Can Hillary win?

[Jim]

The nomination, probably. The election, probably not.

 

I do not doubt her intelligence or political savvy. She has Bill's ability to triangulate issues but I do not see her having 1/100th of Bill's charisma. Even in the picture on her own web page, she looks plastic. She would be something like Dukakis who never could show who he was inside. I could easily see her having this kind of moment:

 

Bernard Shaw: "Governor, if Kitty Dukakis [his wife] were raped and murdered, would you favor an irrevocable death penalty for the killer?"

 

I remember being annoyed at this point thinking Bernad Shaw had given Dukakis a softball precisely so he could show some emotion to America. My annoyance turned to joy....

 

Dukakis replying coolly: "No, I don't, and I think you know that I've opposed the death penalty during all of my life.... [blah blah blah]."

[Pangloss]

Some of that actually plays in her favor in the form of sympathy. But you're probably right in your general observations. I do think it's possible for her to win.

 

Both parties seem to be struggling to work out a front-runner at this point, but over the history of elections that's not really all that unusual this far out.

[john5746]

If she wins, she will have Bush to thank for it, just as Bush should thank Clinton for winning. Gore would have trampled him if he didn't have the cloud of Clinton hanging over him.

[Pangloss]

Interesting observation.

[bascule]

I think there's a lot of liberals out there who really despise Hillary (myself included)... so I'm going to go with "no"

[ecoli]

If anything her presence in the election will cause a higher than normal voter turnout, but mostly because people will try to make sure she doesn't get elected. I'm not entirely sure how she got elected senator of my state.

[bascule]

Sadly I think the last election could be framed as people showing up to vote "against Bush" or "against Kerry" rather than voice their support for the candidate they actually chose.

 

That's a terrible state of affairs. I really think there's some serious problems with our nation's primary system that need to be addressed.

 

If Hillary wins the Democratic primary it will only underscore these problems further.

[ecoli]

Sadly I think the last election could be framed as people showing up to vote "against Bush" or "against Kerry" rather than voice their support for the candidate they actually chose.

 

exactly. I don't know too many democrats who liked Kerry, but voted for him because of the alternative.

That's a terrible state of affairs. I really think there's some serious problems with our nation's primary system that need to be addressed.

 

There really is no strong and popular leader.

[Pangloss]

Ideologues are generally more motivated by negative than positive factors. The real issue with "the base" is always not whether they may vote for the wrong party, but whether they'll show up to vote at all.

 

So with regard to Hillary, the question is not whether they'll vote for her instead of her Republican opponent. The issue simply won't come up. The question is whether Republicans will put up a candidate that will drive those liberals to the polls.

 

Looked at another way, the greatest gift Republicans could give Hillary Clinton right now would be to make Bill Frist the front runner. The question of whether Hillary has opposition within her party becomes, then, irrelevent.

 

Which is how it should be, by the way. The voting opinions of intransigent ideologues should always be irrelevent. If they want to obviate their franchise by being closed-minded partisans, that's their prerogative, but the only reason it should matter to anybody else is in determining how best to manipulate and/or ignore them. (Right, left, doesn't matter -- same deal.)

[Jim]

Sadly I think the last election could be framed as people showing up to vote "against Bush" or "against Kerry" rather than voice their support for the candidate they actually chose.

 

That's a terrible state of affairs. I really think there's some serious problems with our nation's primary system that need to be addressed.

 

If Hillary wins the Democratic primary it will only underscore these problems further.

 

We'd never have another Jimmy Carter without a primary system which might be a bad thing. The possibility of a seeming maverick coming out of no where would be lost without primaries.

 

The two party system does polarize but it also builds in some stability that is lost in many governments with multiple viable parties. As a somewhat pro-life' date=' agnostic republican who is not certain the framers of the Constitution were talking about a right to bear semi-automatic weapons, the two-party system pretty much eliminates me from public life in Oklahoma.

 

Democrats will nominate someone, [b']anyone[/b], not from the northeast if they want to have a chance. Bill Clinton was a once in a life time force of nature.

[Jim]

Sadly I think the last election could be framed as people showing up to vote "against Bush" or "against Kerry" rather than voice their support for the candidate they actually chose.

 

I was actually "for Bush" although I was a bit lukewarm towards Lurch.

[SmallIsPower]

GW Bush has convinced me of the folly of political dynasties.

[bascule]

Looked at another way, the greatest gift Republicans could give Hillary Clinton right now would be to make Bill Frist the front runner. The question of whether Hillary has opposition within her party becomes, then, irrelevent.

 

Ugh, I don't want to think about that election (or for that matter, Condi v. Hillary)

 

However I wonder how many other liberals there are besides myself would choose McCain over Hillary...

 

(Ed: "there are like me there are"? Wow, and I thought I got enough sleep today)

[ecoli]

Ugh' date=' I don't want to think about that election (or for that matter, Condi v. Hillary)

 

However I wonder how many other liberals there are like me there are who would choose McCain over Hillary...[/quote']

 

I know some people... quite a few people, actually.

 

I wonder how her feminitiy would come into play. Would people vote for her just because she's a woman (feminists) and would people not vote for her just because she's a woman (chauvanists)? I wonder how the religious community would respond to a female president

[Pangloss]

The ideological left won't vote for McCain either, which leaves their only option at not voting. Interestingly, having McCain in the race also leaves the far right without an option. That's one of the intriguing things to me about a McCain-Clinton race -- it may leave the partisan base on both sides at home where it belongs.

 

That's my dream scenario, though, which is weak in a number of areas. For example, we may no longer exist in a political environment which allows the base to stay at home under any circumstances. Of course, in that scenario, the far left votes Hillary and the far right votes McCain, lacking a better choice, which returns equanimity -- but there would remain a question of which base would be better motivated (which was a big question in the 2004 campaign as well).

 

But golly, imagine that -- with the bases equally nullified, we could see a national political race based on issues and debate and open-minded flexibility, rather than partisanship and prejudice and demogoguery. What a novel concept!

[ecoli]

The ideological left won't vote for McCain either' date=' which leaves their only option at not voting. Interestingly, having McCain in the race also leaves the far right without an option. That's one of the intriguing things to me about a McCain-Clinton race -- it may leave the partisan base at home where it belongs.

 

That's my dream scenario, though, which is weak in a number of areas. We may no longer exist in a political environment which allows the base to stay at home under any circumstances. Of course, in that scenario, the far left votes Hillary and the far right votes McCain, lacking a better choice, which returns equanimity -- but there would remain a question of which base would be better motivated (which was a big question in the 2004 campaign as well).

 

But golly, imagine that -- with the bases equally nullified, we could see a national political race based on issues and debate and open-minded flexibility, rather than partisanship and prejudice and demogoguery. What a novel concept![/quote']

 

I don't find it too hard to believe that the far right will dig up a strong third party candadite.

[bascule]

But golly, imagine that -- with the bases equally nullified, we could see a national political race based on issues and debate and open-minded flexibility, rather than partisanship and prejudice and demogoguery. What a novel concept!

 

Hooray!

[Severian]

If Condoleeza Rice were (for some absurd reason) to be given the Republican nomination, do you think she would get votes from democrats simply for being balck and female? Or are the democrats not that stupid?

[Sisyphus]

Hillary won in New York because she talked about the issues and ignored her opponent, while her opponent did nothing but smugly try to stir up anti-Hillary sentiment, which ultimately just made him look juvenile. I think it's possible the same thing could happen on the national scale. I also think she could definitely beat Frist, who shares the Senator disadvantage (even more so, actually), is not particularly charismatic, and has pissed off the left a great deal already with his cynical exploitation of his MD with the Terri Shiavo and abstinence education nonsense. McCain could beat her, I think, but he'd never win the Republican nomination.

 

It is kind of a foregone conclusion that Hillary has a lot of people who hate her, but I'm not certain if people really know why they do. So, for those who dislike Hillary, why?

[Jim]

If Condoleeza Rice were (for some absurd reason) to be given the Republican nomination, do you think she would get votes from democrats simply for being balck and female? Or are the democrats not that stupid?

 

The democrats aren't that smart. Condi would get some votes for being female, but few for being black IMO. She seemed pretty firm in not running on last Sunday's Meet the Press.

 

My dream candidate for the dems is Lieberman. Makes me wish we could have the VP from a different party like in the old days and we'd have Lieberman as President and Rice as VP.

[Jim]

Hillary won in New York because she talked about the issues and ignored her opponent' date=' while her opponent did nothing but smugly try to stir up anti-Hillary sentiment, which ultimately just made him look juvenile. I think it's possible the same thing could happen on the national scale. I also think she could definitely beat Frist, who shares the Senator disadvantage (even more so, actually), is not particularly charismatic, and has pissed off the left a great deal already with his cynical exploitation of his MD with the Terri Shiavo and abstinence education nonsense. McCain could beat her, I think, but he'd never win the Republican nomination.

 

It is kind of a foregone conclusion that Hillary has a lot of people who hate her, but I'm not certain if people really know why they do. So, for those who dislike Hillary, why?[/quote']

 

Hillary is very smart but she comes across as cynically calculating. A good example was in during the election when she let Bill's handlers feminize her. The softer side of Hillary - new makeup, hair and cookie recipes - came across as disingenuous. There was also an element of bait and switch in that campaign with Bill giving his "how can you attack my wife" routine when Bush Sr questioned what Hillary's role would be in the administration. Once elected, what do you know, she was briefly in charge of building the nation's health care consensus.... which didn't exactly work out too well, did it? Like GWB, Hillary would never have made it to this level on her own.

 

Hillary has her intelligence, the Clinton name and sympathy for being a stand-by-her-man kind of gal. Hillary haters see her loyalty to Bill as casting doubt that there is a real person behind the facade.

 

Frist is a bit like GWB - love him or hate him, at least comes across as sincere. Bill Clinton was the rare politician who could look completely sincere while taking smart and manipulative actions.

[Pangloss]

If Condoleeza Rice were (for some absurd reason) to be given the Republican nomination, do you think she would get votes from democrats simply for being balck and female? Or are the democrats not that stupid?

 

Well many are stupid enough to continue voting Democrat because that's what they're expected to do, so I don't know why there wouldn't be some sort of surge in that direction.

[pink_trike]

Just as there was a large "People for Kerry who dislike Kerry" block of voters, there will be a large "People for Clinton who dislike Clinton" group. Can she win? The debate about voting machine ownership aside...let's hope so. Personally, I'd prefer Pelosi.

[bascule]

If Condoleeza Rice were (for some absurd reason) to be given the Republican nomination, do you think she would get votes from democrats simply for being balck and female? Or are the democrats not that stupid?

 

No, but I think there's a contingent of right-wing extremists in the Republican party who would refuse to vote for a woman, let alone a black woman.

[Jim]

Just as there was a large "People for Kerry who dislike Kerry" block of voters, there will be a large "People for Clinton who dislike Clinton" group. Can she win? The debate about voting machine ownership aside...let's hope so. Personally, I'd prefer Pelosi.

 

Republicans can only dream the Dems nominate Pelosi.