Discussion of Hillary’s POTUS prospects is always confused by considerations of the two-step process: First she has to get the nomination. When you vote in the general election you ask yourself only, “Which candidate would I rather have as president?” But when you vote in your party’s primary you presumably think more strategically – to the preceding question you ask, “Which candidate, if nominated, would have the better chance of beating the other party’s nominee?” And it is presumed many Dems who really would like to see Hillary in the WH would never vote for her in a primary because they would consider her unelectable in the general; they might even consider her candidacy to be exactly what the Pubs want to see, as posited in the thread linked above.
Let’s set all that aside. Assuming arguendo, as a thought experiment, that HRC does overcome all strategic objections and does get the Dem nomination in 2008 – could she be elected POTUS?
I think if she does get elected, she will likely be another devisive candidate like Bush. I think the country would continue along its 49/51 split. As a Democrat and citizen, I think John Warner is a much better candidate, capable of appealing to a larger segment of America.
It’s certainly refreshing to hear a Democrat supporting a Republican Senator, but so far as I’m aware, John Warner is not planning on a run for the White House.
How do you feel about former Virginia governor Mark Warner, by the way?
Giant Douche or Turd Sandwich? I think a major part of the democrats’ problem is, as you stated, the question your asking is ‘who will be able to beat the opposition’, instead of asking ‘who would make the best leader and president’. Anytime you make your decisions based on your opponents, you’re admitting that they have a certain amount of power over you.
With that said, an emphatic ‘no’. She’s devisive, a panderer and would be way too easy to tear apart in the media.
I like Mark Warner from what I’ve read so far. He appears fiscally responsible and has a good grasp of civil liberties, something Clinton is sorely lacking.
Gee. Might it not depend on whom she is running against???
I think we’ve been over this a number of times, so I’ll repeat what I’ve been saying all along. I doubt she could win against McCain, especially if he puts Condi on the ticket. If Bush were running again, she’d win.
Could she beat John McCain? No, probably not.
Could she beat Bill Frist? There’s a better chance there.
Could she beat Mitt Romney? I think so. Romney wouldn’t mobilize the right-wing base as much as others could (even with the anti-Hillary push), while the left is highly motivated to get the Republicans out of power. Clinton has the advantage coming into the battle for the center.
Hillary’s chances increase exponentially if there’s a meltdown at a nuclear power plant in her opponent’s state that he had previously campaigned for.
We just can’t say. She’s not necessarily poison, but she’s far from a slam dunk either. Let’s see how things look on both sides when the primary actually comes around.
As disgusted as I am with Bush currently, If the Democrats completely lose their minds and nominate Hillary Clinton then they get whatever they deserve. Hillary Clinton would be the Republicans dream candidate. IMO given her history, in practical terms she is utterly unelectable as POTUS. If that’s where the Dem’s want to go then they really are full fledged numb skulls who don’t deserve a Democratic President.
Beyond this she will drain money and resources from Democratic contributors that could go to electable (male or female) candidates.
Depends on who the 'Pubs run, as JM said. If they run McCain then I agree with him again…she wouldn’t have a chance. If they run Chaney ( :dubious: ) then she would probably win hands down. If they run someone else…gods know. My guess though, without anything to back it up but speculation, is that unless the 'Pubs run someone unpopular who is associated heavily with the current administration (or unless Bush manages to set aside term limits by the powers vested in him ;)) HC has a less than optimal chance of being elected in a national election. She probably has a better than average chance of being nominated though.
Divisive because of her policies, or divisive simply because dyed-in-the-wool Republicans won’t support her no matter what she does?
If Hillary actually manages to land in the White House (not that I’m endorsing her or anything), I think she’d do a far better job of being a “uniter-not-a-divider” than GWB could ever dream of, simply because she’s not a self-delusional asshat.
So, your big contribution basically boils down to ‘she will be better than Bush’?? :smack: THERE is a ringing endorsement if ever I heard one! Sign her up!
Cite? The Wikipedia article on her – section on her service in the Senate – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton#United_States_Senator – mentions her “Family Entertainment Protection Act,” but nothing about her vote/position on flag-burning, phone-tapping or the USA PATRIOT ACT.
Nah; there are things rotting under rocks that can do a better job than Bush. I’m merely questioning the impetus behind the whole “Hillary will be a divisive leader” argument.
Not to hijack, but i’m curious: what do folks think the odds are that Cheney will throw his hat in the ring in '08? What do you think the odds are that he’d win the Republican primary if he ran?
