Hillary Clinton and my hatred for her

is_that_so

RedPlanet wrote: »

No Democrat can win Texas and only southern dems can win the south.
These states turned red (Republican) since the Civil Rights Act.
Hillary as no chance at winning the south.

No argument there. My answer was in response to another poster

California has been voting for Democrat president for a fairly long time, there'll be no change there.

True but McCain is not altogether disliked either. I'd expect it to be pretty close but Obama can't win Florida.

Cities vote for the Democrats in presidential elections, so i doubt McCain will win those "blue collar workers" you cite. (i presume you mean unions and industrial employment like manufacturing)

Obama continues to have problems attracting these people especially with white males. Once the big bad GOP dirty tricks machine rolls out he will have even more problems. PA tends to be a swing state in General elections along with likes of Ohio and Iowa. The first time in Iowa he was fresh, unknown and the dirt that has been thrown at him of late was a long way away. Would they go for him again?

'm pretty sure Mass will go Dems, isn't there an established tradition there?

MA does not "dislike" McCain and he may run close enough.

The whole Dem "election" shows imo, that even within his own party enough people are not wholly convinced, otherwise this would have been over long ago. Much of his constituency is also "fluid". He may have many young supporters but will he actually get them out? Many of the other demographics he doesn't have as much support from will vote.

is_that_so

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Obama is younger than all of them - and a few years younger than the average age of the above candidates. None of them sought a subsequent nomination either.

Dukakis was young enough when he ran. I think it all depends what kind of hatchet job Rove et al do on him and he's given them enough to go on.

is_that_so

Lirange wrote: »

The Florida/Michigan charade only shows how low she is willing to go.

Agreed but I would lay the blame for that whole debacle to arise squarely with the Dem party head honchos themselves. Rules are rules but having arguments about two very large states out of play is not how this campaign should be ending.

Manic Moran

California has been voting for Democrat president for a fairly long time, there'll be no change there

For the first time since Reagan, there are rumblings that CA might actually be up for grabs. It's a long shot, but CA isn't actually as blue as many people believe, and a moderate Republican might well do it. Note that CA's governor is a moderate Republican, and hugely popular: Voters don't always vote "Party Line" in CA.

NTM

Lirange

Used to be popular. He's slipping and it will likely continue to year's end.

We Are in 2008

The Democratic organisation in California outweighs the influence of the governship which is diminished given the state of economy. California's been hit harder than other states by the housing crisis and budgetary cuts.

I'm surprised at the level of antipathy to Clinton.

I saw a comment at the start of the campaign that a woman who stands by her husband and is capable is seen as cold and emotionally deficient, a man who stands by his wife and is capable is seen as the all American hero.

Amazotheamazing

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm surprised at the level of antipathy to Clinton.

I saw a comment at the start of the campaign that a woman who stands by her husband and is capable is seen as cold and emotionally deficient, a man who stands by his wife and is capable is seen as the all American hero.

I don't think it's simple sexism, after all, Ireland has had 18 years of female presidents, has had two female Tanaiste's, and senior politicians in both parties are female.

For me, and in the last local and general elections I voted for a female candidate (not cause they were female, they were the best candidates obviously), Hillary is an intensely dislikable person. Nothing to do with her gender and everything to do with her personality. She revels in the dirty side of politics and excuses it as "everybody else does it". She lies about her involvement in Northern Ireland, about coming under sniper fire, about loaning her campaign money.

She picked an extraordinarily poor campaign team (which wasn't even aware of the pro rata way the democrats assigned delegates) and is running an extraordinarily poor and divisive campaign. She might still get the nomination, but it will take some amount of strong-arming to achieve it.

Were it solely her personality i disliked, of course I could still view her as a good candidate, but the fact she has lied through the campaign and run such an incompetent campaign means she's not.

LuckyLloyd

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm surprised at the level of antipathy to Clinton.

I saw a comment at the start of the campaign that a woman who stands by her husband and is capable is seen as cold and emotionally deficient, a man who stands by his wife and is capable is seen as the all American hero.

Huh? Really? Her message and delivery pails in comparison to that of Obama. And she's remaining in his way despite the fact that it is practically impossible for her to win. Hence why people don't like her. Quite simple really.

Manic Moran

Lirange wrote: »

Used to be popular. He's slipping and it will likely continue to year's end.

We Are in 2008

The Democratic organisation in California outweighs the influence of the governship which is diminished given the state of economy. California's been hit harder than other states by the housing crisis and budgetary cuts.

Approval ratings will always go down in a lousy economy, it's just the way of things. You'll note that he's still got over twice the rating of the Democratic-controlled legislature. I've not been home in a few months, but when I left the general impression I got was that people are more pissed at the legislature for blocking Arnie's proposals than at Arnie for not coming up with the right proposals.

NTM

Amazotheamazing

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

She lies about her involvement in Northern Ireland, about coming under sniper fire, about loaning her campaign money.

Politicians telling porkies and overstating achievements? It's hardly sky falling in stuff. In terms of how the Republicans will use it, I still think its minor compared to the torrid time Obama will get over the drugs, the connection to some lunatic fringe Pastor and his thoughts on 'embittered America'.

Amazotheamazing

Deleted User wrote: »

Politicians telling porkies and overstating achievements? It's hardly sky falling in stuff. In terms of how the Republicans will use it, I still think its minor compared to the torrid time Obama will get over the drugs, the connection to some lunatic fringe Pastor and his thoughts on 'embittered America'.

Do you really think Obama views small-town America as embittered, or is it more likely, he was giving an accurate summary of the problems faced by rural America?

I don't see drugs as a big problem for Obama, the main point is he pulled his life to back together, pretty inspiring Conor, have you considered believing in HOPE?

The Pastor scandal didn't stop Obama running Clinton close in Indiana, it's a closed issue.

Amazotheamazing

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

Do you really think Obama views small-town America as embittered, or is it more likely, he was giving an accurate summary of the problems faced by rural America?

I suspect that if Hilary Clinton gave her assessment of black urban communities, maybe made some generalisation based on drive by shootings, she would be buried by the racism accusations.

Even if he believed it was an accurate summary, you'd have to question how bright was he to say it. It was at best a gaffe.

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

it's a closed issue.

And I'm sure those nice Republicans will be happy to regard it in that light too. And if asked really nicely, they too will see his drug taking as a lesson in hope...

is_that_so

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

Do you really think Obama views small-town America as embittered, or is it more likely, he was giving an accurate summary of the problems faced by rural America?

I don't see drugs as a big problem for Obama, the main point is he pulled his life to back together, pretty inspiring Conor, have you considered believing in HOPE?

The last time I bought a lottery ticket I had great HOPE I would win. I can stand at a bus stop on a wet day and hope a bus will show up.
Hope is based on a reasoning that you can see, like say Noel Dempsey not being appointed as Minister for Finance because Brian Cowen recognises that he is quite useless.

In Obama's case if he's convinced you then it seems people are all in. If he hasn't then you wonder what some of this fuss is all about.

The Pastor scandal didn't stop Obama running Clinton close in Indiana, it's a closed issue.

This is not a real election. It's a selection process to see who will the Dem nominee for President, as chosen by the Dems.

If Clinton takes any pot shots at him that the Republicans can use, she's out on the spot. The GOP will dig and dig. They'll bring the Rev Wright up and the drugs and of course there's Chicago/Tony Rezko( guilty by association) issues. Finally let's not forget the dreaded "liberal" tag. He is the most liberal of all.

Amazotheamazing

A Gaffe, exactly, a harmless misstatement far removed from inventing landing under fire or lying about how strong your fundraising is.

There's a certain amount of Republicans that will never vote Democrat, Obama has the ability to win the swing voters imo.

Amazotheamazing

is_that_so wrote: »

The last time I bought a lottery ticket I had great HOPE I would win. I can stand at a bus stop on a wet day and hope a bus will show up.
Hope is based on a reasoning that you can see, like say Noel Dempsey not being appointed as Minister for Finance because Brian Cowen recognises that he is quite useless.

In Obama's case if he's convinced you then it seems people are all in. If he hasn't then you wonder what some of this fuss is all about.



This is not a real election. It's a selection process to see who will the Dem nominee for President, as chosen by the Dems.

If Clinton takes any pot shots at him that the Republicans can use, she's out on the spot. The GOP will dig and dig. They'll bring the Rev Wright up and the drugs and of course there's Chicago/Tony Rezko( guilty by association) issues. Finally let's not forget the dreaded "liberal" tag. He is the most liberal of all.

So, you don't believe in HOPE then?

LuckyLloyd

Hillary Clinton's To-Do List

May 07, 2008 7:44 AM

1. Win in West Virginia next week -- dispatch Bill asap

2. Go on to win in Puerto Rico and Kentucky, racking up popular votes as much as humanly possible (need to have popular vote argument to make to Super-Ds)

3. Try to pick off one of the three remaining "Obama" primaries -- Oregon, Montana or South Dakota

4. Argue that Obama should have won Indiana; a post-game recalibration of expectations

5. Point to ugly exit poll data from Indiana showing 50% of Clinton supporters say they will not vote for Obama in the Fall

6. Push back on Obama "achievement" in Indiana that he lost white women by only 61%-39% -- as opposed to larger losses in Pennsylvania and Ohio. Argue: What kind of crazy worldview is this?

7. Look for more oppo. Another minister? Ayers? When does Rev. Wright's book come out?

8. MICHIGAN and FLORIDA ...The number 2,025 no longer exists. 2,209...2,209...2,209... Make it a civil rights issue

9. Push the money thing - Obama outspent us significantly, and yet he cannot put us away

10. Hard sell to superdelegates. This is going to happen and we have long memories. Stay on the fence.

11. Pray.

- jpt

Taken from http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/05/hillary-clint-1.html

is_that_so

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

So, you don't believe in HOPE then?

Unqualified HOPE no. I had hope for the peace process and believed in what it was trying to do and that it would work itself out. But there was plenty of evidence that those who were the heart of it were making every attempt to get it to work and therefore there was a good reason for hope.
I am hopeful about the next pay talks because there is a logic to having it work.
The only real unqualified hope I have is that we'll get a decent summer.

But I don't just have hope because some very talented senator with exceptional oratory skill has written a book about it and thinks I should have it.

As I have said elsewhere I haven't bought into it because in my view it is missing that logic. Whatever hope anyone might have, it could well end in tears. Recently he has shown himself, of necessity, to be no different than any of the other candidates. But he has energised people, and I would HOPE that those people feel energised enough to go out and vote come November.

Manic Moran

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

Do you really think Obama views small-town America as embittered, or is it more likely, he was giving an accurate summary of the problems faced by rural America?

"Not sure", and "No." Yes, the problems exist, but the data shows that they tend to vote based on the economy first, and only those who are relatively secure financially and who thus have the luxury of choosing to vote on guns/religion are doing so, so his premise that these people are voting "R" is incorrect.

NTM

Amazotheamazing

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

A Gaffe, exactly, a harmless misstatement

The sort of 'harmless' stuff that Bush does week in week out and we all fall about laughing.

Amazotheamazing

Deleted User wrote: »

The sort of 'harmless' stuff that Bush does week in week out and we all fall about laughing.

Not really the same thing though. There was reasoning behind what Obama said, and what he said was right, whether people want to admit that or not.

What Bush says is slightly more moronic. I don't think you can equate the two.

Amazotheamazing

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

what he said was right

Would have thought it wasn't objectively 'right' or 'wrong', merely 'his (elitist) opinion'.

RedPlanet

Are there any percentages of Obama supporters that won't be voting or Clinton, should she get the nomination?

Amazotheamazing

Deleted User wrote: »

Would have thought it wasn't objectively 'right' or 'wrong', merely 'his (elitist) opinion'.

Yes, I suspected you would think that. Why is it elitist btw? Seems pretty obvious to me.

Amazotheamazing

20:14 GMT +00:00

Clinton, Nixon; Nixon, Clinton

Posted by:
Economist.com | NEW YORK
Categories:
US election 2008
SIX days ahead of the North Carolina primary comes a story of real sleaze—not Jeremiah Wright-style buffoonery, but Nixon-style illegality designed to dupe and disenfranchise voters—that should surprise precisely nobody who has been following and covering this campaign. A group called Women's Voices Women's Vote (WVWV), which claims to have been "created to activate unmarried Americans in their government and in our democracy" has been placing robocalls to voters across North Carolina that seem designed to fool them into thinking they have not yet registered to vote. Many of the voters who received those calls are black. Voters in 11 states have complained about similarly deceptive calls and mailings that have been traced back to WVWV this primary season.

Guess which Democratic candidate WVWV's founder and president, Page Gardner, has donated $6,700 to (hint: it's not Barack Obama). Guess whose election campaign Joe Goode, WVWV's executive director, worked for (hint: it was in 1992, and it was a winning campaign). Guess whose chief of staff sits on WVWV's board of directors (hint: it was the president who served between two Bushes). And guess whose campaign manager was a member of WVWV's leadership team (hint: it's Hillary Clinton).

It's an odd story: a recording of someone named Lamont Williams calls voters to tell them a voter-registration packet is on its way. It's unclear whether anything arrives; what isn't unclear is that the call is well after the registration deadline. It's not too hard to imagine this call coming to an unsophisticated voter (and let me make this clear: I am in no way saying black voters, who seem to have received the lion's share of the calls, are all unsophisticated; I'm simply positing a scenario), and that voter becoming confused. Perhaps he thinks he's not registered, and calls his state's board of elections who tells him it's too late so he stays home on election day. Perhaps the board of elections doesn't know what he's talking about, and he gets frustrated and stays home, assuming he's unregistered.

If this were a one-time event, I might be less suspicious, but it's happened in state after state, always after the registration deadline has passed, and always shortly before the primary. This is an organisation stuffed with Washington insiders; incompetence like this simply doesn't happen over and over again, not in the same way like this. Something stinks.

Again, perhaps if the Clinton campaign hadn't shown itself to be quite so sleazy (remember those photos of Barack Obama in Somali garb?); perhaps if the calls weren't going to the constituency least likely to vote for Mrs Clinton; perhaps if Mrs Clinton's supporters weren't so heavily represented among WVWV's board, it wouldn't set off as many bells as it does. But something isn't right here, and it's not a simple error either. As a scam, it seems just Rube Goldberg-ish enough to provide plausible deniability for anyone involved, but just authoritative enough to work on some voters. If it does trace back to Mrs Clinton's campaign, it will provide further evidence that her cronies have abandoned every shred, everything that ever got them into politics in the first place. The end (Mrs Clinton's victory) will justify the means. From flower children of the 1960s to deceivers of black voters in North Carolina in 2008. A long, strange trip indeed.

LuckyLloyd

^^^^^^^^^^

Wow.

Lirange

Manic Moran wrote: »

Approval ratings will always go down in a lousy economy, it's just the way of things. You'll note that he's still got over twice the rating of the Democratic-controlled legislature. I've not been home in a few months, but when I left the general impression I got was that people are more pissed at the legislature for blocking Arnie's proposals than at Arnie for not coming up with the right proposals.

NTM

Arnold can legitimately be described as a moderate. McCain cannot be described as such. There may be some lingering impression that he is because he's willing to break from the party line if he disagrees at times. But his voting record and platform is rock solid conservative. His cross party appeal is less than it was eight years ago. Arnold is fiscally conservative but liberal on a range of social issues. That's the reason he's the rare Republican to have success in the state. Notice his fortune hasn't spread to his party. California is a left wing state and only becomes moreso with time.

John McCain might attempt some acrobatics during the campaign to shore up the right wing and still attempt to portray himself as a moderate but I doubt it. He is likely to adopt the divide and conquer strategy a la George W. This is a bad election year to attempt that and like it or not the baggage of Bush hangs over him and his party. He has reinforced his platform against Roe vs. Wade. You cannot do that and expect to be competitive in a state like California.

LuckyLloyd

X posted from the other thread in this forum but has a direct relevance to the discussion in this thread.


It's not as if there aren't metrics and markets you could look at to determine this.

Clinton > McCain > Obama:









Total Electoral Votes: 59

---

Obama > McCain > Clinton

















Total Electoral Votes: 71



Now this is an admittedly pretty crude metric, but you can look at some of the more "fundamental" measures that pollsters use to determine support. From pollster.com:

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/obama_v_mccain_and_v_clinton_b.php

But this far out from Election Day, horserace numbers are, ultimately, close to meaningless, especially without an incumbent. We look at many other indicators of campaign health, frequently referred to in pollster parlance as "beneath the surface." Two recent public polls from USA Today/Gallup and from CNN/Opinion Research (before Obama's race speech) show that despite the coverage of Obama's slippage in the general election matchup, he remains stronger than McCain on most dimensions. In many ways, Obama is also stronger than Clinton.

On Most Dimensions, Obama is Stronger Than McCain

Obama is most likely to best McCain on measures of empathy, such as "cares about people like you," or understands problems Americans face in their daily lives." He also does very well on being "someone you would be proud to have as President." McCain's weakest dimension is "generally agrees with you on the issues" and both Obama and Clinton have a clear advantage over McCain here.

Obama does less well on items related to experience, such as "is a strong and decisive leader" and "has the right experience to be President." However, despite these disadvantages, more items from both surveys are seen as describing Obama than McCain.

In both surveys, Obama is described by more traits than is Clinton. Once again, his strengths are on empathy, but he also exceeds Clinton on "would work with both parties to get things done." Obama trails Clinton on experience and decisiveness, as he trailed McCain, but it's important to note that Clinton also trails McCain on these measures (although by not nearly as much).

McCain is strongest on "honest and trustworthy," and Obama is close to even with him on that measure. But it is Clinton's weakest dimension on the USA Today/Gallup poll (it wasn't asked in the CNN/OR poll). In fact, Gallup has tracking that shows Clinton to be the weakest she's ever been on this measure since 1994.

It's really not close who the stronger candidate is between Clinton and Obama in a race against McCain. By almost any metric: fundraising abilities, head to head polls, the "fundamental", "below the surface" polling questions seen above, etc., you're going to get the same answer.

Of course, if you subject yourself to right-wing noise outlets and only right wing noise outlets, you're going to get the obvious reflexive talking points about what a terrible mistake the Democrats made, how they've nominated the worst candidate possible, how Obama is doomed, blah blah purple monkey dishwasher. If you actually look at the empirical evidence instead of media bluster, it's not close.

is_that_so

RedPlanet wrote: »

Are there any percentages of Obama supporters that won't be voting or Clinton, should she get the nomination?

It was about 13% at one stage a few months back.

Lirange wrote: »

John McCain might attempt some acrobatics during the campaign to shore up the right wing and still attempt to portray himself as a moderate but I doubt it. He is likely to adopt the divide and conquer strategy a la George W. This is a bad election year to attempt that and like it or not the baggage of Bush hangs over him and his party. He has reinforced his platform against Roe vs. Wade. You cannot do that and expect to be competitive in a state like California.

With a bit of balancing he can probably pitch himself as a "Reaganite", which I would have thought still carries some sway in CA. Whether that will work or not I have no idea but he has some gravitas and it makes sense if you are trying to take the middle ground.

Isn't the Latino vote also likely to come into play quite strongly this time? Seeing as McCain co-sponsored and pushed hard for the immigration bill I would have thought he could get some mileage out of that and not just in California but all across the south west. TBH if it all comes down to support for Roe v Wade then Californians really have their priorities screwed up.

Manic Moran

Isn't the Latino vote also likely to come into play quite strongly this time? Seeing as McCain co-sponsored and pushed hard for the immigration bill I would have thought he could get some mileage out of that and not just in California but all across the south west. TBH if it all comes down to support for Roe v Wade then Californians really have their priorities screwed up.

Sometimes I wonder if the immigration-related vote isn't, perhaps, a little overstated. The Latinos most interested in allowing legal residency for illegal immigrants, of which there are many, also tend not to have voting rights. Something to do with their being illegal. They can make a lot of noise and protests, and do, but can't vote. Well, unless there's some skulduggery going on. A lot of legal immigrants actually support fairly tough immigration laws. Then again, various business owners and such, not necessarily latino, who rely on mexican immigrants for cheap labour are in favour of loosening immigration restrictions.

Obviously the hispanic vote is important, but I don't think immigration is all that high on their list of priorities as a voting bloc compared to other things.

NTM

is_that_so

A piece from the Washington Post wonders whether it's a woman thing and not a "Clinton" thing. Hard to say whether it is or not because she is Clinton, but she makes some interesting points about it especially in light of the Obama token "get a woman on the team" efforts.

The 'Not Clinton' Excuse

By Marie Cocco
Thursday, May 22, 2008; A25

A woman? Yes. But not that woman.

It is the platitude of the moment, an automatic rejoinder to any suggestion that Hillary Clinton has struggled so desperately -- and so far unsuccessfully -- to grasp the Democratic presidential nomination in some measure because she is female.

It isn't the woman part, the rationale goes. It's the Clinton part: that "polarizing" persona and "unlikable" demeanor. The unappetizing thought of President "Billary." The more inspirational quest by Barack Obama to become the country's first black president.

Yet the question remains: If not now, when? If not Hillary, who?

The record suggests that if Clinton is not the nominee, no woman will seriously contend for the White House for another generation. This was the outcome of the 1984 Geraldine Ferraro experiment. After 24 years, Ferraro remains the only woman ever to run for national office on a major-party ticket. And she was selected, not elected, as a vice presidential candidate.

"Maybe a generation from now," says Debbie Walsh, director of the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University. "My feeling is, I don't see who's coming after Clinton, and I don't feel like it's going to be easy for whoever comes next."

The United States already lags miserably behind the rest of the world in electing a woman as head of state. To look around the globe is to see a stark truth: Americans seem peculiarly averse to female leadership.
...

Full story