Why exactly is Hillary the stongest? If you base that evaluation on her current support from the Dem base, wouldn’t the current opposition to her as a candidate on the part of the rest of the electorate suggest that she is actually one of the weakest candidates in a national election? No doubt she’ll have oodles of cash and as much name recognition as one could hope for, but I think probable voters across the land have already made up their minds about her, and not in her favor.
And forgive me if you’ve already addressed the issue of why her candidacy gives the Dems the best shot (among current Senator-types). I did a quick search to get the background on that position, but didn’t really see a thorough treatment. If I just missed it, I’d appreciate a link to it. |
| |
Written By:
CNH
URL:
http://
|
|
So you’re suggesting that she isn’t a stronger candidate than John Edwards, John Kerry, Even Bayh, Joe Biden and Russ Feingold? Wow ... you must know something about the other 5 that isn’t evident to the rest of the world. |
| |
Written By:
McQ
URL:
http://qando.net
|
I just suspect that none of them, with the possible exception of Kerry, are going to face the entrenched, immovable antipathy of a majority of the electorate. HRC, based on what polls I’ve read, is a complete non-starter for over half the nation. Sure, she’s guaranteed a strong showing, but she’s also guaranteed a loss. The rest of those non-Kerry stuffed shirts may be comparative long shots, but at least they HAVE a shot. Maybe Evan Bayh appeals to "moderates", maybe Feingold can make hay out of being a "reformer fighting the corrupt Republican machine" (assuming McCain isn’t the opponent).
My main point is that the composition of her field of competitors is almost irrelevant. As long as even one of them is not a sure loser, as I think HRC is, then she is by definition not the strongest candidate. |
| |
Written By:
CNH
URL:
http://
|
Sure, she’s guaranteed a strong showing, but she’s also guaranteed a loss. That may be, but that wasn’t the point I made ... I simply pointed out that she was the strongest of those six candidates, whether she wins or not.My main point is that the composition of her field of competitors is almost irrelevant. Not to her competitors it isn’t. And that was what this was about.As long as even one of them is not a sure loser, as I think HRC is, then she is by definition not the strongest candidate. Speaking of sure losers, if she’s stronger in the primaries than they are (which I suspect she would be), it is they who are irrelevant. |
| |
Written By:
McQ
URL:
http://qando.net
|
|
If your claim is that she has the best shot of getting the nomination, then I would tend to agree with you. I took you to mean that she had the best chance of being the next President, not just for being the next Dem Candidate for President. |
| |
Written By:
CNH
URL:
http://
|
If your claim is that she has the best shot of getting the nomination, then I would tend to agree with you. I took you to mean that she had the best chance of being the next President, not just for being the next Dem Candidate for President. No, just that of the 6 senators, she had the best shot of garnering the nomination.
I don’t think she has a chance in hell of winning the presidency unless a new party pops onto the right side of the spectrum and pulls a Perot. That’s essentially how her husband won, and history does have a way of repeating itself at the damndest times. |
| |
Written By:
McQ
URL:
http://qando.net
|
They should call that list "Hillary and the Nine Dwarves". The nomination is Hillary’s to lose.
While I despise her, I also know she is smarter than any of the other potential candidates. (I mean "smarter" in an evil genius way.) |
| |
Written By:
EdMcGon
URL:
http://politicsandpigskins.blogspot.com/
|
