Talk Elections

It will be a tug of war between two powerful, opposite dominating forces.

Democratic tilt in the the 2008 election cycle (anti Bush opinion polls)

                                      vs.

unbelievably, high negatives of Hillary.  (52% in today's Rasmussen)


Given the Democratic opportunity presented in this year's election, why oh why would the Democrats nominate this woman.  Will they?  It looks like they will.  That to me is incredible.

It's not so incredible, considering some of the candidates that major parties have nominated in the past. I'm not so sure she falls into that category, however, because I think she has a good chance of getting elected.

"Electability" is a crock.  John Kerry was supposedly the most electable Democrat, but what liberal today doesn't wish *someone else* had been nominated in 2004?  In 2000, the GOP decided George W. Bush was "electable" but he lost the popular vote to a wooden environmentalist, managed to become president anyway, and became the biggest albatross to hang around the GOP neck since Watergate.

Hillary's supporters know that she can be controversial.  So my guess is that they are sticking with her anyways because they think she'd be the best President for this country.  Given her command of the issues, willingness to reach across the aisle, and strong and determined personality, who can blame them?

I think Hillary can win in 2008 if only because the mood in the country right now is much more anti-bush than anti-hillary.

Republicans should be trying to get hillary the dem nomination because 1)she'd be the easiest to defeat 2) she's more conservative than Obama or Edwards 3) she's too polarizing to get any of her agenda passed, and polarizing enough to virtually gauruntee the GOP a good 2010

Willingness to reach across the aisle???

You raise some excellent points, especially the fact that Clinton is actually the most moderate of the leading Dem candidates (which I suppose Republicans will say speaks poorly of the Democratic party....but nonetheless 'tis true).

However, despite being the most moderate she is perceived as more liberal than Edwards. Most voters probably just assume that a man from the South will be more moderate than a woman from the Northeast, especially one that is so well known.

Clinton definitely has some strong negatives, no doubt about it. Her winning the nomination guarantees that the GOP base will be energized. So it frees the Republicans to nominate Giuliani, as the religious right will be willing to put up with him just to stop Clinton. If anyone other than Clinton wins the Dem nomination, the GOP base probably won't be willing to tolerate Giuliani, and will insist on Thompson or Romney instead (more likely Thompson because he's not a Mormon).

I agree that the only winnable Presidential matchup for the GOP among the possible races between leading contenders is Giuliani vs. Clinton. The great thing for the Republicans about Clinton being nominated is that the GOP base hates her so viscerally that the party doesn't have to pander to them one iota and is free to run as far to the middle as necessary to woo swing voters.

However, Clinton still would have an excellent chance of winning due to the fact that Giuliani is basically a Bush clone on the war, and Bush's strong negatives will pull down any GOP candidate significantly, especially one that is closely aligned with him on the biggest issue of the election. Giuliani's best hope would be for Bush to end the war before the election, or at least commit to a firm timetable. This would take the issue off the table, and while it would normally anger and deflate the GOP base, they'd still turn out strongly just to stop Clinton.

Clinton also has the most experience of the leading Dems (not counting Richardson here as a leading contender). She's the least likely to have any new skeletons in her closet, and the least likely to say or do something stupid.

By all accounts she is articulate, and a good debater as well.

Many, I'm sure, but someone like Howard Dean would have lost by a significantly larger margin than Kerry did.  Further, considering how little Edwards added to the ticket, I doubt he would have done much better than Kerry, either.  Wes Clark was not ready for prime time, and it's not even worth mentioning Kucinich, Sharpton, or Moseley Braun, all of whom would have given Bush a minimum of 45 states.

Of the field, only Gephardt could have—and likely would have—beaten Bush.

What about Lieberman or Graham?

Lieberman would have lost due to his hatred of the Democratic base.

Graham, no.  His primary performance just screamed "weak candidate."

As for Lieberman, it's harder to tell.  I'll err on the side of caution and say that yes, Lieberman would have had a strong enough shot at it.  (With the caveat that a Lieberman candidacy could just as easily have tanked hard, giving Bush a landslide win.)