> People have been making good arguments today that there is a
> difference. Before I read those arguments I was ready to throw in
> the sponge. I'd decided if Hillary Clinton was the nominee I would
> not vote in a presidential election for the first time since I was
> 18. After reading today's thread I'm starting to change my
> mind. Not that I think voting democratic will bring about the
> substantive change necessary. I'm just far less convinced that not
> voting would mean anything.
Hillary Clinton will not only be the nominee, but she will be elected the next president.
The Republicans don't have a candidate that can beat any of the "centrist" candidates that the Democrats will end up nominating. The political winds are blowing against the Republicans and they lack a young conservative candidate who can excite their base and swing independents. They will pay at the polls as most voters want change after the Bush regime and the war. Economic issues will also sour voters on the Republicans.
This is one of those elections where the Democrats will make sure they go with a conservative, centrist candidate. They want to win the presidential race this time, so they will play it safe. Normally, Roberts would be the ideal candidate, as long as no skeletons emerge from his closet. He won't last past the primaries. Obama will be cast as being too young and risky. The Democrats will go with Clinton because she is a centrist, a known quantity and will mobilize voters who want to see a woman president. There is a risk that she'll put her foot in her mouth and pull a Dukakis, but she is a seasoned political player. There will be the worry that a Hillary nomination will mobilize the Clinton-haters on the right, but these guys will vote Republican anyway and their numbers just aren't significant.
Anybody want to bet a pizza and beer against me?
Chuck