I assure you they do. That’s why they’re going to blow what little progress they’ve made. You just can’t convince them that “I hate you!” and “You’re an idiot!” are not good campaign slogans.
No we didn’t. I hate to say “I told you so,” but here’s a thread I started in January 2004: Convince Me That John Kerry Is Electable, in which I pointed out the reasons Kerry wasn’t the electable candidate. (I think I may have invented the “beer test” in that thread, for better or worse.)
And I will tell you now that Hillary Clinton is not an electable candidate. She just doesn’t have any of the likeability that a successful presidential candidate must have. Even with George Bush’s abysmal performance.
The only thing that could conceiveably save her is if the Republicans screw up their own nomination process. But if they nominate a likeable righty like Mike Huckabee (as I suspect they might, in the end), Hillary is toast.
No, it’s not fine if the Democrats lose, and here’s why:
One more term of Republicans in the White House could virtually eliminate the progressive wing of the Supreme Court.
Yeah, but look at the hash they made of soybean futures.
While that’s important, don’t forget that none of the leading GOP candidates are talking about doing anything intelligent about Iraq. Hell, I’ve got the feeling that some of them would like nothing better than to expand the war to Iran.
It’s sure worked for the Republicans any number of times. The Democrat’s problem is that they are too nice, not they disrespect their opponents.
I didn’t realize J.C.Watts, Hiram Rhodes Revels, Gladys Pyle, Vera Cahalan Bushfield, Margaret Chase Smith, Christine Whitman, Eva Kelley Bowring, Hazel Hempel Abel, Nancy Kassebaum, Paula Hawkins, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Sheila Frahm, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, and Elizabeth Dole weren’t elected.
Or perhaps none of them puts sugar in her porridge.
Regards,
Shodan
Like I said, you just don’t get it.
I’m not going to vote based soley on whether I personally like a candidate or not, I’m going to vote for the candidate that, in my opinion, best represents my interests and whatever I may think are the best interests of the country. For this upcoming election, there simply don’t seem to be any Republicans that would adequately represent those interests, and another eight years with an unworldly neocon at the helm would be disastrous, IMO. So as a practical matter I am stuck with whatever the Democrats offer. If that’s Hillary, no problem. I may not particularly like her, but I beleive she would make a competent President, and that will do.
If I have a major objection, here it is: personally, I don’t like the idea of dynasties in American politics, and a second Clinton would veer uncomfortably close to that condition. On that basis, I’d rather see Obama get the nod, and would have no problem voting for him either.
The only two on that list who qualify as “wielding power” were Smith and Kassebaum. And even Kassebaum was more noted for her “liberal” stands on several issues than for actually being a powerful force in the Senate. Smith did wield real power–in a completely different era. Since I did not claim that no elected Republican was ever a woman or black, your haste to try to find fault has demonstrated my point.
I don’t like Hillary. I didn’t like when she carpetbagged into the state, and I’ve not been all that impressed with her Senatorial record since then. I have reservations about her integrity, and her intelligence.
I also think she’s done excellent work with constituent service in her terms as NYS’s junior senator. She’s done far better than I’d expected her to do.
I don’t like her, but I voted to re-elect her, and if the election were held today between her and any Republican candidate who wasn’t loudly decrying the excesses of the Bush administration, and had a record to back up their posturing (A prerequisite that I think is going to be hard to meet, honestly.) I’d vote for her for president. In a heartbeat.
Of course I tend to ignore a lot of the posturing for position vis-a-vis the primaries. As a registered member of no political party, in NYS I have no say in any primary election. I’ll wait to see who’s nominated, then start paying much closer attention.
As opposed to who? The Democrats?
The closest they ever came to running a non-white male for a presidential slot is Geraldine Ferraro in 1984. That doesn’t even count for anything real, since no Dem was going to actually challenge Reagan in that election. I’ll give the Dems 1/2 credit, since her name was technically on the ballot.
Obviously Hillary is electable. She’s poised to win the nomination, an election. QED.
I wasn’t thrilled about her earlier either, but the fact that she’s doing so well in polls both against Democrats and Republicans pretty much shuts me up. She’s simply far too popular for that “but everybody hates her!” argument to fly. Perhaps if she was barely leading, or if her opponents were complete garbage, it would mean something. But Obama, Edwards and Richardson* are all very good choices as well, and she’s kicking ass!
Yes, yes. She does inspire levels of hatred usually reserved for Osama bin Laden and IRS agents in some quarters. But then again, so did her husband. And he got elected twice, and was never as unpopular as Bush has become.
*Richardson, being the candidate with the strongest resume would be the strongest choice for VP, IMHO.
Look. I am no radical lefty - I’ve been a Republican and now I’m a Democrat again. I’ve held public office, I’ve been an officer in my then Church, and I like to watch football in bars. I know Republicans. I absolutely guarantee you that I could go to a random megachurch in Denver or (especially) Colorado Springs and get five random guys to go watch the Bronco game, and if I were to ask them “What do you think of Obama?”, the “n” word would be uttered within 30 seconds. I absolutely guarantee it.
Maybe you hang out with the Country Club Republicans - I do too, and they are different, but they are a minority in the party and many are leaving. The Republican base are hard right Christian conservatives, and damn right they’ve got a whole lot of rascists in there.
Read about the “Southern Strategy”. See Bob Jones University. Ask how George W. Bush beat John McCain in the critical South Carolina primary in 2000 and come back here and tell us again how Republicans aren’t rascists.
You have your head deeply in the sand.
2008 is a completely different ballgame than 2004. Bush was still a popular president in 2004 and the Democrats were still looking around for their balls. If Kerry and Bush were running again in 2008 Kerry would win in a walk. (For that matter, I think Kerry would win against any of the GOP candidates, provided he learned some lessons in 2004 about responding to smears.)
“Electability” has to be defined in context. If the opponent is a popular (if controversial) incumbent, and if your side isn’t ready to respond quickly and forcefully to smears and distortions and you’re not willing to be forceful about your opposition, no one is electable.
If a major US political party is ever going to field a female or nonwhite Presidential candidate, this is not a good year to to shout out “yeah, but not NOW dammit”. Yeah, now, dammit. Look at the Republican Party. Look at the Republican Party’s current slate of candidates. While the conventional political wisdom may say that a black man, or a woman, cannot win the election, that same cw would also be saying that there’s no way Romney or Giuliani can win either; and that given the abysmal popularity of the current Republican administration, there’s no way the Republicans can win this one no matter who they run. Obviously the conventional wisdom can’t be right on all counts, or else it cancels out.
To say at this point “Oh god no, don’t run Obama, he’s black and while otherwise that’s great and cool and groovy the problem is he can’t win”, or “Please, don’t run Clinton, I’m all for women having equal rights to participate in our government, but if she runs the party’s gonna lose” is IMHO tantamount to saying “We don’t really mean that blacks and women should be allowed to compete as equals. They can compete in races where we couldn’t possibly lose, races where we couldn’t possibly win, and races where not much is at stake, but if it’s an important race and the Republicans stand even a ghost of a chance of pulling the election out of the fire, we want a white guy in there”.
Blaming it on the stoopid racist sexist electorate is elitist claptrap. If either of those folks has the skills and political acumen to offset the residual racism and sexism within the Democratic Party so as to come out on top after the primary season, they’ve damn well earned the right to turn those same skills loose in the general campaign.
IMO the 2008 election will be about personality, and specifically about managerial competence and ‘gravitas’. Swing voters are going to be looking for the anti-Bush. Someone who has a commanding seriousness. Someone who has authentically earned their trust.
IMO Hillary, Obama, and Edwards are all unelectable based on this theory.
The Dems have to turn to Gore.
I have no take on Rodham Clinton’s electability. I do have some problems with her actually being president (Diceman touched on them).
I remember all too well the constant (and idiotic) shitstorm a few Clinton haters stirred up during his administration. I have no doubt that the usual suspects would pull the same stuff on Hillary Rodham Clinton. And frankly, folks, I just don’t have the stomach for another eight years of that.
(Though granted, the same folks might well do the same to any Democratic president. Og.)
Besides, after six years of Bush Lite, this whole Dynasty thing makes me nauseous. Surely we can find someone who doesn’t have a Pullman car full of baggage.
I think there probably are a number of racists among the extreme right, but racism is only one form of bigotry. People are people, and it isn’t the case that bad people gravitate rightwards while good people gravitate leftwards. The extreme left has a big share of elitist bigots who think that knowledge is more important than character. The irony of it all is how little useful knowledge they often have.
Yes. I’ve met a lot of these people, and I’ve read the LTEs of a lot more.
Nearly half of my adult life so far has been spent in Newport News, VA; Bristol VA/TN; Columbia, SC; and Florence, SC. My wife’s family lives in central FL, so I’m down there a lot.
You live in Canada.
Seriously, that makes a big difference in your understanding of American politics. You don’t ever encounter the GOP lizard brain, face to face. You don’t hear white people who still don’t think twice about referring to black people as ‘niggers’ when they’re not around. You don’t hear people casually but quite seriously suggest that all the gays should be rounded up and deported. You don’t hear a mostly apolitical grandmother suddenly get apoplectic when Hillary’s name comes up in a conversation.
How many votes did she get? We know the answer to that one.
OK, where’s the draft-Condi movement? I mean, the GOP is casting around almost desperately for a candidate they can get behind in 2008. They’re not really happy with Giuliani or Romney, hence Fred Thompson, but he’s not looking all that wonderful either.
If the GOP loved Condi, they’d be trying to push her into the race. They’re not. End of story.
I think you have long had an extremely inflated view of Condi’s electoral potential. I really think the fact that you live way up north gives you a much more benign view of the GOP base than is justified by reality.
For the reasons I’ve given above, I believe you have it backwards. I won’t say these aren’t stereotypes, but damned if they aren’t based on a fair number of living, breathing people. To say they don’t exist or that their numbers are trivial is a statement that, IMHO, is based on ignorance.