Can anyone provide evidence showing Hillary will drive up GOP turnout?

[rinsd]

This is practically CW, stated over and over again but I have yet to see any evidence that the GOP will be more inclined to vote just because she is on the ballot.

[Xipe Totec]

1. The only thing that would drive GOP turnout

is Ronald Regan's second coming.

And he would have to walk on water and cure some lepers.

[rinsd]

2. LOL

Good stuff....

[babylonsister]

6. Sounds like Fred Thompson didn't do it for ya. nt

[SharonAnn]

11. I know some GOP women who would vote for Hillary.

They're moderates and they're tired of all their right-wing Republican candidates. They'd like a woman with more sense than their yahoos. So they've said they hope Hillary is the nominee because they'd really like to have the chance to vote for her.

Of course, I also know another Republican woman who "hates" Hillary and would vote against her.

[avrdream]

29. I know 6 white male republicans who are voting for her in the General Election.

Most of them tell me it is because their stocks did better under Bill.

I love her because of her stands on health care (she really, really wants to change things for the better), women's issues (take a look, she's good) and children's issues. I also like the way she can speak intelligently off the top of her head (unlike current CIC) and appears to know at least something about every issue.

Those are my reasons but I don't mind that my Repub friends are supporting her. These guys really seem to care about balancing the budget again. I would say that they aren't your typical Repubs, though, because they agree with me about gay rights and abortion.

FWIW

[liberalmuse]

3. No.

But I can present loads of premature speculation not backed up by any facts, if you want.

[ShortnFiery]

4. Common Sense!

I hope that I may NOT have the opportunity to prove this correct, i.e., HRC is denied the Nomination ... thereby dissolving the DLC and Third Way movements. ;)

If HRC snags the Nomination, you will *feel the wave* about five minutes after she's nominated. :wow:

[AlCzervik]

5. i can make up fake polls from non existent think tanks and political web sites though.

[napi21]

7. I know, I hear it all the time too, but only from the talking heads!

I doubt it would work that way. Yes there's a group of people who really hate her, but I suspect they are the same people who are still looking for a fundie Prez. I think they are so disgusted with Shrub and quite a few of the Pub Congress Critters who've disgraced them, they'll most likely stay home!

[saracat]

8. Maybe that she isn't leading among the candidates who could win in the GE among

the Dems/ Seems Rass and Survey USA say that is John Edwards. He topples the GOP by between 9 and 11 points.Hillary does not. there are no absolutes in this game but Hillary obviously causes a closer race. I am not comfotrtable with that. We have not done well in close races. Others may not care.

[rinsd]

10. Not a bad argument in terms of her GE viability

Though my counter argument is that she still beats the GOP (in some polls quite handily) in national heats AND has shown herself to be quite formidable in red state polling by Survey USA (which Edwards has also done well in).

But what I was really looking for is how she would effect turnout, GOP turnout specifically. I don't think you can get that from simple head to heads or approvals polls and yet it is often repeated.

[saracat]

12. Probably not but I do not know what one would measure the GOP dislike with.

You are correct that it is ofetn repeated. I have always thought that the GOP hatred of the Clintons was well established but how that translates to "votes" has not been AFAIK.

[rinsd]

17. I am not denying the hatred at all.

Or that she will have a rough going with the media.

Those are givens.

But I am unsure if hatred of her translates into greater turnout.

Thanks saracat. I know we have our arguments but its nice to just kind of chat every now and then.

[saracat]

20. I didn't think you were.I have always respected you rinsd.

And it is nice to chat.

[wyldwolf]

27. wait. She does lead the top GOPers in GE match ups

Not by as much as Edwards, but by more than Obama. So by your reasoning Obama is the one who drives up GOP turnout to levels we don't want.

BUT the same polls show Hillary flipping more red states and putting more in play than both Edwards and Obama.

[Rowdyboy]

9. "Conventional wisdom" unsupported by fact....Like Iraq having wmd's

I think its likely, but I've never seen any proof.

[ShortnFiery]

15. It's not scientific, but I live among the right wing ... the hard core ones.

You know, the ones who held posters by their local churches last Sunday protesting Abortion. Yes, it's so much easier to intimidate teenage girls than take a true moral stand against an unholy war. :( But I digress. :blush:

The right wing fires up it's base with FEAR and HATE. The hate for "all things Clinton" will rally bus service from the area churches to the polls.

Perhaps it's not enough to make a difference. But from a person who has lived politically *behind enemy lines*, I can attest to the fact that nobody know how to nurture and foment HATE like The Right Wing Fundy-Koolaid drinkers.

Again, it's anecdotal but IMO, very real. :shrug:

[Rowdyboy]

18. Oh, I know what you're tlaking about....

I'm in rural Mississippi :shrug:

[ShortnFiery]

21. Oh yes, and with regard to most other topics, these folks are quite accommodating.

But those "hot button" issues that they've seemingly been indoctrinated on ... well, it saddens me because there's just no way of reaching them.

It's not possible to logically convince them that LIBERALS are not evil. In fact, I don't tell right wingers I'm loosely acquainted with that I'm even a democrat. Why? I have in the past and they either try to convert me or they find a reason NOT to like my person.

We must face the fact that up to 20% of the population at any one time will be enamored with whatever bilge-water right wing ministers or other authority figures throw at them.

And NO, many of the right wing people are *highly intelligent* ... all I can discern is they must have been so enveloped by those LIKE THEM, that they feel comfortable blindly accepting such authoritarian doctrine.

But please don't underestimate the right wing of the republican party - they are organized and many are FAR FROM STUPID. :shrug:

[denem]

32. Hating Clintons

Do the people who hate "all things Clinton" hate them anymore than they did in 1996 when the Contract with America was crashing down around their ears? Hillary hatred I suspect has been pretty constant since 1994.

[syberyenta]

13. ABC

Evidence?
I fear you underestimate how much she is despised, and the power of an "ABC" vote.

[rinsd]

14. Well thank you for your "evidence"

[Froward69]

16. I see it all the time

just about everyone I ask. Hillary no some say they would go to vote just to vote against her. for romney hopefully.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

19. I think you meant to post this in GD:Empiricism. This is GD:ReceivedWisdom

[illinoisprogressive]

22. you have not read all the posts saying so.

[wyldwolf]

35. oooh, now there's some evidence. Posts on DU say so.

:rofl:

[Stop Cornyn]

23. Nothing beyond those high negatives, low head-to-head numbers, and every third defamation from

right-wing talk radio which is obsessed with the fear of her presidency (and for the record, I think she's the favorite to win the nomination and, while I think she's not nearly as strong a general election candidate as Obama or Edwards, I think she'd still be the favorite to win the general election).

But here's an interesting fact:

Googling "anyone but Clinton" gets 2,850 hits,

and "anyone but Hillary" gets 27,400 hits,

and "anyone but Obama" gets 44 hits,

and "anyone but Barack" gets 8 hits,

and "anyone but Edwards" gets 61 hits, and

and "anyone but John" gets 786 hits (few involve Edwards).

[DemocratSinceBirth]

26. " low head-to-head numbers"

What low head to head to head numbers?

That's demonstably untrue...


She is beating every one of her Republican rivals in the majority of published national polls...Disprove that statement and I'll buy you a DU star...

[Stop Cornyn]

59. Here are some of Hillary's low head-to-head numbers I was referring to:

If there were an election for President of the United States today, and the only two names on the ballot were Republican {name} and Democrat {name}, who would you vote for?

50% Fred Thompson
45% Clinton

54% Fred Thompson
37% Obama

44% Fred Thompson
45% Edwards

46% Romney
46% Clinton

45% Romney
43% Obama

38% Romney
48% Edwards

All our candidates lose to Giuliani in Kentucky, but Edwards is the most competitive with him, and Edwards is the only one who beats both Romney and Thompson.

If there were an election for President of the United States today, and the only two names on the ballot were Republican {name} and Democrat {name}, who would you vote for?

47% Giuliani
44% Clinton

54% Giuliani
33% Obama

40% Giuliani
49% Edwards

50% Fred Thompson
44% Clinton

55% Fred Thompson
35% Obama

41% Fred Thompson
47% Edwards

44% Romney
47% Clinton

46% Romney
40% Obama

32% Romney
53% Edwards

In Oklahoma, Edwards is our only candidate who beats Giuliani, Thompson, and Romney.

I wasn't principally taking about national numbers because the OP topic concerns whether Hillary will unite Republicans, and I'm nor worried about her uniting all the Republicans in Massachusetts, but here is a national poll within the last 3 months which confirms that Hillary is weaker head-to-head in "Red" states and "Purple swing states:

If the 2008 election for President were being held today, and the candidates were {name} the Democrat and {name} the Republican, for whom would you vote? (asked of Red state voters, Blue state voters, and Purple swing state voters)

Red - Blue - Purple
44% - 52% - 43% --- Clinton
46% - 40% - 43% --- Giuliani

39% - 47% - 42% --- Obama
45% - 40% - 41% --- Giuliani

42% - 45% - 42% --- Edwards
42% - 43% - 40% --- Giuliani

44% - 52% - 45% --- Clinton
45% - 39% - 40% --- McCain

38% - 49% - 42% --- Obama
44% - 34% - 39% --- McCain

43% - 47% - 45% --- Edwards
40% - 36% - 36% --- McCain

45% - 58% - 47% --- Clinton
42% - 32% - 39% --- Thompson

41% - 56% - 44% --- Obama
38% - 28% - 36% --- Thompson

44% - 55% - 48% --- Edwards
36% - 27% - 33% --- Thompson

Among Red state voters, Hillary loses to Giuliani and McCain and beats Thompson by only 3%. Even among Purple state voters, Hillary doesn't beat Giuliani.

Obama does the same as Hillary in Red states, but at least he beats Giuliani in Purple states.

In Red states, Edwards ties Giuliani and beats both McCain and Thompson with more than twice the margin over Thompson. Edwards also wins in the Purple states by the biggest margins.

[PurityOfEssence]

24. I can't, but there's a lot of anecdotal trouble from many directions and something potentially worse

Life is complex and a big smeary mess of analog influences. Rarely does one issue or event really cause a defeat, much as people would like to think this is so.

As a species, we crave simplicity, yet it's just not that good a model for much of what we experience.

Although I live in a very liberal part of Los Angeles and work in a pretty lefty business, I have lots of friends, acquaintances and business associates who range all the way up to just short of fascist. Many interesting dynamics are flittering about these days, and some are quite unexpected. Among the unexpected is the interest in Obama from the conservatives. Another somewhat surprising turn is how many very left women are staunchly for Clinton regardless of their strict leftist policy allegiances.

One thing that's apparent is that the reactionaries are extremely fired up against her, and quite a few who don't always vote are on a mission. Some have confided just what's been bandied around on this board: that they hope she's the nominee.

What's painfully obvious is the revulsion among so many moderate to left Dems and Independents for Senator Clinton. Many of us are in a serious funk and many extremely active lay-politicos have confessed that they probably won't vote. There's a recurring theme among them, and it's a disgust with her stances, her votes and her evasiveness. There are others who intensely dislike her, but will vote for her if she's the nominee, but they admit that they won't really have their hearts in it and won't work much for the campaign.

This is a huge problem, and one I have too. When Kerry was rammed down our throats in '04, some zeal was soaked off in the process, too, but this is RADICALLY WORSE. The bad taste in many of our mouths about her will translate into lassitude on the campaign trail, and that's not good.

I'll have a hard time really engaging someone in serious vote-influencing conversuasion; my heart's just not into it. I'll do it, but I know myself well enough to know that I just won't do as much.

It's the accumulation of little things like this that saps support.

Back to your question, though: I have no proof other than my sampling of a pretty broad range of people, but that REALLY shows the existence of some piles of torches and pitchforks out there. I have no acceptable scientific proof, but I get around. Lots of momentum was lost because some people weren't excited by Kerry, but there wasn't the disgust with him that there is for Senator Clinton, and this, coupled with the vehemence from the right doesn't bode well.

[wyldwolf]

36. there's a lot of anecdotes that say the opposite

[PurityOfEssence]

38. Okay, but can you "prove" them with stats either?

When you hear so much from so many, there might be something to it.

The premise that only a bunch of socialists really have trouble with Hillary on the left just doesn't hold water. We face a replay of '04 where Kerry was shoved down our throats and some of the most adamant of the supporters blamed the rest of us for not fighting with every fiber of our being for him. The good and bad traits of human nature have to both be addressed.

The question was for proof that Republican turn-out would increase. That's an important issue if true, but the corresponding lack of zeal from the left could be even more deadly.

[wyldwolf]

40. no, which is why I never use anecdotes unless responding to anecdotes

:shrug:

When you hear so much from so many, there might be something to it.

So much of what from so many who? Here's where the title of my reply comes into play: EVERYONE I know supports Clinton. And I know A LOT of people. :)

The premise that only a bunch of socialists really have trouble with Hillary on the left just doesn't hold water.

Well, if countless people have trouble with Hillary, countless more have trouble with Obama. And countless more have trouble with Edwards. And a whole bunch of countless folks have trouble with Kucinich.

We face a replay of '04 where Kerry was shoved down our throats

Escept he wasn't. :) He was voted on by the Dem electorate who rejected everyone else in the field.

[libodem]

25. They will take one look at their candidate

and turn around and vote for her. Republican's love women. First they say women should lead churches, then secondly women should be the heads of the households and thirdly they should run the country. Oh, those traditionalists, they never cease to amaze me. The Pope backs her, the Mormon President backs her, and the Zionists in Israel love her. The Bible Belt in the south can't wait to see her get all those women out of their homes, on birth control and sendin' the kids to daycare. Voting, Rudy, in so we can have drive through abortion clinics isn't enough for most Republiks, when they know Hill, will do a better job. The Republikans have fought for equal rights all this time, because conservatives, know males and females are equal, there is NO difference, and this maybe their chance to get the Equal Rights Amendment passed. They love women, especially, Hillary, whom is their idea of the demure housewifely type, so that none of their wives get any uppity ideas.:sarcasm: Nah, they'll be sittin' at home on election day.

[cali]

28. People who think that a Hillary nom will substantially drive

up repuke turnout, are letting fear or dislike of hillary, drive their thinking. Repuke turnout will depend far more, I believe on who the candidate is. If it's Rudi, look for a depressed repuke turn out. If it's Romney, same thing. Fred might increase turn out, but he's turning out to be less than inspirational for them.

[lojasmo]

30. My FIL (repub) is going to caucus as a democrat to vote against her. EOM

[Adelante]

31. Good question, rinsd

Nothing I would call evidence appearing in this thread so far.

[rinsd]

52. Damn I see you got off the fence and it wasn't to join us.

:sad:

Oh well.

I thank you for your efforts in defending all of Democratic candidates even when they weren't your pick

[Adelante]

55. Yeah, it was a tough one

Thank you for always being so kind and fair :pals:

[wyldwolf]

33. 32 replies and not single shred of evidence...

[LSK]

43. post evidence that the sun will rise tomorrow n/t

[wyldwolf]

44. Is that in question?

[LSK]

45. is the the OP in question?

:shrug:

[wyldwolf]

46. of course it is. Which is why the OP exists.

[LSK]

47. so I guess all the Repukes I know who bash Hillary all the time are imaginary?

:shrug:

[wyldwolf]

48. no more so than the Repukes I know who bash Obama and Edwards

Obama - barack HUSSEIN Obama
Edwards - Fag

Hear it all the time.

[LSK]

49. you know Repukes who know Obama and Edwards???

Wow, impressive!

[wyldwolf]

51. did I say that?

[Evergreen Emerald]

34. that is what they said about her during the senate race--turned out to be a lie

She kicked butt in NY.

[Dawgs]

37. Personal experience, listening to republicans, the 2000-2004 elections, and common sense

History has shown me that the republicans only need one reason to get out and vote. In 2000 it was fear of liberals. In 2004 it was fear of a 'weak on terror' candidate.

My personal experience has shown me that Hillary is dispised more than any other candidate. I hear it from friends and family, talk radio, the past 16 years watching the media, and common sense.

Let me ask you rinsd.

Do you deny that the Clintons are despised by the right - much more than any other candidate?

[rinsd]

54. Hate doesn't equal turnout.

And that is what we are seeking to prove here.

[DrFunkenstein]

39. Use of Her Name to Drive Fundraising & Numerous High Negative Polls With Little Fluidity

Clinton supporters like to think that the GOP uses her name as an assumption that she will be the frontrunner.

On the contrary, they drop her name the way MoveOn mentions Rove and Cheney, or Elizabeth Edwards mentions Ann Coulter.

Basically, they are all summoning up the embodiment of all that is wrong with the world in the eyes of their base.

Beyond that, there are are many things fluid about the polling for the 2008 campaign as people have yet to settle on a candidate for good. However, opinions on Hillary Clinton are all but locked in place with historically high negatives.

The GOP candidate will be able to exploit that for all it is worth. Clinton is already an existing frame.

[rinsd]

53. Actually that is a great test. The RNC recently used her name in a email.

Let's see if they have a better Q fundraising.

[Clintonista2]

41. "proof", " evidence", is not compatible with rabid Hillary hatred on DU. nt.

[LSK]

42. do you know any Republicans???? were you alive in the 90s??

How the hell could someone doubt this would happen???

:shrug:

[rinsd]

57. Because there is no evidence to support it.

For all the hate the GOP has for Hillary Clinton, they weren't able to stop her when both the state and its largest city were in the hands of moderate Republicans.

Their best candidate turned tail in the face of poll numbers and divorce scandal. And yes I know he had prostate cancer but he didn't withdraw from the race until the NY tabs started hammering him on his divorce.

[AtomicKitten]

50. No empiric evidence, but one would have to have been in a coma -

during the last two decades to not grasp the level of bile the wingnuts have for all thing Clinton. She at the very least will be used as a fund-raising tool.

[rinsd]

58. Actually AK that presents the chance for an experiment.

The RNC recently sent out a fundraising email talking about the Hillary Juggernaut and how she was raises millions and the money was needed to fight her.

Now let's wait and see what the RNC coffers look like at the end of the 4th Q. While they should be higher than the 3rd Q we can also test them against 4th Q 2003 and 4th Q 2005 as a means of comparing pre-election fundraising quarters.

[AtomicKitten]

60. that may be the GOP's only real leverage for fund-raising

The stats look grim for the GOP and they will need to rally their base to get them invested in this election. I can't help but to think they are not of the personality type (gross generalization) to throw in the towel. They will fight tooth and nail and I really hate adding fuel to that fervor. We shall see.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

56. Irrelevant

She's leading in national polls:


http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm


and in key battleground states:


http://quinnipiac.edu/x2882.xml?ReleaseID=1109


Is she a mortal lock ?

No...

But if this was football she would be the New England Patriots, Dallas Cowboys, or the Indianapolis Colts and her rivals would be the Miami Dolphins, New York Jets, or St. Louis Rams

And if this was basketball she would be the San Antonio Spurs, Phoenix Suns, or Detroit Pistons and her rivals would be the Charlotte BobCats, Atlanta Hawks, and Philadelphia Seventy Sixers...