Why cant Hillary win?

[Mr. Morden]

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.

[Harry]

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!)

[agcatter]

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.

[dazzleman]

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.

[Smash255]

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.

[Nym90]

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.

[Wyatt Chesney]

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.

[sethm0]

 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.

[adam]

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.

[MaC]

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)

[adam]

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.

[Harry]

Add AR to Hillary's column.  She's popular there.

[Virginian87]

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.

[Max]

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.

[Mr. Paleoconservative]

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.

[opebo]

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.

[adam]

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.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

] 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.

[opebo]

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.

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. 

[adam]

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.

[opebo]

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'.

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.

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.

[adam]

'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.

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.

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.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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.

[opebo]

'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.

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.

[adam]

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.

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