Something that hasn't been said but needs to be

I keep reading from various sources how Hillary Clinton is so polarizing she'll bring out the Republican "base" like never before. No facts are cited, no statistical numbers are quoted. It is merely asserted. Even pollsters are getting in on the act. Just this morning a supposedly reputable pollster, after admitting Hillary leads in the polls in head to head match-ups against leading Republicans, says the only way he can foresee the Republicans taking New Hampshire in the 2008 general election is if Clinton is the nominee.

"If it goes to a general election, I think the only hope the Republicans may have would be against Hillary, because they seem to be more competitive against her than they do against the other top Democrats," Ali said. "The only saving grace for the Republicans is if she's the nominee."

Huh? So, this guy (Del Ali) who spends days polling residents of New Hampshire and finds Hillary defeating all Republicans, suddenly trashes his own poll by essentially stating "I don't care what my poll says, Hillary can't win!" He should have just saved himself some time and not bothered doing the poll at all!

But it seems he has a history of such prognostication where Clinton is concerned.

In January he was quoted in Townhall.com, "I think Hillary strikes these voters the same way Sen. John Kerry did in 2004. They would really like to vote for someone they really like this time. Hillary doesn't fit that characterization right now," said pollster Del Ali.

What planet does he live on? Hillary is, and has been consistently, the leading Democratic candidate and the overwhelming SECOND choice of Democrats. Further, she has a very high approval rating among Democrats. Ali's statements and his poll results just don't mesh.

In March, Donald Lambro of the Washington Times spoke with Ali who again said Hillary's numbers were eroding. What erosion?

So we've seen Ali compare Clinton to Kerry and imply Democrats didn't really want to vote for Kerry. Yet, Kerry garnered the highest amount of votes than any Democrat in history. We've seen Ali defy the findings of his own poll and imply Hillary simply cannot win.

I think it's time we start being honest. Clinton has her problems, yes, but any Democrat is going to face these same ones. Why? Just as we believe this is a do or die election, so do the Republicans. The GOP sees a looming election where they will quite possibly lose further ground in the House and Senate AND lose the White House. That is incentive enough to bring out their most rabid partisans. They won't feel any more or less comfortable with a woman named Clinton than with a black man named Hussein Obama.

Caught the weasel.

especially in Texas, where we're just clawing our way out from under the Big Red Fascist Machine. Hillary Clinton at the top of the ballot sweeps Box Turtle Cornyn and all of the odious Congresscritters like Ted Poe, Louie Gohmert, John Culberson, John Carter, Lamar Smith and others back to DC. Repeat this throughout the South and we have a Republican Senate and House again.

There was an LA Times poll last month that bore this out. Link is hiding from me at the moment.

See, she re-energizes a demoralized GOP base. I believe there are more Republican misogynists than there are racists, or who despise progressives like Edwards (despite the relentless attacks on him from a disparate collection ranging from Coulter to many DUers).

Nice pick-up of the right-wing smear on Barack Obama, by the way.

And yes, there is quite a bit of anecdotal evidence that suggests Clinton hurts Democrats besides pushing Pukes to the polls, and here's some more: this progressive Democrat cannot support her candidacy for the nomination, and more than likely can't vote for her if she's the Democratic nominee.

The prospect of twelve years -- minimum -- of a pro-business, pro-free trade, pro-death penalty Clinton presidency is more than a little nauseating.

I still love her as a Senator.

thanks for your concern.

why should anyone take your "anecdotal evidence" seriously?

Go figure! :)

I've been a lifelong Dem, working, donating and voting in every single election since McGovern's. If Hillary gets the nod, then I'm outta here, not going to, can't vote for Hillary. There are many millions of people like me, especially in the anti-war movement and on the left. Her stance on the war and her obscenely close ties with corporate America are more than a lot of us can take.

You can stick your head in the sand if you wish, but the truth of the matter is that if Hillary gets the nod, she will suffer and quite probably lose in the generals, especially if she's up against Thompson.

Time and again Hillary has shit on the anti-war movement and on the left in general. Why should we repay her with our vote?

You refuse to vote for Clinton if she gets the nod? Enjoy your repuke President for at least another four. Refusing to vote for the nominee is just as bad as voting for the repuke and as least as disgusting.

Let's see, if we get Hillary we get ongoing war, more favors for corporate America, the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer(much like what happened under her husband's administration). Gee, sounds pretty damn Republican to me:shrug:

Thanks but no, I'm working for real change in this country, and Hillary is simply more of the same ol', same ol'

people that whine and bitch when they don't get what they want, especially one note singers like yourself, usually hear this kind of response.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

with corporate America she has. All I've heard about her is she takes money from rich people. So does almost everybody, if they are offered some. I'd like to know what she's done in return for the money.

Hillary is a free trader. I am too. One doesn't need to be in corporate pockets to agree with free trade.

And thank you as well for yours.

See what I mean?

There have been polls put out about Hillary's problems among the left and the anti-war movement. There has been poster after poster proclaiming their problems with Hillary. If you want proof, then all you have to do is search through the threads here over even just the past month here, much less the past six months.

If you want to keep fooling yourself, fine. Perhaps you'll finally wake up November '08 when Hillary gets her ass handed to her.

I remember one poll and one poll only that covered this. A Pew poll (I believe it was) said only 9% of Democrats had a problem with Clinton's war stance.

Now, quote those polls.

the "establishment candidate in a change election."

And we know how competent Bob Shrum is.

"No facts are cited, no statistical numbers are quoted. It is merely asserted. "

really, if you think you're clever you're sadly, sadly mistaken.

I'd rather see more republican rule to teach the democratic party a lesson about their allegiance to the DLC.

George Bush was supposed to be a lesson too. Look at how that turned out. Has the Democratic Party joined the radical left because they lost to George Bush due to losing that portion of the base? Could you point to one time where the Democratic Party has gone radical leftist out of fear of losing radical left votes?

Bush is creating an all powerful presidency. If the next president is a Republican, we'll march another 8 years toward fascism. I'd say that's an enormous price to pay for a tactical move of highly doubtful effectiveness.

Party has done nothing about electronic voting.

Seems they have already lost and don't know it or won't admit it.

And BTW, don't lecture me about working to change things.

I spent 1,000 hours working to defeat Pete Sessions in Dallas county in 2004.

I watched as the ES&S voting machines flipped straight dem votes to straight repug votes.

No one in the party seemed to care when it was reported.

FWIW, I was a duly appointed polling clerk during early voting at the Richardson public library polling station.

That's when I walked away from the democratic party.

Enough facts for you?

lots and lots of people would care.

I don't see how you could have watched votes being flippped. Around here, we have a secret ballot and poll workers aren't allowed to watch people vote.

Voting machines asked for assistance and assurance that they were doing it right.

In Texas, a poll worker is allowed to assist the voter when requested.

Since all voting machines in Dallas county during early voting where ES&S touch screen machines, poll workers, such as myself, were repeatedly asked for assistance.

Does that satisfy you?

That answers my question.

However, I would like to cast a ballot for Kucinich in the primaries (who has a bill in congress to get rid of the machines)or for Gore should he enter the race.

I too am perplexed at the causual attitude of the vast majority of Dem office holders who seem to not mind a bit that the machines are unreliable, hackable, insecure, and run by private for profit corpoartions and offer no oppotunity to recount. The certifications are a joke. Only idiots or theives would put up with this situation.

The congressional election in Florida is just another example of this rather unconcerned attitude. It's obviuosly crooked as hell, but not many really care too much.

I've come to the conclusion that there may also be widespread Dem rigging of elections also going on and as a result they don't want to make waves. What other reason is there that the Dems just ignore what's obvious to so many?

However, that was a long time ago and under very different circumstances.

..of a 3rd Party Presidential Run from a Populist/Progressive. This WILL HAPPEN if Hillary is the Democratic nominee. While there is little possibility of a 3rd Party victory, expect significant support from Independents and significant defections from the Anti-War Democrats.

This would invariably prevent her from being elected President, as it did Gore in 2000.

And if that person is Dennis Kucinich .... well, that's an easy choice.

I thought this was a good post until these last two words and then it just became another right-wing smack down of Obama. I guess this pretty much clarifies which party you will be working for if Obama ends up being the nominee. I don't understand the hatred for Obama anymore than I understand the hatred for Hillary. You haters are all in the same pot as far as I am concerned.

...with anything that reminds them of muslims? Get real. Typical leftwing response. Pointing out rightwing behavior makes one "rightwing."

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

My guess is you broke this rule with your "rightwinger" remark:

Do not publicly accuse another member of this message board of being a disruptor, conservative, Republican, FReeper, or troll,

so I guess they'll see it that way.
I don't think I broke that rule since I didn't call you "rightwinger". I said you were engaging in rightwing behavior. And if that was the offending part, why wasn't the original response to you by nevergiveup deleted since it contained similar remarks?
I'm kinda new here, but it just seems odd how moderators can delete messages without giving a simple explanation.

According the the recent Time Poll. Whereas, Hillary's net favoribility was ZERO.

The right-wing wackos will come out in force against any Dem candidate. If there's not something about them that they already hate, they'll make something up and keep repeating it until it becomes a "fact," or leverage some insignificant moment into a scandal. (Remember the "Dean scream"? John Edwards' hair?) They'll drag out the old specters of abortion and gay marriage, and hype them to hysteria. Hillary isn't my first choice, but I've never bought into the "can't win" meme, and I'd be more than happy to vote for her if she gets the nom.

say she is leading? Not that so many of us don't like her? Isn't that rather one sided thinking?

A google search will get you the poll results. Or are there only certain polls that are valid? Look what I come up with the first two pages of search:



Tons of stuff out there. Given my opinion of her, it's easy for me to believe there is real validity to the negative number aspect.

*edited for duplicated text.

You accused "various sources" of reporting that she had negative numbers and: "No facts are cited, no statistical numbers are quoted. It is merely asserted."

That obviously isn't true as a google search shows "various sources" where there were plenty of statistics quoted.

So if those statistics don't mean anything to you, then what would?

Complete (and intentional) misrepresentation of what anyone has said in this thread and any other thread.

That obviously isn't true as a google search shows "various sources" where there were plenty of statistics quoted.

There is absolutely no statistical evidence in your serious of quoted polls that state she will lose the general election. And in all your quoted polls, Clinton leads the field. :shrug:

not a statement.

You asked for some statistics, I showed that there are statistics available from opinion polls of her unelectability if you want to find them. :shrug:




*edit for spelling :)

* on second edit, maybe I should say "negative factor" not unelectability. I don't know how any statistic can guarantee someone can be elected or not. If 40% or so of us don't like her, doesn't mean she is 100% unelectable. Bush proved that.

You asked for some statistics, I showed that there are statistics available from opinion polls of her unelectability

But they don't show her unelectable. They show breakdowns of her support and non-support.

For example:

Gallup - July 3, 2007

There is no consensus on the negative aspects of a Clinton presidency -- the top five specific mentions are essentially equal from a statistical perspective. These include mentions that she is "too liberal" or "a socialist" (10%), that "Bill Clinton would be back in the White House" (10%), that "she is not qualified" or "would not succeed in the job" (9%), that the respondent simply dislikes her (7%), and mentions of past "Clinton scandals" or "baggage" (7%).

Whereas 28% say there would be nothing good about a Clinton presidency, only 12% say there would be nothing bad about it.

Where does this demonstrate unelectability?

It only shows that she is unliked more than any other candidate.

It doesn't say whether or not she can win.

The GOP spent 200 Million dollars to burn the name Clinton into every right-wing brain in the nation. Regardless of the issue, the reaction to the name Clinton is a given.

those same right wingers with "Clinton" burned into their brains are the same ones who voted against Gore and Kerry and will vote against any Democrat...

The GOP has experts who craft the message for maximum effect. They call it 'Public Relations',still Propaganda by any definition.

bill AIN'T hillary...

The problem with Hillary is that pretty much everyone already has an opinion of her. I read somewhere that on a favorably breakdown only about 3% of the voting public didn't have an opinion. That percentage is much bigger for other candidates running. The question is can Hillary hold her current status when her competition has so much room to grow? I think that's a question that doesn't end at the primaries, but goes to the General as well.

I'm sure it's hard being a Hillary supporter on this site. I think people who say that people have a visceral response to Hillary are people who, themselves, have a visceral response. I don't really like Hillary. It's not that she takes money from corporations, it has nothing to do with Bill Clinton (I liked him), it certainly doesn't have anything to do with her being a woman. I just don't like her. I don't feel like things will get that much better with a Hillary presidency. I think we'll just play more partisan politics. I do think Republicans will try to block her as much as possible simply for the reason you said:

"The GOP spent 200 Million dollars to burn the name Clinton into every right-wing brain in the nation."

She's their bogeyman. Except it wasn't just every right-wing brain, but alot of independents. I think this site often overlooks the amount of people that don't resign their vote to the left or the right. And I dread the day she lashes out on national television about conspiracies against her and crap, like she did during Clinton's Impeachment. Most of it was probably true, but it still made her look like a bit of a nutter.

But I agree with another poster about the General, they'll attack anybody, and if they can't find anything true they probably would just make it up.

If Hillary can just get her favorable ratings up a few more points the objections based on Hillary not being able to win will crumble. If that happens, we can expect many more to consider voting for Hillary.

Lots and lots and lots of Republicans and/or people with a vested interest in seeing Hillary run, so we can be beaten.

THE GAME IS RIGGED. No matter who is doing it, IT IS RIGGED.

We either go for broke and deny them their dearest wish, or this Party suffers another defeat. Because If Hillary is our nominee, the corporatists win.

Or we stop playing their rigged game and stay home altogether on election day.


TC

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I honestly wanted to know what was meant by that. I've read that term often and wondered.

It's happened too often lately on these boards, so I do apologize.

You're welcome. :)

TC

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Check out any given day on DU and you'll see just how polarizing she can be.

I don't believe it has that much merit, mind you, but there are strong negative feelings even amongst Democrats for her which might (and I hope this seriously isn't true because she's making a fine run at being the nominee) make the base stay at home.

I don't know a single Democratic friend who wants her as our nominee. So just who the hell are these pollsters polling anyway? The corporate media is just salivating at the controversy she brings to the table. The outright fire breathing hatred she brings out of half the public will make for an exciting horse race for their ratings. I want Al Gore or Obama or Edwards. I don't dis-like Hillary. I think she makes a wonderful Senator for New York State.

Same here. Not one.

TC

I guess we tend to hang out with people we agree with?:shrug:

You mean all your friends are for Hillary to be the nominee? Or do you mean all your friends will vote for her IF she's the nominee? Major difference. I am saying not one of my friends or family who are Dems will support her in the primaries.

The only people I know who will NEVER vote for Hillary are repub friends who voted for "the coward from crawford". I only have a few of those friends (by choice).

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

dislike a white woman named "Diane" Clinton moreso than a black man named "Hussein" Obama. If you don't think HIllary "Di" Clinton is polarizing, you are blind. Grow up, learn to debate your candidate's ideas rather than bash other candidates, ok? You might then be taken more seriously.

...for his claims, yet says I am blind and tells me to grow up because I just can't accept his non-evidence. :eyes:

Some links for you...oh, and I'm a woman. And to think, without a shred of evidence, you referred to me as a man. Wow..you were wrong.

First, links on how polarizing she is.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1229053,00.html

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5560786

http://www.amazon.com/Hillary-Rodham-Clinton-Polarizing-Modern/dp/0700614885 (this one links to a book about how polarizing she is and was written by a history professor who writes about first ladies)

Second, here are links about how disliked she is

http://www.economist.com/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=9366224

http://www.google.com/search?q=hate+hillary+clinton&hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1

You can continue to hide your head in the sand and not listen to the voices that are saying she is polarizing to many people, or you can be mature and think "How can I help my candidate change her image. Perhaps if more people knew how she thought and what she stood for, they'd give her a chance!" Instead, you insult other candidates, refuse to believe links or articles posted about how polarizing she is (e.g., Bob Shrum). This is not a way to get your candidate elected. You are being insulting which makes me dislike your candidate. Fortunately for you, I'm not American so I cannot vote. Try helping your candidate, rather than trashing others. Is that so difficult to understand?

Shocking :eyes:

"Instead, you insult other candidates, refuse to believe links or articles posted about how polarizing she is (e.g., Bob Shrum)"

Bob Shrum recently wrote a hit piece book in which, among other bullshit, he accused John Edwards of being uncomfortable around gay people.

But you wouldn't know that beyond google searches brining up right wing source which you seem to believe. In fcat in your zeal you didn;tr even check your sources.

That First Lady Book?

"Given Troy's emphasis on Bill Clinton's extramarital affairs, his decision not to interview any of the key players and his reliance on previously published books and articles, the reader never gets a sense of Hillary beyond what's already very familiar"

this is what the AVERAGE American sees, ok? Not progressives but the large majority of normal, everyday Americans. This is what you have to counter attack. Get it through you head....nice eyeroll, by the way.

Unless you are psychic and/or omniscient?:shrug:

Most people don't come on this board to help their candidate nor to actually spread information. Most people just come on to bitch about how unfair everyone else is, or bash people for supporting who they don't. It's sad but it's true. I wish we could get more of that. But when you believe that everyone is is completely ignorant when they don't hold your point of view, real discourse is hard to come by.

I'd vote for Hillary cause the only Republican not worst than her IMO is Ron Paul LoL.
Still if somebody says they won't, we should respect that. Voting is a Right not a Requirement.

But you get a gold star for getting my gender right!! Congrats. :)

It is very positive about HC..however, her favourability is lower than BO's. That is what you need to improve...making her more well liked. Remember, * was elected because of the assertion made that he'd be more fun to have a beer with.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1582130,00.html

I just don't see in your links anything that shows "the independants and moderate repubs dislike a white woman named "Diane" Clinton moreso than a black man named "Hussein" Obama."

First link - the one that is close to 1 year old? Nope.

Second link - another one close to 1 year old? No dice.

Third Link - a book written last year. Quote the passages that state "the independants and moderate repubs dislike a white woman named "Diane" Clinton moreso than a black man named "Hussein" Obama."

Fourth link - I like this passage: "Disliked, but still most likely. Yet none of this means her presidential bid is doomed. Far from it." And still, no mention of "the independants and moderate repubs dislike a white woman named "Diane" Clinton moreso than a black man named "Hussein" Obama."

Ditto for fifth link.

You can continue to hide your head in the sand and not listen to the voices that are saying she is polarizing to many people

I've never denied that. Got a link showing I have?

Instead, you insult other candidates,

Welcome to DU Primary 2007-2008

efuse to believe links or articles posted about how polarizing she is (e.g., Bob Shrum).

List me five things Bob Shrum has been right about in electoral politics.

This is not a way to get your candidate elected. You are being insulting which makes me dislike your candidate.

Hint: Nothing said or done on DU will help or hurt a presidential candidate.

Next?

Sorry, they are out there in cyberspace floating around for all to read. Counter attack them rather than attacking other candidates. You have to focus on the large majority of Americans who will read articles such as these.

Anyway, I'm off to lunch. I'm in Canada. Enjoying my free health care and other nice social programs. hehe. Hey, isn't HRC the one who takes huge payouts from the insurance industry? I think she received the 2nd highest amount of donations from them. Poor Wyldwolf, it looks like you won't be getting universal health care anytime soon.

here is a link from NPR

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5560786

Nothing is going to get through to you that she is polarizing. She is. Ok? Sorry. I have nothing personal against the woman...don't know her, don't care. I just don't want you Americans fucking up again. The weight of the world is on your shoulders--choose wisely.

:shrug:

It seems as if anyone says she is, you say "prove it". What's up with that? :shrug:

If anyone says she's UNELECTABLE, I say "prove it." That's what's up with that. Now... can you?

I think Hillary and Obama are awful choices. So is Edwards. Joe Biden is the best the Democrats have to offer.

Which is why the right has been cheerleading for her to get the nom since 2004.

what her lead is in the Democratic primary.

Edwards will also have serious problems since he is a trial lawyer.

Apparently DU members love them. Most Americans hate them.

Nice.

and that should matter to the same scared white people who are manipulated into voting against our party no matter who we put out there.

We know what you're getting at, but, hell, even Anne puts the B. in there.

:shrug:

I see you're sensitive about your candidate's name and even reminding you of how it will be used pisses you off. Too bad.

what's new is the depths to which you are willing to sink in order to make a point.

I'd say the latter.

Two can play the how ugly will it get and why it will be worse for your candidate game.

like a kid on a playground.

I know my candidate's weaknesses. You, though, are in denial.

I'll take my candidate's "weaknesses" over yours...many thanks.