This meme don't hunt: Clinton will ensure a huge repuke turnout

[cali]

or at least it may well not hunt. Why? Let me count the ways:

1) it'll take more than Clinton to repair the sorry condition of the repuke party and ensure a huge repuke turn out.

2) voting against someone is never as compelling a reason to vote as voting for someone. axiomatic but true.

3) the repubs stand a real chance of splitting if Guiliani is the nominee.

4) The repub field is remarkably weak: Thompson: Grandpa will be a disaster if by a fluke he get the nomination. And he's got cancer. Guiliani: Enough skeletons in that close to dwarf the old Clinton ones. Romney: The most challenging, but no one in recent political history comes close to the flip flooping he's done. And he's a Mormon. Fundies do not get excited about Mormon candidates. McCain: The republican base doesn't like him. It's hardly likely that he'll turn out the needed numbers.

5) Money. The dems have lots more of it, on nearly every level.

There's more. Here's a link to a recent Pew report/poll:

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

There are lots of reasons that Hillary shouldn't be the nominee, but the meme that she'll turn out a tidal wave of repuke voters that will throw the election to the repukes, doesn't seem to be one of them.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

1. Not sure I agree witn #2. Fear is a great motivator.

The more irrational the fear, the more motivating.

[Fresh_Start]

2. poll information that said

a significant number of GOP women are going to cross the party line and vote for Hillary.
As long as its the female GOP voters, thats a good thing

[jgraz]

3. The meme not only hunts, it will likely shoot us in the face

A "huge" Rethug turnout? Depends on what the meaning of "huge" is. You cannot deny, however, that dislike of Hillary will increase Rethug turnout to some degree.

What you're neglecting is that dislike of Hillary will also depress turnout for the Dems, which may result in a large net gain in GOP turnout. This will not only affect the Presidential race, making it much closer than it otherwise would be, it will also turn many House and Senate races into nailbiters.

[cali]

5. nope. not neglecting it.

read the Pew report. It's long, but worth it. I'm afraid you project your dislike of Clinton onto the canvas of the voting public at large. Try being a bit more dispassionate about it.

[jgraz]

14. Well, the report is neglecting it

I don't see where turnout is addressed at all. The sample is of registered, not likely, voters (not that you can trust "likely" at this point).

Even if this report supported your horse-race assessment, it says nothing about the substance (or lack thereof) of Hillary's campaign. She's vulnerable to all of the criticisms that the right-wing noise machine leveled at her husband, except she doesn't have to charisma to skate over them. Couple that with strong antipathy from the base (you know, those anti-war, pro-healthcare kooks) and she could have a real problem in the general.

At the very least, it's hard to make the case that Hillary is going to have a lot of coattails for the downticket races.

[Emillereid]

4. Not sure I agree - I've talked to folks, including democrats who are

absolutely apoplectic about a Clinton presidency - the depths of her negatives shocks me. (Don't worry the dems won't vote republican - but they just might not vote.) A good example is my brother-in-law who is a lifelong republican. He is thoroughly disgusted with Bush and doesn't like any of the repuke candidates. He actually said he would vote for most of the democrats running - and actually would prefer Gore - but he said he would under no circumstances vote for Hillary. And moreover, a Clinton candidacy would motivate him to vote for whoever the repub turns out to be. There are a lot of people in this country who are hardened Hillary haters - and I think would be motivated to vote negative.

BTW, although I don't want to see an HC candidacy for many reasons including the practical - don't think she is our strongest candidate - I will probably hold my nose and vote for her in '08 so don't accuse me of helping a republican get elected.

[cali]

6. there's no weaker argument than

the anecdotal personal tale. I don't know anyone voting for Clinton either. That doesn't mean I use that very small fact, to extrapolate. I know you can't do that. Read the Pew report if you really want to get a more detailed picture about voters.

[Emillereid]

19. There have been any number of polls - and some reflect the extreme

negatives Clinton elicits. My anecdote simply illustrates the reality on the street that I and others are picking up. It's an ominous sign.

[spanone]

7. wishful thinking

[cali]

12. no, fact based analysis.

I think odds are very good that any of the dem candidates will beat any of the pukes. And I provided facts to back up why I think that Clinton is included in that.

[AntiFascist]

27. You are assuming that Guliani will stay in the lead....

but what if Romney overtakes him? Then I'll bet the Hillary-bashing comes out in full force.

[LSK]

8. do you know many Republicans?

Forget an article, what do you think living in the real world???

They hate her. It will motivate some of them (not all) to go vote against her.

[cali]

13. An article? It's an exhaustive poll, analysis and report

from the most reputable source around for that kind of thing. That's not an article. And no I don't no a lot of republicans, but that has zip to do with it.

[jgraz]

17. It's a straight-up opinion poll

You can do as much analysis as you want and you still will get suspect results. Where does that poll take into account the risk we face nominating an unprincipled, triangulating candidate? Where does that poll examine the swift-boat charges that are just waiting for Hillary to finish her nomination speech?

This poll is pure horse-race (and other horse-related stuff ;) ), taken 1 year before the general election. In other words: meaningless.

[cali]

20. ai yai yai

jp, you need to learn the difference between fact and opinion. What isn't meaningless is the shift in the voting public as reflected in the poll. And if you want to disagree, at least address the points I made in my OP.

:hi:

[jgraz]

21. And you need to learn the difference between me and jpgray ;)

Let's look at the "facts" you present:

1) it'll take more than Clinton to repair the sorry condition of the repuke party and ensure a huge repuke turn out.

Opinion. Where does that poll address the effect she'll have once nominated?


2) voting against someone is never as compelling a reason to vote as voting for someone. axiomatic but true.

Another opinion. Even if true, it can't apply in all cases. For example, voting AGAINST Rethugs was pretty damn compelling in 2006. It just depends on how much you like your candidate and how much you hate the opponent.

My opinion is that this will only get worse as Hillary gains more exposure and begins to pander to the moronic undecided voters.


3) the repubs stand a real chance of splitting if Guiliani is the nominee.

As do the Democrats if Hillary is nominated. Funny how that question is missing from the poll. :shrug:


4) The repub field is remarkably weak: Thompson: Grandpa will be a disaster if by a fluke he get the nomination. And he's got cancer. Guiliani: Enough skeletons in that close to dwarf the old Clinton ones. Romney: The most challenging, but no one in recent political history comes close to the flip flooping he's done. And he's a Mormon. Fundies do not get excited about Mormon candidates. McCain: The republican base doesn't like him. It's hardly likely that he'll turn out the needed numbers.

Opinion, opinion, opinion. I agree with it, but still your opinion. ;)

And, of course, it does nothing to address the real risk we have with a triangulating corporate sock-puppet as our nominee. It's still a very risky choice.

5) Money. The dems have lots more of it, on nearly every level.

At last we get to an actual fact. Of course, Republican donors didn't just blow their cash in Vegas. That money is still out there, and will begin flowing as soon as it looks like Hillary is going to be the Dem candidate.

[man4allcats]

9. I don't know. It seems to have hunted pretty well for

Lieberman. I'm quite sure many rethugs voted for him rather than see Lamont in his place.

[cali]

15. That's a really faulty comparison. So what if repukes voted

for LIeberman? Of course they did; there was no viable repuke candidate. It's not the same meme at all.

[man4allcats]

29. Sorry. Didn't mean to

upset you.

[Bluebear]

10. Remember, she's "The Bitch". They HATE her.

Whether that's enough of a motivator to get them to turn out, we shall see.

[Joe Fields]

11. I don't think you fully appreciate the level of hatred, the wrath

and the ability to to spread the wrath that will be directed toward Hillary. The republicans are counting on Hillary to be the nominee, strictly because they understand that to be the one overriding factor in being able to keep control of the White House. They will never be able to turn out the vote without her as their rallying cry.

That said, I am still not sure it will be enough, but I know we ain't seen nuthin' yet, in the way of dirty tricks, muckraking, ratfucking, gossip, rumor, 527 ads or anything else, compared to what the repubs have thrown at us in the past, should she become the nominee.

[cali]

18. No I don't think I do. I factor it in, but I don't give it the weight you do

and the facts and numbers today seem to support your contention. You didn't address one thing that I brought up my OP- the fractures in the repuke party, weakness of candidates, lack of enthusiasm for candidates, facts in the Pew report.

[Toucano]

16. There are Republicans who will vote FOR Hillary.

They are not all foaming-at-the-mouth ditto heads.

I know several, and I've no doubt there are more. Coincidentally, it's the same things many of us dislike about her that they (even secretly) like.

If Clinton wins the nomination, she will win the election.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

26. You are right

There are many repubs who will vote for her...especially the women...

[UTUSN]

22. There *IS* no "huge Rethug" turnout available. Unlike us, Rethugs VOTE in totality

every time. They don't have no more. Unfortunately, the vast majority of our constituencies DON'T VOTE. If they did, there wouldn't be a single Rethug in office anywhere!1

[Spike89]

24. Exactly! The foamin' Hillary haters will vote...

Repug regardless. Moderate Repugs don't hate her with the passion many are attributing to all repugs. It just doesn't seem like it in DU, but most of the country doesn't really care enough to hate any of the politicians. The people who work up enough passion for hate are obviously pretty tied to a position already. You really think the foamin' wingers Savage might not vote republican if Obama runs?

[crispini]

23. I completely disagree with #2.

In fact, the last time I was working an election, there was a local matter on the ballot that got a HUGE turnout. When we ran the tape at the end of the day, our precinct voted overwhelmingly against the local matter. The Republican precinct chair who works the polls with me nodded sagely (she's been doing this for donkey's years) and said, "Yep, a big turnout usually means they're out voting against something."

[pinto]

25. Some good points. And, it may be that with so many Congressional races up,

local/statewide politics may conversely play in support of the national ticket.

:shrug:

[Lurking Dem]

28. Here in Tennessee

the Republicans will be digging up Cousin Cooter and Uncle Ed Earl from their graves to vote against Hillary.

[Perry Logan]

30. Let both of them come out. I don't care.

[Vinca]

31. You're forgetting the great equalizer: the voting machines.

They could run Daffy Duck and come out ahead.