Hillary is Unelectable

[Don1]

Hillary is trying very hard to be smart and play the middle while still leaning left. She is also good looking and her answers are well-groomed. However, my opinion is she is unelectable.

She has changed her positions on Iraq, NAFTA, Don't Ask Don't Tell, and Universal Health Care. She will be called on all these things in a general debate. And she will not give believable answers to the general public as to why.

She, however, has the best chance of winning the Democratic Party primary. It is unfortunate.

[Birthmark]

1. I agree, Don.

I think that if she is nominated, it will lead to not just the loss of the White House, but probably both Houses of Congress as well. That is my opinion.

[Don1]

50. Thanks for admitting it.

Like someone else said we need to wear protective suits around here when saying something like this. Makes no sense...considering we are supposed to be the Democratic Underground. Note the word "Underground." :shrug:

[peacebird]

2. for your sake - I do hope you have donned your asbestos suit!

:hi:

I agree she will lose in the general election - I just hope she doesn't win in the primaries....

[Don1]

41. Oh yeah, I'm wearing it though some of the spear-headed

Merican flags and metal crucifixes seem to have made some holes.

[wyldwolf]

3. who are you supportin' Don?

[Don1]

5. I'm writing you in.

because I read Radical Centrism, too. (kidding of course).

[wyldwolf]

7. so you don't have a candidate yet? OK, name one you kinda like.

[Don1]

8. Kucinich definitely for the primary.

I'll hold my nose and support Hillary in the general, but like I said she is going to lose. She is unelectable.

[Virginia Dare]

12. Will Kucinich get called on his change in stance..

regarding abortion? Will that hurt him? :shrug:

[mrgorth]

25. This change that keeps getting bandied about

is really a minor modification. He has a very good stance on this issue and has for years. Note: I'm not a DK supporter.

[Virginia Dare]

28. Personally, I really don't care if he did..

it's a candidate's present stance on an issue that effects me. Everybody is allowed to be enlightened and change their mind.

BTW, I'm sure that's what Mitt Romney will say too, "minor modification"...:rofl:

[wyldwolf]

14. Kucinich - those nasy flip flops on abortion and a flag burning amendment...

[Freddie Stubbs]

15. At least Kucinich had never changed his position on an important issue

;)

[still_one]

20. I am not a Hillary fan, but there if Kucinich was our candidate, we would lose even more

I would like to remind you that we barely squeezed through a victory in 2006, while 2000 and 2004 demonstrated the density of the people in the U.S. Yes, there was problems with black box counting, but even with that, those elections were too close than they should have been, and the voting turnout was pathetic

America has not out grown its racist and sexist tendencies, and that is more like the real reason why it will be tough for Hillary to win, and even more difficult for Barrack Obama to win. Remember the ads against Harold Ford in Tennesee in 2006? Racism is alive and well

Unfortunately the events of the past 7 years have taught the American public very little, and they will start to pay for that ignorance. It will appear in the form of inadequate healthcare, people who cannot retire because they are burdened by debt that will never get paid, an illegal war that will continue to erode our resources, a real threat to a woman's right to choose, stem cell research, and scientific gains sqwashed, along with jobs moving out of the country

Even the three leading Democratic candidates believe that we need to keep some prescence in Iraq for some time, which shows that very little knowledge has been gained from the past 7 years.

Those that voted for the IWR, and the Patriot Act were enablers, and the excuse that they were misled doesn't cut it. The War Powers Act was there for a reason, and they not only ignored it, but also the Constitution

[PurityOfEssence]

53. I think Obama's got a better chance than Hillary: some, as opposed to NONE

He has an odd appeal to reasonable conservatives, and yes, there are such things out there.

She's just such a non-starter for so many people and the lefty base is going to get a bit soaked off by write ins or the potential idiotic race of a Nader or some other twit. Some lefties will simply not be compelled to actually walk in and cast the ballot, and this lassitude of human nature is not to be dismissed lightly.

Yes, the racism issue is still VERY live, and although he won't get very many voters because of this (the black base is overwhelmingly Democratic already) he will get some who wouldn't ordinarily vote. Although some trogs are going to vote against him simply for being black, he's got surprising support among the rightists and it's not a foregone conclusion.

Hillary will pull some women simply for the fact of voting for a woman, and this is a plus, since they're 51% of the population, but her negatives are just HUGE. It's beyond alarming.

Still, we shall see. It may be a good thing for the reactionaries if they can't dig up some candidate better than the loonies and stiffs they've got at the moment, and since she's such a damned corporate-friendly type, it could be a great win-win for them to help engineer a victory for her: if everything comes crashing down, it'll all be the Democrats' fault. Even taking into account that I'm given to certain levels of conspiracy, I don't think they can turn off the well-nurtured and deep, deep antipathy so many people have toward her.

The sky is green and none of the lessons of the past should be paid heed; we make our new reality now. La la la la la.

[still_one]

54. Obama definitely will appeal to the young, and I have no doubt to African Americans in the South

Right now the it is between Obama and Edwards in the primaries for me, haven't decided yet

Great analysis by you though

[leftchick]

4. only if we let her buddy Ruppert

ram her down our throats. I am hopeful most democrats can see through this shit.

[Totally Committed]

13. She doesn't seem to mind that association, though...

Hillary Clinton defends link with Murdoch

Excerpts:

Hillary Clinton defended her warming relationship on Tuesday with Rupert Murdoch, the conservative media mogul. Commenting on Mr Murdoch's decision to host a fundraiser for her Senate-election campaign, Mrs Clinton said: "He's my constituent and I'm very gratified that he thinks I'm doing a good job."

>snip

Mrs Clinton has worked to tone down the liberal image she won during her husband's presidency, when she led the failed fight for national healthcare. She has courted Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker, appearing with him on a panel on healthcare reform, and Republican senator Lindsay Graham, who was involved in impeachment charges against Mr Clinton.

Donna Brazile, a Democratic strategist who managed Al Gore's 2000 presidential campaign, said Mr Murdoch's decision showed that Mrs Clinton had "crossover appeal".

But polls show she remains a polarising figure. A recent ABC News/Washington Post survey found that while 80 per cent of Democrats had a favourable impression of Mrs Clinton, 79 per cent of Republicans had an unfavourable view, including 64 per cent who said they felt strongly unfavourable. By comparison, Senator John McCain, the Republican frontrunner, has lower disapproval ratings, at 20 per cent, in a recent Wall Street Journal poll.

Entire article:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/577ecd2e-dfc2-11da-afe4-0000779e2340,_i_rssPage=80fdaff6-cbe5-11d7-81c6-0820abe49a01.html


TC

[BOSSHOG]

6. That was said of her when she ran for the Senate

You mean she has adapted, improvised, overcome.

So she changes her mind (maybe?) You mean one should be resolute like bush, start a war based on lies and stick with his failed story for 5 years. Is that what America wants in a leader?

[NavyDavy]

10. here here!! I second that

[asha]

9. works very hard

Nobody is raming Hillary down your throat,look up Justhillary.com. She is busting her ass to win this thing. Obama and edwards lovers need to get a grip.Instead of attacking Hillary why don't you answer this questions.#1 Bill or Michelle,Bill or Elizabeth,Bill or judith,in the WhiteHouse.?

[Virginia Dare]

11. So who is your candidate?

and have they NEVER changed their positions on anything? Hillary Clinton is not my candidate, but these negative threads are getting really tiresome.

[papau]

16. I disagree - if nominated she will win in Nov - in 93 she was for single payer & was forced to push

employment based via Bill's instructions to the task force -

now she appears to be leaning toward a mandatory employer based approach as in Massachusetts.

On Trade most everyone in economics bought the grow the world everyone benefits idea in 96 - now they do not and she like Obama voted against Cafta.

On no child left behind Ted Kennedy now says it needs to be modified so we do not teach to the test ONLY - and it needs to be better funded.

On Don't ask don't tell that was a massive liberalization pushed by Barney Frank (gay congressman from Mass) and she and he say it is not working and needs to be tossed and replaced by a non-discrimination approach.

Yes, all of the above are changes from where she was in 93, but why are the answers above "not believable" to the general public?

[bvar22]

43. Hillary could clear ALL this up in one hour.

All she has to do is clearly state where she stands on the major issues.

It bothers me that even her most slavish supporters here can't clearly state her position on the biggest ISSUES.

[papau]

57. Hillary has more major position papers out than the others except for Edwards. She is not as

detailed as Richardson's excellent paper on energy, and she follows Obama in using generalities as a cover for no details, but she has more detail on more topics than the others - except for Edwards.

[antigop]

59. So WHERE'S HER HEALTHCARE PLAN??? n/t

[papau]

61. True - only the comprehensive health savings 28 page plan is out - I also want the rest ASAP

indeed I am hoping she is at least as liberal in her universal plan as Edwards - and rejects the idea of subsidies to insurance companies without price and coverage controls via an employment mandate that is being offered up as a "bi-partisan" approach.

Even Mitt's Massachusetts universal plan with its employment mandate variation also has government price control and coverage control.

[antigop]

62. Wow, papau! You mean you are not going to say, "This shit again"

I've asked on other threads about Hillary's lack of a healthcare plan, and that's the response I got.

If (and I said IF) all Hillary does is echo Mitt's plan, there is NO DIFFERENTIATION on the healthcare issue.

Polls have shown healthcare as a pressing domestic issue.

[papau]

63. I try to stick to truth as I know it since at my age shading the truth gets too hard to remember wha

you said to whom :-)

I am concerned about the health care question. While they all have saving health cost plans, the universal side is often lacking and always different when specified,

Richardson's plan is oversimplified (Medicare at 55, chose from the same selection of group policies as the Congress can get if under 55) because he does not say how the under 55 is funded or mandated or the coverage controlled - but I like the concept and would jump at it if only it was more detailed.

Edwards plan is detailed and has a backdoor to eventual Medicare for everyone - I don't like employment based plans - but Edwards currently has only solid detailed plan which I could accept.

Hillary sounds like she is going to go the Edwards employment based root - and while I like Hillary I will fight for some other candidate in the primary if her plan does not have at least as wide a backdoor to Medicare as Edward's plan has.

Obama is a tough one - I like his style - but he himself says he is small step - and his refusal to mandate anything and thus his refusal to produce a universal plan is unfortunate.

[antigop]

64. Thanks -- can you provide any info about Hillary's "Edwards employment based root"

What makes you think she is leaning that way? I haven't read anything to indicate that, so I would appreciate any info.

Thanks.

[papau]

65. Hillary made a comment on TV that the direction universal health seemed to be going was to an

employment based system.

It was an interview and not a speech and therefore is not transcribed on her site.

It could be that she is just observing the GOP push to go in that direction - plus the dozen or so more conservative Dems - and assumes the single payer fraction of the Dems could not pass anything. I doubt she has changed her mind about single payer - she is the most liberal one running and has been so all her life. But she like Bill go for the passable and, in my opinion, give up on the idea of changing minds too soon.

I hope I am wrong - but I expect a mandated employment based system as in Massachusetts - I just want Edward's backdoor to Medicare added to the plan! :-)

[antigop]

58. There were 38 Senators that voted against NAFTA

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=103&session=1&vote=00395

Dorgan was quite vocal from day one about NAFTA -- he knew the ramifications and tried to warn everyone.

So I don't buy the idea that "Well, LOTS OF PEOPLE WERE FOR NAFTA", when in fact, there were more than a few who were against it.

And I can find NO reference from any candidate (except Kucinich) who has said he/she will REPEAL NAFTA and withdraw from the WTO. (Please post references if you have proof.)

It's nice for all of them to talk about "FUTURE trade agreements should have protections...blah, blah..."

It's another thing to say, "I WILL WITHDRAW THE CRAPPY TRADE AGREEMENTS THAT ARE ALREADY IN PLACE."

[papau]

67. The WTO runs on old non-fair trade rules and we should withdraw from it - but I

like yourself have not heard anyone say they would.

As to the change in understanding of trade benefits, it was not until MIT's Samuelson's great paper on trade not being a win-win situation around 2004 that attitudes amongst economists began to changed. Now Blinder while still a free trader http://www.able2know.com/forums/about95302.htmlalso is on board as to the changes needed and only the right wing employed Wall Street Journal crowd holds onto the old ideas.

[DemKR]

17. she's up 4-10 in kentucky and leading Romney in Alabama

but she's unelectable. Look at facts before you bash.

[Don1]

22. Bash?

There's nothing bashing about saying that my opinion is someone is unelectable. It is not an insult but a practical concern. If she is unelectable, then the DP better nominate someone else. As far as facts, the facts here have to do with positions and how they will play out in the future debate. Polling now (in one state) is of little concern and very anecdotal. Could you instead comment on Hillary versus each candidate in ALL STATES? and comment on how the alleged changing positions will play out in the debates?

[BadgerLaw2010]

30. Mmmm, Mormon in Alabama.

[elmerdem]

39. those polls are misleading

as with most polls, but these especially. The pounding that she will take in the general election campaign will turn those polls in KY & AL on their head. These are states with high numbers of single issue voters that lean Repub. The Right Wing Machine will chew her up & spit her out during the campaign. I guarantee she will not win KY (I live here). This is not adopting Right Wing talking points wlydwolf (anticipating your inaccurate label of anything concerning HRC's negatives) or defeatism, just pointing out the reality on the ground in KY.

[mrgorth]

18. Agreed.

:(

[obnoxiousdrunk]

19. Must be

true if you say so.

[Bitwit1234]

21. Guess that leaves my guy Edwards

Cause there is no way in the world Obama would win.

[Don1]

49. Maybe you are right. n/t

[venable]

23. same feeling here> she'll demand/seize the nom, and lose the election.

and when I say demand, I mean that team Clinton will stop at nothing, nothing at all, to get her the nom.

They already have played some very ugly ball, and their opposition research team is leading the way. Behind the scenes stuff via reporters, feeding stories, creating stories, is awful, entitled, and - there's no other word for it - Rovian. Might explain Bill's admiration for karl.

[wyldwolf]

24. What you call "demand/seize the nom" the real world calls "wins enough primaries to be nominated."

[Maven]

26. You're assuming she'll fall prey to the "flip-flopper" label

like Kerry did.

She won't.

IMO, it wasn't Kerry's purported change in position on the war that hurt him--it's that his campaign allowed the opposition to define him. It was the label that hurt him more than the substance underlying it, because there really wasn't much substance to begin with.

I highly, HIGHLY doubt Hillary would let that happen without counterattacking.

[Virginia Dare]

27. I agree with you there...

I hope whomever wins the nomination takes a page from Hillary's campaign book in that regard. The Democrats have to come out aggressively, don't ever be on the defensive. We will not be able to "stay above the fray".

[antiimperialist]

29. Oh yeah, so unelectable she's beating all Republicans in Virginia, Ohio and Florida

Yes, I said Virginia.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/8/21/182858/824

Rasmussen has her up in Ohio and Florida, by tiny margins over Giuliani.

Unelectable?

..and let's make it clear that I support Edwards and Obama as my first choices.

[AlGore-08.com]

35. Just to get some perspective, in 2000 Bush began 20 points ahead of Gore

By August of 1999, Gore had gained a lot of ground but Bush was still polling to beat Gore 55% to 41%. (Bush was also polling to beat Bradley 55% to 40%).

Polls this far out are totally meaningless.

[laureloak]

31. Talk to your friends and neighbors.

I've been dismayed to hear over and over again that Hillary is the only Democratic candidate that they REFUSE to vote for. And that's from democrats and independents who lean democratic.

The Republicans WANT Hillary to run because they can beat her. It's that simple. They're trying to kill off John Edwards as a candidate through silly character attacks, just like they did to Dean. They knew they could swift boat John Kerry so they helped him become our candidate. Let's not play into their hands this time around.

[KurtNYC]

32. Opinions are great but they don't change reality

OF COURSE she is ELECTABLE.

For the first time, a majority of Americans say they are likely to vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton if she runs for president in 2008, according to a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll taken Friday through Sunday.

She is tied with Obama - if Obama is "electable" then CLinton is electable. Get real.

[garybeck]

34. No.

just last week a poll showed Guiliani would beat her in a general election but he would lose to other Democratic candidates.

she might not be unelectable, but she has a much lower chance of winning a general election than Edwards.

[rinsd]

38. That was one poll. Hillary beats Rudy in 4 out of the last 7 polls.

Edwards is barely beating Rudy in the last few polls with leads inside the MOE.

[antiimperialist]

40. And it's not true the poll said Giuliani would beat her

In the electoral college, which is where elections are won, Hillary did pretty well polling ahead of Ohio and Florida. How could you win an election by losing those states?

[garybeck]

33. I agree. She will lose the general election. too many negatives.

[Don1]

48. Yup.

And she already gave in about Universal Health Care in the past...

[Enrique]

36. if being labeled a flip-flopper makes one unelectable

then we will lose.

I will bet anyone her a quarter that whoever the dem nominee is, the GOP will make flip-flopping a major issue.

[Don1]

42. Yup, it's one of

Karl Rove's favorite words.

[onewholaughsatfools]

37. I disagree,

I do not think she has the best chance of winning, just because the talking heads and karl rove say so!!!!!!!!!!Don't mean its true

[AtomicKitten]

44. ALL of the Dem candidates are electable. (nt)

[Perry Logan]

45. Quite so. We could put up a dog in 2008 and still win.

[PurityOfEssence]

46. Silly, silly, silly...major flashbacks to '94 here...

Musta been that bad windowpane back when...

This is crazy; the right is nowhere near dead. Just because the current field of Republican nominees is a bunch of third-raters doesn't mean a thing.

Never underestimate the power of money and greed. The nominee will probably be chosen by the beginning of February and will have to withstand 9 months of relentless nastiness. Now that the Dems are in control of the House and Senate, they can be blamed for EVERYTHING, from the price of gas to the economy at large. Don't think they won't be, and don't think it won't stick even if it's the absolute opposite of reality.

Electability is a huge issue.

[venable]

47. this is what I hear from people who support HRC, 'it doesn't matter'

my own circle of friends say either the above, or say she will never win, or they will never vote for her.

fifty year old progressive who will not vote for a dem if it's her.

i don't believe it is an inaccurate sampling, but it is just 30 or 40 people I know. I don't know a single person, not one, who has anythng but disdain for her. virtually every one supported Bill.

[slackmaster]

51. I heard the same thing back in 1974 about the 1976 election

That may have been right, but it didn't last for a whole generation as many were predicting.

[PurityOfEssence]

52. Iceberg, schmiceberg; I say 22 knots

It's time for a woman president; who cares if her chances of being elected are virtually nonexistent? It's the spirit of the thing that counts, even if the Supreme Court is stocked with 40 year-old Nazis and we attack Iran. Big deal.

I want a to-the-right-side-of-the-middle-of-the-road corporatist; we haven't had enough of them.

I want to get revenge on those wicked, wicked conservatives for hounding Bill Clinton, and even if she won't do spit to break the death-grip of biguglymedicine on this country's throat, I don't care; it's the spirit of the thing.

I like a spunky and tough fighter who knows how to avoid having a punch landed on her, and even if she won't actually DO anything of import, I just like the fact that she's still inexplicably standing there year after year like Carrot Top or Gallagher.

What's the problem? Those conservatives don't know how to win an election; never have. Full speed ahead; if you need me, I'll be in the bar.

[illinoisprogressive]

55. I feel her time to explain is coming much sooner. Just this feeling I get.

In the spring Edwards was on the ropes with the press and being totally vetted and trashed and examined, ect.
In the summer it's been Obama's turn.
Fall may be time for Hillary to face the vetting squad.

[dorktv]

56. Eh, I have a few problems with some of her votes but I also realise

she is not stupid and represents a state with *shocking of all shocks* has some republicans that think another way.

No one thought she would win her race for the senate but she went out there, campaigned and worked at it.

I think she will be a good president, not super wonderful but good.

[rndmprsn]

60. she has not earned my primary vote...

and judging by her recent pandering, she will never get it.

[flaminbats]

66. she's no Mike Dukakis..

unfortunately that doesn't mean Hillary can win, but I think people tend to overestimate Obama and underestimate Hillary Clinton.

IMO Republicans would have a tough time going after Hillary on character, healthcare reform, or national security. on healthcare..the damage has already been done, on national security..I doubt Republicans will criticize her for being pro-war, and Republican attacks on Bill's infidelity only helps Hillary!

I think Hillary will have the most trouble with the swing voters who loved her husband. I think Hillary's hidden strength..few Republicans take her seriously.