Any other Democrats anxious about Hillary?

[Beet]

I'm a little worried about her as a candidate. The consensus seems to be that she's a strong candidate, but she has some pretty unique and major vulnerabilities.

For one, there's the whole "No dynasties" thing, which I think is a crock of sh__ (especially how the Bush presidency is used against her) but just keeps coming back. It's one reliable line that can always be used against her. I think she's going to have to address this somehow.

Secondly, her negatives are deep. The people who dislike her really dislike her. Her positives, on the other hand, are not so deep. Besides a few people such as IceSpear, myself, and maybe a couple others, not many people will passionately defend her, but there are a lot of lukewarm supporters. I think this is a negative dynamic, because the more people research her, the more general opinion will be driven by those with strong opinions. I don't think many of the people who hate her can be convinced to stop hating her, but she's going to have to gin up her positives and get a critical mass of more than just lukewarm supporters. Yech.

[KCDem]

She needs to run full-bore populist, stick it to the rich etc. Unfortunately, she's not a good candidate for that message.

[Mehmentum]

Secondly, her negatives are deep. The people who dislike her really dislike her. Her positives, on the other hand, are not so deep. Besides a few people such as IceSpear, myself, and maybe a couple others, not many people will passionately defend her, but there are a lot of lukewarm supporters. I think this is a negative dynamic, because the more people research her, the more general opinion will be driven by those with strong opinions. I don't think many of the people who hate her can be convinced to stop hating her, but she's going to have to gin up her positives and get a critical mass of more than just lukewarm supporters. Yech.

There are quite a few people who really like her.  About half of the Democratic party is firmly on her side if the 2008 primaries are any indication.

[Brittain33]

Of course. She wasn't a particularly good candidate in 2008. I expect stumbles.

[IceSpear]

The dynasty issue could be potent, but with the Republicans pleading for Jeb to run, I don't think they'll really have any room to talk, especially considering she's only the second Clinton whereas he'd be the third Bush.

As for the intense negatives, that's true as well. But I think that would eventually be true for any Democrat. Whoever the Democratic nominee ends up being, the right wing media/talk radio will gin up tons of hatred somehow and make them unacceptable to ~45% of the country. I mean, look at Al Gore and John Kerry. They're about as inoffensive as you can possibly get, but the right managed to make them into Satan incarnate.

[IceSpear]

Secondly, her negatives are deep. The people who dislike her really dislike her. Her positives, on the other hand, are not so deep. Besides a few people such as IceSpear, myself, and maybe a couple others, not many people will passionately defend her, but there are a lot of lukewarm supporters. I think this is a negative dynamic, because the more people research her, the more general opinion will be driven by those with strong opinions. I don't think many of the people who hate her can be convinced to stop hating her, but she's going to have to gin up her positives and get a critical mass of more than just lukewarm supporters. Yech.

There are quite a few people who really like her.  About half of the Democratic party is firmly on her side if the 2008 primaries are any indication.

Yeah, Hillary's ardent supporters tend not to be an "internet forum crowd" like Obama's were/are. But internet forum support only gets you so far, as Ron Paul can attest.

[BaconBacon96]

I feel like if she runs a more positive campaign while also pointing out the dangers of a Republican, Tea Party influenced administration, she can do well.

[Adam Griffin]

The dynasty issue could be potent, but with the Republicans pleading for Jeb to run, I don't think they'll really have any room to talk, especially considering she's only the second Clinton whereas he'd be the third Bush.

As for the intense negatives, that's true as well. But I think that would eventually be true for any Democrat. Whoever the Democratic nominee ends up being, the right wing media/talk radio will gin up tons of hatred somehow and make them unacceptable to ~45% of the country. I mean, look at Al Gore and John Kerry. They're about as inoffensive as you can possibly get, but the right managed to make them into Satan incarnate.

I'd almost rather see Hillary run against some fresh blood than another Bush. If it's a Clinton-Bush match-up, then queue the Millennial "they're all the same, maaaaaan" attitude, the youth largely sit it out and we have one of the lowest turnout presidential elections in recent history.

[Beet]

Yeah, Hillary's ardent supporters tend not to be an "internet forum crowd" like Obama's were/are. But internet forum support only gets you so far, as Ron Paul can attest.

I certainly hope so, but internet comments have been fore-warnings of political trends before. Anyone reading the Marketwatch.com comments in late 2008 could have predicted something akin to the Tea Party. Christine Quinn also used to get universally panned on the NY Daily News website, even when she was leading in the polls.

But you're right, Paulism is a counterexample. I remember in 2010 or so when I was watching Sal Khan's videos on fractional reserve banking, he did a video on the gold standard and explained why he thought it would be a bad idea. The video enraged internet libertarians so much that he had to do a follow-up video explaining his ideas more closely. It took continuous efforts by people like Paul Krugman, as well the effects of austerity in Europe, to get people to gradually come around. So Internet trends can certainly be countered, but it's going to be up to Hillary and her team to do it.

[Mr. Smith]

Yes I am because frankly she comes off as the opposite of Bill, cold and firm on the exterior, but as her autobiographies read, far more genuine.

But as every normal election since FDR goes, the cool-headed candidate will be seen as elitist/insincere and thus lose to the fiery one.

Only 1964,1972, and 2008 have ever contradicted the hate-dom Americans have for the introverted and collected.

It doesn't even matter if the difference and almost non-existent (think Carter vs Ford, or 2012), the less energetic the candidate is, the more against them.

And 2008 proved Clinton was nearly as wooden as Romney, she had everyone on her side...and then she started to implode slowly after Obama took Iowa in an upset. Her campaign went  into panic mode and  she still couldn't get the same passion.

So the path of least resistance to victory is if the GOP nominates someone somehow even more introverted than her, that or 2016 ends up being 2008 part deux.

Until then, I see her as liable to going the way of Al Gore, killed by "inevitability" and perceived pretentiousness. Heck Bernie Sanders and O'Malley may as well be the next Bill Bradley.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Until then, I see her as liable to going the way of Al Gore, killed by "inevitability" and perceived pretentiousness. Heck Bernie Sanders and O'Malley may as well be the next Bill Bradley.

Actually Gore was trailing by double digits for much of 1998 and 1999, and he ended up with the most votes. In June 1999, Fox had a poll with Bush up 60-28.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Except for the interruptions of the midterms, we should be enthusiastic but we shouldn't expect to be given the W.H. back.  It is a thing of oligarchy and representative Democracy. If the public thinks that we are expected to keep the W.H., then they are smart enough to vote in the G O P. But, since we have put the Obama coalition together and we have a favorable congressional map, we are in good position to do what Tony Blair did, put together a 3 term Labor Party movement.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Secondly, her negatives are deep. The people who dislike her really dislike her. Her positives, on the other hand, are not so deep. Besides a few people such as IceSpear, myself, and maybe a couple others, not many people will passionately defend her, but there are a lot of lukewarm supporters. I think this is a negative dynamic, because the more people research her, the more general opinion will be driven by those with strong opinions. I don't think many of the people who hate her can be convinced to stop hating her, but she's going to have to gin up her positives and get a critical mass of more than just lukewarm supporters. Yech.

There are quite a few people who really like her.  About half of the Democratic party is firmly on her side if the 2008 primaries are any indication.

A big chunk of her 2008 support was only there because she was running against a black guy.

[Brittain33]

Until then, I see her as liable to going the way of Al Gore, killed by "inevitability" and perceived pretentiousness. Heck Bernie Sanders and O'Malley may as well be the next Bill Bradley.

Actually Gore was trailing by double digits for much of 1998 and 1999, and he ended up with the most votes. In June 1999, Fox had a poll with Bush up 60-28.

Hillary is more like Bush than like Gore in that scenario. The inevitable candidate the whole party coalesces around with high ratings who stumbles out of the gate.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Until then, I see her as liable to going the way of Al Gore, killed by "inevitability" and perceived pretentiousness. Heck Bernie Sanders and O'Malley may as well be the next Bill Bradley.

Actually Gore was trailing by double digits for much of 1998 and 1999, and he ended up with the most votes. In June 1999, Fox had a poll with Bush up 60-28.

Hillary is more like Bush than like Gore in that scenario. The inevitable candidate the whole party coalesces around with high ratings who stumbles out of the gate.

On the other hand, Bush was extremely likable whereas Hillary Clinton is about as likable as Richard Nixon, so it's hardly a perfect fit  

[Tender Branson]

Yeah, all the way since 2007 already.

I have a feeling she will start strong (leading the polls now), then collapse towards the end of the actual GE campaign due to all the skeletons that Republicans will bring up (of which she has plenty).

Then, when she's starting to be down in the polls (around the time of the debates), the only thing left for her will be to shed a few tears - like she did ahead of the NH primary - to eek out a small win.

[Mehmentum]

Yeah, all the way since 2007 already.

I have a feeling she will start strong (leading the polls now), then collapse towards the end of the actual GE campaign due to all the skeletons that Republicans will bring up (of which she has plenty).

Then, when she's starting to be down in the polls (around the time of the debates), the only thing left for her will be to shed a few tears - like she did ahead of the NH primary - to eek out a small win.

Wouldn't any skeletons have come out in the 2008 primary, or in the last few years in which Republicans have desperately been trying to take her down?

Its not like she's being plucked from obscurity.  She's been in the public spotlight, either as first lady, senator, presidential candidate, or secretary of state for over 2 decades now.

[Bigby]

She needs to run full-bore populist, stick it to the rich etc. Unfortunately, she's not a good candidate for that message.

*starts laughing furiously.*

You think? I seriously have no idea why Hillary thinks she can fool people into thinking she isn't a rich elitist.

[IceSpear]

Until then, I see her as liable to going the way of Al Gore, killed by "inevitability" and perceived pretentiousness. Heck Bernie Sanders and O'Malley may as well be the next Bill Bradley.

Actually Gore was trailing by double digits for much of 1998 and 1999, and he ended up with the most votes. In June 1999, Fox had a poll with Bush up 60-28.

60-28? Jeez. That would've been close to a 50 state landslide for Dubya. America truly has become much more polarized in a relatively short period of time.

[IceSpear]

Yeah, all the way since 2007 already.

I have a feeling she will start strong (leading the polls now), then collapse towards the end of the actual GE campaign due to all the skeletons that Republicans will bring up (of which she has plenty).

Then, when she's starting to be down in the polls (around the time of the debates), the only thing left for her will be to shed a few tears - like she did ahead of the NH primary - to eek out a small win.

Wouldn't any skeletons have come out in the 2008 primary, or in the last few years in which Republicans have desperately been trying to take her down?

Its not like she's being plucked from obscurity.  She's been in the public spotlight, either as first lady, senator, presidential candidate, or secretary of state for over 2 decades now.

Yeah, I really don't know what people mean when they talk about Hillary's "skeletons". Every single thing about her is out in the open, there's nothing to hide. Why do you think the Republicans are so obsessed with "Benghazi!!1!!!1111!"? It's because it's the only thing they have against her that isn't a 90s rehash.