Here's why Hillary will energize the REPUB. base to come out and vote:

[jenmito]

80% of Repubs. have a negative view of her, compared to 55% having a negative view of Edwards, and 48% having a negative view of Obama, according to the latest CNN/Opinion Research poll I just saw on CNN.

And remember when Jerry Fallwell said not even the devil himself would energize the Repubs. as much as Hillary would? These poll numbers seem to back that up.

[againes654]

1. Interesting

:popcorn:

[Greenwood]

2. True. But, I think WE are going to be energized....

after the 2000 and 2004 elections.

[FiveGoodMen]

5. Many of US would be MORE energized if Hillary wasn't the Dem candidate.

[jenmito]

21. Agreed. n/t

[robinlynne]

25. right on. and we are the ones who walk the streets. I wont be doing that again for hillary.

still mad at kerry for what he did.

[MonkeyFunk]

82. Meh

Other people will do it. Every candidate has their own hard-core supporters who will be "streetwalkers" for them.

[ginchinchili]

107. Hillary won't get a dime of my money

I just can't understand why so many Democrats think Hillary is the candidate who can get the most done for America. That is what it's all about, isn't it?

[kenfrequed]

9. OK

But how do we get energized? By backing a DLC candidate with corporate leanings and a ton of corporate donors? Someone to the right of the American people, politically speaking?

[high density]

36. I don't think you can get any more energized than 2004. NM

[robinlynne]

86. true. god damn it.

[Yael]

57. It isn't about the polls on GE day

It is about who is out there pounding the pavement for her. She leaves the core base (and those with the time and energy to dedicate to this activism) in a state of apathy.

If the RW is frothing and the left base is apathetic "but will hold their nose and vote" you have a recipe for disaster.

Better to avoid the issue and vote for someone who can actually win this thing and with an exhuberant grassroots behind him. She can take her 'exhuberant corporations' and find something else to do for the next 4 years.

JMO

[BOSSHOG]

3. I'm confused

So republicans will come out in massive numbers to vote against hillary, although their massive numbers aren't so massive?

I'm trying to stay neutral in the DU primary wars because my state's primary is impotent but if someone were to tell me that 80% of the trash party in this country despises her to insanity then I find that a compliment to their subject of derision. The trash party has almost ruined our Army and our economy and I should be wary because they hate Hillary in large numbers? I fail to see this being a winning issue for you.

I will vote and support whole heartedly whomever the dems nominate.

[kenfrequed]

7. Well then

go to your primary (or caucus) and pick a friggin candidate already. And really, don't play coy about it here. Just do your homework and find somebody and support them. Sheesh.

[BOSSHOG]

18. Well then okay

I will vote in Mississippi's primary next March (I never miss a vote) when the selection will most likely already be made. Do my homework? Thanks Friend. Your assuming I don't know the issues. Massive numbers of conservative jerkoffs hate Hillary Clinton therefore I should not support her? Brilliant!

[jenmito]

19. As you put it, massive numbers of conservative jerkoffs hate Hillary Clinton

and I'M saying that's why she will NOT be the best person to put up against the Repubs. She will energize their base.

[BOSSHOG]

29. So if conservatives

tell you to eat salmon on Friday, you will?

My vote will not be driven by a bunch of yahoos who have no concept of right or wrong.

But. For those of you who fear my rationale, my primary vote will be totally irrelevant.

Make sure you check in with free republic to find out who to urge our candidate to select as a running mate.

[jenmito]

49. You don't get it at all...

I'm simply stating a fact that it will be harder to beat a Repub. if their base is energized and voting for their candidate, and they are more likely to vote for their candidate if someone they deeply dislike on our side is our nominee.

[MonkeyFunk]

58. Whoever the eventual candidate is

will be hated and reviled and smeared by the right wing.

This is one of the stupidest "reasons" to oppose Clinton. How can anybody be so naive as to think that a candidate exists who will NOT motivate the right-wing base.

[jenmito]

89. I disagree...

They will not be hated like Hillary is...as the poll clearly shows.

MANY Repubs. (regular voters-not GOP operatives) have said they liked Obama's unifying message. All Dems. are NOT alike and YOU'RE naive to think they are and will be equally hated.

[MonkeyFunk]

95. Anybody who thinks

the right-wing smear machine will not be used against ANY democratic candidate is not only naive, he's a fucking idiot.

[jenmito]

109. That's not the point..

and I'm a "she," so I'm not offended by your vulgar name-calling. ;)

[Cha]

118. Yeah, you shouldn't be offended..

consider the source. :)

[kenfrequed]

139. Hmm

Just as it is Naieve to think that they would not play a little push me-pull me to try to influence who the Democrats select as their candidate.

[BOSSHOG]

79. I often

use left handed logic. I think you and I will agree that right wing wackos will do what they are told to do, whether it be from the pulpit or from radio, or from mass mindless emails, the message is almost always in unison and especially relative to a presidential election.

Would the right wing want to stir up evil liberals especially those on websites, oh say like DU, to do their damndest to derail Clinton's nomination because those who are doing the instructing to the right wing base know she can't be beat in a general election and would rather we do their work for them? They (dobson, limbaugh, hannity and the rest of the right wing trash) aren't wanting a Clinton nomination, they are wanting her defeat in the primaries. Swiftboating Edwards or Obama would be a helluva lot easier then swiftboating someone who has been there and who will fire back. Immediately.

And I have to question the motives of the Clinton Haters here. Take her to task for who she is and what she stands for and try to convince others with that data, not what some inbred cocksucker in bumbfuck wants you to transmit.

I will support in whatever fashion I can, and with gusto, the democratic nominee for president, whomever that is.

[kenfrequed]

141. What if

What if the candidate is Kucinich?

[DefenseLawyer]

46. The point of choosing a candidate is to win the election!

Not to prove that you are smarter than "conservative jerkoffs". So yeah, actually, supporting a candidate that would bring lots of "conservative jerkoffs" out to vote who otherwise wouldn't, might be a losing strategy.

[rinsd]

61. Win an election you say? Here's Hillary beating every GOPer in national heats

Rudy - http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_giuliani_vs_clinton-227.html

Thompson - http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_thompson_vs_clinton-266.html

McCain - http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_clinton-224.html

Romney - http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_clinton-230.html

Here's Hillary holding down the fort to a Rudy insurgency in the NorthEast(he puts NJ, NY & PA in play with everyone but Hillary).

Q poll (swing states, FL, OH & PA) - http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x2882.xml?ReleaseID=1109

Q poll (NY) - http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1318.xml?ReleaseID=1108

Q poll (NJ) - http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1299.xml?ReleaseID=1106

Here's Hillary winning in Red States VA & AR

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/28522/virginia_turning_blue_before_2008_us_election

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/clinton_enjoys_big_lead_in_arkansas

[BOSSHOG]

80. Hmmm

I wonder why the conservative movement is so concerned about who gets the dem nomination. Could it be that they know Hillary can't be beat in a general election so they'd rather we just dump her in the primaries? The last dem candidate the right wing hate machine wants to cross swords with is Clinton. The "right wing jerkoffs know it, ergo they'd be greatly appreciative if we did the deed for them in the primaries.

[DefenseLawyer]

83. That must be why

every conservative in the country has been saying Hilary is the inevitable Democratic nominee and every conservative pundit says she wins every debate and is the strongest candidate. It's because they are so afraid of her.

[jenmito]

94. The GOP/RNC LOVE Hillary and would LOVE her to be our nominee...

because they think they can beat her. It's regular Repub. voters who hate her and they're the ones I'm talking about. You don't understand.

[Vickers]

77. BOSSHOG......."coy"...

:rofl:

Try again.

[DefenseLawyer]

14. I am not the sharpest tool in the shed

but I have read this post 5 or 6 times and I still have no idea what you are trying to say.

[jenmito]

16. You ARE confused...

Yes, the Repubs. will come out in massive numbers to vote against Hillary. I don't see how YOU can't see that these numbers show Repubs. who may stay home on election day because they aren't inspired by their candidates WOULD come out to vote for their nominee just so Hillary doesn't win. She motivates their base more than even their own candidates.

[robinlynne]

33. Boss, I hear you. You and the others are arguing about 2 very different things.

You are saying: if the republicans hate her, she must be doing something right. Instead of answering you, the repliers are answering the OP, which says: the republicans will work harder to get out their base to fight hillary, making it harder for us to win the general.

Both can be true. But I see what you're saying: what a shitty argument to get me to vote against Hillary: the republicans hate her.
I think you're right. that isn't a very good reason.
I think we should vote against Hillary because she is the worst candidate out there.

[BOSSHOG]

39. There ya go getting all rational on us.

I told myself long ago not to get involved in these primary wars. I will vote and support the dem candidate. And if its Hillary I will proudly cross swords with the invigorated members of the party of trash. I'll do so regardless of the candidate.

[Rowdyboy]

88. Hey, Boss! I've also read today that since many people won't vote for a woman, we can't afford....

to nominate Senator Clinton. Well, they're right, some people won't vote for Hillary. We call people "Republicans" and "chauvinists". There are also some people who won't vote for a black man. We call those people "bigots" or "Republicans".

So I'm supposed to believe that chauvinists and bigots who won't vote for a woman or a black would vote for ANY OTHER Democrat? Thats absurd. Those assholes will never vote for any Democrat so why should their opinions count.

All this concern for the sensitivity of conservatives who hate Hillary leaves me cold. Who gives a shit what they think.

Like you, I've stayed out of the "primary wars" but its really sickening to see any of our guys hit with cheap shots like this.

[Auntie Bush]

142. Give that man a gold star!

[kenfrequed]

4. I agree

She will energize the republican base. But the worst thing about it is that she will do so with almost no benefit to progressive causes or values.

That being said we should not pick out candidate purely on who the republicans have a negative view of. It isn't a reasonable argument. I save the 'Hillary will excite Republican voters' argument for arguments with 'penny-scuking-would-be-stratagists' who lack any sense of idealism.

[jenmito]

24. This isn't about strategists...

it's about Repub. voters as the poll shows.

[kenfrequed]

140. I sort of agree

Yes she will energize republican voters. BUT as Democrats this should NOT be the sole reason for choosing a candidate.

We should pick someone based on whether or not we think they will do a good job and represent our ideals. Hillary does not represent mine.

[ShortnFiery]

6. The right wing is so nutty and motivated to beat the EVIL demo-RATs that they even

were giving away GW Bush stickers in my former Catholic Parish Parking lots before and after Mass during the run up to the 2004 Election. I knew then, I did not belong at THAT Parish. :scared:

The right wing HATES Hillary *almost as much* as the vast majority of former Vietnam Combat veterans viscerally despise "Hanoi" Jane Fonda.

It will get UGLY, one heartbeat after HRC is Nominated. That's why I hope Obama throws all his support behind Edwards right before the Primaries start. Just perhaps - We can make it happen for John Edwards. :shrug:

[jenmito]

28. My only disagreement is...

Edwards should throw his support behind Obama. :D

[ShortnFiery]

32. Oh gosh, I can get behind you on that thought ... but feasibly IMO, Edwards has to be the top of the

ticket. :shrug: But yes, IMO, Obama would make an outstanding President. :thumbsup:

[mitchtv]

8. So I should not vote for her for fear of republics?

I intend to support whichever Dem gets the nod and saying the republics hate Sen Clinton is not enough to swing my vote to anyone else(If i intended to vote for her in the primary).The Republic candidate will energize the Dems

[kenfrequed]

12. Ok

But who do you support now?

[mitchtv]

26. I'm torn Dennis or Edwards

I've eliminated Richardson

[dtotire]

62. Edwards would be a better choice

Repubs would not be as energized to come to the polls and more Dem congressmen would be elected.

[kenfrequed]

138. As much

as much as I dislike Hillary, we should support a candidate that we agree with and that represents our values and viewpoints. Really no matter who we run we have an excellent chance of taking back the Whitehouse and we should not waste a historic opportunity with a candidate chosen on a phoney arguement like "he/she is the only one that can win" or "They hate him most so we should definitey/definitely not select him/her to be the candidate"

[jenmito]

20. I'm stating a fact. She'll bring out more REPUB. voters to vote AGAINST her.

Of course IF she gets the nomination, we should ALL vote for her in the general, and we'll HAVE to, since more Repubs. will be energized to vote for THEIR candidate. It's not rocket science.

[mitchtv]

30. sorry, doesn't scare me

I'll vote my conscience on Primary day

[jenmito]

42. If you like her positions that much and don't care that she'll bring out most Repubs. to vote

against her, go right ahead. My conscience doesn't like her anyway.

[MonkeyFunk]

68. Then

you're arguing we should choose a candidate that is liked by the Right Wing. That's dumb.

[jenmito]

96. No...

I'm arguing we should choose a great candidate who won't motivate regular Repubs. to vote AGAINST them. I'm not talking about the RW. I'm talking about regular Repubs. who took the poll. Someone like Obama, who is a BETTER candidate than Hillary, was against the war and is for talking to our enemies, is also not hated by regular Repubs. like Hillary is.

[MonkeyFunk]

127. and I'm saying no such candidate exists

[Speck Tater]

10. Hmmm. Difficult choices this year.

Go out and vote for Hillary or stay home and watch reruns of Little House on the Prairie. Tough call, that one.

[rinsd]

11. That's great. Now demostrate how negative views = increased turnout.

After that perhaps you can explain the paradox of Hillary winning handily in head to head competition with people with better approval ratings.

And lastly are you sure that was CNN/Opinion Research because I don't see that poll anywhere.

Gallup just put a poll out though. http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=28957

Hillary beats Obama and Edwards in Dem net approval by double digits.

"Clinton's advantage over Obama and Edwards is also evident in Democrats' basic opinions of the candidates. Eighty-one percent have a favorable opinion of Clinton, compared with a 70% favorable rating for Obama and 69% for Edwards. Clinton's higher favorable rating does not merely reflect the fact that she is better known than Obama or Edwards, since her net favorable rating (which excludes those without an opinion and is calculated by subtracting the percent unfavorable from the percent favorable) also surpasses those of her chief rivals by double digits."


Obama and Edwards have double digit edges in net approval amongst all Americans but

"She still performs just as well as -- if not better than -- Obama and Edwards against the leading Republican candidates in general election trial heat match ups."

[wyldwolf]

22. *** crickets ***

[jenmito]

44. Are those crickets hampering your ability to read my response?

:shrug:

[rinsd]

54. See post #53

And be careful what you wish for....you just might get it.

[wyldwolf]

73. were those crickets posted before your response?

[rinsd]

75. Sometimes I guess people forget about timedate stamping

[jenmito]

98. Not in my case. I just thought it wrong to talk about "crickets a couple minutes after the post

without giving me time to respond. :eyes:

[rinsd]

100. Also I think you confused ww and I.

[jenmito]

97. A few minutes. Give someone a chance to answer, for God's sake!

[jenmito]

34. Negative views mean they don't want to see her as president so they'll go out and vote against her..

simple common sense. And this thread says differently about the rest of your post: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3596550

[rinsd]

53. Common sense? Like reading the thread you ref? Obama LOSES in GREATER margins than Hillary

Obama loses by 6 to Rudy and McCain and beats Thomspon by 2 in Red States.

Hillary Loses by 2 to Rudy and 1 to McCain and beats Thompson by 3 in Red States.

In purple states they are fairly even in their leads.

[still_one]

13. The question is this, how will it energize those who have lost their homes

those whose children aren't covered by healthcare, those who have trouble buying a gallon of milk or filling their car up with gas?

How about those who could be helped with stem cell research, or those whose civil rights are and will be deprived when they realize the Supreme Court will be at stake in 2008?

How about those that have been PERSONALLY HURT BY THIS ADMINISTRATION AND THE REPUBLICAN PARTY?

[bluestateguy]

15. Hillary is the most well known. That's the explanation for those numbers.

If its Edwards or Obama, they too will inherit the Right's hatred and wrath, as they become more well known. The Right has come to believe that the presidency is their God-given right, and any person who stands in the way of that can expect to feel the full thrust of the Republican Noise Machine.

There was nothing terribly polarizing about John Kerry, until he became the nominee, and then became the object of the Right's unlimited hatred. The same will happen to Edwards and Obama if they are nominated, and those "negatives" in the polls will climb accordingly.

[MonkeyFunk]

31. How much higher

is Clinton's name recognition John Edwards'?

[jenmito]

47. I don't think so.

The others are becoming just as well known. She has been disliked for many years already.

[rinsd]

56. And Obama's negatives are 45% according to Rasmussen

Though a few other polls, I see have him around 35% negative with 10-15% don't knows/no opinion

[MonkeyFunk]

17. so?

I WANT a candidate the right-wing hates. Don't you?

[Dawgs]

23. Look at it a different way. Do you want another Bush in 4/8 years?

Because that is what the hatred of Bill Clinton gave us in 2000. After 8 years of peace and prosperity we still "lost" the Presidency to a moron.

Is that what you want?

[MonkeyFunk]

27. I disagree with your premise

Bill Clinton wasn't hated. He left office with very high popularity, and that continues today.

Bush is President because of the Supreme Court.


The big mistake many here make is thinking that there's some mythical, magical candidate that the Republicans won't go all-out balls-to-the-wall to smear and destroy. They will do it to ANY candidate. Clinton has the advantage of being the most investigated, most scrutinized candidate of the field. All the republicans can use against her are old, long-discredited smears.

[BeyondGeography]

35. Bill Clinton wasn't hated?

That's funny.

[wyldwolf]

43. well, a certain percentage hated him..oddly, about the same percent who still support Bush

[MonkeyFunk]

45. Not widely, no

His popularity was close to 70% when he left office.

The right-wing nutjobs will hate whatever candidate we put up. THe idea that there's a candidate we could run that they'd be nice to is just laughable, and in fact, as I said before, I don't WANT a candidate that they like.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

66. ERGO

How sweet it is: Respect for Clinton rebounds among Americans
By DeWayne Wickham
Who would have thought it? Some two years after he left office hounded by right-wing detractors and stained by his affair with Monica Lewinsky, Bill Clinton now ranks as this nation's third best chief executive, according to a recent CNN/USA TODAY/Gallup Poll.
Only Abraham Lincoln (chosen by 15%) and John F. Kennedy (13%) finished ahead of Clinton (11%) in the April poll, which asked Americans who was "the greatest" president. George W. Bush managed to tie Clinton for third place.

Ronald Reagan, a conservative icon, garnered 10% of the vote, followed by Franklin Roosevelt, George Washington, Harry Truman and Jimmy Carter. Bush's father, the 41st president, was chosen by just 2% of the respondents, tying with Theodore Roosevelt and Thomas Jefferson.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/2003-05-26-wickham_x.htm

[DemocratSinceBirth]

70. AND

At this point, however, the former president is seen in favorable terms. Two-thirds of Americans said they approve of the job he did while he was in office -- virtually the reverse of President Bush's current approval rating, which stands at 33 percent. Clinton remains overwhelmingly popular among Democrats, and 63 percent of independents and even a third of Republicans also gave him positive marks.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/03/AR2007100302036.html?hpid=topnews

[ShortnFiery]

48. But the Right Wing Noise machine owns the M$M - they HATE all things Clinton.

And that HATRED with explode - one mere heartbeat after HRC wins the Nomination.

That's why, I'm hoping against hope that we Nominate Edwards/Obama. :shrug:

The DLC thinks that because Bill and Poppy are "an item" and Murdoch is courting HRC, that all is forgiven. The TRUISM that the DLC has failed to embrace is that The Right Wing NEVER FORGIVES or FORGETS.

Visualize HRC as "Charlie Brown" prepping to kick that football and The Right Wing Noise Machine (M$M) as "Lucy" teeing it up. Visualize the M$M after HRC's Nomination. :wow: :scared: :nuke: :(

[MonkeyFunk]

52. And they will hate Edwards or Obama

or Biden or anyone else with the same vehemence.

It's naive to think otherwise.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

76. Two-thirds of Americans said they approve of the job he did while he was in office --

virtually the reverse of President Bush's current approval rating,


At this point, however, the former president is seen in favorable terms. Two-thirds of Americans said they approve of the job he did while he was in office -- virtually the reverse of President Bush's current approval rating, which stands at 33 percent. Clinton remains overwhelmingly popular among Democrats, and 63 percent of independents and even a third of Republicans also gave him positive marks.











http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/03/AR2007100302036.html?hpid=topnews

[wyldwolf]

40. silly premise

After 12 years of Reagan/Bush, the GOP thought they had a lock on the presidency for a generation. They would not have spared any Democrat that won in 1992. I say that if we'd elected a weak Democrat in '92 they would have buried him.

The GOP was Hellbent on reclaiming the mantle in 2000. I say Gore blew it by running away from Clinton's economic record and hiring Bob Shrum.

Finally, you can let your fear of the GOP sway who you want to see nominated. Not me.

[Auntie Bush]

143. Yes. So do I. I'd love to see them all twist in the wind in absolute PAIN.

Maybe even some of them might commit suicide. :)

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

37. Will only 48% of pugs will have a negative view of Obama in October 2008?

I suspect it will be closer to 90%,just like anyone else we might nominate.

In fact, if we nominate Ronald Reagan I think his republican negatives would crack 80% by election day.

[jenmito]

101. It's possible...

REGULAR Repub. voters seem to LIKE Obama...unlike Hillary. They like his message of UNITING the country while not compromising his principles, while Hillary is almost RUNNING on her divisiveness.

[desi]

38. Hope those same numbers energize

the DEMS to come out and vote for the DEM candidate, even if it happens to be MY Candidate...

[jenmito]

102. The sad thing is many Dems. don't LIKE your candidate for the very reason

that she's such a calculating and divisive person. But I will hold my nose and vote for her IF she's the nominee.

[GreenTea]

41. No doubt about the fact the republicans & media are pushing for Hillary, knowing it will bring

out republicans in droves! Shit, republicans even donate to her campaign...the repugs want Hillary and know they have a real shot with a moderate like her....The republicans are very clear they do not want to face a smart politician and progressive like John Edwards....The republicans will all say they feel good about their chances if Hillary is the Dem nominee....that's why they are pushing her night & day anyone with a brain can see that....I will never vote for her...I will never vote for a republican but I will vote for a liberal running...if there are none running, I'll leave it blank...I won't be forced again into voting for another moderate to right Dem....the "lesser of two evils" if you will....never again!

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

155. To whatever degree the media is pushing for Clinton it's because it is better ratings

Clinton stories are of interest to both Hillary fans and Hillary haters.

[HughMoran]

50. Lots of moderate Republicans will vote for her

They actually like her more than you think...

[Dawgs]

121. "Lots of moderate Republicans will vote for her"

WTF, are you serious? I hope you forgot the sarcasm tag. Please tell me you forgot the sarcasm tag. WTF!! I don't know of one Democrat that will vote for her and you are claiming many Republicans will vote her.

That's it. I've heard it all from Hillary supporters. They have completley lost it.

We are truly fucked.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

156. Now THAT's hyperbole: "I don't know of one Democrat that will vote for her"

C'mon... Not even Bill?

[robinlynne]

51. Know what, no matter who the dem is, or the repug is, they're going to come out and fight

with all their might.

[tekisui]

55. She doesn't need those conservative voters.

What is her favorability with Independents?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

59. 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...

[William769]

60. So you want people not to vote for her because of Republicans?

Why don't you just bend over and tell them to hold the vaseline.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

63. No Vaseline

http://www.music-codes.org/ice_cube_no_vaseline_nwa_diss_video3300126.html

[jenmito]

103. What an idiotic thing to say...

I am stating a fact that 80% of regular voting Repubs. say they dislike her, so they will obviously vote against her if she's the nominee rather than just staying home if she's not the nominee. She will motivate THEIR side and demoralize some on OUR side. Common sense. Try it some time.

[rinsd]

106. See that is the problem. Its is not obvious. And it is not supported by the polling data

"so they will obviously vote against her if she's the nominee rather than just staying home if she's not the nominee."

Again simply saying this over and over doesn't make it so.

Especially in light of the paradox of Hillary kicking the crap out of GOPers in national heat head to heads with higher net approvals than her or that fact that she does quite well in head to head in red states (better than Obama).

[jenmito]

111. It depends which polling data you believe...and my conclusion was common sense.

Some people see it, unlike you.

[Dawgs]

122. It's called "blind love". Some people want a Clinton or woman so bad it's scary.

They don't think.

[rinsd]

146. Ok what polling data have I said I don't believe?

What you have failed to demonstrate is that her high negatives with Republicans will translate to higher GOP turnout.

You just keep repeating it with no evidence to support it.

Common sense?

Common sense that allows you to ignore Obama struggling in Red states(far more than Clinton or Edwards) even though he does well in national heats? That kind of common sense?

[William769]

113. You saying you are stating fact here, is what's idiotic

Can you back up that 80% claim?

[jenmito]

114. My OP had that % from CNN.

[William769]

116. Sorry if I don't take your word for it, I would like to see the link.

[jenmito]

117. I couldn't care less that you don't believe it...

I have no reason to make up the numbers and name of the poll. :eyes:

[William769]

126. At the shape Obama is in, you have all the reason in the world to make it up.

[jenmito]

149. Here's the quote from yesterday's transcript. (I accept your apology):

SCHNEIDER: Why the obsession with Senator Clinton? She's the Democratic frontrunner, of course, but she also has a unique ability to rally Republicans.

Eighty percent of Republicans have an unfavorable opinion of Hillary Clinton. Only about half of Republicans don't like the other two leading Democratic contenders, Barack Obama and John Edwards.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/sitroom.html

[Az_lefty]

64. They hate her. They would hold their nose and vote for Rudi to defeat Hillary.

[jenmito]

104. THANK YOU! That's my point!

:hi:

[Proud Liberal Dem]

65. I'm not going to base MY vote on which nominee is going to "energize" or "demoralize" the GOP base

No solid upstanding Republican is going to vote for ANYBODY that we put up and, given their current state of affairs, I don't know how "energized" they will be FOR anybody on THEIR side. I know that Hannity, Limbaugh, et. al are absolutely salivating at the possibility of HRC running so that they can relive their "glory days" of the late 1990's rehashing all of the various Clinton-related "non-scandals" but what they seem to be forgetting is that (Bill) Clinton survived impeachment destroying several prominent Republicans in the process through the subsequent exposure of their own "skeletons", he left office with good approval ratings and still is generally highly regarded by most Americans, particularly among African-Americans, he left behind a much improved economy, and he left behind a world that was relatively at peace and Hillary herself has since then solidly won two terms in the US Senate, so the idea that the 2008 election is at risk for us IF we nominate HRC because it MIGHT "energize" the GOP seems a bit off IMHO. Frankly, I'm not an enthusiastic HRC supporter and probably won't vote for her in the primaries BUT if she wins the primary I'll wholeheartedly support her and vote for her. Also, regardless of what people think about her stands on issues, I would also argue that she, more than Gore v1.0 and Kerry, will almost certainly be more able (and willing) to stand up to the GOP and fight back. In fact, I think that the GOP is actually quite scared of Hillary running and may well be trying to pump her (and their opposition to her) up in order to discourage us from nominating her (reverse psychology?).
:tinfoilhat:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

67. She Will Take It To The Pugs And She "Will Be Filled With A Terrible Resolve"

eom

[Proud Liberal Dem]

69. What does THAT mean?

:shrug:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

71. She Will Beat Her Republican Opponent Like A Drum

eom

[Proud Liberal Dem]

74. Thanks for the clarification

I totally agree BTW. After all of the "smack downs" that we've had to endure over the past 8 years at the hands, feet, teeth, etc. of the Republicans, we NEED a real fighter desperately.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

78. She's A Fighter

I have to censor myself sometimes... I have more colorful language to describe the beating she will give them...It will be a beating of Biblical proportions...

[JoePhilly]

72. Republicans will be sleeping in for the 08 election. nt

[jenmito]

105. Not if Hillary's the nominee, which is my point!

[Exultant Democracy]

81. If she gets the nomination the Republicans won't even have to put gay marriage on the ballots.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

84. They Would If They Were Smart

She's leading in national polls:


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


and in key battleground states:


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

[Perry Logan]

85. The people who propound this tired old argument are pitifully afraid of Republicans.

We've heard this one, guys, and it just makes us sad to see you cowering like this. And you say the Democrats in Congress are chicken!

Come on--show some moxie. Show some pride. A candidate who doesn't energize the Republican base is a lame candidate.

[jenmito]

108. You're way off...

It's nothing to do with fear. It's to do with fact-she will motivate the repubs. to vote for a pro-choice repub. nominee just so she doesn't get in the WH again. I'm tired of the polarization and partisanship which will continue if she's our nominee.

[ginchinchili]

87. Do you have a link to this poll?

I agree that it would be a colossal mistake for the Democratic Party if Hillary becomes the nominee. We've put up with so much to get to where were are today. It would be a shame to throw it all away on Hillary Clinton.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

90. Do You Have Facts? I Do

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...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

92. And She's The Favorite On The Trading Sites Where People Put Their MONEY Where Their MOUTH Is

http://play.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/trading/t_index.jsp?selConID=24369


http://www.biz.uiowa.edu/iem/markets/Pres08.html

[jenmito]

112. No. It was on CNN and I paused the screen and wrote my OP...

I'm glad you agree, though. :)

[illinoisprogressive]

91. outside centrists, it seems she has little support. She upsets the indies and progressives.

she pisses of the republicans enough to get out the vote on their side...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

93. But By Any Metric She Wins

That's what we call a pardox...

[Dawgs]

119. General election polls don't mean shit until after the primaries.

When did you people start paying attention to politics?

[AtomicKitten]

99. It's easy, prepackaged rage suitable for any IQ level wingnut.

Clinton Hatred is practically patented. It will be more focused in intensity (for old time's sake, doncha know?) and of concern is it may be the rallying call for those not prepared to deal with the dismal projection for the GOP, otherwise known as reality.

They will be ugly to any one of our candidates and are preparing a cache of ammunition right now for all of them, but the MSM has piles of stock footage of all kinds of salacious material on the Clintons regardless of the fact that it really is beside the point, but the MSM will provide a look back for the wingnuts and incite all kinds of ugly.

I'm bored with the old ugly that could come back supersized. If we must resign ourselves to ugly from the opposition, something new for me, please, a new direction. Gobama.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

110. And In The End She Wins

As of now that's what every metric indicates...

[Dawgs]

120. Again, GE polls don't mean shit now.

Even if they did, you just admitted that every metric indicates that NOW, not in 13 months; so you proclaiming that she wins in the end is just stupid.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

130. Your Argument Makes No Sense At All

An argument based on the premise that "if present trends continue x will occur is infinitely more compelling than x won't occur because a little voice in my head tells me so.", which is all the Hillary haters really have... The former is logic , the latter is well, schizophrenia.


What part of that don't you understand?


Riddle me this:

Here's a link to intrade :

http://www.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/contractSearch/

The odds of Hillary Clinton of winning the White House are at least three times greater than that of her leading Republican opponent and SEVEN TIMES greater than YOUR candidate, or is TWENTY?

If you think these gaming sites are superfluous why don't you bet a couple of grand that the Miami Dolphins, New York Jets, St.Louis Rams or the ATLANTA HAWKS will win the Super Bowl in February

TOUCHE

[wyldwolf]

133. then go to the state primary polls where Hillary.... wins.

[AtomicKitten]

125. maybe

After 2004, I've learned that anything can happen.

[William769]

115. self delete.

[Evergreen Emerald]

123. that is the argument they had when she ran for Senate: bogus

[rucky]

124. You win today's Hillary Challenge!

PROOF!

[JCMach1]

128. It's not about the Repugs, we have little chance there, it's about the mushy middle

the 'Independents'.

[BootinUp]

129. You have to look at what gives rise

to the anti-Hillary sentiments. It largely a result of ignorance since there has long been a national smear campaign, on the other hand this is the first time she is campaigning nationally. Obviously as people hear more facts about her the anti-Hillary sentiment will decrease not increase.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

131. Do The Math Or An Excercise I

1)80% of Rethuglicans hate Hillary...

2)Rethuglicans make up thirty percent of the electorate

3)80% x 30% =24%

4)Oh noes, Hillary is not going to get over 77% of the vote


DSB

[opihimoimoi]

132. Are you trying to SCARE US? Put FEAR in US??? This is PUBesque...

[sampsonblk]

134. If what you say is true, she will win by a mile

Not even 80% of Repubs can defeat our nominee. If Hillary wins 90% or more of the Dem vote and wins the independents, then 80% of Repubs can go jump in a lake.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

135. Here

1) Rethuglicans will make up about 30% of the electorate

2) Dems will make up up about 40% of the electorate

3) Indys will make up about 30% of the electorate

4) Hillary will get about 10% of the Rethuglican vote or 3%

5) Hillary will get about 90% of the Democratic vote or 36%

6) Hillary will get about 50% of the Indy vote or 15%


That's 54%

[sampsonblk]

136. Amen

[DemocratSinceBirth]

137. It's Not My Opinion...It's Political Science...

I see the arguments against her in this thread...Some of them are sincere...Some are disingenuous....And all are subjective...But at the end of the day if she does as well among Democrats as her Republican opponent does among Republicans she wins as long as she splits the Indy vote pretty much evenly, because there are just more Democrats than Rethuglicans... The reason Nixon, Reagan, Bush Pere and Bush won is because they convinced a few to a lot of Democrats to vote for them...That's not my opinion but straight forward political science...

[Catherine Vincent]

144. Yeah, sure. They hated Clinton so much, he won a second term.

Whatever.

[William769]

145. Haven't you realized yet, facts don't matter here.

The only thing that matters is posting tripe if it concerns Hillary.

[Major Hogwash]

148. I'll take "Who is Ross Perot for $400, Alex."

Bill wouldn't have been elected in the first place without Ross Perot.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

150. That's A Crock Of Shit

In 1992, Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton defeated incumbent President George Bush. Almost every analysis or reference to the 1992 presidential race claims that Perot's presence on the ballot cost Bush the election. No facts are cited, it is merely asserted.

Perot did a lot of damage, it is true. During the spring primaries in the big industrial states like New York and Pennsylvania, when attention might have been paid to Clinton and former California Governor Jerry Brown as they fought each other and debated a domestic agenda for the new administration, all the media covered was the "undeclared" candidacy of Ross Perot.

< Digression - What is an undeclared candidacy? Especially when there were already several independent parties qualified to be on the ballot, but which were not considered worthy of coverage: The New Alliance Party, LaRouche for President, the Libertarian Party, the Socialist Party, the Prohibition Party and the Independent Voters Party. Why was Perot, who was not running, receiving more coverage than the candidates who were running? The answer is money. The American press is not a free press, it's a bought press. Perot promised that, if he ran, he would spend $100 million in media advertising. The press supported the undeclared candidacy of Ross Perot to fatten their own pocketbooks. The minor party candidates, who had no money to spend on media, could therefore be ignored.>

But did Perot defeat Bush? First, look at the turnout. Perot got 19,660,450 votes. The total turnout was more than 13 million higher than in 1988. So, even though Perot got a lot of votes, 13 million of those voters didn't vote in 1988. Clinton ran 3.1 million votes ahead of Dukakis, but Bush received 9.7 million fewer votes than four years earlier. The two party vote fell by 7 million. So, Perot only took 7 million votes from the two parties combined. If Perot had not been in the race, would those 7 million Perot voters who voted for Bush and Dukakis in 1988 have voted for Bush by a sufficient margin for him to overcome Clinton's 3.1 million vote lead. Those 7 million Perot voters would have had to favor Bush over Clinton by 5 to 2. Or, even if all 19.6 million Perot voters had voted for one of the major party candidates, they would have had to favor Bush by a 58% to 42% margin to overcome clinton's lead and tie the race. Was this likely in view of the fact that the other 84 million voters were favoring Clinton by 7%, 53.5% to Bush's 46.5%?

The 1992 presidential election was an analyst's dream. Usually, the presidential candidate runs far ahead of the rest of the ticket. Perot's presence in the presidential race combined with an absence of running mates for lesser offices meant that Clinton and Bush ran behind their respective party's nominees for Governor, Senator and the House. Consequently, it was easy to follow Perot's voters as they voted for other offices. They voted for Democratic and Republican Governor, Senator and House of Representative candidates in sufficient numbers to give them higher vote totals than Clinton and Bush.

This assumes that all Clinton's supporters voted for the other Democratic candidates and all Bush's supporters voted for the Republican candidates for Governor, Senator and the House. Since Republican candidates for other offices received more votes than Bush, and Democratic candidates for other offices received more votes than Clinton, this is a statistically valid assumption. The higher vote totals for the non-presidential candidates had to come from Perot's voters.

In the Governor's races, Perot's voters cast 18% of their ballots for the Republican candidates; 56% of their ballots for Democratic candidates, 17% for independent candidates, and 8% did not bother to vote for Governor. If Perot's voters had voted for Bush and Clinton in the same proportion that the voted for the Republican and Democratic candidates for Governor, Clinton's lead would have increased by 7.5 million votes.

In the Senate races, Perot's supporters voted 27% for the Republican candidates, 24% for the Democratic candidates, 23% for the independent candidates, and 24% skipped the Senate races entirely. (This does not include states that did not have Senate races.)

In the House races, Perot's voters cast 22% of their ballots for Republican candidates, 19% for Democratic candidates, 18% for independent candidates, and 40% did not vote in House races.

Perot's voters voted overwhelmingly for Democratic Governor candidates, and only marginally in favor of the Republican candidates for the House and Senate. Perot's voters favored Republican Senate candidates by 2.28%, and Republican House candidates by 2.69%. Because Perot's voters were only 1/5th of the total, that translates into about another 500,000 votes or 0.5% for bush if they had voted in a two way presidential race the same way they voted for the Senate and House. That is about 1/7th of the margin by which Bush lost.

If Perot cost Bush the election, the proof must lie somewhere else. On a statistical basis, it's essentially impossible to make a case for Perot costing Bush the 1992 presidential election. The election results show that Perot took many voters from Clinton among his supporters who demonstrated a low interest in politics by voting only for President and Governor, while taking marginally from Bush among those who demonstrated more commitment by casting ballots for Congress.

This analysis can be further confirmed by comparing the 1992 and 1996 results where Perot's vote dropped by 10 million compared to 1992. By comparing the vote totals for Clinton in both years with Bush's and Dole's (assuming Dole voters and Bush voters were the same voters) it is possible to conclude that in 1992 Perot's presence on the ballot cost Bush: Montana, North Carolina, Colorado and Georgia. However, Perot cost Clinton: Florida and Arizona in 1992. So, in 1992, Perot cost Clinton 32 electoral votes while costing Bush 37 electoral votes. Bush lost by 100 electoral votes, so 5 more would not have given him victory.

This same analysis shows that if Perot had not been on the ballot in 1996, Dole would have carried Nevada instead of Clinton. So, by any measure, even admitting that Perot's presence may have cost Bush a few electoral votes in 1992, it was no where near enough to change the outcome of that election, nor the Clinton - Dole contest in 1996.


http://www.leinsdorf.com/perot.htm


This is like shooting fish in a barrel.

[rinsd]

152. Hey its like "Hillary will increase GOP turnout" evidence be damned.

After all its common sense and repeated so often it has to be true.

:eyes:

[Major Hogwash]

No, it's the absolute truth - but you won't accept the truth because you're in love with Hillary

And the length of your reply is proof positive that you know nothing about elections!

[Major Hogwash]

153. Since there is no 3rd party spoiler this time, Hillary will be the sole target of the Repubs.

And there won't be anybody else to blame it on.

[Major Hogwash]

147. They hated Bill before they hated Hillary. If Bill gets involved in the election after the primaries

they will use him as a dartboard more than they ever did before.
Bill wasn't involved with the Lewinsky scandal until after he was re-elected.
He wouldn't have been re-elected if the news of that scandal would have come out earlier in 1996.

[rinsd]

151. How could news of the scandal leak if Bill wasn't involved yet?

"He wouldn't have been re-elected if the news of that scandal would have come out earlier in 1996"

The American Spectator was selling the Paula Jones story starting in 1994.

Clinton destroyed Dole and Perot in 1996.

[Major Hogwash]

154. And yet, 8 years after the '99 impeachment trial of Bill Clinton, they still talk about it.

The Jones story was nothing like the Lewinsky scandal.

If the Lewinsky scandal had happened before 1996 - Bubba would NOT have had a 2nd term.

And ANYBODY who denies that, is in denial!!

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

157. Would Bill have won a third term in 2000 if eleigible?

It's a rhetorical question. He would have won in a walk.

[Major Hogwash]

158. No, there would have been even more votes cast for Nader!

Bill would have lost a hypothetical 3rd run for the White House.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

159. Do Little Things Like Facts And Logic Ever Intrude On Your Thought Process?

It must be fun to live in a world of make-believe.

[Major Hogwash]

160. Of, course! I'm not in love with Hillary like you are!

So, I've got that going for me.

[opihimoimoi]

161. I happen to think Hilliary will out energize the Pubs...any of them...

[Larkspur]

162. The Repub base is splitting, so don't think it will matter