Why risk electing Hillary if it costs us a Super-Majority in Congress?

[JackORoses]

2008 is the Landslide that could be for Democrats.

Public disillusion with the GOP is at an all-time high.
We have the real opportunity to greatly increase our majority in the House and especially the Senate with 2/3 of those up for reelection being Republican.

With said Super-Majority, we could begin a new era of progressive politics, and actually start getting things done for the people of this country. The US could once again lead the World into a bright future.

But this dream will end the day Hillary Clinton gets the nomination.
The electorate will immediately be polarized beyond repair.

She will divide the Democratic Party against itself by playing to a centrist audience.
This will cost us large numbers of Democratic votes as many will just stay home.

Independents who might have voted Democrat looking for a big change, will not be excited enough to make it to the polls. Or worse they may vote Republican.

Republicans who might have stayed home out of disgust with their party or even have voted Democrat will have a reason to unite against a common enemy.
There are many who would vote for any opponent of Hillary, regardless of their policies.

This all adds up to a Nail-biter Presidential election, in which, Hillary may still prevail.
However, in all those purple states where would could have picked up House and Senate seats, we will lose our advantage.

A tight race will kill this once in a generation opportunity to take hold of the reins of power and change this country for the better.

Is it really worth it to push Hillary into the Oval Office, if we are then presented with the same gridlock that has been in Congress the past two years? The hope of legislation without inevitable filibuster goes up in smoke.

We have a chance to move forward and truly change the face of our Government, or else we can stagnate.
It is up to us.

[obnoxiousdrunk]

1. So who is the uniter going to be ?

Is it John Liberal since yesterday Edwards ?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

2. Well...

The electorate will immediately be polarized beyond repair.

Where have you been for the last seven years?

[JackORoses]

6. exactly, she will take the old schism forward with her...can't we just make a clean break from this?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

9. I would love to, but JFK isn't running for President this time around.

So we have Hillary, who's divisive but actually stands a chance of unfucking the damage dubya has done to the executive branch.

We have Obama who's definitely a positive, uniting force, but I'm not convinced he can administrate his way out of a paper bag.

I'm not sure what to make of Edwards. Then again I wasn't sure what to make of him in 2004 either and even though I like him on a personal level, I think he's the Presidential equivalent of vaporware.

Who else? Dodd? Biden? As much as I like both of them they wouldn't stand a chance against the Republican machine.

I was an early on supporter of Richardson, but his candidacy seems to be going nowhere fast.

I'm not particularly impressed with any of 'em.

[Audio_Al]

35. Neither is his brother, RFK, or his son JFK, Jr. (DECEASED)

Fate and the SCOTUS have handed us some tough, tough breaks.

Hopefully someone will break free and stand out.

Otherwise, we are up the creek without a paddle -- at least until the murkiness of this complicated primary season clears up somewhat.

Respectfully,
Audio Al

[MyNameGoesHere]

40. Is that you Sean? n/t

[cali]

3. er,thedems don't stand a chance of getting a super majority

in the Senate, let alone in the House. Dems will pick up VA, NH, NM and probably CO. They will maybe pick up OR and ME. It's remotely possible that will pick up KY and NC. They will almost certainly lose LA. And this will happen regardless of who the nominee is. Furthermore,it's absurd at this point to emphatically state what voters will or won't do. The repuke party also may very well split, and there's not a strong candidate among them. Try another argument.

[JackORoses]

10. I think you are mistaken regarding our chances for Super-Majority

"And this will happen regardless of who the nominee is."

Now that's an absurd statement. Think a little more and get back to me on that.

"it's absurd at this point to emphatically state what voters will or won't do"

There are many here on DU who will not vote for Hillary, extend that to the real world and that means she won't have the full support of the Democratic base at the polls.

There is no doubt that the Repukes will rally behind their Anti-Hillary, and you know this. It is their only hope.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

22. "There are many here on DU who will not vote for Hillary"

There are also many on here who think that Ron Paul is a nice guy. Or that invisible jewish elves blew up the world trade center. DU is not a reflection of reality. Using the words of hyperpartisans on an anonymous message board isn't helping you make your point.

I'm sure that if Hillary is the nominee, the Republicans will have an extremely intense orgasm of Hitleryism - probably to the point of total comic ridiculousness, and hopefully most people will then see their vitriol for what it really is.

Our intense hatred of Bush wasn't enough to deliver a Kerry victory or congressional majorities in 2004.

[cali]

25. bwahahahaha

"I think you are mistaken regarding our chances for Super-Majority"

you are clueless. utterly so. there isn't one single analyst or pundit out there who thinks there's even a fucking remote possibility of the dems gaining a super majority. And of course, you don't present the cases where we could pick up seats. I know virtually every Senate race. And I know damn well that if we pick up 8 seats we'll be doing phenomenally well. Much more likely we'll pick up 5 or 6.

and sorry, you're just wrong about forecasting what dems will do by trying to extrapolate that from what a couple of thousand of people on DU will do. That's beyond ridiculous.

No, there is considerable doubt about whether the repukes will rally behind the eventual nominee.

your forecasting abilities are informed by... nothing but your lack of knowledge. I suggest some research. Start with the exhaustive new Pew poll/report. you really don't know what you're talking about if you actually think the dems could pick up 15 or 16 Senate seats.

[JackORoses]

28. You know virtually every Senate race, wow you must be a genius to keep up with all that

It's simple math, friend.

Hillary = Less Democratic Votes + More Republican Votes = Less pickups in the House and Senate

She will be the difference between getting a lot more new Dem. Senators or just a few.

"you really don't know what you're talking about if you actually think the dems could pick up 15 or 16 Senate seats."

Maybe a veto-proof majority is a stretch, but we could certainly attain a filibuster-proof majority,
and with a Dem. President, that is really all you need, genius.

[cali]

32. well, I don't know about genius, but I am well informed

try it. Look, here's the deal on realistic pickups next year.

VA: Warner v Gilmore. Warner is polling over 20 pts ahead of Gilmore. That won't change no matter who the candidate for prez is.

NH: Shaheen v Sununu. Shaheen is polling well ahead of Sununu. NH is now blue. She's got it- no matter who the candidate is.

NM: Tom Udall got in last week. He decimates Heather "Nipples" Wilson. He's polling 20 pts ahead of her. Dems stand a very good chance of picking up 2 or even 3 of NM's House seats- no matter who the candidate is.

CO: Mark Udall v Schaeffer: Udall is ahead in the polls though only in the single digits or so. I suppose you could make a case that a prez candidate could make a difference, but I doubt it.

ME: Allen v Collins. He's behind but he has a healthy war chest and it's a possibility that he could pull it out.

I would go on, but why bother?

As for this:

"Hillary = Less Democratic Votes + More Republican Votes = Less pickups in the House and Senate"

That's opinion, and it's not backed up by anything. I'd rather Hillary isn't the nominee, but that's because of her positions, not because "she can't win" or "she'll drag the rest of the ticket down". I don't believe, given the facts on the ground, that she will lose, and I doubt she'll drag the ticket down. For every disgruntled dem on the left, many more will turn out- including lots of women and African-Americans.

[JackORoses]

38. "For every disgruntled dem on the left" ...each is a vote that could have help elect another Dem.

You are still not accounting for the boost in Repukes that Hillary will entail.

You're basing your certainty on polls a year before the elections?

All these states you list above our battlegrounds which the Repukes currently hold.
The vote will be much closer than those polls show.
If Hillary is our candidate, the vote will be closer still.


"many more will turn out- including lots of women and African-Americans."

Are you actually basing this on fact, or is it your own opinion?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

44. What are you basing your certainty on?

We don't even know who the nominee is going to be yet and you're already predicting what's going to happen in the congressional races. Who knows whether the anti-hillary vote (or non-vote, whatever) will be outweighed on the other side by the female vote, black vote, or any other damned voting block you care to name? You don't know. Nobody does. All you have is a theory that is based on the fact that some people won't vote for Clinton who might otherwise have voted. Yes, I suppose we can say that this is a fact. But it's not the only fact. In your steadfast refusal to consider that your one fact is not the be-all and end-all of the election, you are missing the larger picture.

[JackORoses]

50. if you admit that some Dems who would have voted won't vote

and you admit that some Repukes will vote who wouldn't have

then you have admitted my thesis

These two combined add up to a Net loss of votes.
Why should we nominate someone who has such a handicap going in?

Saying this will be made up for by a surge in Women and Blacks is the fantasy here.

Where are all these new Hillary voters coming from?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

58. Are you intentionally being obtuse?

These two combined add up to a Net loss of votes.

No it doesn't. You're counting the votes a year before the election. And you're not even counting the votes in the election in question. You're counting votes in statewide/local elections.


Saying this will be made up for by a surge in Women and Blacks is the fantasy here.

Certainly no more fantasy than the line of crap that you're pushing.


Where are all these new Hillary voters coming from?

Well, since you've just rubbished the two voting blocs that I think would turn out in force, there's no point in even talking to you is there? I don't find your prognostications of doom particularly convincing because, once again, you're focusing on one "fact" to the exclusion of everything else.

[cali]

46. You're the one mistaking opinion for fact

not me. I'm certain of nothing. I simply don't buy spin from someone who clearly isn't informed. And by due diligence I'm able to make some educated guesses.

What do you mean all the states I listed are battle ground states? NH isn't. And NM, CO and VA have been trending dem as recent elections demonstrate- but that's not the only factor. Mark Warner would have to be found in bed with the proverbial dead girl/live boy to lose. Tom Udall is similarly positioned in NM. CO is closer, but there's little doubt that Mark Udall is well positioned. In addition, it's a money issue. State repuke parties are in worse shape than dem parties. The dems are outraising repukes on practically every level.

And here, for educational purposes, is some solid information- not that I expect it to register:

A Year Ahead, Republicans Face Tough Political Terrain
Clinton Propelled by Support from Young Women in '08 Test

Released: October 31, 2007

Navigate this report
Introduction and Summary
Section 1: The Nomination Races
Section 2: The General Election
Section 3: Views of the Issues and the Parties
Section 4: Long-Term Political Trends
About this Survey
Topline Questionnaire

Introduction and Summary

A year before the 2008 presidential election, most major national opinion trends decidedly favor the Democrats. Discontent with the state of the nation is markedly greater than it was four years ago. President Bush's approval rating has fallen from 50% to 30% over this period. And the Democrats' advantage over the Republicans on party affiliation is not only substantially greater than it was four years ago, but is the highest recorded during the past two decades.



The public continues to express more confidence in the Democratic Party than in the Republican Party as being able to bring about needed change, to govern in an honest and ethical way and to manage the federal government. The Democratic Party's advantages on these traits are much wider than during the last presidential campaign. Moreover, they remain about as large as they were just prior to the 2006 midterm election, in spite of rising public discontent with the Democrat-led Congress.

The voters' issues agenda also appears to benefit the Democrats. Along with Iraq, the economy, health care and education rate as the most important issues for voters. Compared with the 2004 campaign, fewer voters now place great importance on the issues that have animated Republican political unity in recent years – including gay marriage, abortion and terrorism.

Looking to the presidential election itself, the political climate appears to be affecting the morale of those in both parties. Democrats are more positive and more enthused than are Republicans. Since the beginning of the year, Democrats have closely followed campaign news at consistently higher rates than have Republicans, and somewhat greater proportions of Democrats say they have given a lot of thought to the presidential candidates.

Republicans not only are less engaged in the campaign, but they also rate their party's presidential candidates more negatively than do Democrats. Nearly half of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents (46%) rate the Republican presidential candidates as only fair or poor; by comparison, just 28% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents give the Democratic presidential field comparably low ratings.

The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted Oct. 17-23 among 2,007 adults, finds that Hillary Clinton remains the clear favorite for the Democratic nomination. Clinton leads Barack Obama, her closest rival, 45%-24% among Democratic and Democratic-leaning registered voters. Clinton holds a substantial advantage over Obama and other rivals among most key Democratic voter groups, including liberals and African Americans. College graduates are among the only Democratic groups that splits its support between Clinton and Obama.

<snip>

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=366

[MyNameGoesHere]

45. Why is a super majority even wanted or needed?

The founders probably never wanted that as they took painstaking measures to ensure it would be extremely rare. I for one want a simple majority or maybe a little more. The other side proved, and ours did also in days past, that a super majority or even keeping a majority over many decades is a bad thing.

[Tesha]

27. I wouldn't be so sure about that pick-up in NH.

> Dems will pick up VA, NH, NM and probably CO.

I wouldn't be so sure about that pick-up in NH.
Jeanne Shaheen is a standard-issue DLC Democrat
running against John Sununu, Jr., a perfect
Republican-machine politician, and in that sort
of a race, NH is still likely to vote for the
Republican.

Shaheen surely won't do anything to rock the boat such
as taking aggressive stances on anything (vis her
vetoing the Death Penalty repeal when she was Governor*,
because she *KNEW* she'd be running for the U.S. Senate
later that year) and Sununu will have all the backing of
the rest of the Republican machine behind him. And seeing
as how he's coming up on re-election, he's been allowed
"off the ranch" just enough to make the case that he's
not a lockstep machine Republican.

I was excited when the Democrats were going to actually
have a primary contest among four U.S. Senate candidates,
but Shaheen then stepped in as "the annointed one" and
the other four all dropped out. We'll see if she actually
manages to pull off an electoral win this time.

Tesha


* This was an historic moment. Even though the NH House
and Senate were still in Republican hands, *THEY* voted
to repeal our state's death penalty. But foir reasons
that had solely to do with *HER POLITICAL CAREER*, the
*&*@&( "Democratic" governor vetoed the measure so the
death penalty repeal died and remains dead because the
current Democratic State House, Senate, and Governor
are too cowardly to bring it up again.

Sound like any national "Democrats" that we know?
And does Jeanne Shaheen sound like a Democrat to
get liberals and progressives all fired up?

[cali]

34. I suppose it's possible that she could lose

but I doubt it. Sununu is in real trouble, and NH is now blue.

[bunnies]

52. Jeanne "sales tax" Shaheen?

Lots of people are still bitter about that. I have my doubts as to whether she can win... and whether NH will stay blue.

[BootinUp]

4. The Sky is Falling, The Sky is Falling!

Really this time Jack means it!

[hfojvt]

11. it's not falling

it's being pulled down. If Hillary is knocking down support pillars with her big money machine candidacy, supported by the M$M, is one being a Cassandra if they expect the roof to fall in?

[BootinUp]

14. I suppose

you could go on and on about how there are serious policy differences between her and the other candidates that support such a ridiculous view.

Or you could take a whole raft of her votes and support it that way.

Or you could rely on the netroots CW which I laugh at regularly.

Which will it be?

[Fredda Weinberg]

5. How can you divide when you're building consensus?

HRC has, and continues to, reach out to all Americans of good will to move forward to improve the general welfare. No one has to sacrifice - but we should insist that all of us contribute a fair share. We can be proud of ourselves again ... ain't that a great slogan?

Hurray for our side!

[hfojvt]

13. she's reaching out to all Americans of good will?

I would think that would include me, but I don't feel that she's reached out to me at all. Where are these olive branches that she is offering to dedicated progressives?

[Fredda Weinberg]

24. You feel you need an olive branch? Like when God promised he

wouldn't destroy the world again? Please, to Bible readers like me and HRC, these metaphors have meaning.

But if you mean, does her campaign comport w/our understanding of the issues? I would say that in a measured way, yes ... health care, for example, is a high priority but w/one eye on the general election she publicly emphasizes security.

I am not suffering cognitive dissonance - it is a primary campaign and from my perspective, well managed and executed according to plan. I can't wait to relax a little when our party once again controls the White House.

[hfojvt]

41. Bible readers?

The olive leaf from Genesis 8: 11 was a sign to Noah that the waters had receded. It is the rainbow from Genesis 9: 12 which shows the promise not to destroy the earth. At least not by water (Genesis 9: 15 in other words he could still do it with nukes or with global warming, the covenant only applies to floods. Check your insurance policy closely.)

My dissonance is when she promises to revive the middle class and then thinks $104,000 a year is "middle class". Are those tax benefits supposed to trickle down to the poor? There is only one candidate who seems to be asking "what about the poor?" and it is not Hillary.

[Fredda Weinberg]

48. I remembered the Hebrew version but not the rainbow. Thank you

The point is, why reach for the metaphor in the first place? Are class resentments really so raw that someone who aspires to a six figure income is considered a traitor to the cause?

Hillary represents my state ably and perhaps it's local conditions, but yes ... that's our cost of living.

[hfojvt]

54. I use metaphors like a car uses gasoline

it's just a matter of writing. "an olive branch" is typically used to mean "a peace offering" or a "concession intended to reduce enmity".

Speaking of enmity and resentment, it is not about that. It is about proper classification. Just because I don't think a $100,000 worker is suffering or can't afford a tax hike, does not mean I hate them. If people making $40,000 a year can pay 7.65% to social security, why shouldn't somebody making $120,000 a year.

As far as New York, there are 11,194,000 households making $100-150,000 and 6,619,000 households are making over $150,000. If an individual is making $105,000, how much is the household making? Probably over $150,000.

I cannot believe those people are "just scraping by" even in New York:

"Community Service Society, a nonprofit social service agency, said that "one-in-five New York workers earns less than $8.10 an hour. Three-quarters of those earning less than $8.10 an hour are living in poverty." According to a comprehensive CSS study, 52.6 percent of low-wage workers are women; six out of ten have a high school diploma; and more than one in ten is a college graduate. Eight in ten are people of color.

More than 600,000 New Yorkers earn between $5.15 an hour and $10 an hour. Some 56 percent of these low-wage workers have no health insurance for their families, 52 percent have no pension or 401(k) plan and 37 percent receive no paid leave."

If those people, making $16-32,000 per household can live in NYC, then a household making $110,000 a year must be living much better, even if much of their money goes to simply living in a better neighborhood.

[Fredda Weinberg]

56. I know how much it costs to live here - it's my home town.

From the dearth of position papers on this topic at her website, I would presume we'll see a commission appointed to do the heavy lifting. But her statement now removes an issue the GOP would exploit, so whatever disagreement I may have (and personally, I do, though it means I'll pay more) I'm willing to leave that third rail until our party once again controls the white house.

[JackORoses]

16. I think you're confused on what builds a consensus

Equivocating everything you say so as not to upset anyone isn't consensus building, it's pandering.

Never directly answering a question with a hard answer isn't consensus building, it's evasion.

Playing to the center to cast your opponents as fringe liberals isn't consensus building, it's triangulation at it's finest.

Beating the drums of war with Iran isn't consensus building, it's Warmongering.

Protecting the money of the wealthiest 6% isn't consensus building, it's Fascism.

[Fredda Weinberg]

19. Oh, dear ... we live in nation founded on principles protecting

private property. Mind you, I'm a first generation American who appreciates coming from a family that lost mideval banking money to communist revolutions ... my wealthy relatives aren't worth defending, but here I am - watching Jacobins all over again provoke the bourgeoisie - it never ends.

HRC represent a new idea that's spawned a united Europe and offers the next generation peace w/the world. You gotta problem w/that?

[JackORoses]

29. so War with Iran is Peace, got it.... Yes, I do have a problem with that

what's this new idea you speak of?

Fascism is a very old idea.

[Fredda Weinberg]

31. So is tribalism. Should I condemn that too? Life is brutal - should

Dems be soft? I think not.

But I act on clearly eluciated principles. Our organization is public and inclusive. Heck, see my tagline for details.

As for fascist tendencies, may I recommend you consult a mirror?

[JackORoses]

39. Fascism is Corporatism, may I recommend you consult a dictionary?

And I take it that you are fine with WWIII? Wouldn't want to appear soft, right?

Fuck Tribalism as well. Where do you think all the problems in the Middle East stem from to begin with?

[Fredda Weinberg]

47. Fascism != Corporatism, by definition

And differences matter. We have DU members w/fascist tendencies who recognize the power of organized shouting. But the public recognizes mob behavior and fortunately, ignores it.

Still, the damn tactic works ... just like tribalism. So, how can I condemn a successful survival strategy? That wouldn't be a sound foundation for a workable philosophy, now would it?

So let's start from realistic starting principles, one of which is that definitions matter. Fascist tendencies exist in all ideologies and is a tactic resorted to by bullies when effective debate doesn't achieve their aims.

[saracat]

17. "Building consensus" ? You are kidding right? Like bipartisanship has been working?

And, yes Virginia, we should be required to "sacrifice". And it is not just a question of contributing our "fair share".It is a lot more than that. The Media created Democratic frontrunner makes me "ashamed", not "proud". Now is the time for change,not the continuation of a rigged and broken system the "alleged" front runner represents.

[Fredda Weinberg]

21. Here u r ... posting your anonymous opinion on the 'net and you're bitchin'

Get real. We got an election next year ... ask a Pakistani what that's worth.

Now, go argue for your candidate - I've stood in the street campaigning for mine.

[JackORoses]

30. look out folks, we have a Revolutionary Street Stander on our hands

Aren't you here posting an anonymous opinion as well?

Remember, Elections mean nothing in and of themselves.
Saddam was 'elected'. Bush was 'elected'.

True Elections must reflect the will of the People,
not the MSM, the Corporations, or the entrenched Party Leadership,
but the People.

[Fredda Weinberg]

33. I'm anonymous? Can u read? n/t

[saracat]

7. No it is not.And it is especially dangerous in those almost "purple"

states ,such as Arizona, where we have a chance of retaking our legislatures and picking up even more congressional seats. Hillary Clinton will almost certainly hurt our down line .And I, though I do not support her for other reasons,do not think the risk involved in losing those elections is worth it! Many states are in a similar situation, and that is where a Hillary nomination will hurt us the worst.

[backscatter712]

8. Leave it to the Democrats

to work with mad determination to find new ways to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

That's what nominating Hillary will do. I'm sorry, but we're not well represented by that DINO.

[Swamp Rat]

12. NeoGore is "The One!"

:D

[DemGa]

15. First woman President is huge

Turnout from women will be huge. African-American turnout for a Clinton will be huge. Dems from all walks will rally and the turnout will be huge.

The evangelicals are scattered and got nothing. Not a nail-biter, but a landslide.

[Skidmore]

18. I will vote for the first woman Prresident when she is

worthy of the trust of the nation. Hillary Clinton will not get me to turn out for her and I am a woman. We need change, and she is not change, but a way to extend every darned bit of divisiveness and cliche answers torotted out over the past 20 years. Why anyone is begging for more of this crap I'll never understand.

[DemGa]

23. Do you think it will be better or worse

as an opposition party holding conferences in the basement of the Capitol building?

I'm voting for the Dem regardless for two reasons: To Marginalize Repukes wherever they may be, and because I'd rather attempt to fix the system while in power.

[bunnies]

53. ditto. n/t

[BenDavid]

20. If the dems do not select HRC as their nominee, then

you can forget about any super majority. You have to remember that sybolism will pay a huge part in the election of 08. HRC will over the course of 08 make this about historic firsts.Kinda like the first woman on the surpreme court. First woman to go into space. First woman to fly across the ocean. People will view this as an historic event in American history and people will like the idea more and more as the election draws closer.

As for the senate there is a good chance we can gain about 4 to 7 seats. For the dems to have a cloture free bill voted on, you have to subtract crazy joe and this will put the dems at 50, and we would need 10 more to have a total of 60. But the first thing I would do after the election and HRC wins then I would let it be known that the dems need to elect another senate majority leader. Second, whomever the majority leader is walk over to crazy Joe and tell him that he no longer is chairman of any committee and he now can feel free to go to the otehr side.

Ben David

[Fredda Weinberg]

26. Amen, selah n/t

[Audio_Al]

36. Good analysis in my opinion, Ben David.

By the way, I'm Avram Labe.

Respectfully,

Audio Al

[JackORoses]

37. that will be the Propaganda, no doubt

However, usually the first one to make a great leap is the best at what they do.

Will Hillary be able to ride in on a wave Name-recognition and Feminist Pride?

It is their hope that this is all people will focus on,
because if they actually look to her true qualifications, they will find them sadly lacking.

Do we really need another figurehead?

[KamaAina]

42. "There is a choice between 'bad' and 'worse', and ...

...it is far sharper than the one between 'good' and 'better'".

Robert A. Heinlein, writing that in "Stranger in a Strange Land" in the early '60s, couldn't possibly have foreseen this particular election -- yet he nailed it right on the head. Hillary: bad. Any repuke: worse. Much worse. Enough to get me to take my clothespin to the polls in 11/08 and vote for Hillary.

edit: the 'olls'?!

[Tesha]

49. "Bad" doesn't get 'em to the polls. (NT)

[williesgirl]

43. Couldn't agree with you more! She'll bring the rethugs out to vote in droves and they'll vote

straight ticket all the way. rec'd

[Raine]

55. My thoughts too

if Hillary gets the nomination we are going to lose all around...big time.

[RiverStone]

51. Many Dems will still vote locally even if they can't stand Hillary

We still can (and probably will) increase our majorities on The Hill even if Hillary is our nominee.

I think most Dems care enough about social and environmental issues to Think Globally - Act Locally. I'll still do all I can to help the cause in local races...and would probably vote for HRC in the General (reluctantly).

[Warren Stupidity]

57. If we had a parliamentary system you might have a point.

We don't. I think Clinton is as electable as Edwards or Obama. I predict that despite massive fraud the Democratic candidate, whomever it is, will win and win big. Unless of course we have another dubious terrorist incident on the level of that other dubious terrorist incident, in which case I think discussions of elections will be a waste of time. But I digress. It seems to me that it is very unlikely that the specific presidential candidate will have a major effect on the outcome of the congressional elections. As I said, the voters are going to punish Republicans, the 'throw the bums out' condition will be dominant this next election, perhaps even more than it was in 2006, and Republicans will pay across the board. A super majority is possible but improbable, and given that 20-50% of the Democratic congressional delegation, any given Sunday, appear to be playing for the wrong team, might not matter that much anyhow.

[kenfrequed]

59. D. L.C.

The answer is that simple.

What is the point to triangulating if the conservatives that you triangulate with are driven into a deep minority party status?

[JNelson6563]

60. It seems no price is too steep to pay

in the minds of Clinton supporters. I don't understand it myself.

Julie

[Yukari Yakumo]

61. I disagree.

I think Hill may be the best chance for a super-majority, even though the chances of that happening are slim. The last debate proved that even when knocked down Hill can come back swinging, something the ReThugs are terrified of.

Edwards, if the nom, will get totally railroaded by the ReThug machine. And that's not taking the effect of his use of public financing into effect. (And thus giving their slime machine months to do its dirty work virtually unopposed.)

Obama, because of his clear inexperience on the national stage, will find himself getting dizzy from the ReThug assaults. He'll end up getting beaten in the GE. The recent McGerkin episode proves Obama is no uniter.