Talk Elections

Election Archive => 2008 Elections => Topic started by: MissCatholic on May 09, 2006, 07:02:24 AM



Title: Why cant Hillary win?
Post by: MissCatholic on May 09, 2006, 07:02:24 AM
OK in the last 3 months we have the following approval ratings

New York = 60%
Arkansas = 51%
New Hampshire = 48%
South Carolina = 23%
Virginia = 37%
Michigan = 46%
Iowa = 45%
Oregon = 53%

If anybody has any other approval ratings for the senator then please e-mail me or add them onto the list.

Yes hillary is in the 40% in many states but i think most candidates would be like that. But the 51% in Arkansas is a very interesting stat because it means she is defintely electable. Arkansas is a red state and if a democrat can win a red state then thats a plus. If she nominates Wesley Clark or Mark Warner then Arkansas is in the bag. With the state of Michigan 46% is a solid effort to date and Hillary can say 'vote for me if you preferred the economy of the 90s or dont vote for me if you prefer the economy of this decade.

Another important factor is that states with female governors or senators are more likely to vote for a female candidate for president in a recent poll. This might explain the good marks in Michgian and New Hampshire which will be battleground states. So Washington, Connecticut, Maine, Hawaii, California and New Jersey could all be classed as definte wins for hillary if she runs a soid campaign which is very likely.

So why cant she win consdierring these marks. if she carries Arkansas then she can win against any candidate.


Title: Re: Why cant Hillary win?
Post by: Inmate Trump on May 09, 2006, 09:19:49 AM
She can win.

I also don't understand why some people think she can't.


Title: Re: Why cant Hillary win?
Post by: MODU on May 09, 2006, 09:51:12 AM

Approval ratings don't translate into votes, especially against undefined competitors.


Title: Re: Why cant Hillary win?
Post by: Max on May 09, 2006, 10:23:27 AM

Approval ratings don't translate into votes, especially against undefined competitors.

Absolutely. You give approval if you like someone, but you vote for someone if you think he'd make a good President.

I think being a woman, a liberal, a New Yorker and a Clinton is to much to get the moderate votes that decide elections.

@In The Land of the Insane: Is Arkansas that red? I always thought of Arkansas to be the most Democratic state in the South?


Title: Re: Why cant Hillary win?
Post by: Nym90 on May 09, 2006, 10:43:00 AM
Clinton certainly can win, though she is far from the Democrats' strongest candidate.


Title: Re: Why cant Hillary win?
Post by: Please Delete my account!! on May 09, 2006, 11:32:59 AM
Perhaps this poll will tell you why she CAN'T WIN!!

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/Hillary%20Meter.htm


With only 26 percent of voters saying they'd definently vote for her and almost 40 percent saying they'd definently vote against her, that makes it really hard for her.  Not saying it can't be done, but it's an awful steep mountain to climb.  Unless those numbers change drastically, she would have to carry over 70 percent of the undecideds which is virtually impossible even with the best of candidates.   If you Democrats want to get the White House back, you better deep six the she-b**ch


Title: Re: Why cant Hillary win?
Post by: Republican Michigander on May 09, 2006, 12:23:18 PM
Hillary has no blue collar appeal whatsoever. Zip. Zilch Zero. Bill on the other hand did. That's why Bill won, and Hill ran 5-6% behind Gore in New York despite Bush on the ticket. 

Hillary loses Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan, Iowa, New Hampshire, Arkansas, and maybe Minnesota.






Title: Re: Why cant Hillary win?
Post by: Max on May 09, 2006, 12:52:36 PM
Hillary has no blue collar appeal whatsoever. Zip. Zilch Zero. Bill on the other hand did. That's why Bill won, and Hill ran 5-6% behind Gore in New York despite Bush on the ticket. 

Hillary loses Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan, Iowa, New Hampshire, Arkansas, and maybe Minnesota.


Does "blue collar" mean something like working class?


Title: Re: Why cant Hillary win?
Post by: Republican Michigander on May 09, 2006, 12:55:57 PM
Hillary has no blue collar appeal whatsoever. Zip. Zilch Zero. Bill on the other hand did. That's why Bill won, and Hill ran 5-6% behind Gore in New York despite Bush on the ticket. 

Hillary loses Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan, Iowa, New Hampshire, Arkansas, and maybe Minnesota.


Does "blue collar" mean something like working class?

Populists.


Title: Re: Why cant Hillary win?
Post by: minionofmidas on May 09, 2006, 01:39:50 PM
Hillary has no blue collar appeal whatsoever. Zip. Zilch Zero. Bill on the other hand did. That's why Bill won, and Hill ran 5-6% behind Gore in New York despite Bush on the ticket. 

Hillary loses Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan, Iowa, New Hampshire, Arkansas, and maybe Minnesota.


Does "blue collar" mean something like working class?
Yes.
Hi btw. Das macht vier von uns ... oder fünf. :)


Title: Re: Why cant Hillary win?
Post by: agcatter on May 09, 2006, 01:49:01 PM
low likability index


Title: Re: Why cant Hillary win?
Post by: Gabu on May 09, 2006, 01:55:56 PM
Hillary has no blue collar appeal whatsoever. Zip. Zilch Zero. Bill on the other hand did. That's why Bill won, and Hill ran 5-6% behind Gore in New York despite Bush on the ticket. 

Hillary loses Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan, Iowa, New Hampshire, Arkansas, and maybe Minnesota.


Does "blue collar" mean something like working class?

The term "blue collar" is an English idiom that refers to people working in jobs that require manual labor - the term is derived from the blue color of the collar of work clothing.  Its opposite is "white collar", which refers to people working in jobs that are not labor-intensive, such as lawyers, bankers, etc.  "Blue collar" workers tend not to make nearly as much money as "white collar" workers, and as such, the terms are also used to refer simply to lower class and upper class people, respectively.

Welcome to the forum, by the way. :)


Title: Re: Why cant Hillary win?
Post by: TheresNoMoney on May 09, 2006, 02:11:32 PM
She can't win.


Title: Re: Why cant Hillary win?
Post by: ilikeverin on May 09, 2006, 03:27:03 PM
Because no one thinks she can.


Title: Re: Why cant Hillary win?
Post by: MODU on May 09, 2006, 03:36:38 PM

And a large portion of her party doesn't want her to win either.


Title: Re: Why cant Hillary win?
Post by: Gustaf on May 09, 2006, 04:11:44 PM
Except Arkansas those are all poor numbers, all, except Arkansas and Oregon, are below Kerry's result. (and New York but that's a home state). In fact, for a senator to not get more than the basic party line in her state is pretty bad.


Title: Re: Why cant Hillary win?
Post by: Mr. Morden on May 09, 2006, 07:42:51 PM
Hillary has no blue collar appeal whatsoever. Zip. Zilch Zero. Bill on the other hand did. That's why Bill won, and Hill ran 5-6% behind Gore in New York despite Bush on the ticket. 

Despite Bush on the ticket?  Why is that relevant?  Is there a reason why Bush would be especially popular in NY back in 2000?

Couldn't you explain HRC running 5-6% behind Gore by the simple fact that a NY Republican like Lazio is bound to perform better in NY than someone running as a "national" Republican like Bush, by virtue of the fact that NY is to the left of the country at large?


Title: Re: Why cant Hillary win?
Post by: nclib on May 09, 2006, 08:51:26 PM
So why cant she win consdierring these marks. if she carries Arkansas then she can win against any candidate.

The only reason why her numbers are high in Arkansas is because she is a former first lady of that state. The fact that she is doing well there does mean she can carry any other Bush states. (Arkansas plus the Kerry states does not give enough electoral votes to win - only 266).

To answer the thread question, the reason Hillary can't win is not because of her views, being a Clinton, or being a Senator from New York, but it is simply the fact that she is a strong powerful woman and sadly America isn't ready for that.


Title: Re: Why cant Hillary win?
Post by: Republican Michigander on May 09, 2006, 08:59:47 PM
Hillary has no blue collar appeal whatsoever. Zip. Zilch Zero. Bill on the other hand did. That's why Bill won, and Hill ran 5-6% behind Gore in New York despite Bush on the ticket. 

Despite Bush on the ticket?  Why is that relevant?  Is there a reason why Bush would be especially popular in NY back in 2000?

Couldn't you explain HRC running 5-6% behind Gore by the simple fact that a NY Republican like Lazio is bound to perform better in NY than someone running as a "national" Republican like Bush, by virtue of the fact that NY is to the left of the country at large?


Bush dragged the ticket down in NY as Gore got 60% there. Reverse Coattails are common when it's a 10%+ win/loss.


Title: Re: Why cant Hillary win?
Post by: Mr. Morden on May 09, 2006, 09:08:29 PM
Bush dragged the ticket down in NY as Gore got 60% there. Reverse Coattails are common when it's a 10%+ win/loss.

I don't understand your argument.  If Bush is unpopular in NY, then why is it a surprise that he does worse in NY vs. Gore than Lazio does vs. HRC?  Isn't that exactly what one would expect?  Why does that reflect badly on HRC?


Title: Re: Why cant Hillary win?
Post by: MaC on May 09, 2006, 09:24:18 PM
OK in the last 3 months we have the following approval ratings

New York = 60%
Arkansas = 51%
New Hampshire = 48%
South Carolina = 23%
Virginia = 37%
Michigan = 46%
Iowa = 45%
Oregon = 53%

Card stacking.  And Arkansas is only because of support for Bill.  Notice how 51% doesn't say a lot for winning a state since the ME is usually at least 3%.


Title: Re: Why cant Hillary win?
Post by: Max on May 10, 2006, 08:08:55 AM
The term "blue collar" is an English idiom that refers to people working in jobs that require manual labor - the term is derived from the blue color of the collar of work clothing.  Its opposite is "white collar", which refers to people working in jobs that are not labor-intensive, such as lawyers, bankers, etc.  "Blue collar" workers tend not to make nearly as much money as "white collar" workers, and as such, the terms are also used to refer simply to lower class and upper class people, respectively.

Welcome to the forum, by the way. :)

Thanks for your explanation, I never heard of this term before.

And thanks to all of you who welcome me so friendly to the forum!

@Lewis Trondheim: Schön, hier auf einen "Landsmann" zu treffen!


Title: Re: Why cant Hillary win?
Post by: Republican Michigander on May 10, 2006, 09:10:39 AM
Bush dragged the ticket down in NY as Gore got 60% there. Reverse Coattails are common when it's a 10%+ win/loss.

I don't understand your argument.  If Bush is unpopular in NY, then why is it a surprise that he does worse in NY vs. Gore than Lazio does vs. HRC?  Isn't that exactly what one would expect?  Why does that reflect badly on HRC?


I'm just saying in a bad republican year in NY, she should have gotten more than 55 or 56% considering Bill's popularity, and the support for feminists and rich celebrity liberals there.


Title: Re: Why cant Hillary win?
Post by: Gustaf on May 10, 2006, 09:26:57 AM
Bush dragged the ticket down in NY as Gore got 60% there. Reverse Coattails are common when it's a 10%+ win/loss.

I don't understand your argument.  If Bush is unpopular in NY, then why is it a surprise that he does worse in NY vs. Gore than Lazio does vs. HRC?  Isn't that exactly what one would expect?  Why does that reflect badly on HRC?


I'm just saying in a bad republican year in NY, she should have gotten more than 55 or 56% considering Bill's popularity, and the support for feminists and rich celebrity liberals there.

I think it's fairly clear. A popular politician should be able to have broader appeal than just the party base (which for Democrats in NY is about 60%). Hillary got only 56% and doesn't look to get more than about 60% this time. Compare that to out-spoken liberal Chuck Schumer who got 71% in 2004, also with Bush on the ticket.


Title: Re: Why cant Hillary win?
Post by: Nym90 on May 10, 2006, 09:33:17 AM
With regards to Clinton's numbers in New York in 2000, you have to remember that she was at a disadvantage not being a native of the state. Lazio essentially had the home state advantage like Bush in Texas in the Presidential race.

Her 2006 numbers will be more indicative of her overall vote getting ability. Whether or not she pulls a higher percentage of the vote than Kerry or Gore got in New York will be meaningful.


Title: Re: Why cant Hillary win?
Post by: Mr. Morden on May 10, 2006, 09:52:13 AM
Schumer also had the advantage of incumbency in 2004, whereas HRC did not in 2000.  I just don't find it all that surprising that a Democrat running for an open Senate seat in a heavily Democratic state would win by "only" 10 points.  It's not at all uncommon for Republicans to do well in statewide races in Democratic states, as long as they distance themselves from the national party somewhat, and don't cozy up too much to religious conservatives.  That doesn't necessarily mean that their Democratic opponents are bad candidates.  I'm sure there are plenty of other examples of viable presidential candidates who didn't have a huge margin of victory when they first won public office.  I'm just too lazy to look them up right now.


Title: Re: Why cant Hillary win?
Post by: 7,052,770 on May 17, 2006, 06:13:49 PM
Money is the reason why she CAN win and probably will...

I'll be laughing at all the crying Republicans on Election Day 2008 (trust me, there are so many people in my area who hate the woman and blindly think everyone else does!)


Title: Re: Why cant Hillary win?
Post by: agcatter on May 17, 2006, 08:17:51 PM
Actually, they do hate her.  Given that Rasmussen has her at 26% definitely for and 41% definitely against, she won't win.  Those are pathetic numbers for any candidate and especially when you consider that the mainstream media worships her and given her so much positive press.  Wait until the campaign when the Republicans ACTUALLY BEGIN to actively drive up her negatives. 

I'm looking foward to it - gonna be fun.


Title: Re: Why cant Hillary win?
Post by: dazzleman on May 17, 2006, 08:33:33 PM
With regards to Clinton's numbers in New York in 2000, you have to remember that she was at a disadvantage not being a native of the state. Lazio essentially had the home state advantage like Bush in Texas in the Presidential race.

Her 2006 numbers will be more indicative of her overall vote getting ability. Whether or not she pulls a higher percentage of the vote than Kerry or Gore got in New York will be meaningful.

It would be meaningful against a credible opponent, but it appears that Hillary won't have a credible opponent.

The best shot was Jeanine Pirro, and she made a fool of herself.  The state's Republican party has imploded, and can't even field a candidate for governor, much less senator.

Under these circumstances, I'm not sure how meaningful Hillary's percentage will be as an indicator of how she can perform nationally.

In 2000, she ran below Gore in New York by about 4 points, and that could be telling.  Since Gore essentially tied the race nationally, that can only mean that Hillary would definitely have lost.

I wish she had a credible opponent in 2006 because I agree with your theory and would love to see it tested, but I think the circumstances of this particular race undermine the operation of your theory.


Title: Re: Why cant Hillary win?
Post by: Smash255 on May 17, 2006, 08:47:56 PM
With regards to Clinton's numbers in New York in 2000, you have to remember that she was at a disadvantage not being a native of the state. Lazio essentially had the home state advantage like Bush in Texas in the Presidential race.

Her 2006 numbers will be more indicative of her overall vote getting ability. Whether or not she pulls a higher percentage of the vote than Kerry or Gore got in New York will be meaningful.

It would be meaningful against a credible opponent, but it appears that Hillary won't have a credible opponent.

The best shot was Jeanine Pirro, and she made a fool of herself.  The state's Republican party has imploded, and can't even field a candidate for governor, much less senator.

Under these circumstances, I'm not sure how meaningful Hillary's percentage will be as an indicator of how she can perform nationally.

In 2000, she ran below Gore in New York by about 4 points, and that could be telling.  Since Gore essentially tied the race nationally, that can only mean that Hillary would definitely have lost.

I wish she had a credible opponent in 2006 because I agree with your theory and would love to see it tested, but I think the circumstances of this particular race undermine the operation of your theory.

Clinton's 2000 numbers were down because she was seen as an out of stater, that isn't the case anymore she is seen as a New Yorker.  This really hurt her on Long Island (that and the combination that Lazio was from LI) here numbers in Nassau & Suffolk were a good 12 to 15 points below Gore's totals here.  Even if Pirro didn't implode Clinton would have won LI easily this time, she will get well over 60% & possibly approach Schumer's 71% (though I see her in the 65-68% range.  Anyway you really can't make much of Clinton not performing as well as Gore did in the state in 00 as nwhy she won't be a good national candidate, their were issues that held her vote total down that no longer hurt her.


Title: Re: Why cant Hillary win?
Post by: Nym90 on May 18, 2006, 07:02:15 PM
With regards to Clinton's numbers in New York in 2000, you have to remember that she was at a disadvantage not being a native of the state. Lazio essentially had the home state advantage like Bush in Texas in the Presidential race.

Her 2006 numbers will be more indicative of her overall vote getting ability. Whether or not she pulls a higher percentage of the vote than Kerry or Gore got in New York will be meaningful.

It would be meaningful against a credible opponent, but it appears that Hillary won't have a credible opponent.

The best shot was Jeanine Pirro, and she made a fool of herself.  The state's Republican party has imploded, and can't even field a candidate for governor, much less senator.

Under these circumstances, I'm not sure how meaningful Hillary's percentage will be as an indicator of how she can perform nationally.

In 2000, she ran below Gore in New York by about 4 points, and that could be telling.  Since Gore essentially tied the race nationally, that can only mean that Hillary would definitely have lost.

I wish she had a credible opponent in 2006 because I agree with your theory and would love to see it tested, but I think the circumstances of this particular race undermine the operation of your theory.

True, obviously the quality of the opposition is a key factor. However, it will still be interesting to see how many Republicans vote for Clinton, as opposed to just staying home or voting third party or voting for the third-tier Republican nominee.

If she is intensely hated, I would think that she would not do well against any opponent in conservative areas of the state.


Title: Re: Why cant Hillary win?
Post by: Wyatt Chesney on May 18, 2006, 09:17:52 PM
No base at all, the left doesn't like her that much. The center views her as untrustworthy, and the right predicts that she is the second coming of Lucifer. My predition of 2008 if Clinton is on the ticket against your average Republican.

()


Title: Re: Why cant Hillary win?
Post by: sethm0 on May 20, 2006, 04:58:51 PM

 As time goes on I have really started to think that she can win. Her national numbers have steadily been creeping up as time has gone on and she is pissing off just enough people on the left to make her look moderate without losing too much of her base. Check out http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/Hillary%20Meter.htm

 She has a ton of money and the Republicans have already thrown everything they have at her - there would be no Swift Boat veterans or Willie Hortons.

 It all comes down to who her opponent is. If it's McCain she loses, but that doesn't say much - McCain would beat any Democrat. If, on the other hand, it's someone like Allen, Huckabee or Frist she might have a shot. She could win the same states that Kerry did and probably be competetive in Iowa, Ohio, West Virginia, Missouri, Arkansas, and perhaps some states in the southwest.
 
 It's all about the matchup. Depending on who her opponent is, she could win, but it would without a doubt be th ugliest election in modern history.


Title: Re: Why cant Hillary win?
Post by: adam on May 21, 2006, 10:36:21 PM
Hillary has no blue collar appeal whatsoever. Zip. Zilch Zero. Bill on the other hand did. That's why Bill won, and Hill ran 5-6% behind Gore in New York despite Bush on the ticket. 

Hillary loses Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan, Iowa, New Hampshire, Arkansas, and maybe Minnesota.







Title: Re: Why cant Hillary win?
Post by: MaC on May 21, 2006, 11:15:48 PM
No base at all, the left doesn't like her that much. The center views her as untrustworthy, and the right predicts that she is the second coming of Lucifer. My predition of 2008 if Clinton is on the ticket against your average Republican.

()

I'd say even add Oregon, New Hampshire, and Delaware to the list (probably add Hawaii though)


Title: Re: Why cant Hillary win?
Post by: adam on May 21, 2006, 11:50:09 PM
No base at all, the left doesn't like her that much. The center views her as untrustworthy, and the right predicts that she is the second coming of Lucifer. My predition of 2008 if Clinton is on the ticket against your average Republican.

()

I'd say even add Oregon, New Hampshire, and Delaware to the list (probably add Hawaii though)

New Hampshire is a maybe, definitely a swing state in 2008. But Delaware?  Delaware wont be a red state (or in this websites case a blue state) for a long...loooong time. Oregon could acctually be THE state to watch in 2008. Their politics have been moving toward the center more and more each year.


Title: Re: Why cant Hillary win?
Post by: 7,052,770 on May 22, 2006, 09:57:32 AM
Add AR to Hillary's column.  She's popular there.


Title: Re: Why cant Hillary win?
Post by: Virginian87 on May 23, 2006, 12:37:32 AM
I should think her gender may have a lot to do with it.  Many Americans are wary of electing a female president.  And not only is Hillary a woman, but to many people she gives off the impression of a feminist, which is also very unsettling.


Title: Re: Why cant Hillary win?
Post by: Max on May 23, 2006, 03:02:43 AM
I should think her gender may have a lot to do with it.  Many Americans are wary of electing a female president.  And not only is Hillary a woman, but to many people she gives off the impression of a feminist, which is also very unsettling.

True. That's why I just can't see Hillary winning Arkansas. I can't see her win any state Kerry lost.


Title: Re: Why cant Hillary win?
Post by: Mr. Paleoconservative on May 23, 2006, 03:27:45 AM
No base at all, the left doesn't like her that much. The center views her as untrustworthy, and the right predicts that she is the second coming of Lucifer. My predition of 2008 if Clinton is on the ticket against your average Republican.

()

I'd say even add Oregon, New Hampshire, and Delaware to the list (probably add Hawaii though)

I think Oregon and New Hampshire would certainly go against Clinton, but think she'd take Delaware and Hawaii in the end.


Title: Re: Why cant Hillary win?
Post by: opebo on May 23, 2006, 12:31:27 PM
Here is a more realistic map of Hillary Clinton against whatever right-wing religious the GOP nominates in 2008:
(
)

You are all seriously underestimating the Bush-hatred and Republican fatigue out there, and the longing for the 'better days' of the previous Clinton presidency.


Title: Re: Why cant Hillary win?
Post by: adam on May 23, 2006, 01:39:22 PM
There is a monumental difference between Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton that you are over looking. Bill was a moderate-liberal at his most extreme moments. Hillary Clinton on the other hand is a socialist...FDR without the Y chromosome. People liked Bill as a person as well, most see Hillary as bitter and for lack of a better term a bitch. I do agree that there is a lot of critisim working against the GOP in the upcoming years...however, there has been a "stop Hillary" movement since she took office.

It will cancel and she'll lose soundly.


Title: Re: Why cant Hillary win?
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on May 23, 2006, 05:43:24 PM
] One key reason: Fifty-seven percent of Democrats and 52 percent of independents polled think she'd be treated more harshly than other candidates.

That's the stupdiest reason I've ever heard of. Gore was treated harshly. Kerry was treated harshly. Anyone we run is going to be treated harshly. How harshly the Republican organizations such as the RNC and the so called media treat our candidate should not be used as criteria.


Title: Re: Why cant Hillary win?
Post by: opebo on May 24, 2006, 05:33:41 AM
There is a monumental difference between Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton that you are over looking. Bill was a moderate-liberal at his most extreme moments. Hillary Clinton on the other hand is a socialist...

No, she's a moderate, similar to Bill, though admittedly he was a right-leaning moderate and she is simply a centrist.

Quote
People liked Bill as a person as well, most see Hillary as bitter and for lack of a better term a bitch.

People that weren't well liked 'as a person' have become president before due to revulsion at the other party - for example Richard Nixon or Bush Senior. 


Title: Re: Why cant Hillary win?
Post by: adam on May 24, 2006, 06:30:48 AM
Hillary a moderate? If she is a moderate than so is Ann Coulter. She is such a fiscal liberal that even the left-wing of the Democratic party questions her platform. Just because she tries to be wishy washy on social issues - it does not make her a moderate of any nature.

We live in a day and age where personality means more to people than issues. That simple. Ask yourself this how many people voted for Bush because "they just couldn't trust Kerry". Many people actually agreed more with Kerry, but just didn't like him.



Title: Re: Why cant Hillary win?
Post by: opebo on May 25, 2006, 07:19:21 AM
Are you insane!? Hillary a moderate? If she is a moderate than so is Ann Coulter. She is such a fiscal liberal that even the left-wing of the Democratic party questions her platform.

'Fiscal liberal'?  What are you talking about?  Btw, I don't believe she has a 'platform'.

Quote
Just because she tries to be wishy washy on social issues - it does not make her a moderate of any nature.

Her social views are right-leaning, true, but her economic positions are where she is moderate.

Quote
We live in a day and age where personality means more to people than issues. That simple. Ask yourself this how many people voted for Bush because "they just couldn't trust Kerry". Many people actually agreed more with Kerry, but just didn't like him.

I hardly think the average american voter can be said to 'agree' or 'disagree' with candidates, since he cannot think.  So you are quite correct that likes, dislikes, and other emotional responses are what elects presidents.  However, I suggest that the revulsion over the last two terms, as expressed in Bush's abysmal poll numbers show that people are going to dislike Hilary less than whatever right-wing religious the GOP nominates.


Title: Re: Why cant Hillary win?
Post by: adam on May 25, 2006, 07:14:04 PM
'Fiscal liberal'?  What are you talking about?  Btw, I don't believe she has a 'platform'.
She supports tax hikes, a busted Universal Health Care proposal on her record, and when asked if she'd cut the pork she gave a very slimy issue that sound to me a lot like "Weeelll, I'd much rather raise taxes". A lot of her proposals would require massive amounts of spending. She avoids the question of "how she is going to pay for it" like the plague. She has a few moderate fiscal leanings...but on the whole I would slap a big liberal stamp on her fiscal record.

Quote
Her social views are right-leaning, true, but her economic positions are where she is moderate.

She tries to be right-wing on social views, but seems to forget we have her on record. Sounds a lot like Kerry. She is now an opponent of immigration...even though a month or two ago she spoke at an amnesty rally. Her violent video game rant was hilarious but it didn't settle the way she thought it would with the right wing.

Quote
I hardly think the average american voter can be said to 'agree' or 'disagree' with candidates, since he cannot think.  So you are quite correct that likes, dislikes, and other emotional responses are what elects presidents.  However, I suggest that the revulsion over the last two terms, as expressed in Bush's abysmal poll numbers show that people are going to dislike Hilary less than whatever right-wing religious the GOP nominates.

That's provided the GOP nominates another religious whack-job...and even still it's iffy. Hillary is seen by the right as an anti-christ, the middle as a fake, and the left as unelectable (generally speaking). There are a few candidates I think she could beat - particuarlly McCain. But if someone with a strong record and high approval rating gets matched against her. People are going to see the whiny,  feminist, first-lady Hillary Clinton and vote against her.


Title: Re: Why cant Hillary win?
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on May 26, 2006, 05:00:42 PM
The right-wing is so used to blindly attacking Democrats as soft on terrorism. The problem for them is Hillary is kind of a warmonger, so they have to resort to personal attacks.


Title: Re: Why cant Hillary win?
Post by: opebo on May 26, 2006, 05:15:30 PM
'Fiscal liberal'?  What are you talking about?  Btw, I don't believe she has a 'platform'.
She supports tax hikes, a busted Universal Health Care proposal on her record, and when asked if she'd cut the pork she gave a very slimy issue that sound to me a lot like "Weeelll, I'd much rather raise taxes". A lot of her proposals would require massive amounts of spending. She avoids the question of "how she is going to pay for it" like the plague. She has a few moderate fiscal leanings...but on the whole I would slap a big liberal stamp on her fiscal record.

I suspect the public is in the mood for a little 'fiscal liberalism', Vlad - they're tired of getting poorer, not being able to afford things like health care, and are in the mood to soak their betters.

Quote
That's provided the GOP nominates another religious whack-job...and even still it's iffy.

How on earth could the Religious Party nominate anyone other than another religious whack-job, Vlad?  The entire base of the party is made up of extremist intolerant religious whack-jobs.


Title: Re: Why cant Hillary win?
Post by: adam on May 26, 2006, 07:09:27 PM

I suspect the public is in the mood for a little 'fiscal liberalism', Vlad - they're tired of getting poorer, not being able to afford things like health care, and are in the mood to soak their betters.

A lot of people said the same thing around the time of the 1984 election. "Reagan will raise taxes and so will I! He Won't tell you - I just did". Welll...we saw how much good a little fiscally liberal spirit did Walter Mondale. I personally think that we already deal with fiscal liberalism. Spending has increased by over 60% since 2001 - with little to show for it. The people I talk to are clamoring for fiscal responsibility.

Quote
How on earth could the Religious Party nominate anyone other than another religious whack-job, Vlad?  The entire base of the party is made up of extremist intolerant religious whack-jobs.

I think you're being a tad bit unfair here. Kind of like the muslim population, the extremist whack-job population accounts for a very low percentage of the community...there are plenty of socially tolerant Republicans in the world. They just don't run for office...this is why I'm really pulling for Giuliani.  Here is some stuff/people to look into.

Republicans for Choice
Log Cabin Republicans
Lincoln Chafee


Title: Re: Why cant Hillary win?
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on May 26, 2006, 07:47:18 PM

I suspect the public is in the mood for a little 'fiscal liberalism', Vlad - they're tired of getting poorer, not being able to afford things like health care, and are in the mood to soak their betters.

A lot of people said the same thing around the time of the 1984 election. "Reagan will raise taxes and so will I! He Won't tell you - I just did". Welll...we saw how much good a little fiscally liberal spirit did Walter Mondale. I personally think that we already deal with fiscal liberalism. Spending has increased by over 60% since 2001 - with little to show for it. The people I talk to are clamoring for fiscal responsibility.

Quote
How on earth could the Religious Party nominate anyone other than another religious whack-job, Vlad?  The entire base of the party is made up of extremist intolerant religious whack-jobs.

I think you're being a tad bit unfair here. Kind of like the muslim population, the extremist whack-job population accounts for a very low percentage of the community...there are plenty of socially tolerant Republicans in the world. They just don't run for office...this is why I'm really pulling for Giuliani.  Here is some stuff/people to look into.

Republicans for Choice
Log Cabin Republicans
Lincoln Chafee

Republicans for Choice - never heard of them
Log Cabin Republicans - didn't endorse Bush in 2004, even though they had previously always endorsed the Republican nominee for President
Lincoln Chafee - didn't vote for Dubya in 2004

These guys need to stop being in the party of hatred. It's time for them to become the next Jim Jeffords or David Eisenhower and get the hell out.



Title: Re: Why cant Hillary win?
Post by: adam on May 26, 2006, 08:56:52 PM

I suspect the public is in the mood for a little 'fiscal liberalism', Vlad - they're tired of getting poorer, not being able to afford things like health care, and are in the mood to soak their betters.

A lot of people said the same thing around the time of the 1984 election. "Reagan will raise taxes and so will I! He Won't tell you - I just did". Welll...we saw how much good a little fiscally liberal spirit did Walter Mondale. I personally think that we already deal with fiscal liberalism. Spending has increased by over 60% since 2001 - with little to show for it. The people I talk to are clamoring for fiscal responsibility.

Quote
How on earth could the Religious Party nominate anyone other than another religious whack-job, Vlad?  The entire base of the party is made up of extremist intolerant religious whack-jobs.

I think you're being a tad bit unfair here. Kind of like the muslim population, the extremist whack-job population accounts for a very low percentage of the community...there are plenty of socially tolerant Republicans in the world. They just don't run for office...this is why I'm really pulling for Giuliani.  Here is some stuff/people to look into.

Republicans for Choice
Log Cabin Republicans
Lincoln Chafee

Republicans for Choice - never heard of them
Log Cabin Republicans - didn't endorse Bush in 2004, even though they had previously always endorsed the Republican nominee for President
Lincoln Chafee - didn't vote for Dubya in 2004

These guys need to stop being in the party of hatred. It's time for them to become the next Jim Jeffords or David Eisenhower and get the hell out.



A lot of Republican groups didn't endorse Bush whether it be for social or economic reasons. As for Chafee I heard he wrote in "George HW Bush" as a protest or something. Not real sure.


Title: Re: Why cant Hillary win?
Post by: Lincoln Republican on May 26, 2006, 09:45:06 PM
There is plenty of room in the Republican Party for those who are pro choice and for those who support same sex marriage.  They are more than welcome, and, in fact, are needed and appreciated in the party.

The Republican Party is a big tent, and welcomes all.

The Republican Party is more accepting of pro choice members than is the Democratic Party accepting of pro life members. 


Title: Re: Why cant Hillary win?
Post by: adam on May 26, 2006, 10:34:50 PM
There is plenty of room in the Republican Party for those who are pro choice and for those who support same sex marriage.  They are more than welcome, and, in fact, are needed and appreciated in the party.

The Republican Party is a big tent, and welcomes all.

The Republican Party is more accepting of pro choice members than is the Democratic Party accepting of pro life members. 

Couldn't have said it better.


Title: Re: Why cant Hillary win?
Post by: opebo on May 27, 2006, 08:19:14 AM

I suspect the public is in the mood for a little 'fiscal liberalism', Vlad - they're tired of getting poorer, not being able to afford things like health care, and are in the mood to soak their betters.

A lot of people said the same thing around the time of the 1984 election. "Reagan will raise taxes and so will I! He Won't tell you - I just did". Welll...we saw how much good a little fiscally liberal spirit did Walter Mondale.

Vlad, this is not 1984 - Reagan was a hugely popular president.  The public despises Bush, and is sick of Republicans generally.

Quote
I personally think that we already deal with fiscal liberalism. Spending has increased by over 60% since 2001 - with little to show for it. The people I talk to are clamoring for fiscal responsibility.

What are they, fools?  The expenditures since 2001 have been solely devised to assist the elite - defense expenditures, tax cuts, and giveaways to the medical industries.

Quote
Quote
How on earth could the Religious Party nominate anyone other than another religious whack-job, Vlad?  The entire base of the party is made up of extremist intolerant religious whack-jobs.

I think you're being a tad bit unfair here. Kind of like the muslim population, the extremist whack-job population accounts for a very low percentage of the community...there are plenty of socially tolerant Republicans in the world. They just don't run for office...this is why I'm really pulling for Giuliani.  Here is some stuff/people to look into.

Republicans for Choice
Log Cabin Republicans
Lincoln Chafee

Hah, these people are a tiny fringe in the GOP which is almost entirely made up of hateful intolerantes, Vlad.


Title: Re: Why cant Hillary win?
Post by: opebo on May 27, 2006, 08:22:28 AM
There is plenty of room in the Republican Party for those who are pro choice and for those who support same sex marriage.  They are more than welcome, and, in fact, are needed and appreciated in the party.

The Republican Party is a big tent, and welcomes all.

The Republican Party is more accepting of pro choice members than is the Democratic Party accepting of pro life members. 

Couldn't have said it better.

There is no place in the GOP for pro-choice persons, unless those persons don't mind that they are supporting a party dedicated to removing women's freedoms. 


Title: Re: Why cant Hillary win?
Post by: Lincoln Republican on May 27, 2006, 10:13:55 AM
There is plenty of room in the Republican Party for those who are pro choice and for those who support same sex marriage.  They are more than welcome, and, in fact, are needed and appreciated in the party.

The Republican Party is a big tent, and welcomes all.

The Republican Party is more accepting of pro choice members than is the Democratic Party accepting of pro life members. 

Couldn't have said it better.

That's because Winfield is the same sort of ridiculous airhead as you, Vlad.  There is no place in the GOP for pro-choice persons, unless those persons don't mind that they are supporting a party dedicated to removing women's freedoms. 

Opebo, Opebo, Opebo, buddy, you still don't get it.  Now, now, let us not resort to petty name calling.  It is so unbecoming, most immature, not to mention completely inaccurate.

As well, your assertion that the GOP has no place for pro-choice persons demonstrates a complete lack of understanding on your part to accept the fact that the GOP is in fact the party of freedom.  The GOP is, after all, the party that freed the slaves, all the way back in 1865, and is the party that has been championing the cause of freedom ever since.


Title: Re: Why cant Hillary win?
Post by: Boris on May 27, 2006, 11:20:09 AM
There is plenty of room in the Republican Party for those who are pro choice and for those who support same sex marriage.  They are more than welcome, and, in fact, are needed and appreciated in the party.

The Republican Party is a big tent, and welcomes all.

The Republican Party is more accepting of pro choice members than is the Democratic Party accepting of pro life members. 

Couldn't have said it better.

That's because Winfield is the same sort of ridiculous airhead as you, Vlad.  There is no place in the GOP for pro-choice persons, unless those persons don't mind that they are supporting a party dedicated to removing women's freedoms. 

Opebo, Opebo, Opebo, buddy, you still don't get it.  Now, now, let us not resort to petty name calling.  It is so unbecoming, most immature, not to mention completely inaccurate.

As well, your assertion that the GOP has no place for pro-choice persons demonstrates a complete lack of understanding on your part to accept the fact that the GOP is in fact the party of freedom.  The GOP is, after all, the party that freed the slaves, all the way back in 1865, and is the party that has been championing the cause of freedom ever since.

Comparing today's GOP to Abraham Lincoln is ridiculous. By that equivalent, the Democrats are a bunch of racist white southerners. The GOP today has been overrun but christian fanatics who don't care about any issue except abortion and gay marriage. The moderate wing of the GOP, which had consisted of great men such as Gerald Ford and Richard Nixon, has now pretty much ceased to exist.

The GOP isn't the party of freedom; it's the party of tired rhetoric. But then again, I suppose that's better than the Democrats, who really lack any rhetoric.


Title: Re: Why cant Hillary win?
Post by: adam on May 27, 2006, 04:53:06 PM
There is plenty of room in the Republican Party for those who are pro choice and for those who support same sex marriage.  They are more than welcome, and, in fact, are needed and appreciated in the party.

The Republican Party is a big tent, and welcomes all.

The Republican Party is more accepting of pro choice members than is the Democratic Party accepting of pro life members. 

Couldn't have said it better.

That's because Winfield is the same sort of ridiculous airhead as you, Vlad.  There is no place in the GOP for pro-choice persons, unless those persons don't mind that they are supporting a party dedicated to removing women's freedoms. 

There are plenty of pro-choice Republicans, perhaps not on the national stage - but the Republican party is moving to the center in terms of social views as the Christian fanatic movement dies down.


Title: Re: Why cant Hillary win?
Post by: opebo on May 27, 2006, 04:56:01 PM
There is plenty of room in the Republican Party for those who are pro choice and for those who support same sex marriage.  They are more than welcome, and, in fact, are needed and appreciated in the party.

The Republican Party is a big tent, and welcomes all.

The Republican Party is more accepting of pro choice members than is the Democratic Party accepting of pro life members. 

Couldn't have said it better.

That's because Winfield is the same sort of ridiculous airhead as you, Vlad.  There is no place in the GOP for pro-choice persons, unless those persons don't mind that they are supporting a party dedicated to removing women's freedoms. 

Need you be an asshole about everything - are you that insecure with your own intelligence (or lack there of)? There are plenty of pro-choice Republicans, perhaps not on the national stage - but the Republican party is moving to the center in terms of social views as the Christian fanatic movement dies down.

Seriously dude, I appreciate your input - but you are a total dick.

Sorry about being a total dick, but the point stands - the goal of the Religious Party is to ban abortion.  So if you are free to be a 'pro-choice' Republican under the big tent, but still all you're voting for is an anti-choice agenda, that is just pointless.  Of course anyone can be anything if they are willing to abandon their own goals, principles, and interests.


Title: Re: Why cant Hillary win?
Post by: adam on May 27, 2006, 05:34:08 PM
There is plenty of room in the Republican Party for those who are pro choice and for those who support same sex marriage.  They are more than welcome, and, in fact, are needed and appreciated in the party.

The Republican Party is a big tent, and welcomes all.

The Republican Party is more accepting of pro choice members than is the Democratic Party accepting of pro life members. 

Couldn't have said it better.

That's because Winfield is the same sort of ridiculous airhead as you, Vlad.  There is no place in the GOP for pro-choice persons, unless those persons don't mind that they are supporting a party dedicated to removing women's freedoms. 

Need you be an asshole about everything - are you that insecure with your own intelligence (or lack there of)? There are plenty of pro-choice Republicans, perhaps not on the national stage - but the Republican party is moving to the center in terms of social views as the Christian fanatic movement dies down.

Seriously dude, I appreciate your input - but you are a total dick.

Sorry about being a total dick, but the point stands - the goal of the Religious Party is to ban abortion.  So if you are free to be a 'pro-choice' Republican under the big tent, but still all you're voting for is an anti-choice agenda, that is just pointless.  Of course anyone can be anything if they are willing to abandon their own goals, principles, and interests.

I think it's more of an issue importance thing. Economic conservatives that hold the economy as the most important issue are going to vote for other economic conservatives and thus (by theroy) usually vote Republican. Regardless of whether the said voter is socially liberal or not. On the flip side, if a candidate is economically conservative but happens to be focusing his campaign around a socially conservative agenda...than said voter is going to be wary of supporting him. (This is a lot of the reason why the Constitution Party hasn't taken off yet). Most Republicans hold security and the economy in higher regards than social issues and thus can over look pro-choice and pro-gay members. Our point with the Democrats is that they have a balanced focus of social and economic views (generally speaking) and are less likely to welcome a pro-life or and anti-gay candidate because they fear a tipped balance.