Can Hillary Clinton win?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 09:27:35 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2008 Elections
  2008 U.S. Presidential Election Campaign
  Can Hillary Clinton win?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: Can Hillary Clinton win?  (Read 10488 times)
Fmr President & Senator Polnut
polnut
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,489
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -2.71, S: -5.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: October 10, 2006, 05:06:25 AM »

I'll say this again... she's not my preferred candidate... but underestimate her at your peril.
Logged
Conan
conan
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,140


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: October 12, 2006, 02:17:34 PM »

She can win and she can win with the strongest possible challenger out there.
Logged
RJ
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 793
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: October 16, 2006, 11:45:49 PM »

She can win and she can win with the strongest possible challenger out there.

In making this claim, Conan has helped with an issue in this thread: defining electability.

If someone is going to say "it depends on the candidate opposing her" or "what the national mood is," that really means that person does not believe she's electable. Electable pertains more to the qualities of the candidate rather than the circumstances surrounding him/her.
Logged
Michael Z
Mike
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,288
Political Matrix
E: -5.88, S: -4.72

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: October 18, 2006, 06:11:37 PM »

She can win and she can win with the strongest possible challenger out there.

In making this claim, Conan has helped with an issue in this thread: defining electability.

If someone is going to say "it depends on the candidate opposing her" or "what the national mood is," that really means that person does not believe she's electable. Electable pertains more to the qualities of the candidate rather than the circumstances surrounding him/her.

But sometimes circumstances can help. For instance, Reagan wouldn't have had a cat in hell's chance in 1976 (and was regarded by some as an unelectable lunatic), but in 1980 the economy was going through a slump and the incumbent was generally regarded as incompetent, and so the circumstances were right for him.
Logged
Joel the Attention Whore
Joel
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 467


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: October 18, 2006, 06:24:28 PM »

She can definitely win.
Logged
araton007
Newbie
*
Posts: 11


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: October 19, 2006, 04:37:23 PM »

She won't have the backing to get through the primary. She angers the left wing of the party and moderate Democrats like myself.
Logged
Raoul Takemoto
Rookie
**
Posts: 164


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: October 19, 2006, 05:09:34 PM »

Agreed. As a moderate Democrat, I want a centrist who can win, and will vote like that in the primary.
Logged
RJ
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 793
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: October 19, 2006, 09:13:01 PM »

Agreed. As a moderate Democrat, I want a centrist who can win, and will vote like that in the primary.

She's not a moderate centrist.

She angers the left wing of the party and moderate Democrats like myself.

If she angers the left, she's obviously no too far left either.

What exactly is she?
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: October 29, 2006, 01:47:09 PM »

Agreed. As a moderate Democrat, I want a centrist who can win, and will vote like that in the primary.

She's not a moderate centrist.

She angers the left wing of the party and moderate Democrats like myself.

If she angers the left, she's obviously no too far left either.

What exactly is she?

Someone who angers people.
Logged
Saxwsylvania
Van Der Blub
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,534


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: October 29, 2006, 02:37:10 PM »

What Hillary needs to do to win is just use Bill in her place.  What I mean is, instead of her going to primary debates and campaigning and stuff, Bill should just do it in her place.  He can campaign under the slogan "Four more years of Clinton".  Dems don't like Hillary but they love Bill.

Then at the convention they can nominate Hillary, but Bill can give the convention speech.  Hillary can just sit at home and relax.

After eight more years of Bush, voters will rush to the polls to elect Clinton again, with the implicit understanding that all votes for Hillary are really votes for Bill, kind of like with Mark Foley's election or with George Wallace's wife.

Hillary will constitutionally be President, but everyone will vote for her with the knowledge that Bill will be the power behind the throne.

Little do they know that it is all just a scheme to get Hillary in the White House to enact her radical left-wing agenda. 

HILLARY will be the one, in power, not Bill, who will have no say at all when it comes to running the country, all he will do is screw slutty interns. 

All the power will belong to Hillary, Hillary, Hillary . . . and there's nothing anyone can do about it because Slick Willy will be the one making speeches and kissing babies.

You insolent fools dare to underestimate Hillary's chances of winning?  You think she will actually be defeated in the primary? 

Hillary knows.  She's a cunning woman, do you really think she has not addressed the issue of her high negatives, that she doesn't have it already wrapped up?  Keep on underestimating her, you puppets.  You mock her now, but your own stupidity will be the vehicle that Hillary will use to drive herself up the White House driveway. 



Logged
DownWithTheLeft
downwithdaleft
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,548
Italy


Political Matrix
E: 9.16, S: -3.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: October 29, 2006, 02:55:32 PM »

She can win and she can win with the strongest possible challenger out there.

Once again your are solidfying the fact you are constantly picking sh*t out of your ass
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,260
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: February 10, 2007, 11:55:00 PM »

Stu Rothenberg's recent column tackled this issue....

http://rothenbergpoliticalreport.blogspot.com/2007/02/can-sen-clinton-be-elected-to-white.html

If activists, political insiders and journalists are asking whether former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani can win the Republican nomination for president, they are equally consumed with the question of whether Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) can win the White House.

Let’s skip the suspense and cut right to the answer: Yes.

While some of my colleagues doubt that the New York Senator can overcome her high negative ratings and attract a majority of the electorate in her bid for the White House, I’ve come to the conclusion that she can, as long as she runs the high-quality campaign I think she can.

Let me be very clear: I am not predicting that Clinton will win in 2008. I’m not even predicting that she will be the Democratic nominee. What I am saying is that I don’t agree with those who have concluded that her negatives are so great that she cannot beat a strong Republican nominee next year.

Every White House hopeful in history — and I am not exaggerating when I say “every” — has begun the race with a number of question marks. For some, the question was experience. For others, ideology. For still others, it was a question of style or substance or ability to connect with real people.

Clinton is not without such questions. Is she “warm” enough to make voters feel comfortable voting for her? Is a majority of the electorate ready to elect a woman? How will she deal with the double-edged sword of her husband, former President Bill Clinton, who simultaneously is an asset and a liability in her White House bid? Did she alienate so many people as first lady that a majority of voters in key states simply will not cast their votes for her?

There is no debate about this: The Senator’s campaign will need to address these questions — and others, including the aforementioned electability question — and deal with them successfully if she is going to have a chance of winning the White House. There’s no doubt that she has political baggage.

But Sen. Clinton isn’t the only hopeful with weaknesses to strengthen and questions to answer. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) will have to answer questions about his age and health, as well as his Iraq position and his wooing of conservatives. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) will have to deal with his multiple positions on abortion and, yes, his religion. And Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) will have to deal with his inexperience, just as former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) will have to address his lack of foreign policy experience.

Polling released over the past few weeks doesn’t support the argument that Clinton is unelectable.

A Jan. 18-21 CBS News poll of adults showed that Clinton’s favorable and unfavorable ratings are identical at 36 percent. A Jan. 16-19 ABC News/Washington Post survey of adults found that her personal ratings were 54 percent favorable and 44 percent unfavorable. While the Senator’s negatives are high, they certainly don’t appear high enough to prevent her from wining a presidential election.

A Jan. 5-7 Gallup/USA Today poll of adults found that only 34 percent of Democrats and independents who lean Democratic said they “definitely” would support Clinton for president, while 52 percent said they would “consider” supporting her, and 14 percent said they “definitely” would not support her.

If Clinton had to start a general election having to write off one out of every seven Democrats, she would be in a serious general election hole. But I’m very skeptical about people knowing how they’ll feel and how they’ll behave a year or two from now. And I expect that some of those who insist they will never vote for her will in fact vote for Clinton if she is the Democratic nominee.

In the meantime, the CBS survey offered some very good news for Clinton. More than two out of three respondents — and 84 percent of Democrats — said Clinton “has strong leadership qualities,” and 59 percent said she has “the right kind of experience to be a good president.” Finally, a majority of those questioned, 53 percent, said Clinton could win the presidential election if nominated by her party.

When ABC News/Washington Post pollsters asked respondents about hypothetical White House matchups, Clinton beat McCain, 50 percent to 45 percent, and she beat Giuliani, 49 percent to 47 percent. While these ballot tests don’t guarantee that Clinton would win those races, they do strongly suggest that it’s a mistake to dismiss her as unelectable.

Finally, assertions that Clinton’s polarizing reputation and name make her unelectable ignore history. I remember some New York political observers questioning the then-first lady’s electability in New York when she announced for the Senate. But she went to the most Republican part of the state — upstate — and won over her skeptics. There is no reason to believe that she couldn’t do that in Ohio, Iowa, New Mexico and the handful of other competitive states that Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) lost in 2004. Remember, it’s irrelevant that Clinton can’t carry Mississippi or Utah. She won’t need them.

Moreover, elections involve choices, and often those choices involve the lesser of two evils. No matter what personal baggage she carries, the Senator surely would have targets of opportunity in 2008, including the GOP nominee, the outgoing president and the now-damaged Republican Party brand. Her job would be to make the election about Bush and to position herself as a force for change, competence and accomplishment.

Then-Vice President Al Gore and Kerry, Democratic presidential nominees with considerable weaknesses, narrowly lost presidential elections in 2000 and 2004, respectively. Gore even carried the popular vote. Whatever her liabilities, it’s hard to see Clinton losing large numbers of voters who were willing to pull the lever for Gore and Kerry. She would lose some, but not many. In my book, that’s reason enough for believing that she would have a reasonable chance of wining the White House in 2008.
Logged
Reaganfan
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,239
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: February 11, 2007, 12:22:35 PM »

Good article, but I disagree with some points on how if they voted for Gore or Kerry, they would vote for Hillary.

#1. Hillary is not Gore or Kerry. I know a handful of democrats myself that would vote for McCain over Hillary. If I know some already, and I don't know many democrats, imagine how many across the nation feel the same way.

#2. Gore and Kerry were running against George Bush. Bush isn't running in 2008, it's someone else.

All in all, I believe that Hillary can win, I just don't see her winning it at this point.
Logged
ShadowRocket
cb48026
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,456


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: February 11, 2007, 02:43:35 PM »

I think that given the political climate favors the Democrats right now, I would say he chances of actually getting elected are better than one year ago. Still, I think that it is a risk that Democratic primary voters will try to avoid next year. A strong Republican candidate could still beat her.
Logged
P.J. McDuff
Rookie
**
Posts: 65


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: February 12, 2007, 08:27:17 AM »

Hilary has more substance than people give her credit for, but I don't think she's the real deal all the same, she's doesn't have the inspiration factor that The Rock Obama has, and too easily portrayed as wishy washy. I mean, how many other Primary candidates could be asked "Senator, why did you campaign for Goldwater, a man who vehemently opposed the Civil Rights Act and perhaps the most conservative GOP nominee ever?"
Logged
RRB
Rookie
**
Posts: 227


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: February 12, 2007, 08:57:34 AM »

Let me tell you why I don't care much for Hillary.  She is questionable at best due to being about as much of an insider as you can get.  Every sleezy thing that goes on in Washington is something that she knows about, but will not address because she has plenty of skeletons in her own closet.  I don't mind Bill, but in my opinion, he made a very good "Republican" president.  I feel that she is on the same side of most issues as me but I don't trust her not to sell out.  When she attempted health care reform in the early 90's she consulted with the same insurance company's that rip us off to this day!  That's just one example.

Can she win! yes, and climate has everything to do with it.  Unless a Rapublican rises as a star, she will beat him.  That is assuming that she will get the nomination.  Come on folks, did anybody expect Kerry to beat Dean in '04.  Who was John Kerry?.....and then all of a sudden he was the guy.  Looking back Dean probably would have beat Bush, but we wouldn't have a Democratic congress today if he had.

Watch out for Richardson, Vilsack, and Edwards.  As a staunch Democrat asked me the other day "is anybody normal running for president?"  I suppose that there was a hint of sexism and racism involved in that question.....and it came from a minority. 

In the end, I will vote for Hillary in the general election (if nominated), because I won't vote for any Republican in today's time.   He will come with a neocon administration riding on his coattails which I do not want.

And even though some of you righties will cringe at this statement.  You had better hope that a Democrat wins in "08 so as to keep the Republicans from hurting themselves even more.  Correct me if I am wrong . but I don't believe that the Canadian Progressive Conservative Party even exists in Canada anymore after all of their problems a few decades back.  A Canadian may be able to help out here.  Didn't they merge with the Consevatives or something?
Logged
Verily
Cuivienen
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,663


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: February 12, 2007, 01:05:49 PM »

The Progressive Conservative Party was reduced to 2 seats in 1993, rebounded to 20 in 1997, then declined to 12 in 2000. In 2003, they merged with the Canadian Alliance to form the new Conservative Party.

The Canadian Alliance was a more Republican-like party than the PCs that originated as the Reform Party that first contested the 1988 election. The Reform Party took most of the votes of the PCs in 1993 and was one of the causes of the PC collapse.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: February 12, 2007, 06:43:12 PM »

I know a handful of democrats myself that would vote for McCain over Hillary. If I know some already, and I don't know many democrats, imagine how many across the nation feel the same way.

Meaningless. I used to know a solidly (nay; extremely partisan) Labour voting land-owning farmer. So what?
Logged
agcatter
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,740


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: February 16, 2007, 12:05:02 PM »

Rudy stops Hillary.  Any other of the Republican candidates would probably lose to her including McCain.
Logged
JSojourner
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,510
United States


Political Matrix
E: -8.65, S: -6.94

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: February 16, 2007, 08:29:52 PM »

Personally, I don't buy this idea that Hillary is unelectable. Sure, she's polarising, but so was Bush. She's seen as a radical, but so was Bush. A lot of people will vote against her, as many others did with Bush. No, I think she's in with a shout.

She is absolutely, positively electable.  Against ANY Democrat in the primary and against ANY Republican in the general.  You bet.

I am sure she's electable.

I am not sure she would be permitted to govern once elected.  And while that stinks to high heaven, it's reality.  The visceral hatred for all things Clinton among Republicans would hamstring her from the get-go. 

I know some conservatives will opine that  there is an equal hatred for all things Bush on the other side of the aisle.  I agree, but with the following qualifiers...

1.  The Clintons never got three thousand U.S. troops killed in a war whose primary goal was to enrich big campaign donors.  So while I don't condone hating The Decider personally, I certainly understand it a lot more readily than the irrational fear of the Clintons.

2.  The hatred for the Clintons was rooted largely in ideology and fear.  Hatred of the Decider, while unhealthy and unhelpful, is rooted in reaction to actual results. 

The old mantra, "When Clinton lied, no one died." is tired.  But apt.

What I can't grasp is why Republicans hate Mrs. Clinton even more than Bill. I just don't get it.  There have been hundreds of much more liberal, high-profile Democrats over the years.  Why hate Hillary?

All that said, I am not supporting her because of her stance on the war and because I know she won't be able to govern if she wins.  But you bet your sweet bippy she can win.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.069 seconds with 14 queries.