What do you all think about Hilary chances of winning this time around?

[akbacchus_BC]

[merrily]

1. Primary or general?

[akbacchus_BC]

4. Primary, do you think Hilary will be the nominee?

[AtomicKitten]

2. The primary? Good.* The general? Not likely.

* unless Elizabeth Warren runs

[akbacchus_BC]

5. Elizabeth Warren is not running as we all know!

[AtomicKitten]

6. thus the asterix

[akbacchus_BC]

11. Call it intuition, if Hilary gets the nod, I would be surprised!

She is no one's favourite at this time.

[AtomicKitten]

15. The campaign's announcement that they'll spend $100 million in the primary

... was almost certainly meant to deter any prospective competition.

[JaneyVee]

22. Except all of the polls say otherwise.

[JaneyVee]

3. 50-50

[akbacchus_BC]

7. That is my feeling, 50-50. Republicans hate Democracts!

If Hilary gets the nomination, then it is all good but for some reason, I do not think she will. She is not only old but her career is not the best! I could be wrong!

[JaneyVee]

9. lolwut?

[brooklynite]

60. Hillary Clinton won't get nominated because of her age, and she'll lose to...?

[NYC_SKP]

8. 5150 too close to call in a crazy race. She will not win the General if she wins the primary.

Can't appeal to middle america, independents or any of the right leaning voters or intelligent working class regular folk.

[JaneyVee]

10. unskewed polls!

[akbacchus_BC]

12. If you think Hilary is viable, then I respect your opinion.

She is not Presidential material!

She needs to go away and play with her grands if Chelsea decides to have children.

Let me reiterate, Hilary is not Presidential material and most of us know it!

[JaneyVee]

13. most of who? she's waaaay ahead of competition.

[NYC_SKP]

14. If I ran a poll with one Democrat against a half dozen Republicans....

And that's what these polls do, the one Democrat comes out ahead of all the others.

If you poll one on one, however, it comes out much differently.

After the Republicans pick their candidate and ours has to face them down, it won't be pretty.

Unless we pick someone with less baggage and more ideas, fresh ideas, and passion for the working american and jobs here, not someplace else.

[JaneyVee]

20. Those polls included everyone, even Warren, O'Malley, Bernie.

Of course it will get closer one on one, but no one in the Republican party is beating her if she's the nominee.

[akbacchus_BC]

36. You hit the nail on the head, and Hilary is not a

viable candidate. I cannot imagine a country with over 400 million people regurgitating politicians. Bush, Clinton, Bush and another old Clinton, Give me a break. Among all the wonderful brains in America, all you guys have are these dynasties? Now am pissed!

[NYC_SKP]

43. Bill Clinton ran a brilliant game, first campaign to deeply exploit the science of marketing / media

They fought tough, they hired the slickest people, focus groups, ad men and women, and fine tuned it, raising campaigning to a new level of art and science.

Ethics and principal went out the door. He went through with the execution of Ricky Ray Rector during the campaign just to look tough on crime, no other reason.

That is when I lost all respect for him and his wife, who has taken the game up several notches.

I didn't buy it back in 1992 and I'm not buying it now.

[brooklynite]

61. Presidential Polling is always one on one...

You're not paying attention.

Clinton - Bush


Clinton - Cruz


Clinton - Walker


Clinton - Rubio

[NYC_SKP]

62. Missing the point. A field of one versus a field of five or six, the person in field of one wins all

After Hillary is one on a field of five or six and the country gets to learn more about them, her numbers will drop and drop and drop.

You understand that, right?

She and supporters are counting on her being alone in the field, that helps her in the primaries.

Once it's her in a field of one and a GOP is a field of one, in the General Election, she will not poll well and will probably lose.

[still_one]

30. Most of who is the poster who wrote it, and believes most everyone has the same thoughts

Which is quite faulty reasoning since it is only an opinion with nothing to back it up. Though the polls may change, at this point in time Hillary is leading, not only in the primaries, but also in the general election

That represents more than just a personal opinion, that is what it is today

What is interesting of those who profess Hillary cannot win in the general, they also are of the opinion that their candidate can, whether that be Warren who is not running, and Bernie who will.

I would like point out that whichever candidate someone supports, those supporters believe their candidate will win. Polls are the closest thing we have to measure the viability of a prospective candidate other than the actual election.

Anyone who says otherwise, is just projecting what they hope for.

When George McGovern ran for President, everyone of his supporters believed he could win, including me, in spite of the polls indicating the contrary.

The other falicy that exhibits itself especially among those on DU who do not view Hillary as ideal, is that fact that she does have a lot of supporters, and to ignore that is really willful ignorance.

That does not mean that the candidate they support won't eventually take the lead, but at this time that is not the case.

[Art_from_Ark]

37. A few comments

George McGovern was running against an incumbent who had been a dirty campaigner going back all the way to his 1946 Congressional campaign. In fact, he was such a dirty campaigner, he had his henchmen burglarize the national headquarters of the Democratic Party a few months before the election.

McGovern also shot himself in the foot by first declaring his unwavering support for his original choice of running mate, Thomas Eagleton, then dumping him because of the controversy over Eagleton's consultations with a psychiatrist.

Finally, leading in the polls at this stage doesn't mean a whole lot. It's still 18 months before the next presidential election, and things can change dramatically between now and then.

[still_one]

45. My point was we believed McGovern had a chance to win. Hell, the Goldwater supporters

believed Goldwater had a chance to win. I am NOT trying to reanalyze the elections, I am pointing out that supporters of a particular candidate will always believe their candidate will win. That's a given

As for the polls, all I pointed out was at this time it shows Hillary is leading. That does not mean it will remain so, but at this time it is.

When people start to make comments that Hillary cannot win the general election, that is purely based on an individual opinion, as of right now the polls don't indicate that. Can the polls change, absolutely, but this is where it stands now.

As Bernie becomes more well known, I have no doubt that his poll numbers will increase. How much will depend on how resonant his message is.

If Bernie was leading in the polls, I would not say the are meaningless. It represent a snapshot in time. Tomorrow may be different, and yes, things can change dramatically, but that isn't the point I was arguing. The point I was arguing is that people saying Hillary cannot win, is nonsense, and the poll numbers today indicate that. the People who say Bernie cannot win is also nonsense. He is just starting to make himself known. We will not know impact Bernie will have for some time, because his message needs to get out.

[Art_from_Ark]

51. OK, I see what you're saying

But I knew that McGovern had blown it after the Eagleton controversy. Those were the days when mentioning someone's name together with the word "psychiatrist" was enough to get them labeled "crazy". That's one reason why the Daniel Ellsberg story in the news often referred to "Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist"-- to discredit Ellsberg.

And while I supported Mondale, I knew he didn't stand a chance after he pledged to raise people's taxes.

As for claiming that Democratic Candidate X or Y is a "shoo-in" for the presidency next year, I certainly won't go that route, especially after what happened in 2000.

[redstateblues]

17. In your opinion who is?

[akbacchus_BC]

38. Kuchinich!

Honest guy and he will deliver on his promises. Another one is Richardson, he too will deliver.

Too bad that Edwards fucked up! It amazes me that republicans get away with shit but when a Democract makes a mistake, it sticks. I liked Edwards, he truely was trying to make a difference.

[onehandle]

19. Chelsea already has a child.

What year do you think this is?

[JaneyVee]

21. Yeah that seemed like a red flag.

[akbacchus_BC]

39. Really, do I care? If Hilary is a grand mama, she should

go baby sit and leave politics alone as she knows that no matter what, she will never ever be the President of the US! I do not understand why she thinks she is entitled!

[NanceGreggs]

23. Well, let's see ...

According to you, HRC's "base consists of the banks and the left-leaning 1%ers, registered Dems who don't follow politics and just go with the name they know, and folks who are acting out of fear of losing to a Republican, who think only Clinton can pull it off."

And now - again according to you - she "can't appeal to middle america, independents or any of the right leaning voters or intelligent working class regular folk."

I have to wonder where Hillary's numbers come from in the polls and surveys that show wide support. I guess it's just all of us dumb banker 1%ers who don't follow politics, vote out of fear, aren't middle Americans, or intelligent working class folk.

As I said to you on the last go-round, if you feel compelled to convince yourself (and others) that anyone who supports a politician you don't like is dumb, ill-informed, and motivated-by-fear, you might want to think about your own apparent need to do so.

[NYC_SKP]

25. Yes, and she gets a LOT of low information voters, people with nothing to do but take phone polls...

...in between episodes of Real World and Housewives and the Kardashians and stuff like that there.

So, she has the 1% on the one hand, they won't be hurt by another Clinton in office, they did very well the last time.

And she's got a fair chunk of that fluffy American middle, the reality TV show set.

Who answers phone polls anymore?

[NanceGreggs]

29. Seriously, dude.

"If you feel compelled to convince yourself (and others) that anyone who supports a politician you don't like is dumb, ill-informed, and motivated-by-fear, you might want to think about your own apparent need to do so."

There is something really creepy about a need to insult, belittle, and question the intelligence of those who support a candidate you don't like, simply because you don't agree with their choice.

When you attack any politician on their record, that's fair game. When you are compelled to attack that politician's supporters - based on nothing of substance, but by way of stereotyping them based on your own imaginings - there is something very skewed in your thinking.

[akbacchus_BC]

41. Nance, good to see you and I hope you and the family are well!

Let's not predict anything but am pretty sure Hilary Clinton will not be the next President of the US. She fucked up big time in 2008. Hope the US can survive a republican!

[Cha]

58. Agree.. which brings to mind all the insults Obama supporters have had on this board over

the years. Not that I care because I consider the source. "BOG" "Obamabots&quot which greenwald started up afaik and of course his followers latched on to it.

Is that you, Nance.. a "1%er"? "Fluff"? Talk about overkill.. smh.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

63. It's NYC_SKP who is insulated

He's the embodiment of the upper east side Manhattan socialite who couldn't believe Richard Nixon beat McGovern because " all her friends voted for him."

[akbacchus_BC]

31. I think Americans are fed up by now. It looks like no matter who they vote for, it is the same!

Not one person running for office even remember that there is whole class of people who are not middle class, they are the working poor.

[NYC_SKP]

34. Yes. I posted to that matter a week ago.

That the powers that be have perfected the perfect plan in which no matter which party wins, wealth inequity will continue to grow and the lower and middle classes and working poor will continue to decline.

It's crystal clear to me, but I find myself in the minority.

[redstateblues]

16. If a black guy with Hussein for a middle name

can win with 54% I think Hillary has a good chance if we can GOTV

[NYC_SKP]

24. OTOH, Clinton lost to a black dude named Hussein Obama. That's pretty weak. nt

[redstateblues]

26. True but it was very close- A self avowed socialist has no chance in my state on Super Tuesday

or in the general-Hillary might. I like Bernie but if you think Hillary can't win Bernie will be lucky if he wins his home state. If Bernie had Obama's charisma he might have a chance. I like the dynamic duo.

[NYC_SKP]

27. Does the average voter today know what a "socialist" is? Do they care?

I don't know if it carries the negative connotation it once did.

[akbacchus_BC]

32. I may be wrong but Hilary has lost the black votes when she

attacked Obama during the primaries. Big frigging mistake on her and her husband's part! They forgot who are their voting base!

[akbacchus_BC]

42. Wow, Obama won fair and straight. you are now showing you true colours!

Did you actually fucking say that? Obama was elected!

[NYC_SKP]

46. "Weak" meaning that Hillary was pretty weak if she couldn't win that race.

Obama was hecka strong and I was a huge huge fan!

Look:

[onehandle]

18. Primary: 100%. General: 100%

Unless Donald Trump gets the GOP nomination.

Then, General 101%

[akbacchus_BC]

33. LOL, Donald Trump, Americans are not that crazy to vote for a fool and his money!

[AgingAmerican]

28. If she doesn't self destruct like last time...

...she has a shot.

But last time it was hers to lose, and she lost it by going full negative.

[akbacchus_BC]

35. Yes, she did. I am wondering who was her advisor to

go awol on Obama.

What I really would have liked is that Hilary won in 2008, picked Obama as her VP and that would ensure another 8 years for Democrats, but man, she went batshit crazy!

[AgingAmerican]

44. On hindsight, I believe she would have been better than Obama

...in dealing with Republicans. She has brass balls. Obama turned out to be too eager to please the GOP, rather than standing up to them. The GOP got things from Obama they wouldn't have dared to go after themselves. We got a few crumbs.

[akbacchus_BC]

47. I have to agree with you. Obama thought he could work with the Republicans but little did he know

that they hated him.

Ideally, if the dynasty survived, it would have been Hilary but you know she would not have picked Obama as her VP!

If Hilary had won, you all will be bombing Syria and the whole Middle East, that is what your politicians do best. Bomb countries.

Devils do not comprise, Obama is not better than Hilary Clinton!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

40. Primary - probable. General - A toss-up.

In the primary she's got lotsa money from her rich pals and corporations. She also has the backing of the establishment "not as bad" party.

In the general she'll probably face a "moderate" Republican. And, she still has more unexplored baggage to be exposed.

[still_one]

48. There is no such thing as a moderate republican. Jeb Bush was considered a "moderate republican",

but as he speaks to the issues, he is far from it.

The only thing we know right now is that the poll numbers indicate Hillary is competitive.

It is too early to tell if Bernie will be competitive, and that will take some time because it takes time to get his message out, and see how it connects with the people

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

50. Perception is everything in an election.

"Considered" a moderate, leftist, liberal, socialist, etc is what counts to most voters. Hell, even some Democrats "consider" Hillary a liberal in the face of her actual stances.

[akbacchus_BC]

49. This is why I feel that electoral process is necessary. Why does a politician

need to raise so much money to run?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

52. And, why do so many believe there's no quid pro quo in getting the money?

"When politics enter . . . government, nothing resulting there from in the way of crimes and infamies is then incredible.  It actually enables one to accept and believe the impossible." Mark Twain

[NYC_SKP]

53. We are being told right now, in the current war for support, that there is no quid quo pro...

...that unless we have absolute proof, then suggesting a quid quo pro, or even expressing the concern that there are appearances of potential conflicts of interest, that we are RW trolls or helping the GOP.

Seriously, these things hurt our brand and make the lead candidate an easy target to take down in the GE.

[Gothmog]

54. I think that HRC will win the nomination and should be favored to win the general

[Vinca]

55. If she's the candidate in the general, she'll win.

But I also think Bernie could win. I would love to see a debate between Bernie and any of the Republicans.

[Orsino]

56. She'll win. n/t

[ileus]

57. Near 100%....maybe only 98%...maybe.

[hrmjustin]

59. I think she has a good chance but any Democrat will have a hard time this tme.