Why cant Hillary win?

[opebo]

Here is a more realistic map of Hillary Clinton against whatever right-wing religious the GOP nominates in 2008:

You are all seriously underestimating the Bush-hatred and Republican fatigue out there, and the longing for the 'better days' of the previous Clinton presidency.

[opebo]

There is a monumental difference between Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton that you are over looking. Bill was a moderate-liberal at his most extreme moments. Hillary Clinton on the other hand is a socialist...

No, she's a moderate, similar to Bill, though admittedly he was a right-leaning moderate and she is simply a centrist.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

People that weren't well liked 'as a person' have become president before due to revulsion at the other party - for example Richard Nixon or Bush Senior. 

[opebo]

Are you insane!? Hillary a moderate? If she is a moderate than so is Ann Coulter. She is such a fiscal liberal that even the left-wing of the Democratic party questions her platform.

'Fiscal liberal'?  What are you talking about?  Btw, I don't believe she has a 'platform'.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Her social views are right-leaning, true, but her economic positions are where she is moderate.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I hardly think the average american voter can be said to 'agree' or 'disagree' with candidates, since he cannot think.  So you are quite correct that likes, dislikes, and other emotional responses are what elects presidents.  However, I suggest that the revulsion over the last two terms, as expressed in Bush's abysmal poll numbers show that people are going to dislike Hilary less than whatever right-wing religious the GOP nominates.

[opebo]

'Fiscal liberal'?  What are you talking about?  Btw, I don't believe she has a 'platform'.

She supports tax hikes, a busted Universal Health Care proposal on her record, and when asked if she'd cut the pork she gave a very slimy issue that sound to me a lot like "Weeelll, I'd much rather raise taxes". A lot of her proposals would require massive amounts of spending. She avoids the question of "how she is going to pay for it" like the plague. She has a few moderate fiscal leanings...but on the whole I would slap a big liberal stamp on her fiscal record.

I suspect the public is in the mood for a little 'fiscal liberalism', Vlad - they're tired of getting poorer, not being able to afford things like health care, and are in the mood to soak their betters.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How on earth could the Religious Party nominate anyone other than another religious whack-job, Vlad?  The entire base of the party is made up of extremist intolerant religious whack-jobs.

[opebo]

I suspect the public is in the mood for a little 'fiscal liberalism', Vlad - they're tired of getting poorer, not being able to afford things like health care, and are in the mood to soak their betters.

A lot of people said the same thing around the time of the 1984 election. "Reagan will raise taxes and so will I! He Won't tell you - I just did". Welll...we saw how much good a little fiscally liberal spirit did Walter Mondale.

Vlad, this is not 1984 - Reagan was a hugely popular president.  The public despises Bush, and is sick of Republicans generally.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What are they, fools?  The expenditures since 2001 have been solely devised to assist the elite - defense expenditures, tax cuts, and giveaways to the medical industries.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think you're being a tad bit unfair here. Kind of like the muslim population, the extremist whack-job population accounts for a very low percentage of the community...there are plenty of socially tolerant Republicans in the world. They just don't run for office...this is why I'm really pulling for Giuliani.  Here is some stuff/people to look into.

Republicans for Choice
Log Cabin Republicans
Lincoln Chafee
[/quote]

Hah, these people are a tiny fringe in the GOP which is almost entirely made up of hateful intolerantes, Vlad.

[opebo]

There is plenty of room in the Republican Party for those who are pro choice and for those who support same sex marriage.  They are more than welcome, and, in fact, are needed and appreciated in the party.

The Republican Party is a big tent, and welcomes all.

The Republican Party is more accepting of pro choice members than is the Democratic Party accepting of pro life members. 

Couldn't have said it better.

There is no place in the GOP for pro-choice persons, unless those persons don't mind that they are supporting a party dedicated to removing women's freedoms. 

[opebo]

There is plenty of room in the Republican Party for those who are pro choice and for those who support same sex marriage.  They are more than welcome, and, in fact, are needed and appreciated in the party.

The Republican Party is a big tent, and welcomes all.

The Republican Party is more accepting of pro choice members than is the Democratic Party accepting of pro life members. 

Couldn't have said it better.

That's because Winfield is the same sort of ridiculous airhead as you, Vlad.  There is no place in the GOP for pro-choice persons, unless those persons don't mind that they are supporting a party dedicated to removing women's freedoms. 

Need you be an asshole about everything - are you that insecure with your own intelligence (or lack there of)? There are plenty of pro-choice Republicans, perhaps not on the national stage - but the Republican party is moving to the center in terms of social views as the Christian fanatic movement dies down.

Seriously dude, I appreciate your input - but you are a total dick.

Sorry about being a total dick, but the point stands - the goal of the Religious Party is to ban abortion.  So if you are free to be a 'pro-choice' Republican under the big tent, but still all you're voting for is an anti-choice agenda, that is just pointless.  Of course anyone can be anything if they are willing to abandon their own goals, principles, and interests.