Hillary: Let's Talk!

Okay; let’s get it started!

Hillary is now officially in, so I’ll start the discussion:

  1. I think that she will EASILY win the Democratic Nomination.

  2. I think that she will be a distinct target for some Wacko (Political and/or Religious)

Questions:

  1. How much of the “I am very curious about the possibilities” vote will she get? (Like the 12% that Perot got in his serious run).

First woman (It can be done; don’t forget Golda)

First, First Lady

First, First Gentleman AND Ex-President

I think the “possibilities” vote could be HIGH!

  1. What Republican has the best chance of beating her? Any? All?

Let’s discuss…

Mufasa

Giuliani, if he got the nomination. I would vote Giuliani over her. But I think he is too moderate to get the nomination. But maybe Repbulicans will smarten up. He’s appealing to a lot of cross-voters. And the diehard conservatives wouldn’t abandon the party to vote for a Democrat.

By the way…

So that this thread does not get hijacked…I am NOT comparing the persons AND or circumstances of Hillary Clinton and Golda Meir.

I am merely stating that a female Head of State is possible, in the “modern” era.

Mufasa

js:

Now the possibilities among New York voters becomes VERY intriguing.

Guilliani/Clinton New York election night numbers would be VERY interesting to follow…

Mufasa

One other thought on the Republicans…

We will most certainly still be in Iraq in 2008; will this be helpful or harmful to McCain?

I say the latter, furthur strengthening Hillary’s position…

Mufasa

Giuliani will fare poorly with social conservatives and the Christian Right. He’s pro-choice, pro gay rights, and (like pretty much every big city mayor) pro gun control. I’m not saying Hillary would get those votes instead. But the GOP needs those votes to win, and Giuliani will do poorly there.

Giuliani also had a much-publicized tawdry affair while he was married (and he’s been married three times, once to his cousin). And he’s tied closely to his former Chief of Police Bernard Kerik, who has been involved in some scandals. So he’s going to take some heat if he makes it past the first lap. And not just from the Democrats… remember how Bush smeared McCain during the 2000 GOP primaries. The GOP is perfectly willing to smear their own…

So how does that sound? Winner?

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
By the way…

I am merely stating that a female Head of State is possible, in the “modern” era.
Mufasa[/quote]

Geez, it’s not that unusual:

Margaret Thatcher [UK]
Indira Ghandi [India]
Benazir Bhutto [Pakistan]
Helen Clark [NZ]
The German Chancellor is female
+heaps of others

All in the modern era

I personally think that the only way to beat Hillary is with a MAJOR “scare” campaign, because I just think that she can hold her on on the typical “anti-Democrat” issues (abortion, gay-rights, etc).

The problem with a “scare” campaign is that in 2008, I don’t think much will be weighing heavier in the minds of Americans than the War in Iraq.

And her husband…there is a sentiment among a LOT of Americans that looking back retrospectively, Bill wasn’t a bad President at all. For many voters, he will definitely not a liability.

On the Republican side, I think that candidates will be trying to distance themselves from Dubya as much as they can.

Mufasa

Brad:

You bring up a problem for the Republicans…there is no true “ideological” Republican running.

MAYBE Romney…but the Evangelicals and other Christian Conservatives will destroy him, because of his Faith, early in the process.

Mufasa

Dang!

Thanks, iscariot!

(I just didn’t want that to become a “hijack”).

(MAJOR “duh” on my part!)

Mufasa

Sam Brownback can win votes with social conservatives and the Christian Right, the same faction that won’t turn out for Giuliani.

On the other hand, Brownback would do worse than Giuliani among traditional conservatives, who are wary of electing another I-put-my-faith-ahead-of-everything type candidate, after 8 years under Bush.

In short, the GOP’s coalition between the Christian Right and tradtional conservatives is severely weakend now. Add into play the GOP’s anti-immigration stance and the growing unpopularity of the war in Iraq, and it doesn’t look like the Democrats can possibly lose no matter which candidate they run, if they can field a competent campaign (and I’m not convinced they can).

Knowing what “political animals” the Clinton’s are, they most certainly see the problems the Republicans will have with their Traditional bases in 2008.

Couple this with the strong backlash brewing from Iraq, immigration, etc, and the Clinton’s MUST be seeing “blood in the water”.

With all that being said, what can defeat Hillary?

Mufasa

What can defeat Hillary?

  1. She is divisive. The Democrats would tell anyone who would listen that one of the biggest complaints about Bush was that he was a divisive personality. But Hillary is one of the most divisive political personalities in America, and all this is recognized before the election.

  2. She looks like she has made policy choices to position herself politically. Will people buy her shift to the center on certain subjects? Maybe if she was more unknown. Hillary’s moves to the center seemed too obvious and calculated for a run at the Presidency.

  3. The Angry Left may abandon her. Some members of the antiwar Left define themselves by the war and the war alone - and her semi-hawkish positions may cost her votes, as there is no room to bargain with some on the Left on that subject. Many on the Left think Hillary has sold out - will they go 3rd party? Maybe not, but they may not turn out with the support she needs.

Countries in decline tend to run up huge debts and the people try to preserve their standard of living through legislation.

It therefore follows that a politician who promises to solve problems with LESS freedom, with more regulations and controls, will win the support of the sheeple.

This pattern (minus the voting for some) has recurred throughout history: Britain, Holland, Spain, China, Ancient Rome.

That’s a big reason the Dems won in '06 and will win in '08. The winner will be Hillary Clinton.

The “Anti-War Left”?

Does that include Sheehan? Let’s talk about divisive. I know people who begin to have seizures when her name is mentioned, some of whom have lost love-ones in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I don’t know, guys. AS THINGS CURRENTLY STAND, Hillary looks to be in a strong position…but as was all know, the election season is long and hard.

Mufasa

thunder:

Who do you see as the strongest GOP candidate?

Mufasa

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
The “Anti-War Left”?

Does that include Sheehan? Let’s talk about divisive. I know people who begin to have seizures when her name is mentioned, some of whom have lost love-ones in Iraq and Afghanistan.[/quote]

Yes, and that is the point. Divisive figures take otherwise nonplussed voters and turn them out. Whatever the merits of the conservative ‘base’, likely nothing would mobilize them more than to make sure they vote against Hillary Clinton.

This to me, represents the weakness of her candidacy for the Democrats. The GOP is weak - as a party, it is on the ropes at the moment. Trotting out an instant reason to galvanize the GOP would rob the Democrats of its current upper-hand advantage.

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
thunder:

Who do you see as the strongest GOP candidate?[/quote]

Honestly, I think the very best candidate for the GOP nomination is not even a candidate - Fred Dalton Thompson.

He knows policy, there isn’t a Democrat on the face of the earth that could outdo him in a debate, and he has the right balance of national figure/Washington outsider. Plus he is big, has a commanding personal presence (gravitas), and has a bipartisan history of attacking corruption in government.

As for the names already in tentatively in the ring, I think McCain probably stands the best chance. Rudy would be interesting, especially in a race against Hillary (with all those NY electoral votes up for grabs) - I also think that Rudy’s social liberalism would be less of an issue because of his national security profile, law and order attitude, and general prudence on fiscal matters.

(Not to mention he was DAMN good in “Hunt for Red October” and “Law and Order”!)

Interesting thought, Thunder. Thompson (I don’t think) has the desire to put up with all the crap you have to in order to get elected. He seems to always have that “I don’t need this” attitude, which quite frankly, has made me like him also.

Hillary and Bill seem to have a way of distancing themselves away from either divisive issues and/or people if it will affect their goals; and make it appear as if they are not. I don’t think you will see her at a Sheehan rally!

Good stuff, Thunder!

Mufasa

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

Interesting thought, Thunder. Thompson (I don’t think) has the desire to put up with all the crap you have to in order to get elected. He seems to always have that “I don’t need this” attitude, which quite frankly, has made me like him also.[/quote]

Yeah, and that is the thing - it is precisely because of that “I don’t need this” attitude that he would be a great President - his primary motivation would be to get substantive policy done on behalf of the public interest, rather than enjoy gazing at black-and-white photos of himself on the cover of Time magazine (hello, Mr. Obama).

But that is also precisely the reason he won’t aggressively seek out the nomination.

Thompson very much believes in the old “citizen-legislator” approach - and he would likely only run if there was a big movement asking him to.