Hillary in 08? Poll shows support


May 26, 2005, 05:49 PM

However, hopefully not enough. 29% said that they would be very likely to vote for her, 24% said somewhat likely. 39% said definitely not.

The sacriest part of the poll? 9% consider her to be conservative.

If she's gonna do it, what I want to see is her pledge a full term, get reelected to the Senate, then say she is running.

If you enjoyed reading about "Hillary in 08? Poll shows support" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
May 26, 2005, 06:23 PM
She might run, but will go nowhere ultimately.

May 26, 2005, 07:03 PM
Hildebeast versus Condosleaza.... I'm praying that this really is the Last Days promised in Revelation.

May 26, 2005, 07:10 PM
Hillary has the hearts and minds of the left wing activists in the democratic party. She will be the nominee.

May 26, 2005, 07:12 PM
If we only get the right opponent She can be beaten. My far left neighbor has said She would vote for Macain over Hilary. I think with the right running mate John could win. He does know DC as good as anyone. If he gets a running mate to his right he gets my vote. Anything but another Clinton.

To jef.. Give Portland to calipornia

May 26, 2005, 07:16 PM
The only way McCain will become a presidential nominee, is if he switches parties and beats Hillary. He's dead to the republican faithfuls.

May 26, 2005, 07:23 PM
got any good ideas? There are no shining stars on the right at this time...

May 26, 2005, 07:27 PM
The sacriest part of the poll? 9% consider her to be conservative.

You can probably get 10% of people to agree to anything.

May 26, 2005, 07:33 PM
There are no shining stars on the right at this time
It's still really early in the game. Frist is one possibility (you think it's an accident the left and MSM are attacking him?), Rice is another. Some think Cheney might run, or even Gingrich, but those are long shots. Giuliani is too liberal, he would be better off running in 06 for Hillary's senate seat. McCain has no chance.

May 26, 2005, 07:38 PM
A lot of America, whether consciously or sub-consciously, will not have it in them to elect a woman as president. I'm not saying it's right, but it does at least make it less likely that Hillary will be president.

May 26, 2005, 07:43 PM
I hear more conservitives talking about her presidential chances than liberals. Kinda makes me think she's trotted out as scare tactic by "our boys" rather than any serious type of candidate.

Lost both houses of congress and 8 years out of the Whitehouse I'd expect a very centrist candidate. Even the most strident Democrats understand what another 4 years of Republican rule would do to the Federal court system including the Supreme Court.

Though it would be great IF they were dumb enough to run her ;) as long as the Republicans are not dumb enough to run the shrubs brother.... :cuss:

Standing Wolf
May 26, 2005, 07:56 PM
America isn't dumb enough to elect Mrs. Snopes Clinton.

May 26, 2005, 07:57 PM
Simply put, the left-wing moonbats are running the democrats, and she's the one they're going to want in, so she'll be the one.

Face it, the blue states will go gaga over her, and despite her obvious shortcomings, she's a better candidate then Kerry could ever dream of being. But it will polarize the country like never before, the last election will be a girl scout picnic compared to the one coming up.


May 26, 2005, 08:41 PM
There are a lot of nice bumper stickers here if anyone is interested:


May 26, 2005, 08:52 PM
I've found one that both Democans and Republicans can agree on. It says "Run, Hillary, Run!"

Democrats put it on their rear bumpers; Republicans on the front.

R.H. Lee
May 26, 2005, 08:57 PM
Whatever. I won't vote Republican again. Let the chips fall where they may.

May 26, 2005, 08:57 PM
The Democrats have been massacred in the last 3 national elections. Hillary would win California and a chunk of New England (hopefully not Illinois...I'd give that 50/50), but everything else would be an absolute bloodletting for that party.

Let them try and run her.

May 26, 2005, 08:57 PM
Hildebeast versus Condosleaza... I'm praying that this really is the Last Days promised in Revelation.

I think my greatest fear is that the Apocalypse will come when I'm too old to truly enjoy it.

May 26, 2005, 08:59 PM
Good link, Barbara. Thanks.
I think the only way to stop a feminist blowout in favor of Hillary is to run Rice against her. And Lord knows, Rice is far better qualified for the job. IMHO, of course.

May 26, 2005, 09:02 PM
I think I'll take a leaf from Standing Wolf's book from the last election.

Fortunately America isn't dumb enough to elect that Hillary creature.

I think I'll add that to every thread I see about her running until she's either knocked out of the running, or the '08 race is over and she's lost.

Y'all can either buy me a beer for every time I repeat if she does not win, or give a wedgie for every time I repeat if she does win .

May 26, 2005, 09:16 PM
Fortunately America isn't dumb enough to elect that Hillary creature.
I'm not so sure on this one. If the republicans don't run a top-notch candidate and campaign, she'll win.

May 26, 2005, 09:20 PM
She'll run. There is a good chance she'll win too. I expect by then large numbers of conservative Republicans will have turned their back on their party, and will either sit it out or vote 3rd/4th party. If she gets in, we'll have none other than Bush and some prominent Senators (you know who they are) to thank for it.

May 26, 2005, 09:21 PM
Hey, it's my new mantra for Hillary related threads. It worked for Standing Wolf with that Kerry creature.

Fortunately America isn't dumb enough to elect that Hillary creature.

May 26, 2005, 09:31 PM
My prediction? George Allen, Senator from Virginia will be the Republican nominee.

Telegenic, good speaker, southern, more conservative (for now) than Bush. Of course, I don't see Bush as conservative at all. Voted "No" on Firearms Manufacturers Protection bill, but this was after the poison pills had been tacked on. Received a "zero" rating from the Brady Bunch (but only a 50% rating from GOA).

Prediction is provided assuming there aren't any skeletons in his closet.

He's not my ideal candidate at all, but I don't see any other Repub candidates with the potential to rise to the top.

I believe he could crush Hellery.

Standing Wolf
May 26, 2005, 09:44 PM
It worked for Standing Wolf with that Kerry creature.

Actually, it worked for America, not just me.

Mrs. Snopes Clinton doesn't stand a chance. The Republicans could haul out Bob Dole again, and she'd still lose.

May 26, 2005, 09:48 PM
I agree with Hazwaste. I'm sorta a politicianada and have been looking over the candidates. The Democrats are weak, very weak, so unless all the power players turn against her Hillary has the nomination sewed up already. On the Pub's side: after what McCain did this week he's toast in the Republican primaries, Giuliani is way to liberal for mainstream America. Hell, there are still a FEW southern dems who are more conservative than Rudy. Arnold(if the amendment to the constitution was overturned) is too liberal also. C'mon Arnie is the only type of Pub to get elected in the liberal wasteland. :rolleyes: I love Condi but I don't think she wants it. Tom Delay would be my personal choice, I love the "Hammer". :D I think in the end it will be Sen. George Allen of Virginia. Good conservative background, no known "scandals" as of yet. Has power in the party, would appeal to more of the middle-east states, no not Syria. :p Would still be able to carry all the south easily. If the Democrats really wanted to win they would take some brain enhancement pills and run Sen. Evan Baygh of Indiana. He's doing something to appeal to red state voters. In 04 Bush won Indiana by 60%, yet Baygh a Democrat got re-elected with over 60%. :confused:

May 26, 2005, 10:14 PM
I'll just point out how terrible a candidate Kerry was, and how well he actually did. He should have lost by 20-30 points, but he only lost by 4 points. That's with a wartime incumbent president, against a real loser of a challenger. We might not be so lucky this time.

May 26, 2005, 10:21 PM
How about Allen (R) v. Warner (D)? The all-VA presidential race.

Hillary's too polarizing to win the general and I think enough well-heeled Dems. realize this. I think...

The Rabbi
May 26, 2005, 10:26 PM
I'll point out that last time in the cycle no one predicted that Kerry would be the nominee so all this is just jaw-boning.
I predict the Democratic nominee will be Phil Bredesen, gov of TN. Depending on the Republican I might even vote for him.

2nd Amendment
May 26, 2005, 11:04 PM
I'll tell you for a fact Evan Bayh is being groomed, but not for 2008. If a Repub wins then he'll run in 2012, if Hillary wins then he'll run in 2016(though he may wind up as Hillary's VP to offset her terrible rep in the midwest, though the Dems may not be willing to waste him like that). He'll be 59 then.

As for Hillary herself, unless something major happens betwixt then and now she will run in 2008 and, unless Dr Rice runs against her, she will be the next president of the US. The interesting question to me is whether the hinted at reshuffling of the Security Council will allow Slick to pursue his SecGen aspirations in the UN. Just imagine, Hillary as POTUS, Bill as UN SecGen, and Chuck Schumer as AG...

For those determined to deny we are sliding into a police state will that be enough to scare you out of your rose-colored glasses? :D

May 26, 2005, 11:36 PM
i believe one of the biggest mistakes we have made is the direct primary for presidential candidates. it gives all the votes to a narrow base. fer instance,if we still relied on smoke filled back rooms, i don't think organized labor would have ever allowed the dems to have the gun control plank. it marginalizes all the other candidates and their followers,who could have influenced the platform.thus in a 4 or 5 way primary 25 or 21% could set national policy. rabbi, i surely do not see what attracts you to bredeson. property taxes have been raised what,4 times since he "negotiated"for the oilers?millions go out of the general fund to pay for this folly.for an analogy to the oilers,it is about like buying the biggest television you can get in the house,then pay for it with the highest interest credit available,while yer on minimum wage. kinda like letting the children run the household. phil said memorably at the time of the "negotiations" i had so much wine at mere bulls and partied so much at the wild horse,i did not feel too good the next day. well, i am sure bud adams thought never give a sucker an even break. speaking of bud was'nt houston sure glad to get rid of him.by the way there are more people in houston than tennessee.i can go on all nite. how about this one? the hotel tax from all the out of towners coming to the ball game would pay for the stadium. or some how food and drink were gonna pay for all this.but how about this:the same people were gonnaeat and drink whether they played foot ball or not. i guess we do indeed get the gov't we deserve.

May 27, 2005, 12:34 AM
I don't know who the Reppubs have up for the next term. I hope it is not Cheney, most liberals I know have more of a problem with Cheney than Bush. Bush is just an idiot, Cheney is a big business executive (to them, that is their opinion).

I do think that if Hillary wins the nomination, the only logical choice would be to have Rice run against her. Actually, I think Rice is probably the best nomination against everyone. But, she does have the black mark of having been in the Bush admin that might turn lots away from her.

The problem Hillary has, is that a good portion of the country hates her. I don't think that holds true for Rice.

Colin Powell may be another decent choice. Probably the best place to look, though, is at the Repub govenors.

May 27, 2005, 12:51 AM
I expect to see Bill Richardson of New Mexico make a run for the Democratic nomination in 2008. Howard Dean is now running the party, and he is certainly aligned well with him on a lot of things. Richardson will get an "A" rating from the NRA, something that a democrat hasn't had in a long time.

I have no doubt Hillary will run for the nomination, but I don't think she will get it. She might end up as Richardson's running mate though. I just don't think the Democrats are bold enough to run her for president.

On the Republican ticket, I think McCain has a good chance of getting the nomination. I think deals may have already be struck to assure this. Rice is a good VP choice, but the powers-that-be in the Republican party will never pick a black woman over an old rich white guy.

2nd Amendment
May 27, 2005, 12:56 AM
If McVain runs I hope Hillary wins. At least she would be a focal point for action, instead of an excuse for blindly partisan Repubs to continue to bury their heads in the sand as some insist on doing now.

May 27, 2005, 01:00 AM
How about Allen (R) v. Warner (D)? The all-VA presidential race.
I like your thinking. Allen's great, and while I'm not too happy about Warner having taxes raised, he isn't too bad.

captain obvious
May 27, 2005, 01:57 AM
While VCDL's (as well as VA gun owners) take no prisoners approach towards righting VA Gun laws deserves most [all] of the credit, it DID happen under Warner, and he DID sign them into law. I can't say I like his fiscal policy (grumble grumble damn taxes grumble grumble), he is one of a dwindling number of democrats that I would have no problem with as president...for the moment, at least.

May 27, 2005, 07:21 AM
Jefnvk, How is Bush an idiot? I love it when liberals make generalizations about people with absolutely no facts to back it up. :rolleyes: Heck I forgot all about Cheney and how much the crying libs in this country hate him. I've got it now :) Delay/Cheney 08, yeah baby. :D

May 27, 2005, 07:50 AM
The candidates that win in both Democratic and Republican primaries will have to be governors. A lot of senators think that they are the shining stars of their respective parties but the people of this country elect governors of our states to become president, not senators unless there are truly no other choices. Which is why I'm hoping that Jeb Bush will run to replace his brother; he can win with someone like Rudolph Giuliani or a conservative from a northern or midwestern state.

Hillary Clinton will not be elected. Gun owners and people of faith will make sure that she doesn't. She might make it through the primaries but she's going to run into a brick wall during the general election. She has a strong power base but it doesn't extend too much further than a few New England states and California.

May 27, 2005, 07:53 AM
Fortunately America isn't dumb enough to elect that Hillary creature.

New York was, and I dare to say CT probably is too. :barf:

May 27, 2005, 08:47 AM
Jefnvk, How is Bush an idiot?

Re-read. I put the disclaimer in parenthesis.

Most of the liberals I know hold the opinion that Bush is an idiot. To them, Cheney is the real danger, as he was an exec at Haliburton. That isn'tmy opinion, but the opinion of most the liberals I know.

May 27, 2005, 09:02 AM
Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson recently introduced the Washington D.C. Personal Protection Act. She has always impresses me as a common-sense no-B.S. type of Senator.

If the time has come for a woman President, I'd vote for Elizabeth Dole or Kay Bailey Hutchinson anytime over Hillary.

May 27, 2005, 09:18 AM
Elizabeth Dole?

No way.

The Rabbi
May 27, 2005, 09:31 AM
Cheney has already said he isnt interested. He is a terrific VP, probably one of the best we've ever had. But he just isnt presidential and he knows it.

Rice will not run. Period. I wish people would get the idea. She has no political experience at all. Serving in a cabinet is not the same as running for office. Rice is out.

Powell was a near-disaster at State. He has steadfastly refused to run in the past and I dont see anything that would change that.

For the republicans, I think Frist will run if he has any guts or credibility left after his senate tenure. Jeb Bush might run. There is something to be said for continuity.

May 27, 2005, 09:45 AM
Rice will not run. Period. I wish people would get the idea. She has no political experience at all. Serving in a cabinet is not the same as running for office. Rice is out.

I agree. Even if she ran, she would lose. The far right is blinded to that fact however, so they keep chanting Rice Rice Rice, as if it would happen if they just say it enough.

2nd Amendment
May 27, 2005, 10:03 AM
She has no political experience at all.

Utterly meaningless. Truly without any value whatsoever in this discussion.

The far right is blinded to that fact however,

Yes, Rice is definitely the darling of the "far right"(whatever that may be in this age of extreme Leftism and milquetoast Modertism). She's a moderate politico who happens to favor the 2nd Amendment(to some degree) but also at least tolerates if not supports abortion on demand and also has lots of globalist tendencies. Definitely the characteristics of a "far right" poster child.

The Rabbi
May 27, 2005, 10:08 AM
Utterly meaningless. Truly without any value whatsoever in this discussion.

This comment was without value whatsoever.

Let me make it plainer: there is more to getting elected than merely having popular or good ideas. Having the right organization, having the skills to campaign, having the desire to do so, etc etc all go into that. Bush prepared grass-roots organizations for his campaign for probably years before he actually announced. There has not been a single president in 200 years who was not first elected to something else (Eisenhower was elected president of Columbia University but he was unique in being a popular war hero). The experience of building a campaign cannot be made up for in any other way.

2nd Amendment
May 27, 2005, 10:20 AM
As I said, utterly meaningless. Don't know a lot about the inner workings of such national level politics or campaigns? She has the grassroots support. IF she decides she wants it and IF the party leadership decides they want her(almost a given especially if Hillary gains the nomination) her campaign will be built for her. Just as all presidential campaigns are and have been for decades. Also citing the past election history of presidents contributes nothing here. You show a pattern, not a law.

She is more than sufficiently personable, skilled and experienced to adequately handle the personal aspects of her own campaign. She has a better grasp of the current geo-political situation than most any other potential candidate. She has credibility no senator and probably no governmor can claim because of her current position. She has both her race and sex going for her. In short, if anyone can break your pattern she's it and patterns are meant to be broken.

Jake in TX
May 27, 2005, 10:22 AM
About Sen. Hutchison, she has her eye on the governor's mansion in Austin next, not the White House. And I believe we Texans would be better off with her than the current Governor, or Carole Keeton Strayhorn (the state comptroller).

Jake in TX

The Rabbi
May 27, 2005, 10:26 AM
So your essential argument is that she is so skilled and has such popular support that every other potential Republican contender will just roll over and get on her team. If Jesus were running with Moses as his VP and Mohammed as potential SecState that wouldnt happen.
Alan Keyes is skilled and had a lot of popular support and has shown he cant get elected as dog-catcher.
So maybe you're right. I would bet $100 she wont run, wouldnt get the nomination if she did and wouldnt win even she got the nomination.

2nd Amendment
May 27, 2005, 10:37 AM
There currently is no other serious Republican contender. Even in the face of Rice's apparent refusal to run the Repubs have no strong face to put forward. They are as lacking in leadership, even a stuffed shirt they can pump up in the interim, as the Dems are. The only "Brand Name" they have is McVain and perhaps Guilliani and neither has the "conservative" credentials needed. This does not mean a viable alternative can't show up but if one does he(or she) is going to come from currently unexpected ranks. For now, today, the dog and pony show is Hillary Clinton and Condoleeza Rice.

And keep in mind Hillary made a point of insisting she would not be running...in fact I am unaware she has officially altered that claim even though it's almost universally assumed she'll be in the middle of things. And comparing Rice to that idiot Keyes is just wrong. He didn't fail to be electable for any reason other than the fact he imploded. The man is just none too tightly wrapped, not a problem Rice has.

If Rice runs and her opponent is a white, East Coast establishment white guy she'll win, hands down. if it's Hillary then I believe we'll be in for the most interesting and intense(and maybe vicious) presidential election of our time, at least. Which would win...hmmm, now that's a great question.

An interesting aside relating to a prior post of mine: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/5/23/134605.shtml

Seems the assumption Slick can't currently make the position of SecGen because of our Security Council status is not entirely correct. If this does come to pass then it really is time to sit up and take notice of just where we're potentially headed.

Old Fuff
May 27, 2005, 10:43 AM
It's far to early in the game to predict anything, and of course a lot of carefully worded polls are going to be taken in selected places to prove this or that.

But the real question thinking Democrats need to ask is, "can she win in the Red States" in fly-over country that hasn't been buying the party's message?" Of course a lot of the far-left in the party don't think. They nominate a candadate who fits their own image and then go down in flames, except in the Blue States.

I don't doubt that she can win the heart's and votes of Democrats, but that alone won't win the election (if she is the candidate).

Sean Smith
May 27, 2005, 10:49 AM
People like the idea of Rice as Republican candidate for President because it would make leftists' heads explode, both because she actually seems to be conservative in most respects, and becase she's a black woman. Not necessarily because she's a viable candidate.

I think it is more likely that Rice would be a VP candidate this time around, then her trajectory would be National Security Advisor->Secretary of State->Vice President-> President, which seems pretty plausible to me.

May 27, 2005, 10:53 AM
The only "Brand Name" they have is McVain and perhaps Guilliani and neither has the "conservative" credentials needed.

If the Democrats run Hillary, then McCain and Guilliani start looking more and more conservative.

One of the traditional Republican philosophies when picking candidates has been "who else are they gonna vote for".

If Hillary is the candidate then most conservatives, including far right conservatives, will simply vote for McCain or Guilliani as the lesser of two evils. That was basically the Republican party platform in 2004, and I dont think it will change in 2008.

So tell us, if McCain and Hillary run, who do you think most Republicans would vote for? Third party candidate? Nope, they will hold their noses and vote against whoever runs against Hillary.

The Rabbi
May 27, 2005, 10:53 AM
First Old fuff is right (as often) that it is way too early to say anything for certain. At this point 4 years ago no one predicted what Howard Dean would do.
Further there are lots of things that could happen between now and then. Look, Giuliani had terrible ratings before 9/11. After 9/11 he was gold.
So, Jeb Bush. Bill Frist. Haley Barbour. We just dont know. I do know it wont be Rice.

2nd Amendment
May 27, 2005, 10:54 AM
Hmm, another point to consider about a Rice candidacy: This is potentially her career high. She's what, 52? If she passes this time and a Dem wins in 2008 then she's looking at being 65 before she has a serious chance again(unless the Dem looks to be a true One Term Wonder). Since she is NOT, as you correctly note, a "politician" how does she keep her face in the spotlight for that period of time? Become a politician? OK, maybe. Where? What position? Does it guarantee her this kind of exposure? And would it give her the kind of knowledge-based credibility she has now, no matter what elected positions she managed?

Even if another Repub wins and she maintains a high-profile position in that Admin she's still locked out till 2016(again, unless the Repub is a serious One Termer and that has a whole raft of negative implications for any other Repub). No, if she has aspirations for the office she needs to move now. There's no guarantee she'll have any chance in the future and good odds even if she does she won't be as well positioned as she is now. If she has actually said she has no aspirations(as opposed to "no desire to run this time") then fine, discount all this. But otherwise it's do or die time for her career.

The Rabbi
May 27, 2005, 10:58 AM
You're assuming that a) she wants to keep her face in the spotlight and b) she wants to be president.
There are no grounds for either assumption. I suspect she will go back to the Hoover Institute at Stanford when this gig is up.

2nd Amendment
May 27, 2005, 11:02 AM
Rabbi, as you say it's too early and thus one thing you do NOT know is "it won't be Rice". You have no idea.

Guilliani was gold after 9/11 because of events. His politics didn't change and his politics make him unpalatable to most conservatives. He may or may not be an "ok guy" but I'd not vote for him. Frist doesn't have the spine, period. You think another Bush could get elected on the heels of this one? Talk about your baggage to carry.

Who would Repubs vote for in a Hillary/McVain(or Guilliani) race? I think you'd see Dole Syndrome again: They'd just stay home. As for me, I'd vote Third Party or I'd actually vote for Hillary just to get things over with. A Hillary presidency would either galvanize true conservatives and Constitutionalists to change the shape and face of DC politics, or prove once and for all we don't have the cojones to back up our rhetoric and thus send this nation into socialism and total dependency once and for all. Either way at least the drama would be over with.

The Rabbi
May 27, 2005, 11:06 AM
Rabbi, as you say it's too early and thus one thing you do NOT know is "it won't be Rice". You have no idea.

I know very clearly. Some things are just obvious.

2nd Amendment
May 27, 2005, 11:08 AM
She's been clearly recognized as a potential front-runner for months(for some people YEARS) if she wants it and she has never said she does not want it, only that she wouldn't run this time(and I'm not certain she's even been that explicit). She did an interview with Russert where I believe he asked her specifically to offer up a blanket refusal to run and she would not do it. Her potential desire for the office is implicit in her total lack of refusal. She's keeping her options open and that should be obvious to you if you're actually looking and not simply advancing your own agenda.

2nd Amendment
May 27, 2005, 11:09 AM
I know very clearly. Some things are just obvious.

You've said a lot of things on these boards that you appear to feel are "obvious". As with many of those I'll take this one with a grain of salt...

The Rabbi
May 27, 2005, 11:11 AM
On that basis I think Hillary will run as a Republican. She has never said she wouldnt. She wants to be president. Republicans have won for most of the last 50 years. You cant rule out her not switching parties. Other politicians have switched over.
Yup, Hillary-McCain, the Republican ticket in '08.

2nd Amendment
May 27, 2005, 11:16 AM
It's silliness like that which at times causes me to wonder why i try to engage in serious debate online, rather than just laugh at the opposition and ignore them.

I'll tell ya what, based on your illogical statement you ask Hillary specifically whether there is any chance whatsoever she will run as a Repub in 2008 and see whether she gives you a specifc, strongly worded declaration that it will never happen. If she keeps her options open on such a thing then I'll elevate your statement out of the swamp of the absurd. I feel more than reasonably confident I don't have to worry about it.

May 27, 2005, 12:06 PM
Yup, Hillary-McCain, the Republican ticket in '08.

I'd hate to see the Democrat ticket then. Maybe something like Stalin-Lenin?

Another point I thought of, since the primaries are going on at rouglhy the same time, will one side be able to pick someone to run against the nominee from the other side? I don't think a lot of people expected Kerry to win the nomination going into the primaries, but he did. What if the Republcans spend time grooming someone to run against Hillary, and someone else comes out on top?

May 27, 2005, 01:41 PM
Lost both houses of congress and 8 years out of the Whitehouse I'd expect a very centrist candidate. Even the most strident Democrats understand what another 4 years of Republican rule would do to the Federal court system including the Supreme Court.

For those who think the Democratic Party is too smart to run Hillary, we won't get off that easy.

As someone who was a conservative Democrat for many years until I just had to give up and change my registration, and someone from a family of left wing Democrats I think I understand their mindset well.

First, they still don't get it. The left wing of the party is still in control. They grudgingly took Clinton because he was the only choice in 1992. Everyone thought Bush I was unbeatable in the time you had to announce your candidacy so no big guns announced and by the time it because clear that Bush 1st could be beat Clinton was their best bet. Then, even though he was/is a relatively moderate Democrat, they supported/loved him because he put them in the White House for the first time in 12 years (and only the second time since LBJ in the 60's). Didn't matter that he was far more conservative than most of those who control the party, everyone loves a winner.

Then in 2000 they put up Gore who tried to pretend he was conservative, and they thought Lieberman would solidify them with conservatives. Keep in mind this is the party that after 2000 and the congressional elections in 2002 decided that they lost because they became too conservative. It was the moderate and shrinking conservative wings of the party, not the leftists, who were the problem and if they ccould only re-identify as left-wing the votes would roll in :rolleyes: . Coming close in the last election (only happened because so many hate Bush, not because anyone likes Kerry) solidified that view.

Second, they (the left) actually think their views are more representative of most Americans and the problem is only PR. If they can only get their message out a bit better the votes will flock in. Related to this, so many are so far left that even left wing candidates do seem moderate to them (and are in comparison), and thus they misjudge both the electorate and their candidates. Many left-wingers, I can't tell you how many times I heard this from my father for instance, truly thought Kerry was a moderate (some who I know even argued he is right-wing) and thus should appeal to moderate and even some conservative voters.

Democrats have their heads planted so far where the sun doesn't shine that they just don't get it. Most left-wing Democrats truly believe Hillary to be on the moderate to right wing of the Democratic Party. They also absolutely love her because she is a Clinton (thus bringing to mind the wins of Bill Clinton). They will underestimate how much everyone else hates her, they think she is a moderate, they WILL elect her in the Primaries and think she is the best thing since sliced bread.

The only wild card I see right now is Dean already seems to be running, and you never know.

May 27, 2005, 01:42 PM
Jefnvk, sorry about the mischaracterization I'm so used to Bush lied, Bush sucks, Bush etc, etc, that I took your quote out of context. :o

Molon Labe
May 27, 2005, 02:03 PM
If Hillary wins in 2008, the experiment is over.

The Rabbi
May 27, 2005, 03:04 PM
Chaim's analysis is good. He is right: they still dont get it. They are absolutely convinced that it was a fluke that Bush won, twice.
The history is that the most radical leftist tends to get the Dem party nomination and then tries to run to the center in the general election. If Dean had been a little less "charismatic" he would have won the nomination.
Hillary is a formidable candidate. She is a white-trash redneck in a business suit with some education and anyway became senator from NY. That takes some doing. She will present herself as pro-gun, pro-religion, pro-whatever it takes to win. She is very persuasive and people who like her love her.

May 27, 2005, 04:00 PM
-- Because a candidate needs exactly 270 votes to win.

-- And Bush beat Kerry, 286 vs. 251.

-- And the winning margin (for Bush) was via Ohio's 20 Electoral votes.

-- So, for '08, ALL Hillary needs to do is FLIP OHIO and she WINS: 271-266.

-- And, with Ohio's 2 "Republican" senators (DeWine and Voinovich) acting more like Democrats/RINOs lately (see Bolton/UN, judicial filibustering, etc.), that tells us tons about how THEY read Ohio's tea-leaves... and their constituents' minds.

--Remember, Bush won Ohio by only about 125,000 votes. While about 6-8 other states were reasonably close, Ohio was -- and will be -- THE key '08 battleground. It's the ONLY state where the popular vote really matters. It doesn't matter if Hillary wins California by a landslide (she will) or if the Republican wins Texas by a landslide (he/she will). Some small states like Iowa, Wisconsin, and New Mexico could go either way, but the country's future is probably going to be determined by Ohio... again.

-- The nation's divided. It's unlikely we'll see ANY significant changes in the Red-vs-Blue states Electoral Map. Thus, assuming the "split" stays the same,
Hillary's (or any Dem's) real rubber-meets-the-road battleground is Ohio. Just 125,000 votes. That's all she'll need to change. And there's a ton of Angry-Labor and Soccer-Mom votes in Ohio, folks. And the MSM there (newspapers, TV) is VERY pro-Dem/anti-gun. (see Cleveland Plain-Dealer).

-- Despite a mediocre, hostile-to-gun-rights Dem candidate (Kerry), the Republicans won in '04 thanks to a record Turnout. However, if the GOP's '08 candidate is a gun-rights weak RINO (e.g., McCain) a very significant slice of that big GOP record vote (i.e., conservatives) will just stay home. There goes the huge, difference-making Turnout factor.

It's early, but here's the dilemma: the longer the RINOs hang around to placate cross-over "moderates" in places like Ohio, the more damage they do to the national Republican base... thus slowly killing off the GOP's chances of victory.

Now, fellow 2A supporters, contemplate a Prez Hillary plus a Senate that's devoid of 7 RINO's who've turned openly Dem-Independent... and hostile to firearms rights. Hello Registration! Hello Assault Weps Ban II!

But it'll feel so good as we bend over at the moment of insertion... because it'll be For The Common Good... and For The Children.

The war never ends. We got a lotta work to do.

May 27, 2005, 04:19 PM
Political insiders – both Democratic and Republican – overwhelmingly believe that Hillary Clinton will win the presidential nomination if she runs, according to a new poll.

National Journal reporters James A. Barnes and Peter Bell conducted the poll of political heavyweights for The Atlantic, and found that 49 out of 65 Democrats and 48 out of 58 Republicans say Clinton will be the Democratic nominee.

The Rabbi
May 27, 2005, 05:23 PM
Remember, Bush won Ohio by only about 125,000 votes. While about 6-8 other states were reasonably close, Ohio was -- and will be -- THE key '08 battleground. It's the ONLY state where the popular vote really matters. It doesn't matter if Hillary wins California by a landslide (she will) or if the Republican wins Texas by a landslide (he/she will). Some small states like Iowa, Wisconsin, and New Mexico could go either way, but the country's future is probably going to be determined by Ohio... again.

Maybe they'll run Bob Taft. The only reason I like him is that his great-grandfather was a really cool guy. But he doesnt get any more RINO than they come.

May 27, 2005, 06:37 PM
I had a dream!

I just realized that our fears about a Prez Hillary (aided by a Band-0f-RINO-Wimp-Brothers/Senators) moving to incrementally gut the Second Amendment are TOTALLY unfounded! Yes, it's true!


Because Dem Chairman Dr. Howard Dean recently SAID that gun control was no longer on the national Dem agenda, that's why!

Accordingly, that means:

1. We'll see photo-ops of Candidate Hillary shooting a HANDGUN -- in some Self-Defense pistol-craft school -- not holding some Legitimate Sporting Purpose shotgun upside-down like John Kerry.

2. The '08 Dem platform will have a plank forswearing ANY additional/future gun control legislation... to assure us that the Dems really don't want to take away guns used for Legitimate Sporting Purposes (ummm... unless those "Sporting" guns fire bullets -- like the evil .308's, .30-.30's, .30-'06's, and .223's -- that happen to penetrate cops' vests).

3. Senators Chuckie Schumer, Babs Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, John Kerry and Ted "Chappaquiddick Swim-Team Captain" Kennedy will pledge to NOT introduce any new "sensible" gun legislation... even if it means they'll lose the issue's fund-raising magnetism within liberal-extreme circles.

4. Candidate Hillary will reject ANY campaign funds raised by various gun control groups, including the Brady Bunch and MoveOn.org.

5. Candidate Hillary will pledge to nominate an Ambassador to the U.N. who will fight that body's "Small Arms Control Treaty" or any similar international efforts to circumvent OUR Constitution and its 2-A guarantees for OUR citizens.

6. Candidate Hillary will pledge to appoint judges who flatly reject non-US (i.e., European-socialist) courts' legal precedents and processes.

7. And Candidate Hillary will pledge to veto ANY new gun legislation which rogue Congressional miscreants might generate... even if said legislation is, after all, For The Common Good.

Please, all you nasty Vast Right Wing Conspirators and single-issue-voter Neanderthals, don't wake me from my dream! It just feels so good -- this wonderful idea of having a Mother Who Knows Best What's Good For Us And Also Speaks Eloquently -- in charge.

Nighty-night, children. Sleep tight.


"We're going to have to take some things away from you for the common good."

--Senator Hillary Clinton, April '04 (speaking at a Democrat Party "insider" fund-raiser in San Francisco)

May 27, 2005, 07:32 PM

Poll majority say they'd be likely to vote for Clinton By Susan Page, USA TODAY
Fri May 27, 9:22 AM ET

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.

The survey shows that the New York senator and former first lady has broadened her support nationwide over the past two years, though she still provokes powerful feelings from those who oppose her.

Clinton commands as much strong support - but more strong opposition - as George W. Bush did in a Newsweek poll in November 1998, two years before the 2000 election. She is in slightly stronger position than then-vice president Al Gore, the eventual 2000 Democratic nominee, was in 1998.

"Over time, Clinton fatigue has dissipated ... and people are looking back on the Clinton years more favorably," says Andrew Kohut, director of the non-partisan Pew Research Center. In a Pew poll released this month, Kohut called former president Bill Clinton and the senator "comeback kids" because of their rising ratings.

"This may also reflect that she has been recasting her image as a more moderate person," he says.

Spokesmen for Sen. Clinton declined to discuss the survey. "She's just focused on working and doing her job for New York," says Anne Lewis, a veteran Democratic operative working at Hillpac, Clinton's political action committee.

Clinton has been leading the field of Democratic presidential contenders for the 2008 election, still more than three years away. She is running for a second Senate term next year and has dodged questions about whether she'll make a White House bid.

In the poll, 29% were "very likely" to vote for Clinton for president if she runs in 2008; 24% were "somewhat likely." Seven percent were "not very likely" and 39% were "not at all likely" to vote for her.

Her strong support has risen by 8 percentage points, and her strong opposition has dropped by 5 points since the same question was asked in June 2003.

In the new survey, more than seven in 10 Americans said they would be likely to vote for an unspecified woman for president in 2008 if she were running. One in five said they wouldn't be likely to vote for her.

Karen White, political director of the liberal group Emily's List, says the findings underscore growing acceptance of women as candidates, even for president. "People realize that women reach across party lines and are problem-solvers, and they want to see more of that in public life," she says.

No woman has been nominated for national office by one of the two major parties since Geraldine Ferraro was Walter Mondale's running mate in 1984.

Voters under 30 were by far the most likely to say they would support a woman for president. More than half of them said they were "very likely" to vote for a woman, compared with less than one-third of those 50 and older.

Among those who were very or somewhat likely to vote for Clinton for president, there were:

•A big gender gap. Six of 10 women but 45% of men were likely to support her.

•Significant differences by age. Two of three voters under 30 were likely to support her, compared with fewer than half of those 50 and older.

•Strongest support from those with the lowest income. Sixty-three percent of those with annual household incomes of $20,000 or less were likely to support her, compared with 49% of those with incomes of $75,000 or higher.

•And big swings by ideology. An overwhelming 80% of liberals were likely to support her, compared with 58% of moderates and 33% of conservatives.

Among those surveyed, 54% called Clinton a liberal, 30% a moderate and 9% a conservative.

May 27, 2005, 11:20 PM
So tell us, if McCain and Hillary run, who do you think most Republicans would vote for? Third party candidate? Nope, they will hold their noses and vote against whoever runs against Hillary.

I will NOT vote for McCain no matter what, no matter who else is involved. I don't consider him a Republican at all. In the scenario as listed, I would probably vote for the Libertarian. If the GOP could hold onto the House and Senate then we could control Hillary as President. Her Presidency would probably remind a lot of people while they didn't usually vote Democratic and lay the ground for even bigger GOP wins.

First, they still don't get it. The left wing of the party is still in control.

Yep. Ever since the rule changes in 1972 that led to McGovern winning the nomination. And that inability to nominate a centrist has been killing them ever since.

Second, they (the left) actually think their views are more representative of most Americans and the problem is only PR. If they can only get their message out a bit better the votes will flock in.

This is easily the most infuriating thing about "liberals" when you attempt to talk to them about politics. They are just SURE that you voted for Bush or support the war in Iraq because you just "don't have all the facts." If they could just lay it all out for you a bright light would come on and you would suddenly be voting straight Democratic in every election. Drives me CRAZY! I've got a Masters degree in PolSc and I have people on the left do this to me all the time. Even when my education level is far over theirs. Even when I spend far more time every day actually reading the national papers and international news. Still, I'm somehow just "misguided." That paternalistic attitude just makes me shake my head and walk away.


May 28, 2005, 12:32 AM
So tell us, if McCain and Hillary run, who do you think most Republicans would vote for? Third party candidate? Nope, they will hold their noses and vote against whoever runs against Hillary.

If 'None of the Above' ever ran, he'd probably win by a landslide.

Old Fuff
May 28, 2005, 11:09 AM
McCain's game plan has always been to wait until Bush is sidelined and out of the picture. Then he would run for president - either on the Republican ticket if he could get the nomination, or as an independent if he couldn't.

He would depend on drawing together a new coalition, consisting of moderate Republicans, centralist/liberal Democrats, and Independents. Observers should notice that more often then not, McCain is supporting the Democrats on many issues. This is not coincidental, because he wants to draw them into his center/left voter's block that he thinks would form a winning combination. From his perspective he would lose some of the most conservative states, but make up for it by winning some of the larger Blue States.

This strategy has worked for him in Arizona before, where he has lost a considerable amount of the conservative vote, Republican and Democrat, but made up for it by attracting Democrat voters (especially left-wing Democrats) and similar Independents who crossed party lines to support him. Unfortunately no conservative Republican has ever challenged him in a Primary.

Will all of this work on a National basis? I sort of doubt it, but McCain has the kind of ego that will cause him to try, and he could be the kind of spoiler that would split the Republican vote and put a Democrat into the White House.

And the Democrats know it. Should this happen McCain could probably get any job he wanted from a Democratic Administration.

If you enjoyed reading about "Hillary in 08? Poll shows support" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!