I was reading some political stories online and over and over reading that beating Hillary is what is keeping the Republican party united.

 

They keep stating that the candidates are not making Reps enthused about the race and what is keeping the race so open is that no one really cares about any of the candidates and become excited about them.

 

And then you mention Hillary and the enthusiasm appears as the Reps (registered voters) say they have to keep her out of the WH.

 

So, with no candidate that universally excites them is the Dems nominating Hillary the one thing that might give the WH back to the Reps in 2008?

A Hillary nomination is 4 more years of Republican Whitehouse. Plain and Simple.

Hillary might energize the Conservative base, but she also is beating every Republican in head-to-head polling. Of course, she's the only one that keeps it close.

 

Le sigh. She's not my first choice (I like Joe) but if she's the nominee she's preferable to the alternative. At this point, it feels like an inevitability that she'll garner the nomination, which I find disappointing.

My best guess is that Mrs. Clinton turns it into a close election. I am certain that I will vote for her if she is the nominee, but I would prefer another candidate. For me, the most important thing after the past seven years is that we not have another four years of a Republican. It will take MANY years for the country to recover fron the Bush presidency. I haven't made up my mind about the candidate I would prefer, but given Kentucky's lack of influence in the nominating process I'll just have to live with the niminee I get.

Hillary might energize the Conservative base, but she also is beating every Republican in head-to-head polling. Of course, she's the only one that keeps it close.

 

Le sigh. She's not my first choice (I like Joe) but if she's the nominee she's preferable to the alternative. At this point, it feels like an inevitability that she'll garner the nomination, which I find disappointing.

 

I am not as sure that she will get the nomination. I saw Mrs. Obama on morning Joe yesterday. I was really impressed. Any guy that can get her to marry him has to have something going for him.

It depends on who the Republican nominee is, IMO. My honest opinion right now is that Huckabee is the best chance for the Republicans to win in November...I'm really not confident that Rudy could beat Hillary head-to-head. His liberal stances on some big issues would really hurt him with the "evangelist" voting group, which I think the Republicans have to have in a big way to win again...just like before. Huckabee seems like the best guy to get that group out en masse. And, no, that has little to do with your constant campaigning on BGP...although I'm glad you've taken the initiative there. I do watch Fox, MSNBC and CNN occasionally.

I said this a few weeks ago on here..."there is no one out on any party that I really care for and thats sad."

If the Dems tab Hillary as the nominee, I'd write in an empty Pepsi can over her.:scared: There has to be a better choice. Bring back Joe!

I am not sure she will get the nomination. I also am not sure WE are ready for a woman president.

Among the Democratic nominees, I'm for whichever one has the best chance of winning. The country cannot afford four more years of Bush like government. Mrs. Clinton is not my first choice among the Democrats, but if she is the nominee, she will get my enthusiastic support.

I am not sure she will get the nomination. I also am not sure WE are ready for a woman president.

 

This is interesting coming from a female. I am not poking fun, I am just saying that I find that unusual. All of the other "politically solid" women I have conversation with are excited about Hillary.

I travel around the country, and I believe we will have another Republican, especially with Clinton or Obama as the Dem nominee. I believe male voters will turn out in record numbers to vote against Clinton. And I believe white southern Democrats will turn out in force in to vote against Obama. Not disclosing my personal feelings here, only reporting what I observe.

Almost all the polls that are being reported are national polls which makes them misleading as an indication of presidential prospects. The upcoming election will be decided in only a handful of states (Ohio, Florida, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, New Mexico, Colorado and maybe one or two others). Almost all the other states will vote either overwhelmingly for the Democratic nominee or overwhelmingly for the Republican nominee regardless of who that nominee is. Therefore, the popularity of the nominee in these few states is much more important than national popularity.

 

If Hillary is the Democratic nominee, it's possible she could receive a clear majority of the popular vote because she'll win California and a few other very populous states by a landslide but lose the battleground states by very small margins. That is the one hope that the Republican nominee will have.

 

Because the election will be decided by in a relatively small number of states, the choice of the VP could become very interesting. A VP that could help carry one of these states would be a very valuable addition to the ticket. That's one reason that Ohio Governor Strickland if often mentioned as a Democratic VP possibility.

I might vote for her if she is the Democratic candidate, however I have yet to decide. I would much rather see John Edwards win the Democrats nomination.

I might vote for her if she is the Democratic candidate, however I have yet to decide. I would much rather see John Edwards win the Democrats nomination.

 

Does this mean you have already made your mind up that no matter who the Rep's send, you will be voting for a Dem?