"Hi. My name is Hillary Clinton, and I'm here to destroy the Democratic Party."
"Hillary Clinton can't win a national general election". This is conventional wisdom among people who know about these things. As is so often the case with the conventional wisdom, this assessment is based on a very rich and consistent amount of data, collected and analyzed over years.
It stands to reason, however, that she also has loyalists; even Lyndon LaRouche does, after all, and who knows how he would fare if he'd had the good sense to sleep with a President. These loyalists rather recently were giddy over polling results showing her able to just break over the 50% hurdle in a national election. I said at the time that this was an announcement bounce, in a very customary and well-known pattern.
And so it was. Polling data released earlier this week and month shows Hillary losing New Jersey, and barely holding New York and Connecticut. Read on.
New Jersey Voters Don't Adore The Senator Next Door, Quinnipiac University Poll Finds; Clinton Trails Giuliani, Ties McCain In Garden State
In an early look at the 2008 presidential race in New Jersey, former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani leads New York Sen. Hillary Clinton 48 - 41 percent, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today. Arizona Sen. John McCain gets 44 percent to Sen. Clinton's 43 percent, a tie.
Kerry won New Jersey 53% to 46%.
New York Sen. Hillary Clinton and former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani are running neck and neck in Connecticut as they begin their 2008 presidential bid, with 46 percent of voters for Sen. Clinton and 44 percent for Giuliani, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.
John Kerry won Connecticut 54% to 44%.
Sen. Hillary Clinton leads former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani 50 - 40 percent among New York State voters in an early test of the 2008 presidential campaign, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.
By contrast, Kerry won New York with 69% of the vote.
The median electoral performance of a nominee Hillary therefore seems to run about a generic -9% versus John Kerry and a median -15% compared to November 2006. Extrapolated to the November 2008 general election, the republican nominee - especially if that should be Rudy Giuliani - can presently look forward to a Reagan-in-1984-style landslide.
Which would in turn in all likelihood cost the Democrats control of Congress, and set back the party for a decade or so.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
2008 Elections | Polls | Connecticut | Hillary Clinton | New Jersey | New York | Rudy Giuliani
» Michael Bouldin's blog | add new comment | email this blog | printer friendly version | 1471 reads
Okay....
Submitted by Michael Bouldin on 23 February 2007 - 11:16am.
...so you've worked on five losing campaigns, which makes you competent to do what exactly? Prognosticate winners, you say? That's as good a record as, oh, Bob Shrum.
Coupla really simple facts: Hillary has always, with a single exception - her post-announcement bounce - failed to break 50% (just like her husband). There's no Perot waiting in the wings. Now, I'm showing you hard poll data showing her losing New Jersey and tied in Connecticut. And you say I don't know what I'm talking about.
Thing is, we have a year to go to demonstrate the soundness of the competing points of view. We'll see who's right. The next President is going to be a Democrat - unless we nominate Hillary.
Thanks for defending the Clintons well!
Submitted by francislholland on 23 February 2007 - 11:22pm.
A lot of people forget how impossible it seemed to beat George Bush before Clinton successfully did so. They think it's easy for Democrats to win the White House, forgetting that Bill Clinton is the only Democrat to do since all the way back in 1976.
Winning the Presidency is like a very complex surgical operation requiring skill and experience. I'd rather have a surgeon who performed the required operation twice before than have a surgeon who has never even been in the operating room, or who tried before and failed.
"Only after we change that which seemed essential do we realize how natural the "new normal" really is and how inevitable it always was."
www.francislholland.blogspot.com
francislholland@yahoo.com
Hillary
Submitted by mole333 on 23 February 2007 - 8:12am.
I am not as anti-Hillary as Michael is. There is almost no chance I'd vote for her in the primary, but I will say that I would happily (not reluctantly) vote for her in the general election over any of the Republican field.
I agree with much of what Michael says around here regarding Hillary. I have one concern about it, though. Is she so bad that we would like to be part of her defeat should she get the nomination? She does have a shot at the nomination, money and name recognition going for her. Yes it might be a bad move in terms of the general eleciton to nominate her and that is why I lean more Edwards or Richardson, who I think have the best shot, particularly if paired together, to win the general. But what if she DOES get the nomination.
For me, I would feel reservations campaigning for her mainly because of the war and her reluctance to say "Boy we fucked up by backing Bush's dumb war and I am PISSED." She is also too pro-business for my tastes, but, well, this is America, after all. Those two things aside, and strategy for November 2008 aside, I look at most of her voting record and I like it. I am all for a woman president and I think she is smart and competent and would make a perfectly adequate president, far superior to any Republican since maybe TR.
I think the Democratic field for 2008 (Biden aside) is an excellent one, with diversity and intelligence and a range of choices. I do not like the "inevitability" meme because it ususally doesn't work for November. I like having a real contest with several good candidates. Not only is that more democratic, but it also means the right wing propoganda machine ("media") has moving targets that are harder to aim in on. A single "inevitable" candidate gives them a clear shot.
Dynasty doesn't really bother me too much. Why? Because some families have excellent records of public service. To have JFK and RFK each be President would have been a good thing for America, I believe, dynasty be damned. My preference is for more diversity than the Yorkist/Lancasterian Clintnon/Bush War of the Roses. But I don't care as long as the result is good (which means removing the Bush side of the civil war).
So, what I am saying is, I do NOT like Hillary in the primary. But I am quite willing to support her in the general election and I do not intend to take a stand against her now that makes it hard to back her should she get the nomination.
Unity 08?
Submitted by JJ Ross on 23 February 2007 - 10:00am.
But let's suppose the major parties in the end, nominate the dynastic duo -- Clinton and Bush -- so that Unity 08 gets its pick of all the rest and puts together an amazing ticket with clout and money and excitement behind it, from Edwards and Obama to Giulani and a dark horse or two with no name (yet.)
Of course any good party member's politically correct answer now would be to "support my party's nominee." That's what all the candidates would say too -- right up until they decide it's in their best interests to do otherwise. Lieberman's unsettling and unsought success playing the party game against itself once he felt free to do so, seemed singular at the time but I'm not so sure. Maybe in the way he ran and won, he's more of a leader than we gave him credit for, or a canary in the mine shaft at least, depending on how this turns out.
So at points along the way we get to change our answer, just like the bruised and rejected candidates do, and ask ourselves which ticket for which reasons, all taken together, fit MY interests and concerns best. Unity 08 isn't even the most outlandish possibility; who KNOWS what could happen between now and then and what choices we might have before us? 
No precedent
Submitted by mole333 on 23 February 2007 - 12:26pm.
There is no precedent whatsoever that any third bid could ever work to do anything but spoil the chances of their next closest ally. Should any precedent ever present itself, or should I ever see a chance at such a precedent, I might consider doing anything but voting Dem. But as things stand, third party bids are dismal failures, and that includes TR's run despite his huge popularity.
On more local levels, from time to time I vote other than Dem. Even worked for a Brooklyn Green once POST-2000 fiasco. But generally speaking, I'd prefer the Clinton over the Bush by a HUGE margin, so I am not going to pick option C when option C seldom has any positive impact.
Locally I consider options C, D, E, and F even though rarely does it get anywhere. Brooklyn has one WFP Councilmember I love--Tish James. But she's not in my district so I don't get to vote for her. Still, I am not against local third party bids because they seldom enable the right wing fanatics. But any situation where options C-Z might enable the wingnuts, I am proud to stand by option Dem.
Our good friend Ralph Nader...
Submitted by Michael Bouldin on 23 February 2007 - 12:43pm.
...may he rot in hell forever, is rumbling about yet another possible run. 2008 is starting to luck like a total clusterfuck.
Just One Quibble
Submitted by JJ Ross on 23 February 2007 - 12:52pm.
My view of Unity08, though, is not as a third party but as a sort of mash-up of both parties. Of course there's no precedent for that, because it's never been tried, has it?
(Well - maybe the Adams-Jefferson ticket which "won" in the sense that it got elected but lost as good government for the people? But remember, I feel that way about almost ALL tickets regardless of party! So maybe I should count that as a party mash-up win precedent?)
Kennedy and Gore "dynasties"
Submitted by francislholland on 23 February 2007 - 11:27pm.
In 2000, we nominated a wealthy patrician son of a US Senator. In 1960, we nominated the son of a US Congressman, right? The Kennedy Dynasty has served us pretty well, with three Kennedies presently serving in the US Congress from Massachusetts and Rhode Island?
When something that has never been a reason for exclusion before suddenly becomes and exclusion with respect to a minority or woman candidate, then at law that is prima facie evidence of discrimination.
Michael's hit piece is so funny that nobody will take it seriously.
"Only after we change that which seemed essential do we realize how natural the "new normal" really is and how inevitable it always was."
www.francislholland.blogspot.com
francislholland@yahoo.com
Tyoical HillaryBottery
Submitted by Michael Bouldin on 24 February 2007 - 12:28pm.
...mention "polls", and they screech about discrimination. Mention what you said back in 2000 about dynasties, and point to the fact that the Bush restoration has been disastrous for the country, and they sputter about how mean you are.
Google "ils n'ont rien appris, ni rien oublié", and you might learn something about restorations. They seldom go well, as our present circumstances vividly demonstrate; and some of us simply do not want to see Bush-Clinton-Clinton-Bush-Bush-Clinton in the history books.
But then again, given her abysmal polling, we won't. At some point, even the HillaryBots will notice the cliff they want to lead us all over. We have a year to go, and wisdom will come even to those unlikely quarters.
Electability shouldn't be the point yet
Submitted by rwallnerny2007 on 23 February 2007 - 12:46pm.
Electability shouldn't be the point yet. We all become pundits and play this blue state/red state game, and we get away from the real issue, which is supposed to be picking the person who would make the best president. The one who could do the job the best. Bouldin's attitude seems to be that we shouldn't pick the best candidate, we should pick the most electable candidate. That we shouldn't take a chance on the best, most qualified candidate who is the strongest on the issues, if that candidate isn't also clearly the most electable. This horse race mentality is really cynical. I'd rather nominate the best candidate for the office and lose the election than nominate someone who is not the best candidate but who happens to be more electable. That is the democratic process.
I also wish people would be honest about the reasons behind this electability thing. John Edwards is was an obscure one term senator who is in no way more qualified, or experienced and tested under press fire as Hillary. But we don't hear people saying, "Edwards isn't electable" like they do Hillary and Obama. Why? It is because Edwards is white, male and protestant. Now I'm not saying Bouldin or anyone else here is racist or sexist. You don't have to be racist or sexist to think that the a lot of voters in the rest of the country ARE racist and sexist, and because of that a woman or a black man can't get elected nationally. If you think that, just say it. Bouldin should just come out and say, "I don't think Hillary can get elected because she's a woman and there are enough sexists out there who won't vote for a woman to be commander and chief" Just say it. My argument is that we will never know if a non-white male can get elected president until the day comes that we take the chance.
Hillary and Obama deserve the chance to be judged on the merits, where they stand on the issues, and NOT purely on this "electability" thing. We should not be voting for whoever is the most "electable" candidate to be the nominee. We should be voting for whoever is the BEST candidate. Regardless of whether they are electable or whether they are female or black.
No.
Submitted by Michael Bouldin on 23 February 2007 - 1:04pm.
I think the country is ready for a woman. However, the country is not ready for this woman. She's an undistinguished, so-so Senator, has no track record of leadership, doesn't stand for anything, represents a step backward to family dynasties, and has spent the last six years keeping her head down as the Bush régime raped the country. Her husband is playing golf with GHW, for crying out loud. Murdoch is hosting fundraisers for her. This is the best we can do? And you call yourself a Democrat?
Thing is, I'd like to see a Democrat get elected. Hillary can't be, and she's not worth it. Obama is, Gore is, Edwards is. Hillary? More NAFTAs, more Paula Jones, more Clinton fatigue.
She's pretty witty!
Submitted by francislholland on 23 February 2007 - 11:36pm.
Is there a candidate running who would NOT have Murdock host a party for him if he was smart enough to arrange for that to happen?
I hear a lot of hypocrisy and sour grapes. People are angry at Hillary for winning unprecedented support from the most unlikely places . . . They'd take that support too, if they were only as crafty as Hillary is about getting it.
"Only after we change that which seemed essential do we realize how natural the "new normal" really is and how inevitable it always was."
www.francislholland.blogspot.com
francislholland@yahoo.com
Again...
Submitted by Michael Bouldin on 24 February 2007 - 12:33pm.
...typical HillaryBottery. There is no example of Rupert Murdoch being a friend of the Progressive agenda of real Democrats; now he's supporting Hillary. Why? Is it because he knows she's no danger to his extremist, hateful policies, or is it because he wants to raise up the weakest potential Dem candidate to ensure the election of yet another republican?
Those are the options. Choose.
The Real Point Of It All
Submitted by JJ Ross on 23 February 2007 - 1:15pm.
always seems to get lost in the process. That's why we never get anywhere in such discussions.
The real point is what government we constitute by our beliefs and actions. The policies we thereby create or don't. The effect and its effectiveness. As Dr. Phil is so fond of pointing out to the most deluded rationalizers and self-justifiers, instead of reasoning with them about their impregnably cobbled together conceits: "So how's that working for you?"
It's much like our judicial system or school system, where abuses coupled with well-meaning advocates and reformers got so wrapped up (and bogged down) in process and competition and hierarchy and control, that over time we've lost sight of the real point and can't even pretend we're achieving it. Hardly remember it. Does anyone here argue that our eponymous systems give us actual justice and education and democracy?
Wouldn't it be a relief to drop all the sound and fury signifying nothing, and get to work creating something new and better? I KNOW that's not without precedent.
Undistinguished so-so Senator
Submitted by rwallnerny2007 on 23 February 2007 - 1:19pm.
Your reasons don't hold up because EDWARDS was an undistinguished, so-so, senator, one who polls indicated would not have gotten re-elected to his own seat. Yet you support Edwards, who was in every way a less distinguished senator than Clinton. Why? It has to be because Edwards is white, male and southern, he looks like other presidents so he is more electable. That has to be the reason. Don't deny it. There is no other reason he should be considered more electable than Hillary or Obama. None. He has considerably less stature or accomplishment than they do, but he's a white southern male.
You should be pushing a candidate or candidates here, not posting item after item simply pointing out why you don't like the other candidates. Your approach is purely negative.
Dude...
Submitted by Michael Bouldin on 23 February 2007 - 1:37pm.
"It has to be because Edwards is white, male and southern, he looks like other presidents so he is more electable. That has to be the reason. Don't deny it."
One more implied assertion that my arguments stem from sexism or racism or whatever and your ass is off here. End of story. Same if your mind-reading of various candidates continues, same if you keep on ignoring the rules that have been set down for your participation here.
Read what I wrote
Submitted by rwallnerny2007 on 23 February 2007 - 3:40pm.
Read I wrote before. I specifically said that it is NOT that you are racist or sexist, I am sure that you are not racist or sexist. It is that you,and plenty of others, might think that there are many other voters who are racist/sexist. That the country is not ready to elect a non-white male candidate. You'd have precedent. The last time the democrats put a woman on the ticket, in 1984, they got wiped out. Didn't even carry New York state! Maybe the country wasn't ready then. Maybe it isn't ready now. We won't know until we try.
It is just my opinion that when I hear constant questioning of how Hillary and Obama are not electable, and a lot of people are saying that, and I do not hear the same questioning of Edwards, that you have to wonder why. Tell me why Edwards is more electable than Hillary or Obama and tell me it has nothing to do with him being white, male, protestant and feeling like thats what appeals to red and swing states. It is not being sexist to think that way. Maybe it is even being pragmatic, because a lot of people out there, wrong as it is, are racist and sexist. Do we write off their votes by nominating hillary or obama? Will it cost us the election? Lets not ignore these issues.
Or We Could Stop
Submitted by JJ Ross on 23 February 2007 - 4:18pm.
offending all those of us in red and swing states, maybe, with these sweeping pronouncements -- as if WE are the ones obsessed with color, class, race, sex explanations for every voter choice. I just came across this on Alternet.org from Bob Moser, The Nation, what do you think?
The "notion that the South is more than just 'different,' that it is distinct from the rest of the nation ... an inexplicable variant from the national norm," is a false exaggeration, wrote Zinn, that "feeds self-righteousness in the North ... And it stands so firmly and so high on a ledge of truth that one must strain to see the glitter of deception in its eye." . . .
By the 2032 elections, the South is expected to control almost 40 percent of the electoral votes for President -- more than the shrinking Northeast and Midwest combined.And yet a stubborn belief in the poor, backward, reactionary cracker South of myth still shapes and distorts American politics. By surrendering the region, Democrats have simultaneously abandoned the old hope of a durable national progressive majority.
Yes and No
Submitted by Michael Bouldin on 23 February 2007 - 6:11pm.
The South is an odd place in many ways (I have family there); on the one hand, this part of the country is very open to an economics-based message, on the other, many Dems insist on framing our message as gays-abortion-no-school-prayer. A pity, really, but we'll figure it out one day; perhaps when we have a convincing Presidential candidate from that part of the country, like Gore or Edwards, even Kathleen Sebelius (of Kansas).
Good Name
Submitted by JJ Ross on 23 February 2007 - 6:36pm.
Kathleen Sebelius? First I've heard of her but as Will kept saying in "Shakespeare in Love" -- good name!
I was once madly in love with a rather pretentious fellow who'd written his senior thesis on Sibelius and would wax atonally rhapsodic (if there is any such thing) over his compositions. Not my passion personally -- but HE was!
Maybe someone should suggest she play up the coincidence, and make use of this Sibelius quote in her campaigns:
"Art is the signature of civilizations."
True.
Submitted by Michael Bouldin on 23 February 2007 - 6:48pm.
But close enough. And there's enduring chatter that she's on a number of VP shortlists. I've been watching her for a while, and I think she's one of the most talented female office-holders in the country. Very downto earth, very personable (or so I hear), and able to bring people together in pursuit of common goals.
Yes, people like that still exist. Heh.
How About This Combo
Submitted by JJ Ross on 23 February 2007 - 7:07pm.
then, for say, 2032? - Sink and Sebelius. Has a nice ring.
Alex Sink, Florida's first Dem elected to the Cabinet in a few years, is another female star to keep that sharp eye peeled for -- and she's really southern too, you ought to hear her accent!
(I think I recall her real first name is something likely unelectable, but OTOH, she's a twin which should make her a double minority and a great potential president, with her own built-in decoy. . .)
A Two-fer in Two Ways Too
Submitted by JJ Ross on 23 February 2007 - 7:09pm.
since her husband Bill McBride is a lawyer, former gubernatorial candidate and quite personable (not too bright politically though, judging from his all-union, all-the-time failed campaign.)
I'll check her out
Submitted by Michael Bouldin on 23 February 2007 - 7:18pm.
...but my absolute favorite female possible candidate right now is Kamala D. Harris, the DA of San Francisco. Met her at a Mark Warner event last year, and she just blew the room away; look for her to run for CA governor in 2010. Added bonus: she's gorgeous. And oh yeah, for Francis the race-baiter: she's black.
Sebelius
Submitted by rwallnerny2007 on 24 February 2007 - 1:19pm.
I think Sebelius is a candidate for the future, but not as a vp next year. This because if Hillary is nominated, she is not going to put another woman on the ticket with her. That just won't happen. She will also need someone (a guy) as vp who's got the military experience that she doesn't have and who is preferably a washington outsider. Her buddy General Wesley Clark fits the bill perfectly. And if Obama is nominated, he needs someone with more washington experience than he has as vp. Also I figure the GOP is going to have Guiliani on the ticket either as president or vp, and if that is the case the democrats need to have a new yorker on the ticket to fend off the scary proposition of new york being in play. This means either Hillary being nominated as president, or either Obama or Edwards choosing a New Yorker as his vp. I have suggested before that Chuck Schumer seems like someone who will likely shortlist for vp if Obama's the nominee. He has more washington experience, he's jewish which will offset Obama's muslim grandfather and middle name of "Hussein", and he's from New York and would probably help prevent Guiliani from stealing the state.
So I'm thinking either Hillary/Wesley Clark, Hillary/Bill Richardson or Obama/Schumer or Edwards/Schumer. Something like that. Don't see Sebelius in the picture, and she probably can't turn Kansas blue anyway, although I'm sure she'd be shortlisted for a cabinet position if she wants it.
Yes it's Obvious
Submitted by Willi Media (not verified) on 25 February 2007 - 12:42pm.
Yes it's obvious that Hillary cannot win. And it was obvious even before the the July 2004 Democratic Primary that Kerry could not win.
But the argument that *Hillary* is going to destroy the Democratic party reminds of the argument that Nader lost the election for the Democrats in 2000.
We (Democrats) need to stop looking at individuals to blame for losing Presidential elections and start looking at ourselves, our party as a community, for blame.
Every Democrat should have spoken out against their leaders who voted Yes in 2002: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Resolution_to_Authorize_the_Use_of_Un...
Every Democrat should have voted against those leaders who voted Yes.
Even Al Gore, whom I love, didn't take a firm stand against the war in 2002.
We as a party have accepted (and continue to support) leaders who won't take stands on tough issues.
We even participated in railroading the only passioniate voice from the 2004 Primary - Howard Dean. To replace him with . . . Kerry? You got to be kidding me! Oh ya, the strategy was to use his Vietnam story as a key to win over Iraq supporters who didn't want to vote for Bush. That's no strategy. That's a bandaid for a party who's lost its way.
Hillary isn't ruining the Democratic party - we are. Let's start discussing how to change the course. I think we start by putting an end to looking at a candidate in terms of "can he/she beat Rudy?" And instead start listening to the message, questioning the message, and deciding if you think that person can lead us in a better direction.
You're a Democrat...Says Who?
Listen here Skippy....the Clintons have done more for the Democratic party than a simpleton loud barking amateur know it all like you can even imagine. First off they won back the White House when "conventional wisdom" said that there was NO chance. I have been working National politics since I was 18 and moved to DC to work on my first Presidential campaign (Kennedy 80 - lost.) I worked on two more Presidential campaign (lost them too Hart-Mondale 84...then Bentson 88)...truly believed that it was possible that we could never win (the corporations and the system ALWAYS wants Republicans in the WH)...in 92 I worked for Harkin at first (the leftiest of course, my choice) and then ended up working for Clinton because he said something that moved me....and then watched as he and she....Bill and Hill together...figured out how to win. No other Democrat has been able to pull that off for thirty years. They won and they can win again. Convential wisdom is "they cant win" you say....Do you actually think that youre smarter than The Clintons. Do you think that the average of the people who come up with your "conventional wisdom" are smarter than them. Hell no! Check it! Heres the REAL logic! From what you wrote, its obvious to me that Im smarter than you - and I Knowwww that theyre smarter than me....so that equastion works to - eh no - youre not smarter than they are, your argument is based on no reliable data (trust me, the numbers support that she is Very Electable...the math works) and ipso facto - you dont know what the F you are talking about.
Also,please drop the references to LaRouche, thats vile. Try a little class with your attack mode fella...Oh yeah...and go read your History.