I checked the gallop polls this morning and Clinton is leading the polls with an overwhelming 43%. Is there any republican candidate that stands a chance against this democratic juggernaut or is it all a bust for the conservative party?

This post has been edited by The Jersey ThinkTank: Nov 30 2007, 01:51 AM

Once we have our nominees, we will see the vast difference Clinton and whomever the Republican candidate will be. I think the republican platform is more sturdy and has a better sense of direction than that of Clinton, and any Democrat for that matter.

Republican of choice: Mitt Romney

I don't think the Republican platform for any candidate is sturdy at all. Every major candidate who is considered as having a chance of winning the nomination has a major flaw. As we saw in 2006, the GOP has lost its way. They let too much power to the neo-cons & evangelicals & the moderates have run for the hills. Romney will lose & not just b/c he's Mormon, which will be a factor, but all you have to say is Massachusetts & that'll send all the party faithful in the Bible belt to church instead of the polling booths.

Tell me I'm crazy, but do you think they'll see much difference between former governor of one of the most liberal states & whoever the Dem. nominee is?

Both of you above me have valid points in the matter but I am still at a lost in terms of who I want to vote for. A democrat or a republican. It's true that many, but not all, republicans sway toward the extreme right siding with the evangelicals and neo-conservatives as one of you explains. Yet not all of the conservative nominees are as far right as many in the mainstream media portray the majority of the candidates to be. For instance candidates like Huckabee and Paul both have somewhat of a balance between conservative and liberal stances within their platforms begging the question, Do the republicans have a shot to gain the presidency in 2008? Don't get me wrong both are relatively conservative in their own right but it seems to me, sorry if it seems wrong in anyway, that some of these candidates (namely Huckabee) may have an edge on the reigning leader of the polls, Clinton. Could this be factual or am i just looking to narrowly into the polls?

Oh and checkout this blog http://thepoliticalcollective.blogspot.com

This post has been edited by The Jersey ThinkTank: Dec 3 2007, 07:00 PM

I believe that is correct.

My recommendation - make your decision based on your own research and observations and do not let the media guide you, or more accurately, misguide you.

I'm really concerned this time with the choices. The top two runners are questionable in my mind.

First you have Romney, having a problem equating a republican and "Kennedy Country". Second, Guilliani's platform and ideals don't even seem to be republican.


Just my view.

This post has been edited by Vicki: Dec 4 2007, 12:21 PM

It appears that a couple other Democrats may just do that.

Or Hillary may do it to herself and save the other candidates the bother.
Z

Her husband the ex-prez sure is helping too.

I think Hillary will get a huge women vote.
Here was a seemingly flawless First Lady, who was wronged by her wandering President Husband.
I think the women voters will vote for her,and take this into account,also.
From what I have read,Ron Paul is also well liked as a candidate.

Romney, Huck-a-baby, or even Ron Paul...!! Here's why; The Bible belt (which is not just for Cans anymore) will not elect a woman (or a minority for that matter). Unfortunately, the old biggoted redneck tradition lives strong here in the South, it's called the "Christian Coallition".. No Rat has ever won a presidential election with-out some support from that bunch.. Her hubby won, because he was an Arkansas bred, Southern baptist boy they could relate to (obviously, she is not).
I live, eat, and breath this stuff, and as my wife will tell you, I'm rarely incorrect (lol).. If the Rats are to win in '08, Edwards would be thier only chance, he's from the South, and they love him here (Females, Minorities, and even a lot of Rednecks). I'm not sure, but I think Edwards (North Carolina bred, Southern Baptist) was the only "viable" candidate in the last election that carried his own state.
Wow, this almost sounds like; If your a Democrat, and you want to be President, you don't stand a chance in hell, unless your a Southern bred white male.. Hmmmm.. But that's an entirely differant subject.
The plain truth is, if Hillary or Obama end up on the top of the ticket for the rats, we will have a can in office. I think Huck and Romney are best bets for the win, but Ron Paul would be better for our country at this point. Jully-Awhnee is a dishonest freak, who, might win a drag queen contest, but not the Presidency
If your trully worried about Hillary, I hope this sets your mind at ease.. I personally am more worried about the idiot we have in there right now, and wether our country can endure another year of his "zaney anticks"...!!! Jeezy peets!, I'd rather have Hillary..!!!!!!

Your choices will be Edwards (Dem), Huckabee (Rep), Romney (Rep). If something really wierd happens, maybe, Ron Paul (Dem-Rep)... If Hillary or Obama ends up on the ticket, you can vote for them, but I don't think they would get the total support needed for the win. Iowa & New Hamshire doesn't even come close to being a model for the rest of the country (especially the South, South-East, and Mid-West)
I'd love to see John Edwards vs Ron Paul in '08. Both are candidates who would actually serve thier constituency, We couldn't lose. Imagine that..., I'd stay home for that one..LOL

Hi sorry to butt in(as i am english)
But to me none of the name's mentioned beside's mr's clinton ,
have a presidential sounding name

I will agree with you that it will be hard for a Dem to win in the South. I have posed the scenario that when push comes to shove, Giuliani will turn away Southern voters & force them to stay at home at voting time. I've heard on more than a few occassions, "Well they won't vote for Hillary or Obama either." No duh! They're not counting on those votes. How hard do you see them campaigning in the South? Those states will be conceded. Just as Repubs have traditionally conceded the Northeast & California. The fight will be in the battleground states as they always are...PA, MO, OH... where the geopolitical mix is a little more balanced. VA will also be hard fought for but I think if Hillary is the nominee & she chooses Mark Warner as her running mate, VA may be a blue state.

Romney brings a whole new of set of problems with his Mormonism & former liberal ways as gov of MA. No way in hell Ma & Pa Kettle in the heart of Mississippi is voting for that guy or Giuliani for that matter.

I like Huckabee, he seems like a real nice guy, and he'll do well in the Bible belt & parts of the midwest, but no where else. He's way too right for repub moderates considering his non-belief in evolution.

Don't discount the top Dem choices. Remember that over 50% of the American population lives in the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic states & California. All traditionally blue states. PA is a battleground state & during the last prez election in 04, most of the state geographically voted for Bush. He still lost PA b/c Pittsburgh & Philly always go blue. Color coded, the state looked like a red face with blue eyes.

I will say that CA & NY will be interesting next year b/c of Giuliani's liberal social stance. He'll make whomever the Dem nominee is work for those states, but in the end I still think they'll go the way of the Dems.

I live in Virginia, and I just don't see Hillary being the one to turn us blue, not with Warner..., However, we really love our Jim Webb.... Who knows... , maybe, but I doubt it.