I think the GOP talking heads think Hillary Clinton will "help them" in the GE.

[joshcryer]

...but they're so ignorant that current trends and polls would suggest anyone, any democratic nominee will totally obliterate the GOP field. It's so good to see all the candidates pulling ahead and the field evening out. We should have a nice three way race on our hands, give or take.

Now when is Gore entering the race? :D

[wyldwolf]

1. to be honest, the GOP is probably hoping for Clinton OR Obama

They're banking on the American people not really being ready to elect an African-American or woman to the presidency.

[joshcryer]

2. I know, but they're wrong. Just look at the polls.

Only thing helping GOP at this point is a very significant change in Iraq (and by significant I mean big big big, like no killings, everyone celebrating in the streets type success). They are gone. Toast. Dead in the water.

Banking on America not "wanting diversity" in times of adversery has historically been the wrong way things have gone. Every time America had issues with cultural trends, it sucked it up and moved on. From the civil war (emapcipation), to WW2 (women moving doing factory work) to the civil rights movements (birth control, abortion, voting rights, etc).

I hate to elevate America too much here (because of the sentiment toward America on this forum), but it is one of the most diverse countries in the world. It can (and it may) elect a female or an African-American. I have no doubts about that.

[wyldwolf]

3. I agree with you 100% - but I also see why the GOP might think the way they do.

[joshcryer]

7. Yeah, I understand 100% why they think this way...

...I just think it is a losing stragety. :D

They're toast!

[OHdem10]

5. Wyldwolf has it exactly right---they are banking

on American People not being ready to elect an
African American or a Woman. I hate to admit it
but the GOP may be right on this one.

Is the fair==heck no. Life is not fair.

Gop are working their behinds off because they
believe this so deeply. They know their constituents
and their own (GOP) ability to dirty campaign.

Never Never forget what they did to McCain. If
they do this to their own, think what they will
do to their opposition.

I am just saying be prepared. The Media did
nothing to help McCain. Rather they said
and I quote'Bush did what he had to do to win"

We must keep our eyes wide open.







s

[joshcryer]

8. This is the first time in awhile I've been happy with our candidates.

I didn't think that Gore/Liberman was that great back in 2000 (though I supported them). And I didn't/couldn't vote for Clinton (when he went up against Bush Sr). So really my voting life has consisted of candidates I wasn't too thrilled about (Dean being the one exception). I am a "Gore fan" now, but only after having watched closely his policy making over the past 7 years. And I do hope he enters the race (unlike some here I don't have a problem with a diverse array of candidates to chose from).

I think that while there may be credence to the GOP talking "elevating Hillary so that they can beat here" I don't think it is based in any reality that is true. They're missing the boat on this one.

[MGKrebs]

11. Not just dirty political campaigns.

I think this is why Limbaugh and hannity and all those idiots have stepped up the racist/sexist hate speech lately. I think we have to get serious about not tolerating this crap anymore, and NOW. Some of us are going to have to listen to their radio programs to determine who their advertisders are in each community so we can publicize it and apply pressure to them to not support hate.

[ellenfl]

4. why do you think they have been pushing hillary? eom

[joshcryer]

6. They want the Democrats to lose.

But I don't think it will work. Even if she got the nomination she'd win. Any democratic nominee will win.

[ellenfl]

9. i hope you're right. eom

[w4rma]

10. Why leave it up to chance for a candidate with mediocre, the few she states, positions anyway? (nt)

[MGKrebs]

12. Mediocre maybe, but "few" is inaccurate by most any definition.

She has a voting record to look at and the attendent "ratings" from various interest groups to go with it. This is the very reason many say Senators can't win- too many positions to attack them on. If she had a poor attendence record, there might be an issue, but I don't think that is the case.

She has positions, but as George Lakoff says, ideas that don't fit a persons' frame of reference just bounce off.

Perhaps it is the media who is doing a poor job of articulating actual substance in a candidates positions.

[w4rma]

14. Hillary's own website does a poor job of articulating actual substance.

Where is her issues section?

[MGKrebs]

16. OK, so your criteria is actually something like "must have a section

of the campaign website with concise policy positions by April 27 the year before the election."

Fair enough. If that is your criteria for a good president, she may not be the best for you.

[w4rma]

19. It's the example I decided to provide of many other examples. (nt)

[MGKrebs]

25. But it's incorrect. She does have many specific positions.

They are just not in the exact format you have chosen to use as a qualification.

It is misinformation that just needed to be clarified. You can have whatever criteria you want.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

27. It is just a coincidence she is the only Dem candidate without an issues page

Even longshot candidates for mayor have such pages. It is purely coincidental that the co-frontrunners for the Dem nomination does not have one. Usually, candidates want voters to easily access their views on the issues.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

22. Even Gravel has one, as do most candidates for state offices and big city mayoral candidates

Most candidates want voters to have an idea of where they stand on the issues so they have an easily accesible page on their campaign website. HRC's campaign is different from most since she is running as a brand (the "Clinton" brand). Her website reflects this. The brand is all that matters, substance means nothing. She does not even have a plan for universal health care yet, for instance. She is hoping her last name will carry her to the nomination and her genericness and vagueness during the primaries will allow her to lurch to the right in order to set up for the general election. It seems HRC has been setting up to be able to lurch to the right ever since she joined the senate.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

20. There are eight Democrats running for president. Only HRC doesn't bother to have an issues page

The answer is obvious and consistent with her campaign strategy of being as vague and generic as possible. Just look her performance last night.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

17. HRC may not win

HRC will have an uphill battle to win. We are making a huge mistake if we ignore the polls and believe that we are surely going to win solely based on faith. Polls consistently show that 45-52% of voters automatically rule out voting for her. Do the math...

Clinton (46%) Brownback (41%)
Clinton (47%) Giuliani (48%)
Clinton (47%) McCain (46%)
Clinton (50%) Romney (41%)
Clinton (43%) Thompson (44%)

Compare that to Edwards and Obama.

Edwards (49%) Giuliani (43%)
Edwards (50%) Huckabee (41%)
Edwards (47%) McCain (38%)
Edwards (55%) Romney (29%)
Edwards (50%) Thompson (36%)

Obama (49%) Brownback (34%)
Obama (43%) Giuliani (46%)
Obama (52%) Huckabee (32%)
Obama (48%) McCain (42%)
Obama (52%) Romney (37%)
Obama (47%) Thompson (37%)

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Political%20Tracking/Favorables/Favorables.htm

What is clear is that running against HRC gives even unknown candidates automatically 40-41% of the vote. Notice how Edwards has Romney down at 29% and Obama has Huckabee at 32%. Why does Romney suddenly jump 12 points against HRC? The answer is there is a large group of swing voters who simply do not like her. Many more people are willing to at least give Edwards and Obama a shot. For HRC to win she would have to virtually sweep the small number of swing voters who would consider voting for her. Edwards and Obama allow for a much larger margin for error. Unless we plan on running the first perfect campaign in history, we would be wise to have candidates who can appeal to swing voters and aren't reliant on winning 91%-100% (If the 52% figure is correct HRC will have to win 100% of the remaining 48% and hope that somehow those votes tend to come in enough key states to allow her to win the electoral college while losing the popular vote) of the vote of half the population to win.

[joshcryer]

21. I'm more about trends than static polls. Iraq will not get better.

Because Iraq will not get better, no candidate in the field stands a chance of defeating the Democrats. Maybe I'm wrong, your polls are definitely interesting. But they are also pretty old. As far as I recall both Clinton and Giuliani have dropped in the polls lately.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

24. Yes, but HRC is a special case

You are mostly right. If we nominate a strong candidate we are very likely to win. HRC could even win, although it would be unlikely. HRC is simply the least able to take advantage of what should be a strong Democratic year in 2008. Why? The trend with her has been clear: she is simply disliked by too many swing voters. If HRC does win it will be another 2000 or 2004 type squeaker instead of a comfortable win that we could have with virtually any other candidate, aside from Kucinich and Gravel.

[joshcryer]

28. An addendum: the only way our nominee could lose is if they're attacked from the inside.

I didn't want this to turn into an HRC thread. I thought it was interesting how the GOP talking heads were talking up HRC, indeed, you can find a poll on FOX News yesterday placing her way ahead of Giuliani in Penn. (yet similar Quinnipiac polls place her behind Giuliani in some swing states), they think that if they make her the leading candidate that it will get her nominated and she will be easy to defeat.

If you think that she's easy to defeat, okay, I won't argue with it. I think it is wrong to think that, though, simply because the one talking point (Iraq) which the GOP cannot give a sufficient response to.

[PaDem]

29. I wish I was half as confident as you are.............

I just don't see it. HRC is very vulnerable in a GE.

[JerseygirlCT]

13. Oh yeah, they've been talking her up for years now

You can feel them salivating at the prospect, so sure they are that she stands no chance in the general.

[illinoisprogressive]

15. No. They believe she is the easiest to beat because of all the bagagge.

[joshcryer]

18. That's what I'm saying, I'm just challenging that POV.

I think they have no chance of winning the GE. None whatsoever.

[fuzzyball]

23. GOP wishlist: 1. Obama 2. Edwards 3. HRC

Obama would be the easiest to beat, in that order.
Why you ask? THINK!!! If MODERATE, CENTRIST Harold Ford
could not get elected in south, how much chance does a
liberal, anti-war, african-american Obama has?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

26. The reality-based polls don't reflect this HRC campaign spin