Democrats: Please Don Not Nominate Hillary!!

[Spoke]

@carnivorousplant

…the Huckabee/Voldemart ticket…

Priceless!

(And just the sort of ticket I fear the Republicans will eventually stumble onto.)

[RTFirefly]

@spoke-

And just the sort of ticket I fear the Republicans will eventually stumble onto.

Only until they can recruit Chtulhu, Morgoth, Lord Foul, and Darth Vader.

[carnivorousplant]

@spoke-

Priceless!

(And just the sort of ticket I fear the Republicans will eventually stumble onto.)

Thank you, Sir.
You do understand the implication that Voldemart is less evil than Huckabee and must take second place?

[Rysdad]

@carnivorousplant

Thank you, Sir.
You do understand the implication that Voldemart is less evil than Huckabee and must take second place?

Heh. Hillary Potter.

[Spoke]

@carnivorousplant

Thank you, Sir.
You do understand the implication that Voldemart is less evil than Huckabee and must take second place?

Is Cheney less evil than Bush?

Everybody knows you put the smiley-faced guy at the top of the ticket, and the evil, snarly, power-behind-the-throne guy in the VP slot.

[carnivorousplant]

@spoke-

Everybody knows you put the smiley-faced guy at the top of the ticket, and the evil, snarly, power-behind-the-throne guy in the VP slot.

You mean like Bush Quayle?

Or we will have Obama-Clinton?

[Spoke]

@carnivorousplant

You mean like Bush Quayle?

Quayle was more evil than he appeared!

[carnivorousplant]

@spoke-

Quayle was more evil than he appeared!

The “Potatoe Incident” was rather grim, yet I can’t see your theory holding up in this case.
Eisenhower-Nixon, Kennedy-Johnson, maybe.

But Nixon-Agnew, Clinton-Gore? No way.

Okay, so maybe Nixon-Agnew is a toss up.

[Measure_for_Measure]

@spoke-

Now there are those who say (and I heard this a lot in 2004) that likeability shouldn’t matter. The election should be about intellect and competence and policies. Well, those people are wrong. Or at least they’re wrong to say likeability doesn’t matter. It certainly matters when a candidate is trying to win votes.

Moreover, likeability doesn’t stop being important when the election is over. If a president is going to get his or her policies implemented, that means coaxing others to go along with them. Coaxing Congress, and when members of Congress object, going over their heads and coaxing the American people. And in foreign policy, likeability matters in dealing with heads of state, in winning their trust and cooperation. Likeabilty adds much to persuasiveness, which is a skill a president must possess.

Likeability is a job requirement (though not the only job requirement) for an effective president.

1. Roughly speaking, I would say that likeability shouldn’t matter in the general election, but is critical in the primaries.

Voting for an unelectable candidate with the most solid and defensible policy positions is impractical and possibly immoral if the alternative in the other party is a trigger-happy chickenhawk with poor judgment, to take a hypothetical example.

2. Apropos nothing, I’d say that the primary system is poorly constructed, as it calls for the citizenry to make essentially political decisions. I’d prefer to leave that particular job to the professionals, as opposed to giving myself a say.

3. Hillary is actually pretty good on a person-to-person basis. Evidence: her staff has low turnover and a high degree of loyalty. She won over upstate New York due to her in-person gregariousness and solid listening skills. When people see her speak in person they often say, she’s totally different from what I expected.

Hillary actually is rather personable – but not telegenic. But Presidencies are won and lost on TV, so this matters little.

Here’s a journalist who appears to agree with spoke and MfM:

…someone has to say it, so here goes: Please don’t run, Senator.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m a longtime Hillary Clinton fan. … I have found her warm and utterly charming in person; more than that, she understands the challenges facing Democrats in a way that few others in the party do, and her ability to absorb policy nuances rivals her husband’s. This country is long past due for a female president, and I would love to see Hillary Clinton in that trailblazing role … But–at the risk of getting myself permanently blackballed by her loyal and protective staff–while Clinton can win nearly any debate that is about issues, she cannot avoid becoming the issue in a national campaign. And when that happens, she will very likely lose.

Furthermore:

Tomasky relates the response of voters when they actually met the woman they’d heard so much about for eight years in Hillary’s Turn, his excellent book about Clinton’s 2000 campaign. “People had expected Hillary to instruct and talk, and, let’s face it, to come across as pushy and judgmental,” he wrote. “So when she paid genuine attention to the things people were saying, she really threw them.” …

The strategy also succeeded because many voters–weaned on a diet of conservative talking points during the 1990s–expected Clinton to be a liberal of the bluest sort, to the left of Ted Kennedy and unable to understand their concerns. What they found was that her positions on welfare, crime, and foreign policy, among other issues, were far more centrist than liberal. In addition, while most professional political observers dismissed her “Listening Tour” as a stunt, Clinton actually used it to query New Yorkers about their problems and obsessively study up on local issues.

But:

…many political reporters chalked up John Kerry’s surprising comeback in Iowa to the fact that he’d spent countless evenings in individual homes, talking to voters until he had convinced each person to support him. No candidate, however, meets every voter face-to-face en route to the White House.

[Little_Nemo]

And his wife is hawt! Even more so than Fred Thompson’s!

I just wanted to step back into this thread to say that I hadn’t seen Ms Kucinich prior to now. But having now checked her out, I can whole-heartedly say - Yo, Dennis, way to go bro!

[elucidator]

It’s the vegan diet, drives 'em wild.

[RTFirefly]

@Amy Sullivan

while Clinton can win nearly any debate that is about issues, she cannot avoid becoming the issue in a national campaign. And when that happens, she will very likely lose.

Hillary has completely reversed field, so it’s hard to know from this what Amy Sullivan would say now. Her campaign so far is very much about her - her experience, her supposed leadership, her being a woman. OTOH, her positions on the issues are easily the most vague of the three main Dem candidates. “*f the Bush administration won’t end the war…Hillary will,” her website says. When? By the end of her second term? “She believes we may need a vastly reduced residual force to train Iraqi troops, provide logistical support, and conduct counterterrorism operations. But that is not a permanent force, and she has been clear that she does not plan a permanent occupation.” What’s “vastly reduced”? 20,000? 60,000? She’s not saying.

This isn’t to get into a debate about these points - it’s just by way of saying that Amy Sullivan’s objections apply to the campaign Sullivan thought in 2005 that Hillary would run, rather than the campaign she’s actually running.

And by making her campaign about herself, Hillary’s taking full advantage of the opportunity to publicly define herself before the right-wing noise machine can get there. I think this is brilliant campaign strategy, and will inoculate her against the inevitable Swiftboat-style attacks she’ll get next year if she’s the nominee.

[BrainGlutton]

@Little Nemo

I just wanted to step back into this thread to say that I hadn’t seen Ms Kucinich prior to now. But having now checked her out, I can whole-heartedly say - Yo, Dennis, way to go bro!

Check out this Pit thread!

[Spoke]

As I’ve mentioned elsewhere on these boards, although I am a yellow-dog Democrat myself, most of my friends count themselves as conservatives, either unaffiliated libertarians, or Republicans.

I went to a party last night in suburban Atlanta which included a large number of moderate Republicans.

I took the opportunity to ask them what they thought of the Democratic candidates, and to get their thoughts on the upcoming election generally. On the whole, they were not happy with the direction of the country, and were open to voting for a Democrat under the right circumstances. Several of them told me that they would be inclined to vote for Obama if he wins the nomination. Several said they would be inclined to vote for Edwards.

None of them, not a single one, would vote for Hillary under any circumstances. They all responded to the very mention of her name with revulsion.

I tried to ask my questions casually, and in as neutral a way as possible.

To me, this gives the lie to the idea that “People who hate Hillary aren’t going to vote for a Democrat anyway.”

These moderate, conservative-minded voters (Bush voters, every one) seemed inclined to vote Democratic this time around…unless Hillary is the candidate.

Take it for what it’s worth.

[Measure_for_Measure]

@RTFirefly

Hillary has completely reversed field, so it’s hard to know from this what Amy Sullivan would say now. Her campaign so far is very much about her - her experience, her supposed leadership, her being a woman. …

This isn’t to get into a debate about these points - it’s just by way of saying that Amy Sullivan’s objections apply to the campaign Sullivan thought in 2005 that Hillary would run, rather than the campaign she’s actually running.

And by making her campaign about herself, Hillary’s taking full advantage of the opportunity to publicly define herself before the right-wing noise machine can get there. I think this is brilliant campaign strategy, and will inoculate her against the inevitable Swiftboat-style attacks she’ll get next year if she’s the nominee.

Point well taken, RTF, but I think Sullivan’s remarks still apply.

A lot of people in the country just don’t like Hillary, for largely superficial reasons. She’s smart to address this early. But I see no evidence that she’s winning over massive numbers of swing voters, like she did in New York. She can’t do that via TV or the internet and nobody can conduct retail politics at a Presidential level.

Even if she wins the prize in 2008, I’d prefer to have a Democrat with larger majorities and less vulnerability to the Republican noise machine over the following 8 years.

[DrDeth]

@I Love Me

I have expressed the opinion in various threads that there is no way in hell that Hillary Clinton can win the White House. I still believe this to be the case.

That is–it gave me hope that Hillary’s obvious (to me anyway) unelectability will start to become clear to more and more Democrats.
Who does that leave? Boy-- you got me… Edwards is a lightweight and the rest are a big ??? to most Americans. Gore is still the best choice available at this time, and the more time that passes with Obama and/or Hillary as front runners, the more Gore becomes the only person who can come in at the last minute (when, hopefully, people finally realize that Hil or Barrack aren’t going to make it) and turn it around.
.

And this is exactly what the GOP hope the voters will think and what they are fervently trying to sell. Yes, Hillary* is* very unpopular- *with the dudes who’d never vote for any Democrat anyway. *

Note how cleverly the GOP got dudes to say that the top two Dems are both “unelectable”. If anyone else got to be the #1 contender, there is not doubt at all to me that he would also be declared “unelectable” no matter who it is.

Yes, I agree Gore would be nice and is my personal fave. But he’s not running so the GOP isn’t wasting any propaganda on him. If he became a serious contender, suddenly the “Swiftboaters” would start saying Gore was “unelectable” “After all, he’s a loser” . :rolleyes:

That is why you can’t come up with a name. If there *was *a name, whoever it was would be “declared” unelectable. That’s exactly what the GOP is working towards- they know they have little chance and their only chance is to shoot down the frontrunner with all the ammo they have.
You are helping them, whether you know it or not.

[Spoke]

@DrDeth

Yes, Hillary* is* very unpopular- *with the dudes who’d never vote for any Democrat anyway. *

Bullshit. See post 174.

There are moderates out there who are weary of Republican rule, and who could be persuaded to vote for a Democrat. Just as long as that Democrat is not Hillary.

[DrDeth]

@spoke-

Bullshit. See post 174.

There are moderates out there who are weary of Republican rule, and who could be persuaded to vote for a Democrat. Just as long as that Democrat is not Hillary.

I doubt that. They are quoting the party line and have been brainwashed into that, exactly as the GOP wants them to. They’d be happy to vote for a theoretical Democrat, sure. But, no not a real one, with a campaign chest and a chance of winning the nomination. They hate Hillary as she is the front-runner and the propaganda has told them to hate her. If Edwards was the front-runner, it’d be the same there.

[Spoke]

You are wrong. These are repentant Bush voters. Moderate Republicans who could be converted, if for only one election cycle. These are not the mindless drones you suppose them to be.

Besides which, why cower in fear of what Republicans may do propaganda-wise to our candidate? We should be thinking of what we’re going to do to theirs.

Hillary is beyond saving. She has already lost the propaganda war. But the other candidates enter the battle unscathed.

(Incidentally, I heard what bordered on enthusiasm among my Republican-lite friends for Obama.)

[RTFirefly]

@Measure for Measure

Point well taken, RTF, but I think Sullivan’s remarks still apply.

A lot of people in the country just don’t like Hillary, for largely superficial reasons. She’s smart to address this early. But I see no evidence that she’s winning over massive numbers of swing voters, like she did in New York. She can’t do that via TV or the internet and nobody can conduct retail politics at a Presidential level.

I agree that there are a lot of people (including swing voters) who just don’t like Hillary. But all she needs is enough votes to get 270 (hell, maybe even 269 if the Dems don’t lose ground in the House) EVs. She doesn’t need a massive groundswell. For now, all she needs to do is establish an identity as a sensible, reasonable politician, so that it’ll gradually filter in to voters’ awareness. She’s doing that.

Even if she wins the prize in 2008, I’d prefer to have a Democrat with larger majorities and less vulnerability to the Republican noise machine over the following 8 years.

So would I. But it’s hard to say who’s going to be vulnerable to that noise machine. Sure looked like Kerry wouldn’t be, didn’t it?

Hillary at least has the advantage of having crawled through this minefield before. She’s not my first choice among the Dems (hell, not my second or third either), but kinda like Reagan in 1980, I think that when the swing voters start paying attention, they’ll realize she looks a lot better than the partisans on the other side made her out to be.