Why cant Hillary win?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

[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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

[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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

[adam]

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.

[adam]

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.

[adam]

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.