I think anyone citing HRC's 'high negatives' as a reason not to support her needs to be very careful

[Stinky The Clown]

There are many other reasons cited elsewhere to support or not support Hillary Clinton. This thread is not about them. This thread is about one narrow point, a point based on zero research and just my own personal opinion and a bit of logic.

Hillary Clinton has been a pretty much known quantity for a very long time.

She and her husband (and even her daughter) were the targets of relentless right wing spew. For years ... now approaching two decades.

She evokes very hardened responses from people - both for and against. She's not one to evoke neutral, wait and see reactions.

All of the other candidates are far less well known than her. That's not to say they're unknowns. That's not to say their opinions and views are unknown. It **is** to say that people are willing to give them the benefit of the doubt - or to admit they don't know enough to form a solid opinion of them - and so they are far less likely to hold a strong opinion of them.

The net result of all this is that Mrs Clinton, while she apparently has high negatives, is likely to see little or no changes in them. There are simply no more surprises regarding Hillary Clinton.

I suspect that a well run campaign and a good PR effort (one that, for example, keeps Howard Wolfson in his cave) will do no worse than keep her right where she is, but certainly has the possibility to increase her favorables. I don't think anything can increase her negatives.

She is the only candidate for whom this seems to be true. If we find that one of the candidates was into goats or another of them has a love child from a drug-fogged college dorm tryst, there could be significant impact to them.

Again, my whole point here - and it is a very narrow one - is that HRC's negatives are pretty much meaningless, particularly when used to assess her chances against the other Democrats.

For those of you who see this as some stealth support of Mrs Clinton, you need only go here to see how the Clinton supporters swarmed on my polka dotted clown ass just a few days ago: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3454617

Believe me when I say .... I have no favorite and simply enjoy the Inside Baseball discussion.

[wildhorses]

1. question --

who was the first person to declare their candidacy?

[Stinky The Clown]

2. Ha ..... ya know what?

That question stopped me cold.

I **really** don't know the answer to that.

But more to the point. How does that matter?

[still_one]

6. I believe it was Biden, wasn't it? /nt

[Stinky The Clown]

16. I think you're right

I still don't know what the answer has to do with my OP, however.

[still_one]

47. I agree, good trivia question though /nt

[draft_mario_cuomo]

20. Gravel and Vilsack was second I believe nt

[wildhorses]

39. biden, gravel and vilsack all announced before clinton?

just trying to get the time line straight...

[EndElectoral]

3. Anyone's negatives can get worse with the wrong move....HRC will do one thing. Engage the GOP base.

[SaveElmer]

4. Many do not know Hillary Clinton...they know the caricature of her...

As portrayed in the media, among right wingers, and sad to say among some on the left...

The point you make about her unfavorables dropping as the compaign progresses is something some of us argued would happen some months ago as she reintroduced herself to people, and they see she is not was was portrayed...and we are seeing evidence of this...her negative rating according to CBS has dropped from 46 to 39%...and she is showing strength in many key states, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Florida...

A good case study of how people view her can be seen in the way people react in the two states where she has held a position of prominence...Arkansas and New York...in both states she is running 20 pts and more ahead of the Republican candidates. So in states that know her the best, and have had a chance to evaluate her effectiveness, she is wildly popular. And there is evidence that in Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania and other states that as people are getting to know her, seeing her perform in the debates etc, that they are reevaluating their earlier opinion of her...an opinion based on the rantings of those opposed to her...my guess is, assuming she is the nominee, after the Dem convention her neg rating will be about 35%, a perfectly respectable number, and more than adequate to get her elected...

[still_one]

8. and that is why it puts US at a disadvantage if she is the nominee

I have very little doubt that she will be our nominee, but she had better stand up to the heat when they throw Lewinsky, whitewater, frank rich, and all the other garbage at her, whether it is pertinent or not

If she is passive as kerry was during the swift-boating we are toast

[Stinky The Clown]

11. One thing you ahve to say about her ... like her or not .... is that she's anything but passive.

She's been fighting those tired old wars for years .... and pretty much has won them.

[still_one]

45. I hope you are right, and I am pretty sure we will find out in 2008 /nt

[emilyg]

12. All this has been thrown at her

Sen. Clinton will not be passive.

[SaveElmer]

18. Ask yourself this...

How did a woman who for 16 years has been accused by the right wing sleaze machine of everything from adultery to murder, from lesbianism to extortion, from perjury to embezzlement...get where she is today...a highly successful Senator and front running Presidential nominee? It is certainly not by being passive in the face of attack...in fact it is the opposite. Purely from a standpoint of experience dealing successfully with the media and right wing sleaze machine...Hillary Clinton is far, far ahead of the others....

Her being passive in the face of attack is so remote I cannot even conceive of what that would look like...

note: I am not implying Lesbianism is a bad thing, it is simply something she has been accused of by the right wingers in an attempt to smear her...

[still_one]

46. You have a point, however we are NOT talking about the WHOLE country

This was the country that voted for bush twice...

Don't get me wrong, if she is the nominee, which she probably will be, I will support her

[Stinky The Clown]

10. I think you meant her 'unfavorables' not her 'favorables' ...... in the first few words of the ...

..... first sentence of your second paragraph. I think you meant to type "her UNfavorables dropping' ..... yes?

[SaveElmer]

21. Thanks...yep...I fixed it!

[still_one]

5. I agree with your premise, but do believe that the perceived negatives will hurt her

Face it, they will be bringing up Lewinsky, the Rose Law Firm, White Water all over again

It won't mater that there was no wrong doing with white water, that is not what is going to be heard

Perception, not truth will move most of the people, and they will believe that the perceived baggage is real, and that makes her a flawed candidate

One advantage she, and the rest of the Democratic nominees have is the weak candidates the republicans are putting up

Unfortunately, I believe HRC will be the nominee, and because of that the election will be extremely close, and that is quite unfortunate because that shouldn't be the case

I would like to also point out that the three leading Democratic candidates have already made it clear that some force will need to remain in Iraq for some time, and I find that outrageous

Yes, I will vote for whoever the Democratic nominee is in 2008, but I may not like my choice

[Stinky The Clown]

14. Those 'issues' will affect only the knuckle draggers and mouth breathers.

Pretty much anyone who functions at a cognitive level higher than cremation ash knows that's all Limbaughlian Bullshit.

[DURHAM D]

7. Your premise is wrong -

When her campaign started she was not a "known quantity". She was (as someone pointed out) our most recognized public figure and least known person of our time. People's opinion was based on media spin produced by the right wing. Her negatives had only one direction to trend.

As she has campaigned and debated and the public actually sees the woman without the spin - her negatives have already gone down.

[still_one]

9. The perception, not the reality are what counts to most idiots in this country /nt

[DURHAM D]

13. Huh? eom

[still_one]

44. just look at the last six years and perhaps you will understand what I mean

The American public voted this administration in twice, and we barely won in 2006, why, becausee they believed the lies/perception that spewed out of that administration and the media

That is what I meant

[Stinky The Clown]

15. Okay, that's fair ..... but .....

..... (and in rereading my OP, it isn't as obvious as I wanted) for many people their negative views of her are so entrenched they'll pretty much never change. I suspect (but have no polls to cite) her negatives, if they are actually dropping, are doing so among Democrats, and maybe Indies, but not Republicans.

[ChiciB1]

28. There Was A Time When I Was "All Hillary" But Now I FEAR That

I may HAVE to vote for her! I WON'T campaign for her! There are obvious reasons why I don't think she should be our nominee, the most glaring one is that so many Repukes WANT her to be the nominee!

But a personal one of mine is something I can't quite put my finger on... as a female my intuition tells me that I'm very uncomfortable about her candidacy! I see he as very intelligent and a very capable candidate, but in my bones I have a very unsettling feeling! I just can't get over it even with everyone pushing her forward!

I DON'T want MSM to choose for me, and that's what if feels like to me! I've actually gotten to the point where I turn my TV off when I see/hear her. Sorry, don't mean to be MEAN, it's just a "hinky" feeling I have and don't like!

[DURHAM D]

31. I can see you have a conunbrun.

However, your choice should be based on your facts, your truth, and the person you like.

Don't be confused by or worry about what you think others may want you to do. It is all your decision and you may change your pick many times in the coming months. There is no hurry.

For me, choosing a candidate has always been very organic. I read and read and watch and watch and then boom.

[nevergiveup]

24. What makes you think

the "media spin produced by the right wing" is going to stop. If anything it is going to intensify. Hillary is one gutsy bright talented woman but she is nevertheless one of the most polarizing political figures I have ever seen and I go back to Eisenhower vs Adlai Stevenson. I will vote and work for her if she is the nominee and I do think she would be a fine president but my gut feelings about her chances in a general election are extremely bothersome.

[DURHAM D]

29. I don't suggest that the media spin will stop.

However - she is actually running for national office so she is everywhere talking directly to people and she is on the tv. So, the right wing patter projected through the msm (and repeated here by the Anyone But Hillary Camp) is less and less effective.

The voters are getting the girl broadcast into their lives without a filter.

[The River]

17. Abused Democrats Everywhere Cry

"Save us Mommy"
"Save us from (another) bad Daddy figure President"

It ain't gonna happen.
Elect another DLC candidate and
you'll get another 4 years of NAFTA CAFTA GWOT & troops in Iraq.

[Stinky The Clown]

22. Your post is WAY off topic ... and contributes nothing to this thread.

The VERY FIRST line in the OP says:

"There are many other reasons cited elsewhere to support or not support Hillary Clinton. This thread is not about them."

Is that unclear?

[The River]

26. So it's About

"a point based on zero research and just my own personal opinion and a bit of logic."???


If you, Save Elmer, and William ### and a few others can be all over this board
defending HRC then I can include my own opinions anywhere I damned well please.

[Stinky The Clown]

34. Start your own thread

My reasons for making this post were clear. You may not have liked them, but they were perfectly clear.

If you have a beef with some posters, go tell them about it ... not me.

One of the posters you cite was all over me for saying something **you** might have liked. Go to the thread I linked.

And yeah .... you read really, really well. It is, indeed, about "a point based on zero research and just my own personal opinion and a bit of logic."

Sorry.

And your post was still off topic.

[ruggerson]

19. Quite right, HTS

Agreed 100%. I said much the same thing here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3456915#3457005

[sce56]

23. I repeat what I said before on HRC Two Families running this country for decades is and outrage!

[Stinky The Clown]

25. Your post is off topic

The VERY FIRST line in the OP says:

"There are many other reasons cited elsewhere to support or not support Hillary Clinton. This thread is not about them."

Is that unclear?

[Dawgs]

27. Right, but those negatives WILL NOT CHANGE.

The right will unite to vote against her and 20% of Democrats will either hold are nose or not vote for her at all. We will certainly not work to get her elected by getting others to come out and vote for her.

I don't see why you think her negatives won't go up.

Most people ARE NOT PAYING ATTENTION. They don't know that she voted for the war and hasn't apologized for it. They don't know that she is one of a few candidates that has no problem with lobbyists. They don't know that many in the Democrat base will not support her. The list goes on and on.

I certainly might be wrong, but not looking at her negatives is naive. I mean you really can't be that narrow minded. Can you?

[Stinky The Clown]

35. I hate to say it ..... but those things probably don't matter.

The people to whom her vote for the war (or any other specific, issue-oriented, real stuff) matters already know about it. For the rest of the sheeple (Democrats, Republics, and Indies) its about non-issues ...... suitability as a drinking buddy ....... color of suits ..... hair style ..... how tall ..... looking like a Daddy or a Mommy ..... all that meaningless but critical stuff that gets people's votes.

I actually think the only way her negatives can go is down ... not up.

Disclaimer: everything in this post is my opinion only.)

[sandnsea]

30. What you get to put up with her negatives

If you got Dennis Kucinich policies, then her negatives would be well worth it. When you get 2 steps left of Olympia Snowe, meh, negatives aren't worth it.

[bunkerbuster1]

32. My main reason for not giving a crap about HRC's "unfavorability?"

Because only spineless wimps worry about all the meanie-head things the opposition might do.

HRC isn't my number one pick, but honest to god, I am SICK of hearing about how she'll "energize the Gee-Yo-Pee."

Fuck them. Fuck anyone too scared to take them on.

That is all.

(Otherwise, good post, thanks. Just needed to get that out there, again.)

[Stinky The Clown]

36. Consider it out there again .....

:eyes:

[bunkerbuster1]

37. Maybe I mis-wrote.

seein's how you're rolling your eyes; I am not disagreeing with you about HRC's potential to overcome negatives. I think that's a perfectly valid point.

I'm just fed up with hearing that other anti-HRC argument, regarding how we have to be concerned about how the other side will react to this or that. Whenever I hear that I ask myself--do the Goopers care about how their insanity will play with Democrats? Who, you know, actually hold positions that represent the view of a majority of Americans on nearly everything worthy of mention?

[Stinky The Clown]

38. That whole "what the GOP thinks" thing IS the GOP .... trying to play "sych"

Rove and Bush and their excesses are now too well known and understood for that to work on anyone but knuckle draggers and mouth breathers.

[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.

[jenmarie]

40. I think you're correct

that her negatives are what they are and likely won't go higher.

The thing I think will happen is that the disillusioned Radical Regressives who would possibly sit this one out will be motivated and will be coming out of the woodwork to vote against her. Add that to the disillusioned Dems who won't vote for her and we've got another 4-8 years of a Republic in the WH, and will possibly even lose our majority in Congress.

[Stinky The Clown]

42. That's a whole different calculus ......

.... and one with which I don't necessarily disagree.

[trayted]

41. I repeat, HRC's negatives do not matter as much as her "would not vote for in a million years" #s

[Stinky The Clown]

43. I wish I could comment on this aspect of her candidacy

I can't.

I don't think we know enough about the depth of opposition for her. Yeah, the loud and vocal political junkies have made their voices known, but you can't use volume as an indication of depth and breadth.

I suspect that when the masses and sheeple (including Democrats) start paying attention she may do better. But this can **easily** go either way.

Frankly, I'd be happier with a less controversial candidate.