Approaching the November presidential elections in the United States, it becomes harder to guess the results, especially because of the tight competition that takes place at present between the democrat candidates Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton.
Two possibilities will ultimately be at hand: 1- Hillary-McCain duel 2- Obama-McCain duel.
But the key question is to know who will win in each of these cases.
Some people think it's very hard, or maybe too soon, to foresee with sureness the result in each of probabilities.
Nonetheless, it seems that it would be easier to forecast the results in the case of Clinton-McCain than in the Obama-McCain one.
Why?
We all noticed that the main topic of the all electoral campaigns has been "changes”. This is actually the measuring tape we should employ to construct an objective idea about the chance of every candidate.
We can suggest some simple assumptions, founded themselves on this presupposition that on account of the economical and political situation, inside and outside of the country, a great majority of the American voters want “changes. Subsequently, we can imagine for the Clinton/McCain duel:
- those who don"t want changes will vote for McCain (conservatives essentially)
- those who want changes won't vote for Hilary, (belief would actually miss)
- Then, in the case of a Clinton-McCain duel, it would be plausible that the Republicans will rule the country for four years more again
Now let us see the case of Obama-McCain:
- Those who don't want changes will vote for McCain,
- Those who want changes will vote for Obama, (hope will be there)
- Then in the case of Obama-McCain, the Democrats would almost surely get the Whit House's control back
Now, based on these assumptions, could Hillary Clinton be considered as a candidate who should decide between personal ambition and collective fate?
Make up your mind.
