Matthews: If Dems go with their "heart," they'll nominate Hillary

(or Obama). Anyone catch this from today's Hardball? What planet is this guy living on? I can understand Dem primary voters being bold, and going with a potentially groundbreaking candidate like Obama, but Hillary? She is the most media-driven, mainstream, forced of the Dem candidates. Why the hell would Dem voters "go with their heart" and choose Hillary? This made no sense to me.

Lordy, li'l chris is funny boy.

:spray: :rofl:

I wonder when his Betty Ford Suite becomes available again....

you ain't gonna vote Hillary! Me, I like Obama.
How can we get thru to the msm what the real people out here think. That Hillary is not beloved and no one is excited by her. That they are just so out of touch and totally off base with the average person.

:rofl:

That dipshit he had on from the WAPO website, Chris-whateverthephuck-his-name-is seems to be more sold on Hillary than anyone....

:rofl:

NGU.

Oh Tweety, how far from the Democratic base you are! Hey, wasn't it YOU who spoke on-mic to Delay about how the Dems in that interest group didn't like Hillary, and still preferred John Kerry?
You are busted, you liar.

preconceived notions - so he rejected it.

Hillary is the choice of the head - which means it could change quickly if she goes down in the polls.

Warner was a voice of the head - He wa sold as a 1)Governor 2) Southerner 3) from an emerging swing state he could win.

In 2008, Obama would be a vote of the heart for a new friend we recently met who seems perfect - but we need to see how it develops.

There are also votes of the heart for people we have gotten to know, respect, and trust. Most politicians, by their very nature project a pleasant facade that is better than the person hiding behind it. Both Al Gore and John Kerry surprise people who actually meet them because they are far nicer, kinder, funnier than they appear in public. (In contrast, Clinton's temper and demeanor are less pleasant than his image). Gore and Kerry are both the serious public servants they appear to be.

In 2008, Gore would be a vote of the heart, even though he was the vote of the mind in 2000. The question is whether he is willing to put himself and his family through the hate and nastiness that a Presidential campaign would be.

In 2008, Kerry would be a vote of the heart. In addition to the Kerry supporters, there is a very significant group who say that he would make a good or excellent President, has the positions that most of us want and is an honest man of great integrity. The concern is that he lost last time.

Others I have a harder time placing.

She convinced them of her being the queen of the prom years ago and they bought it and cannot see it was Clinton prop.
They try to talk up other candidates but, you see them still doing the Hillary talk.

and I won't ask you if you have a heart - K, Tweety?

For more than a year he's talked about her as if she's already the nominee! He's always asking every guest "Whaddya think about Hillary running for Prez, huh, huh? Whaddya think her chances are,huh, huh?" It doesn't matter who he's talking to..they all have to comment on Hillary. He's a dope!

More than the nominee. He talks like he has a fierce crush on her. Oh, Hillary!!!!

No more Bushes-No more Clintons

UNBELIEVABLE. Hysterical. What a joke he is.

A major part of the Puke stratagy is to pick their opponents. We must go with our brains and hearts.

I saw the show, Hillary's name came in second to Obama.

"If they go with their heart, they'll vote for the pre-ordained media-selected candidates who'll make my job really fucking easy. That way, I can zip off to my Nantucket estate on the weekends and not have to stick around DC for all of that irritating "political" talk.

:eyes:

He actually may be saying what some DUers are saying. That a number of "nonwonk" Democratic voters may be quite likely to cast a vote for Hillary because of exposure.
Hillary might also be the likely choice for those who simply miss Bill.

Reasonable considerations, to be fair. And truthfully she is probably counting on both. When someone raises the kind of money she has and does it where she does, it should be no surprise that the press salivates over an announcement. Combine that with the unique circumstances and them watching her is a given, too.

We should not assume that every voter gives politics the level of attention that we do. Many "vote with their gut." I talk a lot of people who say they are too busy to follow candidates closely, they just vote Democratic. In a primary they pick the one they like the best.

I really think the real problem with the press is what they won't cover. It is ridiculous to deny that she has successfully created a story of herself. I hope desperately that she does not win the primary, because I have a strong opposition to this road of keeping the "presidency in the family."

I hope that reason and democracy will prevail!

Anyone who's going to vote in a primary election is going to gather some real information (especially in the early states) rather than vote by name ID alone. So Tweety's got a point, but he's still wrong. Now this might be true in the big states which is why I actually extremely dislike frontloading the primaries. But either way...the "nonwonk" majority doesn't vote in primaries...so it won't be enough even with a massive Madison Avenue advertising campaign, which actually might turn as many voters off as on in the 2008 big state primaries.

Even a lot of people here just think they are well educated in politics when all they do is quote conventional wisdom and instinct.

And I am very well educated in politics from both academics, grassroots training, and first-hand campaign expierence. Here's a link for you: http://rhodescook.com/analysis/presidential_primaries/nh/turnout.html...but I honestly don't care if I convince you or not. Subtract 7-20% and you'll get an idea of how the big states work; NH is abnormal because of all the attention the primary recieves.

"In fact, turnouts on Election Day have been steadily falling since the 1960s. And it's not just the smaller city council or town selectman races feeling the snub. Even highly publicized, big-money presidential elections are failing to pull in voters. In 1996, the presidential primaries netted only 16 percent of eligible voters and less than 50 percent on election day — one of the lowest turnouts ever recorded. In all of the 20th century, only the 1920 and 1924 presidential elections drew a smaller crowd. Voting, although some would argue one of the most important rights a citizen can exercise in a democratic society, has become, it seems, not worth bothering with."

http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/ksgpress/bulletin/spring2000/american_vote.html

To assume that low turnouts translate into a full, well informed voting sample is ridiculous, however.
I would argue that there is a distribution of wonkishness across the primary voters that is fluid. Some of the AARP voters have had it good since the Medicare part D went into effect. Others not so good. It could influence the amount of attention given to candidates.
A lot of union workers show up and vote Democratic in every election but ignore politics as much as possible the rest of the year.

Rather that they have made some effort to make choices, because otherwise they wouldn't bother to show up.

This is also dependent on how you define informed. I define informed as being able to offer some reasoned justification for voting the way you vote rather than simply voting in reaction to a TV ad or randomly voting.

I agree it is fluid, but you can still have a trend line and that would lean towards informed voters being the majority of primary voters, although you could have a very significant minority of uninformed voters in the primary, but generally speaking they are not the majority. The union vote anymore can't be more than 10-20% if even that...

It's all dependent on the particulars of the election of course...but I would say that Hillary is in big trouble with informed voters because of her waxing on the war. :mad:

Sorry for the confusion...

They're insiders with no perspective. They don't KNOW what happened in the election. They don't know what's happening today. They can't see it.

Quick answer: Nothing.

:eyes:

And he wouldn't be the only one it would fuck up either.

to Hillary. I understand the corporations choosing Hillary. Bill was their boy and she has been on board with them for a long time too. They have also picked Obama for us though. I know he has made a few corporate-favorable decisions, but he must be making some noises to the corporatists behind-the-scenes that make them think he's their guy. What's being promised?

I'll support the nominee, but my first choice is Al Gore.

seems to be a must on this forum.

So because Matthews says that we're supposed to get madder at Hillary for it?

because she is divisive; the "heart" stuff is a bunch of ridiculous nonsense.

Like most media personalities, Matthews spends much of his time thinking up inane comments such as these to bring more attention to himself.

He's spent too much time inside the beltway. He has no clue what people are thinking about in the real world.