There goes my dude (Obama)
- Thread starter Fatback
- Start date
Truth
She's walking off the stage with Terry McAuliffe. This is the old Democratic Party machine behind her.
And i'm probably not the only one who laughs when people below the age of 75 start out a sentence with "Good god". Tell Wally and the Beaver I said what's up.
Fuck Wally & Beaver...
NO ONE started more sentences with the words "Good God" than James Brown!!!!!
COSINE. Hilary doesn't stand a chance of winning a general election. Too many people hate her. Even democrats. And a lot of women. And possibly as many men. I like her fine but she just isn't going to win. Just not.
I find this so-called conventional wisdom rather suspect.
For one thing, we're not even out of primary season yet. The idea that Clinton would be absolutely un-electable, when we don't even know who the other candidate(s) is/are is, is hard to buy into. In an open race, with other alternatives around, it's easy enough to say, "I'd never vote for her." But if the choice were, say: Clinton vs. Romney, with no viable third party candidate (*cough cough* McCain and/or Bloomberg), you really think people would rather vote for Romney or no one at all, then vote for Clinton?
Sure, there will be some people who, under no circumstances, would vote for her, but I think a lot of Hillary-haters would be willing to change their tune given a limited set of choices. If this were in a different era, that'd be one thing, but after 8 years of Bush, people are likely willing to stomach a lot in order to see "the other side win." I can't see how any GOP candidate would be palatable to even ardent anti-Clintonites in the Dem camp.
All I have to add is:
GEORGE BUSH GOT RE-ELECTED WITH HIGHER NUMBERS THAN HE GOT IN 2000.
That, more than anything, proves that there's no such thing as "un-electable."
COSINE. Hilary doesn't stand a chance of winning a general election. Too many people hate her. Even democrats. And a lot of women. And possibly as many men. I like her fine but she just isn't going to win. Just not.
I find this so-called conventional wisdom rather suspect.
For one thing, we're not even out of primary season yet. The idea that Clinton would be absolutely un-electable, when we don't even know who the other candidate(s) is/are is, is hard to buy into. In an open race, with other alternatives around, it's easy enough to say, "I'd never vote for her." But if the choice were, say: Clinton vs. Romney, with no viable third party candidate (*cough cough* McCain and/or Bloomberg), you really think people would rather vote for Romney or no one at all, then vote for Clinton?
Sure, there will be some people who, under no circumstances, would vote for her, but I think a lot of Hillary-haters would be willing to change their tune given a limited set of choices. If this were in a different era, that'd be one thing, but after 8 years of Bush, people are likely willing to stomach a lot in order to see "the other side win." I can't see how any GOP candidate would be palatable to even ardent anti-Clintonites in the Dem camp.
All I have to add is:
GEORGE BUSH GOT RE-ELECTED WITH HIGHER NUMBERS THAN HE GOT IN 2000.
That, more than anything, proves that there's no such thing as "un-electable."
i'm voting for whomever the dems field, and if that's hilary then i'm fine with that. but i think it would be stupid for the dems to nominate hilary when they have better and better-liked candidates. seriously. any one of these folls would have crushed kerry.
and as for bush once you get jesus all up in the mix your metrics for electability no longer have any rational basis
Without discounting the power of the evangelical vote, if you look at what platforms Bush won on in 2004, most of it had to do with post-9/11 fallout and fears. Bush won because people felt safer with him than with Kerry (god knows why but whatever, that's what the exiting polling suggested). His religious views aren't what drew non-fundamentalists to vote for him and it's important that we don't give the religious right more credit than they deserve. The number of voters for whom 'values issues' are truly important is still a small minority compared to bread and butter things like national security and the economy.
And here's my point: how is it that Clinton still polls >>>>>>>>>>> ahead of the rest of the Democratic field (or, at least did pre-Iowa) if it should be obvious to people that she's un-electable? It's not exactly a secret that many people don't like her yet in state after state, she's the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination. Have all the polled Democratic voters gone stupid? It's not like the brain trust here is seeing something that most other rational voters don't.
Don't get me wrong - I'm pulling for Obama. But I think people have a warped view on just how unliked Clinton is.
Without discounting the power of the evangelical vote, if you look at what platforms Bush won on in 2004, most of it had to do with post-9/11 fallout and fears. Bush won because people felt safer with him than with Kerry (god knows why but whatever, that's what the exiting polling suggested). His religious views aren't what drew non-fundamentalists to vote for him and it's important that we don't give the religious right more credit than they deserve. The number of voters for whom 'values issues' are truly important is still a small minority compared to bread and butter things like national security and the economy.
And here's my point: how is it that Clinton still polls >>>>>>>>>>> ahead of the rest of the Democratic field (or, at least did pre-Iowa) if it should be obvious to people that she's un-electable? It's not exactly a secret that many people don't like her yet in state after state, she's the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination. Have all the polled Democratic voters gone stupid? It's not like the brain trust here is seeing something that most other rational voters don't.
Don't get me wrong - I'm pulling for Obama. But I think people have a warped view on just how unliked Clinton is.
I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the American majority's political leanings.
You really, really need to spend more time on the "other" side if you want to understand why Bush got re-elected, or why Clinton might be unelectable. Shit, even spend some time in an office of a big corporation. I worked in San Francisco and the majority of my office voted for Bush.
IMO, Clinton = Kerry. If it ends up being a race pitting Clinton against Romney, you will see a 3rd Party Candidacy from Bloomberg, at least that's what I'm hearing. Bloomberg might win but more likely he'll split off a lot of votes from the Democratic candidate.
Another scenario is that Clinton goes up against McCain, who could beat her. I think she could beat Giuliani but not sure about Huckabee. I think Huckabee could beat Clinton.
Clinton is in no way a shoe-in and in many ways is just more of the Same Old Democratic Party that people started running from in 2000 and haven't stopped.
huh?
One of my fave things to do on SS is explaining my posts to Soul On Ice.
I believe that a lot of people looked at Obama 6 months ago and thought "I like him but mainstream America won't vote for a black man"
After Iowa they are saying, "Oh shit, mainstream America WILL vote for a black man, let's do this"!!
If you will pay 1/2 I am willing to open up a toll free phone number so that you can call me personally and I can explain each of my posts to you.
1-800-IAM-SLOW
Let's do this!!!
Yup. Spanky, I don't think most rational people are saying she can't win. People are reacting to this inevitability image they tried to push, combined with the amount of people who froth at the mention of her name, and saying, Hey, we've got good candidates, and momentum. Simply, Hillary is probably our best shot at loosing. Just like Kerry, she's deep, deep into the Democrats of the 90's (look at her concession speech team), and adding the word 'change' to her repertoire now ain't gonna do it.
Similar threads
