Hillary is un-electable

Mark, sad to say, but as 2006 has shown, your ability to predict elections leaves something to be desired. And I say this as your fellow rightwinger.

I believe that like other Democrats, Hillary can be elected, if she de-emphasizes her true lefty (i.e., socialist) leanings, and gets a boost from Republican failures (like Iraq was during 2006) or corruption (which as you admit, is not limited to Dems). In other words, the same things that helped the Dems last time around. I will not rule out President Hillary until I see either the nomination results of the Democratic convention or the election results of 11/2008.

Dismiss her, and you (with myself joining you) might be eating a second helping of crow in 2008, and renaming this site BlogsAgainstHillary.

Yes, time will tell. Until then (and afterwards if she's elected), take the advice of Geena Davis: "Be afraid, be very afraid."

Marm, I do remember your predictions in the '06 elections. Do you?

Mark, I do remember your predictions in the '06 elections. Do you?

”…if she de-emphasizes her true lefty (i.e., socialist) leanings,…

Bigfoot,

I don’t see that happening. Hillary has been in the spotlight for too many things and for too much time to now hide in the shadow without the opposition calling her on everything that could sway the public against her. Being a Presidential election, there will be far too many shots across the bow to be ignored.

She may try to de-emphasize it, but others will not let it happen. As the Democrats a so very keen to recognize when blasting your opponent, it’s not what is reality but what is perceived as reality that fuels controversy.

I would just like to point out that, in 2000, Gore did win a majority of the popular vote, thus making your assertion that no Democrat has won a majority of the vote since 1976 false. I also think that it is way to early to start predicting the '08 election with any accuracy.

I would just like to point out that, in 2000, Gore did win a majority of the popular vote, thus making your assertion that no Democrat has won a majority of the vote since 1976 false. I also think that it is way to early to start predicting the '08 election with any accuracy.

Actually Rana, Gore did not get over 50% of the vote in 2000. That is what Mark is talking about. My big problem with this "Hillary is unelectable" mme is that, if there is one thing that we should have learned from '92 and '96 is to never underestimate the Clintons.

Actually Rana, Gore did not get over 50% of the vote in 2000. That is what Mark is talking about. My big problem with this "Hillary is unelectable" mme is that, if there is one thing that we should have learned from '92 and '96 is to never underestimate the Clintons.

Rana,

Mark most likely has sourced information that will debunk the myth that Gore won the popular vote in 2000.

I stand corrected, but I still think that it is too early to accurately predict the '08 election. I mean, conjecture like this is what had Mark eating Crow last fall...

Hillary is un-electable

I wouldn't be so sure. While it is true that she consistently has the highest negative ratings of anyone, that seems to be weakening a bit.

In a summary of recent match-ups in four potential battleground states (Florida, Ohio, Colorado and New Hampshire) conducted by Rasmussen (and reported by Pollster.com) between Clinton and the four top GOP contenders (Giuliani, McCain, Thompson, and Romney), she's running surprisingly strong. The only real exception is against Giuliani in CO. It would be nice to know what the numbers are in NM and NV too. But anyway, look at FL. She's killing against everyone except Giuliani. That's a surprise to me.

So no, I wouldn't call her unelectable. However, I still think her candidacy is likely to unify the GOP more than any other Dem. That would certainly be a good thing, but in a way it's basically catch-up: my impression is that the Dems are significantly more motivated than the GOP at this point overall, and they have piles more money. Additionally, the GOP also has to defend 22 Senate seats, the Dems only 12. And it appears that at least 6 of the GOP seats are competitive and maybe one or two Dems. But from a strategic point of view, one big remaining question is how many incumbents decide to resign (leaving open seats to defend). We're probably not going to know that until the end of the year. But if it's a lot, and if it's mostly GOP incumbents, it could get bad. Open seats cost a lot of money, which means you have less to support your presidential candidate.

Another thing... Mark, et. al., like to discuss the possible rifts in the Dem party, and they certainly have rifts to exploit in their coalition. But what about the GOP coalition? As I see it, the GOP is currently composed of social conservative types, national security types, economic libertarian types, and "go away and leave me alone" types. That's not to say that a given person isn't a mixture of all or some of those things, it's just to point out what they stress. So let me ask... which GOP candidate best satisfies all of those people? It sure isn't Giuliani -- he's going to have real problems keeping the social conservatives on board. With him heading the ticket I think we could lose KY, TN, and even AR. To my mind (of the front runners) it's either Romney or Thompson that has the best chance of holding the coalition together. But Romney has a lot of big issues to overcome himself, and Thompson is a big unknown -- with a downward trajectory.

Lots of time left Rico and I agree with your statement: "So no, I wouldn't call her unelectable. However, I still think her candidacy is likely to unify the GOP more than any other Dem."

My gut tells me a different story than last Nov., in that the Clintons have created an image of superiority that creates more resistance than you can imagine amongst conservatives.

In my immediate group of conservative and liberal friends, Hitlery, with her constant attacks on the WH, and her incessant accusations that "GW lied" and "the WH is corrupt" are fed up with anyone with the name Clinton (the pot calling the kettle black syndrome), or Bush for that matter, and the time has come for a new name, but not a liberal.

As far as Romney goes, I believe you'll see him and Thompson become the cream with RG, McCain and the rest lowered to second tier.

One thing I know for sure; when my wife (who was a lib before we married and now a card carrying, gun totin conservative) says Hitlery is full of BS and can't be trusted and says she'd never vote for her even if she is a woman...I know that my gut is on the right track. But I could be wrong.

The fact is, the Dems simply have no plan and they're all arguing and bickering over which candidate has the worst...not the best plan....LOL!

How digressive!

I'll be the first to admit that I could be wrong - but I am sure I'm right about one thing: the left doesn't really like Hillary. As most, they'll lend her grudging support should she win the nomination, and they might very well go Third Party or just stay home.

Kerry got 252 electoral votes in 2004 - lets suppose Hillary wins all of those States; where does Hillary get the additional 18 electoral votes she needs?

Bush won Iowa by about 10,000 votes, and that State has 7 EVs.

Bush won New Mexico by about 6,000 votes, and that State has 5 EVs.

Every other State Bush won in 2004 he also won in 2000 - for Hillary to win in 2008, she'll have to take away IA and NM and find 6 other EVs without losing any of the States Kerry won in 2004 - and Kerry won traditionally GOP New Hampshire by about 10,000 votes. NH has 4 EVs, that falls back to GOP (certainly not impossible - and if Romney is the nomninee, it is almost certain), then Hillary will have to search elsewhere for a total of 10 EVs among States Bush won twice. But that is not all:

Kerry won PA by only 145,000 votes; MI by 165,000 votes; MN by 99,000 votes; WI by 11,000 votes; OR by 87,000 votes - any of these States can flip to the GOP. True, there are some possible Democratic pick-ups for 2008 (NV and OH) among States GW won twice, but the basics of the Electoral College argue strongly against Hillary winning unless she does a fantastic job - we're talking FDR-like strength; and she just doesn't have it.

Mark: True, there are some possible Democratic pick-ups for 2008 (NV and OH) among States GW won twice...

Wait a minute... NV?? I thought you said NV was "massively republican". Now you're suggesting it as a possible Dem pick-up? Come on now, which is it?

I am a firm believer in the concept that you have to know your enemy to defeat them. And so far, my impression is that the GOP is more inclined to ignore them rather than engage them. And that, to me, is a big problem. I'd like to see the GOP reaching out to someone other than those that constitute their base. Because, frankly, I don't see the base as big enough. Not this time around. And IMO, the largest special interest group that is theoretically most favorable to the GOP is the hispanic community. In 2004, Bush managed to get 46% of their vote against 54% for Kerry. That's not a majority, but it isn't too bad -- and better than it ever was. In 2006 though, they voted about 60/40 for Dems. The Dems are already targeting them, running ads on Spanish channels with unfavorable statements by GOP candidates. My guess is that the hispanic vote could break 65/35 for the Dems -- and that's a more conservative estimate than most.

There's an old saying that a conservative is a liberal that got mugged. There's probably a lot of truth to that. I've been mugged a couple of times, and though I wasn't liberal when they happened, it sure as heck didn't make me more liberal. Be that as it may, there's another saying that is gaining traction: a senior citizen is a conservative until they hit the donut hole. Here in (very conservative) OC, CA there are three concentrations of Dem support: Santa Ana, which is heavily hispanic, Laguna Beach, which is mostly composed of gays and DINKs, and Laguna Woods, which is a gigantic retirement community with its own zip code, and which has incorportated into its own city! I don't know how they managed to pull that off, but they did. But perhaps the most amazing thing is that they are heavily Dem. Go figure.

Then we have keefer, the local attack dog (no offense keef, but it is as it is) disparaging moderate repubs like Spector, Snowe, Hagel, and others -- which is to say congresscritters that are heavily represented in states that Noonan suggests are viable swing states: IA, NM, NH, PA, MI, MN, WI. Perhaps it's worth pointing out that on any measure -- in state-wide federal offices, in state-wide state elections, and in state precinct elections -- ALL OF THEM drifted more blue in 2006. That suggests to me that the GOP needs to repackage their message -- like, perhaps, you guys gotta lighten up and let more people back into the tent. Otherwise we're gonna get creamed.

Mark: Edwards and Obama Debating Themselves to Death

Apparently Obama agrees with you -- he just announced he's not going to attend any more debates that aren't approved by the DNC.