I'm not sure that Hillary lacks as much support as some would suggest. A lot of people are jaded because she voted for tehw ar, and then recanted. I said she was going to do that from the moment I stared posting on ATS. this tactic may be conspicuous, but it it's wha the majority of voters think and its what they want from their leaders.

I'm going to take this one step further. A lot of hte Republicans who DO keep their jobs in 2008 will come from bastions of deep conservatism, or, they will recant their support for the war. I'll point out one example that I am very familiari with. Alaska's senior Senator Ted Stevens will be re-elected becuase his voter base is hard-core conservative...which means...a total and unyielding support for the war. As long as Ted doesn't catch on fire, he will go back to Washington.

Others will not be so fortunate. My official guess now is a loss of ten seats in the House, and six in the Senate. In the face of ehse continued losses, it's just not possible for a Republican to win the White House as long as they insist on what looks like blind obsession with a failed policy. Remember that politics is all about perception. Some politics are very bad for you, but they look marvelous.

My theory is that you Republicans are conspiring to puff up Hillary, because you guys are desperate and want her to get the nomination in the hope that you can drum up enough anti-Clinton hysteria to at least give the Republican candidate a fighting chance in 2008. The Republican talking heads on the news channels are raising expectations for Hillary as well.

I'm already on record in several threads, to include the CM forum. Hillary scares the GOP in ways that most non-conservatives don't think about. It's true that they will build her up and villify her to a grest extent. they're going to try and scare voters to the polls. It's an old school tactic, and it does work...but...not in the way thaty ou're thinking of.

Anyone who studies for a political science degree in the U.S. will learn about the "three percent rule" of electioneering. If you try, you can always scare three percent of your base to the polls. You've got to be a heartless exploiter to do it, but it's always worth three percent. Current thinking among certain big brains is that the GOP loses the Presidency in 2008 by roughly eight percent. If they are right, that Fear Factor turns out to be significant.

I've de-bunked this notion in other ways outside of ATS, too. As much as some want to fixate on Hillary, she's not the real reason that the Republican candidate (whoever that will be) is going to lose. She's going to benefit from circumstance, and she knows it. Anti-war sentiment is running so high right now that if a ham sandwich got the Democrat nomination...people would vote for it because it's not a Republican. Yes, there would be questions about the sandwich's stand on health care and energy issues--but--it would still win because too many people want to use their vote to spank the GOP.

Do we have good reason to be afraid of Hillary? Yes. Within the short history of our country, Democrats have grown the size of government and consistently sought great authority for all branches of government. W. has out done many of his precessors by a wide margin, and that's because he and his backers have wanted the same degree of centralized power for the same reasons.

I've mae it quite clear in my work just how much I think we need to fear Hillary. She doesn't actually need help from conservative radio, or Bill, to make some of us sleep badly at night.

In simple terms the surest way the Republican party can lose in 2008 is if its supporters nominate someone who is removed from reality and suits there half baked agendas. If the party's supporters fail to put someone like Rudy forward they will only have themselves to blame for losing the 2008 election.

[edit on 12-2-2007 by xpert11]

Even if you do get your wish and Rudy is "da man," what would suggest that he say about the war? He's got to say something other than the party line.

The RNC won't have to lift a finger as Limbaugh, Hannity & the like are already salivating at the prospect of running against Hillary as the Democratic nominee. If nothing else these so called pundits hope to boost their media ratings by once again having a Clintion to bash.


Imho rules of thumb and conventional wisdom aren't going to be very useful to the Republicans.


Hillary is reviled by a significant part of her own party so with her as the Democratic candidate the margin would be closer to 4 percent. If this isn't perfectly clear to the "big brains" at the RNC then the GOP better start looking for bigger brains. The GOP must be hiding these folks in a vault someplace as big brained Republicans seem to have become as rare as Elvis sitings.


You are saying that Hillary is feared because she wants to grow government just like W wants to grow government. What do you perceive is the basis for GOP voters being more afraid of Hillary than their Republican comrades doing the same thing?


Hillary needs all the help she can get, including that of conservative talk radio and GOP supporters will be more than willing to give it. The Republicans need a villain to run against and nobody is more vilified within the GOP than Hillary & Bill. My expectation is that you will see Republicans being encouraged to cross over in the Democratic primaries in an attempt to get Hillary nominated. When this comes to pass remember where and who you heard it from first. A simple "thanks to df1" on the acknowledgement page of one your books would be nice.

[edit on 12-2-2007 by df1]

Well my previous advice about not running in 2008 still stands.
But if Rudy heart is set on here is how he should deal with the Iraq issue.

Support partitioning of Iraq along tribal lines.
Ask his rivals how they will prevent the Iraqi government from being infiltrated.
Point out that Coalition forces are being replaced by a force of lesser quality.
Come out and say that the differnt tribes deserve a chance at democratic governance but the Iraq civil war isn't our war.

There's a clinical answer, and a partisan answer.

I do think you're correct when you say that some registered Republicans will cross party lines to vote for her. We should expect to see atleast one percent of GOP voters change alliegence altogether. Many people now regard the Republican party as dead, dying, or irrelevant. For this reason, the more committed voters who stay with the GOP will come to fear Hillary even more when she trumpets the goals of big government. The fact of the matter isthat Republican sympathizers have been betrayed by their party leadership. bush's growth of government is proof of that. Support for the conservative nominee will be weak, at best. Too many people don't want to get burned again.

The partisan response is going to be an 'admission' that the days of small governemnt are behind us. The logic sold to us by those rarely seen GOP big brains (who may be hanging out with Elvis) is that Republicans can manage big government better than Democrats. As long as there is going to be big government, anyway. The grease that makes this wheel turn is the fear of Hillary which will be cultivated and exploited.

It's true that Hillary is a cold fish. Even so, she is the beneficiary of circumstance. Bush's failures are her gains. When the time comes, she'll have a black running mate which will trump any pair of tired old white guys that the GOP puts forward. Voters who are looking for something different will move away from what appears to be the same old stuff from the Republicans. This move will be further 'propelled' by the appearnace of more "stay the course" from the GOP speechwriters.

I think we've passed the point of no return when it comes to Iraq. We lost any chance we had to partitition that country. If it was going to be done at all, we should have done it very early on. I'm not for that, but we can save that for another discussion. If Rudy were to bring that in to play now, I think it would make him look uninformed and out of touch. He's eitehr got to be for the war, or he's got to be against the war to the extent that he criticizes bush every time he can.

Related article. I'm sorry if something like this has already been posted.


Link

Rommey is just to close to Rommel for my liking.
Jokes aside the fact that this guy isn't well known could work in his favour.
I can just Imagen the Christian Taliban deserting this guy because he is a Mormon despite the fact that he may share there values.

He should refer to himself as a member of "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints" and most of the religious right will be completely unaware that he is a Mormon. They will be fat & happy as soon as they hear the phrase "Church of Jesus..." cross his lips.

The only problem I can see with that idea is that the alleged conservative base might be too intolerant of anyone who has made a recent change in POV on the issues that matter to the most ardent party faithful.


Here's a new question for the panel. If Rudy does NOT declare by the end of April, should he bother trying for the noimination at all? Here we are in the middle of the month, and there's not one Republican running wild with Presidential fever. I submit to you that my orignal point made very early in this thread still stands. Nobody wants to be the sacrificial lamb.

Well like I said before, Rudi, is becoming the choice as per polls numbers over McCain.

Rudi stance appeal to the Republicans that may not be very happy with Bush policies and that help Democrats win the congress.

McCain stance on the war is going to take away from him any chances to get ahead from the moderates and no so moderate unhappy Republicans.

Then some may think that he still may have the full conservatives and religious rights that gave Bush the boost in 2004 . . .

But let me remind you that is some other candidates that are dipping into that crowd already from the Republican side and that will create divisions for McCain.

I feel that Gilliani have a very strong chance to get the domination.

Its going to be Gilliani and Hillary and we all know which way the presidency may go then.

OKay, let's run with that. Can Giuliani beat Hillary? The political scientist in me says that we'd need to know who Giulliani's running mate would be. If we assume that it's a Hillary-Obama ticket that the Republicans have to beat, who will accept the VP to run with Rudy?

Yes Gulliani may beat Hillary, specially when we know that is still a big majority of conservative and moderates males that will not feel good or do not feel comfortable with a women president or a black vice president.

Sorry to bring the race and gender card here but this is America and some states like in the bible belt may not be ready for a change like that and when it comes to Bible belt, the males hold the vote and the wives just follow their husbands choices.

But in the east and probably in the very west Hillary may get the votes.

Even if things are as you say, who should be Rudy's running mate?

On that one I have no clue, Justin, I imagine that he will try to make peace with conservative Republicans by bringing a very conservative running mate, but who?.

Perhaps McCain.

Ah-hah. That takes me back to my original postings in this thread. A Giulliani-McCain ticket might win where a McCain-Giuliani ticket might not.

Long before we went to the polls, I speculated that an Edwards-Kerry ticket would've beaten George W. I have been on record since atleast early 2005 as saying that we'd see a McCain-Giulliani ticket in '08, and that they'd lose. I'm not trying to be smug, I just want to make a point.

The Republicans are going to shoot themselves in the foot again if they allow a McCain-lead ticket to go forward. They've got a bad habit of allowing age to go before beauty, and that sort of thing is a politcal no-no of the highest Machievellian order.

It really does matter who the first person is on that ticket. If McCain were willing to take VP, he could cast himself as an elder Statesman who puts his country ahead of his own politcal ambitions. Every politcal junky in the country is going to know what he gave up to be the VP. That show of patriotic magnanimity could sway a lot of jaded voters.

All this brings me back to my earlier assertion that the only way Giulliani wins is to take a hammer to the Bush administration. He can say all the trash he wants about the Dems, but he's got to reassure the voters that he is NOT more of the same "stay the course" line that most are so very tired of. I'm just not sure that the GOP leadership would allow him that much freedom. If they bless him to run at all, he's going to be told to tow the party line and love the war like it was his momma.

Thes are just my observations. What I would really like to see, and what I want are at odds with this. Even so, I'm a realist living in the real world...I think.

If Rudy choose McCain as his VP he will shoot himself in the foot.
How can Rudy criticize the war in Iraq and then take McCain as his VP ?
Even if Rudy dosnt go as far as critcize the war in Iraq unless he gives the war is full backing bringing McCain on as his VP would create an awarkd situation at best.

If Rudy chooses a lesser known name who is only a moderate social conservative who isn't connected to the Bush admin he can appease Republican voters and avoid problems.

Are there any moderate social conservatives or are they all a bunch of nut jobs ?

That would be it. There simply is no one else. The Republican stables are empty. The die seems cast.

Normally I would say that the lack of Republican candidates would be a big problem. But IMO the Dems cupboard is only slightly more well stocked. I have dealt with possible candidates for the Dems elsewhere on AP and to a certain degree on this thread.

I wonder how this situation makes the American voter feel ?