We can start here
Posted on 10/23/2007 6:34:51 AM PDT by teddyballgame
Well, I wouldn’t say the popular vote is exactly meaningless. The electoral college system reduces the sway of the popular vote, and while it is statistically possible to win the election without having a popular majority, if you had 55%+ of voters who “hate” a candidate - they’re toast.
She's the pelf-made presidential candidate.
I support Fred in the primaries, but it he isn’t the nominee, I will vote for Rudy or Mitt or even God forbid McCain.
The Clinton machine has already done everything they can against Rudy in the senate election. Who knows what they have on Fred and the others.
Since older voters tend to vote in greater numbers than younger voters, this is even worse news for Hillary.
you can do that.
however, Giuliani creates a third party split literally or virtually.
Even with the pragmatist vote. Giuliani still loses.
make no mistake, this is not good news for Giuliani either.
Giuliani IS Hillary.
sw
Every candidate (and political party) has a “base” upon which he builds — the true base — after the various layers of swing and quasi-swing voters are peeled off.
Hillary is a uniquely polarizing figure. She has a large base, but also generates a remarkably high anti-base. The problem is that when you match her against Giuliani in these polls, she edges him out right now.
Like her husband, she is doing it with under 50% of the vote, the rest going to third party candidates. If Hillary’s anti-base is not united against her, then it won’t exceed the voting size of her pro-base and she wins.
Realistically, her “base” probably still has a few percent (a very few percent) that could be stripped away in a tough general election campaign, but few of those will be going to the Republican candidate.
It would appear to me that if even a couple percent of the evangelical Republicans vote third party or just don’t cast a ballot on the top of the ticket, Hillary will win.
The Giuliani partisans here can rant and rave all they want about the above reality, but they can’t stop it from happening. If they really want to stop Hillary (or even perhaps Obama), they need to nominate a candidate that all major components of the Republican Party will support.
Soliton wrote:
People need to gat over abortion, gun control, and gay marriage as issues in Presidential races. These are constitutional issues that a president has NO control over.
I am anti-abortion, pro-gun and don’t care about gay marriage, but I am voting national defense, taxes, and cost-cuts.
x x x x x
The Supreme Court is primarily in control on those issues at present, but the President appoints the justices to the Court. You don’t want Supreme Court justices who will overturn Roe v. Wade, enforce the individual interpretation of the Second Amendment, and protect the institution of marriage?
The chosen delegates of the Electoral College can vote however they please, and, as such, the popular vote is meaningless in the election of a POTUS. Personally, I don't think the witch has much of a chance to be POTUS unless a 3rd party spoiler emerges, ala Ross Perot.
I will gladly vote for Rudy as well.
We also need to convince a certain percentage of our half to actually vote for somebody -- somebody who could win -- rather than sit at home and pout.
I wonder if this poll made a distinction between “no” and “HELL NO!!”
true and most of us don’t like ole willie boy either so... both of them are such losers aren’t they? Can you only imagine how insecure they both are to want to have and hold so much power???? They are soooo pathetic. I’m glad I am not them.
Doubt it. He already has run for president as a Libertarian and received less than 1% of the national vote, not enough to effect the outcome. More importantly, he would be foolish to give up his House seat for a meaningless presidential run.
We can start here
“The Supreme Court is primarily in control on those issues at present, but the President appoints the justices to the Court. You don’t want Supreme Court justices who will overturn Roe v. Wade, enforce the individual interpretation of the Second Amendment, and protect the institution of marriage?”
They have all said that they support the appointment of strict constructionists. Not an issue unless we don’t vote for the GOP nominee and then end up with Hillary appointing justices.
“he would be foolish to give up his House seat for a meaningless presidential run.”
Who said he would give up his house seat. You don’t see Obama or Hilary resigning from the senate.
Many more should be disgusted by her career of criminality and her ultra-left neo-Marxist ideology!
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.