Giuliani wins in 08

Great Debates
101

I disagree with a couple assertions form the OP. Firstly, Hillary isn’t guaranteed of the nomination. Secondly, if she is nominated, I think she will draw in as many women voters (those who hadn’t voted before or were perhaps fence sitters in the last election) as she will alienate other voters.

It’s a longshot, but if it’s reported that Hillary keeps “losing” the debates she takes part in, people will start to believe it. The more they hear she isn’t debating well, they more they believe it. People tend to believe things they hear, regardless of source, especially if they hear the same thing over and over. Once people believe Hillary can’t debate well, they start adjusting their opinions to fit what they are hearing. Suddenly, Hillary isn’t so electable. I mean, she can’t even win a debate! And John Edwards looks so good in all these debates…(And don’t tell me this is unrealistic; Dean lost the nomination because he sounds silly when he’s excited. If you can lose the nomination because of that, you can lose it for anything)

More importantly, Hillary absolutely CAN win this election, if nominated. We already know women are the majority of registered voters (see RTFirefly’s post before mine), but they also actually vote in a higher percentage. Check out this NY Times poll see image at lower left, “Opinion of Hillary Rodham Clinton”. Women clearly favor Clinton in every category, but the most important part is the undecideds. The undecided women also outnumber the men (which is the topic of the article). I would estimate that over half of these undecideds would vote for Clinton if she won the nomination. In some areas, that’s a huge windfall for her. See the Republican section? If half the undecided women went to Clinton, you could have a significant percentage of Republican votes switching to Hillary, which is something Kerry and Gore couldn’t do. It only remains up for debate whether or not men would switch away from Hillary in roughly the same numbers.

When you combine that with the relative distaste America has for the Republican party at the present, suddenly a clear image of how Hillary can win emerges. I can see her attracting a lot of women votes (almost forgot the word votes in there, oops), even Republican women, and being a Democrat would plug the leaking male vote. And since every poll I’ve seen lately has Clinton leading every Republican candidate, these female swing votes certainly seem to be enough, at this moment, to give her a significant edge.

I don’t know if I’m excited about that or not.

102

From your link:

"But 39 percent [of married women] also view her negatively — significantly more than have a negative view of Mr. Obama and Mr. Edwards, who are not as well known. "

She is the most disliked candidate of either party. Having a bunch of fanatic followers is enough to win a primary, but not an election. Hillary will get the Democrat nomination, and America will get another Republican president. They wouldn’t even have to campaign for it.

103

I don’t think fanaticism is the reason she’s leading in the polls. And I’m not sure that’s true anyway, seeing as how Bush won by appealing to people on the right and not so much to the swing voters.

104

That’s not true. Do you remember the site we constantly linked during the last election, which predicted a Kerry win based on traditional “undecided” voter trends? Turns out a LOT more undecideds went to Bush than what any of us expected.

105

The last time the two major-party candidates came from the same state was in 1920, when the two main candidates both came from Ohio (and the the third candidate came from Indiana next door).

Notable things about that election, which may or may not relate to the 2008 election:

(1) It was the first election where women got the vote.

(2) Harding had the largest popular vote margin in US history, partly because he was very popular with women voters.

(3) The Wikipedia article on the election points out that before the election “Terrorist attacks on Wall Street produced fears of radicals and terrorists.”

(4) The two vice-presidential candidates from the major parties both went on to be elected as President.

(5) Warren G. Harding went on to gain a reputation as one of the worst presidents in US history.

106

I actually don’t remember that.

107

In 2004, the Ohio Secretary of State was a Republican. Now the position is held be a Democrat. That fact alone may be enough to swing Ohio’s votes from one side to the other.

(And I’m not accusing Ken Blackwell of doing anything actually illegal: just making it easier to vote in Republican areas, and harder to vote in Democrat areas of Ohio – something that Jennifer Brunner is unlikely to do)

108

The Hillary haters seem to feel that the sheer intensity of their hatred for her will somehow make her burst into flames or something. But the reality is there are limits to how much each individual can affect the election. It doesn’t matter if he dislikes Clinton, hates Clinton, really hates Clinton, or really really really really really hates Clinton - his option in every case it to cast one vote against her.

109

I missed your rebuttal to post 37, where I pointed out that (a) you’re relying on one poll, (b) it’s a Zogby poll, (c) Zogby sucks, and (d) a WaPo/ABC poll says the entire GOP leader board is more disliked than Hillary.

This isn’t to say that the WaPo/ABC poll has it right either - it’s still just one poll, and one poll can get it wrong. But that’s not my point (though they’re more credible than Zogby): it’s that if you present that Zogby poll as irrefutable fact, you’re wrong. To the extent that your argument is based on that poll, your argument rests on a foundation of styrofoam peanuts.

110

Don’t be so quick to stereotype evangelicals as obsessed with gays and abortion. They put pretty much the same issues on top of their priority lists as the mainstream.

Surprise, surprise - they’re real people living in the reality-based community, too.

Now whose views do you think match up best with what evangelicals want? Giuliani’s? :dubious:

FTR, there are *so * many photos of him in drag *so * many times at *so * many functions that he’s had to be advised in the past to cool it. But then a good spinmeister could make it look like he’s a tough crime-fighting hombre from channeling J. Edgar Hoover.

111

Bolding mine. I think that’s a very key tenet of that statement. Being on top normally means an inordinate amount of criticism from the bottom feeders and those looking to topple you from your position.

I absolutely cannot believe Hillary is more hated than the Republican party right now, considering Bush’s approval rating and the sound slapping the ousted Republicans asses took by the door on their way out of Congress. Any extra hatred Hillary will receive will be balanced by the hatred the Republican party has earned to this point. It won’t be the deciding factor should Hillary win the nomination.

Here’s an important thing to mention. Unlike 2000 and 2004, this year there are SEVERAL candidates who poll better than the Republican frontrunners. This is exemplifies the country’s willingness to boot the Republican party from the presidency, regardless of the Democratic nominee. The country seems ready for a change, and I can’t see how some people viewing Hillary negatively could offset that. No cite on this (still confident in it), but in 2004 a significant percentage of Democratic faithful viewed Kerry negatively, but still voted for him because he was the “lesser of two evils.” I don’t see that changing this election.

112

From the polls that pollingreport.com has on Kerry right before the 2004 election, it’s hard to tell - the damned things are all over the place. CBS has Kerry with a 41-47 fav-unfav at the end of 10/04, Newsweek gives him 51-44 in mid-10/04, and others are in between.

So it could be that 7% of the electorate didn’t view him favorably but voted for him anyway, or 3% liked him but didn’t vote for him, etc.

113

Well, poll after Poll sez you are wrong. Clinton can (and likely will) beat just about any GOP candidate. Wellbut- and here is where you may have a point- Giuliani is the exception, he polls quite well compared to Hillary. It is quite possible Giuliani could beat Hillary. However, the GOP won’t nominate him. The GOP will nominate the person who panders the strongest to the Religous Right. This will lose them the election.

I agree with Little Nemo- all this talk about Hillary being unelectable is GOP propaganda. They can’t Swiftboat her, so this is the best they have. Many dudes are buying into it, but not enough- Hillary still has the biggest warchest and the best numbers in just about any poll. Note that when Obama briefly pulled ahead, the GOP hate-machine quickly started with “Obama is un-electable”. :rolleyes:

**
EsotericEnigma**: make an excellent point- the voting public just ain’t gonna vote for a Repub. Well, not unless the Repub is very un-republican-like and is willing to attack GWB. But if they do that, they won’t win the nomination. It’s Catch22 for the GOP- any candicate that can win the Election can’t win the Primary.

Oh don’t get me wrong, if the GOP somehow managed to resurrect Ronnie and repeal the 22nd AD, they could win. But I somehow doubt that will happen. :stuck_out_tongue: They also could “fix” the Election, that’s far more likely.

114

Polls that compare Clinton to various Repubs consistently show her doing worse against them than other Dem candidates do. She’s going to win the primaries because democrats like her more, but when all Americans are polled (not just democrats), she’s at the bottom of the list. Obama wins solidly with at least a 5% edge over any other Republican candidate. Edwards shows similar numbers. Hillary can’t even pull ahead of the top Repub candidates outside of the margin of error these tests show. We all know this. We all see it. Nobody refutes it.

WHY OH WHY ARE WE GIVING HER THE NOMINATION, THEN!?

There’s no reason to suspect that Republicans will do the stupid, idiotic thing we Democrats are. They will not put an unpopular candidate up. Why would they? Democrats are the ones committing political suicide in order to push forward an unpopular candidate that panders to certain elements of their base, over and over, every fucking election. NOT Republicans. They do what they have to in order to win, and I’m not talking about election fraud.

115

We must be seeing different polls. The ones I’ve seen show her beating every Republican candidate in a head-to-head matchup - including Guiliani. I’m sure the Republicans have seen the same polls. Which explains why they’re so generously offering the Democrats helpful advice about not nominating Clinton.

116

I don’t know it, I can’t see it, I am refuting it, and the facts sez you’re wrong.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html

On the average, the polls show:
Clinton vs Giuliani = Clinton + 3.2%
Obama vs Giuliani = Obama +0**.**5
Edwards vs Giuliani = Giuliani + 2.3%
Clinton wins, and she is the only one with any decent edge. Edwards loses. This is the closest race for the Dems, but here Hillary does the best.

Clinton vs Thompson = Clinton +7.5%
Obama vs Thompson= Obama + 8.3
Edwards vs Thompson= Edwards + 8.4%
Clinton is edged out by a tad. Still she wins vs Thompson.

Clinton vs McCain= Clinton + 3.5%
Obama vs McCain= Obama +3.8%
Edwards vs McCain= Edwards+ 2.3%
OBama and Clinton are almost tied. All win vs McCain.

Clinton vs Romney= Clinton + 10.4%
Obama vs Romney= Obama +10.0
Edwards vs Romney= Edwards= 13%
Here Edwards does better, but clearly it doesn’t matter who the Dems run vs Romney. 10+% is hwaaaay above the margin of error.

Every single poll shows Clinton beating every single Repub, except maybe Giuliani, where two polls show him in a slight edge.

Are you buying into the GOP propaganda? :dubious: The facts say Clinton can win, and does as well or better in most cases. Although I admit that if Romney gets the nod, Edwards will make it a landslide, rather than just a win.

Giuliani is the most dangerous GOP candidate and the one who will not win the Nomination. It’s true that Edwards and Obama poll pretty well too, but Hillary does have the polls and the warchest to win the nomination.

I am not a huge fan of Hillary myself. I’d like to see Gore drafted. :cool:

Yay Gore!

117

Hillary is not going to win the nomination. Her last debate opened up a wound and the others are going to start punching at it. Her stance on drivers licenses for illegal immigrants and the Iran vote and the Clintonian attempt to bottle up her records as First Lady are going to be the kiss of death. It’s a long way to Iowa, this time four years ago we were all speculating about Howard Dean’s cabinet.

The trouble with handicapping the Republican side is that someone has to come out on top. Biden had the best description of Giuliani in that his sentences have three parts: a noun, a verb, and 9/11. Continuous waving of the bloody flag of 9/11 isn’t going to hide the fact that he is personality-challenged and his cronies aren’t all Boy Scouts. Trouble is when his competitors are a Mormon and a zombie, he still might get the nomination.

118

So. Nominations for the SDMB Understatement of the Year Award are still open?

119

Bets?

I’ll believe it when I see it.

This time four years ago, most of us weren’t really engaged in the following year’s election - the war was more on people’s minds.

This nominating contest has been front and center since last winter’s snows were on the ground. I think that sucks, but it also creates a very different dynamic. More people have had more time to assess the candidates and develop settled opinions of them by this stage than in any previous election. And on the Dem side, people aren’t choosing the lesser of evils - they like their candidate for the nomination, be it Hillary, Obama, Edwards, or whoever.

This is my prediction: for the reasons I’ve just given, there is going to be far less movement than usual in the numbers on the Dem side. Much as I’d like to see Edwards parlay a win in Iowa into a roll through the primaries, like Kerry did four years ago, the reality is that if Edwards wins Iowa, he’s still the underdog in NH. If he wins NH, he’s still the underdog in SC. If he wins SC, he may be able to play Hillary even-up on Feb. 5.

Indeed - if they could all lose, they would.

I’m not a big Biden fan, but damn, that was on target.

That was right on target too!

120

Bumping this thread with the news that apparently Rudy may be giving up on Iowa and NH.

Plus he expects a boost from Michigan and Florida, where he’s leading in the polls.

I see this as being a longshot strategy. When Romney comes out of Iowa and NH with back-to-back wins, what does that do to MI and SC, the next two primary states, where he and Rudy are running neck-and-neck? (Plus the Romney name is still an asset in MI.) It’s certainly not going to hurt Mitt in those states - and there won’t be a lot of time for character assassination between one primary and the next, if the currently anticipated schedule of IA 1/3, NH 1/8, MI 1/15, SC 1/19 holds.

I think we’re getting closer to the prospect of Rudy going into Florida in search of his first win. Maybe that’ll work for him, but he’s got to hope all those Floridians who are from somewhere else come out to vote, and the native Floridians stay home.