Is Hillary overrated?

[2952-0-0]

Many Democrats have a nagging concern that if she wins the nomination she opens a Pandora's Box. Any thoughts?

[Alcon]

She's underrated on the Forum and by Republicans, overrated generally and by Democrats.

[AuH2O]

Variously over- and under-rated. I consider her quite strong, but flawed in some serious ways.

[No more McShame]

No, I think she has a good chance of winning the election in 2008.

[Smash255]

No.  If she gets te nomination she has a decent chance to win.  Someone like Owens or McCain would most likley beat her, but if she goes up against someone along the lines of Frist, Santorum or Jeb she probably wins.  She does have her flaws, but many of the most likley GOP candidates for 08 have flaws as well & she definatley will be able to handle them better than Kerry did

[MissCatholic]

I am totally behind a Hillary Clinton 08 campaign now. Any pro-life Republican gets the nomination and Hillary will slaughter them.

She has the charisma, the personality to be president. She will Win New Mexico, Iowa, Nevada, Ohio and is one of only two candidates who can compete in Florida - the other being Feingold.

She has to pick Richardson as he vp.

[TheresNoMoney]

The only people who overrate her is the media.

Besides that, she is not especially well-liked by either party.

[MODU]

I am totally behind a Hillary Clinton 08 campaign now. Any pro-life Republican gets the nomination and Hillary will slaughter them.

I'm sorry . . . am I the only one that finds that funny?

"In other news today, KILLary slaughters yet another pro-lifer."  hahaha

[Alcon]

I am totally behind a Hillary Clinton 08 campaign now. Any pro-life Republican gets the nomination and Hillary will slaughter them.

She has the charisma, the personality to be president. She will Win New Mexico, Iowa, Nevada, Ohio and is one of only two candidates who can compete in Florida - the other being Feingold.

She has to pick Richardson as he vp.

Feingold recently got divorced, so I no longer consider him a valid candidate.

[TomC]

She's not overrated, but she's overexposed.

[ian]

Yes.  Not here, but in the general public.

[TeePee4Prez]

I am totally behind a Hillary Clinton 08 campaign now. Any pro-life Republican gets the nomination and Hillary will slaughter them.

She has the charisma, the personality to be president. She will Win New Mexico, Iowa, Nevada, Ohio and is one of only two candidates who can compete in Florida - the other being Feingold.

She has to pick Richardson as he vp.

Feingold recently got divorced, so I no longer consider him a valid candidate.

Why?  Half this country gets divorced.

[PBrunsel]

Never underestimate the Long Arm of the Clintons.

[skybridge]

I am totally behind a Hillary Clinton 08 campaign now. Any pro-life Republican gets the nomination and Hillary will slaughter them.

She has the charisma, the personality to be president. She will Win New Mexico, Iowa, Nevada, Ohio and is one of only two candidates who can compete in Florida - the other being Feingold.

She has to pick Richardson as he vp.

Feingold recently got divorced, so I no longer consider him a valid candidate.

Whoever seriously considers this a factor in presidential capability wasn't going to vote for Feingold in the first place!

[Joe Republic]

If you listened to nothing but the media, you'd think she'd already won the 2008 nomination.  If you listened to nothing but this forum, you'd think she just crawled out of a pit and would be treated as such in 2008.

[The Vorlon]

My guess is that Hillary in 2008 would have two possibilities -  a "status quo" election - very similar to 2004 and 2000. or a huge and crushing GOP blowout.

Hillary starts with all the Clinton advantages but also all the baggage.

The Clinton era (1992 to 2000) was really the start of "full contact" politics where almost literally anything was acceptable.  Sure it was dirty prior to that, but at least there was some resembalance of rules and boundries.

Maybe we blame some of it on the Internet, and 24 hour news, and Newt Gingrich, but certainly Bill and Hillary deserve at least their share of the blame for this.

All during the Clinton Presidency there was always this huge dichotomy in the polls.  Clintons JOB approval was generally quite solid (mid to upper 50s) but his PERSONAL approval was typically 15 to 20 points lower. 

People saw that the Clinton/Gingrich axis produced some excellent government (PayG0, Welfare Reform EITC, etc) but that there was a level of intensity and, well, real and pure hatred, that could not be anything but unsettling.

Most Americans believe that governing the nation should be a matter of honor, and not be a bloodsport.

Hillary, fairly or not, is forever linked to James "drag a $100 bill though a trailer park" Carville and the rest of the colorful Clinton inner circle.

I suspect Hillary could steamroller her way to the Dem nomination, and then I suspect that the General election would depend on the GOP candidate.

If the GOP nominates an "old guard" candidate (Frist, Santorum, Jeb, some "Moral Majority" (sic) clone, etc..) - something that made 2008 essentially another round in the war that started in 1992 -  then we get a replay of 2000 and 2004 - Brutal, costly, and basically a draw +/- 3 points either way.  I don't expect that "Hatfields Vs McKoys Round 87" will be much different than round 86 or round 88...

If the GOP nominates a legitimately fresh faced outsider MODERATE without all the scars of combat (Think Lamar Alexander with a charisma transplant) then I think Hillary might get killed rather badly.

[dazzleman]

My guess is that Hillary in 2008 would have two possibilities -  a "status quo" election - very similar to 2004 and 2000. or a huge and crushing GOP blowout.

Hillary starts with all the Clinton advantages but also all the baggage.

The Clinton era (1992 to 2000) was really the start of "full contact" politics where almost literally anything was acceptable.  Sure it was dirty prior to that, but at least there was some resembalance of rules and boundries.

Maybe we blame some of it on the Internet, and 24 hour news, and Newt Gingrich, but certainly Bill and Hillary deserve at least their share of the blame for this.

All during the Clinton Presidency there was always this huge dichotomy in the polls.  Clintons JOB approval was generally quite solid (mid to upper 50s) but his PERSONAL approval was typically 15 to 20 points lower. 

People saw that the Clinton/Gingrich axis produced some excellent government (PayG0, Welfare Reform EITC, etc) but that there was a level of intensity and, well, real and pure hatred, that could not be anything but unsettling.

Governing the nation should not be a bloodsport.

Hillary, fairly or not, is forever linked to that.

I suspect Hillary could steamroller her way to the Dem nomination, and then I suspect that the General election would depend on the GOP candidate.

If the GOP nominates an "old guard" candidate (Frist, Santorum, Jeb, some "Moral Majority" (sic) clone, etc..) - something that made 2008 essentially another round in the war that started in 1992 -  then we get a replay of 2000 and 2004 - Brutal, costly, and basically a draw +/- 3 points either way.  I don't expect that "Hatfields Vs McKoys Round 87" will be much different than round 86 or round 88...

If the GOP nominates a legitimately fresh faced outsider MODERATE without all the scars of combat (Think Lamar Alexander with a charisma transplant) then I think Hillary might get killed rather badly.

Great post Vorlon, as always.  I agree completely.  Hillary's a known quantity, for better or worse (worse if you ask me), and her fate as a candidate, assuming she gets the nomination, depends large on who the Republicans nominate.

I can't see a strong win for Hillary unless the next 4 years are cataclysmic.  But I can see a narrow win for Hillary against a weak Republican, or a big defeat for Hillary against a strong Republican.

Don't underestimate the number of people who wouldn't vote for a woman under any circumstances.  Some people would say that none of those people would vote for a Democrat anyway, but I don't think that's true.  I think some of them are older swing voters who may be economically liberal or populist.  Female and minority candidates almost always poll stronger than their actual results, since many people are unwilling to admit to these politically incorrect biases.  But it's still out there, and it could hurt Hillary in a close race.

[The Vorlon]

Don't underestimate the number of people who wouldn't vote for a woman under any circumstances.  Some people would say that none of those people would vote for a Democrat anyway, but I don't think that's true.  I think some of them are older swing voters who may be economically liberal or populist.  Female and minority candidates almost always poll stronger than their actual results, since many people are unwilling to admit to these politically incorrect biases.  But it's still out there, and it could hurt Hillary in a close race.

Regarding candidates underpolling because people do not want to give "politically incorrect" answers, you are very correct.

When Bobby Jindal (who is of Native American origins) Correction - of EAST indian originsran for Louisiana Governor as a Republican, he substantially over polled.  There was an interesting study done afterwards that compared where he underperformed relative to what you would expect a GOP candidate to get, and it correlated - to an almost scary degree - to where David Duke got support in his assorted runs for various offices.

A lot of rednecks told the pollsters they were voting for Jindal, but then either stayed home or voted for the "white women" over the "indian" when they got to the ballot box.

Hillary's numbers among white married women (THE key voting block IMHO in terms of large numbers of voters who are actually moveable) are really bad BTW.

Let's remember Hillary, with HUGE name recognition, essentially unlimited money, and the media falling all over her only beat Rick Lazio (at very best a C+ to B- candidate) for her US senate seat by 11% - the same election that Gore beat Bush by 25% in New York.

Hillary ran 14% WEAKER than Al Gore in New York... against a decent, but certainly not stellar candidate...  Hardly the stuff of political legends...

Mr. Robo Rasmussen, who despite his naysayers (myself included) did rather well in 2004, says that 41% will NEVER vote for her, while only 25% will DEFINITELY vote for her.

Hmmm.... of the 34% who say they are open minded on the issue, hillary needs 25%...

25/34 => 73.5%

It strikes me as unlikely a figure as polarizing as Hillary can get 74% of the political "middle"

[A18]

She's not strong at all, in fact, very weak. That doesn't mean she couldn't win, though.

That USA Today poll was a joke, however, and said that 1 out of 3 conservatives would vote for her.

[tarheel-leftist85]

But a lot of Dems. are under the (absurd) impression that Hill will precipitate a landslide victory among women.  I know a lot of women, most of whom think of her as a cold, calculating, manipulative, nihilistic she-man.  Oh well!  If my party wants to win an election and reverse the wrongs of this country (rather than having something to whine/protest about) I'll be here.

[Smash255]

Don't underestimate the number of people who wouldn't vote for a woman under any circumstances.  Some people would say that none of those people would vote for a Democrat anyway, but I don't think that's true.  I think some of them are older swing voters who may be economically liberal or populist.  Female and minority candidates almost always poll stronger than their actual results, since many people are unwilling to admit to these politically incorrect biases.  But it's still out there, and it could hurt Hillary in a close race.

Regarding candidates underpolling because people do not want to give "politically incorrect" answers, you are very correct.

When Bobby Jindal (who is of Native American origins) ran for Louisiana Governor as a Republican, he substantially over polled.  There was an interesting study done afterwards that compared where he underperformed relative to what you would expect a GOP candidate to get, and it correlated - to an almost scary degree - to where David Duke got support in his assorted runs for various offices.

A lot of rednecks told the pollsters they were voting for Jindal, but then either stayed home or voted for the "white women" over the "indian" when they got to the ballot box.

Hillary's numbers among white married women (THE key voting block IMHO in terms of large numbers of voters who are actually moveable) are really bad BTW.

Let's remember Hillary, with HUGE name recognition, essentially unlimited money, and the media falling all over her only beat Rick Lazio (at very best a C+ to B- candidate) for her US senate seat by 11% - the same election that Gore beat Bush by 25% in New York.

Hillary ran 14% WEAKER than Al Gore in New York... against a decent, but certainly not stellar candidate...  Hardly the stuff of political legends...

Mr. Robo Rasmussen, who despite his naysayers (myself included) did rather well in 2004, says that 41% will NEVER vote for her, while only 25% will DEFINITELY vote for her.

Hmmm.... of the 34% who say they are open minded on the issue, hillary needs 25%...

25/34 => 73.5%

It strikes me as unlikely a figure as polarizing as Hillary can get 74% of the political "middle"

Hillary had the name recognition advntage no question about that in 2000.  However she is also MUCH MORE popular in NY right now than she was in 2000 & as polls indicate also more popular on a national level than she was then

[Frodo]

When Bobby Jindal (who is of Native American origins) ran for Louisiana Governor as a Republican, he substantially over polled.  There was an interesting study done afterwards that compared where he underperformed relative to what you would expect a GOP candidate to get, and it correlated - to an almost scary degree - to where David Duke got support in his assorted runs for various offices.

A lot of rednecks told the pollsters they were voting for Jindal, but then either stayed home or voted for the "white women" over the "indian" when they got to the ballot box.

i thought Jindal was from India, not a native American -at least that was my impression. 

[The Vorlon]

When Bobby Jindal (who is of Native American origins) ran for Louisiana Governor as a Republican, he substantially over polled.  There was an interesting study done afterwards that compared where he underperformed relative to what you would expect a GOP candidate to get, and it correlated - to an almost scary degree - to where David Duke got support in his assorted runs for various offices.

A lot of rednecks told the pollsters they were voting for Jindal, but then either stayed home or voted for the "white women" over the "indian" when they got to the ballot box.

i thought Jindal was from India, not a native American -at least that was my impression. 

Born and raised in Baton Rouge Louisiana according to his website..

But you may be right anyway...


http://www.bobbyjindal.com/online_hq/more_about_bobby.htm

[Frodo]

When Bobby Jindal (who is of Native American origins) ran for Louisiana Governor as a Republican, he substantially over polled.  There was an interesting study done afterwards that compared where he underperformed relative to what you would expect a GOP candidate to get, and it correlated - to an almost scary degree - to where David Duke got support in his assorted runs for various offices.

A lot of rednecks told the pollsters they were voting for Jindal, but then either stayed home or voted for the "white women" over the "indian" when they got to the ballot box.

i thought Jindal was from India, not a native American -at least that was my impression. 

Born and raised in Baton Rouge Louisiana according to his website..

But you may be right anyway...


http://www.bobbyjindal.com/online_hq/more_about_bobby.htm

perhaps he was born of Indian parents who had emigrated from the subcontinent to Louisiana -what i am sure of in either case is that he is NOT native American.   

it is a minor issue, though.  just thought i'd clear the record. 

[AkSaber]

I think she gets more media attention than she deserves, that's all.