The Hillary "Electibility" Issue: Debunking the Myth

I was listening to right wing radio on Saturday, as I often do to monitor the opposition. What I found was typical of our conservative friends these days: lots of praise for Sen. Barack Obama, lots more Hillary-bashing. If only those pesky Republicans knew just how transparent they are. You can always tell who they fear the most by how much praise they lavish on the other guy, in this case the junior Senator from Illinois, and Sen. Clinton's chief rival in her bid to move back into the White House in 2008.

They love Obama, just as they once loved Hillary when they mistakenly assumed she'd win her party's nomination but never the national contest. And now they're calling him everything from hip and fresh to exciting and Kennedyesque. One conservative radio host referred to this political phenomenon as "old brand/new brand." The prevailing and very public sentiment these days among right wing spinners is that 24 years of Bushes and Clintons is enough. That voters have tired of these two dynastic families occupying the White House for so long. Well, they're half right. Americans may be sick and tired--disgusted is more like it--of the last seven, miserable years under King George--but I suspect they'd jump at the chance to bring back the good old days of peace and prosperity under Bubba, who even during his most tumultuous period enjoyed tremendous popularity/approval ratings.

To be sure, the only ones fed up with the Clintons are hardcore Busheviks; there's certainly no groundswell of Democrats lamenting 92-'00. To the contrary, it's most of America--including a majority of Republicans--who'd orgasmically kick Bush to the curb along with his 63% disapproval rating.

For years now all we've heard about is how Hillary Clinton is polarizing and unelectable. That she would never win the national election. It's time to lay this myth to rest once and for all and demonstrate just how easily she could become the next U.S. president. To win, she needs 270 electoral votes. In 2004, John Kerry received 251. His near-win occurred at a time when Bush's popularity and support for the Iraq war was much higher, and when he was still able to tap his post-911 currency while effectively playing the terrorism card. It was also before the GOP was rocked by unrelenting scandal. In short, Bush, the Republican party and the country was in a much different place.

http://ostroyreport.blogspot.com/2007/08/hillary-electibility-issue-debunking.html

The spam isn't going to improve he support, it is what it is.

Rupert and the Bush Rangers love their Goldwater Girl, the MSM is on board, can't you just give use some peace?

Haven't we been kicked enough in the last few days? You win, just stop rubbing it in, it's starting to look sadistic. Stop. Pretty please?

When the smear campaign on Hillary stops on DU, then I'll stop and not a moment sooner.

Fast forward to 2010, DU will be filled with love and praise for President Hillary, the haters will have disappeared.

"...the only ones fed up with the Clintons are hardcore Busheviks...."

Some of us might read that as an insult.

It isn't about telegraphing moves it is about not using weapons of mass destruction (ironic when you consider her excuse for voting for the Iraq war.)

I call myself a smart Democrat that wants to win, not lose and have done nothing to let the trainwreck happen before my eyes.

Sticks and stones may break my bones...

Hillary is bought and paid for. She's a strapped down to a gurney whore for the corporate types. STOP. PLEASE STOP the Hillary MSM bandwagon. My Father in law told me this past spring he really likes Obama and could vote for him. This from a man who once assured me that Bush will be the best President of my lifetime! On the flip side, I like Ron Paul for his honesty and forthrightness. Doesn't mean I could vote for him, but it mirrors what those on the right see in Barack Obama. Hillary will go down in flames if she is our nominee. As a matter of fact, IF she becomes our nominee, I sit home come election day. That is how much I think she is wrong for our nation and our party.

Most of the Rethugs NEVER loved Hillary in any way. Their bashing of Hillary is their genuine hatred of her. They hated Bill, and now, by extension, Hillary. In their minds, Hillary in the White House is really Bill in the White House. Add to that, so many red-staters have a hard time seeing a woman in the White House. To win in 2008 we must flip red states. By definition, red states have more Rs than Ds. So to flip a red state, a Dem. must hold his/her Dem. base, win over Independents, and make some inroads into Rs. Do you know ANY Rethug males who will vote for Hillary? And Rethug women vote with their men. And Hillary faces prejudice (never mind that it's not fair) being a woman. How many Rs and Is in red states can vote for Hillary? Again, rightly or wrongly, she is a walking $$$$$$$$ worth of advertising for Rs to get out their vote.
The Rethug nominee will run away from Bush. He will say that he will protect America in the tradition of Ronald Reagan, that he will return the party to its' true conservative roots, how can a leftist liberal WOMAN stand up to the forces of international evil? Republican voters really want to vote Republican if they can; they will lap that up. They will hold their base and keep too many Indies from defecting. Hillary cannot win; there is doubt whether she can hold marginal blue states like NH, PA, WI. Wishing Hillary is electable because of the political climate doesn't accomplish it. To win, one must be generally likeable--Hillary's negatives are just too high.

I don't get the constant hammering on 'likability' and how Hillary isn't.

People thought Bush was Likable. See where 'likability' gets us? It's time for Americans to get off the Hollywood type standards and vote for someone with brains and plans. People won't vote for Kucinich because he 'looks funny'. Barak isn't 'black enough' or 'too black'. People won't vote for Richardson because he isn't 'charismatic'. Dodd is 'boring'. Edwards 'looks too good'.
For God's sake, start looking at what they can do and what they believe. Really believe. Examine what they have done. Look at how they voted in Congress, not just one issue but their overall votes, check out actions as governor.

This is exactly why a Clinton nomination will be problematic. I know that her supporters disagree but you have clearly, and logically described the problems with Clinton as our eventual nominee. I have no problem with Hillary. I find her smart and quite capable, but because of her history, her connection to Bill, and the need to get swing voters in red states, a Clinton nomination will end badly for the Democrats.

Rethuglicans are peeling away from the GOP in droves at the moment, and there will be no end in sight...with the GOP candidates being as lacklustre as they are the ONLY way they win is if the Democratic opponent is even more HATED than the gop candidate...How do you do that? Simple, pick HRC.

It's the worst of both worlds, a) she gets destroyed in the GE and a rethuglican is in the Oval Office, or b) she somehow manages to get hell to freeze over and squeaks out a win with the result being that another rethuglican is in the Oval Office...

Most moderates/middle-of-the-road rethuglicans will think long and hard about their next GE vote. The vast majority I have talked to plan on just sitting this one out.....UNLESS HRC IS THE NOMINEE...then all bets are off and they would vote for a pile of steaming horse manure if it had an (R) stuck on it JUST TO MAKE SURE SHE DOESN'T GET IN...

She is UNELECTABLE and would GUARANTEE another 4-years of right-wing rule....

Hillary is 44.

..and no, there is no quandry....

Just say NO to HRC....that way a Dem can get in the WH...

See? Simple really!

Wake up to the reality that right wing radio and Murdoch's Evil Empire will unleash political hatred the likes this nation has never seen if HRC is our nominee. And most of America will buy it because they remember all too well the groundwork they laid back in the nineties. They exponentially expand her negatives beyond elect-ability. It's got to be Obama/Edwards/Gore/Biden/Richardson/etc.

1. The GOP consistently hammered Howard Dean much like they do to Hillary Clinton, even when they expicitly suggested they wanted a head-to-head with him. They didn't praise him, they constructed the narrative by which they would defeat him - namely, his perceived volatilty. And, for the record, they also consistently bashed Kerry in the early days, as well. So, history is not behind your argument.

2. Your argument is essentially a logical fallacy: the GOP argue that people are tired of political dynasties and praise Obama, therefore those positions must be wrong.

3. Electing Hillary Clinton does not equal "the chance to bring back the good old days of peace and prosperity under Bubba."

4. Kerry's near win in 2004 has nothing to do with the political landscape of 2008. There would be so many differences that it would be absurd to even begin to list them.

5. "To be sure, the only ones fed up with the Clintons are hardcore Busheviks." Someone else pointed out how insulting and ridiculous is this claim. It is also another classic logical fallacy, and one unworthy of a Democrat.

"To be sure, the only ones fed up with the Clintons are hardcore Busheviks; there's certainly no groundswell of Democrats lamenting 92-'00."

What utter and complete bullshit! Gee, what about the entire left wing of the party, the anti-war folks, the anti-corporate folks, etc. Do you think that these people are willing to support a pro-war, corporate whore candidate? If Hillary gets the nod, she won't win the eletion. Not only will her run galvanize the Republicans, but it will alienate the entire left wing, who will either stay home in droves or go Green.

Sorry, but comparing virtually any presidents tenure against that of Bush makes them look good. It still doesn't mean that person was a good president or that their time in office was sunshine and roses. Remember, it was Clinton who gave us NAFTA, "free" trade, welfare "reform", oh, and five hundred thousand Iraqi deaths due to sanctions and thrice weekly bombing runs.

if "the entire left wing of the party, the anti-war folks, the anti-corporate folks, etc." truly are fed up with the Clintons, the polls don't reflect it.

Hillary's candidacy is one of the most polarizing in a long while. Even here on DU there is a significant group of people who will not vote for Hillary no matter what. Hell, there wasn't this large a group back during Kerry's '04 run. The left may not have liked him, but they wanted Bush out more. Now the left is utterly sick of dynastys and more of the same corporate controlled candidates, and quite frankly are ready to chuck the Dems overboard with the 'Pugs.

But hey, live in denial all you want. Just don't be too shocked when Hillary loses next fall.

In 2004, many folks "around here" STILL thought Howard Dean was going to win after he crashed and burned in Iowa.

No wonder you're so popular:eyes:

I was simply using the "around DU" comment to illustrate the very real fact that there is a large group of leftists who won't vote for Hillary, and simply looking around DU you will find that to be the case.

By the way, sorry to disappoint, but the conventional wisdom at DU has a history of being at odds with the rest of the Democratic electorate.

Also, DU isn't a popularity contest. Anyone who supports something unpopular here, and then defends that support, takes on a fair amount of leftist scorn here. So what? Makes it a lot more interesting not to be in the clique.

The largest group out there are independents, especially left leaning ones. Hillary has no appeal to these folks either, another reason that she will lose.

And I find it vastly amusing that you of all people are claiming not to be in a clique.:rofl: Oh, and please stop with the "poor picked upon me" routine. As my mom used to say "If you're going to dish it out, then you're going to have to be able to take it too."

Once again wyld, our conversation has devolved into useless sniping. I'll catch you later, right now I've better things to do, like watering my orchard.

Peace:hi:

The largest group out there are independents, especially left leaning ones.

Nope, the largest group out there are Democrats. Independents are next, but NOT Democratic-leaning independents.

Oh, and please stop with the "poor picked upon me" routine

:shrug: I have no idea where you got that from.

In the field?

Here in the Tesha household, we've made it clear to
many polsters and to the Clinton campaign more than
once that not only would we never vote for her in
the New Hampshire primary, we'll be hard-pressed to
vote for her in the general election should the party
be daft enough to choose her as its standard-bearer.

We'll be happyto support other, *REAL* Democrats lower
down on the ticket (we *NEVER* "stay home"), but it's
still very much up in the air as to whether or not
we'll vote for the pro-war, anti-gay-rights, flag-
burning-banning reformed Republican at the top.

Tesha

Feel free to shove Hillary in our faces as the annointed
candidate -- I'm just telling you this so you won't be
surprised later.

(as so many Democrats were in 2004, when the "annointed
one" couldn't defeat the Worst President Ever(tm).)

Tesha

The the "annointed one" in 2004 was Howard Dean until John Kerry cleaned his clock.

I remember it so well. One DUer still here today had "President Dean - get used to it!" as his sig line. :rofl:

witness Iowa, where they are polling voting registered Dems.

CLINTON 26.8
OBAMA 22.3
EDWARDS 22.1
RICHARDSON 8.5
DON’T KNOW 16.2
OTHERS 4.1

Those don't knows up fro grabs are going to vote for someone. Sixty nine percent of the voters AREN'T VOTING FOR HILLARY.

That's hardly domination is it.

:rofl:

August 13, 2007 Rasmussen Daily: Clinton 43%, Obama 23%, Edwards 12% "It is hard to see anything that will shake up the general dynamics of this race prior to the initial caucus and primary voting."

August 10, 2007 Hart Research New Hampshire poll (pdf) Clinton 36%, Obama 19%, Edwards 15%, Richardson 12%

August 9, 2007 PhillyBurbs New Jersey poll: Clinton 45%, Obama 21%, Edwards 16%

August 8, 2007 University of Iowa, Iowa poll (pdf): Clinton 26.8, Obama 22.3, Edwards 22.1

August 8, 2007 Quinnipiac Florida poll: Clinton 43%, Obama 13%, Gore 11%, Edwards 8%

August 8, 2007 Quinnipiac Ohio poll: Clinton 41%, Obama 16%, Edwards 11%, Gore 8%

August 8, 2007 Quinnipiac Pennsylvania poll: Clinton 35%, Obama 19%, Gore 12%, Edwards 10%

August 7, 2007 Cook Political Report: Clinton 43%, Obama 23%, Edwards 10% With Gore: Clinton 39%, Obama 21, Gore 10%, Edwards 8%

If you are gonna use stats...best you know how to apply them

They would agree with me...

Than it is from Obama's 66%...

> Easier to get to 100% froom 82 than it is from Obama's 66%...

You're ignoring the fact that you don't hear many Democrats
saying "If Obama's the nominee, I won't vote for him" whereas
it's very common t hear people say "If Hillary's the nominee,
I won't vote for her."

Positive support in the primaries is a good thing but it isn't
the same thing as "negative unsupport" in the general.

Tesha

Your problem is that you think DU opinion is even remotely representative of Democratic voters at large...it isn't...in the world outside the DU bubble I have heard many people say they won't vote for Obama under any circumstance...mostly related to his lack of experience...

The fact is, among Democrats Hillary Clinton is the most popular candidate running...

> Gee, what about the entire left wing of the party, the
> anti-war folks, the anti-corporate folks, etc. Do you
> think that these people are willing to support a pro-war,
> corporate whore candidate?

The DLC crowd doesn't need us. They've told us to "piss off"
multiple times.

It's only after the election, when they've blown yet another
one that should have been a "gimme", that they will suddenly
rend their garments and wail about how we on the left "sold
them out" and elected the Republican. It's getting to be a
trend you can count on, as certain as Lieberman voting with
the Republican position.

Tesha

She'll get smoked. I sure as hell won't vote for her. It's not fair that the republicans would get two nominees.

He says,

"For years now all we've heard about is how Hillary Clinton is polarizing and unelectable. That she would never win the national election. It's time to lay this myth to rest once and for all and demonstrate just how easily she could become the next U.S. president. To win, she needs 270 electoral votes. In 2004, John Kerry received 251. His near-win occurred at a time when Bush's popularity and support for the Iraq war was much higher, and when he was still able to tap his post-911 currency while effectively playing the terrorism card. It was also before the GOP was rocked by unrelenting scandal. In short, Bush, the Republican party and the country was in a much different place."

Now, this would be a perfect argument if the 2008 contest was Bush vs Kerry. Kerry would win in a landslide. ( I am assuming the stupid joke would weigh less than all the vindication Kerry got on the war on terrorism, Iraq and Tora Bora - so he would after a campaign be stronger while Bush as the op article says is weaker.) However, neither of them are running.

It is interesting that if the Democrats had continued to push Kerry's war on terrorism and Iraq views as generic Democratic views, we could have capitalized more on the the fact that the Iraq study group recommendations are very similar to what Kerry proposed in 2004 and 2005 and on the fact that many people from George will to Gordon Brown speak of the war on terrorism as Kerry did in 2004. This would have given Democrats a great platform on which to place their 2008 plans - arguing that they have been proven right and the way to get there now is (whatever the cadidate's plans are).

Instead, Bill Clinton several times spoke of Kerry "not being perceived as strong enough on the war on terror" and that he and Hillary were stronger (translated as more hawkish on Iraq). This is bad for Democrats as a whole as it concedes to the Republicans what they always claim. The question is whether they thought this was true - in which case they were wrong on terrorism and Iraq or whether they said it because to do otherwise would help Kerry in a second run. If it was the latter, it is troubling that they would put politics ahead of getting the policy right. On both those issues - where Kerry was working to move public opinion, they were - if anything - thrying to stop him. I may be missing other possible explanations, but it looks to me like everything came down to political posturing.

I do agree with the main think he is saying in the quoted paragraph - 2008 will definately be easier than 2004 was. Bush is extremely unpopular and the Democratic candidate will not be facing an incumbent in a time of war. I do think that national security will be an issue in 2008. Hillary or any other Democratic candidate will likely win, but I suspect that we will hear echoes of Kerry's positions (and likely words) on these issues - and the fact that he moved public opinion on them will help the Democrats.

If Hillary had anyone else surrounding her except the insider beltway consultants who ran the Gore and Kerry campaigns, and plan to run the same campaign, I'd be less worried about Hillary.

Leading in the polls at this stage is meaningless. Ask Howard Dean about that.

would be that the author seems to assume that the Kerry states would be a given. Maybe I'm reading that part wrong, but that is the impression that I get.

But it's important to consider how many of Kerry's states were narrow wins; they should not be assumed to make up any sort of Democratic base. New Hampshire? Well, they seem to be trending blue with the switch of both of their house seats from R to D and, I believe, the switch of controlling party in their state legislature. But Gore lost NH in '00, Kerry only narrowly won in '04 (and that could have had something to do with being from a state that bordered NH, although I've heard New Hampshire-ites aren't necessarily that big on their neighbors to the south), and NH is traditionally a Republican state.

And then there are Wisconsin and Minnesota. Both states went for Gore and Kerry, but both by margins too close for comfort- especially Wisconsin. Minnesota should seem like one of the safest states, being the one that has the longest history of voting for the Democrat in Presidential elections, but Nader's strength in 2000 indicates that a third-party challenge from the left might cause both of these to be way too close for comfort once again- and a Clinton candidacy for whatever reason, seems more likely to generate a strong third-party challenge than a run by any of the other Democratic candidates would.

Even if we do assume that all of Kerry's states will decide to go for Clinton, getting those extra twenty electoral votes may be tougher than the article makes it sound. Ohio may be in bad shape economically after years of Republican rule and the Democrats made some major pick-ups in the way of the governorship and a Senate seat in '06. But a number of competitive House seats that looked like we had a good shot at as pick-ups still ended up staying with the Repugs, in a climate that wasn't good for them at all. There is not strong proof that Ohio will not decide to vote against their economic self-interest once again. I mean, and I'm not taking into account the numerous shady things that went on with the vote in '04, they still stuck with Shrub in '04 when their state wasn't exactly in great shape. Can Clinton be expected to pull off something neither Al Gore nor John Kerry could do?

Florida, at least in comparing '00 to '04 seems to actually be moving in the wrong direction, especially considering that they voted for Bill Clinton in '96. Perhaps Hillary Clinton would be more popular here than Gore or Kerry were, but would she be popular enough to overcome any corruption in the voting system, and the large Republican presence in the state? Obviously, this same question could be asked of any of our candidates. I just don't trust that Florida is worth putting any money on in terms of it going for our side. If it went "D" it would definitely be a very pleasant surprise, but I don't think it's wise to make it any part of a group of necessary states for our victory.

Anyway, that's just my take on things; maybe I'm being too pessimistic, but perhaps I'm just still feeling the burn from 2000 and 2004.