By David Farside
E-mail: farsidian2001@yahoo.com
A few weeks ago, I wrote an article stating what I thought was a good idea for Hilary to get back into the White House. I suggested she run as an independent and follow the example of a previous Republican president, Theodore Roosevelt. Roosevelt couldn’t get nominated for re-election by his own Republican Party. So, he formed his own independent “Bull Moose” party. Little did I know the idea would generate so much interest and support from both Republicans and Democrats.
I started getting e-mail and comments on my blog; all in favor of her leaving the Democratic Party and becoming an Independent. Here are some of the responses. You might find them interesting.
Deb, wrote: “Hillary could win as an Independent with this secret ingredient: a Republican guy as her vice president. She’d split off the Republican vote, take the Heartland and cede Obama his narrow constituency. She could take it by splitting the boys.” And she’s right!
I was trying to think of a good Republican candidate for vice president. I couldn’t think of any, but Colin Powell came to mind.
Since he was lied to and set-up by Bush and the Republican party, he might want to expose our president’s degree in home economics from Yale for what it is: a recipe for lying. On second thought, never mind.
Another comment from Linda: “Hillary – go for it! This is just what we need – a new type of leader and a new party to go with it. The DNC did not support you the way you deserved to be supported. Don’t quit -we need you!”
Hillary shouldn’t quit. A strong new third party is exactly what we need in this democracy. And Hillary should use her delegates from California, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Florida as her base to build a new party and defeat Obama and McCain. As one e- mail stated: “Do it. You can win- go Hillary.”
An unnamed author expressed the sentiment of most supporters: “Why the hell not? Hillary has nothing to lose in the ‘Democratic’ party anymore. She doesn’t owe them a damn thing anymore. Most of its leaders (including so-called friends) have turned on her. Half of the Democratic party will not vote for Obama in November anyway – whether she endorses him or not. So he’s a dead duck. The ‘Democratic’ party has attempted to disenfranchise ‘two states’ just to try to push that Obama clown in the dem. nominee spot. And to top it off, the Obama spawn are taking the Hillary supporters for granted — saying that we will ‘get over it.’ Plus, the thought of voting for McCain makes us sick- yet not nearly as sick as voting for Obama .”
Other comments: “I would definitely support Hillary in an independent run for the presidency, and so would all the other registered voters (three of them) in my household.”
“I would support Hillary as a independent. Barack scares me. I think Hillary could pull a Joe Leiberman and switch to Independent and win the presidency.”
And Lorna expressed the frustration of many Republicans: “As a 53-year-old working class female, I would vote for Hillary if she ran as an Independent even though I have always voted Republican.”
These are just a few favorable comments of support for Hillary’s run as an Independent. Her recent overwhelming victory in West Virginia might be a sign the political pendulum is swinging in her direction. But let’s not count her out as the nominee representing the democrats.
We all know that Bill Clinton is probably one of the shrewdest politicians of our time. Anything can happen at the Democratic National Convention. It should be a great lesson in American politics and a reminder of Tammany Hall days.
Bill certainly knows how to bend arms and make deals. But the big ace up his sleeve is the threat of Hillary leaving the democrats in favor of forming her own Independent party. And why not? The party, so-called friends and some of Bill’s previous cabinet members did desert her when she needed their support the most. Conspicuously absent in her support column is Al Gore.
The question at the DNC will not be about previously won or committed delegates. The question is: who can beat McCain in the general election? The answer is clear. Either as a democrat or with this new-found support as an independent, Hillary is the only candidate capable of beating the Republicans.
Tags: 2008 Election, barack obama, Bull Moose Party, democrat, dnc, Hilary Clinton, John McCain, presidential candidates, republlican, Roosevelt
May 26, 2008 at 12:28 am |
Yes, my friends and I would love it if Hill ran as an independent. We’ve read accounts of the electoral numbers if she ran against McCain and the empty suit (I can’t even bring myself to say his name) and it appears that Hillary has a real chance of winning as an independent. Go HILLARY!! This is your best chance of becoming President because we don’t know what will happen in 4 or 8 years. DON’T WAIT. Do it NOW and as the empty suit often says in his attempts to bamboozle his followers–The “Urgency of Now” is here!
June 2, 2008 at 6:52 pm |
If Hillary couldn’t win against Obama among Dems, how can she beat him when you factor in Republicans? Assume the country is split 50/50 Rep/Dem. Among the Dem 50%, Let’s give Obama 26% and Clinton 24%. How does 24% beat McCain’s 50%? Theodore Roosevelt (1912) wasn’t a success story…he cost Taft any reasonable chance of winning the election…the electoral votes went 435-88-8 for Wilson, Roosevelt, Taft. If the liberals of America are divided, we’ll have trouble holding onto even California, let alone winning the presidency. (fyi, 2004 – Kerry 6,745,000 CA votes, Bush – 5,510,000 votes…assuming the same votes as 2004, Hillary would need 81.7% of liberal votes to tie in California.)
June 3, 2008 at 1:09 am |
The General Election gets decided by electoral votes, and it is winner take all. Hill can easily win California, New York, New Jersey and Michigan. Total electoral votes 55+31+15+17=118. Total needed for nomination 270. With just those 4 states she already has 44% of the electorate needed. Get ready for a big announcement from Hillary soon.
June 3, 2008 at 3:50 am |
I was interested in your theory…
Let’s look at the electoral votes then. Here are the presidential results of your “easy win” states for the last four elections.
CA Dem Rep
2004 6,745,485 5,509,826
2000 5,861,203 4,567,429
1996 5,119,835 3,828,380
1992 5,121,249 3,630,566
NJ Dem Rep
2004 1,911,430 1,670,003
2000 1,788,850 1,284,173
1996 1,652,329 1,103,078
1992 1,436,206 1,356,865
NY Dem Rep
2004 4,314,280 2,962,567
2000 3,942,215 2,258,577
1996 3,756,177 1,933,492
1992 3,444,450 2,346,649
MA Dem Rep
2004 1,803,800 1,071,109
2000 1,616,578 878,502
1996 1,571,763 718,107
1992 1,318,639 805,039
And here are the results of the 2008 primaries between Hillary and Obama, in percent:
HRC BHO
CA 51.47 43.16
NJ 53.76 43.93
NY 57.37 40.32
MA 56.01 40.64
Let’s assume that all democratic votes go to either Hillary or Obama. The adjusted percentage values (to add up to 100%) would be:
HRC BHO
CA 54.39 45.61
NJ 55.03 44.97
NY 58.73 41.27
MA 57.95 42.05
Now…I think its fair to assume that neither HRC or BHO particularly appeal to conservatives…and lets assume the population of the country is 50/50 D/R (most McCain vs. Dem polls show this to be approx. true)
Thus, we can give Hillary 54.39% of the 2004 CA Kerry votes, 2000 CA Gore votes, et al. The percentage of the 2004 NJ Kerry votes would be 55.03, and on down the column. But here is the unfortunate part. John McCain wouldn’t be sacrificing any of his votes to another candidate (the only way Hillary could win as an independent would be if Huckabee reentered and did to the republicans what you propose Hillary should do to the democrats.)
So here are my final tallies for the hypothetical elections of 1992-2004 assuming two liberal candidates:
CA HRC JMC BHO
2004 3,471,901 *5,509,826 3,076,563
2000 3,016,761 *4,567,429 2,673,249
1996 2,635,179 *3,828,380 2,335,117
1992 2,635,907 *3,630,566 2,335,761
NJ HRC JMC BHO
2004 1,051,883 *1,670,003 859,547
2000 984,426 *1,284,173 804,424
1996 909,297 *1,103,078 743,032
1992 790,362 *1,356,865 645,844
NY HRC JMC BHO
2004 2,533,629 *2,962,567 1,780,651
2000 *2,315,128 2,258,577 1,627,087
1996 *2,205,874 1,933,492 1,550,303
1992 2,022,808 *2,346,649 1,421,642
MA HRC JMC BHO
2004 1,045,327 *1,071,109 758,473
2000 *936,829 878,502 679,749
1996 *910,858 718,107 660,905
1992 764,169 *805,039 554,470
The final results of these “easy” states:
California goes to John McCain in all four cases
New Jersey goes to John McCain in all four cases
New York goes to John McCain twice and Hillary Clinton twice
Massachusetts goes to John McCain twice and Hillary Clinton twice
The “easy” states go Hillary’s way in only 25% of the above cases. Swing states like New Mexico and New Hampshire would turn to landslide republican victories. John McCain wins, we stay in Iraq for at least another four years, kids get no health care, and Hillary Clinton’s name gets dragged through the mud for initiating all this.
For a real life example of this occurring, see the Presidential Election of 1912 between Dem. Wilson, Rep. Taft, and Progressive Party (offshoot of Republican) T. Roosevelt:
Nominee Wilson Roosevelt Taft
Pop Votes 41.8% 27.4% 23.2%
Elect Votes 435 88 8
Elect Vote % 81.9% 16.6% 1.5%
Teddy Roosevelt may have been able to outperform his rival on his own side of the aisle, but his popular vote of 27.4% was reduced to 16.6% in an actual election.
September 3, 2008 at 6:51 am |
Your flaw lies in the fact that if Hillary became an independent chose a Republican as a running mate, there would be ALOT of Dems that would turn their back to her. Furthermore, the IND/REP ticket would also have to be stronger than the DEM ticket and the REP ticket to even have a chance in winning. Relying on old historical numbers and percentages don’t hold water in today’s politics where more people are involved in the voting process than in the early 1900s.