[QUOTE=ITR champion]
All I can say is that I hope someone has bookmarked this thread so that in slightly more than a year they can start a pit thread and savagely mock the OP.
[/QUOTE]
That’s actually why I started this whole thing. I’m tempting Karma to bite me in the ass.
[QUOTE=Don’t Call Me Shirley]
The republicans’ biggest problem in 08 is going to be getting the people who went to the polls in 04 not to vote for Bush, but to vote against teh gay, to go back to the polls in 08. And Hillary may just be that incentive. I think it’s distinctly possible that republicans who would have otherwise stayed home will show up in droves to vote against Hillary. That could spell disaster for the democrats in Congress as well. I think the dems would be wise to steer clear of her.
[/QUOTE]
Exactly.
Eighty percent (at least) of the votes are already locked in stone. Democrats and Republicans alike will vote for their nominee just to keep the other out of office if for no other reason.
And this is where Hillary is vulnerable. Evangelicals will turn out in droves to keep her out of the White House.
Save this post for later mockery if you will…But the minute Hillary gets the Democratic nomination is the minute the Republicans can start celebrating victory.
And while I’ve got my fortune teller hat on…Mike Huckabee will become a far larger player on the scene very soon. I see him as Rudy’s VP nominee at a minimum. He could even become the nominee himself.
The religious right is not going to turn out in droves to keep Hillary out of the white house if the alternative is a vote for Rudy Giuliani. They might not vote for Hillary, but they’re not going to vote for Giuliani either–they’ll stay home or vote for a spoiler candidate first.
Guiliani is going to crash and burn. Even if he somehow wins the Republican nomination, he would be crucified by the democratic nominee, whoever that is. Even if it’s Hillary. Guiliani cannot and will not win the election.
[QUOTE=Lemur866]
The religious right is not going to turn out in droves to keep Hillary out of the white house if the alternative is a vote for Rudy Giuliani.
[/QUOTE]
Similarily from here:
So they’re probably not going to turn out for Romney in droves either. That’s two out of three Repub front runners, and McCain’s had troubles with the religious right as well.
Finally I’m not convinced evangelicals find Hillary wildly more objectionable then, say, Obama or Edwards. Or, at least, when the actual national election rolls around, that will be the case. All three will probably be looking at the same types of Supreme Court judges, give the same non-answers about gay rights, etc.
[QUOTE=Malodorous]
So they’re probably not going to turn out for Romney in droves either. That’s two out of three Repub front runners, and McCain’s had troubles with the religious right as well.
[/QUOTE]
Which is why I fully expect Huckabee to rise.
You are mistaken. They may not be fans of Obama or Edwards, but the mere mention of Clinton sends them into a rage.
[QUOTE=spoke-]
Which is why I fully expect Huckabee to rise.
[/quote]
Maybe, but people (including myself) have been saying that a wave of evangelical votes will arise to replace Giuliani and Romney with Huckabee or another social conservative any day now for months. So far, not so much.
Is that the end of the debate on that issue 
[QUOTE=Malodorous]
Is that the end of the debate on that issue
[/QUOTE]
How many actual evangelicals do you know? 
[QUOTE=spoke-]
How many actual evangelicals do you know?
[/QUOTE]
Do you know a statistically significant number of them?
In anycase, I don’t doubt that conservative evangelicals don’t like Hillary, I just doubt that they have some special hate for her that they didn’t feel for Gore or Kerry, and that that hate will drive them to the polls in larger numbers then the prospect of Obama or Edwards as president will.
[QUOTE=scotandrsn]
Of course, one could argue that by aggressively backing a black and a woman, each moderately controversial choices for other reasons as well, that the Dems are in fact playing to lose.
[/QUOTE]
I’ve been ranting on this very point for about at least six months now. The two candidates out front of the Dem pack are unelectable.
Mosier has a good point. Hillary really can’t win. I suppose one way she could is if 95% of republicans decide not to vote, but that doesn’t seem likely.
I contend that Hillary and Osama aren’t electable, and the Dems need (needed–it’s too late now unless Gore does the unthinkable) to put forth their most electable candidate. I still think it’s interesting when people counter my assertions of Hill and Barack’s un-electability with: “The democrats tried running the ‘most electable’ candidate last time [Kerry] and look what happened then!”
What happened was, the most electable candidate lost. It’s funny that some people forget what being the “most electable” means. It means that that person has the best chance of being elected. Very simple. So if your goal is winning the election, the best strategy (and I think game theory and other complicated mathematical analysis would bear this out) is to run the most electable candidate.
Now-- whether or not the assumed “most electable” candidate actually IS the most electable, is another story. It is clear (to me anyway) that Kerry WAS the most electable candidate in 2004, but he lost anyway. He wasn’t electable enough. He lost to Bush. That’s just how fucked up our country is. But Dean? Give me a break. Might as well vote for Nader. I prefer Dean to Kerry and certainly to The Chimp, but I suffer not the delusion that he could have overcome the dark forces of the Christian Knuckle-Dragger’s juggernaut.
So the Dem’s get a prime opportunity to take the White House in '08 handed to them and they want to fuck it up by nominating Clinton. Is Hillary the most electable? Perhaps the most electable between her and Obama. But who else is there? Probably no one. It’s too late.
That’s why it’s clear that the Dems fucked this up way early by pushing those two so far out front that no one but Gore could possibly catch them. It also went FUBAR early on when politically experienced, moderate midwesterner’s like Bayh and Vilsack pulled out, although that of course was their choice.
I don’t think Richardson could win if he were nominated, but that is moot because he won’t be. Dodd? Nope. The Plagiarist? Nope.
**Mosier **is correct. The Dems have tossed it and they did so some time ago. I don’t see why intelligent people in here would doubt it so. The point about the dirt on Hillary already having been completely aired is a good one. That factor, and all the bucks she has, are two strong points in her favor. Yea! Still, when you are trying to get the first woman elected to the WH, it’s better to find one that is not so universally hated, I think. Many folks would have a hard enough time voting for a woman anyway.
Maybe scotandrsn is right: maybe the Dems are playing to lose; but that just seems a little too nutty to me. I think they aim to win and just aren’t willing to do what is necessary to do it (force Bill and Hill to swallow big-time Pride and bow-out. Far too late for that anyway).
[QUOTE=jsgoddess]
We can DO that? Awesome.
Can we go back to the 80s and fix my hairstyles, too?
[/QUOTE]
We did, your memories are of from *after *we fixed them. They were **REALLY **bad before. :eek:
I still can’t understand how you can declare Hillary and Obama unelectable, without considering that Rudy and Mitt are also unelectable. Un. Electable. As in, it doesn’t matter if the Democrats ran Lyndon LaRouche, they’re still going to beat Rudy.
You think Hillary is unelectable because she’s a woman, Obama’s unelectable because he’s a negro, yet Mitt Romney the polygamous satan-worshipper is electable?
Hillary isn’t running against Ronald Reagan, and neither is Barack Obama. They’re going to run against the Republican candidate, and may God have mercy on the Republicans because Hillary certainly won’t.
When I’m doing hiring for my company, and I receive a resume with some impressive details, I ask that person to come in for an interview. I don’t hand them the job just because they “look good”.
The latter would be a stupid process to use in hiring a corporate employee, and an equally stupid process to use in hiring a state leader.
LilShieste
Personally, I suspect that a lot of this recent “Hillary is unelectable” talk is generated by the Republicans. They’ve seen the real numbers and know she’s all too electable. So they’re trying to persuade Democrats that she should be abandoned and they should nominate somebody like Dennis Kucinich instead.
Of course, two sides can play that game. I suspect most of Ron Paul’s support is coming from Democrats who’d love to see him get the Republican nomination.
What you guys are overlooking here is that everybody is talking about Hillary! The tightie righties are screaming themselves hoarse about her, grumpy lefties like me don’t like her, and everybody is talking about her. It bears the stamp of the Big Dog, probably the most brilliant politician of my lifetime.
“Bill, what can I do, the right hates me like poison, how can I sway them?”
“Honey, you don’t do shit. These dumbasses are watering your roses with champagne, they’re spending their money and their time on you. You say “Hillary!” ten times a day, and they say it fifty.”
“Hmmm. Would you like to slip out and see if you can hustle up some strange nookie? Free pass?”
“Thanks, honey, but after that heart surgery, sex with you is just about as much excitement as I can survive.”
[QUOTE=Malodorous]
Do you know a statistically significant number of them?
[/QUOTE]
I would say I know a pretty good sampling. About as many as would be interviewed for, say, a poll of evangelicals.
And they all hate Hillary, and (I suspect) would be highly motivated to vote against her. That would not be the case with Obama or Edwards. (Nor Gore, if he were to jump in.)
Probably for the same reason they’re not highly motivated against Christopher Dodd or Bill Richardson - because they’re not the front runner.
[QUOTE=elucidator]
What you guys are overlooking here is that everybody is talking about Hillary! The tightie righties are screaming themselves hoarse about her, grumpy lefties like me don’t like her, and everybody is talking about her. It bears the stamp of the Big Dog, probably the most brilliant politician of my lifetime.
[/QUOTE]
Ah, E Luce, you are correct here. She IS the twig on everybody’s tongue. And, you have been correct when you have pointed out in other posts that all of the skeletons’ dirty laundry closets are no longer the Hillary in the living room. (Or, in un-mixulated metaphors: “her mud done already been slung”)
She is a force majeure to be* sure*, but I just don’t see the 2008 election coming out rainbows and lollipops for the Democrats if Hillary is the man.
This is the opposite of what’s going to happen in 2008. Kerry was an electable candidate who lost because GWB was (God help us) more electable. Hillary may be “unelectable”, but she’ll win against Rudy or Romney because they’re even less electable than she is.
Also, Kerry was an electable candidate who ran a lousy campaign. Hillary is (arguably) less electable, but her campaign so far has been flawless. That counts for a lot.
I think that if there were a good evangelical GOP candidate, this would be true. But faced with the choice of Hillary vs. either a New York City Papist or a Massachusetts Mormon, they’ll instead use the opportunity to whine about the REAL Christians being marginalized in this country, and they’ll stay home or vote third party.
Isn’t Hillary a Protestant? A Baptist even?
She’s a Methodist. I don’t think that particularly matters…evangelicals are perfectly willing to vote for Catholics or Mormons or whoever.