Who's going to beat Hillary for the 2008 nom and more importantly how ?

[Herman Munster]

The latest poll from New Hampshire has Hillary beating all challengers by a substantial margin, including, Gore, Edwards, and Kerry, candidates who have all appeared on national tickets and have name recognition equal to hers.

Hillary also has a number of advantages the other candidates won't have: $20 million from a senate re-election account she will be able to transfer to her presidential account, unparalled network of donors from her husband and her political network that will allow her to raise over $100 million for the primary, IOU's from every state and district in the country of politicians both her and her husband have helped during the past 14 years, the best political strategists and staff available as well as her husband campaigning and advising her.

I just don't see how anyone can beat her for the primary with all of her institutional advantages.

http://www.wmur.com/politics/10062591/detail.html

http://www.wmur.com/download/2006/1012/10062815.pdf

Clinton currently has the support of 30% of likely Democratic Primary voters
followed by former North Carolina Senator John Edwards (16%), former Vice President Al Gore (10%), MassachusettsSenator John Kerry (9%), Delaware Senator Joe Biden (5%), retired General Wesley Clark (4%), New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson (3%), Indiana Senator Evan Bayh (1%), and former Virginia Governor Mark Warner (1%), while 4% prefer some other candidate and 17% are undecided.

[Mass]

1. Too early to tell and this sample is way too small to be meaningful.

Sure she is ahead, but by how much in a poll that has 7 % of MOE and with candidates who may or may not run (see Warner)

[TheFarseer]

2. Remember Iowa is the first primary

and anyone who wins Iowa (it won't be Hillary) will find some good footing as the anti-Hillary. I think Edwards will have a good showing there (or possibly someone else) and have a good chance to take her down in South Carolina and some of the primaries after NH. Of course I have forgotten to factor in our new primary order if it takes effect by then.

[SaveElmer]

3. As a Hillary supporter my recommendation would be...

For those who prefer another candidate, to get your head out of the sand, recognize that Hillary is a popular figure who commands a significant following, and will be a formidible candidate...

Get your heads around that and you can devise an effective strategy. Continue to rationalize why Hillary isn't popular, and is actually hated by Democratic faithful, contrary to all evidence, is a recipe for a Hillary victory....which would be fine by me.

Not good for the party however, cause if you are willing to ignore the reality of Hillary's strengths, it is just as easy to ignore those of Republican opposition.

[wyldwolf]

5. well said.

I'm going to quote you.

[SaveElmer]

10. Thanks...

Quote away my friend!

[Mass]

6. I heard that by Dean supporters throughout the second half of 2004.

Sure Hillary will be a serious candidate, but the election is not done yet. Who knows who can happen. It is way too early to tell. (See early 2004 and Lieberman).

[SaveElmer]

7. No doubt...

And you saw John Kerry work his hiney off to get the victory. He DID take Howard Dean seriously.

[Herman Munster]

9. well you can't really compare 2008 to 2004

Lieberman was the only candidate with lots of name recognition in the early polls.

Kerry, Edwards, and Gore are all extremely well defined like Hillary with similar name recognition. People know who they are and are choosing Hillary.

[Mass]

11. Sure, you can. All I am saying is that it is way to early to make a

prediction.

Hillary has been announced as the 2008 nominee by the media since mid 2004 (yes, before the 2004 election) while the other candidate you quote have been described by the media are losers (more Kerry than the two other ones, but the three have been). She is ahead on a mixure of both name recognition and the idea that Hillary will win thanks to Bill.

It is still too early to know what will happen. Is she a serious candidate: yes. Has she won the nomination yet: NO.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

31. A guy drawing 10,000 plus when the others couldn't draw flies.

But suddenly the guy who people wouldn't go out to see...wins it all.

:freak:

[Mass]

35. This is what happens when real people vote. You can do all the media

buzz you want, people do not care and there may be some surprise at the end. People want somebody who can govern, and they recognized that in Kerry .

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

38. Media buzz?

The people showing up made them cover it it. It was unprecedented for a primary.

Remember?

Kerry was drawing 600 in Boston.

Dean was drawing 12,000 in Seattle (not Montpelier).


Real people? Horseshit.

[Mass]

42. What do you think it was?

Iowa does not have voting machines. Kerry convinced people that he could govern, Dean did not.

Dean was the darling of the media from July to January. In January, things changed and he started to get some bad media. It still took weeks for the media to recognize what the people on the ground knew, that Kerry and Edwards were gaining ground and Dean was losing ground.

As for the specific rallyes you are talking about, I do not remember the specifics. But it is one the best proof that what happens far ahead of the elections is not immuable, and this was my point: Hillary is a serious candidate, but, contrarely to what her supporters would want people to believe, she has not won.

Just as a lot of the support Dean had was soft, a lot of the support she has is soft and can be won by a group of devoted supporters.

[ProSense]

12. Not as popular as you think! Do you realize Hillary Clinton

always seems to do well in these polls, then fizzle?

Hillary Who?

The American Prospect: Sen. Clinton Is Nothing To Get Excited About

July 5, 2006

(The American Prospect) This column was written by Matthew Yglesias.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Carville and Mark Penn wrote a recent Washington Post op-ed touting Hillary Clinton’s strength as a presidential candidate, and the Post somehow found it unnecessary to disclose to its readers that Penn is currently employed as Clinton’s top pollster. In the wake of the most recent fake scandal regarding conflicts of interest in the blogosphere, there was a certain grim humor in seeing the establishment press offer up a perfect and all-too-typical example of the real thing. But the substance of Carville and Penn’s case is even more humorous.

Snip...

We don't know whether Hillary will run," they conclude, "But we do know that if she runs, she can win."

This has the virtue of being true. It's also extraordinarily trivial...

But recent elections have been so close that one is inclined to say that "everything matters" on some level, and this is probably correct. If Al Gore had been a bit more charismatic, he would have won. Then again, he would have won if a little boy in a boat hadn't happened to have washed up in Florida at the particular time he did. And, of course, he would have won had Theresa LePore designed the Palm Beach County ballots differently. And maybe he would have won if he'd adopted an entirely different set of campaign tactics. Who knows? Everything matters in a razor-close election. But by the same token, just about anyone could win if the stars aligned correctly, and pretty much nobody can win if they don't catch some breaks.

Snip...

The evidence, however, tends to indicate that she'd be a relatively weak candidate. The main source of information we have comes from the 2000 election, where she won a contest for an open Senate seat in New York by a healthy 12 percentage point margin. That's a pretty good result. But as Brendan Nyhan points out, just two years earlier Chuck Schumer beat an incumbent Republican senator by 11 percentage points. The same year Clinton was running, Al Gore won New York's electoral votes by 25 percentage points. Four years later, John Kerry achieved an 18 percentage point margin.

A straightforward read of this data is that Clinton has less electoral appeal than Kerry or Gore, and about the same (or maybe even worse, depending on what you think of the incumbency factor) level of electability as Chuck Schumer. Nobody, of course, thinks Schumer should run for president, though he has considerably more experience as a legislator than Clinton. The reason for this is clear — a candidate who seems likely to run 6-13 points behind Kerry and Gore, all else being equal, simply isn't a very appealing choice.

more...

[SaveElmer]

13. She has been well ahead...

In virtually every poll taken of Democratic voters...by those working for her, and independent. The latest example of course was the poll taken in New Hampshire this week...which again has Hillary with a substantial lead.

In 2000 she was the number one enemy of the Republican Party, and still bested them easily. Since then she is the second most popular politician in New York behind Eliot Spitzer, and is going to be reelected this year by 20 points of more.

Like I said, feel free to underestimate her...better for her chances. You'd think Clinton opponents would learn after consistently underestimating the skill of the Clintons only to be burned by them time and time again.

[Mass]

14. I dont think anybody underestimates her. Just tired by the media

and a handful of Democratic strategists annointing her. She is a serious candidate, but she has not won and the Democratic strategists who have lost elections after elections (like McAuliffe) and who are going to work for her should remember that.

The only way she has won already is if other candidates and their nominees fold before the fight has started, which is clearly the reason this battage is happening right now.

[ProSense]

26. At one point the polls showed Clinton with a 25% to 30% lead on the

closest Democratic rival.

[mtnsnake]

55. Where has she fizzled?

I don't remember her ever losing anything before.

[WI_DEM]

40. Actually giving Hillary's name recognition that 30% in NH is pretty weak

And will probably crumble pretty quick once the primary season is on. Edwards, for example, is leading in Iowa polls, and if he takes Iowa we could see a snowball effect like in '04 after Kerry won Iowa.

[mtnsnake]

53. Very sound advice, Elmer

as always.

[Stephanie]

4. Why do you think Rupert Murdoch supports her?

She is the Republicans first pick for our nominee. They will dance with glee if she's selected. She's our worst nightmare as a candidate. An intellectually dishonest, insincere, hawkish centrist. But you are correct, the machine is behind her. God knows why.

[leftchick]

54. I know why

and I think most here do as well but it is indeed hard to admit to having been duped by our so called own. :(

RM supports her because she is a corporate dream! And Yes indeed a real democrat's worst nightmare.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

8. Don't Know How, Don't Know Who, Don't Care If It's Her. I Think She'd Do

great.

But I'll rally behind whoever the Dem candidate is, and will have to hope whoever it is can beat the pants off the repub.

[DianeG5385]

15. Wesley Clark

I hope he runs. He can unite us all with his strength and integrity.

[Dinger]

48. Yes, He Could Do It

People who underestimate Clark are making a big mistake, a BIG one. If he doesn't run (I think he will by the way), he will work his very hardest to help Democrats and get this country right again. He knows that the mess we are in now trumps his political future, and that it is a whole lot bigger than anyone's politics, including his. His heart aches for our country, our world, our soldiers, and our children. He wants to do whatever he can, and if that does not include the presidency, he will continue to lead our country out of this darkness we are in. He has the leadership, the heart, the intellect, and the experience to make a difference. As President Of The United States, he could make it happen. Imagine . . .

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

16. You know, strategizing for 2008 right now is an exercise in chasing ghosts

Many DU'ers like Hillary. She is steadfast, smart and married to Bill.

Other DU'ers don't like her and will actively oppose her nomination, quite understandably, when she declares her candidacy.

I'm appealing to you to focus on the election in 24 days.

MKJ

[blm]

17. Whoever dominates the series of debates before Iowa. Your question should

be - Who is the candidate to most likely dominate the early set of debates before Iowa?


Funny thing about most Democrats - Only REALLY make our decisions after we have a few debates under our belts.

[twilight_sailing]

18. OK, I'm making a little joke here

but it's only (a little) funny

because it's true.

Another caveat, I'll support the Democratic Party if they nominate my coffee table for President. Nothing could be worse than the Neo-con cabal.

BUT...

Do you realize what my life is going to be like if Hillary is elected? My Texas relatives are insane when it comes to Hillary.

I asked them one time, "What the hell bothers you so much about her?" All they could do was compare her to, I kid you not, Eva Peron.

Sigh...

I know, I know, it's crazy but I HAVE TO LIVE WITH IT.

How about Wes Clark? I met him at YearlyKos. He's a nice guy. Smart as a whip.

Please spare me from 4 to 8 years of BS from my relatives.

Thank you very much. ;)

[VelmaD]

20. My problem with Clark is the same...

one I had in 2004...I don't vote in the presidential primaries (or for my state's governor) for anyone who has never held elective office before. You don't start out in business as the CEO of a fortune 500 company...so why should people expect to start out in politics at the very top. Run locally. Run in state races. Run for Congress. Serve. Learn how to govern first.

[twilight_sailing]

23. Point taken, VelmaD.

The only example that springs to mind is Eisenhower.

I'm not MARRIED to this Clark idea.

Hell, I didn't mind all that peace and prosperity we enjoyed under Clinton. In fact, (I am about to commit heresy), Clinton plus the radical Republicans (Gingrich) managed to bring down the deficit.

What the hell happened to the Republican party once the came into power? I was talking to my old Dad on the phone the other day and the one thing we could agree on was that both parties had changed. (We are both old.) I remember Sam Rayburn and Lyndon. The Democrats were freaking TOUGH. And what has happened to the Republicans? It wasn't that long ago that they were for fiscal responsibility. Where did that go, in such a short time?

Sorry, VelmaD, I got off track. I am not trying to give you a hard time. There are just the things I think about sometimes.

Back to your topic, well, I dunno. Does previous political experience really matter that much? I'll bet that if you ran for Governor of your state with me as Lt. Governor we could do a better job than the folks in charge now.

Best Wishes to you,

twilight_sailing

[VelmaD]

28. yes it matters

Why do you think people like Lyndon Johnson and Sam Rayburn were able to get so much done...they had learned over many years in office how to govern.

Just think of the juxtaposition of Bush with his predecessor. Ann Richards had years of experience at the local and state level. She understood how to govern. And Texas was better off for it. Whereas George was a failed "bidnessman" with no governing experience and he left us in a helluva mess. Governing a state or a country is not something you can learn by the seat of your pants as you go...at least not if you want to do a good job.

BTW, I'm not a good example. I got a degree in government and work in government. Not a novice.

[twilight_sailing]

33. Thank you, VelmaD.

I love talking to smart people.

True enough, Ann was a million miles better than the novice, Bush, who left the State of Texas in debt.

By the by, did you know that the Pilgrim chicken people were one of Bush's biggest contributors when he ran for President?

They are folks from up around my way. I went to school with some of their cousins. And for everyone else, what's in the news now is that Pilgrim is trying to buy out another chicken company and that will make them the biggest chicken outfit in America. And do you know how many illegal alliens are employed by the chicken industry? Note: I cannot prove that. I know it to be true but I have no way of providing facts and figures.

OK, I am still thinking, VelmaD. I dunno. Isn't your thesis that those who have not been in government are not qualified to man the helm of the highest ranks?

Well, maybe so, maybe not.

So far I am not convinced of anything, except to say that I like you.

[pnwmom]

21. Sounds like fun. I've got Texas relatives, too,

and I'd love to annoy the heck out of them.

[twilight_sailing]

25. Thanks,

it's just maddening, isn't it?

Oh, mercy.

[pnwmom]

51. Yes, I think Texas has fried my sister's brain. Or maybe it's the hair.

Who knows.

[Radical Activist]

19. Hillary won't win a single primary in the South or Midwest.

She may do well in a northeastern state like New Hampshire, but she won't win in the states where most of the early primary takes place. She has no appeal there. She's not first in the Iowa polls. That's how she'll lose and its also why she would make a terrible candidate in the general election.

[pnwmom]

22. She's a midwesterner. Don't underestimate her in places more

liberal than Iowa.

[Radical Activist]

24. Why would a liberal midwestern state go for Hillary

when they will probably be able to choose an actual liberal? The only midwestern liberals I know that are excited by Hillary are women who want a woman to be the nominee. I don't see that she has much to offer other groups of liberal voters in the primary if she's running against people who have been more outspoken.

The next midwestern primary after Iowa is usually Wisconsin, which will go to Feingold if he runs. Michigan may move up its calender and I can't see her historical support of free trade agreements doing her much good there, especially if an economic populist like Edwards is running.

[pnwmom]

49. Hillary's overall voting record makes her the 10th most liberal in the

Senate, according to ProgressivePunch.

[mnhtnbb]

44. more liberal than Iowa. What red midwestern state is going for Hillary?

[pnwmom]

50. There are swing states in the midwest too. They're not all red.

[mnhtnbb]

45. Edwards could win in both south and midwest.

[Temporary1]

27. We'll see how a prowar Democrat does in this Primary soon enough...

Nt

[Radical Activist]

29. Let's look at the primary calendar after New Hampshire.

I grant that Hillary is the kind of candidate who has appeal in New Hampshire. I'm not so sure about the other states.

She will lose Iowa.

Do you really think she can beat Edwards or Gore in South Carolina? Not likely.

Can she beat Feingold in Wisconsin? No way.

Michigan is early: will her outspoken support for free trade agreements, and the memory of her husband's support for them, make her a winner in a state that has been destroyed by NAFTA? I don't think so.

Nevada is now an early primary state: I don't know what her chances are there.

Arkansas might move their primary up and she has a shot there. That and New Hampshire seem like the only early primary states she has a decent shot at winning.

[Herman Munster]

30. you don't know what you are talking about

Do you really think she can beat Edwards or Gore in South Carolina? Not likely.

Not likely? Look at the demographics of South Carolina. Democrats in South Carolina are majority black people.

Hillary and Bill Clinton have long, long, long, long ties to the black community. I would think twice about your opinion of her losing South Carolina.

[Radical Activist]

32. Edwards won South Carolina in '04.

Odds are good he will do it again. I don't think you can guarantee that Bill's popularity is going to automatically transfer over to Hillary. That's speculative at this point.

[ProSense]

36. Kerry got a higher percentage of the black vote than B. Clinton. Hillary

Clinton could lose Iowa:

Clinton, a U.S. senator from New York, goes winless against four Republicans. Democrats Edwards, 2004 presidential running mate John Kerry, and Vilsack each draw a 2-2 split.

Political experts agree that Clinton, who unlike other presidential prospects has not been to Iowa since the last election, needs to work on her image. Giuliani and McCain are familiar figures who enjoy a reservoir of good will. However, they may be taken down a notch once the race crystallizes.

"We haven't seen the dirt fly in the nomination process. ... I think McCain and Giuliani will get dirty," said Georgetown University professor Stephen Wayne.

Experts say it's too soon to anoint anyone the favorite in a wide-open presidential race that's still two years away and features a long list of potential candidates from both parties.

But for Clinton, the Iowa Poll's findings raise warning flags, said Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics.

Losing all four trial heats against Republicans - including Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee - feeds the doubts of those Democrats who wonder whether she is too polarizing to deliver a victory.

http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060924/NEWS09/609240335/1056

[Ediacara]

34. Wes Clark

Hillary is leading for the same reasons that Lieberman led at this time in 2002: people know the name. Gore, Kerry, and Edwards probably have something of a tainted status, and eeryone else are no-names. Clark is the anti-Hillary that can get a lot of money, build a bridge to disaffected Republicans and isn't a huge blowhard plagiarist like a certain Delaware Senator...

[orpupilofnature57]

37. Al Gore , just by saying ' I do ' a Non hollywood actor with credentials..

Elected president, Innovator and as smart as Kkkarl and Bandar.

[WI_DEM]

39. If you ask me that 30% for HIllary is pretty weak

I thought she would be higher. If Edwards wins Iowa and he is leading in the polls and also South Carolina he will get momentum going into NH.

[Radical Activist]

43. Edwards is also thought to have an advantage in Nevada

due to his work with the food and commercial workers union, which is strong in Vegas.

[jackbourassa]

47. These ARE NOT GOOD NUMBERS FOR HILLARY!!!

She has $15 million true...but that's EASILY beatable. Kerry has $10 million and Bayh has about $10 million. On a good day, you can raise $10 million to $20 million on the internet in ONE SHOT!!! Her money doesn't scare me.

Both Edwards and Gore are in a good position. Edwards currently leads in Iowa, and as someone else mentioned, is DOING WELL in Nevada. Edwards will probably win South Carolina as well.

Also, someone else might emerge. The thing you have to understand is that Hillary's CEILING is 30%. She never does better than that. Like someone else posted, about 35% of the party DOESN'T WANT HER!!! That's what Hillary should find most troubling. When the "anti-Hillary" candidate emerges (and believe me he/she will, they always do) and the anti-Hillary vote rallies behind him/her, then KISS Hillary's candidacy good-bye.

In my opinion, Hillary will be EASILY BEATEN!

[ThomWV]

41. Polling Also Asked Democrats Who They Didn't Want. Hillary Won

She won that part too, the part where Democrats were asked who they definitely did NOT want to be at the top of the ticket. Hillary was selected as the nonselectee by 35% if I heard the results correctly. This was from TV news show last night. Not very authoritative, but its what I remember.

[kitty1]

46. A lot could depend on who she chooses as her running mate nt

[BootinUp]

52. You don't think that poll will

drastically change when the candidates start debating and campaigning? If Hillary wins she will have earned it. I give her a 30% chance.

[mtnsnake]

56. 1 of the reasons Hillary is kicking ass is cuz the competition is weak

I mean, who other than Edwards is there to write home to Mama about, and I highly doubt Edwards will have a chance, considering what a flop he was during that miserable campaign of 2004.

General Clark turns me on, but hasn't been actively making his living as a politician, so he's probably not going to be a huge factor, unfortunately.

To overtake Hillary, someone is going to have to come out of the blue and take everyone by storm during the primaries themselves, and the only one I can see doing that is Obama.

Unless there's some new mystery person who none of are thinking about, it's gonna be either Hillary or Obama. I'll bet you a cup of coffee on it.