Talk Elections

This, to me, would be like the GOP nominating Alan Keyes for president. I'd be forced to vote Democrat, or at least third party.

 I dont think she will run, and If she does i really dont think she will win. The First Woman President will be a Republican. And after 2006 she will not even have a seat in the senate.

She'll get re-elected to the Senate.

I'd vote for her, but it would be useless. She'd get killed.

agreed.  although I must say I disagree with the Alan Keyes comparison above.  Policy-wise she's MUCH more mainstream than Keyes.  Likability-wise, she's not electable. 

I also think she'll easily win reelection to the senate in 2006.

Is there any item of federal spending that Hillary Clinton has ever voted against?

She may run but she will not be nominated.

I might vote for her. It depends on the Republican and what the climate is like in 2008.

I would campaign against her like hell in the primaries.

By the way, apparently Republicans would never possibly vote for her - your poll has no such option. I doubt that there aren't any that would.

I'm sure there's someone out there somewhere in the country, but no Republican on this message board would vote for her.

My Republican mother didn't care for either Bush or Kerry in this past election.  In the end she decided to vote for Kerry as if he had won, Hillary couldn't have run until at least 2012.

If who she is running against? I would probably vote for her.

I wouldn't vote for Hillary no matter who was running against her.  I got a very bad vibe from Hillary the first time I ever laid eyes on her in 1992.

Shouldn’t she be barred from the Presidency by term limits?

I'd vote for her, but it'd honestly just be because of Minnesota's Democratic-voting streak.

Don't Submit to Peer Pressure, BRTD!


I won't be voting for her in '06--which will marginally contribute to her not running in '08.

And if she does run in '08, well I'm certainly not voting for her then either.

I bet you money she wins re-election in 2006.

Depends who she is running against.  If it is another sacrificial lamb like Howard Mills, Rick Lazio or Bernadette Castro I would not go near that action.  If the horribly run New York State G.O.P. can field a candidate with a pulse-i.e. Powell or Rudy then your on.:) 
Side note: I don't know why Pataki is mentioned among some Republicans for 2008.  I think he is presiding over a dying NY G.O.P..  The party is getting slaughtered and it is all on Pataki's watch.  The only reason Pataki is still in office is because the Democrats have been fielding weak candidates against him.

Pataki would be crushed. Rudy would make it interesting before he loses.

Pataki v. Hilary would be close.  I think Clinton would pull it out because I think a lot of New Yorkers are getting tired of Pataki.  I would be willing to bet everything I own that Rudy G would beat Hilary.  Reasoning:  Rudy is almost revered as a saint in the suburbs and he would crush Clinton there.  He would also be able to hold down Hilary's margin of victory in NYC.  White ethnics- Irish, Italian Greek Russian etc etc would go for Rudy overwhelmingly.  He would also  cut into a good deal of the Latino vote.  Rudy is also well liked in the Jewish community. Asian vote would also split.  Upstate, where the dems have been gaining, would still go for Rudy by a good margin.  Hilary would not be able to overwhelmingly carry NYC which is how Democrats win in close elections in NYS.

Patrick: what's the chances of Powell running?

I don't see it happening.  There were some rumblings in the local papers but it is all speculation and wishful thinking among anti-Hillary people. Powell is like what 67 years old and he'd be 69 by the time the race goes and 75 at the end of a term.  I just don't Powell or his wife especially like politics.  I think he writes a book or goes on the speaking circuit.  Basically relaxes and makes some real cash.  The one factor that could possibly bring him to run is that he would not want to be remember for the UN thing.  I am not confident about 2006.  There are no real rising stars or people with name recognition save Rudy.  New York G.O.P. is in a sorry state of affairs.  Bloomberg is a RINO and Pataki has oversaw the loss of state senate seats and in the legislature.  I am trying to rack ,y brain for some viable candidates but am drawing a blank.  The Howard Mills candidacy was an absolute joke.  I didnt even vote for the guy. I went Conservative party.  I know your not a fan of Hilary either so I will keep my thinking cap on.

If I were a Democrat (shudder), it would depend on who she was running against. Rudy or McCain would probably get my vote over her.

Hmm... how likely is a certain former mayor of NYC to run then?

Well he health is good this time and he would be able to raise a ridiculous amount of money.  There is certainly nothing to preclude him from running other than his own ambition.  Does he want the big chair in 2008 or will he settle for a Senate run in 2006? I don't really know. Kind of a zero sum situation. I couldn't possibly see him doing both.  Even R.F.K. waited 4 years.  I think he should run for the Senate in 2006.  As popular as he is he is just not conservative enough to win in the most G.O.P. primaries and if he lurches too far right he will be tagged with the infamous flip flop. 

Another reason that Rudy should run for the Senate in 2006 as I stated above are that I don't think he can win the nomination.  Some of the "family values" activists in the party would not be pleased to find out some things about Giuliani.  He was married for fourteen years to a woman named Regina- his second cousin.  After all those years married he had the marriage annulled on grounds they were to closely related.  Not one of Rudy's finer moments IMO.  He then married Donna Hanover and while mayor he was screwing his press secretary- worst kept secret in town.
He is now very happily married to Judi Nathan.  I could care less who he shagged but this type of stuff could hurt him.  Not to mention that he is pro choice, gun control and gay nups.  Im breaking out my draft Rudy for 06 stickers now.

Hmm... I don't see that sort of stuff playing well in all those Sunbelty Suburbs...

that's what I've been saying, if Rudy is smart he realizes he has no chance on winning the presidential nomination (of course I have yet to see any evidence he wants to run) so he'd run for Senate or Governor instead, assuming he wants to continue a political career which I suspect he doesn't. But we'll see. I think he would rather be Governor than Senator and might try for that in 2006, since Pataki is rather unpopular he either might not run or would be easy to take out in the primaries.

I can't see him wanting to be Governor.  Albany is even worse than Washington D.C. in terms of corruption, gridlock, aesthetics etc.  Rudy G has said that he would like to go back to elective politics.  Rudy loves the limelight and I think he is itching to get back into the game.  Rudy is also a very ambitious guy.  Always has been.  He and Senator Pothole a.k.a. Crooked Al D'Amato even did an undercover sting operation one time while US Attorney.  He likes to play to the camera.  I would not wish the job of Governor of NY on anyone. If Schumer knows what is good for him he will let that media whore Spitzer run.  Office of Governor also gets very little press coverage here in the NYC metro area.  You hear about that turd Bloomberg a lot more than Pataki.

I think Schumer has already basically confirmed he isn't running because he'll be in charge of the NSSC instead.

If that's the case it's looks like Spitzer's a shoo-in. yes!

So if Spitzer goes for Governor in 06 he would win?

That said i'd have thought Pataki will not be running in 2006.

I'd also agree that Rudy wouldn't stand a chance of getting the GOP nomination, and he'd be best of running for the Senate as he'd probably win.

Maybe Patrick can correct me here, but I heard from one of my conservative friends in NYC that Pataki might actually run for governor again.

I was surprised, because I thought it was pretty clear he would leave in 2006.

About the rest of the argument here, I tend to agree with what's been posted here.  Powell won't run and Rudy's about the only candidate who would stand a chance of beating Hillary. (a good chance at that)

Spitzer v. Pataki would be interesting, that's for sure.  The way to beating Pataki is that you've got to make some inroads into his base in upstate NY and in the NY suburbs, where he's always run strong.  He's never performed very well in NYC, but the other two regions have nearly always put him over the top, so to speak, but he's never won more than 54% and has won 49% two other times.

What a unique sense of humor!

I agree that Pataki is a dud as far as political leadership is concerned.  I doubt he would beat Hillary since he has basically become just a pale imitation of a Democrat.  If you like Democrats, you might as well go for the real thing.

I think Giuliani would beat Hillary for the Senate in 2006.  He is an icon in NY, and would cut way into Hillary's base of support.

The question is whether he wants to.  I doubt he really wants to be a Senator.  I could see him as governor, and he may run since I can't believe Pataki would make another run for that office at this point.  Giuliani is more of an executive type.

The party could convince him that, for the good of the country, Hillary must be knocked off, and he could be induced to run on those grounds, in return for some type of payoff later.

I agree that as far as the presidency is concerned, Giuliani has many things that will turn him off to Republican voters in other sections of the country.  However, if the alternative is Hillary and he's the best person to beat her, they may overlook those things and support him, as the lesser of two evils.

She won't be nominated

I know, but I'm just saying, if she did.

Wouldn't be so sure of that... she is loved by the Democratic base that votes in the primaries.

As for 2006, Rudy is the only Republican that can defeat Hilliary.  As much as I'd like to see her emboldened to run for President in 2008 with a 2006 reelection, I'd also like to get rid of her in the Senate to get closer to the magic 60.  Also, Rudy needs to get the idea through his head that he will not win a Republican primary battle and settle for the Senate.

I think Giuliani could very well defeat Hillary in a Senate race, and should he do so, that's her ambitions scuppered! True, she's popular with the Democratic base but that base ain't gonna win her the presidency

The Democrats need to select a centrist/moderate with a proven executive and legislative record.

Dave

2006 in NY:2008 Nationally::1858 in IL:1860 Nationally

Anyone?

Well, except for the fact that Rudy probably won't run or take the nomination in 2008.  Although if he does, the Southerners could walk out, and then we'd have an even more fitting analogy...