Hillary Clinton announces for president

Great Debates
41

The Democratic party has a habbit of nominating people that can’t win. Hillary cannot win, because as we’ve seen a Democratic candidate MUST have ONE southern state to win. Florida barely went for Bush and in 2004 they were solidly Republican, now as more older people keep moving there, they are more conservative than ever.

Obama only got into the Sentate by in large because his opponent in Illinois was involved in a sex scandal. Obama has repeatedly shown his ineptness. The only reason he is even out there is because “Oprah thinks he is cute.” He has flip flopped on issues in Illinois and his reasoning why he spent taxpayers money to go to Africa was “everyone else does it.”

Any Republican could crush him with his horrendous wishy washy attitude.

People in America are PREJUDICE. They won’t admit it but they are. I work with people that communte 4 hours a day because they don’t want to live next to black people. They refuse to admit that but are hard pressed to say why they won’t live closer in a better house, in a closer neighborhood with the same crime rate. And that neighborhood is black.

The thing that will make this interesting is that people will tell the pollsters they aren’t prejudice and say Obama and Hillary are their candidates but when it comes time to vote, no, they won’t.

As for John Edwards, couldn’t even win his home state North Carolina in 2004. Gore from Tennessee couldn’t win his home state in 2000, which would’ve given him the election

Simple fact, you have to win AT LEAST one southern state. Florida is now a majority Republican state. Since 2000 more and more people have moved there and it’s lost. The West (outside the Pacific states) is even more solid Republican.

So unless the Democrats can come up with a viable candidate and that means CAN WIN in AT LEAST ONE southern state. They’ve lost the election.

GW Bush will keep the Iraq war going to hand over to the next president no matter Republicans or Democrats, because this way he can say “Look we would’ve won the war it was my successor that lost it for us.”

And Bill should be known as the “First Gentleman,” because that would be correct usage, as in ladies and gentleman.

42

“Older people” is now just beginning to include Baby Boomers.

In 10 years, every nursing home common room will be filled with pot smoke and Hendrix music. :wink:

43

I absolutely agree with you here… racism is rampant in my neck of the woods (Michigan) and the vast majority of the racists, including my beloved Grandma, don’t believe they are racist. They’ll make sweeping statements about “that part of town” and “well, I mean black people are hostile to US, not the other way around…” and then turn around screaming, “I’m not racist! So-and-so is black and a very good friend of mine!” Some of us would like to think we are a bit more enlightened, but the racial issue in the U.S is extremely nuanced and complex and perhaps for another thread.

I just think a black man’s got a better shot than a woman, overall. Historically, it makes sense. Black men got the vote in this country before women did. It’s going to be an interesting election, that’s for sure.

44

Probably not. She isn’t a very warm person, and she is going up against two of the most charismatic candidates there are in Obama and Edwards. The primaries will cement the stereotypes she has. I don’t think she makes it past New Hampshire.

45

Good president? Who knows? It’s really hard to know until they take the oath. She’s smart enough but I think a little too calculating.

Electable? I think so. Look at the blue states from 2004. I don’t see any potential defections there. Pick up say Ohio and the deed is done. Her negatives are at their ceiling, I think if you don’t hate her by now, you’re not going to.

Nominateable? No. Coming from the left side of the party, I distrust her as I have heard others of like persuasion do as well. She hasn’t come out and said the war was a big mistake, which for me is a deal breaker. Recall some Iowa polls had her in 4th place. If Obama beats her in Iowa and New Hampshire and Edwards hands it to her in South Carolina, it’s goodnight Hillary.

46

Originally posted by Eric:

Your political “analysis” is truly laughable.

47

Yeah, it would pose some interesting protocol issues. My WAG is that Bill would be refered to as “First Gentleman” and have an office of the First Gentleman. He’d likely be introduced as “former President Clinton” to avoid confusion. In direct addres he’d be wither “Mr President” or more properly “Mr Clinton”. Hillary would of course be “Madam President” or in some diplomatic circumstances “Her Excellency”.

48

Haven’t been paying attention lately, have you?

Just to cherry-pick the state I am most familiar with, Colorado Democrats control the governorship and both houses of the legislature for the first time in 40 years. We’ve gone from two Republican Senators to one of each, and from five Republican and two Democratic House members to three and four, respectively.

You may want to catch up with the news.

49

She’s got some serious negatives, both with Republicans and within her own party. That said, her political skills should not be underestimated. She doesn’t inspire people, but she does know how to play the game and position herself.

50

She’d be fair at best as POTUS. But that’s lightyears above the malignancy we’ve been living with. OTOH next congressional cycle would see many more Pubbies elected in to offset her.

Electability depends on who she would run against and what happens between now and then. An extreme longshot to win though. As has been noted she’ll lose all of the South and of the remainder of the country many swing voters and even many liberals would be more attracted to some of the possible Rebuplican candidates than to her and she would not inspire a big turnout of others. I’ve never voted other than for a Democrat for President, but I’d stay home rather than vote for her unless the alternative was as bad as Bush. Yes, it would have to be that bad of an alternative. Few believe that she believes anything she says. And I do not want to “chat” with my President.

Nominatable? Maybe. She is the favorite at this point. Big war chest and lots of operatives on the ground. The various political machines will get some sizable turn-out for her. Known name. Great coach in Bill. She’ll be hard to beat in the primaries. Obama is the underdog and the others may as well go home now other than running for the VP spot.

51

Right-wing hatred of Hillary is real enough, but it’s irrelevant to whether she’s electable. People who really despise Hillary are extremely unlikely to vote for ANY Democrat.

No matter who the Democratic nominee is (be it Hillary, Obama, or somebody I can’t conceive of at the moment), he/she will have the same challenge: hold on to all the states that went solidly to Kerry and Gore, and flip a couple of the others.

Is there ANYBODY (even the most optimistic Republican) who’s absolutely certain that Hiilary can’t hold on to all the safe Democratic states and maybe add one or two others? That’s all it would take. So, of COURSE she’s electable.

52

Personally I would say that she is more electable than she is nominatable.

Democrats seem to try for people who they think will be less revolting to the Republicans–or at least people who are able to present themselves that way. But given that they’re already at a loss, since the country is more conservative than it is liberal, trying to win conservatives doesn’t do much good. The only way the Democrats can win is by swinging the Centrists, not the Republicans. Personally I would think that Hillary Clinton would be the best of their options for this, being herself relatively centrist and given her position on the war (which I would also hold as being pretty centrist, judging from myself.)

53

Yeah, I am. It doesn’t matter how many people in New York and California would vote for her, they are Democratic states already. My state, Colorado, which has been turning turning bluer for a while now, would go right back to red if she were nominated, and with the convention being in Denver, I think she would kill all the momentum that has been building in the Mountain West.

It’s not that the hard right republicans hate her (they do), but the moderates hate her, too. Add in the fact that it looks like the Republicans will run a moderate, too (McCain, Guliani, Romney) and there is no way those swing voters would vote for Hillary. No chance.

For some reason I know a lot of people who were swing voters last time out. They voted for Bush twice, but voted for Democrats last November. They are pretty disgusted with the Republican party as it stands now. Not a single one of them would vote for Hillary Clinton.

54

Yep. And some of us were willing to put our money where our mouth’s were.

Dio, I’ll contact you via email to give my paypall information so you can hand over the $100 you bet me that Hillary would never run.

To answer the OP’s questions:

Yes she’s electable. A lot of people hate her, but there’s a chance she’ll win. As others have stated, all she need do is take a few more states than Kerry.

As to the nomination? Sure. She may win it. She’s got a huge fundraising ability, plus a rolodex with all the right names in it. She’s pissed off the anti-war moonbat left with her hawkish Iraq stance, but she’s still very capable of winning the nomination.

She would make a fair president at best, IMO. I still think that she’s a extreme liberal at heart, but won’t actually govern on ideology. She’d be like Bill was, a populist. She will do whatever she thinks most people want and would always be on the side of public opinion except for those rare cases where she slips up or paints herself into a corner (like her stance now on the Iraw war).

However she doesn’t have Bill’s charm or charisma, so she would never enjoy the popularity that he had. This would make her less effective in office than he was.

55

Yeah, but she’ll have him campaigning for her, which is almost as good. And she can raise tons of $$.

56

I would say that her stance on Iraq is the best thing she has going for her, as a Democrat. Not wanting to pull out and leaving Iraq to burn is a lot different from the “We must conquer and win at all costs!”-bit that scares the middle from Bush, but also a long way from the feared Kerry pull-out that ultimately lost him the election.

Speaking from the middle (though not necessarily representative of it), I would want to see what a person with a brain can do, at least, before writing off the lives of a few million people. It might very well be impossible, but at the moment there’s just no way to know given Bush’s bungling and entrenched positions of both parties who are crying “Easy peasy!” or “Not in a million years!” Without someone sensible in the top seats of the executive branch and the heads of the military being able to give their honest appraisals, there’s just no way for the layman to know.

And really, a lot of the issue in Iraq is less one of military power, and more of one of actually talking with the Iraqi people and seeing if they are really looking that forward to a civil war.

57

Oh, and of course anyone who would put money back into science education and research, would be an automatic shoe in for me. The US is looking forward to a big splat in ten years if we don’t start getting Americans who can hold technical, medical, and mathematical positions.

I’d much rather see bigger brains than lower taxes as a method for securing a strong economy.

58

Moderate/liberal Democrat again chiming in and seconding that. Hate her? Nah. But dislike strongly. People like me, and there are many, will not vote for her.

Don’t know how well she can play off being a “centrist” whatever that means. Most people see her as being a bit off in the direction they are not: liberals are afraid she is a neocon and moderate conservatives see her as too liberal. She’ll try to both demonstrate how she is not really liberal and lambast the Republicans at the same time.

Heard an interesting bit skipping channels today. She has 51% positive name recognition but 45% negative name recognition. (Sorry, no cite) She is unlikely to win new support, what she has now is her top. Her competition (and this includes even bleh Edwards), OTOH, has potential to grow either way. And she is polling especially poorly in those early primary states.

Do people identify with her? No. Does she inspire? No. Is she an eloquent orator? No. What she has is name recognition, money, and organaization … all powerful forces and enough to put her as frontrunner … but not enough to beat someone else who can provoke that sense of identification, who can inspire and who can speak with eloquence … providing that he can raise the money and has organization as well.

59

She has some serious catching up to do in the early primary/caucus states (Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina Nevada). She trails Edwards and Obama badly in Iowa. South Carolina will probably also go to one of those two. Nevada, I’m assuming, is Richardson territory (although I believe Edwards has done some groundwork there, too). Maybe Hillary could win New Hampshire. (?)

Could Clinton survive not winning any of the first four contests?

60
  1. Would she make a good POTUS? Yes
  2. Is she electable? Yes
    2.a. Is she nominable? Not sure. I think most pols suspect she has too much baggage to win. But since the rest are green to national attention, they will each have plenty more baggage before the first primary.