2008: Hillary Clinton vs. John McCain - Who Wins?

[SeveneightyWhoa]

Throw away your biases and vote with your mind rather than your heart..

[Goldmund]

1. Hm

Liberals don't hate Hillary as much as conservatives hate McCain; liberals don't hate McCain as much as conservatives hate Hillary. So, it'd be about even. :D

[Kurovski]

2. Good assessment!

A close enough election to once again steal.

[President Jesus]

3. yes but...

no one, not even the Big Dog, trumps their hate for Hillary. And most liberals do not hate McCain.

The best case scenario for us is for the GOP to nominate someone the crypto-nationalists hate, and for us to nominate someone they are indifferent towards. Hillary certainly does not fit the bill for that. We need them to stay home (like they used to) in 2008.

As for McCain vs. Hillary, I believe if the election were today McCain would slaughter her 65-35.

[Warpy]

4. I agree, although I think it would be a bit closer

but the difference would still be over 10%, and that constitutes a landslide.

Hillary Clinton is viscerally hated by weak men, conservatives, and many women stuck in bad marriages (she had a chance to get out and didn't).

She's heartily disliked by progressives and liberals alike for her DLC, antilabor conservatism.

If she's the best the party can do in 2008, I'll be pleasing myself and voting Socialist.

I'm done with DLC traitors.

[Ken Burch]

6. Can't blame you.

I'm sick of the Left getting blamed for Hillary's bullshit.

She's never been on our side.

[Rowdyboy]

5. If by some enormous fluke McCain won the Rep nomination, there

would be a huge party split with the conservative/theocrat wing running one of their on as an independent. Under those circumstances, Hillary might just pull it off.

Thats assuming Hillary runs.

[fujiyama]

9. I agree

there would be a split on their side, but there'd be one on ours as well.

Moderates and independants would go overwhelmingly for McCain. While many liberals now despise him after his ass kissing of Bush last year, most people don't care and still admire him.

I think he'd win and pretty easilly at that, especially against someone like Hillary.

[leyton]

7. McCain with at least 35 states.

Neither candidate would excite the extremes of the party, but McCain would win mainstream Republicans and 75% of independents. Hillary would go the way of Dukakis, winning most of the same states (though not Iowa or WV).

[Selatius]

8. I'm voting third party (not Nader, he doesn't represent any parties anymo)

Hillary is too close to the DLC for comfort. If there are no viable third party candidates, I'll simply write someone in like Kucinich.

[porphyrian]

10. Obama.

Hillary has too many people who hate her, deservedly or not.

[Johonny]

11. I can't believe the neocons

will let McCain get a chance. A McCain win is a lose of power for too many established non-elected leaches. They'll put their money behind 1 of their own just like they did in 2000.

[AP]

12. According to Marist Poll (May 6) she loses to McCain 50:42

"Although Hillary Clinton is competitive nationwide, her only comfortable lead is against
Florida Governor and presidential brother Jeb Bush... she runs neck and
neck with Rudy Giuliani and would lose to John McCain."

Of Edwards, Kerry and Clinton, only Edwards beats Guiliani, and he comes the closest to McCain, 46:43.

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:y2ouyX6db_UJ:www.realclearpolitics.com/RCP_PDF/Marist_5_05.pdf+marist+mccain+clinton+edwards&hl=en&client=safari

[Deja Q]

13. McCain.

I made my own separate post as to why:

The repukes will spin things to make Hillary look bad and McCain look like a moderate (:rofl:) and if she pulls a piss-poor performance during the campaign and debates, she'll let McCain win by a landslide.

We need candidates able to not only stand up to the tough questions but be able to throw the SAME QUESTIONS back in the faces of the hypocrites making them. Kerry did not do this with *, which totally floored me, and that was one LEGITIMATE reason why he lost.

(I know full well the paperless voting scandals. That alone wasn't enough. In 2004. In 2008 they'll be wider spread and the media even more biased to make such a scandal easier to commit. But without a candidate being tough in the first place, they needn't bother with any techno-cheating. Or techno-cheating will be more readily hidden because of the candidate's impotence.)

[mvd]

14. Unless the "moderate"/"renegade" part of the Repuke party..

gains a lot of power by 2008, we probably won't have to worry about facing McCain. He wouldn't be the chosen one for the Repukes. I think Hillary would have a lot of trouble in red states at the current time, so that might be the difference in a McCain/Clinton matchup if things don't change by 2008.