Quote:
Originally posted by: Mavdog
Considering the fact that there has been one President in the last century who was elected without ever having been a candidate for political office prior to their Presidential election, and that person being a WW2 hero, the propsect that Rice would be first the Republican nominee and second the voters selection is highly improbable.
The question that begs to be asked is why would the Republican Party need to go with a complete neophyte whose political beliefs are unknown? Is their bench that bare?
|
Mavdog's exactly right regarding Condi's lack of political experience. Eisenhower was a special case for a number of reasons. Both parties tried to draft him to run, but the lonstanding joke was that Republicans offered better golf courses. Without political experience, she could easily get killed. Most first time polititicians that have won with no experience did so with special circumstances-money, celebrity, etc.
The other side is that longstanding theory is that if the GOP could take just an additional 10-20% of the black voting population, they'd win in a landslide.
But if Hillary runs (and she will) I will be mildly surprised if she loses. She has full support of her party. She can basically say and do whatever she wants without hurting her liberal credentials. So she can run towards the middle all she wants. She can basically sluff off all of Bill's negatives adn not alienate Bill. Look at the numbers, Hillary would likely win Arkansas. She could find more 10 electoral votes somewhere.
I don't think the GOP cupboard is bare. The problem is the opposite-too many possible candidates and no clear successor. Cheney won't run. Frist will; Newt might; Giulliani might; host of others.