kane

I doubt it would be any higher than it is now. Historically women will not vote for other women. I don't know why that is, but it is. I read an article in ( I think ) Time a little while back that said around 65% of all married women vote republican. If the woman is married and is a stay at home mom/housewife that number jumps to almost 80%. The funny thing is the article then kind of slammed them saying married stay at home moms are out of touch with reality

The article also showed that around 30% of women just don't vote for a woman candidate simply because she is a woman. I don't know why that is. so to give hillary the woman vote by default I think is wrong.

as for hillary running, let's give bush a little time first. If bush does really well and is popular and has a high approval rating ( and the repubs can come up with a strong candidate ) they will be very hard to beat and the dems might put up another Dukakis kind of guy that is just out there to get his ass kicked.

If bush does badly and his approval ratings are not good then there is an opening. But for the dems to win they will need someone who has a clear vision, is likeable to the voters, is willing to stand up for themselves, is from the south, and represents a clear change.

history has shown that after 8 years of one party, people typically want a change. We had 12 years of repubs with regan and bush 1 then 8 years of dems with clinton. Clinton was popluar and had good approval ratings when he left the white house but that wasn't enough to get gore elected ( there are many reasons gore lost though )

SoI think it really hinges on how well bush does. A great job by bush could help them win another term. If he does okay, or badly, it will be hard for them to win again unless the dems put out someone really bad.