These polls say that Hilary can win. And if the GOP didn't run their usual tactics she might well win, but Hilary is very vulnerable to their attack dogs, and once that is factored in, I really don't think Hilary would stand a chance.
Fair enough, FB. But you could say that about any Democrat. There is a chance (at least) that this time will be different. The Dems are changing, better or worse, as evidenced by the election of Howard Dean to party chair. They have finally rejected past strategies and, as in the Gonzales hearings and the Social Security debate, are presenting the united front of a true opposition party. This can't be taken lightly. It has not happened in the last several cycles, so I think the Dems can be counted on this time to at least try to fight back. What might have happened if Kerry hadn't sat silent through the entire month of August while he was pummelled by the Swifties? I'm not saying I'm optimistic about the change, but I am allowing myself to imagine being optimistic. That's new too. As for defining Hillary, the Dems have never in modern times fielded a candidate that was better known by the electorate. Not Gore and certainly not Kerry, so the GOP had a better opportunity to define the Dem. The interesting thing is that while conventional wisdom is that she is already defined in the negative by the electorate, the polls paint a different picture. Also, while the polls currently favor her, she is considered by those polled to be more liberal than Kerry. The pollees are wrong on this and Hillary has a great opportunity to let them know that. Where Kerry ducked and dodged the L tag, there was a record that said otherwise. In Hillary's case there isn't. She's been consistently tough on terror and pro war in Iraq and Afghanistan (much more so than Kerry, for example) and her voting record reads as a moderate Democrat. Apart from her health care plan in the early Clinton years there is nothing in the record or in her language to contradict her ideological position as a left center Dem. So in terms of the GOP defining her, she is already defined as a liberal, as a carpetbagger (though this is fading fast), as someone who rode her husband's coattails to office (the public doesn't seem to care any more about this than Bush riding his dad's) and as a b****. And she's still polling well. What else is the GOP machine going to do to her that hasn't been done? They've been working on defining her for over a decade now and, incredibly, she's still (barely) winning the war of definition. Meanwhile, Condi remains undefined. The public has at best a superficial understanding of who she is, where she stands, what she's done -- certainly superficial compared to their understanding of the same about HRC. My whole point here is that the conventional wisdom on Hillary is wrong and there are numbers to prove it. Somehow it is still en vogue to say she doesn't stand a chance. For people who are paying close attention, that has already changed. For the rest, it will. Think GWB and Reagan who were similarly dismissed as horrible prospects.
That is a really, really good point. Some might debate whether she is winning the war of definition, but you can't argue the fact that there's not much new the GOP can throw at her. The question is: has the stuff they've been throwing at her already stuck enough? It'll be very, very interesting. The one thing that excites me as a Democrat is that, in 2008, we might finally have an all-star team to choose from (Hillary, Biden, Richardson, Vilsack, Edwards, Gore, etc.). Usually the choices in the primaries are like choosing the fifth starter on a pitching staff ...
That is the question. A month ago I would have said yes. I'm very surprised by the recent polls, but they're making me change my mind. As noted earlier in the thread, Hillary's positives in Florida are higher than GWB's and her negatives are lower. Best of all, she hasn't made a single proactive argument yet to counter the criticism. All she's done is change her reputation through action, becoming known as a hard worker and an aisle crosser unfettered by ideology. Her 2006 campaign will almost certainly focus on security ("the new women's issue" - West Wing is good this year) and her reputation in the Senate as a "uniter." The first article I posted in this thread lays out the strategy well. Love the names you picked. Edwards and Gore, not Kerry; Vilsack, not Bayh and Warner. You've got a good eye, man. Those are the all-stars. It's gonna be a fun race.
Thanks. I don't see Bayh as an all-star; I see him as an empty suit for DLCers to drool over. Forgot about Warner. While he doesn't do much for me, I'd consider him an all-star simply because, if you're a Dem shopping for a proven vote-getter from a red state, he's your candidate. Not often we have one of those that you can choose from. It'd be interesting to have Wes back in the race, too. He's got a couple years to get more polished. Right now I'm a Vilsack man, but he's got some explaining to do to me on the English as Official Language thing. I wouldn't mind a Vilsack/Richardson ticket to prevent Hispanics from defecting over Vilsack's English as official language deal.
Please, please, please nominate Hildebeast. PLEASE. Very few rational men would be willing to vote for that b!tch. I'd put an over/under of 1,000,000 on how many times the State of the Union roll-eyes video would be shown. I really think by the end of the campaign, she'd be broken psychologically. She'd melt down, just like Howard Dean melted down. Bet on it. Hildebeast benefitted from Giuliani dropping out of the New York Senate race in a major way. Lazio didn't have the time or name to make up the ground. Hildebeast has such a high negative rating -- before it all even starts. We all know how the negative rating does nothing but increase as campaigning rolls along. Heck, even that Geffen guy recognizes that Hildebeast would be a sitting duck in a general election. Way too liberal, way too openly ambitious/power hungry, way too b!tchy. No chance. None. Keep dreaming, libs.
"Stop lying about my record!!" basso, I applaud your gift for revisionist history. Seriously, you guys are the best! Search is on again. Find one instance of me dissing Rasmussen. I didn't do it. Ever. What I have said is that it's known to be a right-leaning polling company and it is. That really only aids my point about Hillary's viability. Here. I'll even give you the link to the search: http://bbs.clutchcity.net/search.ph...id=40522&sortby=lastpost&sortorder=descending What you'll find there is several instances of me citing Rasmussen polls and at least one instance of you pushing this lie about me dismissing Rasmussen. In that one, you actually accused both me and Jeff of this, we both came in to correct the record and you went poof. Months later, you're back pushing the same bogus charge. No surprise there.
Exactly right on Bayh. The last thing we need is another cardboard cutout GOP-lite guy. The DLC's lost relevance significant to deny Bayh the strength he might have had before. You're right about Warner. I don't know a whole lot about him, but he strikes me as a star on paper, not off. I could be wrong there. Wes's year was last year. I know a lot of lib bloggers like him, but I still truly do not understand why. To me, his weakness as a candidate -- his robotic, unblinking, talking to his audience as if they were children (well, that bit at least worked for GW) -- is engrained. The plus of his military credentials has been lessened by the 2004 results. Think there aren't Swiftie equivalents for Clark? There are. Lots. And service record is apparently a non-factor now with the electorate. He's also got Arkansas going for him, but so does Hillary. I just really think he's a bad top of the ticket candidate. I think he'd make a fine VP (and a fine president really, but I don't see him as a winning candidate for prez). Vilsack, huh? Watch the changes (or not changes) to the caucus/primary schedule to gauge his viability as nominee, of course. There's a lot of noise about changing the schedule and that's not especially good for him. Do you like Vilsack best as a winning candidate or as a president? For president I think my top two are Feingold and Gore. For candidate my top two are Hillary and Vilsack.
you made several attempts to insinuate that rasmussen was biased in his forecasts because he's republican. given your well documented feelings about republicans, i don't think it's hard to see why your posts on the subject might be characterized as "dissing" in nature. but now that he's got numbers you like, suddenly he's your man! did it not ever occur to you that these numbers are just part of a rovian plot to get the dems to run the beastie?
No. I. Didn't. I said his was a right leaning polling firm, which it is. And I never - not once - insinuated that meant his polls shouldn't be taken seriously. Find an example where I did. You can't. Want me to find several examples of me citing his polls? They're out there. They're in that search I gave you. I cited them when Kerry was up, I cited them when Bush was up. And I only mentioned his rightist leanings in discussions of which polling firms represented which parties and which were considered more neutral. I never once, repeat never once, used it as a way to dismiss him. I never once said anything to the effect of Bush is up in Rasmussen's poll, but Rasmussen's a Republican. In fact, you did engage in those sorts of tactics with electoral-vote.com, for instance (if not with others like Zogby -- a left leaner as I've pointed out). You even wrongly equated electoral-vote's bias with Rasmussen's -- wrongly since, as I've explained to you before -- one conducts polls and one simply reports them. I don't play this kill the messenger game. That's the province of guys like you and Jorge and his twin brother. I consider the WSJ, Rasmussen, the Washington Times et al to be respectable right-leaning organizations. I don't dismiss their reports out of hand like you guys do with the NYT, etc. I can actually distinguish between right leaners and propagandists (like Talon and Fox). You apparently can't, but that's no reason to project your stuff on me. The mere fact of me citing the mere fact that Rasmussen is a Republican is only that -- a fact. (The Daily Show got your sort right when they said, "The facts are clearly biased.") First you lied to say I'd previously dismissed Rasmussen and then you lied to say I only posted his polls when they favored my candidate(s). It's not true and there's a record. Stop lying.
p.s. to Jorge: If you're talking to me, you're wasting your time. You're welcome to continue wasting it, but I've long since stopped wasting mine on you. You're on ignore.
On election day, you cited the exit polls as the reason why Kerry would enjoy the biggest landslide since Reagan. OOPS
I'm sorry. I'm not quite done. It just makes me crazy when you push this bogus stuff. In the search I gave you, there are eight threads. They comprise every single thread with the word Rasmussen and my handle. Find ONE example of what you accuse me of in those eight threads and I'll apologize. Don't, and you should apologize.
I agree with you that is true of any candidate that the Dems put forward. Hillary will be tagged for her abortion stands, gay rights, former health care etc. The GOP will hammer those issues, and accuse her of playing politics with the rest of her moderate record. The other negatives that you mention will be brought out too. But you are right that any Dem will face that which is why you need someone who either is tough enough to fight back, and seems to stand for what he believes like Dean was before he stopped talking about his issues and was assassinated for the scream. I know that you are a fan of the gov. of New Mexico as am I. I think he is nice enough and at the same time tough enough to fight off the GOP attacks. Hilary has name recognition and a moderate record in the Senate. I think she has benefitted from the low expectations that resulted from the irrational attacks and labels attached to her. Once people saw she was actually capable, hard working, smart, and not a horned devil that wanted to turn the U.S. into a Amazonian lead socialist homeland opinions changed. Thus I think we see her poll numbers going up. Should she run that trend of surpassing the low expectations will continue for the early part of the campaign season. It isn't impossible that she could do well in an election, but I think she's just too vulnerable. I don't think it is impossible that she would win, but I find it doubtful. The Polls don't really convince me because before a campaign people can pin whatever hopes, ideals, and positions on a candidate that they want. So the candidate who hasn't run has the best possible traits to a huge section of the populace. Those traits will move from the fantasy ones to the real or unreal as projected through the gop's eyes as the campaign moves forward.
I hear you FB, but I'm not sure which bit I'm supposed to hear louder. Is it the bit about how Hillary has too much baggage before the race starts or the part about how pre-election opinion is meaningless because we can project ideals on any candidate? They can't both be true. Based (I believe) on conventional wisdom, you continue to underline popular negative opinion of Hillary even when the polls show it's receded and dismiss popular positive opinion. If this logic worked, Bill Clinton would have lost to Bush due to overwhelmingly negative reaction to his (then) alleged womanizing, various scandals (Whitewater, Tyson chicken, etc.) and Arkansas' low rating in every conceivable category. Yes, it's too early to rely on polls for 2008 but no, it's not too early to spot a trend in the remaking of a potential candidate's public image. I repeat that any Dem will suffer under the extreme negative campaigning and character assassination from the right and I also repeat that it is easier to define an opponent that doesn't arrive at the race pre-defined. The news here is that the definition of Hillary has taken an unexpected turn. Even while she has supplanted Ted Kennedy as the fundraising postcard child of the left, her negatives are going down and her positives are going up. It's not a coincidence. We all know she started running for president in 1999 and the definition race began then in earnest. It has not slowed down, the GOP has not gone easy on her, and look what's happening. That's all I'm saying here: Look what's happening. It's not a coincidence and it's not a fluke. It's by design, Hillary designed it and it looks like it's working. Richardson, by contrast, has various negatives that haven't begun to surface and that the GOP machine hasn't touched. He was basically fired by the Clinton admin and made the whipping boy for 'mismanagement' which may or may not have been his fault. The GOP hasn't been on that yet; if he's the nominee they will be. He's also regarded by many in NM to be a bit of a strongarming scumbag and disingenuous to boot. The GOP will be down there looking for character witnesses the minute he shows strength. Further, like every other Dem in the field, he is vulnerable to attacks on Dem platform stuff (pro-choice, less anti-gay than GOP, etc.) just as much as Hillary is. I also didn't say I was a fan of him I don't think; I think I said he was tough. He is. As toughness goes though, I'd say Hillary's tougher. That is the number ONLY reason some people call her a b****. I like Richardson fine but I'd prefer Hillary both as a candidate and as a president. My main point though is this: Richardson hasn't begun to suffer GOP attacks. Neither has Richardson, Bayh, Clark, Vilsack or anyone else in the field save Kerry, Gore and to a considerably lesser extent Edwards. Hillary's been under attack since 1992 and she's still outpolling all those guys in both Dem and national polls. That's not nothing.
I think both of those are actually true in this case. There are some that will never get over their irrational fear of Hilary. There are others that listened to the irrational stuff spewed out about Hilary for years and had low expectations which were over come by reality. But she has been under attack but not the level of what a candidate would. There are Hannities, O'Reilly's, and Limbaughs out there who already do put out some of the negative hype about Hilary but will ratchet that up should she actually run. Her power hungry trait is one thing that she is attacked for, but that doesn't stick like it would should she choose to run for the presidency. As for Bill Clinton he had the scandals and the charisma to overcome those scandals. He could speak and change or convince them that he was sincere about what he was doing, and the attacks didn't stick. Hillary doesn't share that same charisma. I don't say that she lacks charisma, just that she doesn't have it the same way that her husband did. The poll numbers now represent people overcoming the irrational attacks that were heaped on her from before. Those that heaped the charges won't change, and the initial surpassing of Hilary's low level of expectations are great, I just don't believe it would pass the big test. I also fully admit that I could be wrong. She has suprassed what I thought she was capable of as far as public opinion to this point. I honestly didn't think she could win as many people over as she has, but that is still a different beast than running for Presidency. As for Richardson I believe that his past with the Clinton whitehouse won't hold water because the Clintons will endorse him if he gets the nomination. The GOP might go after him for his strong armed tactics in NM, but I don't think that alone is enough to paint an unfavorable enough picture of Richardson. Anyway who knows. Kudos to Hilary for winning over those that she has. I disagree with her stance on a number of issues including Iraq, but I probably prefer her to any of the GOP candidates I've heard mentioned so far. With Bush no longer able to run for the office I will probably go back to voting for third party candidates.
RE: Richardson The Clintons will endorse and the GOP will say, 'He wasn't fit for Energy Sec and now he wants to be president??' No, Richardson's strongarming wouldn't be enough to deny Richardson the White House just like Gore's penchant for exaggeration or Kerry's nuance weren't enough to deny them the gig -- it's not about the truth of the matter, it's how the truth's portrayed. And the stuff I have on Richardson is zero next to what the GOP has now which is zero next to what they will have -- on him, on everybody. If the Democrats continue to carefully select the safest, most "electable" candidates, they will continue to find themselves with the least electable candidates. They have been reacting to GOP dominance since Reagan beat Carter. A reactive strategy does not work and, after twenty-five years (minus Clinton whose charisma, I agree, is an exception) they are finally realizing it. The Democrats ought not to select a candidate based on what the GOP will do to that candidate -- they will do it to any candidate. Meanwhile, they will nominate someone with no thought to what the Dems might do to them. They say bring Hillary on, I say the same about Condoleezza. But this time, let's have an evenly matched fight. If they want to get in the mud, we need to get down there with them. My criteria for a presidential candidate is someone I'd want as president and someone who'd fight hard enough to get there. Hillary's high on that list for me. Maybe not at the top, but high. She doesn't have her husband's charisma (who does?), but she's smart as hell and she's a fighter.
I agree 100% about not going for the safe choice for Democrats. They definitely need a fighter, and they needed one this last time as well. I thought that was why Howard Dean would have been the best candidate last time. I almost don't care who they nominate as long as they are willing to fight back, and not take out what the GOP dishes out. I do think Hillary is tough. She was tough when she was running in NY. At that time I believed I wanted her to be president but not a senator from NY. I lived in NY at the time voted for a third party candidate.
