If Hillary is able to actually get the Democratic nomination - though I don’t think she will - I think it would be foolish to say she can’t win the general election. She would need to unite a lot of different groups within the Democratic party just to get nominated, and some of those groups don’t like her at all. If she’s able to overcome that, I don’t see why she can’t overcome the real-but-way-overhyped baggage and hate and so forth.
If the Democrats nominate Hillary I don’t think the Republicans will need to spend one thin dime on getting their people out to vote.
I don’t think her presence will provide that kind of charge to anyone who wasn’t already going to vote Republican. Like I said, I think HillaryHate is overrated. With the efforts she has made toward winning the moderate vote in the last few years, you’d have to say she has a chance to win the election if she can win over enough Democrats to get the nomination in the first place.
Right, but I think it would motivate a lot of Republicans to get out and vote who otherwise might not. Our electoral turnout is pretty low and a lightning rod like her could easily motivate enough more to vote that it would also screw any chance for Democrats to get one or both houses of Congress.
In hindsight, it seems to me Dean was actually far more electable. Because he was not a Republican Lite and had a much more substantial message than “I’m not Bush!”
:dubious: Really, what was there about HRC’s tenure as First Lady that is in any way to her discredit? When I look back on that I can only think of how much better off we would be, now, if her national health care plan had been enacted.
Dean was really sunk after losing his big lead in Iowa. I think that happened because he was unable to connect with the voters in the personal way that’s required in the caucus setting, and because he couldn’t get the boots on the ground. The double-edged sword of having such a great online campaign, perhaps. I remember reading stories that reporters in Iowa who looked into rumors of ‘busloads of Deaniacs’ found that Dean was having empty buses brought in to make it look like he had more people.
After that, I suppose the ‘electable buzz’ fell to Kerry and Edwards. They at least got the momentum.
I think it’s part of an effective disinformation campaign put on by the Pubbies to keep the Clintons politically impotent. I’ve never seen anything Hillary has done that is at all deserving of the sleazy, rancid character assassination that you see on the Dope whenever her name comes up, and also of course in this thread.
Hard to know without seeing her in action as a national candidate. She’s a very good campaigner but I don’t know if she has the poise and charisma to pull it off. But that’s the missing variable: what Clinton herself brings to the contest. Whether she can campaign around and past the antipathy that many feel for her; whether she can motivate people who would support her weakly and anemically otherwise, whether she can draw in the middle and pull them away from the Republican candidate; whether she is skilled enough to paint the Republican in the ugly colors of GWB’s legacy, or instead gets painted by a more-skilled Republican adversary as <insert Karl-Rovism here>.
If the current administration continues on its current spiral of bad news cycles and missteps, Cynthia McKinney could probably win the election in '08. On the other hand, no one is more adept at plucking defeat out of the jaws of victory than the Democratic Party, so wait and see.
Her national health care scam was the first thing that leaped to my mind when I read " what was there about HRC’s tenure as First Lady that is in any way to her discredit?". Guess you’re more of a Socialist and I’m more of a Libertarian.
Then I doubt you would vote for her anyway. (See post #63.) But whaddaya mean “scam”? Even in Libertarian terms, that doesn’t apply. There was nothing dishonest about the “managed care” plan. Its principal flaw was that it was too complicated, and a sorry half-assed measure, compared to single-payer.
The very idea of having the government in charge of something as basic as one’s individual health care is a scam. I find few thoughts as repugnant to the ideals upon which this country was founded as that. Individual choice? Personal liberty and responsibility? Fugetaboutit.
Oh and by the way… Since I turned 18 I have never voted for a Republican for President. You might want to reexamine some of the basic assumptions you seem to be making.
You might consider it a bad idea or an illegitimate exercise of government power, but neither of those would make it a scam. Scams are by definition dishonest. (W’s “faith-based initiatives” are a scam.)
So, you consider the Pubs an even greater threat to personal freedom than the Dems?
What is this with this BS about apologizing for Hillary’s disdain for civil liberties? What, you want the NSA surveillance to continue, and think it would be just dandy if Hillary does it but awful if Dubya does?
Let us summarize, for those who may not realize just how bad she is:
- She’s pro-war.
- She introduced that flag-burning bill, an obvious pander if ever there was one.
- On immigration, she was both against it, when the only ones paying attention were the paleo-conservatives, and then against the solution to her problem when suddenly real votes were at stake.
- On the recent idiocy over the Dubai Ports World deal, she was, unsurprisingly, on the side of the idiots, because that’s where the votes were.
There is no evidence that she is willing to hold any position that doesn’t have a majority of the voting population on its side. If tomorrow, the majority were to suddenly decide to be against abortion under any circumstances, I guarantee you she would find a way to agree with that position.
Note that on all four of the issues cited above, including immigration, she sided with the most conservative sections of the Republican party. **ON EVERY ONE. **
If I want a Republican, I’ll vote for one. Don’t try to sell me a Democrat who turns Republican at the slightest provocation.
To be for her is to mark yourself a gull.
Without having read the whole thread, I suppose she could win. It would depend on who she was running against.
Personally, I’ll bet $100 the first female President will be Republican. Much less of an uphill climb.
While I agree with the notion of a ‘do anything for power, including forgiving a philandering husband’ resonates enough to make it a signficant obstacle, it would be foolish for the Repub to think of her as a dream scenario for them.
I think health care has great potential as a lightning rod issue for 2008. Hilary is uniquely positioned to take advantage of this, having been part of a proposed solution (whether it would have worked is another matter) that was shot down be the inability to get consensus.
That being said, I think it would be very hard for her to beat say, a McCain-Condi ticket. Would probably be hard for any democrat.
I consider both parties to be a clear and present danger to personal freedom as long as power for them hangs in the balance. The Republicans, by pandering to their ultra religious, Xan loonie wing, endanger the rights of each individual to live his or her life as they see fit. The Democrats, with their fervent belief that there is nothing in this world that more government and more regulation can’t solve for you, and by the way nothing is your fault, want to tell each individual exactly how they should see fit to live their life. Both are repugnant in the extreme. A pox on both their houses.
I don’t know it seems like she would get a lot of female votes just from women wanting to get the chance to finally have a female president, but against McCain I think she would definitely lose.
McCain won’t look quite as good when the power on the press’s microscope goes up, and it becomes clear that the moderate maverick image is almost entirely fiction. That speech at Liberty University might have played well to the base, but it could come back to haunt him.
And for the life of me, I still don’t understand why people think the presence of an unmarried black female egghead will help the GOP ticket. Condi’s ties to Bush and to the increasingly unpopular war destroy her cred with moderates and disgruntled Democrats, and she loses pieces of the GOP base by being unmarried (even without the lesbian innuendo, this is the party of Family Values), black, female, and an egghead (meaning she fails the “beer test” big time). I used to hear her called “pro-choice”, but I haven’t ever been able to substantiate this; in any event, someone who isn’t sufficiently pro-life loses an even bigger piece of the base. Condi on a ticket would be a disaster.
But speaking of disasters, Hillary would be one. Her only advantage is that she is unlikely to be SwiftBoated, since it’s all out on the table at this point. She might even win, but I can think of half a dozen Democrats just as likely to win who would be far better Presidents.