For those that think Hillary's negatives are too high to win...

[SaveElmer]

From "The American Prospect"

In June 1992, candidate Bill Clinton had an unfavorable rating of 47 percent, according to a Times Mirror survey -- nearly identical to what his wife's is today. He managed to reduce that dramatically come fall (as his wife will need to) and win the election. Similarly, Gore had a 43 percent unfavorable rating in April 1999, according to a Pew Research Center survey, but managed to knock that down to the mid-30s by October 2000 and win the popular vote in November.

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=12574

[WorseBeforeBetter]

1. Who is going to be our Ross Perot of 2008? (n/t)

[SaveElmer]

3. Had nothing to do with it...

A claim that has been debunked time and time again...

However, Clinton's negatives dropped dramatically by election day...as did Gores in 2000

[WorseBeforeBetter]

15. Perhaps, but Hillary hatred runs deep and Americans have been...

"exposed" to her for how many years now - 15? Opinions have been formed and I don't think they're changing.

[SaveElmer]

18. They haven't been exposed to her as a candidate...

And she has never openly campaigned on her own behalf before...

I am confident she can lower those numbers the same way she did in New York...

[WorseBeforeBetter]

19. I don't think it matters, and if I'm wrong come November 08, I'll freely admit it.

(Providing she gets the nomination, of course; this is all still WAY too early in my opinion.) I don't think anyone will galvanize the wingnut voters the way Hillary will. And the attacks against Kerry might seem like child's play compared to what they have in store for Hillary.

[SaveElmer]

23. Perversely that could immunize her...

People have heard these over the top attacks time and time again...and have rejected them. Whenever they begin these attacks she gets more popular...

I mean if the Republicans bring up Vince Foster, or WHitewater again the country will simply yawn...

The reason the Swift Boat attacks worked is because it was something new that hadn't worked itself out in public opinion...and Kerry's response was ineffectual...something that would not be an issue with Hillary...

[John Q. Citizen]

26. It's funny, I've seen you defend, cheerlead, stand up for, equivicate and

speculate for Hillary.

But I still don't know why you want Hillary to be president.

Is it nastalgia for the 90's, the dotcom bubble, and a Democratic President signing aruguably Republican bills?
Is it that Hillary is a woman and you want a woman to be president?
Is it Hillary's neo-con lite views as regards American military posture that atrract you to her?
Is it her "baby steps" approach to health care reform that attracts you to Hillary?

Why are you supporting Hillary?

Which of her views do you most support and feel are closest to your own.

[dionysus]

56. don't hold your breath waiting for an answer...

the honest answer would most likely be because she's GOP-lite, good luck getting these guys to admit it though.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

33. They won't be yawning when they hear "socialized medicine,"

aka "Hillarycare." Seniors hate her (60-something percent disapproval?) and what's the likelihood they'll be swayed? Between the senior and military vote, we'll be kissing Florida and its 27 electoral votes goodbye (as if it weren't already covered by election fraud...).

Who is rejecting the attacks? Perhaps NYers did, but will the nation as a whole? Based on the increasing number of anti-Hillary bumper stickers I see around The Triangle, I'd say many are embracing the attacks. I don't think she has any chance of winning the purple-could-be-blue state of North Carolina and that's 15 electoral votes we sure could use. As I type this I'm thinking more and more that a Clark or Webb need to be somewhere on the ticket.

[SaveElmer]

34. No Democrat will win North Carolina...nt

[WorseBeforeBetter]

36. We have a Democratic governor and control the state legislature.

Unfortunately, we also have Burr and Dole. The RIGHT Democrat could win, which leads me back to a Clark or Webb on the ticket because of the strong military presence in this state.

[barb162]

79. The people who hate her REALLY hate her.

Never saw anything like it. They can never really explain why

[laugle]

83. You know they said that same crap when she ran for the Senate?

That she was hated and could never win!

[skipos]

84. I never heard that. I think Hillary could have won a senate seat in any state Dukakis won

except for maybe West Virginia. I heard gripes about Hillary "carpet bagging" by running in NY instead of AR, but never anything about her being "unelectable" in a state that blue.

[laugle]

88. I almost hate to say it but;

Fox faux news comes to mind.

I'm talking about the first time she ran for Senator. And I do remember the carpet-bagger remarks, but also, that she would never be elected, trust me, it was there and all the stuff about her not being warm or charming like her husband!

Then she went on Letterman, and charmed the hell out of him, and impressed alot of people.

Like I've said before, she needs to make the rounds again, on Letterman/Oprah, because, as silly as it seems, people like to see that! I guess it's the dumbing-down factor, just like people getting their news ONLY from the "Daily Show."

[napi21]

11. Hmmm...maybe Blumberg? I've read several stories lately

that he's thinking about running. Idon't know a lot about him, but every time I hear him on TV he sure sounds like a straight shooter to me.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

25. I've heard rumblings of Bloomberg as well, but honestly...

don't pay much attention to all of this since it's a year and half until the election. Keeping up with the Maladministration's scandal du jour sucks up so much precious time. (Sigh, I just want it over!!)

[jobycom]

13. Bill didn't need Perot, neither do our candidates now.

Polls showed that Perot split the vote evenly.

[MannyGoldstein]

2. Big Difference - Nobody Really Knew Bill Yet

Everyone knows Hillary. Opinions are set.

Heck, she's been having a daily conversation with me. She sends nice emails. I send responses. Since she calls it a 'conversation', I know that she reads each one that I send.

[SaveElmer]

4. How about Al..

Certainly folks knew him!

[MannyGoldstein]

8. Gore Took Steps To Separate Himself From Mr. Clinton

Mrs. Clinton simply doesn't take steps. She maintains the status quo at all costs.

She ain't goin' nowhere, I suspect.

[jobycom]

21. I don't understand what you mean.

Most experts think Gore's distancing himself from Clinton cost him an easy win. As for Hillary, she can't distance herself from Bill without divorcing him, although she has clearly established herself as her own person. No one gets the impression that Bill is really the senator, for instance.

I'm not sure if that's what you mean, or something else. :shrug:

[jobycom]

20. People know her name, but not really her. I think it's similar.

The thing about Hillary is that her negatives won't go much higher. Everyone has heard so much crap about her that nothing will drive her any lower, and as people do get to know her, and not just her name, her numbers will rise. Like Gore, whose reputation was driven down by constant lies, until the convention when people began to see who Gore really was. He then surged in the polls, finishing ahead of Bush in the election.

We can't guarantee anyone will win. You've seen the emails about Edwards and Obama, you know there will be many more smears of them. Their numbers can and likely will go down as the Repubs smear them more. It will be hard to drive Clinton's numbers lower. Doesn't mean she should be our candidate, but the argument that she can't win is just wrong. She's proven she can, despite her "baggage."

[WorseBeforeBetter]

27. She won a senate race in a blue state...

doesn't mean she'll be able to overcome all of the "baggage" and win on the national level. They'll come up with more, run with the "Queen Hillary" meme, do whatever they can to utterly destroy her. My gut is telling me that every red voter in every state will move heaven and earth to get to the polls to vote against her. (I know, not very scientific...) And as I said above, if I'm wrong, I'll toast her in victory.

[MannyGoldstein]

30. Running Against Very, Very Weak Third-Tier Candidates n/t

[Nedsdag]

52. Thank you.

Her supporters keep mentioning that Obama beat Alan Keyes yet fail to mention who she ran against: Little Ricky Lazio and the mayor of Yonkers who was the fourth choice of the GOP.

She was lucky Giuliani self-destructed in 2000.

[MannyGoldstein]

29. What Misunderstandings Do People Have?

I think that folks know her pretty well, even if they can't name specifics, e.g., their perceptions are actually borne out by her record.

What issues has she led on in the last 10 years? I can only think of one - criminalization of flag burning. Voted for both 'Patriot' Acts, and the first of the two no-predatory-lender-left-behind bankruptcy bills. Fled from censuring bush. Still defends her Iraq War vote, and says she wants to keep troops in Iraq permanently. Threatens Iran. Voted for the job-obliterating permanent normalization of trade with China, and other 'free' trade bills.

And so forth.

[ElizabethDC]

37. The misunderstanding that most folks have is that Hillary is extremely liberal

which, as your post points out, is not the case. The average American isn't aware of what she's voted for; they have an image of her as some sort of hard, shrill, off-the-deep-end liberal (the Repugs like to call her a lesbian and a socialist, etc.), whereas in reality she's much more moderate (which I realize is considered a bad thing here on DU, but I think the majority of Americans tend to be very moderate, for better or for worse).

[martymar64]

50. Remember that Hillary was a Young Republican and a Goldwater Girl

Considering how far to the right our political discourse has deviated since back then, Hillary and even Nixon would be considered "centrist".

At heart, she still a Young Republican. Her votes and policy positions bear that out.

[jobycom]

39. Well, several of the ones you've listed, for instance.

She opposed criminalization of flag burning (She co-sponsored a bill with several other Democrats and moderate Republicans attempting to head off the flag burning amendment, that some have mistaken for a ban on flag-burning). She didn't vote either way on the bankruptcy bill of 05 (though 18 Dems voted for it, and it wouldn't have been defeated if she had voted), voted against the Class Action Fairness bill, which limited punitive awards in class action lawsuits. She also has said the IWR was a mistake.

So those are all areas where people have wrong impressions that hopefully will be corrected. This all reminds me of trying to convince Democrats that Gore wasn't a liar, that he didn't claim to have invented the Internet or discovered Love Canal, etc. I made little headway there until after the election, either, though Gore still got more votes than Bush. :(

[MannyGoldstein]

44. Check Again, Please

1. Mrs. Clinton was the sole co-sponsor of flag burning criminalization. The sponsor was Utah's Bob Bennett - a Republican senator from the reddest state in the country. I see nothing about that bill that indicates it was an attempt to head off the failed attempt to add a constitutional amendment.
2. She voted for the draconian bankruptcy bill of 2001 - not much different than the 2005 bill.
3. I don't believe that she's ever admitted to screwing up on the IWR vote - just one of her typically oblique "if i knew then what I know now..." statements. Somehow, most other Democrats in Congress managed to get that vote right.

[jobycom]

58. I know my facts, check yours.

1) Clinton was was one of five Democrats who co-sponsored that bill. All voted against the Amendment, as did Bennett, the Republican. The bill did not criminalize flag burning (though Drudge and a shameful number of Democrats claimed it did). It banned burning other people's flags (private property) and burning a flag with the intention of intimidating them or violating their civil rights (in the same way burning a cross is banned by federal law). Bennett--a Republican opponent of the flag burning amendment--Clinton, Byrd, Dorgan, Conrad, and Carper introduced the bill to offer an alternative to the flag burning amendment.

On the day of the amendment vote, Senator Durbin (Democrat) sponsored an amendment to the amendment bill, attempting to turn the amendment into a law, this killing the amendment. Durbin's bill was exactly the same as the Bennet-Clinton bill: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00188

It was co-sponsored by Clinton, Barbara Boxer, Bennet, and others (including Lieberman). Obama voted for it, along with Kerry and Kennedy. So if Clinton's bill was co-sponsoring "flag burning criminalization," so was Durbin's, and Obama, Boxer, Kennedy, and Kerry all voted for it, too.

The amendment to the amendment bill failed, then the amendment vote failed by one vote, after having passed Congress. So Clinton's vote mattered on that bill.

Learn your facts.

2) The OP said Clinton voted for both bankruptcy bills. I corrected that, she didn't vote for the one in 2005 (not that her vote would have mattered). As for the 2001 bill, only fifteen senators voted against it. Edwards voted for it, as did Clinton, Evan Bayh, Schumer, Byrd, and the usual crossovers. Barbara Boxer abstained from voting, as Hillary did on the 2005 bill. Neither vote was close. The bill was going to pass anyway, so Democrats attached riders to it for easy passage. One, IIRC, involved punishing anti-choice demonstraters (Wish I could remember the details).
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00036

3) She did say the IWR was a mistake, and that the invasion was a mistake, and she says at every campaign stop that she will end the war if it is still going on if she is elected. She disagrees on exactly how to end it, not on whether it should be ended. Her objection is to pulling out and leaving the Iraqis to clean up the mess we created. I disagree with that position (it may stop me from backing Clinton), but it's not the same as supporting the invasion or occupation. As for the IWR vote in the first place, Clinton was clear when she voted for the bill that she was hoping to head off Bush's rush to war by requiring him to try diplomacy first, and giving him the power to back the diplomacy with force. Her speech mirrors Wesley Clark's advice before the House Armed Services Committee, where he, too, fell for the threat of WMDs, and said that Congress should pass a resolution granting Bush the power to use force against Iraq if they did not comply. Both Clark and Clinton made it clear that force was a last resort they hoped not to use. Contrast that to Edwards, who supported the invasion before it happened, and praised it afterwards for removing Hussein, criticizing Dean and Kerry, after Kerry changed his position, for being against the invasion. Edwards was a strong supporter (as strong as Lieberman), until polls showed he had the wrong position, and he converted to an anti-war proponent. I like Edwards' position now, but the fact that he changed so quickly makes me question his judgement the first time through. Clinton's support was much more cautious and much more in favor of diplomacy.

The stories of her pandering, triangulating, and flip-flopping are greatly exagerated. That doesn't mean I'll vote for her in the primary, but I sure won't rule her out because of misinformation that has quite often come first from Drudge or Newsmax (as did the story that she was in favor of banning flag burning, and the whole video game ban lie that we haven't gotten into).

[Adelante]

67. Wrong

Her speech mirrors Wesley Clark's advice before the House Armed Services Committee, where he, too, fell for the threat of WMDs, and said that Congress should pass a resolution granting Bush the power to use force against Iraq if they did not comply. Both Clark and Clinton made it clear that force was a last resort they hoped not to use.

Too many legislators who voted against the IWR have publicly stated they were influenced by Clark's testimony to vote No, for that to be the case. I have yet to hear anyone who voted Yes on the IWR claim they were influenced by Clark.

[jobycom]

77. Wrong.

Here's Clark's speech: http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/us/hearingspreparedstatements/hasc-clark-092602.htm

Here's Clinton's: http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

You'll notice she's mirroring his points.

And you'll also notice I provided links and details in my post. You didn't. What senators said they voted against it based on Clark testimony? When did Clark say to vote NO? Details would be nice, and would make your post appear more knowledgeable.

[MannyGoldstein]

68. I'm Not Finding Your Facts

Perhaps you can offer some links:

1. I cannot find that anyone, other than Clinton and Bennett, signed onto S. 1911, the bill to criminalize flag burning. Her excuse for S 1911 seems to be that it was effective triangulation. Triangulation is nothing to be proud of - it has been incredibly destructive to our country.
2. If, by the OP, you mean my earlier post - I clearly stated that she voted for the first of the two predatory lender protection acts.
3. Yes, she says that the IWR was a mistake - but she continues to claim that her own vote was correct. Particularly given that so many other members of her party voted against the IWR, her claims here do not make sense. Was she just not as prescient as the other Democrats? This was no little mistake - war making is the most important power of the Congress. Why on earth would I trust anyone that clearly made a mistake - and then won't even admit it?

[jobycom]

78. I can post them, I can't make you understand them. Here's S 1911

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:s1911:

COSPONSORS(4), ALPHABETICAL Sen Boxer, Barbara Sen Carper, Thomas R.
Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham Sen Pryor, Mark L.

The list of cosponsors I gave was to s 1370, an earlier variation of the same bill, and not the one Hillary co-sponsored. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SN01370:
------------------
On your second point, I misread your post, sorry. The rest of my points stand.
-----------------------
On your third point, I answered that. You don't seem to understand the context of that bill, and until you learn it, you won't understand why the majority of Democrats voted for it. Clinton was explicit in her speech before the vote--she was not voting for war, she was voting to give Bush the power to negotiate with strength. Bush at the time was claiming he had the authority to invade without Congressional approval. The Democrats had no way to stop him, and the Republicans weren't going to even try. Many who voted for the IWR were trying to head off Bush's "rush to war," and force him to try other means first. If they had voted against the IWR--and this is critical for you to understand--Bush would have invaded anyway, and likely sooner.

I opposed the IWR at the time (you can search my posts here if you want proof), and had (and still have) more respect for those who voted against it than for it. But many Dems who voted for it were trying to head off the invasion in the face of a president who wasn't listening and a nation that wanted blood and didn't care whose. They did the best they could. It wasn't enough, but it wasn't going to be enough, no matter what.
-------

[MannyGoldstein]

80. I Can't Understand Them - As You Understand Them

1. I finally see the other eventual co-sponsors. (Why did three more folks glom on to the thing almost a year after it originated? Strange.) Anyway, it's unlikely I'll vote for Pryor, Carper, or Boxer for any office.

3. How did 'Democrats' voting for the IWR slow down, or in any way alter, the course of the war? If Mrs. Clinton did nothing to alter the course of the war, then what she did was either naive, or avoidance of taking a stand on the issue.

Mrs. Clinton's record seems indistinguishable from a power-crazed shill for the Rich who strives to maintain plausible deniability in all of her actions.

[martymar64]

51. About the flag burning issue.

Whether she support a statute banning flag burning or a constitutional amendment doing it is immaterial. The result would be the same, a direct attack on the First Amendment. It seems when she suppports these kinds of issues, she errs on the side of less freedom and civil liberties.
Is that what we want in a President? Not me.

[jobycom]

59. You are misinformed, and you've ruled out Obama, too.

Obama voted for the Durbin Amendment, which was an almost word for word copy of the Bennett Bill, and an attempt to kill the flag-burning amendment. See my post above. Or don't, and stay ignorant, I don't care.

[Forkboy]

87. Just another reason to not like either.

How's that tit for tat stuff working for ya?

[zulchzulu]

82. Checkmate

That is one issue I would never be able to convince myself to ignore if I had to choose on Election Day. You don't fuck with the First Amendment. Period.

[Old and In the Way]

5. These polls are BS.

I think lots of people are playing games with the polling. Many Democrats might want to vote against Hillary now in these head-to-head polls to hurt her chances. When the voters go into the polls in Nov. 2008, I think whoever is in the Democrat box will win the votes of a significant majority. Lots might not like Hillary, but I doubt any real Democrat or sane independent will cast their vote for a Republican or 3rd Party.

[elizm]

85. You're right....

This sane Democrat would never vote for a Republican....but I will sit it out if Hillary is the nominee.

[jezebel]

6. What worries me is not her negative #s, but the depth of the

hatred that those negative number people have for her. I don't understand it, but it seems that the people who hate her REALLY REALLY hate her. That's going to bring out a lot of people to vote against her. My father is one. He is a smart reasonable man who for some reason cannot stand her. He is not a freeper type, but he claims if she gets the nom, he is registering and going to vote for the Republican no matter who they put up. And this is a man who hasn't voted in the last 4 elections. I've tried to get him to explain to me why, but he really can't. He just has this white hot distaste for her.
I worry that he is not the only person like that and that is what scares me. I like Hilary (I haven't decided yet who I support) but can the dem's afford to have her as the nomination if rightly or wrongly she inspires such bad feelings in otherwise reasonable people?

[jobycom]

17. It really is the same as Clinton, or Gore, or Reagan for that matter.

I know it seems different in hindsight because we know how those elections turned out, but Bill was hated by many. I knew a lot of people who swore they would never vote for Clinton, who they saw as a pot smoking, draft-dodging, lying womanizer. Most of them didn't. He won anyway.

[napi21]

32. 0I don't mean to put down your dad, but how old is he?

From what I've seen, older people, especially men hate Hillary because she is a very strong WOMAN and unfortunatl=elymost menfromthe 40's, & 50's are against powerful women! That was an era when Women stayed at home to raise the kids, and the MAN was the breadwinner!

They're just not willing to admit a woman can be any good at business or politics.

I'm a woman born in 1943, and believe me, I've worked with many like that. There were several very smart and stong women at the co. I worked for and I've heard way too may times "Women have no place in business or politics. And this is a quote! "Women are only good for one thing. Flat on their back in bed!" I swear, thiswas said by the DOO of the company I worked for! He's dead now, and I hopesometingin the after life has convinced him how wrong he was!

[jezebel]

35. You might be on to something there. He was born in '44. nt

nt

[martymar64]

54. I'd support Barbara Boxer or Maxine Waters or Patti Murray for Prez

but not Hillary. It's not the gender, it's her craven political positions that turn me off.

[laugle]

70. Your right on target! Sexism is alive and not well!

Women have always had to try harder for recognition, of that, I have personal knowledge, like you!

Remember the Helen Reddy tunes, "women hear me roar, in numbers too big to ignore."

[laugle]

69. I don't know your dad's age, but it may be the

"female" thing or maybe he is afraid she can't win! That seems to be a common thread....of course it's just a guess.....

[elizm]

86. I don't hate Hillary...

What I HATE is that because of her 'money machine' she will be forced upon us even if she is not who we would like to have. I have yet to find anyone with a convincing argument as to why she should be the nominee, other than she has already been anointed...so we should just live with it. I think nominating someone just because they have the money and power behind them is just plain wrong....and will only give us another defeat...so why go vote?? If she is the nominee I will not vote.

[mmonk]

7. Past results are no indication of future ones.

Mark, my words, we will lose. The things that will be out there will make the Swift Boat stuff against Kerry look like child's play.

[SaveElmer]

9. And current polls are not predictive of the future...nt

[mmonk]

12. Nope, I just know the market.

She has been villified for many many years now that people say they would never vote her without even being able to give a cogent answer why. I really don't know how your candidate will overcome that.

[mmonk]

16. BTW, I'm not trying to bash your candidate,

I'm really worried and just letting my fears be expressed.

[laugle]

71. It's not what they say that you should be so concerned with,

it's having a candidate that can KICK-ASS with the best of them, that counts.

Don't be soooo afraid of the other side..........we will beat them, mark my words!!!!

THE "POWER OF POSITIVE THINKING" is what's needed, try it, it works!!

Try to remember this last election; we kicked their butts out, hell, even Fox faux news pundits are saying they expect the dems to win in 2008, due to the mess Bush made!!

[BeyondGeography]

10. You're up against 14 years of polling history now

and the only time she has been in the 30's was when her husband cheated on her:

<Sen. Clinton is often described as an intensly polarizing figure, and there is some evidence for this in the levels of her "unfavorable" ratings. These rose sharply in 1993-94 as she took on non-traditional policy roles while first lady. But having reached 40% unfavorable by 1995, they have rarely dropped below that. Only during the Lewinsky scandal did unfavorable drop to around 30%. Since then it has remained in the ball park of 40%, but at times rising to around 45%. While not a measure of the intensity of these feelings, the data certainly show that Sen. Clinton has been viewed unfavorably by a consistent 40% of the population for the last six years. This of course is one of the difficulties she faces in a race for national office.>

http://politicalarithmetik.blogspot.com/2006/08/hillarys-image-1993-2006.html

[SaveElmer]

14. She wasn't a candidate...

It would be more instructive to see how her negatives dropped in New York State...which would be a more reliable indicator perhaps of her campaign skill, and her ability to get voters that oppose her to reevaluate her...

Her negatives in New York...among those voters best able to evaluate her is a quite low 23%...

People's views are not immutable as the shift in perception of Bill and Al show...

[BeyondGeography]

22. C'mon Elmer, they don't come any bluer than NY State

I've been through this with the Hillarians before. She was First Lady, for crying out loud! The national numbers are what they are. You're having a clap for tinkerbelle moment if you think Hillary the Candidate is going to reverse them.

[SaveElmer]

24. Well they do come bluer than New York...

But that is neither he nor there...

I am not saying that New York is a microcosm of the US, but it is an indicator of her campaign skill...she was a short time resident of New York with pretty high negatives when she ran for Senate...and now she is the most popular politician in the state, and even in Red areas of New York her approval is quite high...

There is no evidence that negative opinion of Hillary among independents is in any way immutable, and cannot be shifted.

[BeyondGeography]

28. Spitzer is the most popular politician in NY

but that's neither here nor there. In NY, the Republican Party is in a shambles and she can define herself pretty much as she wants. There is no machine lined up against her to stoke the fires of Clinton hatred here (where they don't burn that intensely anyway) as will be the case in spades if she's the nominee. The only people criticizing her in New York work for Rupert Murdoch and even they go pretty easy on her.

That said, if I were in the Clinton camp I would worry more about solidifying the base than attracting independents at this point. She'll need every Democratic vote she can get, even moreso than other potential nominees.

[SaveElmer]

31. What you say is true...now...

That was not the case in 2000...

The Republican Party in New York is in a shambles largely because of Spitzer and Hillary, and Schumer...

Actually Spitzer's popularity has dropped some and his approval rating is slightly below Hillary's...though still high!

[laugle]

73. Yeah, I heard the other day that even the Repubs in

the ritzy northern part of NY voted for her. That was a surprise!

[WorseBeforeBetter]

38. .

"Clap for tinkerbelle moment"!

[ebayfool]

90. That was rather eloquent, wasn't it?

I'm sooooo filing it away to use later!

I'm an honest plagiarist. :evilgrin:



(this isn't a yea or nay @ Clinton ... just an appreciation of the 'wordplay'!)

[laugle]

72. Wait till she goes on Oprah and Letterman,

then people will find her warm and fuzzy.

I know that sounds silly, but people really are like that!

[obamian]

40. Can she? Maybe. Doesn't matter.

What matters is who is more likely to end up with higher favorable numbers, her or the other candidates. Based on how she's campaigning, "I've battled all of their attacks. I can beat them. I'm in to win..." She's not using a unifying theme in her campaign. I think both Edwards and Obama are more likely to end up with high favorable numbers. It has happened before that the polling numbers change, but Hillary isn't making any attempts to change them.

Obama more so than Edwards, and much more so than Hillary, is running a campaign that pushes for an end to slash and burn politics. He has stopped taking contributions from PACs and lobbyists (a mostly symbolic move, but still a move.) His campaign is based on uniting the country to solve common problems. He got 4/10 Republican votes in Illinois. There was thread here that talked about Republicans people knew deciding to vote for him. There is a Republicansforobama.org. There will never be a republicansforclinton.org (unless some Clinton staffer manufactures it).

Hillary might be able to push to polls to her favor, but Obama has a much better chance to push them further in his favor than Hillary. He talks the talk. There are a lot of Republicans that hate the Clintons, especially Hillary. Obama has much broader appeal.

Three prominent conservatives praising Obama:
http://scottwichmann.blogspot.com/2006/11/run-barack-run-by-david-brooks.html
http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/CarolPlattLiebau/2007/03/05/the_barack_i_knew
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/02/quote_for_the_d_3.html

Find me three prominent conservatives that praise Hillary for something other than being a way to rally the base. If Hillary is elected president based on her history and her current style of campaigning, she will not be able to bring Republicans to political agreements as well as Obama, who has a history of working across the aisle and is praised by many of his Republican Illinois State Senate colleagues. And she will be much worse than Obama for the long term image of Democratic party.

You have a statistic that tenuously indicates Hillary's negatives could drop. Great! I'll put my money on Obama, who has Republican appeal and is campaigning for more.

[BeyondGeography]

42. Welcome aboard, Obamian

:toast:

[skipos]

41. Her high negatives are only one reason in a LONG list of why she shouldn't be our nominee

Of all the Dem candidates...
she doesn't have the best voting record,
she doesn't have the most experience,
she doesn't excite the youth the most,
she doesn't excite the progressive base the most,
she sure as heck won't be any kind of unifier,
she already has the most people committed to voting against her,
she has the worst favorables/unfavorables.
Many rightwingers (like Falwell) want her to be our nominee, which isn't a good sign,
she will inspire more 3rd party defectors than any other candidate,
Nader is already hinting about running if she gets nominated,
and all her money and name recognition is not keeping her from getting spanked by Dame Rudy and Weathervane McCain in most polls,
etc.

[flpoljunkie]

45. And NO ONE will rouse the Repug base to come out and vote in '08 like Hil, if she's our nominee

Why do you think the Republicans and their media mouthpieces are working so hard to promote her candidacy?

[SaveElmer]

48. Lets correct this a bit...

Of all the Dem candidates...

she doesn't have the best voting record,
For SKIPOS

she doesn't have the most experience,

So Skipos will be supporting either Richardson, Dodd, or Biden...as they have the most "experience"?

she doesn't excite the youth the most,

So which is it...are you saying we should support the one with most experience(Richardson, Dodd, Biden), or the one that excites the youth vote the most(Obama...I presume)


she doesn't excite the progressive base the most,

This is a good thing

she sure as heck won't be any kind of unifier,

According to Skipos! In fact in her time in the Senate one of her hallmarks has been her ability to work with everyone in both parties

she already has the most people committed to voting against her,

Republicans...no evidence that independent opinions are immutable. And she is by far the most well known. I predict, in fact will bet, her negatives drop significantly before the first primary, and those of the other far less well known candidates rise as the media begins their focus

she has the worst favorables/unfavorables.

same as above...

Many rightwingers (like Falwell) want her to be our nominee, which isn't a good sign,

Oh yes, Fat Jerry is soooo scary...I don't give a rats ass what the rightwingers want. They didn't want Kerry and look what happened.

she will inspire more 3rd party defectors than any other candidate,

cite your sources

Nader is already hinting about running if she gets nominated,

Having Kerry and Gore as the nominee didn't prevent Nader from running. He's gonna run or not no matter who the nominee is gonna be. Nader is only in it for himself. If he thinks he can get his mug on TV by running it won't matter who the Democrat is. Nader has sold his soul and is a pathetic shadow of what he once was


and all her money and name recognition is not keeping her from getting spanked by Dame Rudy and Weathervane McCain in most polls,
etc.

She is within striking distance in polls where she is behind and ahead in some...spanked is hardly the correct word. And you know, a month or two ago when Hillary was "spanking" both McCain and Guiliani in many national polls, I was told time and time again that polls this early didn't matter, that they weren't predictors of the future...and I agreed...I never said they were...they are a snapshot of what the situation is when the poll is taken. The same applies now. Her relatively small drop in polls is simply a snapshot of the situation now, and are not predictive of the future...so to use them as evidence against her candidacy is also telling Kucinich, Richardson, Dodd, Biden, Gravel, Gore, and Edwards supporters to stop supporting their guys...none of them have a prayer according to the current polls...which according to you is a compelling reason not to support them

[skipos]

49. Nah.

"So Skipos will be supporting either Richardson, Dodd, or Biden...as they have the most "experience"?
So which is it...are you saying we should support the one with most experience(Richardson, Dodd, Biden), or the one that excites the youth vote the most(Obama...I presume)"

I'll support ANY OF THEM BUT HILLARY.

Tell me why not exciting the progressive bass is "a good thing?" Actually, tell me why a candidate that is relatively loathed by the progressive base, like Hillary, is a good idea.

"she sure as heck won't be any kind of unifier... According to Skipos!
In fact in her time in the Senate one of her hallmarks has been her ability to work with everyone in both parties"

Yeah, you never hear the word "polarizing" to describe Hillary. :eyes:

"she already has the most people committed to voting against her, Republicans..."
She has poor independent appeal compared to other Dems and other Repubs candidates. Go look at any poll.

"no evidence that independent opinions are immutable."
But it is bad to be starting off as poorly as Hillary is, even though she has megamillions and near 100% name recognition to work with.

"And she is by far the most well known."
And unlike Dame Rudy, who is equally well known, her fav/unfavs, poll numbers, number of people commited to voting against her, etc are ominous.

"I predict, in fact will bet, her negatives drop significantly before the first primary, and those of the other far less well known candidates rise as the media begins their focus"

So you are counting on the media to help Hillary's numbers rise? Yikes!

Many rightwingers (like Falwell) want her to be our nominee, which isn't a good sign,

"Oh yes, Fat Jerry is soooo scary...I don't give a rats ass what the rightwingers want."
Of course you don't, because you know they want a Hillary nomination and you know why.

"she will inspire more 3rd party defectors than any other candidate. Sources?"

Here you go... one in five Democrats wouldn't vote for her.
http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/fifty-percent-of-americans-would-not-vote-for-clinton-2007-03-27.html

"Having Kerry and Gore as the nominee didn't prevent Nader from running. He's gonna run or not no matter who the nominee is gonna be."

He has made it clear that he thinks Hillary is the worst, so the odds are much higher that he will run against her. Really, Nader is an idiot. I am more concerned about the 20% of Democrats who won't vote for her.

"She is within striking distance in polls where she is behind and ahead in some...spanked is hardly the correct word. And you know, a month or two ago when Hillary was "spanking" both McCain and Guiliani in many national polls, I was told time and time again that polls this early didn't matter, that they weren't predictors of the future...and I agreed...I never said they were...they are a snapshot of what the situation is when the poll is taken. The same applies now. Her relatively small drop in polls is simply a snapshot of the situation now, and are not predictive of the future...so to use them as evidence against her candidacy is also telling Kucinich, Richardson, Dodd, Biden, Gravel, Gore, and Edwards supporters to stop supporting their guys...none of them have a prayer according to the current polls...which according to you is a compelling reason not to support them"

No, it's is the combination of Hillary Clinton not being better than the other candidates IN ANY WAY (unless you want to count getting money) and the fact that her numbers stink even though she has tons of money and the most name recognition. THAT is why I don't support her, and why you are probably accustomed to hearing that MANY people don't support her. If Obama's numbers are weak (and they are usually better that Hillary's) at least he has some room to win people over, since most don't know about him. The same could be said about every Dem candidate running. Even Edwards is still less known than Hillary, and has plenty of people he can still win over. Everyone has already made up their mind about Hillary, and it does not look good.

[SaveElmer]

55. ...

I'll support ANY OF THEM BUT HILLARY.

So your diatribe about experience and youth appeal was just that...a diatribe...it is only important to you as it applies to Hillary

Tell me why not exciting the progressive bass is "a good thing?" Actually, tell me why a candidate that is relatively loathed by the progressive base, like Hillary, is a good idea.

First, "progressive" base is a contradiction in terms...it is this section of he party that most threatens to abandon the party's candidates, hardly the base. The base in fact consists of several groups for which Hillary has enormous appeal, labor, minorities, women etc. In fact the self styled "progressive" base is a very small chunk of the party, and as far as I can see consists primarily of out of touch, intolerant zealots who could actually care less whether the party is successful or not.

She has poor independent appeal compared to other Dems and other Repubs candidates. Go look at any poll.

Show me any evidence that her negatives among independents is immutable.

Yeah, you never hear the word "polarizing" to describe Hillary.

Yeah I hear it here and in Freeperville quite a bit

And unlike Dame Rudy, who is equally well known, her fav/unfavs, poll numbers, number of people commited to voting against her, etc are ominous.

Not true, Hillary's recognition among voters is significantly higher than Guiliani's

So you are counting on the media to help Hillary's numbers rise? Yikes!

Show me where I said that! I am counting on Hillary running a superior campaign, convincing people she is in fact the superior candidate...

Of course you don't, because you know they want a Hillary nomination and you know why.

Their opinion is irrelevant to the decision making of the Democratic Party, except to the point that folks like you are so frightened by what they might do that you let it drive your decision making process

Here you go... one in five Democrats wouldn't vote for her.

I see nothing there about a third party..again cite your sources. And again, you are advocating polls as a reliable way to pick a candidate.

He has made it clear that he thinks Hillary is the worst, so the odds are much higher that he will run against her.

Higher than the 100% probability that he would run against Gore or Kerry?

Really, Nader is an idiot

Then why bring him up?

I am more concerned about the 20% of Democrats who won't vote for her.

You put alot of faith in one poll. If other polls show a different story will you then discount them again?

No, it's is the combination of Hillary Clinton not being better than the other candidates IN ANY WAY

For Skipos

you are probably accustomed to hearing that MANY people don't support her

Yeah I am...here in DU land, hardly representative of Democrats in general. Evidenced by the fact that Hillary has been ahead in every single poll of national Democrats.

Everyone has already made up their mind about Hillary, and it does not look good.

Again provide me any evidence negative opinions about Hillary are in any way immutable. They weren't immutable for Bill in 1992, or for Gore in 2000. She has as much opportunity to convince people as any other candidate. And she has the advantage of a much stronger ground game, and far more experience dealing with the sleazoid media. Yeah I like her chances.

[skipos]

60. This is funny

"Yeah I hear it here and in Freeperville quite a bit"

You also hear that the world is round in both places, so then it must not be true then, eh? Anything said on "extremist" sites like DU and Freerepublic must not be true by your logic. Too bad I hear "polarzing" to describe "Hillary Clinton" EVERYWHERE, except from the "Hillary is flawless" crowd that you seem to be a part of. Google "polarizing" and "Hillary Clinton" and you get 3 times the results of "polarizing" and "Rudy Giuliani." What would it take for you to admit she is polarizing? High unfavorables (check), loathed by progressives (check), loathed by conservatives (check), lower independent appeal that most other candidates in polls (check). So, what else would it take?

"So your diatribe about experience and youth appeal was just that...a diatribe...it is only important to you as it applies to Hillary"

No, what is important to me is that our candidate be better than the other candidates at SOMETHING besides raising money and name recognition. Hillary is better than the other candidates at NOTHING else.

"Their opinion is irrelevant to the decision making of the Democratic Party, except to the point that folks like you are so frightened by what they might do that you let it drive your decision making process."

Their opinion is relevent when it verifies the FACT that Republicans are rooting for a Hillary nomination more than any other candidate. Just many DUers root for a Newt nomination because his numbers are actually even worse than Hillary's, Republicans root for Hillary.

"Then why bring him up (Nader)?"
Because he can make or break elections, and he will be very inspired to break Hillary's.

"You put alot of faith in one poll."
Not at all, I look at the pattern of many polls. Most general election/ fav/unfav polls are very unflattering to Hillary, and they have been that way for months.

"If other polls show a different story will you then discount them again?"
If many polls come out showing the same pattern, sure. I saw one poll with Hillary beating Huckabee in AR, which was a refreshing change from her usual pattern of general election weakness. Then again, Clark beat Huckabee in the same poll by the same margin, so maybe it has more to do with AR disliking Huckabee. Show me a pattern of polls of Hillary beating Rudy and beating McCain by bigger margins than all the other Dem candidates, and I will cross off "general election weakness" from my list of why she should not be our nominee.

"Yeah I am...here in DU land, hardly representative of Democrats in general."
Yes, DU doesn't represent your average Democrat, but wouldn't it be better to have a candidate who can appeal to DUers and casual Democrats, and independents to boot? Isn't that what Tester, McCaskill and Webb did? Presidential elections are different, but I think a candidate that might be able to appeal to moderates and progressives would be nice. Hillary is the only one guaranteed not to do it.

"Again provide me any evidence negative opinions about Hillary are in any way immutable. "

And provide me with evidence that GW Bush can't have 50+ approval ratings again. Sure, shit can change, but if poll after poll, month after month shows Hillary's general election weakness, will you change your tune?

Seriously, what will make you believe that Hillary should not be our candidate?

I can look at ALL of the candidates and admit strengths and weakness. Hillary is the only one who has strengths (getting money and name recognition) that mean nothing to me.

[SaveElmer]

61. Long response and nothing new...

Just restating your original post...

So my previous answer stands...

However I will answer your last question

"Seriously, what will make you believe that Hillary should not be our candidate?"

My answer, unlike many "progressives" that inhabit these parts...I will vote for, and heartily support, the nominee whoever it is...even Dennis Kucinich...until that day I will support the candidate I and many millions of others believe to be the best candidate for the job...Hillary Clinton.

[skipos]

62. You didn't answer my question

I'll vote for the Dem nominee even if it is someone as potentially disasterous as Hillary.

What would get you to not vote for Hillary in the primary?

[SaveElmer]

63. Nothing...

Short of her publically supporting a Republican...I do not agree with your thesis that she would be a disaster...

[skipos]

65. And THAT is the problem

Hillary could have 20/80 fav/unfavs and lose to every Republican in every poll for the next year and a half and many Hillary supporter would gladly vote for her in a primary and doom us all to 4 more years of a Repub.

I am not saying this is a problem specific to Hillary supporters, but it is a big problem for the rest of us since... Hillary leads the primary polls, but doesn't do so well in the general election polls. Hopefully for America, enough Hillary supporters will except the fact that she is general election kryptonite... IF that is still the case a year from now.

Did you see the new Ras poll with Edwards beating McCain by 7%? Previous polls have Obama and McCain ties while Hillary loses by 7%.

So much money, such weak numbers.

[SaveElmer]

66. And so again...

You are advocating the use of polls to drive the decision of supporters of Hillary Clinton...

And advocating making that decison 20 months from election day a couple months after the campaign has started, before any debate has occurred...absolutely ridiculous...and I daresay a suggestion you would not make to anyone but Hillary supporters...

Fact is Hillary has been ahead in several polls within the last month, has had negatives in some polls in the mid-thirties, is leading in every national poll of Democrats, has by far the best ground operation of any candidate, and has the most experience dealing with the type of sleazoid attack that took down John Kerry, Mike Dukakis, and to a lesser extend Al Gore...and there is evidence from past elections that high negatives can be overcome by superior campaigning...

Sorry, there isn't a reason in the world for me to decide not to support her...

If she is as unpopular as you say, then her opposition will coalesce around one of the other candidates and she will lose...

I find it ironic that Hillary opponents constantly deride her and her supporters as canned poll watchers, and yet you now criticize those of us for sticking with her in the face of bad publicity, or polls where she is no longer leading...

Note: I did just notice you said IF she is trailing in a year...but I suspect if, as I said above she is as unpopular as you believe, the point will be moot right? She polls between 35 and 40% among Dems...not enough to win the nomination against one or two other competitors...

[Learn2Swim]

64. a great post.

Good points.

"You also hear that the world is round in both places, so then it must not be true then, eh? Anything said on "extremist" sites like DU and Freerepublic must not be true by your logic. Too bad I hear "polarzing" to describe "Hillary Clinton" EVERYWHERE, except from the "Hillary is flawless" crowd that you seem to be a part of. Google "polarizing" and "Hillary Clinton" and you get 3 times the results of "polarizing" and "Rudy Giuliani." What would it take for you to admit she is polarizing? High unfavorables (check), loathed by progressives (check), loathed by conservatives (check), lower independent appeal that most other candidates in polls (check). So, what else would it take?"


"No, what is important to me is that our candidate be better than the other candidates at SOMETHING besides raising money and name recognition. Hillary is better than the other candidates at NOTHING else."


:applause: Couldn't agree more.

[JNelson6563]

43. Let's see, 1992-2006

14 years of effective, rarely countered hate campaign sandwiched in there, plus subtract Bill's charisma, yeah, it's the exact same situation.

Ugh.

Julie

[sendero]

46. For the last effing time..

... Hillary is NOT BILL. She is NOT CHARISMATIC. She does not ATTRACT ADMIRATION. She is NOT BILL.

[SaveElmer]

47. And BILL is not HILLARY...

So what!

[wyldwolf]

53. For the last effing time? Promise?

[laugle]

75. But they are a "team" and surely Bill will play an

important role if she wins! Special envoy to the middle east maybe.....his diplomacy skills are unmatched!!

If you think people won't consider him as well as her when voting...you are wrong!

Just wait until he starts campaigning for her. Lately, there have been polls/talks about if he is an asset or not; he polled very high as an asset, I think it was something like 85%!

[Learn2Swim]

57. Yeah because Bill and Hill are totally the same...

then Hill's got noghting to worry about, right?

Problem. They're not. And Bill wasn't in front of the public for 1.5 decades either, waiting for his 'turn' for a powergrab.

I like Bill. I don't like his wife.

Don't count on HRC's numbers to all of the sudden just go away. The only thing that would make her more popular would be her withdrawal from the race itself.

Everyone knows Hillary. All too well. Thats her biggest problem.

But good luck with the spin.

[rodeodance]

74. Thanks for this I do not recall Bill's being that high. New news.

[Clarkie1]

76. delete. nt

[zulchzulu]

81. Brussels sprouts are making a comeback too!

Actually, nobody knew who Bill Clinton was in 1992 for the most part. He was the New Kid on the block who was running against Bush Sr. (well known after Reagan) and the ever-wacky Perot.

No one knew who Hillary Clinton was in 1992 until the election came close.

History has it now more like people know the Clintons as much as they knew George Bush, Sr. in 1992. We know what happened then. Comparing poll numbers (oddly without any mention of MOEs) for then to now is pretty irrelevant for the reasons mentioned.

Nice try though...

[Imagevision]

89. No-one has even considered the fact that Opra backs Obama 110%.. think it'll matter?

only those not in the know would say it wouldn't really matter at all.. silly sheeple...