Seriously: Do You Think Hillary Will Win?

[leftyladyfrommo]

I'm really surprised at how well she is doing. But here in the Midwest Hillary is not very popular - maybe because a whole lot of people here absolutely hate Bill. And they really hate Hillary. Too threatening to a lot of men, I think. My guess is that she can be pretty tough when she has to be.

I have never been a Hillary fan. She just seems way too political for me. Too polished, too slick. That's the reason I like Obama - and I really like Edwards.

I would expect Edwards to do a lot better around here - and he just might do exactly that.

I would also expect Romney to do well here - a lot better than Guliani.

[Buzz Clik]

1. I like Hillary. But, no.

[TwilightGardener]

23. I like her too. But, same conclusion.

[Nedsdag]

34. If her name was Sen. Hillary Smith

then she would win in a walk.

Unfortunately, her name isn't Hillary Smith. So, no, I don't see her winning.

[jcrew2001]

50. Should she go back to Rodham?

and just drop the Clinton - haha, the ironic twist.

[Captain Hilts]

2. It's too early to say anyone "will" win. She can. Obama can. Edwards can. Clark can,...

it really is too early.

I was in Canada last month and had occasion to meet to former HRC skeptics who are now converts. You just can't outguess these things.

[liberal N proud]

3. Someone is putting some serious money on it.

[tularetom]

4. She has spent so much time sucking up to those who hate her

that she has managed to alienate those who may have voted for her. She will never get the votes of any republics and actions like her dumbass flag burning amendment will turn a lot of Dems off because it is seen as blatant pandering. If she has any hope at all of winning she needs to stop listening to Clinton and the sad old retread triangulation advisers she has surrounded herself with.

[William769]

7. And what Democratic candidate will get the "republics" votes?

[tularetom]

9. True, however the rest of them haven't gone out of their way

to deliberately alienate Democrats. I haven't seen Obama or Edwards sponsoring flag burning amendments, or refusing too apologize for their votes in favor of the IWR.

[paulk]

13. HRC didn't sponser a flag burning amendment

you don't know what you're talking about.

Which is par for the course with the Hillary haters - they don't know her real stand on the issues and they don't know her real voting record.

[tularetom]

14. Oh yes she did - co-sponsored with Bennett (R-UT) in Dec 05

Besides I don't "hate" her - I'll vote for her if she's the nominee. I'm afraid there are a lot of other Dems who won't and I think she needs to get rid of some of the loser Clinton advisors she has surrounded herself with, and she probably needs to stop listening to the not-so-big dog.

[wyldwolf]

15. hmm... no she didn't.

[paulk]

19. No, she did not sponsor a "flag burning amendment"

The flag burning amendment was an entirely separate issue that she voted against. The bill she co-sponsored was a bit of legislative trickery that helped defeat the flag burning amendment, although I realize that delving into the intricacies of the legislative process is probably asking too much from the knee jerk crowd on the left.

Any "Dem" who would vote against any Democratic Presidential nominee is NOT a Dem AFAIC, and should be treated as such.

Your advice to HRC, vis a vis listening to the "Big Dog", especially in regards to getting elected, I'm sure will be laughed at, and deservedly so...

[RufusTFirefly]

24. You're right. She just wants to criminalize flag-burning

Gee, I feel so much better.

More from the Times:

Mrs. Clinton says her current position grew out of conversations with veterans groups in New York, and there's no question that many veterans - and, indeed, most Americans - feel deeply offended by the sight of protesters burning the flag. (These days, that sight mainly comes from videos of the Vietnam War era; the senator's staff did not have any immediate examples of actual New York flag-burnings in the recent past.) But the whole point of the First Amendment is to protect expressions of political opinion that a majority of Americans find disturbing or unacceptable. As a lawyer, the senator presumably already knows that.

[wyldwolf]

28. ... in certain instances.

Say, for example, YOU want to burn a flag to intimidate ME. And say you come onto my property to do it. Then, yes, I would definitely be for a law that not only charges you for trespassing, but charges you for threat by intimidation.

[FiveGoodMen]

54. "knee jerk crowd on the left"???

And what side does that put you on?

[RufusTFirefly]

18. Dismissing someone as a "Hillary hater"

... is like calling someone you don't agree with a Communist or a Fascist.

Facts are supposed to matter for Democrats and others from the reality-based community. Here's the beginning of an editorial from the Hillary-hating New York Times...

Senator Clinton, in Pander Mode

Published: December 7, 2005

Hillary Clinton is co-sponsoring a bill to criminalize the burning of the American flag. Her supporters would characterize this as an attempt to find a middle way between those who believe that flag-burning is constitutionally protected free speech and those who want to ban it, even if it takes a constitutional amendment. Unfortunately, it looks to us more like a simple attempt to have it both ways.

Senator Clinton says she opposes a constitutional amendment to outlaw flag-burning. In 1989, the Supreme Court ruled that flag-burning was protected by the First Amendment. But her bill, which is sponsored by Senator Robert Bennett, Republican of Utah, is clearly intended to put the issue back before the current, more conservative, Supreme Court in hopes of getting a turnaround.

It's hard to see this as anything but pandering - there certainly isn't any urgent need to resolve the issue. Flag-burning hasn't been in fashion since college students used slide rules in math class and went to pay phones at the student union to call their friends. Even then, it was a rarity that certainly never put the nation's security in peril.

Link

[paulk]

22. when people post information on this forum

about a Democratic candidate that is provably not true...

I will call them anything I goddamn well please...


ps - did you even read the article you posted?

It proves my point, not yours.

[tularetom]

27. I don't know where you live but around here a lot of people think

she sponsored a flag burning amendment and in politics perception is often reality. I'm not gonna argue with you about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin and I don't have to defend my Democratic credentials to you or anybody else. I don't hate Hillary - I really don't "hate" anybody - but she needs to stop listening to whoever is advising her to pander to those who do hate her and will never vote for her. And I'm telling you that there are a lot of those people out there.

[wyldwolf]

29. no, only those in the netroots think she did

Which says a lot about the netroots.

[paulk]

35. I never attacked "your" Democratic credentials

I suppose that you think I did proves that perception is, indeed, often reality, at least where you live.

[sendero]

66. A lot of delusional folks here..

... think it is only Republicans and leftists who cannot stand HRC. The polling, as well as personal experience, says this is completely false.

HRC and her minions think that a big war chest is going to overcome her negatives. Maybe. But I don't understand why so many Dems are willing to risk that in an election that has never been more important.

[GainesT1958]

5. It all depends on...

Who she'd face in the general election.

Personally, I have considerable doubts that Hillary could win a general election against either Rudy or McCain, in part because of a built-in "hate" factor; her negatives are so high. But I could be very wrong in that assessment. So much antipathy to ANY Repub candidate may have built up by then because of Dub and Iraq that whoever they'd nominate may have close to zero chance at being elected, no matter who we'd put up--including Hillary.

Way to early to tell!

B-)

[William769]

6. I think she has the best shot of winning.

So to answer your question, yes.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

65. Those are *not* the same thing.

Consider a situation in which A has a 40% chance of winning and B and C each have a 30% chance.

The answer to "Who has the best chance of winning?" is A.

The answer to "Is A likely to win?" is no.

You may think that Clinton's chances of winning are over 50%, in which case fair enough, but her having the best chance of winning does not imply that.

[wakeme2008]

8. Probably NOT unless the Repugs drag out a far right winger that

turns the Indep. off.

[MaineDem]

10. She certainly has a better than even shot at winning

I think any Democrat has those odds.

If she picks up momentum over the next year she could do it.

[RufusTFirefly]

11. It's way too early to tell

No one has cast a ballot yet and early public opinion polling traditionally gives the nod to people with the highest name recognition. (I believe that "Joe-mentum" was leading at this point in the 2004 campaign.)

What alarms me most about this upcoming election is that the "success" of a candidate seems to be based primarily on her/his ability to raise money. It doesn't follow that the best candidates have the most money any more than the best movies have the highest box office receipts. It's about marketing and spin, not quality and content. This is a decidedly undemocratic means of weighing the relative merits of candidates. The once-sacred pillar of American democracy, namely "one person, one vote" does not apply to financing, where it would appear to be "one person, many dollars" for Clinton, Obama, and Edwards.

The battle of ideas has been trumped by the battle of the buck. Rich people can marginalize some candidates and exalt others. One of the more encouraging aspects of the 2004 Howard Dean campaign was the truly grassroots nature of his fundraising. That was also extremely alarming to the powers that be who don't value democracy as much as influence. They've found a way to vanquish upstarts a little faster this time.

[Greyhound]

12. No for two reasons that we all know.

Her support within the base is lukewarm at best, so she doesn't drive voter turn-out for the Democrats.

The Republiks absolutely hate her with such a vehement passion that they will go to any lengths necessary to defeat her.

Add this to the on-going election fraud and there is just no way in hell she'll win, in fact, her candidacy may well reverse the modest gains we made in the various legislatures, putting us back into an environment like 2002.

[Blue_In_AK]

16. I can't imagine her taking Alaska...

The only dem I see as having much of a chance here is Richardson - just my opinion.

[w4rma]

63. Edwards. (nt)

[Blue_In_AK]

74. I love John Edwards,

I just don't think he would be as appealing to Alaskans as Governor Richardson. I could be wrong.

[PresidentObama]

17. I think Hillary could win. But I agree, she isn't very popular in the midwest. n/t

[weezy2736]

20. It will be very hard to ignore Edwards

A chance to carry Southern and Midwestern states that HRC dosn't have. I'm still not sure about Obama, especially in the South... It would be nice to have a president everyone could get excited about (JFK). For that, I'll stay in Obama's camp.

[Clark2008]

70. Edwards won't carry the South or mid-West.

He's too 'pretty' for the swing Bubbas.

[weezy2736]

79. More than likely, but

I'd give a white male versus a black male or any female in the south or midwest an increased shot at winning, especially in the deep south. I dunno, I just don't see Hillary or Barack able to have any chance what so ever in those areas because of who they are.

[The Magistrate]

21. Professionalism Tells Over The Long Haul, Ma'am

She is quite likely to win both the Democratic nomination, and the Presidency of the United States.

"God is on the side of the biggest battalion."

[Czolgosz]

25. Sadly, I think Hillary;s chances are stronger in the primary than the general election. I think she

has about a 40% chance of winning the primary, but only a 33% chance of winning the general election if she wins the nomination. I think both Edwards and Obama stand a much-better-than-50%/50% chance of winning the general election.

There is a reason why FauxNoise is working its ass off promoting the "Hillary is Inevitable" meme.

[mmonk]

26. No in general election,

I don't know in the democratic primaries.

[LibDemAlways]

30. No, she won't win. I don't even think she'll

win the nomination, but if she does, we can look forward to at least four more horrible years of a repuke in the WH.

I just don't see how she could cobble together an electoral victory.

[DFW]

31. No candidate does this gig alone

A lot, as in maybe 75% or more, depends on who you have advising you
on PR and what you do and say in public. Money is the only other factor,
albeit a huge one.

Get yourself some smart media-conscious people who know the country and
can get a feeling for the many pulses of the regions their candidate visits,
and you'll go far. Get yourself insulated by some well-meaning, but
incompetent media advisers, and you'll go down in flames. If you insist
on speaking your mind at every turn and ignore smart people on your team,
you lose (Howard Dean/Joe Trippi). If you shut up and only spit out what
very smart people on your team put in your mouth, you can do better than
an opponent infinitely better qualified (Bush/Rove).

I've met Hillary a couple of times. She's not cold and she's not uncaring.
If anything, she's too smart to ignore the fact that she could make a fatal
misstep that was nothing more than the result of incompetent hired help.
She's playing it cautiously--too cautiously for the taste of many so far.
But it's a year and half until the election. In her position, being such a
known factor, I'd sew my lips shut for a year, and wait to try and dazzle
the nation starting in February 2008. If she manages to pleasantly surprise
the country and the party, she wins in a walk. If not, she couldn't buy the
presidency if China gave her their dollar currency trade surplus, and that's
running about a trillion dollars by now. Since no surprise is a given,
and include the fact that ANYTHING can happen in politics in a year (who was
John Kerry in April 2003?), I'd say the only foolish thing at this point would
be to make a solid prediction.

[SaveElmer]

32. I think she is the odds on favorite...

To both win the primary and the Presidency...

[Jack Rabbit]

33. It may be too early to tell

Nevertheless, I am a bit concerned about polls consistantly showing her doing more poorly against potential Republican nominees than other possible Democratic candidates.

It seems strange to me that those who argue for a pragmatic political strategy of just winning, no matter how much like a Republican a Democrat must sound to do, is the only thing that matters aren't having some doubts about Senator Clinton as a viable candidate.

Whether it's right or wrong, Senator Clinton has a great many negatives with a great many voters. There are a lot of voters to whom Democrats can appeal who will not vote for Mrs. Clinton and already have their minds made up about it.

If polls continue to show Senator Clinton nine or ten points behind Giuliani or McCain or Thompson or whoever into the late summer and autumn or early winter, then I would hope these pragmatists would rethink their support of Senator Clinton.

[bearfan454]

36. No

I don't think she can win.

[churchofreality]

37. She will win. I have no doubt.

She can take all the states that Kerry did, plus she can flip Ohio and or Florida.

[Nedsdag]

38. You're not living up to your nickname.

I don't see her flipping Ohio and/or Florida nor do I see her holding on to Pennsylvania nor Michigan.

We're talking Dukakis figures with Hillary.

[Alamom]

39. Absolutely. n/t

[Lil Missy]

40. Too early to tell

But I am not surprised that she is raising a LOT of money and is the early front runner.

She is certainly a force to be reckoned with, and to be fair, she has earned her credentials in her own right. And I am well aware of the baggage that she carries as the former First Lady of Bill Clinton. However poloarizing she is in that sense, I think those are mostly votes that would go Rebublican anyway.

To be sure, I have not settled on any particular favorite as of yet. So much can happen in the next year before the primaries even begin. I wish it were as easy as it was the last couple times for me. I liked Gore in 2000, and I liked Kerry in 2004. This time, I could support any of the 3 top contenders.

I just want it to be a Democratic President next time. And more perhaps importantly, I would like to see further Democratic gains in the House and Senate. I personally feel that is the key to really making a difference.

I am also very cautious of front runner statistics portrayed by the media at this point. I thought Dean was a forgone conclusion in the run up to 2004. And boy-howdy, did THAT notion take a shit when it came to actual votes.

Incidentally, I participated in a test that someone sent me several months ago, that measured responses on political views to current and potential candidates. In that test, I measured highly with Obama.

But, I am not willing to commit at this point. Too much can happen over the next year.

[Forkboy]

41. If I was a betting man my money would be on her over any candidate.

[The Magistrate]

42. That Is My Principal Standard, Sir, In Prediction

"The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, but that's the way to bet."

[Forkboy]

43. I like that saying.

I find it's also wise to bet with your head and not your heart,an easy lesson to learn when your home teams are the Bruins and Celtics.

[The Magistrate]

44. Bears v. Packers, Sir, Is My Potential Downfall Of the Heart In Sports

That is about the only game I pay the least attention to: the Bears have to win it, and for some years were coming up dry way too often....

Counting cards at blackjack provided my expense monies for a period in my adventurous youth. There is a reason they do not let people do that anymore.

[Forkboy]

46. I'd rather root for a losing Bears team with Butkus than any winning team without him.

That Sayers fellow was ok too.

Butkus is my all time favorite NFL player,and after Bobby Orr my favorite in any sport.I've read books about him,drawn pictures of him...I even watched bad sitcoms if he was a guest.I've never seen a better tackler,and the sad thing is that today his flawless textbook style of tackling would get him banned.

I never learned to count cards.It didn't seem a necessity in Old Maid. :)

[The Magistrate]

48. Hear Hear, Sir!

He was the best, bar none.

Hockey has never engaged me, though I do know of Mr. Orr. What sports interests I have all date to childhood. I was for a few years at a school so small every male was on the teams or none could have been fielded at all, and in consequence retain a glimmer of inside view to this day. But my crowning achievement was only the disabling for a week of our fullback in a practice. It was pure self defense: I was knocked on my back by a blocker and in his run he was about to step on my neck. I caught his ankle with both hands and he went down full-length like tree, after which he was pretty dizzy and his ankle did not work so well. We lost the upcoming game, and everyone seemed to think I should have let him kill me....

[Milo_Bloom]

45. Not a chance.

Senator Clinton or Edwards or any of the IWR voting bunch, as the Democratic candidate would insure a strong 3rd party candidate. Most likely an ex-moderate republican who jumped off their ship, but is good on the social issues.

[Learn2Swim]

47. Nope.

[mnhtnbb]

49. I've never liked Hillary--although I admit to donating to her first Senate campaign

In that case, I was happy to help get another Dem elected to the Senate.

But for the presidency, she's not for me. Way too corporatist. I think
we need a huge shift left after 8 years of Bushies. I'd much rather
see Edwards, since he is a populist. He's fought the big guys, big Pharma
big health care. He's for unions. He's talking about poverty, for God's sake, in a country where the divide between rich and poor is becoming a chasm.
I'm not happy that he didn't stand up on Iraq, but I think he's figured out where he went wrong. Seems to me that he's lost some of the 'listening to political consultants' behavior and is speaking more from his heart.

And for a quality marriage, you can't beat John and Elizabeth.

[AtomicKitten]

51. I think any of our candidates can and will win. n/t

[Hart2008]

52. Hillary can't win, even if Gary Hart doesn't run.

Gary Hart will beat them all AND win in November.

[MrSlayer]

53. Nope. She'll lose blue states and not flip any reds.

She'll get killed here in Pennsylvania and no Pennsylvania for the Democratic nomineee pretty much guarantees a loss.

[Clarkie1]

55. She will win if enough women vote for her because she is a woman. nt

[Carolina]

56. well then she loses

'cause women are mixed about her. I sure won't vote for her and don't know a single woman in my family (all Democrats), among my friends (some moderate Rs and independents) or in my women's clubs (mixed affiliations) who will vote for her.

For almost all, the big issue is the war!

[Blue_In_AK]

68. I don't vote based on gender. n/t

[AshevilleGuy]

57. The nomination, yes. The general, no way. n/t

[fujiyama]

58. It's depressing because she almost seems unstoppable in winning the nomination

but I really have a tough time believing she can overcome her high negatives. She's been defined...by the RW, by the media.

Hell, and her pandering to the right has alienated many on the left.

Personally I see her and I don't see any authenticity. When I listen to her, I hear a shrill speaker. I see triangulation and pandering to corporate interests, and brain dead idiots that want to ban flag burning and protest violent video games. I see someone that has little sense of priority in what is hurting this country at this time.

And I think many others will unfortunately see the same thing. Why do I ultimately say unfortunately? Because, I'll STILL vote for her in the general election, because I can't stand the idea of seeing another republican take the presidency. But others could say "that Romney guy doesn't seem so bad" and throw their vote because he's "charming" or "has nice hair".

I hear people randomly say shit about her. And they all aren't raving fanatical RWers. She has a high profile, but it's not necessarily very good. Would she be a terrible president? Unlikely. Besides her irritating stance on certain issues and her desire to gain publicity for them, she's almost halfway decent. Hey she wouldn't nominate Alito to the SC.

But that's not enough for most people.

[liberal renegade]

59. If her selection for VP is the right one,

she wins it hands down... Gov Richardson is my guess...


Clinton/Richardson......

[ButterflyBlood]

60. Nope

Go Obama!

[Cascadian]

61. If there is a God and justice in the World, Hillary will not win the nomination. n/t

[ChiciB1]

73. Oh, Please Then.... Let There Be A GOD!! Justice?? THAT'S Another

nut to crack!! You know how some people spell it.... JUST--ICE!!

[Imagevision]

62. Everything about Hillary is so bloody scripted, she's just too white

[Donald Ian Rankin]

64. No, but if you asked me "who will win" I'd answer "Hillary Clinton".

I think Clinton's chances of winning the Democratic nomination are somewhat below 50%, Obama's slightly lower than that, and no-one else has more than a 5-10% chance.

So I don't "think she'll win", but I do think she's more likely to do so than anyone else.

[sampsonblk]

67. Absolutely

She has a much better chance than Kerry, because she will run a strong fearless campaign.

[Clark2008]

69. No.

[windbreeze]

71. no...and I will not elaborate any further...n/t

[ChiciB1]

72. I SURE Hope Not!!! I Don't Really Understand It Myself... But I DID

recently get an email from Move-On about their upcoming in-home "guest party" debates asking for people to host a get together. It had a link to various candidates to see where the candidate you might be supporting has a group together. When I checked out the site for Edwards, there were some, but when I checked out the site for Hillary there were many more!

Most of my family and friends are NOT Hillary supporters so I don't understand it. So while I "may" HAVE TO vote for her IF she actually gets the nomination, I DO NOT PLAN to campaign for her.

Just my personal choice... for me, even though I think Bill was GREAT, he was called "Slick Willy" and around here I'm hearing "Slick Hillary" waaaaaay too much, even at this early date!

Of course, I do live in Cruella's old District, but still if I'm not crazy about her (and I've been a Democrat forever) how can we expect that she will be able to win a General Election???

I do know I'm not going to get out in public and "play a game" for her, that's for sure!

[Imagevision]

75. I like Hillary, I feel more confident with Obama or Edwards...

Hillary is all words and phrases well scripted although very shallow, she would say anything to win.

[Redneck Socialist]

76. No

I doubt she will win the primary, but if she does she will certainly lose the general election.

[rman]

77. There's a good chance she will, but i'm not so sure if it will be good for the US. nt

[LanternWaste]

78. If she wins the primaries...

All other things being equal, if she wins the primaries then she wins the presidential election. GOP doesn't (currently) have any candidates strong enough to overcome her name recognition, her base w/ women voters and the weight she carries w/ the center.

The primaries though, are a tough call. Seems to me that the party's split about 40/60 (progressive/moderates). Progressives tend to be more passionate about getting out the vote, but the moderates could make up for it in numbers.


...this coming from a guy who's never been off by more than three points in calling the presidential election since 1984 (the one exception being the 2004 race-- but I think we all know the answer why...). But on the other hand, I've never been right about the primaries.