She’s not a candidate at all, and she won’t be, at least not this time around.
Howard Dean will be the Dems’ nominee and will be the next POTUS. That will make it four presidential elections in a row won by the Democrats.
Recession is wrong, too.
A recession is two or more consecutive quarters during which GDP shrinks.
Our last recession was caused by 9/11, and ended a long period of expansion that began when Bush Sr. was President.
It ended in November 2001.
You’re doing better. You claim that the Iraq war was “pointless”, and “illegal”. Please provide cites of the US court that declared the Iraq invasion to be illegal, or the UN resolution specifically condemning the action as illegal. Also provide cites showing that the declaration of Congress authorizing military action in Iraq was invalid.
Regards,
Shodan
Once it becomes obvious to even her, that bush is not re-electable(because of the economy) she will enter the race. Hillary does not want another democrat to win in 2004, thus keeping her out of the presidency until 2012.
Hillary has an excellent chance, being from New York, almost guarantees her the huge electoral votes of New York(why do you think she ran for the senate there?). Besides NY, she is almost guaranteed the electoral votes of California, Mass, Rhode Island, Delaware, Maryland, Connecticutt, Hawaii, without even campaigning - those states will never vote for a repulican.
Hillary can spend all of her time on the swing states, and democrat states like Washington, Michigan, Florida, West Virginia, etc. and other states with high unemployment. Hillary is in an enviable position, bush is stuck with his miserable 3 year record of recession and war and terrorism and budget and trade deficits.
I would think Hillary will also pick a somewhat conservative(possilby pro-gun) vice president, to insure that there will be no organized effort by any conservative groups to keep her out of the presidency. i.e, to vote “against her”.
Hillarys base is extremely strong, and I dont see where bush, with his record, can make any headway against her.
A republican candidate for president has not won the popular vote since 1988.
You’re right, and if the President was chosen by the popular vote it would matter.
A candidate who loses the popular vote and still gets the presidency is very rare, only happened 3 times, and none of them ever got re-elected. Dont count on bush being the first popular vote loser in American history to be re-elected, wont happen. It might have been a worry if bush had given us peace and prosperity, always a good thing for re-election campaigns, but bush has no intention of giving us that by the summer of 2004, so Hillary will probably be the next president.
Susanann said in a kinda hopeful yet naive way…(please excuse my interspersing.)
“A candidate who loses the popular vote and still gets the presidency is very rare, only happened 3 times, and none of them ever got re-elected. Dont count on bush being the first popular vote loser in American history to be re-elected, wont happen.( Uh, why do you captialize senator Clinton’s first name every time and then see fit to lower case our duely elected President, George W Bush’s first name twice?) It might have been a worry if bush had given us peace and prosperity, (examine what you just said. You said that if Bush had given you peace and prosperity it might have been a worry, which is, as you put it) always a good thing for re-election campaigns, but bush has no intention of giving us (peace and prosperity) by the summer of 2004, so Hillary will probably be the next president.”
Yeah. Sure thing. And I was born at night one morn when the whistle rang boom-boom.