Comments on: Some Democrats Fear Voter Hillary Clinton Backlash

By: DLS

DLS — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 16:39:43 +0000

Why do y’all think Hillary is playing the “safe” game with her fake “centrist” stance? It’s so she won’t repel Americans in vast numbers as she did in the previous decade with her radicalism as well as her arrogance, conceit, and poor behavior.

Don’t forget that in the 1990s, while Gingrich polled very far down in popularity (because he repelled many), one person, predictably, polled much worse — Hillary Clinton.

The reason Hillary Clinton has more than a 50% probability of being elected President (for real, this time) isn’t because she appeals to Americans — she still repels real Americans, better Americans, as she always has — but because people are tired of Iraq, tired of the Bush administration, and the GOP offers nothing real as an alternative. (The 2006 elections were a statement against the Congressional GOP as well as against the war in Iraq and the Bush administration.)

Clinton running for President is no surprise to anyone with an IQ above room temperature F (i.e., not one of the surprised-and-thrilled traditional “ignorance bloc” Dim voters). The rest of us knew she was going to run for the position (and hold it, officially, this time) as soon as she chose to “represent” New York as one of “its” Senators.

By: grognard

grognard — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 03:12:15 +0000

Hillary is a polarizing figure, otherwise reasonable conservatives go ape over the mention of her name. But then again, as Elrod points out, Giuliani does
not excite the social conservative base. So is it a draw? I do agree that the West could go for Clinton [I live in Colorado]. It could be the choice for VP, on both sides, might tip the scales one way or another.

By: Elrod

Elrod — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 02:53:31 +0000

Don’t forget Fred Thompson. I’m not sold that he’ll end up with the nomination, but he certainly has some of the Bushites in his corner, especially here in the South. I think he’d get destroyed in the general election because he has no plan for the future, is a neocon on foreign policy, and is lazy. He’s a cipher, but so was George W. Bush to a large extent; except Bush had a executive experience in Texas and at least pretended to offer a different message in 2000.

People have to realize how much a Giuliani nomination will alienate the GOP base. Christian conservatives are the ones who do all the volunteering. Even if Hillary is on the other side, they will not put in the time or effort to vote for Giuliani. These aren’t the people drawn to Giuliani for his authoritarianism (rednecks might find it appealing but conservative Christians see his overall package as no better than Hillary). Conservative Christians will still vote for Rudy over Hillary, but they won’t come out in droves like they did for one of their own – George. W. Bush. I could see Hillary actually winning in West Virginia and Arkansas over Rudy, and certainly in Ohio and Florida. As long as Hillary can keep up the momentum of Dems in the West (CO, NM, NV) then she’ll win the general election easily. Downticket will be tougher with her at the top unless the party acts proactively to bolster her centrist credentials.

By: skippy

skippy — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 01:09:53 +0000

i’ll vote her next november, but i won’t vote for her in ’08!

By: Nick Rivera

Nick Rivera — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 00:26:39 +0000

There isnâ€™t a chance that Iâ€™ll vote for Hillary next November

Come to think of it, I don’t think there’s a chance that anybody will vote for Hillary next November considering that the election isn’t until November ’08.

By: Nick Rivera

Nick Rivera — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 00:25:14 +0000

I tend to agree with Lynx on this one. There isn’t a chance that I’ll vote for Hillary next November, and I’m hardly “rightwing” (although I do occasionally rant).

By: Dave Schuler

Dave Schuler — Sun, 12 Aug 2007 22:50:38 +0000

I think that Lynx’s take is pretty close. Not so sure about an Obama victory but I think that Edwards could beat Romney or Giuliani (at this point the two Republicans most likely to get the nod).

By: Ejoiner

Ejoiner — Sun, 12 Aug 2007 22:33:39 +0000

Lynx – I agree with your personal take on Mrs. C. and I’m not inclined to vote for her yet but I’ve talked to several Republican voters (like my brother-in-law) who just swear a Hillary nomination will hand the WH to the them in ’08 because everyone hates the Clinton family so much. The poll numbers have never reflected the intense animosity for the family that the rightwing has been stewing in for a decade now.

Its just irritating to see media outlets still pedaling the untrue tripe that the Clinton’s were unpopular while in office.

By: altamira16

altamira16 — Sun, 12 Aug 2007 22:03:21 +0000

Lynx, I agree with you on how people see Hillary. I disagree with you on the Republican perception of Edwards. Edwards appears to Republicans to be as big a phony as Romney seems to Democrats.

Hillary comes across as more centrist than the other popular candidates, but at the same time she comes across as really polarizing. I am not exactly sure how she does that. I would be very reluctant to vote for her. I am afraid that in her attempt to appease the most voters, she may not end the war in Iraq quickly enough and may abuse some of the power grabs of the executive created by George W. Bush.

By: Lynx

Lynx — Sun, 12 Aug 2007 21:34:54 +0000

Hillary is not just perceived negatively by the “ranting right” Ejoiner, plenty of us who would usually not blink at voting democratic loath the idea of her as the candidate. To me she’s a power-hungry shark, willing to do or say ANYTHING in order to be elected, lacking in personal principles. Loved Bill, not too keen on Hillary. To me she is the Democrat McCain, and I see her as the only Democrat candidate (amongst the top three) that could actually LOSE the election. If Obama or even Edwards got the candidacy, they would probably win handily. Clinton would energize Republicans to vote and discourage many Democrats from voting. Hell, if it came down to her or Rudy, I’d consider voting Republican myself.

Interestingly the GOP seems to have the opposite problem than the dems. The candidate that could face a very tough time in nominations is actually their best bet at winning nationally.

By: Ejoiner

Ejoiner — Sun, 12 Aug 2007 21:22:52 +0000

I’m not a Hillary fan by any means (I’m not anyone’s fan at this point so far out from the primaries) but this line struck me:

“…even if that means returning the Clintons to the White House.”

Because Bill was such an unpopular president? Please – go back and look at his poll numbers. They were respectable throughout his two terms (including Lewinsky) and Bush has managed to make most Americans wish for the “good ole days” of the 90′s.

The idea that Clinton was unpopular (or even that his impeachment was popular) is simply a revisionist rightwing talking point. Hillary is perceived negatively by the ranting right but main-stream American can easily be swayed by a professional and competently run campaign.