Hillary's dangerously high unfavorables: The worst of both worlds

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

Since the Hillary Clinton supporters have started no less than 5 recent threads citing one poll after another, I decided to toss up one myself:
http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=28363
Hillary Clinton: 47% favorable, 49% unfavorable
Barack Obama: 48% favorable, 34% unfavorable
John Edwards: 47% favorable, 35% unfavorable
Rudy Giuliani: 55% favorable, 32% unfavorable
Fred Thompson: 31% favorable, 20% unfavorable

For those who've been squawking constantly about Hillary as the "inevitable" Democratic nominee, in fact both Obama and Edwards have already become quite competitive despite their relative lack of name recognition, with both tied with Hillary in Iowa in a recent poll and Obama leading in South Carolina:
http://presszoom.com/story_139277.html
http://campaignsandelections.com/SC/articles/?ID=444

Obviously individual polls will vary, but the point here is that John Edwards and particularly Barack Obama are competitive with or even surpassing Hillary in primary polls in major states. Furthermore, since many states have open primaries, this introduces the factor of Independent voters who are more favorable toward Obama yet not measured in these intra-party primary polls, so if anything they may be underestimating the prospects for Obama and Edwards in primary season, even more so since they still have not received the level of attention that would increase their name recognition.

Whatever my personal opinion* about Hillary, I attempt to detach my own thoughts toward her when I consider the current electoral map from the standpoint of a cold and calculating political strategist, and the signs for her in terms of electability are absolutely dismal. Her negatives have consistently been around half the US population, the unfavorables exceeding the favorables in fact. She has by far the most name recognition of any candidate in either party, and unfavorables this high for a candidate who is already so well-known to the general public, represent a very bad omen for Hillary and for the Democratic Party if we nominate her. Moreover, these unfavorables are registering before the Republican smear machine against her has even gotten warmed up. She performs the worst against major GOP candidates while Obama and Edwards both draw broader support, and on both foreign and domestic policy, her DLC stands are much further away from our progressive base than those of Obama and Edwards.

That is, with Hillary, we get the worst of both worlds-- our least competitive candidate among the Big 3, and one who is further away from our progressive base than the other two. In fact, Hillary's unfavorables are so high that she would endanger not only the Democrats' prospects for the 2008 election, but for Congressional and gubernatorial elections as well, owing to the extent that she would motivate turnout and campaign contributions among Republicans.

Those unfavorables, as noted in one poll after another, are very much reflected in our own anecdotal interactions. Among Republicans, the enmity toward Hillary is deeper and more vigorous than anything I and my colleagues have ever seen before. Overall, they don't like Edwards or Obama much, but they don't hate them, and many would consider voting for them. OTOH, the prospect of a Hillary nomination provokes an almost primal rage among Republicans and many Independents, and this has very serious consequences for us: Tremendously increased voter turnout among the GOP, massive fundraising contributions, a much more motivated Republican base in general.

One could toss in your favorite Sun Tzu or Karl von Clausewitz war strategy quote here, but fundamentally, you want to divide or at least mollify your enemy, not motivate and powerfully unite them as Hillary would. We would be walking right into a Republican trap with a Hillary nomination, and they're already getting their ugliest smears ready. The Republicans will be wrapping around and completely covering Hillary Clinton with their squirmy tentacles, and they won't stop squirming and writhing. If you thought the Swift Boat travesty was bad, it'll seem like a Caribbean vacation compared to the fury and calumny they'll unleash against Hillary, and they'll have an unprecedented war chest to do it.

Finally, I know some people have opined that "even if Hillary were nominated, social conservatives wouldn't back Giuliani very strongly*. I hate to burst bubbles here, but such thinking is delusional. Many recent surveys have been showing that if anything, Giuliani's strongest support base is among evangelical Christians and social conservatives in general. I think that we sometimes underestimate the pragmatism of the GOP's social conservative base, but they're very smart people, and they know that Giuliani would be far more reliable to their cause than Hillary in particular, especially with regard to federal judge appointments. If we were to nominate a figure as widely detested as Hillary Clinton is, this base would rally as never before to support Giuliani, Thompson or whomever else the GOP might nominate.


*For the purpose of full disclosure, as far as my personal attitude toward Hillary Rodham Clinton, I was once a raucous supporter of hers in her 2000 Senate election, and the night that she won in November of 2000 was one of the most vigorous and excited bar-hopping nights I've had with my political friends. Since then, due to her unflagging support of the Iraq War (not just the IWR but in the many years hence), her support for that awful bankruptcy reform bill (full support for the first one, abstention on the second) that is incomprehensibly cruel toward poor Americans in need from e.g. a workplace injury but which gives a free pass to profligate corporations, the flag-burning fiasco, stabbing John Kerry like that after his misconstrued comments on Iraq last year, her general pro-corporatist stance, and favorable stance toward outsourcing, I have developed the kind of profound anger that a betrayed former supporter feels, as have most of the others who were celebrating in 2000.

I personally would still consider voting for her if she were nominated (although my vote would not be automatic) depending on the match-up-- however, I have been especially disturbed by the large and growing number of Democrats I've contacted who would not vote for her under any circumstances, so deep is the resentment. (This is one reason why her unfavorables are at 49%, it's not just Republicans who are expressing that attitude.) Many Democrats reason that we control both houses of Congress, and that the country would almost certainly be very sick and tired of corrupt Republican rule by 2012, so they would be willing to wait things out-- stay home in November of 2008, vote for a 3rd Party candidate, in some cases even cross the aisle-- in return for the prospect of a non-DLC progressive representing out party in 2012. The thing is, Edwards and especially Obama could do that now in 2008.

Obama and Edwards already have quite favorable ratings. Even more importantly however, they have a lot of room to go up further, which we'll need if we're going to be competitive with the Republicans next year.

[William769]

1. So many holes where do i start?

Lets start with Edwards shall we? For being his second run for President in a row and the first time being the Democratic Vice Presidential nominee kind of blows the theory of name recognition right out of the water. As for Obama the more name recognition he gets, his unfavorables goes up (wishfull thinking on your part). I'm only going to mention this first since it's close up to the top of your post, I shall let other people debunk the rest of it. Why should I have all the fun.

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

29. Funny that in your zeal to "debunk" you ignore all the hard data

That's why I posted this up-- rather than just a lame snapshot horse race poll or some wailing on one side or another, there is this very disturbing, well-documented trend of an ingrained dislike of Hillary Clinton that has not wavered at all since the start of this year and has, if anything, been getting worse. These unfavorables are the most important piece of data here since they're been the most stable feature (unlike the snapshot polls, which have varied consistently although they tend to show Hillary matching up the weakest against the Republicans). A candidate can't win a general election with this level of unfavorability.

And as for name recognition, John Edwards was a minor dark horse who was chosen as a running mate in 2004, his ticket lost-- and then he largely went quiet. Hillary Clinton has been in the public spotlight now for over 15 years running, and when polls on Democratic name recognition are surveyed, knowledge of Hillary's name is far greater than anything that Obama or Edwards have at this point. This is the single biggest factor at this point, in the pre-Labor Day season, and as the campaign actually goes on-- and voters are reminded of Hillary's unflagging and disastrous Iraq War support, among other things-- Hillary increasingly follows the same path as that of Joe Lieberman, who also had the name recognition advantage and a big early poll lead, which promptly vanished as voters became more acquainted with the candidates' stands.

[corkhead]

32. thankfully the voters will come to their senses and nominate a Democrat instead of Lieberman in drag

I don't believe the sycophants in the corporate media (and in DU for that matter) are going to be able to successfully jam HRC down our throats.

[Clark2008]

58. Dark horse?

Wes Clark beat him five of nine races in which they both competed and all anyone heard about was John Edwards.

How does that make him a dark horse?

[Tellurian]

38. I agree- So much tripe, so little time..

This thread's premise is so fatally flawed. Taken directly from the pages of the Rovian playbook.

Article and info from original link:

August 09, 2007

Clinton Bounds Further Ahead in Democratic Contest

Now has 22-point lead over Obama; Gore's running makes little difference

by Lydia Saad

GALLUP NEWS SERVICE

PRINCETON, NJ -- Sen. Hillary Clinton strengthened her frontrunner status in the Democratic field over the past month, pulling 10 points further ahead of Sen. Barack Obama than she was in mid-July. According to the August 3-5 USA Today/Gallup Poll, none of the other announced contenders for the 2008 Democratic nomination are within striking distance of Clinton, and only former Sen. John Edwards appears strong enough to potentially compete with Obama for second place.

Clinton is now the preferred nominee of 48% of Democrats nationwide, compared with Obama's 26%. Last month, she led by a smaller 12-point margin, 40% vs. 28%. Most of the change is due to increased support for Clinton rather than a decline in support for Obama.

Other candidates with at least some support are Edwards with 12%, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson at 4%, Sen. Joe Biden at 3%, and Rep. Dennis Kucinich at 1%. Sen. Chris Dodd is supported by less than one-half of one percent of Democrats.





http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=28345

[ima_sinnic]

40. so the majority of voters mustt be fools

I wouldn't vote for that "Lieberman in drag" (as another poster above puts it so very well) if my life depended on it.
Of the so-called Big 3, I'd vote for Edwards in a heartbeat, Obama not so willingly, but Shillary--never. I'd write in Gore. She is just more of the SOC (SAME OLD CRAP): war, corporatocracy, lobbyist/big money influence, media lies and distortions. One big triangulating corporate SELL-OUT.

[Tellurian]

43. The majority of voters have Clinton ahead by 22 pts of Obama..

we're not worried about your vote or your meretricious junk.

[ima_sinnic]

51. "majority of voters," or majority of Democrats?

really, your corporate a$$-ki$$er flounders even next to a scumsucker like Ghouliani.
But what difference would it make? I suppose a republican democrat is no different than an out-front republican.

[earthlover]

70. Majority of Democrats in national polls in friggin August...in NH,IO, SC closer

And, of course, in at least one poll in Michigan, Gore is ahead.

I think what we have is selective poll myopia. Hillary seems to do well among Democrats, at least in states where there has not been a lot of attention because they don't have early primaries. I guess the Hillary supporters are banking on 08 being a unique year where the early primaries don't influence national polls. What they are saying is something we have said for years: there is a first time for everything. Except they think the first time is an inevitable result!

Can't the Hillary folks say something OF SUBSTANCE about their candidate except this constant poll crap? Yes, with her amazing name recognition going in, whe is ahead before the real campaign begins. So friggin what? Who wouldn't be?

If Gore enters the race, she will sputter, flounder, and will be toast by Christmas. She can't even handle herself without major miscues facing a candidate she calls naive!!!! Think of what she would do when Gore enters.

I still find it really sad that Hillary cannot win in November. Maybe the Republicans will feel sorry for us and nominate someone weaker than even Ghouliani!

[Clark2008]

62. I have two words for you PRESIDENT THOMPSON

Yes, you do need the poster's vote or did you forget about the general election?

[txaslftist]

67. Well you needn't worry.

This is one Democrat who will stay home if she's on the ticket.

[Dawgs]

44. ima_sinnic, I have serious question.

I'm not looking for an argument, I'm just curious.

What differences do you see between Edwards and Obama that makes you want to vote for Edwards so much more? I personally like both (Obama more), and it's mainly because I don't see much of a difference between the two. They both have their faults, Edwards with his judgement on the Iraq vote and Obama with his position on renewable energies, but mainly they are both similar in their progressive positions. Can you try and answer this for me? I've tried to get this questioned answer before, because I've seen similar comments to yours and not received any kind of response.

[ima_sinnic]

49. I don't trust Obama that much--he seems like a tool in the making

--I just find Obama a little too conservative--but you are right, there is probably not that much difference between them.
Edwards seems a little more outspoken and not afraid to buck the system where necessary (my impression, which might be wrong). I like his emphasis on poverty alleviation.
But I'd rather have Gore, R F Kennedy Jr., or Kucinich--Edwards is simply the "least of 3 evils" to me.

[Dawgs]

54. Thanks. I appreciate your honest answer.

BTW, my dream ticket is Gore/Obama. Kucinich is a little bit too far left for me.

[dionysus]

47. so ppl that don't like hillary are rove-bots now?

my you really have run out of stuff haven't you.

[earthlover]

73. How do you run out of what you never had in the first place?

All Hillary said when she announced was she was "in it to win". Pretty pathetic, when she had national spotlight on her to announce her reason for entering the race. And that is all she could sputter.....

And since then, all I have seen is her synchophants dragging out poll after poll saying she is inevitable. In between drooling over Obama not being ready yet, not being experienced, maybe later, so back to the back of the bus.

Well, if she is so inevitable...if she is going to win anyhow....what does she have to lose by telling us why she should be elected? What are her views on the issues facing us? Well, we know she thinks nuclear weapons should be on the table and it would be naive to follow the lead of countless American presidents who talked with enemies.

She won't articulate her postitions now because she knows it is not over. And, even if it were, she won't articulate her postitions on major issues until....if she is elected....about 2-3 yeaRS AFTER her last term. Until then, we will just have to wait and see which way the political winds blow.

The more inevitable Hillary is presented, the angrier I get. How dare she lay a claim to leading this country without telling us of substance what on Earth she plans to do?

[insanad]

96. Polarizing Effect

While many of the things Hilary Clinton is so well practiced at are viable in the leadership skills necessary to be a president, she is also vehemently loathed by most Republicans, many insecure men, and lots of traditional women. The potential for the Democrats to win the presidency and other important positions is very very good, especially after years of what the Republicans have done to take the position to absolutely new lows. I think even many Republicans would vote for a good Democratic leader if given the choice between Romney, Guliani, or Edwards and Obama. Unfortunately, if the Democrats choose Hilary Clinton as their candidate, they'll in effect guarantee that Republicans will rally to vote against her, as will some Democrats and many independents. Even if she manages to win the election her personality and history will further polarize the whole Washington scene and the gridlock we've had for the last 20 years will only escalate. She is so vulnerable to whatever opinions and polls tell her to do that she'll be virtually paralyzed by trying to please everyone. In the end, she'll please no one.

I've been reading a lot about Barack Obama and even though he's young (actually he and I are the same age, so that means I'm young too!!!), a little inexperienced, and some ignorant and backward illiterates equate the rhyme of his name with Osama, I still think he has all the values, rhetoric, and history of being able to unify people on both sides of the fence. He is maturing quickly to the game of politics and shows a great deal of grace and dignity (except when he harps on about not voting for the war and continually pointing fingers at those who did). One of the most important elements in good leadership is to have the ability to inspire many people to do good and worthwhile things. Other than the bigots that would reject him because his father was black, I cannot see how anyone could negate his value as a lawmaker, a compassionate visionary, and a potentially great leader. Visit his website and read about the things he's actually participated in or enacted in his Senatorial career.

I believe that Senator Obama can unify the American people, the international climate and attitude toward Americans, the various Republican and Democratic factions, and with all that support, he can be effective as a leader. The programs he supports will benefit all of us, especially the poor. It may be the money of the wealthy that builds universities and hospitals, but much of that money is made on the backs of the millions of "Ants" that they exploit. His efforts and vision resonate with so many people that live on that edge. There's more of us (ants) than there are of them (grasshoppers) and it's time we show our revolt by voting for the one who has OUR interests at heart.

[wyldwolf]

2. Since the Hillary supporters have started no less than 5 threads citing one poll after another."

Get used to it.

1. She's the frontrunner.
2. She has supporters on DU
3. The polls are newsworthy.

[The Backlash Cometh]

31. You were proven wrong on the third.

But you were never big enough to admit it. And don't talk about "Hillary supporters" in the third person, because YOU ARE one of her biggest shills.

Hillary is not going to change the course we're on as long because she, more than any other Democratic candidate for president, has the strongest ties to neo-cons. They were ingrained in the Administration before and during her husband's term and Carville proved that the bonds are strong by writing that letter on behalf of Scooter Libby. Have the decency to show a little healthy skeptism.

[earthlover]

35. 4. It's more difficult to start a thread on something Hillary has said/done progressively

About all they have is this poll mania, and the inevitability meme.

We aren't supposed to notice that there just isn't much SUBSTANCE to their posts, or her campaign, for that matter.

[Enrique]

3. people keep repeating these old myths about Hillary

and they repeat them as if they are news, and if they are original thoughts, when in fact we have been hearing that "Hillary can't win" because she has "high unfavorables" and "too much baggage" and that she's "too divisive."

Those were all given as reasons that she "couldn't win" for Senate in 2000, by the way.

[pocoloco]

14. LOL

duh....New York.....LOL

[Dawgs]

45. "Those were all given as reasons that she "couldn't win" for Senate in 2000, by the way."

A Senate race in New York vs. the Presidential race? Are you serious?

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[Enrique]

4. I also wanted to call attention to your word "dangerous"

the anti-Hillary arguments also have a strong message of FEAR.

Let's show some spine. If people want to vote for Hillary, don't be afraid to. (of course if you don't want to vote for her, don't).

[earthlover]

74. You can say "spine" and "Hillary" in the same breath? OMG!

So when has Hillary shown "spine"? When has she taken a position that was at odds with the polls at the time?

Certainly not with IWR! Certainly not when she voted No on the Levin AMendment. Certainly not when she sucked up to Murdoch. Certainly not on the Bankruptcy bill.

So just when has Hillary shown spine?

This is such an easy soft ball for the hillary worshippers, i am embarrassed to ask.

I wonder if they can think of anything except parrotting another poll and saying Hillary is inevitable or Obama is naive?

Come on, I dare's ya'

[earthlover]

88. Two days later, no reply! What a surprise....SARC

[RaleighNCDUer]

5. Do you know what you are taking on, talking rationally about Hillary?

I've tried.

I'm gonna sit this one out.

:popcorn:

[rinsd]

6. You do realize the poll you quoted shows a downward trend for both Obama and Edwards

That is also evidenced by other polling. When your name recognition, increases your negatives go up.

"despite their relative lack of name recognition,"

Their name recognition in near or at 80%.

"with both tied with Hillary in Iowa in a recent poll and Obama leading in South Carolina:

The firm that has Obama leading in SC also has Hillary up in IA.

"In fact, Hillary's unfavorables are so high that she would endanger not only the Democrats' prospects for the 2008 election, but for Congressional and gubernatorial elections as well, owing to the extent that she would motivate turnout and campaign contributions among Republicans."

LOL. Now that Hillary's numbers have improved in GE matchups where she is winning, the new meme is she will hurt down ticket.

Its the perfect meme really as it relies on zero evidence just speculation.

"Many recent surveys have been showing that if anything, Giuliani's strongest support base is among evangelical Christians and social conservatives in general."

Strongest support base? I know Rudy leads among nearly all subgroups but strongest amongst social conservatives?

"(This is one reason why her unfavorables are at 49%, it's not just Republicans who are expressing that attitude.)"

No, she does just fine amongst Democrats. From the link in your OP

Clinton has the highest net favorable rating among Democrats at +71. Gore's net favorable rating is +56, which isn't much different from Edwards' +53. Obama's is slightly lower, at +45. Among independents, Obama and Edwards are rated the highest, with net favorable ratings of +18 and +14, respectively. Independents are divided in their view of Gore (+3), and are more negative than positive in their views of Clinton (-9). All four Democrats receive net negative ratings from Republicans, with Clinton rated the worst.

"Many Democrats reason that we control both houses of Congress, and that the country would almost certainly be very sick and tired of corrupt Republican rule by 2012, so they would be willing to wait things out-- stay home in November of 2008, vote for a 3rd Party candidate, in some cases even cross the aisle-- in return for the prospect of a non-DLC progressive representing out party in 2012."

So Democrats are going to vote Republican so they can vote for a non DLC candidate in 2012? Is that what you actually said?

[saracat]

18. You do realize that if every friggen Den votes, and they won't,

they never do, that is not even close to electing Hillary? And that is if they all vote for her? The same can be said for ANY candidate but the point is the GOP and the Indies don't really like Hillary and she alone could galvanize a huge GOP turnout to vote against her.All the other leading candidates are preferable in the general election because they are NOT Hillary. I am very concerned about Hillary being able to win the General.You cannot count on the Democratic vote to win the General.

[Laurab]

64. Exactly

And they can post as many posts as they want about Hillary having the highest numbers with potential democratic voters - it doesn't MATTER. She will get the repuke voters out like no one else in the world. She is their dream candidate. And, while I'd vote for her if she was the nominee, people less politically inclined aren't going to rush to the polls to vote for her.

Her unfavorables are far more important, IMO than her rating with potential Dem voters, and it's fact that she is widely disliked - I keep saying the repukes feel about her EXACTLY the way we feel about *, although she doesn't deserve it, it IS fact.

I've noticed that her supporters don't refute the OP, they post her ratings among dems. The ones that won't matter in the general. It will take "every friggin Dem" and then some, and I just don't see it happening. I think Obama has tremendous crossover potential, and maybe the ability to get the youth vote out. Edwards is likeable, and doesn't have the negatives. Either one of them would probably win the general, but if Hillary wins the primary, it will be very, very difficult to overcome.

[Perry Logan]

7. Misogyny alone accounts for Hillary's "unfavorables"

[Inuca]

16. Really?

Like in all these polls that show a high dislike of her among educated professional women? I fall in that category, and I do dislike her. A rather small and insignificant sample of one, I know, but still. My reasons are quite similar to the ones discussed in the OP. On a more personal note, I deeply resent "breaking the glass ceiling" because of who your husband is. She does have many personal qualities, highly intelligent, etc., etc., etc., but if anyone (herself included) thinks that she would be in the position she is now in if she were not Bill's wife, they are deluding themselves.

[saracat]

19. Me too!

[corkhead]

34. for me it is the simple matter that we have at least 5 better candidates to choose from

America doesn't need Republicon-lite right now. When it's all said and done, don't think the voters will stand for it. Ultimately, we will get a someone who better represents true Democratic values as our nominee.

I have nothing against her personally, I just think she is the closest thing to a Republicon we could nominate. I sure would like to engage in an intelligent discussion about the candidates on their merits, but all I see are attacks of anyone who posts negative HRC material. They never seem to be able to defend their positions, they just counter attack, just like Republicons.

[ashlarah]

26. I am not misogynist.

I am happy to be a woman. I trust and understand women. Ten years ago, I would have voted for virtually any woman running for president simply because I thought almost any woman would do better than the men who had been controlling the world for so long.

I don't particularly like Hillary, but that would not stop me from voting for her if I thought she would be the one to get universal health care enacted, fight global warming and restore our international standing. This election is too important to get it wrong.

I don't see her as a leader for this time. Right now, we need someone ready to speak his or her mind. Someone with the intelligence and charisma to persuade others to make plans work. John Edwards is way out front on this. He is fighting the hardest on issues that disproportionately affect women - poverty, education and universal health care. He will go into office with a mandate on the plans he so passionately advocates every day (though, if you rely on MCM, you may not know this).

If Hillary is the Democratic nominee, we are more likely to lose not only the White House, but Democratic office holders all the way down to state legislatures. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070812/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_scared_democrats

Let's not pretend Hillary is something she isn't just because we want to see a woman in the White House.

[arikara]

27. No. That's not true

I would love for a woman to take over, but NOT that one. If she gets in I can see her out-thatchering Thatcher to prove herself tougher than the good ol'boys. IMHO Hillary now is nothing more than a warmongering corporate hack.

And I used to think the world of her when she was first lady trying to bring in her health care plan and everyone was against her. But she's chucked it all for the easy way for whatever reason.

[Inuca]

50. "for whatever reason" Ambition?

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

30. No, it doesn't, not by a longshot

They've occasionally broken down the favorables/unfavorables by e.g. gender and location, and the unfavorable rating toward Hillary among women is only modestly lower than that among men. In fact, at least among Democrats who rate her unfavorably and speaking anecdotally, I've found the most critical comments of Hillary to be coming from Democratic women even more than men. This is probably related to the fact that women resent Hillary even more than men for this wasteful Iraq War blunder.

[earthlover]

36. I think many women resent her because she didn't boot out a louse of a husband because he had power

And of course she did too. Meanwhile she was not standing up for the rest of her family. Choosing the easy way to cling to power instead of facing down a cheating spouse and standing up for her daughter is what is turning off a lot of women to Hillary. Of course, there is the IWR too, and the BK bill, and the parade of republican ideas she supported. Don't think this won't be an issue if she is the nominee. Maybe it is sexist, because certainly men have chosen power over family too, but it is what it is....

[Clark2008]

63. Bingo.

The nail has met the head.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

69. Who are you to say...

she didn't stand up for "the rest of her family," or she didn't face down Bill, or stand up for Chelsea? What ridiculous statements. Were you privy to what went on behind closed doors as the family tried to work through the Monica ordeal? I'm no fan of Hillary because of her voting record, but I'm not going to sit in judgment of the way she handled a very public humiliation. Some spouses kick "the cheater" to the curb; others work through it and stay together. It's not one-size-fits-all. She kept her family together -- for whatever the reasons (power and perhaps true love of "the louse" included). And God bless her -- it drives the wingnuts crazy that they're still married. As far as Chelsea, she seems to be a hard-working, decent young woman, so Hillary has obviously done some "standing up" for her over the years.

[earthlover]

78. She didn't divorce him....did she?

And I think many American women know why in their guts. She didn't want to jeapardize her power, perhaps. Or maybe she was just as enabling of Bill as she was in voting for the IWR.

Fact is, many women saw her as having a chance to stand up for herself and for Chelesea, or going along and standing by her man.

Bill Clinton was a great president. He did well at his job. But a lot of husbands are great people at work and do well at their job, and they treat their wives and children poorly, and make terrible husbands and fathers.

Faced with someone like that, many women kick the bum out of the family. Others don't and wish they had. I think Hillary is going to be judged more with relation in this regard to Chelsea than many are aware of. It is a gut feeling. Many women know in their hearts that louts of husbands should not be given slack just because they are good at their job.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

85. Following your logic ... divorce is the only option after infidelity?

I'd love to see what would happen to the divorce rate in this country if every married couple that experienced infidelity would get divorced.

As I said above, there is no one-size-fits-all approach with adultery. Some stay together and regret it; some stay together, work past it, and have successful marriages. The reverse is also true for those who split.

Perhaps the women who are judging the harshest are the ones who didn't kick their cheatin' husbands out, regret it, and have some weird projection thing going on with Hillary. Yes, Bill cheated, and I said this then as I'm saying it now: it was between him, his wife, his daughter to some degree, and his God. There are no indications that he made a terrible father, so why not try to keep a family together?

And besides, isn't Hillary polling well with Democratic women? I don't think she's polling as well with Independents, but it seems more to do with polarization worries rather than "standing by her man."

[earthlover]

86. My point is how many women would view Hillary....

You make good points, but I wasn't arguing one way or other on the issue of what a woman or man should do when they find out their spouse is a philandering louse of a spouse.

Many believe that Hillary kept with that lying sob of a husband because she couldn't leave him because of "convenience". There are a lot of people who see this as a cop out among the feminine gender.

Well, it doesn't make any difference. In addition to all the other things Hillary did as a matter "of convenience"....we have a full-fledged meme here.

If she is nominated, they will paint her as Super Flip Flopper (she has flopped more than Kerry flipped) and this will just be reinforced by portraying Hillary as a wimp and "marriage for convenience" with regard to her lout.

Is it nice? No. Will that stop the Reps? You know the answer. Will it have an impact, reinforcing the Hillary will go along with anything meme....well, we won't want to think it will, but....heck....there are a lot of folks, male and female, who wonder why she didn't either deck him, cut off his male anatomy, or leave him to his sorry pathetic role model of a father/husband for Chelsea.

Just one of the smaller things to expect to fight against if Hillary gets the nod.

So how are you womens rights advocates going to answer when someone asks you why Hillary was not an advocate of her own rights or her daughters?

[WorseBeforeBetter]

91. If she gets the nomination...

they'll attempt to destroy her in such a manner that what they did to Gore and Kerry will seem like child's play.

I'm still not following your reasoning about her not being "an advocate of her own rights or her daughters." What should she have done to satisfy you and the others who are supposedly still upset that she didn't give him the ol' heave-ho? (Perhaps she did deck him -- how are we to know?) Too much criticism of Hillary on this issue would likely backfire and end up garnering sympathy for her. Besides, I think most Americans believe this dead horse to have been beaten enough -- the Clintons weathered the affair and the country has moved on. But for, evidently, a select few who think she should have Bobbitized him.

And as far as Chelsea, she seems to be a smart enough young woman to understand that although her father rose from a humble background to become Leader of the Free World (I'd say that's a pretty good role model...no?), he's also human, and humans make mistakes. And humans forgive.

[slackmaster]

52. Reverse misogyny is not a good basis for selecting a Presidential candidate

:nuke:

[earthlover]

75. Bullshit! No more than racism explains Obama's. That sexism card is lame.

Of course, it is also sexist to give Hillary credit for her spouse....but that is a bit of sexism that is ok I guess?

Anyhow, it seems to me that if you think Hillary is a woman and should be judged by her own substance....well, I am curious as to just what her substance is, since none of the Hillary backers wants to talk about that...all they want to talk about is polls, and Obama being inexperienced, etc. So, why is it that Hillary deserves to be inevitable? I am tired as hell of her campaign. The only thing I see as inevitable is a Republican victory in 08 if she is nominated. Why? Because she talks out of both sides of her mouth, and you supporters can't even decide which side of her mouth you are going to defend her on. So all you have left is polls.

[beastieboy]

8. I'll take those "dangerous" unfavorables over the other candidates any day

Those numbers will drop, doesn't concern me in the least. 25% of those are people who are looking to back another dem candidate but will support her if she is the nominee. Besides, she will shred the opponent in the GE no matter who it is.

[earthlover]

79. they may drop...but they haven't in years....they also could raise.....

[theoldman]

9. Who gives a shit about her unfavorables.

The important thing is to vote for her if she becomes the Democrat's candidate. If you don't vote for her a Republican will win. Call her the lessor of two evils if you want. Would you rather vote for the most evil like people did in the last election?

[flpoljunkie]

10. Vote for Hillary or else a Republican will win! What a strategy for winning in '08!

:sarcasm:

[dmallind]

12. Strategy? No. Reality? possibly.

I'm sure all of the people who are planning to vote for Hillary in the primaries - which every survey shows to be a plurality at this early stage - are doing so because they think, for some reason or another, with whatever merit from your point of view that has, that she is the best candidate. The only strategy she has at this point is making sure more people think that way.

If that strategy works though, then your sarcasm will be far from it - it will be a stark choice and a very real and very important bit of realpolitik.

I have no plans to vote for HRC in the primary unless Bill R drops out, and Edwards implodes, and she wins the mental toss up I have in my mind between her and Obama for 3rd. Not too likely then. Admittedly in a late primary 5 EV state that means essentially diddly squat, as I will have little impact either way.

But in the general should she win the nod? Money, time, volunteering - she can have whatever I can spare.

[flpoljunkie]

39. Only it doesn't work that way in real life. If Hillary Clinton is our nominee, the R's will crawl

over broken glass to vote against her--no matter who's their nominee--and yes, some Democrats will stay home, or pehaps, vote the Unity '08 ticket, depending on whose on it, as they cannot bear the thought of another eight divisive years of the Clintons.

Let's hope it doesn't come to that.

[dmallind]

61. And give Scaife and the Swiftboaters a reason to aim at Obama

or Edwards, or Kucinich, or whoever, and they will whip up that same frenzy against them. RW true believer voter turnout is a given. We could nominate Jesus Christ and they'd turn out a non-stop smearfest that would have every knickle dragger and repressed fundy slavering at the bit to vote against him. The only reason it looks like Hillary does this more so NOW is because she's already been the target of such a concentrated attack and they haven't.

A reminder - I would prefer at least two and possibly three nominees before Hillary, but the reason she is that high is because she will fight and can win. The Hillary is unelectable meme has little credibility in the general population.

[earthlover]

80. The important thing is to vote against her in the primaries

...So we won't have to vote for her in November and stay up until maybe 7:00 PM to find out she lost on Election Day.

[dmallind]

11. Name recognition is a two edged sword

The refrain that Hillary is leading amongst Dems because of name recognition alone never seems to acknowledge the obvious corollary - that her unfavorables are high for the same reason.

Few people haven't made up their minds already about Hillary. For the Republicans and the left-most parts of the Dem party that means they don't like her.

Whereas Edwards and Obama, while they have strong name recognition, have less so then Hillary, and have far more ambivalence to deal with.

This supposedly huge difference in unfavorability is only troublesome if A) you assume it will not change and that at least some of the left Dems and moderate independents won't hold their nose and vote for what they see as the lesser of two evils (only the blindest of cuckooland dwellers can say that Hillary would be worse than say, Huckabee or even Romney) and more germane to this discussion B) that less informed voters won't break along very similar lines once they get to know more about Obama or Edwards especially after the RW smear machine is through with attacking them nonstop for 1.5 yrs - like they have done to Hillary for 15.

Her unfav ratings are only likely to go down. Obama's and Edwards' are definitely going to go up.

[earthlover]

37. The unfavorables are also likely to go UP!

We would be foolish to assume that because Hillary has high unfavorables already they can't get any worse. They can. When the Reps turn up their campaign against her supported by a lap-dog media.

To me, perhaps a foot race would be an analogy.....which would yu support, someone running the mile who starts out a quarter mile behind the starting line, or the one who starts at the starting line?

With the accumulated negatives, Hillary starts the general election like a swimmer in a race tied to an anchor. Can she win anyway? Well, maybe. But 08 is a race that should see us make gains in Congress. With Hillary at the helm, we will be lucky to make any gains at all. We would be lucky to squeak by to the finish line with any lead at all.

Wouldn't we want someone with a chance to win decisively? Hillary can't.

[dmallind]

59. Maybe I didn't explain enough.

Will Hillary's Unfav's go to 35%? Not a chance.

Will they go down? Yes - because she has been the center of a non stop smear machine for 15 years and has tens of millions of unspent dollars to improve her national image.

I've consistently said no Dem nominee will end up below 40%, but Hillary's have no room to go up - she has almost no "no opinions" to convert (unlike Edwards and Obama let alone Kucininch etc). So for her unfav's to go up you have to posit someone who has a favorable opinion NOW, after 15 years of non-stop hate radio and blast fax smearing, but who will like her LESS after Hillary has spent that huge campaign war chest blanketting the airwaves with image ads.

Compared to that, it's much more likely, and in fact inevitable, that some of the no-opinions will break to the unfav side for the other candidates, especially when and if they become target number 1 for the Scaifes and Swiftboaters like she has been.

[earthlover]

81. You sure are optimistic...but they CAN go up....the Rep hate machine has been silent now....

it will crank up to fever pitch if she gets nominated. If she actually wins, which is unlikely, she will preside over a divided nation and she will have no coat-tails for congress.

[snowbear]

84. One of the pundits on CNN called the R's "eerily quiet and quitely hoping"

As far as having HRC win the Democratic nod.

They want to keep it as mum as possible >> (for now)

It's still 5 months out - and while I think Obama has the mojo still, I think Edwards will wind up with the nomination in the end.

[Dawgs]

46. "Her unfav ratings are only likely to go down. Obama's and Edwards' are definitely going to go up."

Why, because you like her or because you say so?

[dmallind]

57. Not particularly and no in that order

But they won't go up because you don't like her.

On the other hand it is inconceivable that ANY Dem candidate would rmain below 40% unfavorable after the attack points in their direction consistently. That's why Edwards and Obama will go up if they become the nominee - or even as the primary campaign gets nastier.

Why will Hillary's go down? Because she's been the victim of that attack machine for 15 years straight, has a huge war chest she hasn't even spent a fraction of on image ads yet, and has proven she's willing to fight back.

But hey if you want to bet on it just drop me a PM. My money will go where my mouth is. Will yours?

[earthlover]

87. Her negatives could go down or they could go up....

To deny this fact about ANY candidate is to live in a denial fantasy world.

You seem to be saying that because her negatives are already high, they can only go down. That is fallacious. And it doesn't make sense. How could it possibly be that ANY candidate couldn't get higher negatives?

Anyhow, it is hardly convincing to nominate a candidate with the worst negatives on the basis that it is so bad it can't get any worse....:-(

[OHdem10]

13. Chuck Todd gave some very interesting analysis

On Guilliani's ability to take and stay in the lead on
GOP side.

He says it appears that as Hilary goes up or keeps a
strong lead--so does Guilliani. He thinks that the
Cultural Conservatives see Hilary ascending---get
busy and push Rudy. It is beginning to appear that
rank and file GOP are seeing Rudy as the one who can
beat HRC.

What an irony. HRC is helping Rudy. If the analysis
is accurate.

[Robson]

15. Could they both be NYC big money whores?

I see big common denominators with both Hillary and Rudy....and frankly I lack a certain degree of respect for both.

[Inuca]

17. It does seem to have some kind of perverse logic.

[earthlover]

89. If Rudy were able to win New York...them there's a lot of electoral votes flipped

That might be his appeal with Republicans.

I am not saying he is their strongest candidate, but losing NY would be pretty grim.

[The River]

20. She IS The Perfect Cover Story

for the theft of the 08 election.
Think about it. To steal an election
in broad daylight it helps to have a cover story.
A reason, so reasonable, that no one will question it.
When rudymittfred wins, the talking heads will say:
"Well Tweety, in the privacy of the voting booth
it seems that large percentage of American men decided that they
just couldn't vote for a woman. It seems a large
segment of male voters, who said they would vote for her
were really lying in hopes of getting lucky with the cute
poll worker. Back to you Mr. Potato Head"
"Well there you have it America...Joe Sixpack rejected
Hillary because she reminded them too much of their 2nd ex-wife"

There will be plenty of misogynistic male voters to interview.
They will spout every bad RW talking point about how women can't
be trusted to wage war on the terra-ists. This and much more will
be the "proof" the MSM will sell to the country.

[karynnj]

55. In fairness, they can make up a cover story for anyone

or they will again speak of the "shy" Republican voters. I have had even Democrats repeat the "shy Republican" argument that was given by the exit poll statisticians to explain the large discrpancy with the "actual" result. They defended the study design and the back end analysis, so as long as they considered the official result to be the actual or real result, the only thing left to blame was how the poll was implemented - thus the "shy" Bush voter. No one questioned why these people suddenly became shy, when they were voting for the established canidate who was supported by many of their churches and the media. In fact, given the church aspect, I could have bought a "shy" Kerry voter argument if the descrepancy was reversed.

Before 2004, the phenomenon of people voting in a manner different than they said they did was blamed on people voting based on a deep rooted predjudice that they had but which they filtered in public because they knew it was wrong. One name for it was the "Bradley effect" after the Los Angeles major Ed Bradley, who was African American. This is also captured in some studies by the descrepancy between the answers to - would you be willing to vote for a (black, woman) and Do you think most of your friends would be willing to vote for a black, woman).

For 2008, an election loss could be explained by this for all of them - the reason is obvious in the case of Clinton and Obama, for Edwards, it could be Elizabeth's illness. Not to mention, if they didn't have these - they would make something up.

As to the numbers at this point, I wonder how much game playing there is in them. How many of the people polled, who have a primary preference, label his/her opponents "unfavorable - even if they simply prefer the others? (A way that Gallup could get insight into how significant this is would be to play with the favorable/unfavorable variable and the Dem vs Rep match-ups. I would love to see some analyst look at this - especially for those people who identify themselves as independent. )

[Skip Intro]

21. oy vey

:eyes:

[illinoisprogressive]

22. I agree and I like your screen name. First, on unfavorables.ect.

I tend to agree with your friends. I will not vote for Hillary at all and would stay home and wait for an acceptable progressive candidate. To have a DLC higher up as head would be a disaster.
As for your name, I am a big blues nut. Muddy I am especially a fan of as well as ....

[mistertrickster]

23. Hillary is the only Dem who can lose in '08.

The right wing absolutely detests her. She'll bring out voters . . . to vote AGAINST her. She can't carry a single Southern state. And she's not winning believers among her base with her "I'll stand for whatever you want me to stand for" equivocation on everything.

She attacked Obama for saying he'd take out Bin Laden and her response to how she'd respond to actionable intel was . . . "I'm not saying."

Nice.

[snowbear]

24. Unfortunately.. you are 100% right...

And yet the DU'ers that support the DLC candidate get incredibly upset when their fello' DU'ers simply point out her HIGH negatives, low likability ratings, and dismal support of Independents.


WHY !?!? --- We're not making this shit up!

[SaveElmer]

56. Ridiculous...nt

[RiverStone]

25. The party elite is determined to set the table for Hillary -that arrogance will trash our chances!

Muddy you said:

In fact, Hillary's unfavorables are so high that she would endanger not only the Democrats' prospects for the 2008 election, but for Congressional and gubernatorial elections as well, owing to the extent that she would motivate turnout and campaign contributions among Republicans.

YES! Then how can so many DEMS (if you believe the MSM) support Hillary? I simply can't fathom their love affair with her. My only rational explaination is they totally dig Bill and see it as Bill returns to the White House.

I'm baffled at the lack of concern by party leaders..:shrug:

[snowbear]

28. Here's one thing to consider...

"(if you believe the MSM)"

If you look at this forum, you'll find far more HRC supporters than just about any other leftie forum, website, blog, message board, you name it.. out there. (Aside from HRC supporter sites)

She has garnered quite the following at DU --- although it still falls shy of Edwards on here; and I'm really not sure how it compares to Obama?

Also, we have no idea how many of these newbies are who are actually sincere in their postings or what their ulterior motives may be.

BUT the thing to keep in mind is the actual voting that has taken place at numerous large Democratic events.

To date, HRC hasn't won of them yet and never matches up to the MSM polling ---- EVER.

That tells you right there that when it comes to actual DEMOCRATS, they are not on the same page with the so-called MSM polls.

(God only know who's really responding to those MSM polls... )

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.0
==================



This week is our third quarter 2007 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend on donations
from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for your support.

[HamdenRice]

41. highest unfavorables, least progressive -- well said! K&R nt

[cobalt1999]

42. How come "electable" is only an valid point when talking about Hillary

If you start a thread talking about how Kucinich is unelectable and how people negatively view him, everyone jumps up and says it's irrelevant and that's how you lose elections.

Seems like the only candidate the "electable" argument is permitted is for Hillary. Strange group here sometimes.

[Laurab]

72. It is sort of strange, isn't it?

But Kucinich and electability is sort of a silly argument. I don't even bother with those threads. Most people who aren't involved much in politics don't even know who he is - I know no one in my large, dem-voting family knows who he is except me and possibly one brother who's pretty involved in politics. He's not, at this time, in danger of winning the primary, and unless things change a LOT, he's not going to be.

Hillary, on the other hand, is in the seemingly pre-selected top three, and there is a possibility she'll win the primary. To me, it's a scary prospect, because I don't think there's any way she'll win a general election.

I have nothing against Kucinich, I like him, but unless his poll numbers and name recognition get a lot better, there's no danger of him winning the primary. I really don't have much against Hillary, either, and she'd probably make an ok president, but she'd have to win the general, and I don't think she can. The fact that she's being shoved down our throats by a lot of repuke supporters, and the fact that the dems HAVE to win the next election, make her negatives and unelectability a viable conversation. A really important one.

If Kucinich's poll numbers ever get to her level, the electability argument would make sense, but right now, it makes no sense to me.

[earthlover]

82. Because Hillary is the only candidate who could lose in 08

Kucinich could win. Ears and all. Hillary, not so likely. Obama and Edwards could win. Biden could win. Richardson could win. Dodd even could win. Hillary is tied with Gravel in the can't win category, with an edge going to Hillary.

[Mutineer]

48. This is why HRC cannot win a general election

and we'll nominate yet another candidate who cannot win. I honestly believe this board has been flooded with people on her payroll to pimp for her.

[never cry wolf]

68. I agree with you, though I am not sure it will be dems behind her nomination

I don't think that rove's work is done, I think it's just beginning. It's a long way to the primaries yet. I think he's leaving the WH so he can orchestrate the dirty tricks to ensure Hillary is the nominee, to pull a Muskie on the others. The pukes have been messing with Dem primary candidates on all levels for well over 3 decades. Muskie, Cynthia McKinney, I believe even Kerry, Howard would have been much more formidable.

I have nothing against Hillary, but she will get ZERO crossover votes, fewer indy votes than the rest and even some dems will defect. Her disapproval ratings are the highest amongst our candidates. Now she is smart and capable and I think would be a fine Pres, but after 15 years of being demonized by the RW hate machine (wrongly, IMHO) she would not stand a chance. Just think about Vince Foster, the WH travel office, the FBI files and all the other BS that will all resurface on RW radio and whisper campaigns. She comes pre-swiftboated. In addition, there are many that just would not want to go through another 4 or 8 years of hate and polarization and will either sit it out, vote 3rd party or vote for the puke.

Yes, she can defend herself but if half the people aren't listening it won't do any good. The pukes would get a huge volunteer force for GOTV and for anything else they can do.

As for Murdoch, beware the Trojan Horse. After the primaries he won't be holding any fundraisers for any dems.

[Vinnie From Indy]

53. You think her unfavorables are high now?

Wait till the GOP hate machine revs up a sustained, focused attack.

I will admit that I am not happy that Hillary seems to be pre-ordained as the Dem nominee. It seems only Al Gore would be capable of making this a real race.

[Nimrod2005]

60. OMG, I am jumping ship I think....? Obama is looking gooder everyday

[Exultant Democracy]

65. Even if she wasn't as unfavorable, the policy of triangulation spells

out electoral disaster for the Democrats. Been there, done that, never want to do it again.

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

94. Definitely, the same old act won't fool the voters again

The lame attempt at triangulation is so transparent here, it only serves to remind us of how disastrously her triangulation attempts wind up. Hillary's Iraq War support is probably the cardinal example of this.

[losthills]

66. Nominating Hilary hands the presidency to the pugs,

and it's time to face that...

[williesgirl]

71. I've said this many times here, although without your backup, and get flamed each time.

I'm a professional woman, 61, out on disability leave at present, but have worked since college in responsible management positions. I was out front on the women's movement, very active, and having a female presidential candidate has always been my dream. I can't tell you my disappointment in this particular female candidate.

I believe she's simply riding on her husband's coattails, which for any other position would be fine with me. But not for President, especially after our 8 yr nightmare. She's simply too divisive, and we've had enough of that. I don't like her views on the war, she's far too in bed with corporate interests, and I think she'll promise whatever it takes to win to whomever has the money she needs to get there. I think she'd be too quick to invade Iran, perhaps subconsciously to prove she can handle that type action.

Other posters' reference to Lieberman rang true with me. I personally like Edwards, but could live with Obama. Actually, Kuchinich is real close to my own thoughts, but here again, I don't think enough of Americans will take a chance with him.

I believe we'll lose in 08 with Sen Clinton. Plus, it'll cost us potential seats in the Senate and House, and we could lose some we have because of her. Most Repukes will kill themselves to make sure she's not elected. From what I can see so far, too many Dems are luke warm at best to offset the pure hatred she instills in many Repukes and some Indies.

Enough said - flame away. It goes without saying I'll work hard and vote for whomever the Dem candidate eventualy is. If it's Senator Clinton, I'll have to hold my nose and quiet my fears to do it.

[Laurab]

76. You said that very well

and I think you're totally right. I personally like Obama, but could live with Edwards. More than anything, I would like a candidate who can WIN. I think so many people underestimate how much the repukes hate her, and that's really dangerous. They won't need a GOTV effort if Hillary wins the primary.

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

95. Couldn't have said it better

So many well-stated comments in this thread: "I believe we'll lose in 08 with Sen Clinton. Plus, it'll cost us potential seats in the Senate and House, and we could lose some we have because of her. Most Repukes will kill themselves to make sure she's not elected."

Again, I just could not have said that better. From a strategic perspective, this is another reason to move away from Hillary-- she not only just about clinches a Republican victory in the Presidential election, but endangers a number of must-win seats in Congress for us. She would be such a powerful stimulus for increasing Republican voter turnout, she'd seriously imperil a number of Democratic Congressional candidates. Remember, November 2008 involves an election for numerous offices!

[Sparkly]

77. However, she has a higher response -- showing the others are less well-known

96% responded to the question about her; 82% for Obama and Edwards. (87% Giuliani, 51% Thompson.) I think it's fair to factor that in.

I think these things are somewhat flexible this far out.

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

83. You're right, she has much higher name recognition, but that's also

one of my main concerns. Her name is highly recognized to Democrats and Republicans as well as Independents, and it's disturbing to have an unfavorable rating this high, this early-- well before the GOP attack machine has even been revved up! And there shouldn't be any doubt that they're preparing themselves to devour Hillary Clinton from head to toe-- the GOP has been storing up attack material on Hillary for 15 years now, and they'd jump at a chance to utilize it.

[earthlover]

90. You are so right

OF course, no matter who we nominate, the Reps will go to their slime machine.

Hillary apologists tend to bring up this point.

However, when they do it, it smacks of rationalization and denial.

We have to soberly assess what is going to happen. The Reps ARE going to use the slime.

So the question is who is going to be their easiest target? And who is going to be better able to withstand it?

Hillary comes prepackaged with numerous memes. All the Reps have to do is REMIND the voters of them. And they will do a LOT more than remind! They will be believable this time because they already to a large extent are believed.

With the other candidates, they have a better chance of fighting back making it look like the Reps are just using desperation tactics. Each will have weaknesses. Obama and Edwards both have memes that could be exploited.

But with Hillary, the problem is that the memes are already planted. So they will be believable by more people. She won't have a chance to get her message out. What's more, she is going to be associated with the "old guard" when people are looking for something of a fresh start.
Normally the party of the incumbent can't hope to be seen as the fresh face on the block, but with hillary, they could actually pull this off.
You know that the Rep is going to distance himself from Bush regardless. Then they will talk about a fresh start....

I don't see how Hillary would not be the worst possible candidate in terms of electability. The Reps would have a field day.

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

93. Yeah, that's one of the best summaries I've seen

Especially this passage: "Hillary comes prepackaged with numerous memes. All the Reps have to do is REMIND the voters of them. And they will do a LOT more than remind! They will be believable this time because they already to a large extent are believed."

Precisely. This is a crucial detail that often gets unnoticed, but it constitutes a further advantage for the GOP if the Democratic Party nominates Hillary-- they don't have to even do much work to tar and slime our nominee, those ugly memes and the dislike are already out there to mobilize! In a practical sense, this means that the GOP would have to do much less work, and spend much less money in the attack campaign, to be much more effective in turning off the public to our candidate. Hillary, in a sense, is a pre-packaged target for them.

In contrast, both Edwards and Obama are much tougher targets. The public doesn't have a negative image formulated for them yet, and both have a more populist, folksy (for Edwards) and charismatic (for Obama) connection with their audiences. This is why the Republicans fear Obama and Edwards, because it would be much more difficult for them to effectively attack these candidates. Their loss, and our enormous gain.

[Douglas Carpenter]

92. I will make one ABSOLUTE SOLID prediction if Hillary is nominated and if she loses

I'm not saying this is desirable. If she is nominated I will do my duty

and support her.

I'm not saying she will lose if nominated. I suspect her chances in

in the general election are about 50/50 if nominated.

But if Sen. Clinton is nominated and she loses the general election. For

the next 30 plus years we will be hearing that Sen. Clinton lost because

she was tooooooooo liberal and her nomination was just another example of

the left hijacking the party.

As ludicrous as this sounds MARK MY WORD, if Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton

is nominated and if she loses the general election this is EXACTLY what

will happen. And the PROS will hold it as standard wisdom.

.

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

97. More bad news here, unfavorability even among Dems...

Was discussing the '08 candidates with some old friends over the weekend. What struck me is that, if Obama or Edwards is nominated, almost everyone in the group will at least consider voting for that candidate, with most supporting outright. In contrast, were Hillary to be nominated, 20% are so angry about Hillary's Iraq War support and corporatism that they won't for her at all. They'll still try to cast votes for Democratic Congressional and statewide candidates, but they would, for example, support a Third Party candidate for the White House. I've been hearing this sort of thing from quite a few corners, and in most cases, it's not even necessarily the Netroots who have such a negative impression of her.

It's not just among Republicans and Independents that Hillary's unfavorable ratings are so sky-high. Even a disturbing percentage of Democrats are furious at her and many of her policies.