Clinton's Achilles Heel

[illinoisprogressive]

Obama appears to be more electable than his primary rivals. One problem for Clinton in a general election campaign may be voters other than her Democratic base who could not vote for her. For example, when paired in a general election match-up with the top three Republican candidates -- McCain, Giuliani and Romney -- Clinton just receives the support of between 3% and 6% of Republicans.

Included in the 18% of all Democratic primary voters who said that they could not vote for Hillary Clinton under any circumstances, are roughly a quarter of independents who would vote in a Democratic primary or caucus said they, too, could not vote for Clinton under any circumstance. For Obama, just 5% of Democratic primary voters, including 4% of independents who would not vote for him.

snip

In the head-to-head RCP Averages, Senator Clinton runs a not insignificant 4-5 points worse than Senator Obama against Rudy Giuliani and John McCain. The general election differential is even more pronounced in the LA Times/Bloomberg poll where Obama shows leads of 5 -16 points against Giuliani, McCain and Romney, versus Clinton who trails all three Republicans by 2-10 points. (Thompson was not included in the LA Times/Bloomberg head-to-heads.)

This all comes back to Hillary Clinton's extremely high unfavorables. If these head-to-head matchups with the leading GOP candidates continue to show Senator Obama or other Democratic candidates running significantly better in the general election, it could have a significant impact on Democratic primary voters who are in no mood for another bitter disappointment next November.

http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2007/06/clintons_achilles_heel.html

[Captain Hilts]

1. Suburban women - independent and Republican will vote for her in adequate numbers....

to get her elected.

Hillary's voting percentages are always higher than her polling numbers.

Black candidates have traditionally shown the opposite pattern. Fewer people actually vote for them than say so in surveys.

[rinsd]

5. Hillary kills with women and they were a solid majority of voters in 2004 (nt)

[Hart2008]

11. The same argument was made about Ferraro in '84. She lost the women's vote. n/t

[Captain Hilts]

14. And it also suggests the VP candidate isn't as important as people think. nt

[rinsd]

19. Yeah a woman VP candidate over 20 years ago....same thing.

:eyes:

[Captain Hilts]

13. Democratic women,yes. Women in general, no. Women don't vote as a bloc.

Women over 65 vote liberal. Single women under 35 vote liberal. Married women under 50 vote conservative.

Now, calculate that single women under 35 have one of the lowest voter turnout totals and the partisan gap among women who vote isn't that great.

[mod mom]

56. Countdown reported that Hillary does bad with college educated women tonight.

must be from this survey:

JUNE 4, 2007, 6:31 PM
A Breakdown on Clinton Ratings
By DALIA SUSSMAN
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s ratings in the latest New York Times/CBS News poll suggest that unlike her Democratic rivals, her favorability ratings worsen as voters’ income and education levels increase. The poll also found that Mrs. Clinton was far better known than her opponents, but more than half of those who had an opinion of her had a negative one.

-snip

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/06/04/a-breakdown-on-clinton-ratings/

[draft_mario_cuomo]

7. Why does she consistently struggle in GE trial heats and register high unfavorables?

Clearly there is a large anti-HRC contingent out there. 45%-52% of Americans say they would never vote for her...

[Kingstree]

20. Republican women will not vote for her

[Captain Hilts]

23. Yes, some of them will. Suburban women sure will. You don't need that many to switch over. nt

[mike_c]

2. personally, I think Clinton's biggest problem is with members...

...of the democratic base itself who won't vote for her. She has publicly stated that even if she were elected to two terms, America would still be occupying Iraq by the end of her second term-- ten years from now. (Reported on NPR Monday.) There is no way I can ever vote for her.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

8. 18% of Dems say they would never vote for her, and this is before her neocon admission on Iraq

You are right.

[Bucky]

41. Any candidate from any party who thinks we'll be in Iraq in 2016 is insane.

Or at least very very wrong. The people want out. We'll be entirely out by 2010 even if Rudy McRomney is elected; even if Cheney is president.

[paulk]

64. you mean member's of the "Democratic base"

like you, who brag after every election, on this board, that you've NOT voted for the Democratic candidate?

LOL!

[William769]

3. Obamas Achilles Heel

The Democratic primary. Without that, he sure doesn't need to worry about the General election.

[Captain Hilts]

16. Obama's Achilles Heel is hanging out with Colin Powell, more than once. nt

[Dawgs]

84. So, you're eliminating any Democrat that has "hung out" with a war supporting Republican?

Because you've just eliminated every Democratic candidate (running or not).

[rinsd]

4. Wow a Republican is "concerned" about Hillary's numbers.

Thanks John, but we went with the candidate with the best head to head numbers last time.

This will be decided based on who the Democrats like more not who polls better in the GE 9 months beofre the election.

If nominated, it will not be because of Obama's GE matchups.

It will be based on his substantial appeal as a candidate and leader.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

6. Obama is electable, HRC is unelectable, but Edwards is the most electable

A few polls have shown Obama doing better than Edwards in general election trial heat but over the year Edwards has consistently outperformed both Obama and HRC in a solid majority of trial heats.

Obama has yet to face serious sustained attacks from the right-wing machine. How strong will he be after that? Right now he is a blank screen that most people associate with nothing negative. HRC and Edwards are more known quantities and have weathered the storm before.

[William769]

9. Yet HRC blows them both out of the water, go figure.

[Hart2008]

10. HRC would follow the Mondale, Dukakis trend of recent years.

It is not at all weird. It is all too sadly predictable.

[William769]

12. How is HRC like Mondale or Dukakis?

As compared to the other candidates?

[Hart2008]

15. The insider, establishment candidate who is the least likely to win in November.

The polling data speaks for itself. Ignore it at the party's peril.

[William769]

17. Funney thing about that meme is

I had severasl people tell me back in the 90's that Bill Clinton was another Dukakis. Go figure.

[Hart2008]

21. Gallup's '92 exit polling showed Bill Clinton was most voters' second choice.

Perot was leading when he withdrew in the summer. The November general election exit poll by Gallup/CNN showed that more voters preferred Perot but did not vote for him because they didn't think he would win. (Due to a glitch in CNN/Gallup's tracking poll, and inexperience in polling a contested three way race.)

In 1992 the actual vote was:
Clinton 43%, Bush 38%, Perot 19%

CNN 1992 Exit Poll:
"Would you have voted for Perot if he had a chance to win?"
Yes 36% No 64%

CNN 1992 Exit Poll
The vote for Perot if voters believed he could win
Perot 36 percent
Clinton 34 percent
Bush 30 percent

(Reported by William Schneider, CNN political analyst on September 21, 1996 broadcast of "Inside Politics". The exit poll is still available on Gallup's website, with a subscription.)

So Bill Clinton, almost stayed in Arkansas, and soon lost the Democratic majorities in the Congress.

Who is going to run as a third party this year?

Without a third party, Hillary can't win.

If people like you want to drink the kool-aid fine, but don't take the rest of us down with you.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

24. Thanks for posting that. So much for the DLC myth that its policies were so successful in 1992 nt

[rinsd]

29. LOL, now Clinton didn't really win he was a 2nd choice!

"soon lost the Democratic majorities in the Congress."

Because the Post Office and Bank scandals coupled with and very organized on Messgae GOP party had nothing to do with it.

[Hart2008]

32. Straw man argument. HRC people don't like polls that contradict their beliefs...

yet they continue to post polls here all the time.

I never said that Bill Clinton didn't win, but the CNN/Gallup exit poll makes clear that wouldn't have won if voters had a run-off election. Unlike many here, many voters will vote for a second choice on election day if they don't feel their first choice can win. That is what happened with Bill Clinton in '92. He was third of three when Perot withdrew in the summer. Save us all the crap about how well loved the Clinton's were in '92.

Funny thing is that after losing the Congress for the first time in 40 years, the Clinton's could never get it back during the Clinton Presidency.

[rinsd]

34. Starw man argument?!? LOL.

"I never said that Bill Clinton didn't win, but the CNN/Gallup exit poll makes clear that wouldn't have won if voters had a run-off election."

Except we don't have run off voting.

"Unlike many here, many voters will vote for a second choice on election day if they don't feel their first choice can win."

Your own exit poll shows that most would not simply pikc the winner.

"He was third of three when Perot withdrew in the summer."

Last I checked the election was held in November. As a Hart devotee I can understand wanting to live in the world of what if but the reality is Clinton won and went on to become one of the most popular Presidents.

"Funny thing is that after losing the Congress for the first time in 40 years, the Clinton's could never get it back during the Clinton Presidency."

But they made gains every year including his 2nd term which is unheard of.

Again, why do you ignore other factors in the 1994 loss in favor a quick hit against the Clintons?

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rinsd]

37. Ahhh yes typos.

:eyes:

I guess your argument was shit if that's all you got.

[Hart2008]

38. The argument came from Bill Schneider, CNN and Gallup.

You called that shit.

No sense arguing with a potty mouth.

[rinsd]

43. Because Bill Schneider's analysis could not be faulty.

:eyes:

"No sense arguing with a potty mouth."

LOL.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

51. The biggest factor was HRC's bungling of health care

No wonder we never hear of what she actually did during her "experience" as first lady of the U.S...

[draft_mario_cuomo]

22. Exactly. IMAGINE if Hart been nominated and won in 1984

That would mean four less years of Reagan, probably no Bush I--and hence probably no Bush II and Iraq war. We can't play games with things as important as elections.

[rinsd]

27. Fantasy must be fun but Hart would have lost to Reagan.

His supposed advantage over Reagan early in the primary season was gone by the end of it.

[Hart2008]

30. The published Gallup poll at the time of the convention showed Hart beating Reagan.

The same poll showed Mondale losing. Hart delegates put copies of the newspaper it was published in under the doors of the Mondale delegates in the hotels in San Francisco.

The rest is sadly history.

Unfortunately, in this party history repeats itself, over and over, and over.

[rinsd]

33. Mondale was losing in most Gallup polls throughout the primary season

Hart was still down as of May 31st.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9401E2D6143BF932A05756C0A962948260

And July 13th

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F05EEDD1039F930A25754C0A962948260

[Hart2008]

39. Hart always matched up better than Mondale in all the polls!

The July 13th link is not to the convention Gallup poll:
" A new Washington Post-ABC News poll shows that Walter F. Mondale trails President Reagan by 7 percentage points, substantially less than two major public opinion surveys issued recently.

The latest poll, conducted July 5-8 and reported in Thursday's issues of The Post, shows President Reagan leading Mr. Mondale by 51 percent to 44 percent and ahead of Senator Gary Hart by 49 percent to 46 percent."

There was a published poll at the time of the convention showing Hart beating Reagan. As previously stated, Hart delegates stuck it under the doors of the Mondale delegates in their Hotels.

With Hillary, it's deja vu all over again.

[rinsd]

44. Which published poll? The convention was only a couple of weeks later.

You would think with something like that there would be a link mentioning it.

I could see them slipping that Gallup poll showing Mondale getting crushed under the door but other than a single poll in March nothing comes up in my searches for Hart beating Reagan.

Granted Nexus Lexis would be a great help here but I am limited.

[Hart2008]

72. Unfortunately, the events of almost 23 years ago are not well documented on the Internet.

The 1984 National Convention of the U.S. Democratic Party was held at the Moscone Center in San Francisco, California from July 16 to July 19, 1984. Unfortunately, the events of almost 23 years ago are not well documented on the Internet, since the Internet as we know it, didn’t exist then. Upon consultation and reflection, the Hartistas believe the poll was conducted by Gallup, but it was certainly was one of the major polling firms.

This from a high ranking Hartista, alias “CF Progress”, at the San Francisco convention on the matter of the poll and sticking the newspaper it appeared in under the doors of the Mondale delegates’ hotel rooms:
“Absolutely right. I was involved in this effort (and may have been the first to suggest it to Henkel). I recall the poll showing Gary leading Reagan by 3-5% and Mondale losing to Reagan by 7-9%. The poll was also distributed on the floor, which I could walk along the back of with my Hart guest pass. The Dem’s through themselves off the Golden Gate Bridge that week when they irrationally nominated Mondale (and repeated the mistake the following cycle). I actually tell the story in Hart/Heart in San Francisco, my (copyrighted) short story about my experience during '84 Convention Week. I wrote about it under the pseudonym CF Progress. (There's a copy in the Library of Congress; if anyone cares to locate it, the title actually has a heart symbol. It's in their computer records under CF Progress
During conventions, all the big publications (National Journal, etc.) circulated free special editions daily. (Maybe a holdover from the time conventions were contentious and shaped history. '84 was the end of that era.) Could have been any of them. I might have mentioned it in my short story. The numbers were unequivocal and lopsided. The Dem delegates did what they did with their eyes open: they threw the '84 election to Reagan.
(On the July 2-7, 1984 Harris poll showing Reagan and Hart in a statistical dead heat) I remember it differently and don't think it would have stuck in my mind as much if Gary were only shown slightly behind, and Mondale further behind, as here. I doubt the campaign would have approved distribution of this one, because the point (meaning) would not have been strong enough to brag about that way.”

Many thanks to CF Progress!

In case you doubt the result, the July 2-7, 1984 Harris poll showed Reagan and Hart in a statistical dead-heat, while Reagan beat Mondale by 16 percent:
CAMPAIGN NOTES; Poll Shows Narrowing Of Reagan Lead in Race
New York Times
Published: July 12, 1984
President Reagan's lead over Walter F. Mondale has narrowed in the last month, according to the latest Harris Survey.
A poll of 1,259 ''likely voters'' in forthcoming Presidential election, conducted July 2-7, showed Mr. Reagan with 52 percent support and the former Vice President with 44 percent.
Mr. Reagan's lead over Senator Gary Hart of Colorado also slipped, but by a statistically insignificant amount. Mr. Reagan, who led by 51 percent to 47 percent in June, now holds a lead of 49 to 48 percent.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9802E0DF1039F931A25754C0A962948260

(N.B. The last sentence here is not accurate. Reagan’s 1% lead over Hart was "statistically insignificant", i.e, within the margin of error, not the 4% drop from the previous month’s poll. Typical MSM disinformation!)

Unlike Mondale, had Hart been nominated, he would not have used his acceptance speech to promise more middle class tax increases. The ’84 polls showed Hart could beat Reagan and Mondale couldn’t. Hart was rising in the polls at the time of the convention while Mondale, was tanking. Yet, the Dem’s lined up to drink the Mondale kool-aid and resulting 49 state loss.

Defeat was snatched from the jaws of victory, and the legend of “St. Ronnie” and the 49 state landslide came into our history.

I don’t want to do that again.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rinsd]

47. What facts?

So far you've argued nothing but hypotheticals for an election that is 1 1/2 years away.

"

[William769]

49. I still stand by Post #45.

This person reminds me of the same argument last week on why Hillary can't be President because the 2nd Amendment won't allow it! :rofl:

[Hart2008]

75. No, you said Post #45 was your last word here.

I never cited the 2nd Amendment.

Find another straw man argument.

[Hart2008]

74. Hillary having the highest negatives of any candidate is not hypothetical. n/t

[Tellurian]

18. Hillary isn't like Mondale or Dukakis..

It amazes me when comparisons are made with candidates of dissimilar personalities.

Hillary stands on facts and policies.. personalities be damned. Voters want a change and she has the plan.

[Captain Hilts]

25. Dukakis was the same way, but too short and furry for red staters. nt

[draft_mario_cuomo]

26. She is even worse than them

Dukakis and Mondale both rose to their high positions on merit. They had to have some degree of charisma and political skill to do so. HRC simply won the marriage lottery over three decades ago and has piggybacked on the record of someone else to the senate, and now the Dem nomination lead.

[Tellurian]

35. Who's record would that be in the senate she's piggybacked on..

wow-- you're really grasping at straws at that whopper of a tale to back your argument, aren't you?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

52. Nice clever HRCeqsue spin

I said: "piggybacked on the record of someone else to the senate,"
You: "Who's record would that be in the senate she's piggybacked on.."

HRC would be proud. We all know whose record she rode to election in the senate and whose record she is chiefly running on now...what a "great" candidate. Her campaign revolves around who she goes to bed with, not any actual ideas.

[Tellurian]

53. Your best answer of the night..

some women I know would say, honey, I need a new pr of jimmy choos..ok? before jumping in the sack.

otoh, a woman might say, honey, I need a new policy for the missile shield...ok? before jumping in the sack.

but if it's "him" your talking about, he'd probably say, ok..if you can solve my Suduku, you've got a deal! :)

[bagrman]

63. I didn't think she had an opponent when she ran for Senate the first time.

Didn't Gullioni throw his hat into the ring and then take it out once Clinton got in and they put some milk toast kid in to run against her. And Why isn't she the Senator of Arkansas? And I bet more of you remember the OJ trial then Mena, Ark., that was a spectacular diversion. We need to clean up the
white house not politics as usual.

[Hart2008]

65. She had no real primary opponent after JFK, Jr.'s, plane blew up.

:cry::cry::cry::cry:

Very lucky for her, because I don't think she could have beaten him, and he was going to run for that Senate seat.

One family's misfortune is another family's gain.

How sad.

:cry::cry::cry::cry:

[rinsd]

68. I'm shocked that you again distort facts.

JFK Jr. has decided against a run before he died.

The most recent issue of Newsweek, which came out on Monday, contains Jonathan Alter's report that "a close friend" of John Kennedy confided that "Kennedy might well have run for the U.S. Senate in 2000 if Hillary Clinton had not; he was very quietly exploring a campaign before the First Lady expressed interest." Comes now the New York Times to throw cold water on Alter's scooplet -- and the idea, unflattering to Hillary, that she might have elbowed Kennedy out of the race. Katharine Seelye's Tuesday Times piece quotes only Hillary's sponsor, Senator Robert "The Torch" Torricelli, chair of the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee, who says he'd approached Kennedy but that Kennedy had responded "no" -- all before Hillary started to show interest. Back to Alter, who stands by his story: "John Kennedy may have not with Senator Torricelli about his possible interest in the race, but there are half a dozen other people he talked to about it." Before Hillary expressed interest, Alter says, Kennedy held conversations with political consultant Hank Morris, union leader Dennis Rivera, and media executive Bob Pittman. Kennedy decided the timing wasn't right. But he later revisited the issue after Hillary had begun her public flirtation with candidacy, figuring that if Hillary didn't run he'd be the perfect foil for the now-likely candidacy of Mayor Rudolph Giuliani. Says Alter: "Senator Torricelli may have been out of the loop on this one." ...

http://www.kausfiles.com/archive/index.07.20.99.html

Your post is disgusting.

[Hart2008]

70. JFK, Jr., "was upset when HILLARY CLINTON announced she was running for the Senate in New York,"

Torricelli is an ethical sleaze-ball lacking any credibility on anything.

"He was upset when HILLARY CLINTON announced she was running for the Senate in New York. He certainly he would have been loved by America....
John watched with growing dismay as Hillary subtly insinuated herself into what he considered his state," Laurence Leamer wrote in Sons of Camelot: The Fate of an American Dynasty

Stuart Rothenburg named JFK, Jr., as a candidate in Jan. '99.
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/analysis/rothenberg/1999/01/13/

Yes, I found JFK, Jr.'s death disgusting too. I have several friends who are pilots. The most dangerous part of flying with a twin engine plane is at take-off. The fuel tanks are full and if one engine dies the plane can corkscrew into the ground before the pilot can react. When a plane blows up in mid air at landing, that is bizarre.

How tragic that it could have been JFK, Jr. running for President now instead of Hillary.

I don't think JFK, Jr. would have voted for the IWR without reading the intelligence report either.

[rinsd]

71. Still factually challenged I see.

Rothenberg named many candidates in that column.

Moynihan's favorite candidate, state Comptroller Carl McCall, announced at the end of December that he would take a pass in 2000. Then, another oft-mentioned possibility, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Andrew Cuomo, announced this past week that he would not run. In between those two announcements, Cuomo's brother-in-law, Robert Kennedy Jr., also took himself out of the equation.

So the list is now down to Reps. Nita Lowey of Westchester, Louise Slaughter of Rochester and Carolyn Maloney of Manhattan, state Assemblyman Michael Bragman from Syracuse (who some insiders believe could surprise everyone if he decides to go for it), New York City Public Advocate Mark Green, the Rev. Al Sharpton (a candidate in 1992 and 1994) and (okay, they're mentioned by everyone else), Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala, businessman Michael Bloomberg, actor Alec Baldwin, George Stephanopoulos, and publisher John F. Kennedy, Jr. The last five names probably reflect the media's desire for political "stars" more than anything else.


"When a plane blows up in mid air at landing, that is bizarre."

JFK's plane blew up on the landing?

Do you bother posting any facts or do you just make it up as you go along?

[Hart2008]

73. JFK, Jr. was upset with Hillary. Source cited. Challenge the sources cited.

Sources are cited that he was considering running and was upset with Hillary about her political ambitions in New York.

"Facts" are things that are commonly believed to be true.

When it comes to the deaths of those in America's true politically dynasty, the official government theories of their death's are not universally believed.

Do you really believe that JFK was killed by Lee Harvey Oswald AND he acted alone?

If so, you are likely in the minority here.

The theories of JFK, Jr.'s death, at a time he was considering entering politics, are no more worthy of belief, than the Warren commission's single gunman theory, but it is the subject of another thread here.

[rinsd]

66. Rick Lazio was an up and comer in the GOP party.

"And I bet more of you remember the OJ trial then Mena, Ark., that was a spectacular diversion."

And some of us know better than to read the American Spectator and take it at face value.

[bagrman]

76. Never heard of it.

[bagrman]

78. Like I said "Milk Toast" a sacrificial lamb. What great pay off did he get.

The American Spectator has never been on my reading list. It's funny how someone can google g.Bush and believe anything that comes up and then google H. Clinton and believe none of it. They are different sides of the same coin. Here's what the great Dems of our congress did for (to) us latly.
.
.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1108553

[rinsd]

79. Ahhh Kucinich supporter...

..it all makes sense now

[bagrman]

83. Kucinich, O'bama, Edwards, Certainly makes more sense then more of the same with Clinton.

[amandabeech]

80. According to Bernstein, she nearly lost it in '89 when Bill wanted out,

and Hillary refused.

I've always wondered how well she would have done if she had not married or married a non-political type.

She may be smart, but she's not a natural.

If she's the nominee, I'll vote for her, but her foreign policy is far too hawkish for me.

[Kingstree]

28. Voters Want a Change

Vote Obama, want Corruption vote Clinton

[Tellurian]

59. Why vote for Obama?

Is that all you can ever say...for a change.. a change how...change horses but more of the same? Change to sneakers because theyr'e more comfortable... change how...he's got Republican operatives creating his policies...where and what is the change you speak of? It's just more of Bush policies under a new hand and fresh face.

Not buying what you're selling!

[Imagevision]

62. Why vote for Obama? because Hil said she'd bring home the troops, just NOT ALL the troops...

Hillary another one of the; " I voted for the war but I never read the intel reports...

[Tellurian]

69. Fact Check: Obama said the same thing!

[Kingstree]

77. I Agree with you

[JTFrog]

57. A plan to stay in

Iraq for decades!

I'll pass thanks.

[BeyondGeography]

40. And Democrats have picked losers in seven of the last 10 elections, go figure

[madrchsod]

31. i can not stand her, never have and never will

but if she wins the nomination i`ll have to vote for her because the republican candidates are far worse

[Bucky]

42. I'll top that

If she wins the nomination I`ll even fake my enthusiasm!

[motocicleta]

58. I never, ever fake an enthusiasm

I am certain, certain I tell you, that any enthusiasm I may have with HRC will be just as great as it was when I first experienced it with the big dog. I just need a little Clinton to get me going, you know what I mean?

Provided, of course, she wins the nomination and my efforts, ahem, will not be in vain. I can't believe you could even think I would fake enthusiasm for a candidate who thinks attacking Iran is on the table, but impeaching * is off? Where would you get such an idea?

[MGKrebs]

48. Do any of the polls ask WHY independents won't vote for Clinton?

I don't get it. Do they have a reason, or just a general negative feeling? People who think about it and have a reason will make up their minds based on how those reasons play out and are dealt with. But I suspect a lot of independents just have a kind of general negative feeling about her, and that is due to their exposure to the RW hate machine over the past 15 or so years. I have to believe that the campaign would be aware of something like this and has a plan to deal with it. We shall see.

[ramapo]

50. The Hate factor

Clinton has a substantial number of people who just plain hate her. Perhaps they never would've voted for her anyway so the numbers don't matter, but she'll have to be mighty aggressive to counter the Republican propaganda machine.

I'm really not thrilled with the idea of her being the nominee although it appears it may happen. Then again Howard Dean was a done deal until people voted but with the condensed schedule, things may really work out for her.

I have to say her last debate performance was outstanding. But she's a first class spinner. I had high hopes for Bill's presidency and was pretty much disappointed. I don't expect much from Hillary.
Perhaps a return of the vast right-wing conspiracy. Her honeymoon, should she be elected, will be even shorter than Bill's. I'd say it would last about 12 hours before the attacks began.

[PBass]

54. Some people say they will not vote for Hillary...

but in a general election, if the other candidate is Romney, McCain, Giuliani or Thompson (hell, any of the GOP clowns) I think a lot of people will hold their nose and vote DEM, even if it was only a vote to punish the GOP.

Also, (and this is getting way ahead of ourselves but what the heck) if Hillary is the Democratic nominee, I think she will do a great job campaigning in the general election. I think she can win some people over. She is an effective campaigner.

For the record, my dream ticket would be Gore/Clark, Gore/Obama or Gore/Clinton.

[ShortnFiery]

55. No, this time, many people will choose to not fold for the DLC a third Presidential Election.

Not. This. Time.

No amount of DLC intimidation and harping will change the fact that HRC is not going to win a General Election. :shrug:

[The Magistrate]

67. All The People In The Country, Ma'am, Who Hate The D.L.C.

Could be comfortably accommodated in the gymnasium of a large rural high school, where they take their basketball seriously. Whatever problems Sen. Clinton may potentially have in a general election, that is not one of them.

[rucky]

60. So the Democrats will be the death of the Democrats...

If HRC gets the nod.

why does this not surprise me?

I support Kucinich and the nominee.

eom

[thethinker]

61. It is a numbers game

There is no way with the unfavorable numbers that HRC can win against a republican. The only hope would be a strong third party splitting the republican vote, which could happen.

Otherwise, we will not be putting a democrat in the white house if she is the candidate.

I know the DUers that are supporting her don't want to hear this. But, the numbers don't lie.

[calteacherguy]

81. Voters need to be CONSTANTLY reminded of this. We can't afford making the wrong choice. nt

[mckeown1128]

82. Gobama!!