Why would anyone that can do simple math vote for Hillary?

[Dawgs]

We've all seen polls where her 'strong disapprovals/will not vote for her' are anywhere from 45% to 50%. As a matter of fact, it's hard to find a recent one that has a number less than 45%; I couldn't.

This means that Hillary will have to compete for votes among the 55% that are left over. Here's the problem. She will need to get 90% of those that are remaining votes to win. Her opponent will only need to get 10%.

Now, I don't know of any person that could get 90% of the vote from any population.

I'm not a Hillary basher, as I'm sure many here will think. I'm a Democrat that wants to take back the white house. My big concern regarding the 2008 presidential election is electability. I'd be happy with many of the candidates (Obama, Gore, Edwards, Richardson, etc.), just as long as they are electable. Based on the polls, and how Hillary will be attacked, I just don't see how she can win. My big fear now is that Obama and Edwards popularity is going to give us Hillary; kind of like Nader giving us Bush in 2000.

Can a Hillary supporter please explain how she will get around this problem?

[skipos]

1. Some people only care about "their candidate" winning the primary, and don't think about

general election. I like Clark, Richardson, Edwards, Obama, Gore and others, but have no problem admitting that they all have strengths and weaknesses. I am not a Hillary 08 fan, though I don't despise her, but it is easy to see that despite her big $$$ and name recognition, she has consistently looked weak in gen. elec polls. That may change, but if it doesn't, I hope her supporters are wise enough to recognize it. The few Hillary fans on DU that I have talked to admit that NOTHING will make them stop supporting her, even if she looks like gen. elec poison.

More numbers...

Fav / unfav
46 / 45 percent for Clinton;
44 / 14 percent for Obama,
44 / 27 percent for Edwards;
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1019

from rasmussenreports.com...

Clinton (47%) Giuliani (48%) CLINTON LOSES BY 1%
Edwards (49%) Giuliani (43%) EDWARDS WINS BY 6%
Obama (43%) Giuliani (44%) OBAMA LOSES BY 1%

Clinton (47%) McCain (46%) CLINTON WINS BY 1%
Edwards (47%) McCain (38%) EDWARDS WINS BY 9%
Obama (46%) McCain (42% ) OBAMA WINS BY 4%

Clinton (50%) Romney (41%) CLINTON WINS BY 9%
Edwards (55%) Romney (29%) EDWARDS WINS BY 26%
Obama (51%) Romney (36%) OBAMA WINS BY 15%

Clinton (46%) Brownback (41%) CLINTON WINS BY 5%
Obama (49%) Brownback (34%) OBAMA WINS BY 15%

Clinton (50%) Gingrich (43%) CLINTON WINS BY 7%
Obama (48%) Gingrich (38%) OBAMA WINS BY 10%

Clinton (48%) Hagel (40%) CLINTON WINS BY 8%
Obama (50%) Hagel (34%) OBAMA WINS BY 16%

Clinton (43%) Thompson (44%) CLINTON LOSES BY 1%
Edwards (50%) Thompson (36%) EDWARDS WINS BY 14%
Obama (49%) Thompson (37%) OBAMA WINS BY 12%

Clinton 48% Favorable, 50% Unfavorable
Edwards 57% Favorable, 35% Unfavorable
Obama 59% Favorable, 34% Unfavorable

[still_one]

3. seems to me all we have to do is insure that brownback wins the nomination

then we don't have to worry about anything

[Richard Steele]

13. Tell me how we do that, and I'll work towards it!

Wouldn't that be a damn dream come true!

[still_one]

29. LOL, sure would /nt

[Pacifist Patriot]

27. My husband is a registered Republican...

just so he can vote in the primaries. Works at the local level, but the presidential primaries are always sewn up by the time it gets to us. See rant below.

[still_one]

30. We have open primaries in California, but there is no way I will not vote for a Dem in the primary

Interesting strategy though, registering as a republican, to vote in the primaries. This is going to be one of the more interesting elections we have had in a long time

[Pacifist Patriot]

31. It makes sense here.

As I said it's a moot point at the national level. Locally we have a very active GOP with multiple candidates in the primaries. Dems are lucky if they can field every position let alone have two or more via against each other. If voting in the primaries as a Democrat made a difference my husband would switch in a heart beat.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

7. well put, and I agree mostly

except I suspect that at least some of the hillary supporters are here doing their jobs. She previously admitted that she would "Use" all new and "exciting" technologies.

[still_one]

2. Excuse me, are you telling people NOT to vote their conscience because of POLLS?

Perhaps they agree with her position over other canidates

What about Kucinich supporters? How about Richardson, both of which aren't even in that poll

Incidently, Obama is the candidate I want to win the nomination, BUT I WILL SUPPORT WHOEVER THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE IS

Debate where the candidates stand on the issues, not some STUPID POLL two years before the general election

[Dawgs]

6. Excuse me, if you don't want to debate this then fine.

Stay out of the thread or ignore it. If you don't like me telling you what to do, then don't expect me to do what you want.

Did you even read my post? I never once said people shouldn't vote their conscience; even though I think it's stupid if it gets us another president like Bush. I was just pointing out something that concerns me.

As far as that poll is concerned, I pulled it from pollingreport.com because it shows Hillary's popularity (the point of my post). I mentioned Richardson in my original post, and I put in etc for others like Kucinich.

Geez, relax a little bit.

[still_one]

15. No, you did not say that people shouldn't vote their conscience

but what I did read was that you indicated that how could anyone vote for Hillary because the polls indicate she cannot win in the general election.

There are a lot of extrapolations that can be made from that.

By the way, if it sounded like I was jumping on your post, and upset with you, I sure wasn't. I appreciate any open discussion whether I agree or not.

Sorry if I came across otherwise

[Dawgs]

20. No problem.

Sometimes I overreact and get too defensive.

Like I've been saying, it's electability. And, I don't see how we can afford to vote for someone that is starting so far behind with so many people. I also believe it will get worse before it gets better(if at all).

[still_one]

28. You have a point, but a big part of the 2006 elections was the Iraq war

Hillary has NOT been our best representative regarding the war, but compared to the republicans, still better

I do agree that choosing the strongest candidate who will do the best in the general election should be high on the list

Personally, I think when it gets down to the top two contenders in the primaries, those that were more consistent against the Iraq war will unite forces, and take the nomination

[earthside]

8. Unfair

"Electability" is certainly a legitimate issue.

This is politics, after all.

If people voted just on issues, Kucinich would probably be way ahead ... but he's not.

Why do you think that is?

Obviously, it is because of the "electability" issue.

The polls are an indicator, only an indicator, that Clinton would be a very tough sell to the American people in a general election. Since we are even now going through the catastrophe of a family, ruling elite in the White House, a husband-wife succession is not going to be much more popular than the current father-son dynasty.

[still_one]

19. The extrapolation I made was definitely unfair. I also believe that 2 years before an election

a lot can happen

There is not one republican candidate who does not believe we should stay the course in Iraq. Every Democratic candidate believes we need to start getting ourseleves out of Iraq, or completely get out

If the polls are reflective, that was a very big part of the 2006 election

If the dynamics remain the same or worse in Iraq, I think the Democrats will win all three branches of government in a big way

[xultar]

4. Anti-Hillary threads...new start time 11:30 EDT. Make a note of it.

[Dawgs]

24. Not Anti-Hillary, Anti-__________!!

[lumberjack_jeff]

5. Hillary supporters should feel free to support her...

... the same way I'm unashamed to support Kucinich.

Kucinich best represents the issues that matter to me. I'm sure that there are people out there for whom Hillary best represents the issues that matters to them... you know.. hypothetically.

Eff the polls.

[Dawgs]

10. That's what Nader supporters told themselves in 2000.

Look what that got us.

I'd rather not get another war-loving George Bush type president, buy maybe that's just me.

[A Simple Game]

39. Are you suggesting that Hillary is going to pull a Lieberman

and run as an independent if she loses in the Democratic primaries?

If not, your example has nothing to do with the Democratic primary process.

[Dawgs]

40. No.

I never said that.

[A Simple Game]

45. You do know that comparing someone supporting Hillary in the

primaries to someone supporting Nader in the General Election is comparing Apples to Oranges?

I already know all the reasons why a vocal few here on DU are against Hillary, I don't really need to read them every day and on multiple threads.

I don't know who I want to win the Democratic primaries right now, please be constructive and tell me who you support and why; persuade me.

It is much more spiritually uplifting to think positive thoughts( telling me about why you support someone)than it is to think negative thoughts(telling me yet again why you hate Hillary).

[Dawgs]

46. Okay,

First of all, I'm not comparing supporters of Hillary to supporters of Nader. I was actually speaking to supporters of other candidates; specifically Obama and Edwards.

Second, if you don't want to read posts about Hillary then don't. I'm not going to stop posting how I feel if I think it's important. Again, you can always ignore.

Third, I'm not sure who I'm supporting yet either(other than Hillary). Right now I'm somewhere between Obama and Edwards; because of electability.

Wow, where did I ever say I HATE Hillary? I agree that my post wasn't positive, but geez - I didn't think it was hateful.

[A Simple Game]

47. I apologize, you did not say you hated Hillary.

Sorry, on rereading your posts, I obviously was mistaken.

You may not have been comparing supporters of Hillary to supporters of Nader, but that is how I read it, I may be wrong.

As for not wanting to read posts about Hillary, I can do simple math, I can do more complicated math, and I could easily vote for Hillary for President, not my first choice(I haven't really made a choice yet), but one I could live with. Why shouldn't I want to read this thread?

Again, sorry for my mistake.

Edit to remove an extra word.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

12. yup. they have every right to make a mistake, as we all do.

except, many (a growing number) here also see that she cannot win the general election. Instead, she will energize an almost destroyed GOP. She will unite them and they will vote.
Enough Dems and moderates and indies will never vote for her. Me included.

you think Kerry was swiftboated? You ain't seen nuthin. Nothing would make GOPers happier than hillary as the nominee.

[Richard Steele]

9. Too many people believe what they WANT to be true.

I don't oppose "Hillary 08" because I think
she'd be a bad President; she probably wouldn't.

I oppose "Hillary 08" because she won't WIN, and
that's reason enough.

[Dawgs]

11. Thank you.

I'm amazed that some refuse to believe it.

[jobycom]

16. The OP being proof of that. nt

[Dawgs]

18. Proof is in the numbers.

Ignore the facts, and we get Rudy, Gingrich, or Romney. I'd rather have a Democrat.

[jobycom]

34. Yes, so you should be more careful how you misconstrue them.

I posted more about it below.

[Richard Steele]

25. So you're saying those numbers are imaginary?

They aren't.

No, it isn't "fair", but it certainly is a FACT- Hillary
will not win a USA Presidential race in 2008. Probably
not ever.

And sticking your fingers in your ears and making noise
to drown out FACTS you find unpleasant isn't going to change that.

[jobycom]

33. The way the OP presents them is imaginary. nt

[Richard Steele]

36. Oookaaaay. You have a nice day now, y'hear? nm

[Dawgs]

41. Are you going to explain how the numbers are imaginary?

[Matsubara]

14. Why would anyone vote in the primaries based on opinion polls?

Don't get me wrong - Hillary is far from my first choice.

But much of her high negatives stem from the fact that the ONLY image many Americans have of her is one that has come from people like Rush Limbaugh.

Even today, I'd wager that there are a great many Americans who have yet to even listen to her give a speech.

I personally think that her strong negatives would go down significantly if she became the nominee as people realized that she is not the bra-burning socialist "feminazi" she has been painted as for so many years.

That being said, she does have a somewhat grating demeanor , and she turns off as many people on the left as on the right, so it's up in the air whether hers and her husband's savvy will be enough to pull it off.

I notice that Gore has pretty high negatives too, even in light of his successful film.


Long story short - I won't vote for Ms. Clinton in the primaries, but I don't hate her enough to bash her right now, especially since I may end up having to support her.

[Dawgs]

17. Good, I wouldn't bash her either (which is not what I'm doing).

And, I agree with you to a point. Yes, many haven't seen her speak, but many on the right aren't swift boating her just yet either. I think the outrage and lies you will hear from the right will be ten times as strong as what we saw with Kerry.

[Nye Bevan]

21. Let her run her campaign and see if she can change the minds

of some of these "strongly disapproving/will not vote for her" people.

If she cannot do this and looks certain to lose in the general election then the Dem primary voters will choose an alternative candidate, just as they did in 2004 when they realized (correctly) that Kerry would be a much stronger candidate than Dean.

I will be keeping an open mind for several more months. Every candidate has pluses and minuses for me and I want to see how the primary campaigns play out. I find it surprising that anyone (other than a paid campaign operative) would be wedded to a particular candidate this early in the game.

[Dawgs]

23. Fair enough.

You make a great point.

[Pacifist Patriot]

22. As a member of the systemically disenfranchised I find these discussions depressing.

I live in a state with a later primary. Whom I want to win the nomination means bupkus. By the time the primary election gets to me it's pretty much a done deal for the front runner and my vote is meaningless. I'd be more interested in how we can realistically involve every voter in the primary process.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

26. I'm not voting for her because of the polls but because she's a warmonger.

[jobycom]

32. Reminds me of Yogi Berra: That place is so popular no one goes there anymore.

Reagan and Clinton are two very easy examples of candidates with high disapproval ratings who won.

Aside from that, your assumptions are just screwed up and wistful thinking.

If you want an easy refutation of your assumptions, it's this. That 45% of people who say they won't vote for her belong to both parties, and some of them will. Elections aren't held between a candidate and their own image, they are held between two candidates. So some of that 45% will not like either candidate on election day. They stay home, or choose between two candidates they don't like, or vote third party.

So here's some real numbers for you to calculate. A third of voters won't vote Democrat no matter what. A third won't vote Republican. That puts about a third into play. Usually 7-8% of them lean one way, 7-8% lean the other. So all elections are really about getting that middle 15% to 20%. Who knows where that number breaks down. Take your 45%, and figure that's 35% Republicans (who won't vote for any Dem), 3-4% who won't vote at all, and you're left with 7% to 8% who might actually have voted for her in the first place.

Now, take your 55% you are assuming she has to win such a large majority of. 35% of them will vote Democrat no matter what. You got 20% left that she has to win the majority of, and that's assuming (and it's a wrong assumption, but we'll run with it) that the 45% disapproval will actually all vote against her. Those are the middle 20% who decide every election, and we've already established they aren't opposed to her winning. Bam, we're back in an election.

That's just using your assumptions, which are wrong in the first place. That 45% approval number has a 4-5% margin of error, includes non-voters, is subject to change, and is so far from the elections that it hardly matters. You've also combined "disapproval" with "won't vote for," which aren't the same thing. A voter may disapprove of both candidates, and still choose one.

The bottom line is this is an open election, and shady poll numbers based on perceptions a year and a half out from the elections aren't really indicative of anything.

[mopinko]

38. your "real numbers" are just a rule of thumb

based on nothing. it is your assumptions that are wrong.

[Dawgs]

43. Okay.

1) I did not combine "disapproval" with "won't vote for". I combined "strongly disaprove" with "won't vote for" because different polls ask their questions in different ways.

2) Based on the polls, which is all I've ever claimed to use, 45%-50% of Americans have decided to not vote for Hillary. Why you think she has any way of changing this is beyond me. The lies and attacks she will see in 2008 will be like nothing we have ever seen before.

3) Your post is filled with assumptions, which you treat like facts, yet you attack me for making assumptions.

4) Your math is wrong.

[ComerPerro]

35. quite the contrary. Simple math states that Hillary will win

We've all seen polls where her 'strong disapprovals/will not vote for her' are anywhere from 45% to 50%. As a matter of fact, it's hard to find a recent one that has a number less than 45%; I couldn't.

Simple math tells us that a majority is "more than half", 51 is more than half of 100, 100-45=55, and 55>51.

So, according to strictly simple math, she is a clear winner.

Its the complex analysis of those figures that indicates that there are problems.

[truedelphi]

37. Your big fear is my fear too...

"My big fear now is that Obama and Edwards popularity is going to give us Hillary; kind of like Nader giving us Bush in 2000."

I thinkof that every time I see the polls with Hillary versus the whole field of Dem contenders

[Cosmocat]

42. The math isn't quite right ...

Your math is based on Hillary facing an opponent with NO not favorable ratings, or the assumption that all of his not favorables will not match Hillary's unfavorables ...

Fact is, if Hillary has 46 percent unfavorable, some of those unfavorables are going to be the same as the unfavorables for another candidate ... Maybe they do the "lesser of evils" with Hill, maybe they do with the facist ...

However, I do agree with the general point that the math is not good at all for Hillary ...

[Dawgs]

44. Agree.

I'm not saying my match is perfect-it's hard to be without knowing her opponent. I just know that it will be harder for her than most, and that is my biggest fear.