Democrats: Please Don Not Nominate Hillary!!

The GOP raised it to an art form. They perpetuated it with the “either yer with us or yer a traitor” undercurrent. I for one, didn’t need the Democratic party to make me despise little Georgie, he did it all on his own. It’s probably the only thing he’s ever succeeded at in his entire life.

Maybe not. I still keep in touch with some people I knew in Texas. They still remember his misdealings, land grabs, and mismanagement of their baseball team. They still can’t stand him. He would wreck baseball too. He is the AntiMidas. Everything he touches turns into crap. And yes, “his” people did a rpretty good job demonizing damn near everyone.

See my above remarks about his stint as owner of the Rangers and how the locals felt about him.

I agree with you 100% here. I’d much rather have Obama than Hillary for a bunch of reasons, and one of them is the reason you give here.

If I’m focusing on Hillary, it’s because the thread’s about Hillary.

Wow, that pretty much sums up my position as well. And I think…we’re not alone. I suspect that, unless California actually does change the way it assigns electoral votes, any Democrat nominee will win the Presidency in '08.

Even Hillary, as revolting as I find the dynasticism of her candidacy.

Incidentally, we may be looking at Kerry 2004 in the wrong way.

Give the state of the economy and the power of incumbency, Bush should have won 56.5% of the vote. He actually secured only 51.2% in 2004, however. That error was the one of the highest in the post World War One era, setting aside the three-way 1992 election. So Kerry may have done ok. Or maybe he was just the beneficiary of the Iraqi imbraglio, though the war wasn’t as unpopular then. Cite from Ray Fair’s model.

Then again, the model may be mis-specified. Still, it’s an interesting piece of context, IMHO.

I agree that Kerry ran a better campaign than he gets credit for. But his painfully late response to the SwiftBoat allegations allowed the GOP to hammer him for an extended period of time without a response.

He’d been ahead in the polls all summer, and then the bottom fell out.

There is an article in Salon today on Barack Obama’s appeal to crossover voters, which confirms the phenomenon I observed among my own Republican friends. Enthusiasm for Obama combined with loathing for Hillary:

Which is just the sort of attitude I found among my moderate Republican friends.

Finally, a reason to nominate Hillary. All the Republicans will then move to Canada! :wink: (Apologies to my Canadian friends).

Aren’t Hillary’s negatives very high? I mean, don’t the polls say something along the lines that 45% of voters wouldn’t vote for Hillary if someone hooked up battery terminals to their testicles? :slight_smile:

That’s a pretty high negative to overcome. She would be sort of like Newt. I would bet he would be very popular in the GOP primaries, but would have about as much chance as I do of winning a general election…

That’s the talking point the right is pushing hard. Karl Rove did the Sunday morning shows a couple of weeks ago, attempting some lame reverse-psychology using this point.

I think they’ve done the math, and Hillary is a threat. Their best hope is to exploit the Democrats’ wobbliness regarding her as a “polarizing” candidate. It may work.

Except for those in Alberta . . .

Except for those in Alberta . . .
FYI: New Zealand is Australia’s Canada; Alberta is Canada’s Texas.

So I’ve been reading about this guy named Norman Hsu who’s apparently been donating to Hillary while being a fugitive from justice. Some conservative bloggers say that there’s evidence that he might be a middleman for some shady money transfers to the campaign, but I have no idea how likely that is. At any rate, getting cash from such a person does seem a tad shady (at least as far as apparances go).

But am I the only one who think that, as much hay as her opponents are likely to make of it, it won’t make a significant difference to her campaign at all? This is one of those “boring” scandals - it’s all money, no sex or anything else of “interest” to the general public, unless it does turn out that there’s a lot more corruption behind the scenes, and even then it’d have to be a LOT. Despite the Los Angeles Times and the blogs and whoever else running with it, I doubt most people will even hear of it - certainly not the voters who might make a difference in the election. Am I wrong?

Hsu seems to have been a fugitive from justice, failing to appear for sentencing after a “no contest” plea in a 1991 case. Which was white collar crime. Which, in this country is treated, often, as a minor pecadillo, not a real crime, like armed robbery for $4. The fact that Hsu seems to have been living a public life, under his own name, indicates to me that the authorities in question didn’t give a damn about what he was doing. Which is about what I’d expect for most white collar crime.

It’s a shame. And the lack of pursuit for Hsu may even prove to have been a criminal act on someone’s part. (Though I doubt it.)

That he has been accused of illegally using friends and family to funnel campaign contributions to various Democratic campaigns is disturbing, if proven, but at the moment all we have are allegations.

But as shady as Hsu might be, just how far does anyone expect a political candidate to vette their campaign finance people? The red-flags that people are talking about are mostly fifteen years old - most reasonable people would assume that something that old were literally old news - a dead issue.

Unless, and until, someone can prove that someone with authority in the Clinton campaign had concrete evidence that Hsu was on the run and then they took the money anyways, I’m not going to tar Clinton with this, any more than I blame various Republican campaigns for recieving monies from Kenneth Lay.

As a criticism of Hillary, or Barrack Obama, this just seems a complete non-starter. I agree it’s newsworthy, but claiming that voters “need” to see it seems a bit much.

In the interests of full disclosure - I’ve been disgusted by the various campaign finance reform movements of recent years. Each successive set of regulations and laws seem to be announced as a panacea to fix all that’s wrong with campaign finance, and to eliminate the shady influence donors may have over elected officials. And even before the laws are signed, the flaws get published. At this point, I am cynically convinced that there are a signifigant fraction of donations to any campaign that will be shady. All one can do is hope that a specific candidate will have the fortitude to avoid caving to special favors once they have the power of their elected seat. If we’re willing to accept that it takes millions of dollars to run a campaign for national elections, we have to accept that the money has to come from somewhere.

Hillary Clinton’s negatives are the result of the kind of protracted full-blown campaign against her that any other Democratic candidate will have to weather in order to win the election. The difference in this case is that they’ve already thrown it at her; the numbers for any of the other Dem candidates are all “before”.

Has anyone in this thread posted the Chris Bowers projection? It’s about 8 days out of date right now and doesn’t include a Fred Thompson matchup, but it shows that she’s not just strong against other Democratic candidates among Democratic-leaning voters. She’s the candidate to beat.

Ok, AHunter3, but polls like that are pretty meaningless at this stage (though I guess they will begin to have value in um October?) But maybe they are more solid for Clinton, since people think they have a clearer picture of the Senator.

Be that as it may, Edwards currently does best in matchups against Republicans.

From this link:

Clinton vs Giuliani : 44 to 47 … -3
Obama vs Giuliani: 44 to 43 … +1
Edwards vs Giuliani: 49 to 41 … +8

Clinton vs. Romney: 51 to 40 … +11
Obama vs Romney: 47 to 38 … +9
Edwards vs Romney: 52 to 36 … +16

Cl vs McCain: … 46 to 44 … +2
Ob vs McCain: … 46 to 40 … +6
Edwds vs McCain: … 45 to 38 … +7
etc. vs Huckabee: Probably not meaningful yet IMHO. Not that the other stats are.

While I think there’s a fair degree of truth to this, it’s also hard to entirely regard Edwards’ numbers as ‘before,’ given the whole haircut-house-hedge fund-foulmouthed bloggers stuff that’s been thrown at him this year.

To a lesser extent, that’s been true of Obama (Hussein-madrassa) but not quite so much. I don’t think it matters in his case: there’s something about him that, IMHO, will cause the usual baseless smears to just slip right off of him.

It’s true that nobody’s had everything and the kitchen sink thrown at them that Hillary has, but there’s also no way that any other Dem will have half as much stuff thrown at them between now and next November as Hillary’s already been on the receiving end of. We’re talking 15 months v. 15 years here.

I don’t see that Bowers used it to claim that Hillary was better situated than Obama, Edwards, or anyone else. What happened was that one pollster (Rasmussen?) did a bunch of state-by-state polls matching Hillary (but not Obama or Edwards) with the GOP leaders. There’s not enough data to put together an equivalent set of maps for Obama or Edwards.

The point that Bowers was making is that while there is great disorder under heaven, the situation is excellent - for whomever the Dems nominate.