• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

What if neither Hillary or Rudy get the nomination?

ProfJohn

ProfJohn

Lifer
So everyone says Obama can?t win (the Presidency) because he is black, Romney can?t win because he is a Mormon, Huckabee can?t win because he is a social liberal or a minister etc etc

Well it looks like Hillary and Rudy may not actually win their parties nominations which means November 2008 may mean an election between two people who ?can?t win?

I think an election between Obama and Romney/Huckabee would be a great election. An election about the future of America as opposed to an election about which candidate made fewer mistakes in the past.

I think ditching Hillary and Rudy and spending six months talking about the future of the country instead of the mistakes and scandals of the 90s would be great for America.

And while I am a little worried about Obama and the experience factor I think the Republicans would be far more willing to work with him than with Hillary.
Democrats will love Huckabee the social liberal.
And Romney ran one of the most liberal states in the country.
I think we would be fine with any of those three running the country.
 
who's everyone?

the things you listed are certainly strikes against them, but I don't think anyone is saying Obama, Romney, and Huckabee are unelectable (indeed, I think Obama is probably the most electable Democrat at the moment... it's a stupid argument, but I do think that there'd be a huge ground-swell of voters pushing to elect the first black president, probably even moreso than the first female president).

the only candidates that I'd think are really 100% unelectable off the top of my head are Kucinich, Gravel, Keyes (who I didn't even know was running until he somehow broke into that Republican debate), and (dons flame suit) Paul.
 
Along the same lines I was listening to a NPR roundtable this morning and one of the participants made an excellent point when discussing the GOP slate of candidates. She said that taken individually an excellent argument can be made about each one that he cannot get the nomination for XX reason(s).

Personally I think Guiliani is down for the count now, now that the extent to which he is financially profiteering off of 9/11 and making illegal commissions from arranging deals with the federal government. When you come down to it, he's just another dirty big city mayor.
 
Originally posted by: Thump553
Personally I think Guiliani is down for the count now, now that the extent to which he is financially profiteering off of 9/11 and making illegal commissions from arranging deals with the federal government. When you come down to it, he's just another dirty big city mayor.
Click to expand...

Don't count those chickens just yet. Though I hope you're right.
 
Originally posted by: loki8481
who's everyone?

the things you listed are certainly strikes against them, but I don't think anyone is saying Obama, Romney, and Huckabee are unelectable (indeed, I think Obama is probably the most electable Democrat at the moment... it's a stupid argument, but I do think that there'd be a huge ground-swell of voters pushing to elect the first black president, probably even moreso than the first female president).

the only candidates that I'd think are really 100% unelectable off the top of my head are Kucinich, Gravel, Keyes (who I didn't even know was running until he somehow broke into that Republican debate), and (dons flame suit) Paul.
Click to expand...
--who???
 
Originally posted by: Pabster
No, Huck isn't a social liberal. He's a fiscal liberal, and that's dangerous.
Click to expand...

Then he's no different than George Bush, which is not what this country needs. I think during the YouTube debate he was one of the people that said he would get government expenditures under control, then in the next question said he would fully support sending humans to Mars or some such thing.
 
Originally posted by: loki8481
who's everyone?
Click to expand...
That is the so called convention wisdom.

Obviously it is not 100% true because one of them will have to win.

I think the big point is that so many people supported Hillary and Rudy because they COULD win and now things are changing and the people who everyone thought could not win are in a position to prove them wrong.
 
Originally posted by: Balt
Then he's no different than George Bush, which is not what this country needs. I think during the YouTube debate he was one of the people that said he would get government expenditures under control, then in the next question said he would fully support sending humans to Mars or some such thing.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I'd call GWB's fiscal policy "liberal" but from the standpoint of spending and excess, yes, Huckabee would be in the same category. There's something in the water down there in Hope, Arkansas.
 
Huckabee's a social Liberal? Isn't he a Baptist Minister? From my dealings with them Baptists are about the least social liberal of them all.
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
So everyone says Obama can?t win (the Presidency) because he is black, Romney can?t win because he is a Mormon, Huckabee can?t win because he is a social liberal or a minister etc etc

Well it looks like Hillary and Rudy may not actually win their parties nominations which means November 2008 may mean an election between two people who ?can?t win?

I think an election between Obama and Romney/Huckabee would be a great election. An election about the future of America as opposed to an election about which candidate made fewer mistakes in the past.

I think ditching Hillary and Rudy and spending six months talking about the future of the country instead of the mistakes and scandals of the 90s would be great for America.

And while I am a little worried about Obama and the experience factor I think the Republicans would be far more willing to work with him than with Hillary.
Democrats will love Huckabee the social liberal.
And Romney ran one of the most liberal states in the country.
I think we would be fine with any of those three running the country.
Click to expand...

PJ, well done! A non-partisan OP, and an interesting topic to boot.

I'd welcome a Dem Prez + Rep Congress again, it worked out halfway decent the last time around.

I am not very fond of Hillary, and extremely hostile towards Rudy, so if they were out of the picture I'd be much happier.
 
Frankly I wouldn't mind if Hilary and Rudy lost their chances at a nomination and I have a gut feeling neither will make it in the end anyways but that is just MHO. I'd vote for Obama myself but I'll wait and see until everything is settled down and we get to the meat and potatoes of electing our next president.
 
Originally posted by: palehorse74
I'd throw a very big party if those two were out of the picture altogether!
Click to expand...

Amen to that...

This is shaping up to be an election that deals with *gasp* relevant issues and one candidate's vision for america vs another candidate's vision for america. What a concept. No more bickering about Vietnam and who screwed what intern!


I was really slogging through all of the election mess thus far but with Hill looking to be in trouble and Rudy/Mitt sliding... It's suddenly interesting again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top