Hillary 2008 Strategery

[AntiCentrist]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

You seem to be describing someone who should be blown out by the two most beloved republicans, Rudy and McCain, yet she is beating them or within the MoE in all polls

I'm sure you're well aware of the fact that polls at this stage, particularly general election match-ups, are virtually meaningless. What they probably reflect is the public's intense and eminently justified distaste for the irresponsibly incompetent Bush/Cheney administration. And while no doubt whomever the Democratic nominee is, that person will get some boost from the same anti-Bush sentiment that permitted the Democrats to capture control of both Houses of Congress last year, the decision will be primarily based on a comparison of the two nominees, not a comparison of Hillary Clinton to George W. Bush (if Bush were permitted to seek a 3rd term, she could probably beat him, I'll grant).

The polling data posted here showed Hillary had something like a 48% negative rating amongst the American electorate. That's damn high for a national candidate this far our. And it will only get higher. Sen. Clinton, outside of New York and those places, like Connecticut and New Jersey, which fall into the New York media sphere, has been largely out of the public eye since her election to the U.S. Senate in 2000. She has a very grating, obnoxious, authoritarian, and condescending presence that will be turning people off, including many otherwise likely Democrat voters, in record numbers, by the time the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary roll around. That's what she did when she was in the White House with her husband, and was a nationally despised figure, and it will almost inevitably happen again, once her Presidential campaign takes off in a big way. The woman inspires hatred and derision to an extent similar to that of George W. Bush, but Democrats tend to have more of an uphill battle to the White House, and so it will hurt her more than it did Bush (any normal Republican incumbent would have carried the Electoral College against a goofball like John Kerry with 400+ votes)

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

It may be early, but if your sentiment was as widespread as beyond hyperactive net-activists, you'd see it in the polls

Don't put much faith in ultra-early polls that you know are nearly worthless, just because they are telling you what you want to hear. Talk to some people, man. Try and find someone who likes Hillary Clinton, and wants her to be President. I live in a district that gave around 70% of its vote to re-elect its Democratic Representative last year, and about 60% of its vote to John Kerry in 2004, and I only know one person (a very young woman of Mexican descent) who has positive feelings about a Hillary Clinton candidacy.

[Thorgrim]

About 2 years before Santorum lost his senate race a few weeks ago, polls showed he was down about 18 points

Guess how much he lost by?

They don't normally predict the winner or anything like that, but they show a clear SNAP SHOT of what people are thinking now, and again, if people were really thinking "oh hillary, oh she so turns me off, id never vote for her" like so many super-active internet posters do, it'd show up in the polls

[AntiCentrist]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

Last I saw, socialized medicine was very popular with voters.

What other issue do you think she is far left on?

She won't actually come out in favor of forcibly making "gay marriage" the law of the land in all 50 states, through some sort of Federal initiative, but 60% of the elctorate will understand her to be the sort of person who would, if she saw a chance to get away with doing so, do exactly that, once she's in office.

She won't ever claim that the Second Amendment should be repealed and that possession of any firearm ought be made a felony, and that special gun confiscation squads ought be permitted to conduct house-to-house searches in order to imprison those people who refuse to turn in their firearms, but most people will instinctively realize such a policy would be very near and dear to her Bolshevist-tainted heart.

She's never actually going to say that a person who tells a racist joke, or a joke mocking the President, ought to spend 5-10 years doing hard labor in a Federal detention camp under the supervision of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, but its not like she'd be offended by such a proposal.

Many people already remember all the myriad sorts of Politically Correct police state tyranny that her husband's administration attempted, usually in the form of trial balloons they quickly retracted in the face of fierce public condemnation (such as the time when Clinton's HUD threatened to imprison on Federal civil rights violation laws anyone who spoke out against a series of proposed halfway houses for alcoholics & drug addicts, to be located within the Berkeley, California city limits), and we all rather had the impression she was the prime mover behind such policies. And those who don't remember, will be reminded by the Republicans, if she's the nominee, and maybe by a few Democrats during the primaries as well (it was Jerry Brown, during a debate in the spring of 1992, that first noted the shady character of the "Whitewater" land scam, and the corrupt practices of the Rose Law Firm, where she'd previously been employed, after all).

Don't be surprised if, say, a faltering Tom Vilsack brings a bunch of anti-Hillary stuff out into the open before he withdraws from the race, and then winds up as President Gore's Secretary of Energy or Agriculture....

[AntiCentrist]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

if people were really thinking "oh hillary, oh she so turns me off, id never vote for her" like so many super-active internet posters do, it'd show up in the polls

Apparently not (yet). Nominate her, and then get used to President Romney.

[AntiCentrist]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

the only thing you'll find broad support on this board is contempt for Democrats, who captured 52% of the vote just a few weeks ago...

Last time any party did that, it was the Democrats in 1990 who ended up with 267 seats...thanks to GOP gerrymandering we only ended up with 233-234

Yeah, Republican gerrymandering was certainly the only force worthy of blame there. After all, we all know the 267 Democratic seats in 1990 were purely authentic in nature, and in no way, shape, or form the result of Democratic gerrymandering following the 1960, 1970, and 1980 census & redistricting processes....

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by AntiCentrist

Yeah, Republican gerrymandering was certainly the only force worthy of blame there. After all, we all know the 267 Democratic seats in 1990 were purely authentic in nature, and in no way, shape, or form the result of Democratic gerrymandering following the 1960, 1970, and 1980 census & redistricting processes....

whatever "gerrymandering" the democrats do, we are enormously hurt by minority demanded districts, in which 90%+ votes go to the Democrat, we have dozens of those, the GOP has almost none...wasted votes...

If Democrats did Texas style redistricting in every blue state, we could get 280 if there was a special election in 2007

[ballz2wallz]

Hillary doesn't have a chance because the whole country dislikes her.

Obama doesn't have a chance because Hillary is gonna destroy him.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Hillary doesn't have a chance because the whole country dislikes her.

Obama doesn't have a chance because Hillary is gonna destroy him.

So everyone hates her, but they are all going to listen to her about Obama?

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

So everyone hates her, but they are all going to listen to her about Obama?

I know, it's only been a few weeks but I'm already sick of Republicans spending all their time harping on Democrats because they are the minority party in Congress and their president is extremely unpopular

"oh my god, people rejected the republican party, and they don't like Bush, there must be something I can do with my free time...quick find any gossip you can and bring up old articles from the 1960s about Ted Kennedy"

It's really pathetic that the same people who said "you can't beat something with nothing" and all that talk about "big ideas" has resorted to being a bunch of gossip whores

[AntiCentrist]

[quote=Thorgrim;70740]whatever "gerrymandering"

The word is in the dictionary.

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

we are enormously hurt by minority demanded districts, in which 90%+ votes go to the Democrat, we have dozens of those, the GOP has almost none...wasted votes...

Yeah, well those districts are clearly unConstitutional, but don't expect anyone the Democrats nominate for President in 2008 to be willing to say so, or if elected, to nominate the sort of Federal judges who would so rule. If Democrats are too PC to stand up to such foolishness, then it behooves them not to whine about its effects.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by AntiCentrist

Yeah, well those districts are clearly unConstitutional, but don't expect anyone the Democrats nominate for President in 2008 to be willing to say so, or if elected, to nominate the sort of Federal judges who would so rule. If Democrats are too PC to stand up to such foolishness, then it behooves them not to whine about its effects.

Poor time to argue for it considering we already have a nice house majority

[AntiCentrist]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Poor time to argue for it considering we already have a nice house majority

If you define "nice" as small, then yeah, I guess so. In any event, you were the one who brought up the issue of the unfairness of those guaranteed-to-elect-a-Black districts, not I. My point still stands: As long as Democrats are more worried about being PC and kowtowing to the Al Sharptons of this world than they are about getting rid of such an unjust and patently unConstitutional policy, they should't whine about its effects.