Democrats shouldn't settle for momentum-killing Hillary

[Brrrp]

When Democrats worry about Hillary Clinton's electability, they focus on her re-energizing a depressed Republican base while demoralizing core Democratic activists, particularly those outraged about the Iraq war. A Nov. 26 Zogby poll actually shows her trailing the major Republican candidates, while John Edwards and Barack Obama defeat them.

But there's a further danger if Clinton is nominated, beyond losing a winnable election — that she'll prevail but then split the Democratic Party.

We forget that this happened with her husband Bill, because compared to George W. Bush, he's looking awfully good. Much of Hillary Clinton's support may be nostalgia for when America's president seemed to engage reality.

But, remember that over the course of Bill Clinton's presidency, the Democrats lost six Senate seats, 46 House seats and nine governorships. This political bleeding began when Monica Lewinsky was still an Oregon college senior.

Given Hillary's protracted support of the war, her embrace of neocon-servative rhetoric on Iran and her coziness with powerful corporate interests, she could create a similar backlash once in office, dividing and depressing the Democratic base and reversing the party's newfound momentum.

Think about 1994. Pundits credited major Republican victories to angry white men, Hillary Clinton's failed health-care plan, and Newt Gingrich's "Contract With America." But the defeat was equally rooted in a massive withdrawal of volunteer support among Democratic activists who felt politically betrayed. Nothing fostered this sense more than Bill Clinton's going to the mat for the North American Free Trade Agreement.



http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2004064151_loeb11.html

[BootinUp]

1. These conclusions from history are all wrong

and Hillary is the strongest of the 3 in many more polls than this one cherry picked poll.

[patrice]

2. What if her supporters from the other side balance their votes for her

by giving us a Red Congress???

x( x( x(

[asdjrocky]

3. It'll be 94 all over again.

Anyone remember that?

[patrice]

8. You don't have to be committed to another candidate to see this possibility.

Those voters "from the other side" were likely going to do that anyway, BUT there ARE some of them who DO sometimes vote for ours (or at least they say they do), so those folks make up for voting for HC by not voting Blue in other races (races that they may have voted Blue in the past) and then we have 3rd partiers and muckers of various types who vote Red all of the way because they are angry about HC and . . . .

I want to support HC, but all of this makes me VERY nervous.

[cali]

10. sure, but let me caution you against making that comparison

There was a big issue of dem corruption in 1994. The opposite is true now. The repuke party had been gaining strength in the years prior to that despite Clinton's election in 1992. 1994 was the culmination of a long term repuke strategy- something they're completely lacking now. The repuke party was stronger then and had cobbled together a coalition that has all but disintegrated over the past several years. It's just a poor comparison.

Like it or not, Clinton is electable and no we won't see Congress turning red if she's the nominee. Anyone familiar with the overall Congressional picture knows that. The fact is that Edwards, Clinton, Obama and Biden are all electable. It's just ignoring reality to suggest that only Edwards is.

[asdjrocky]

11. I don't in any way, think she is unelectable-

People talk so much about the past, and knowing history, I just thought this was pertinent information.

[karynnj]

6. It is highly unlikely given the seats that are up

There are more Republicans up for re-election and several are stepping down. Many of the Democrats are ones that are from petty safe seats. The likelihood is a Democratic gain. (This class was last up in 2002 - when the Republicans took many of the weaker seats - and at least one other by cheating.

[patrice]

19. Okay, help me understand that please . . .

In 2002 "Republicans took many of the weaker seats . . . ." - those are districts that could go either way today? What is the definition of "weak"?

[rinsd]

4. I see the bogus Zobgy Interactive polls are still being squeezed.

Here's Hillary beating Rudy in 5 of the last polls

Poll	            Date	Sample	Giuliani (R) Clinton (D) Und	Spread
RCP Average	11/11 - 12/09	-	43.4	47.8	6.0	Clinton +4.4
CNN	        12/06 - 12/09	RV	45	51	--	Clinton (D) +6.0
Rasmussen	12/03 - 12/04	800 LV	43	46	11	Clinton (D) +3.0
LAT/Bloomberg	11/30 - 12/03	1245 RV	42	46	6	Clinton (D) +4.0
FOX News	11/13 - 11/14	900 RV	43	47	4	Clinton (D) +4.0
Gallup	        11/11 - 11/14	897 RV	44	49	3	Clinton (D) +5.0

Here's Hillary beating Romney 5 of the last polls

Poll	            Date	Sample	Romney (R) Clinton (D) Und  Spread
RCP Average	11/11 - 12/09	-	40.0	50.2	7.2	Clinton +10.2
CNN	        12/06 - 12/09	RV	43	54	1	Clinton (D) +11.0
Rasmussen	12/03 - 12/04	800 LV	43	46	11	Clinton (D) +3.0
LAT/Bloomberg	11/30 - 12/03	1245 RV	39	47	7	Clinton (D) +8.0
FOX News	11/13 - 11/14	900 RV	37	50	14	Clinton (D) +13.0
Gallup	        11/11 - 11/14	897 RV	38	54	3	Clinton (D) +16.0

McCain give her a little trouble (he does for Obama as well)

Poll	            Date	Sample	McCain (R) Clinton (D) Und  Spread
RCP Average	11/11 - 12/09	-	46.3	48.0	--	Clinton +1.7
CNN	        12/06 - 12/09	RV	50	48	--	McCain (R) +2.0
FOX News	11/13 - 11/14	900 RV	45	46	9	Clinton (D) +1.0
Gallup	        11/11 - 11/14	897 RV	44	50	2	Clinton (D) +6.0

Accroding to Rasmussen she still has a slight edge on Huckabee (Obama's edge is a little better)

[karynnj]

7. nice summary (nt)

[MethuenProgressive]

5. Dupe. Good DUers check for dupes. Loeb's a serial HillHaterHack anyway.

The Paul "I LOVE OBAMA" Loeb latest hit list:
Paul Loeb: Democrats shouldn't settle for momentum-killing Hillary
Paul Loeb: Hillary Clinton and the Ghosts of 2006
Paul Loeb: Hillary Clinton and My Visa Bill
Paul Loeb: Hillary Clinton and the Politics of Disappointment

[sniffa]

9. i saw this yesterday

but i recommended it again anyhow.

[babylonsister]

13. sniffa!

Nice avatar! :spray: And I rec'd, too! :patriot:

[sniffa]

15. thanks

:rofl:

:hi:

[BenDavid]

12. Spreading the same baseless horseshit like this is why

republicans believe they can defeat any democrat. Because democrats are so gullible in believing that HRC is unelectable, and they say good things about Obama. Why? Because he does not scare the right and it should make you think why is it the right is so nice to obama? Those racist bastards would enjoy an obama run....

[Renew Deal]

14. Baseless?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2447165

[suston96]

16. "Think about 1994."

I sometimes do. Was Diebold in business then? What was Karl Rove doing?

Nah! That couldn't be. Just couldn't be.

[Bitwit1234]

17. Why should they want Hillary to be stopped the only

candidate that would insure the republicans a victory is Obama. And you all know it.

[emilyg]

18. That's exactly what Hannity said the other day.