney. He'll have a fight on his hands, but I at least have some faith he's capable of waging and winning it. Certainly he'll force Hillary to have to campaign somewhat in the Northeast.
2006 and 2008 elections will be interesting.
FReeper RINO's forget that it was John O'Neill,
and Viet Nam Vets who saved America from
hanoi kerry.
Without vital support from Independents the GOP can't win.
Karl Rove nailed it exactly
Rove Credits Swiftvets With 'Energizing' Bush Vote (Thank You Karl Rove!)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1345603/posts
If Allen still comes off as behind the curve... I'll look at Brownback or Romney. If they fail to get my attention... I'll back the most popular candidate. If it's McCain... so be it.
No more Clintons!
No more Clintons!
I honestly think these short-sighted people who keep saying "I won't vote!" or even more stupidly "There's no difference betweeen McCain and Hillary" have forgotten the scandal a month club trauma that was the Clinton years. Either they were too young or it's now too long past that ugly period that they have no rememberance of it. That anyone would so cavalierly sit back and not act to keep those same criminals from coming back into power all based on some irrational hatred of McCain is simply astonishing. But again, they'll be the first ones to complain during the leftward leap and endemic corruption that will rear its ugly head again early in a Hillary Clinton presidency.
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.