The way Hillary wins is when the Republicans nominate a person who 60% plus of Americans won’t vote for in the primary because of one issue—that 60% plus want us out of Iraq. Take away additional voters who are tired of the ever growing nanny-statism advocated by Republicans and Democrats alike, and a candidate other than Dr. Paul is likely to receive less than 25% of the eligible votes because (like most US elections) as many as 50% of eligible voters won’t show up at all.
When Hillary wins, we’ll withdraw troops from Iraq; but only after she screws things up even worse because she has zero military experience and not a clue about military matters (unlike former Air Force flight surgeon, Dr. Ron Paul). To make matters even worse, she will push through Hillary Statism even faster than the Republicans have managed during their 12 years of power—which will be quite a feat.
So, we can have Hillary and bigger government with an eventual troop withdrawal or possibly but unlikely GiuliaMcCainThompson and bigger government who continues to support the Iraq debacle or the third choice, Ron Paul who stands for smaller government and one limited to their Constitutional charter.
You seem to admit that Hillary can beat GiuliaMcCainThompson, yet somehow you think that will be Dr. Paul’s fault.
If that were true, congress's approval ratings would be much much higher.
GWB's low (higher than Congress) AR is mostly because of his amnesty policy, over-the-top spending on Federal programs and "new tone" kissing up to RATs.