Does Hillary Clinton actually think she will be elected president?

[PlanetBev]

She obviously knows the Right hates her guts and will bring out all the ground, air and naval artillery they need to deliver the final coup de gras in November 2008.

The problem is, so many on our side don't like her either. She's got to know that, as well. I plan to vote for whoever is the Democratic nominee, but I've talked to a lot of liberals who say they can't stand her and will not vote for her.

There's no doubt in my mind that she will be a 49 state loser, so is she delusional in thinking she'll win, or is it that she is OK with another Republican in The White House? She use to be a Goldwater Girl, so maybe she doesn't really care.

I feel like I'm watching lemmings line up, getting ready to follow Hillary and she hurls herself and everyone else off the cliff. And the good news is, we get President Rommney and a few more Scalias and Alitos.

[Ninja Jordan]

1. Nobody knew anybody who voted for Nixon in '72 either.

[Lucinda]

2. :)

[The Backlash Cometh]

17. I know the reason(s) why.

It was Nixon's second term, first of all, and most presidents win their second terms in office, unless something terrible has happened to the economy which the other party manages to pin on the party in the White House; and, because he promised to get us out of Vietnam.

Capiche? He promised to end a war.

And, also, because his campaign came up with a winning slogan:

Why change dicks in a middle of a screw?
Vote for Nixon, in '72.

[ananda]

31. grafitti

On the inside of a stall door in the third-floor bathroom
of Rice Library in the seventies:

Don't change Dicks in the middle of a screw,
Re-elect Nixon in 72.

And

Nixon had to see Deep Throat three times
before he could get it down Pat.

lol Good then, good now.

Too bad that bathroom has bitten the dust due to
remodeling.

[IndianaJones]

3. waaa. nt.

[illinoisprogressive]

4. delussional to think she can win the election. Too many of our own side won't support her.

We would be wise to go with Obama or Edwards who have crossover appeal as well as appeal to our own side.
Candidates who make people feel like supporting them and going out to vote.

[emilyg]

9. What do you mean by "our own side"?

[cascadiance]

58. Obvious! Core Democrats who believe in getting rid of the corporatocracy!

Rupert Murdoch won't help her or us with that mission!

[Milo_Bloom]

13. Sorry, but I don't think so...

Edwards has 0 chance, as he is even more of a hypocrite than Hilary and unfortunately, I just don't see cross-over appeal for Obama.

I believe of the candidates, Obama has the "best chance", but after watching his latest ad, I fear he is making the same mistakes as the others... He isn't identifying problems, only offering band-aid solutions that don't address the real issue.

The next President is going to have to be a PROBLEM SOLVER. Someone who gets right to the heart of an issue and offers a solution.

For example: Health Care... Giving everyone INSURANCE doesn't solve the PROBLEM. It shuts some people up, but we still have a broken system where a middle man sucks up a huge amount of the cost.

A adjustment of the current tax code... Doesn't solve the PROBLEM (that the deck in the tax code is stacked AGAINST people who work for a living in favor of money making money).

No gifts from lobbyists, basic campaign finance reform... Doesn't solve the PROBLEM that people can buy influence (such as bundling funds, etc..)

A slow phased withdrawl from Iraq doesn't solve the PROBLEM that we are in this mess because of our dependence on foreign oil.

None of the main candidates are offering real solutions... only to make the problem seem less... I am afriad that isn't going to get it done in 2008.

[creeksneakers2]

26. Hillary polls better in general election match ups

than Obama or Edwards.

Polls also don't show widespread hatred for Hillary among Democrats. Even among the entire population, only 26% say the strongly oppose her.

After reading DU for the last few months I thought most people here hate Hillary to much to vote for her in the fall. Then I saw this thread yesterday:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1930181

These were the results in a pocket of anti-Hillary folks.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

5. I have alot of problems with Hillary,

but her greatest problem is that she is a self-hating liberal and she believes that if only she is tough enough she will be able to win the support of the angry white assholes of america who HATE her and in the process she alienates the support of those who would otherwise support her.

The greater -problem- with Hillary and Obama alike is neither of them can articulate a particular vision that makes it appear they want power for any reason other than the novelty of power.

My greatest -fear- of Hillary is that she would functionally be Nixon 2.0 who will extend the wars in Iraq and Iran for years because ending the wars would make her appear weak to the angry white assholes she so badly wants the approval of.

Even though the Hillary supporters implore us not to dwell on her Iraq vote and enthusiastic collaboration with Bush/Cheney - there is absolutely no indication she has learned her lesson and seems ready to do an encore in the build-up to war with Iran.

[truedelphi]

18. What ypu say... n/t

[bvar22]

52. It is NOT the "fear of looking weak" that will extend the WAR.

The people bankrolling Hillary are making $BILLIONS$ from WarProfiteering.
Hillary will extend and enlarge The WARS because "WAR is GOOD for Big Business".


Hillary is the War Profiteers Democratic choice for President 2008.

[snowbear]

6. Bev, here's the thing though.....

When you're reading DU, you get quite a list of hardcore HRC supporters (mixed in with quite a few Johnny-come-Latelies who are highly suspect in their motives)..

And you read threads like the ridiculous one I just pulled up a few minutes ago where a new member here isn't suggesting, she's flat out TELLING all DU'ers to ditch their candidates and vote for Hillary Clinton, you know that just like every primary, we've been infiltrated.

BUT -- (and here's the but!!) ------- if you stroll outside the confounds of DU onto other progressive sites..

-- you're not going to see all of verbal brainwashing that is attempted by ---> .. by those who like to stir the pot and persuade the masses.

DU can be the most incredible little corner of the world when we're all listening to a debate together, or after we've selected our nominee and have all come together for that person..

But this time of the primary season... you really need to keep in mind who you "could be" .. talking to.

[durrrty libby]

25. Paranoia lures people into idiocy and extreme emoticon foolishness

[janx]

59. It's not paranoia. The same thing happened during the

last primary.

[sufrommich]

36. Infiltrated by who?

Democrats who disagree with you? It's a site for Democrats, what's so "suspect" about Democrats making the argument for their candidate?I don't get the paranoia on this forum sometimes.

[Cameron27]

54. People support Clinton,

I'm not one of them, but I've sure been defending her a lot lately. Verbal brainwashing? How about having to compete with twice as many absurd bashing threads that go on here every single day.

It looks like you're the one trying to stir the pot with your posts. Stick to the issues, and knock off critiquing DUers posting patterns.

[ElizabethDC]

7. Yes, she thinks she will, and I think she will,too

and I've never talked to a Democrat who said they wouldn't vote for her.

[Lindsey]

11. Well, as was stated on another thread tonight, this partially sums it

up...the mainstream media has spent 15 years creating an intense hatred for her among literally milions and millions of Americans. IMHO folks who've NEVER voted will come out to vote against her NO MATTER who the Repug. candidate is. That's why the media keeps hyping her now...saying she's the front-runner constantly...they (the Repugs./media/etc. want her to be the candidate.

[golddigger]

19. Sorry, but I think your wrong...

Lindsey, My mother and aunt whom have not voted since the Nixon era...because they had the attitude of why vote, their all the same. They told to me last week that they register to vote just so they can vote for Hillary.

Now, Hillary is not my first choice, but I will vote for whom ever is the democratic nominee.

Peace!

[opihimoimoi]

8. Nah, she will win despite attempts at denigrating.....the peeps want change from the disastrous GOP

[emilyg]

10. She wouldn't be running if she didn't think she could be elected. Neither would Obama or Edwards.

[Guaranteed]

16. Or Kucinich or Gravel or Dodd. nt

[emilyg]

50. of course. sorry.

[AdHocSolver]

12. Clinton's strategy is to make Democrats think she is already the nominee, and there is no one...

else to vote for. This was the Kerry strategy in 2004. It worked in getting Democrats to vote for him in the primaries. It got us four more years of Bush/Cheney.

The mistake the Clinton supporters make is the same one the Kerry supporters made, namely, "anybody can beat Bush" (replace Bush with your favorite Republican). Kerry didn't campaign strongly in "Red" states and Republicans and independents just didn't vote. So, the election was close and the Republican were able to steal Ohio.

Whereas Kerry merely turned off moderate Republicans and independents, Clinton will bring them out in droves to vote against her. The Republicans could nominate Alberto Gonzales and win.

Clinton is the epitome of the "liberal elite" so successfully defined by right wing propagandists. She also comes off as arrogant and with her refusal to commit herself to any specific position, no matter how inconsequential (Do you root for the Cubs or the Yankees, Hillary?), she portrays herself as unprincipled. Voting for a candidate depends not so much on policy nuances, but trust. Clinton projects anything but trustworthiness.

Moreover, having Bill for a husband is NOT a positive. He generates almost as much hostility on the Right as Hillary. The only reason Bill won in 1992 was because Ross Perot took away votes from Daddy Bush. The reason he won handily in 1996 was because the Republicans through away their chances by running Bob Dole.

They say insanity is doing the same action over and over again and expecting a different outcome. The premise of making Hillary the nominee is the same one that made Kerry the nominee in 2004, and got us four more years of Bush/Cheney. Running Clinton in 2008 could very well bring us eight more years of a Republican presidency. This would be disastrous for America. It would also make the Democratic party irrelevant.

[2rth2pwr]

14. Kerry was way behind in the polls and he was wriiten off by many in the media.

Facts are important.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

27. More Opinion Masquerading As Fact

"Moreover, having Bill for a husband is NOT a positive. He generates almost as much hostility on the Right as Hillary. The only reason Bill won in 1992 was because Ross Perot took away votes from Daddy Bush. The reason he won handily in 1996 was because the Republicans through away their chances by running Bob Dole."


Do you have any empirical data to buttress your assertions?

As the other poster said facts are important.

[creeksneakers2]

30. The GOP turned out all their people against Kerry too

The GOP will all show up to vote against any Democrat. They only have one vote each so extreme hatred doesn't do them more good than regular hatred. The result is the same.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

37. By The Time The Election Occurs You Will Be Able To Fit All The GOOPERS In A Telephone Booth

eom

[AdHocSolver]

56. The GOP did NOT turn out all their people to vote against him. Kerry dropped the ball.

I have a friend who is a moderate Republican. He dislikes Bush and voted for Kerry in 2004.

Kerry could have won many more Republican votes in "Red" states, if he had campaigned there, instead of writing them off. In 2004, a poster here on DU was extremely upset with the Kerry campaign. He explained that he had an elderly grandmother who was a Republican and lived in the rural South. She had voted for Bush in 2000, but had come to hate him so much, she refused to vote for him in 2004. So, he asked her if she were going to vote for Kerry. His grandmother responded, "No!". He asked her, "Why not?". "Because he didn't come here and ask me for my vote.", was the response.

Kerry had "disrespected" the guy's grandmother by refusing to campaign in her state, so she stayed home. The guy said that he had no doubts that there were thousands upon thousands of people like his grandma throughout the South. Kerry wrote them off so they wrote Kerry off.

This attitude by the Democratic party, which assumes that money and clever marketing is all that is needed to win elections, is why the Democrats have been the "minority" party for the last twenty five years. The party leadership has been so caught up in developing the correct policy nuances, selecting the candidate with the most money, bending over backwards to appear the most reasonable and bipartisan, that they have alienated a large part of the electorate.

Why? Because the Democratic party leadership ARE a bunch of ELITE SNOBS. They totally negate and belittle the interpersonal aspects of "marketing" the party, that they hand election upon election over to the Republicans, who DO get it.

The ONLY Democratic Party leader who understands this problem and has a strategy to overcome it is Howard Dean, with his fifty state strategy, but the elite snobs in the party are so hell-bent on proving their failed leadership is "correct" that they are working hard to give us another eight years of Republican dominance. Foisting Hillary Clinton on us as the candidate will ensure another failure.

[aquart]

15. Sigh. Thank you for your concern.

Maybe you watch too much Saturday Night Live.

You vote YOUR choice. WE will vote ours. THEN we'll all see.

Oh, and thanks for the insult. I'm sure Rush thanks you, too.

[cali]

20. People who make statements like yours demonstrate only

that they know very little about electoral politics. No one knows how to handle the mudslinging better than Clinton and her campaign. No one on either side has a smarter more responsive campaign. No one has more money. In matchups she beats all three of the top repukes. Yes her negatives are high, but no serious analyst thinks that's insurmountable.


The repuke field is a remarkably weak one. Hillary can beat any of the top contenders.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

32. IMHO There Is No One In American Politics With More Political Chops Than The Clintons

That's a huge asset...

[durrrty libby]

21. Of course she can win. Your logic is a big loser

[Perry Logan]

22. Maybe we should change the name of this place to "Loser Central."

Do the anti-Hillarites realize they're not winning friends and influencing people with their charming posts?

Please, Hillary-haters--start taking Prozac, or leave the party.

[durrrty libby]

23. ...

:toast: :thumbsup:

[Telly Savalas]

33. Hillary supporters should welcome such posts.

I still prefer Obama, but everytime I read mindless vitriol against Sen. Clinton I become more sympathetic towards her.

[madmom]

49. pretty right wing frame of mind there friend! If you don't like Hillary we don't want you(?)

[laugle]

57. That's one of my favorite books; Dale Carnegie's "How to win friends and influence people!"

I recommend it to everyone....it sure would help the discourse here!

[Bitwit1234]

24. Gee whiz

If Obama, Richardson, Biden, Dodd, Edwards and all the rest have the nerve, the absolute unmitigated nerve to even dare think they can become president why in the hell can't Hillary.

Oh I forgot. I really forgot. She's a woman. She can't dare believe she is equal to the macho men in this country. Damn. I knew discrimination was alive and well in this country I didn't think it ran so deep tho.

All those old lemmings now I bet you wish they were following YOUR candidate.

[cobalt1999]

28. "There's no doubt in my mind "

Remind me to never take stock advice from you with those prognosticating skills.

You need to start wrapping your mind around the fact she probably will be the next president.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

29. My Rethuglican Boss Told Me He Never Knew Anybody Who Voted For Bill Clinton

Do you see the irony?

[w4rma]

34. I don't understand why any Democrat thinks she can win. She's going to lose this for us, big. (nt)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

35. I don't understand why any Democrat thinks she can't win. She's going to win this for us, big. (nt)

:P

[w4rma]

38. Because Hillary isn't polarizing or being used as a recruiting and fundrasing tool by the GOP.

:sarcasm:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

39. Because Hillary Is A Tenacious Campaigner Who Will Rip Her Gooper Opponent A New Asshole

:P

[w4rma]

42. She'll try to, while her opponent uses her to turn out GOPers for every race downticket.

I wouldn't want her on my side up ticket from me if I were running for any Democratic office in the nation against a Republican.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

44. By The Time 08 Comes Around You Will Be Able To Fit Self Identified GOOPERS In A Phone Booth

eom

[w4rma]

45. She only makes every election for every Democratic candidate harder. (nt)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

47. I Respectfully Disagree...

The election is so far away... I am only willing to go as far as to say, as of now, she has a really good shot...


I base this on survey data, informed opinion, history, and the Clinton's ability as campaigners and strategists...

[w4rma]

48. The Clinton's only look out for their own elections. They always harm other Democratic elections.

Whether they are replacing progressives in primaries with DLCers.
Or whether they are on the ticket - or just associated with the Democratic Party (see 2000) - , harming Democrats down-ticket.

[Douglas Carpenter]

40. I think her chances if nominated are about 50/50

and current polling indicates a better than 50/50 chance if the election were held today...

I'm certainly no Hillary supporter. But I think it would be very much an exaggeration to say she cannot win.

polling of likely match ups in 2008 General Election:

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm

[Totally Committed]

41. "It's her turn", "She's inevitable", "It's all about the SCOTUS"....

I'm sure she believes it because her camp comes up with some real doozeys to bull-doze our expectations otherwise.

There's no way the Republicans are going away until they are sure they have gotten as much out of their "plan" to descimate this country as they can at this time. They will then make sure that a "bookmark/scapegoat" is put into place (read: someone with the last name of CLINTON) to build the coffers back up and try to rebuild what they destroyed, but will not stray TOO far away from their endless wars so they can just pick the country back up in, oh, 8 years or so and do it all over again without having to start ANOTHER pesky war.

She's THEIR "girl". She's THEIR choice. (Bush/Clinton/Clinton/Bush/Bush/Clinton(?)) Not only will she hold their place and rebuild the country just enough to pillage again, but she'll also be a convenient target to re-charge the Neo-Con attack machine and base to full-strength again.

TC

[DemBones DemBones]

46. Yes, I think Democrats are only allowed to be

placeholder presidents now.

Bill Clinton signed off on NAFTA, which Poppy Bush wouldn't do, and went along with most of what the GOP wanted of him. If they let her "win," Hillary will do the same. If she's a good girl, they'll let her have a second term.

It's sad to realize that it's all fixed now, but maybe it always has been and we just didn't know it.

[Desertrose]

61. Yes, I agree...placeholders....

Very sad....and like TC said...build the country up just enough to suck it dry again....


DR

[Enrique]

43. she has as good a chance as any of them

[janx]

51. I felt the same way about John Kerry.

I was worried he wouldn't win, but we were told to line up like brave soldiers, and we did.

[Imagevision]

53. I think Obama's chances if nominated are much better then 50/50

[jcrew2001]

55. Its refreshing to see Hillary-free posts here

It seems that hillraisers have swamped DU or have gotten every anti-hillary post locked. Its quite scary for free speech and choosing other candidates.

I still think that John Edwards is the only SURE THING in the general election. He crushes all GOP nominees. I'm really just about winning and choosing the candidate that is the least annoying and can unite the country.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/favorables/election_2008_democratic_candidates_running_in_2008_presidential_election

[ShortnFiery]

60. Billary Inc., still believe that it's 1992 or 1996 ... NO Way! - it's delusional of the DLC. n/t