Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Is Clinton the "One"?
Posted by: mcq on Thursday, September 27, 2007

She certainly seems inevitable as the nominee. But can Hillary Clinton actually overcome her negatives and capture the presidency?

Some within the Democratic party aren't so sure and a recent internal poll seems to support that position:
A leaked Democratic poll has suggested that Hillary Clinton, the frontrunner in the race for the party's presidential nomination, could lose the 2008 election because of her "very polarised image".
"Electability". I remember John Kerry's resurgence in the 2004 campaign based on the fact that Democrats thought he was more "electable" than Howard Dean and the lot. Amazing how poorly that turned out.

But campaigning has become very scientific now and pollsters can go to a few congressional districts (swing districts) and pretty much get the political lay of the land for upcoming elections. And what has Democratic pollsters upset is they're not seeing the results in those swing districts that they want to see:
The survey by the Democratic pollsters Lake Research indicated that both Mrs Clinton and Barack Obama, second in the Democratic race, trailed Rudy Giuliani, the Republican front runner, in 31 swing congressional districts.
What's a campaign to do? Well first, attack Giuliani, which is an will continue to happen. If Giuliani is the Republican nominee, it will be a free-for-all because it has been my observation that he gives as good as he gets. And he has high negatives as well.

But it appears, at least in some polls, that instead of going down, Clintons negatives keep increasing the more exposure she gets.

Not good. And it could also have another effect according to the poll:
The poll found that Mrs Clinton, in particular, could damage the chances of congressional Democratic candidates on the ballot. The sensitivity of the issue was underlined by the reluctance of Democrats to discuss the survey.

"We're not commenting on this poll," said Daniel Gotoff, co-author of the memo accompanying the Lake Research poll. "It was leaked and obviously not by us."
They may not be commenting on it to the press, but you cna rest assured they're discussing it within the party.

Questions: How should the party handle a potential nominee who seems destined to lose? Considering it is still very early in the campaign (although the primaries are quite close), can Clinton bring down her very high negative ratings and if so, how?

2008 is supposed to be the year of the Democrat. But can it be with Clinton running?
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
well first off, they have no one else. Obama has lost his gusto and has made himself known as a lightweight among those who were never starry eyed in the first place. Everyone else is out of the question entirely. I think Clinton might have won a few moderates over with her latest doubletalk, i think most people see it as a sign that she WONT be removing troops if things keep getting better as they are now. I think she believes the general and his data.
 
Written By: josh b
URL: http://
The Republicans have been gift wrapped an election before and threw it away. And I sometimes suspect deliberately.

This one is theirs to lose again as well. And with some effort it looks like they can do it again.
 
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
Two words - Ron Paul.

If Ron "the only man who can save America" Paul runs as an independent, he will suck away enough votes from Giuliani to put Clinton in the white house. While Ron Paul couldn’t become POTUS even if he were the only one running, he has a rather fanatical following as well as some positions that are tempting to many conservatives (adios UN? Kick A$$!) and plenty of people could vote for him with a clean conscious.
 
Written By: Robb Allen
URL: http://blog.robballen.com
i caution you all to remember your history here. It is very, very unlikely that Hilary Clinton will become the nominee in 2008, but rather someone like Edwards or possibly Richardson. Look back at all the previous primaries where the nominee wasn’t the current Vice President: The nominee tends to be either the former Democratic Vice President/Vice Presidential nominee and someone who comes out of nowhere. No one ever thought Dean would loose the nomination to, of all people, John ’there’s another senator from Mass.?’ Kerry.

Democrats usually elect unknown underdogs: Clinton, Kerry, Carter, etc.
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
"plenty of people could vote for him [Ron Paul] with a clean conscious"

Especially if our other choices are Guiliani and Clinton.
 
Written By: Tito
URL: http://
Are you kidding me? Ron Paul is the Republican Kucinich.
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
These polls reflect some of my own intuition on Hillary. Those who follow politics closely get a skewed view of the reactions of the entire electorate to a candidate. Heck, Dean showed that the conventional wisdom of the political establishment was wrong even concerning the psychology of primary voters.

I have long felt that Hillary’s negatives among the general population are an albatross around her neck, making her chances to be elected in a general election very slim. The Republican candidate would be have to be weak for her to have a chance.

Even then, if she doesn’t keep a close rein on her shrillness, she’s doomed. The woman just doesn’t have the natural likeability that a large swath of voters demand in a president.

Her strategy seems to be to triangulate her way to a primary victory, and then open the goodie bag for general election. I’m expecting "chicken in every pot" rhetoric from her month after month, with little to say about foreign policy. That’s makes sense as her strategy because anything she says on Iraq is going to lose votes for her. But I don’t think this election can be bought with giveaways.
 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
But even then, Giuliani proves that Republicans are willing to give a pass on certain domestic issues for what they believe to be more important National Security ones. Giuliani is getting his support not just from moderate Republicans, but from hard core ones, too. If Giuliani wins the nomination and Hilary wins here, i don’t think it’ll be so nasty. Hilary, of all people, can’t afford to play the ’personal attacks’ game because of her own Presidential Albatross.
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
The Clintons know how to beat Giuliani: drive his negatives up as high as Hillary’s and focus especially on cultural conservatives to get them to stay home.

Thompson would be harder to beat, in theory, but he’s not coming into focus. I’ve said earlier that if he tries to finesse the Federal Marriage Amendment with that federalism jive he will not get the huge grassroots pro-marriage cultural conservatives out to support him in the primaries. They will not be finessed on that issue. So, Fred serves his friends in the entertainment industry on that issue at his own peril.

McCain might do better than anyone against Hillary, but he seems to be out of the race at the moment. But, as I’ve always said about McCain, he might make a great candidate (maybe not even that anymore) but he would be a terrible president.

My attitude is that I will not be forced into choosing between the lesser of two evils. I would never vote for Giuliani. I can’t at the moment conceive of myself voting for McCain, again because I can’t conceive of him being anything but an absolutely terrible president. But I would likely vote for Thompson. I think he would make an O.K. president, even though I don’t buy his down-home act, at all. After you’ve been a DC lobbyist, you don’t get to talk about your virginity.

So, the Clintons have the advantage of a weak Republican field and a savage political attack machine. What they will do to Giuliani will have his own backers running from him by the end of the campaign. The country will avert its eyes and stay away from the polls and Hillary will win. She’ll be the worst president ever, with glowing coverage from the NY Times and the major networks.

This will be the longest election cycle ever and the saddest.

The only competition that Hillary has from Obama and Edwards is in the "could they actually be a worse president than she would be," and that seems to be a legitimate contest. Obama and Edwards, incompetent and phony, both of them, are the Clintons without make-up or the political machine.

Still, I’m not going to put a McCain or a Giuliani forward simply because they’ve shown up. I don’t want to be responsible for them as a Republican.

Thompson would be a compromise. I think he has a truer ear for issues. And he could win. But he cannot win the nomination without cultural conservatives, who will either stay home or throw away their votes on Romney, if Thompson tries to jive them.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
I don’t think the Clinton Machine could build up Giuliani to be like Clinton because no Republican will listen to her: fact is, she scares most people to death. Even Democrats don’t like her, independents don’t trust her, and Republicans think she’s the reincarnation of Stalin. Trying to bring up Giuliani’s personal life would be disastrous for her, so they simply wont go there: it will be the ’unspoken truce’ between them. And while Hilary will bring up his social issues, it wont get Republicans to vote for her OR stay home, because of the stakes, whereas if Giuliani brings up the war issue, she’s sunk. Democrats WILL stay home because Giuliani is a moderate in their eyes and at least approachable.

We’ll see, McPhillips, and you bring up good points...but I can’t see any way Hilary can even compete nationally with Giuliani.
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
You all are making the assumption that Hillary can win the nomination. I don’t think she has that locked up yet. Don’t forget, primary voters aren’t the general electorate.

It’s really to early to tell anything.
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
actually, I’m not. I said in my first post
It is very, very unlikely that Hilary Clinton will become the nominee in 2008
But while primary voters aren’t the general electorate, primary voters do want to win the primaries. That’s why, while they adored Dean, they didn’t vote for him: he was unelectable.
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
Joel writes:
I can’t see any way Hilary can even compete nationally with Giuliani.
Well, you can’t see that now, while Giuliani’s image is still intact. But Rudy has unwashed laundry that will be dragged out only once it is certain that he has won the nomination. As soon as he’s the clear winner, then the Clinton machine will begin in earnest.

The Clinton’s know very well what Hillary’s numbers show, and they know exactly what they have to do, and they salivate over Giuliani. He will be attacked from so many directions at once that he won’t recognize himself. They’ll hit him with waves of true stuff, half-true stuff, and outright lies. And if he tries to counter-attack on Hillary, that will always be dismissed as "old discredited news."

And the Clintons will, as I noted, go hard after the cultural conservatives in the GOP base. They will make Giuliani, already questionable with those voters, so unpalatable that they will simply not vote, or go out and vote for a third-party protest candidate.

Yes, people are terrified of Hillary Clinton, and she and the Clinton machine will show exactly why people are terrified in the coming election cycle. They do not plan on losing. And see Giuliani as their easiest shot, Thompson probably as their most difficult opponent.

I don’t think that pro-life, pro-marriage, pro-gun voters will vote for a candidate who is supposedly "their" candidate who has never supported any of their issues and then face an administration that is supposedly "theirs" which they will then have to fight over their issues.

It would be far easier to simply stand in opposition to everything that Hillary does than to face a president who you supposedly support but doesn’t do anything for you.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
Again, valid points...but i can’t see how bringing in the personal life of a candidate can help her: it will backfire. Also, she has a pretty big credibility gap herself. But it’s true Giuliani is easily assailable.

I agree that Thompson is the best possible choice against Clinton: he provides everything the Republicans need to vote for him and the things Reagan Democrats liked about Reagan.
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
Keith writes:
You all are making the assumption that Hillary can win the nomination. I don’t think she has that locked up yet. Don’t forget, primary voters aren’t the general electorate.
Eighteen months to two years ago, I had serious doubts about Hillary being able to win the nomination. I thought that her time had passed (and actually in any real historical sense it has), but you can’t keep a good Stalinist down, and the Clinton political machine is huge and powerful. Larger and more powerful than the Democratic Party itself, if I may be so bold.[1]

Plus, Obama and Edwards, her chief rivals, are awful candidates. They really are. Obama’s early surge was, however, an indication of the dissatisfaction with the idea of Hillary as the nominee. He was the "hope" candidate, the George McGovern for a new generation as well as the old Vietnam generation. But that surge has quelled and the grim forces of the Clinton machine have taken charge.

These people are relentless and revanchist, I might add. They want pay-back for having their dream ruined the first time out.

[1] Remember also that the Clinton machine is not simply a domestic operation. It’s international, and not really an American political operation.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
I have left-leaning friends who HATE Hillary - if you gave them a sort of moderate GOP candidate, i.e. not a fundie Christian social con, they might vote for them over Hillary. (See how Arnie does in it California.) I suspect Rudy would do well with those people, but the social cons will pout and stay home.

It’s sad really, that the social cons can’t accept that maybe once in a while they should also take one for the team and make the tent slightly larger. But I do get it that they are voting on their beliefs and that’s perfectly proper.

p.s. Hillary might even get my vote since I view her as fairly moderate, and after 2006, perhaps it would be wise for the GOP to realize that its not just the social cons and such that can stay home and cause troubler...the independents, the libertarians, and the socially liberal GOP leaning voters can stay home, too.

I also have to say the GOP primary is actually much more interesting and important than the media is playing it. I think a Rudy/Fred or Fred/Rudy ticket could do well.

One key will be to NOT overplay the immigration issue either way. Its one thing to oppose illegal immigration in a gracious fashion, it’s another to pull a Tory party and make the GOP look intolerant. Watch out for that.


 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
Is Clinton the "One"?
Well, unless someone cuts off her head and steals the quickening then y.. wait, we’re not talking about Highlander are we?

My bad.
 
Written By: Kav
URL: http://livingrealworld.blogspot.com
OTOH, those on the left that hate Hillary are often driven by the war issue, so I doubt they can vote for Rudy EXCEPT if the war in Iraq becomes far less important, i.e. low casualty.
 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
HRC is the candidate because the Dems want to win. Plus you know about 50% of the anti-war crowd will be more than happy to support Hillary at War and of course will explain any victory we have in Iraq as "Hillary came in and cleaned up Bush’s mess." And maybe they would be right...
 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
Joel writes about the coming Clinton attack on Giuliani if he gets the nomination:
but i can’t see how bringing in the personal life of a candidate can help her: it will backfire.
The personal life stuff will just be floated out there to allow voters to conjoin inferences with what’s done to him on his public behavior and his positions.

His relationship with Bernie Kerik (his last NYPD commissioner and later business partner) will be used to show that Rudy has poor personal judgement. (Kerik’s reputation has been carefully destroyed — with a great deal of help from Kerik — and the Clinton’s will use Kerik as a mirror into Giuliani’s character.)

They’ll use Giuliani’s unfortunate bad relations with the FDNY, which lost roughly 350 of its members on 9/11, to "expose" Giuliani’s leadership on 9/11, which is his big selling point nationally.

He’ll be shown as an authoritarian to libertarians, a loose morals advocate to values voters, and a partisan Republican to independents. And there will be some truth to all of it. It will be fresh to voters nationally, while similar attacks on Hillary will be "old news" and "nothing we haven’t already heard."

By the end of the campaign, you will not recognize the Giuliani you see today.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
Man, Rudy vs. Hillary would be a mud fest...I almost want to see it.
 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
Ron Paul is no Ross Perot.
 
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
Harun writes:
Plus you know about 50% of the anti-war crowd will be more than happy to support Hillary
95% is more like it.

Only about 5% of the anti-war crowd will remain "over-committed" to that issue to deny their vote to Hillary. She’s a cult figure on the Left, and the fact that Howard Dean (the Clinton’s approved pick for DNC chairman) overheated the antiwar sentiment in the Democratic base during the last election cycle will be carefully rectified. Dean will play a big role in that.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
Harun writes:
Man, Rudy vs. Hillary would be a mud fest...I almost want to see it.
By mid-August you’ll stop following it, it will be so grotesque.

I won’t vote for Rudy, under any circumstances, including because I start feeling sorry for him. I admired him as mayor of NYC, though, and I just hate to think of what the Clintons are going to do to him.

I don’t think he should have sought the GOP nomination.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
If Hillary’s the nominee, she will probably lose, though the Democrats will retain control of the House and Senate.

But front runners in the year before the election often end up losing that status as the real voting takes place. That’s why it’s often misleading to follow campaigns too early, it’s like baseball in the pre-season. From what I’ve seen from both parties, there isn’t anyone out there that makes we want to start paying much attention either. Maybe Ron Paul, I’d need to learn more about his style of libertarianism.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Boris Erb writes:
Maybe Ron Paul, I’d need to learn more about his style of libertarianism.
A year from now you’ll be down on your knees eating Hillary’s p***y, Boris.

Don’t kid yourself.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
"Electability". I remember John Kerry’s resurgence in the 2004 campaign based on the fact that Democrats thought he was more "electable" than Howard Dean and the lot. Amazing how poorly that turned out.
Yeah. How many people go to a job interview and then focus on what they did 35 years ago?

And worse, if what you did 35 years ago included lies that were sure to come out in the interview?
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
:Cue Erb:

 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
Are you kidding me? Ron Paul is the Republican Kucinich.
I suspect they are serious. Probably in need of medication, but serious.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Don writes about Kerry winning the ’04 Democratic nomination:
Yeah. How many people go to a job interview and then focus on what they did 35 years ago?
No one, and I mean no one, not even me, and I detested Kerry, wanted Kerry to lose more than the Clintons.

And who could believe that they didn’t do everything in their power, short of being caught at it, to make sure that he did?

I never believed he could get elected, but I doubt that the Clintons, if they believed that themselves, would sit still with it. They would want to make sure.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
I won’t vote for Rudy, under any circumstances,
I’d vote for him. Even though I don’t agree with him on a lot of things.

One thing: I’m not all impressed with dirty laundry. Bill Clinton had plenty including public lies, and it didn’t hurt him that much. Bottom line to me is that 48% of voters will vote against Hillery no matter what.

The Clinton machine is as overrated as Karl Rove.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
No one, and I mean no one, not even me, and I detested Kerry, wanted Kerry to lose more than the Clintons.
The vets Kerry betrayed and smeered wanted him to loose more than anyone.

Kerry didn’t loose becuse of the Clintons. He lost because he was a pathetic candidate who’s most memorable actions are his lies to get medals 35 years ago.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
I never believed he could get elected, but I doubt that the Clintons, if they believed that themselves, would sit still with it. They would want to make sure.
Generally I agree with you. But not on this.

Sure, Kerry wasn’t going along with the Clinton plan. But the Clinton’s couldn’t openly shoot down Kerry, and they can only do so much under the table.

The Clintons are ruthless and they are good at raising money. Bill has good political skills, and both have support in the Democratic Party. But they don’t secretly control things.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
I don’t know much about Fred Thompson, but I do think that a victory for him might be good for everyone in at least one sense; a Thompson victory would instantly make it "common sense" that delaying one’s candidacy is an ideal strategy. I don’t know where else he might take the country, but at least he might reverse this insane trend of earlier and earlier primaries and campaigning.

Mr. McPhillips, what is it about McCain that makes you think he’d be a terrible president? I myself was disappointed to see his campaign start to implode; I thought he’s shown the most consistent leadership regarding Iraq and would be the ideal candidate to continue/win the war.
 
Written By: James O
URL: http://
James writes:
what is it about McCain that makes you think he’d be a terrible president?
His erratic personality, which he tries to cover with that sotto voce persona. I think that he would be an erratic president, his consistent view on Iraq notwithstanding.

Don writes:
The Clinton machine is as overrated as Karl Rove.
Rove is a great political strategist, so on that score I don’t think he’s overrated. He’s overrated as a "master manipulator," which is what I think you’re referring to vis a vis the Clintons.

The Clintons have an international operation. A good, symbolic example of that is Sidney Blumenthal, their former White House hit man, writing hit pieces from the U.K. for the Guardian for the last several years.

The Clinton’s domestic political operation has two things going for it: a cult of personality wing and a political enforcement wing.

The Clintons, you must remember, do not care about any Democrats but themselves. Occasionally they go out of their way to help someone, but only if the return on it is of use to them. Most Democrats and Democratic candidates slobber over the Clintons, and prominent Democrats and Democratic candidates who speak out against them are few, because the enforcement can be harsh.

and,
The Clintons are ruthless and they are good at raising money. Bill has good political skills, and both have support in the Democratic Party. But they don’t secretly control things.
The Clintons work in the background to a far greater extent than they work in public. And even in the background there is deep background. I didn’t mean to imply that they defeated Kerry, only that they would certainly do whatever they could to see him defeated. They had to love him as a candidate because he was such a bad one. Plus, I think it’s pretty obvious, to me at least, that there are a lot of Democratic mainstays, many of whom would have been working in the Kerry campaign, who were Clinton devotees, as opposed to purely Democratic mainstays.

You just saw the other day how the Clintons got a story they didn’t like killed at GQ magazine. Not too much fuss about that, huh? Well, that’s the way it works for them and with them. About this Hsu character, he’ll be off at the community for retired bagmen before you can say Johnny Huang.

The Clintons do both behind the scenes and hidden in plain sight work. They take a great deal of pride in it, and savor it as part of the power they exert.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
You all are making the assumption that Hillary can win the nomination. I don’t think she has that locked up yet. Don’t forget, primary voters aren’t the general electorate.

The problem, Keith, is the size of the Democratic field.

Hilary has higher negatives among Dem primary voters than either Obama or Edwards, but the anti-Hilary vote is split. For every minor candidate that drops out, very few votes will go to Hilary.

If everyone but either Edwards or Obama dropped out today - or even next month - the remaining guy would beat her. But with the field split so heavily, a pro-hilary minority remains a plurality. If both edwards and obama hang around, the odds of her losing are low. not none or tiny, but not good.

I don’t like her at all, but I’ll vote for her any way. In 2000, I’d have
 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
McCain:

1) No executive experience (except several hours in a jet 30-odd years ago).

2) Temper issues (like Hillery and Dean).

3) Supports campaing finance reform and gun control, and otherwise is wrong on various issues.

4) Does stupid pet tricks for the adoring press & public acclaim.

When he outgrows 2 or 3 of the above I might consider him.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Hilary has higher negatives among Dem primary voters than either Obama or Edwards, but the anti-Hilary vote is split.
She has higher negatives among pretty much everyone than anyone else in the race.

However, I’m not sure Obama has a better chance in the general than Clinton; his star is going to fade the more we see him. Until he grows up some, then maybe he can turn it around.

Edwards, on the other hand, is ready for pasture.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Martin,

I tend to agree with what you said, but I still think that the Clinton "reach" is limited.

For example, Bill beat a mediocre Republican candidate in ’92 with the help of a strong third party campaign that sucked up a lot of conservative votes. And he won with a minority of the vote.

He did the same again in ’96.

Frankly, I think his wife needs the stars to line up the same way as they did for Bill, and I’m not convinced they lined up due to a Clinton plot. It was luck.

One advantage of Hil/Bil is an adoring press. Hence the GQ thing gets less notice. I agree with what Francis said in another thread, that the GQ thing could be considered free markets at work, but it also is an insight into Hil/Bil. And the fact that the press is inclined to give them a pass.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
I spend quite a lot of time following this stuff. Not only can Clinton win, I think she will (and I think she’s the most electable of the Democratic lot). But she has overperformed, in my estimation, in the Democratic primary. She has been involved in several campaigns where she (or her husband) have been written off, and has overperformed in all of them. She isn’t going to make many mistakes, and is going to run a tight, efficient, ruthless campaign.

Even with that, on a level field any of our top tier would beat her like a tin drum. But this isn’t going to be a level playing field. The Republican brand is in the crapper, and isn’t turning around. Most of the frontrunners can be tied to Bush one way or another.

Her negatives are high, but they also are unlikely to move much in the next year. There isn’t too much new that can be thrown at her.
 
Written By: Sean
URL: http://www.myelectionanalysis.com
Don writes:
I still think that the Clinton "reach" is limited.

For example, Bill beat a mediocre Republican candidate in ’92 with the help of a strong third party campaign that sucked up a lot of conservative votes. And he won with a minority of the vote.

He did the same again in ’96.
The Clinton reach is fairly extensive, especially in the world of the media and international elites. I would explain it this way: people fear them.

There’s no question that Hillary is a weak candidate. Her negatives are close to 50%, give or take, which in a conventional election would mean that she’s a loser. But this will not be a conventional election.

What I tried to explain in this thread is how the Clintons will beat Rudolph Giuliani (i.e., by driving up his negatives as high or higher than Hillary’s).

That much the Clinton machine is capable of, with Giuliani, which is why they salivate over him.

I think that a good candidate, of which the GOP has exactly none, really, would beat her pretty smartly. Thompson is, right now, the closest thing they have to a good candidate, and I think he can beat her. But I don’t think that he will get the nominations.

On the other hand, I think that the Clintons would burn Giuliani down, to the ground.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/

I think she’s the most electable of the Democratic lot

Gee, if Obama’s negatives are vastly lower than Clinton’s, how do you explain how the data seems to run directly contradictory to your point of view?
 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
It might just be because Obama (and Edwards) are foreign policy lightweights to the degree that they make Bush look like some kind of elder statesman (quite a feat!) Hell, Bush had already had five years of experience as governor of Texas (i.e. an executive position); compared to Obama’s two years (thus far) as US legislator.)
 
Written By: James O
URL: http://
A year from now you’ll be down on your knees eating Hillary’s p***y, Boris.
Not if he has to rely on HillaryCare, he won’t be.

(Oooooh, I’m so ashamed of myself right now.)
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
Gee, if Obama’s negatives are vastly lower than Clinton’s, how do you explain how the data seems to run directly contradictory to your point of view?
Clinton’s "negatives" are all the people who will never vote for her. No matter what (unless perhaps she was running against OBL).

Obama doesn’t have this problem, potentially lots of people would vote for him, if he could only give them a reason to vote for him. His problem is that he can’t come up with this reason.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Pouge,

So what do you know about Hillery? As far as any of the rest of us here know, the real estate in question hasn’t been used in decades.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
"Gee, if Obama’s negatives are vastly lower than Clinton’s, how do you explain how the data seems to run directly contradictory to your point of view?"

Because Hillary’s negatives are set, IMHO. They are what they are. And she will fight like the dickins to win.

Obama can’t even bring himself to throw a decent punch against Hillary, and he’s kind of boxed himself in with his "different kind of politician" spiel. Nice guys finish last, especially in politics. Add in the fact that he’s never actually run a hotly contested campaign, and you have a scenario where Rudy would absolutely tear him to pieces in the general election.

As for John Edwards, I just don’t see the wealthy-trial-attorney-turned-Williams-Jennings-Bryan schtick flying.
 
Written By: Sean
URL: http://www.myelectionanalysis.com
A year from now you’ll be down on your knees eating Hillary’s p***y, Boris.
I suppose he’s not heard Ralpher Nader is running again this year?

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
Sean writes:
Hillary’s negatives are set, IMHO.
Well, we don’t really know that. Roughly 50% of voters have a negative view of her. That goes up and down a little in various polls.

The strategy seems to be to get people used to her horrible personality slowly, so that at some point they’ll just accept it, and when the general election campaign is in swing voters will not be reacting to her as negatively as they usually do whenever she’s more fully exposed to public view.

You just saw her dodge a serious bullet with this Norman Hsu character, which got written off immediately as just another weird little Chinese guy breaking the damn campaign finance law and who cares about weird little Chinese guys or the campaign finance laws. So it comes out as one more innoculation for Hillary: "Oh, the right wing is always accusing me of something. Whatever."

But here’s what someone with a roughly 50% disapprove rating has to face going into the general: the relentless barrage of negative advertising. Hillary has never had to face that.

The Clintons are hoping for Giuliani as the opponent because they know they can disfigure him so grossly that Republicans will start walking away from him or just stay home.

But Hillary herself has never faced the sort of barrage that she will face in the general election. The kitchen sink is coming her way, and it’s going to be the merger of her personality and her ideology, in those ads, that could drive her negatives up to 55%, maybe even 60%. That would mean that only a very serious third-party candidate could save her, someone who would let her win with just 40% of the popular vote.

Giuliani, unfortunately, with the help of liberal media bias (and the liberal media is still where the big action is in a presidential election, in my opinion), can be mangled as badly or worse than Hillary. That’s why the Clintons have to be hoping he gets the nomination.

This will be an election where it will be very important for Democrats to suppress turnout among Republicans, and with Giuliani as the nominee that’s going to be easy. If the Republican turnout drops by, say, five million (from the all-time high in ’04), and the Democrats maintain their turnout, she could win, depending on what independent voters do.

But the real X factor for Hillary will be what’s done to her in swing states with negative ads. She’s a monster to start out with, so it won’t take an overplayed hand to make that stick in the voters’ minds.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
WHEN HILLARY IS ELECTED PRESIDENT THERE WON’T BE ANY FLIGHT DELAYS.

GLOBAL WARMING WILL END.

NOT ONE HURRICANE WILL HIT THE USA.

THERE WILL BE FREE HEALTH CARE FOR EVERY PERSON.

WHOLE FOODS WILL GIVE FREE FOOD TO EVERYONE.

OIL COMPANIES WILL SHUT DOWN.

SUV’S WILL BE OUTLAWED.

THE CHURCH, CONSERVATIVES AND ANYONE WHO OPPOSES LIBERALS WILL BE EXECUTED ON THE SPOT.

VOTE HILLARY. SHE CARES.
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
Not only that, JoelC, but if there is a flight delay or global warming, or a hurricane, etc., it will be because The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy is out to undermine her Presidency.

It’s convenient to have a scapegoat well in advance.
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com/
Joel writes:
WHEN HILLARY IS ELECTED PRESIDENT...
One of the things that will definitely happen over her first year in office will be the transformation of Iraq into an ennobling cause and the heralding of Hillary! as the greatest wartime leader since FDR.

She’ll appear on the cover of the New York Times magazine as Joan d’Arc.

You’ll see wonderful articles about how the "antiwar community" has learned to appreciate the good that war can accomplish, IF it is waged by the right commander-in-chief.

And Boris Erb will come around and say, "I never claimed that all wars are evil, or that American power could never be useful in achieving peace. Why do people keep focusing on views I expressed years ago. Things change, and people adapt their views to present reality. All I ever said about Iraq was that we needed to cooperate with other countries and the UN and, look, that’s what Hillary has done."

And then after a huge terrorist attack on the United States the liberal mantra will be: "Hillary has not had sufficient time to overcome the legacy of George Bush, who angered Muslim youth and brought this down on us."
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider