Hillary Clinton/Bill Richardson vs Pro-Life Republican

[MissCatholic]

OK, i stated a few days that Hillary would slaughter any pro-life Republican.

So for instance, Clinton vs Frist



Clinton vs Allen



Clinton vs Santorum (even if he won PA)

[MissCatholic]

Now the reason i think Hillary will win in Florida is a) the Schiavo case will ahve an affect expecially agasint Sanoturm who came down to the state when he had no right. b) Richardson will help bridge the 60-40 Hispanic vote for Bush to maybe 55-45. That should be able to generate enough votes to see them over the top.

Hillary will win the popualr vote hence that will put Colorado in play.

[Frodo]

OK, i stated a few days that Hillary would slaughter any pro-life Republican.

i probably missed that thread where you made your case, so could you either elaborate on your hypothesis, or link me to whichever thread where you stated why you think Hillary would wipe the floor with a pro-life Republican?   

[MaC]

Frist would be the only one that might lose to her.  She doesn't have as much potential as the Democrats think, and she was created from the hate of the Republican party.

A VP doesn't really have too much pull anymore, so at most she'd get New Mex.  I doubt Hillary could win Nevada, Florida, or Colorado.

[MissCatholic]

I was reading an article in the New York Post by Dick Morris who came to this conclusion, made his case and i totally agree.

Morris believes that the only person that can beat her is Rice. Guiliani, McCain could but they wont get the nomination. Hillary will receive huge funds from Republican social conservatives that feel uncomfortable with the way the religious right has got involved with politics. To win elections, Hillary and Bill have always focused on social conservatives. These same conservatives will be targeted and successfully so in Ohio, Pennslyvania, Iowa, Wisconsin and Minnesota. Forcing the Republicans to spend more time and money in other red states that bush won easily.

Hillary has more support than Republicans think. She will cleanup the jewish vote, she will sweep the African American vote and as Richardson has her vp will make ground on the Hispanic vote.

The Republicans will make money from pro-lifers but there just isnt enough to compete with the huge amounts of cash that Hillary will generate. Pro-lifers/Right Wing Conspricies will be all over the media and Republicans will feel like the victims. Yet democrats will point out that Schiavo was a mistake, stem-cell research is morally right, bush spending has been a mistake, immigration has been regretable and policies on trade have hurt the very people that Goldwater/Reagan always looked after. So the divide between republicans stampeding the social conservative vote diminishes and Hillary cleans up in the election.

Hillary is one of the most skillful politicians around. When she gets the nomination she will taggle any allegation on the day. She wont let them generate into somethig bigger than they are if at all valid.

When you have people like Carville around you who knows you inside out and loves her then this machine is going to be very hard to stop.

The more you hate someone the more people dont listen to you. this will happen to the alienated republicans. just ask democrats that hate bush!

[Reaganfan]

I hate to break it to you, but most prolife Republican would beat her. I think Frist and Santorum might be the only ones where it might be close, but Allen, Pawlenty, Romney and even Sanford could kill Hillary.

[Ebowed]

Hillary is overrated, not too mention way too polarizing to win a natioanal election (Bush and Kerry were about equally as polarizing, if not, Bush moreso, but Bush had a bigger base-- but the liberal base seems to be actively declining each election).  Either way, I'd vote for a pro-life Republican over Hillary, unless it was someone really bad, in which I'd have to waste my vote on an independent.

[MissCatholic]

Well Hillary has made 12pts up in a year. 6 more favourable, 6 less unfavourable.

[Reaganfan]

Yes. In NEW YORK POLLS.

[No more McShame]

I was reading an article in the New York Post by Dick Morris who came to this conclusion, made his case and i totally agree.

Morris believes that the only person that can beat her is Rice. Guiliani, McCain could but they wont get the nomination.

McCain is prolife so I guess you're hypothesis is wrong!  Hillary would defeat Frist, Allen would defeat Hillary, and Santorum vs. Hillary would be a get out the base close election.  We all know who wins those . 

Like most people you're making a huge mistake by looking only to the Senate for the two major party candidates.  While Hillary is the front-runner for the Dems right now.  There are many governors who could make a run at her (Warner, Richardson).  I predict that the 2k8 Republican nominee will be a governor as I don't see enough charisma out of the senators (save Allen) for any of them to garner the nomination.

[Alcon]

Yes. In NEW YORK POLLS.

Uh, no. In national polls, actually.

[Adam Griffin]

Hmm, I really don't see a pro-life Republican candidate winning in '08 mainly because that issue is one of the main polarizing forces that holds the Republican party together nowadays. I rarely hear any conservative voter give an economic reason why they vote the way they do, so when you eliminate one of the few remaining supports of that party, it crumbles into a pile of worthless banter and heresay of left-wing conspiracies.

The fact is that there is such emotion behind the pro-life/pro-choice debate that it seems to be the great distractor that Republicans pull out in order to avert the public's eyes from such disasters that they have created in the first place. Conservatives don't care if the budget is not balanced properly or that murmurs of filibuster removal are lurking throughout the Senate if a fetus is about to be terminated. Going by personal political debate with conservatives in my state over the competence of the candidates, the main thing that conservatives pointed to about Kerry was that he was pro-life (Oh, and of course the "flip-flop" thing, but they never could source one speck of logical evidence). If that had not been an issue, I seriously believe that he would have won national elections with at least 52-55%.

However, when both candidates are pro-life, the main bloc of ideas voters have to look at are economic issues, in which the Democratic party has a clear advantage. Unless of course they run McCain, but he is definitely not Republican by "Bush Standards".

[skybridge]

On this forum the Republican wins easily. The outside world might vote a little different.

[tarheel-leftist85]

Clinton/Richardson--46% (200EV)
Allen/Sanford--53% (338EV)

[Adam Griffin]

I favor this map, except maybe excluding Arkansas from the Democrats.

[tarheel-leftist85]

Though Rasmussen's "polling methods" are questionable, if non-existant, I do believe the results in regards to Hillary and Ohio and Michigan.  She's got 32% "Definitely For" and > 39% "Definitely against" in Ohio.  In Michigan, it's even worse:  26%/40%.  That means she'd need 62% of undecideds in OH, and 71% in Michigan.  These are compelling numbers.  If John Kerry was accused of being a flip-flopper, she's the ultimate example (even I believe she is to some degree).  To be blunt, she's also a media and Hollywood whore.  We must remember that no Presidential Election has been won without at least one southern state.

[Adam Griffin]

Krusty, what was the exact question of that poll? If it were along the lines of "Would you consider yourself for or against Hillary Clinton", that could be much different than a question, say "Would you vote for Hillary Clinton". Remember that for a large portion of the Democratic Party, John Kerry wasn't exactly their first pick, but there was a solid base that lined up behind him in the end because many individuals will sacrifice some of their own views in order to help the party that is closest affiliated with their beliefs. Clinton will face many of the same challenges in 2008 that Kerry faced in 2004; attacks on credibility, the fact that she is a senator from a Northeastern state that sometimes is said to be out of tune with the rest of the country, the fact that she is a liberal, the fact that she "flip-flops", etc.

However, she has some advantages, too. She is fairly popular in her representative state of New York; she may not be idolized in Arkansas but she will still bring out some voters that will vote for her at least in the name of southern tradition, she will in my opinion at least moderately hack away female votes from the Republican candidate unless it is a woman, thanks to her husband at least she seems to have developed some sort of appeal with minorities, and she has experience both in the frontlines as a senator and behind the scenes as First Lady.

I believe that the public views Clinton less liberal than Kerry, due to her and her husband's constant outreach to the social conservatives, and even if her being less liberal is not be the case, she will pull a large number of swing voters to her side, plus just about every single Kerry voter in 2004 because I honestly doubt the resentment for the Republican party among them has died down. I see Hillary pulling no less than 49-49.5% in 2008 if she runs against a Republican contender(except maybe McCain), which is going to make things very interesting when third-party politics come into play.

[opebo]

Clinton/Richardson--46% (200EV)
Allen/Sanford--53% (338EV)

New Hampshire will be a Democratic state from now on.  The only thing that could change that would be a non-religious-right GOP nominee, and we all know how likely that is.

[tarheel-leftist85]

I think our little poll at the top is pretty accurate.  NH may actually vote for Hill since she's socially liberal bringing her up to 204EV.  The Rasmussen question was on whether one would vote for Hillary.

[MODU]

Hillary is not her husband.  Bill was able to charm most voters into liking him.  Hillary lacks that ability, and would probably use her husband to do that task for her.  If that is the case, the Republicans would be all over it saying that Hillary is a puppet of her husband, and open the negative ad floodgates.

As far as her verse a pro-lifer, see Vorlon's thread.