Hillary in 08? Poll shows support

Status
Not open for further replies.
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).
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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...
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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. :eek:
 
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.
 
The Electoral Vote Map Is Scary...

-- 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.
 
Hillary_Face.jpg

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.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/5/27/120503.shtml
 
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.
 
But, wait! There's more!

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!

Why?

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)
 
Poll MAJORITY say they'd be likely to vote for Clinton

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20050527/pl_usatoday/pollmajoritysaytheydbelikelytovoteforclinton

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.
 
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.

Gregg
 
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.
 
John McCain

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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top