What are you basing that on? From CNN Poll:
October 2006
.
"If New York Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton were the Democratic Party's candidate and Arizona Senator John McCain were the Republican Party's candidate, who would you be more likely to vote for: Hillary Rodham Clinton, the Democrat, or John McCain, the Republican?" If unsure: "As of today, do you lean more toward: Clinton, the Democrat, or McCain, the Republican?" Half sample, MoE ± 4.5
.
John
McCain (R)-----44%
Hillary
Rodham
Clinton (D)----51%
Neither-------5%
(vol.) Unsure----1%
First off, these polls are extremely susceptible to the political environment of the time. The poll being right before the last election will throw off the results, and will most likely be quite a bit different in six months, when the honeymoon phase wears off for the Democrats. Second, this poll is only taking into account the opinions of the voters at one given time, so this will change over time. Third, this poll does not take into account any of the social science and politics that go into what gets one elected to the presidency. Not much can be gleaned from this poll, other than that in October 2006 based upon a random sampling, 51% of people would vote for Hillary Clinton. We should also take into account that the US system does not elect our president by a simple majority of the electorate. The poll does none of this.
I have spoken with quite a few political scientist in the last few days that study the congress, elections, and the presidency for a living and almost all of them universally have attributed the victory of the Democrats primarily to two things; the war in Iraq, and that the Democrats shut their mouth on a whole host of social issues, and put forth candidates that are more socially conservative. Assuming that the Democrats will keep such a strategy, then there is little utility in nominating Hillary Clinton.
What much of political science tells us about getting elected to the presidency is that presidential politics has a lot to do with appealing to the middle of the political spectrum, and in most cases this has a regional dynamic. Southern Democrats usually have an easier time getting elected since they are more conservative than their east coast counterparts. In the same way southern Republicans have a difficult time getting elected. There are aberrations, like George W. Bush, but they are exceptions to the rule. If Hillary did run and ran on an anti-gun platform, then she would only be appealing to those people who are already going to vote for her. For her to win, she would have to figure out how to appeal to some of the moderate Republicans without alienating her Democratic base, which is something that most Democrats have not figured out how to do, and being a woman Democrat from New York makes it that much worse. She will always be seen as a liberal Democrat, unless she drastically changes her positions, which is unlikely. I would venture to guess that if the Democrats wanted to win they would nominate a moderate southern Democrat, but the Democrats have a tendency of not doing such things, i.e. John Kerry.
Add to all of this that the Democrats might have just destroyed one of their main issues to run on. Since they now control both houses of congress, they have taken some of the responsibility for the war in Iraq. As such, they can no longer say what is happening is the Republican’s doing. They will have to take some responsibility for it, and thus, they cannot use it as an issue.
Could Hillary win? Certainly, no one has a crystal ball that can see two years into the future. Using the work of academics and those who study the presidency however, we can see that there is a good chance it will not so easy for her to win and that there is a good chance it will not happen.
Ok, it is somewhat of a joke but.............
but to help ourselves we must help Hillary. I shall call my new plan the "Alan Parsons Project". Muuuuhaaaahaaaaa