Logical Disconnect in Hillaryville: degree of opposition

[PurityOfEssence]

There's an odd and self-congratulatory belief among many of Senator Clinton's supporters that her deriders and opponents are defectives. They're misogynists and fascists and fundamentalists and communists and they're not fit for polite society. The assumption that follows from this simplistic mischaracterization is even worse: that misfits are by definition tiny minorities that really don't add up in the long run.

I can understand the anger they feel at the many nasty, unpleasant and dismissive things said about her and I'm aware of the inherent human trait--especially among leftists--of wanting to circle the wagons and defend one's own ever more in the face of adversity.

This is not a thread of "gosh, how could it be like this?" confusion; I submit that I understand this phenomenon and that it doesn't take an Oppenheimer to see it: it's defensive confidence in its classical form. Fine. For whatever reason, many people support her.

The problem and the disconnect is this: opposition to her is real. It's really, really, REALLY real, and it's of proportions that are almost if not completely insurmountable.

Some of the people who dislike her are despicable and do so for ugly or silly reasons, but some of us have some valid reasons and we're far from the fringes. For many of us who dislike her from the left, it's a question of disgust, not hatred. For those of us who value the truth and are seriously concerned about the image of the party as being one of veracity and decency instead of equivocation and expediency, she's an unqualified disaster.

Enough of that. There are plenty of other places to hash out the relative merits of her as a person, her as a politician and her policies. The point wasn't to fan the flames here; I'll do that elsewhere and have done it plenty.

The big point here is this: there's a huge disconnect between reality and assumption. The assumption that I say is at odds with reality is the one that says that all the people against her are really just a tiny minority and not indicative of much.

This board is a perfect example: if so many people have such trouble with her HERE, then she's got REALLY BIG problems in the outside world. On this board, the anarchists, socialists, greens and other "marginal no-accounts" have no love for her, which is easily dismissable as nattering from the fringes, but many mainstream liberals, progressives and even moderates here have EXTREME trouble with her too. Dislike for her actually exists in every sub-sector of affiliation on this board. That's a BIG problem; it's not just the agitation of a few bitter nobodies or pie-in-the-sky adolescents, it's literally everywhere.

As Sancho Panza said "Whether the rock hits the pitcher or the pitcher hits the rock, it's going to be very hard for the pitcher." Maybe the dislike isn't fair, but it's there. THAT'S what her stalwarts need to address: is it REALLY just a few oddballs, or is it really as vast an every-wing non-conspiracy as it seems to many of the rest of us?

It's not just some blatherings of the few, it's serious rebuking from the many and the different.
It doesn't matter if everyone's being mean to you if EVERYONE'S REALLY being mean to you. At some point an election has to be had, and it's the general election that counts.

Not only is it real and huge, but it'll result in a lot of people sitting out the election, voting for a protest candidate or giving the softest of soft support. That doesn't win elections. I'm not a kid anymore, but I've NEVER heard as many people say they wouldn't vote for a particular representative of their party. It's not even close. It's not even close to being close.

So tell me: am I wrong about the level of opposition? (Who cares whether it's "fair" or not, is this assessment WRONG?) If not, how can it be surmounted?

[Evergreen Emerald]

1. c.a.n.t. t.a.k.e. i.t. a.n.y.m.o.r.e.

I think that reasonable people who "really really REALLY really" don't like her are mixed into the cacophony creating one big noisy mess, which is, because of the size and the company it keeps (mixed in with the fringe both right and left) devalued and minimized. Too many crys of wolf. Too much hatred spewed ugliness intermingled in the mix.

Even me, a reasonable moderate, cannot take another anti-Clinton post, even if it is reasonably created by a moderate.

[ginchinchili]

48. We've got a long way to go.

I suggest you get used to it, since a lot of us don't want her to get the nomination.

[Evergreen Emerald]

90. part of the noisy mess?

[cali]

2. Oh dear, I;m afraid you really, really, really don't pay attention

to the world outside DU. I'm not for Clinton, for a host of reasons I won't get into now, but I will vote for her if she's the nominee. You've let your personal feelings interfere with your ability to look at her candidacy with any objectivity. And you provided zip to back up your argument.

[mark414]

16. and now for something outside the world of DU

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Poll_Half_of_Americans_would_never_1021.html

[DemocratSinceBirth]

19. The Methodolgy Of That Poll Has Been Hotly Contested

And it is also contradicted by several polls of the same vintage, ergo:


http://www.pollingreport.com/C2.htm#Hillary

There's also a lot more data out there if you choose to search

[Froward69]

99. That Poll Has Been Hotly Contested

By you. and yet if Hillary wins the particluar poll. to you it is infalliable.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

3. Many of HRC's most ardent supporters are in a protected bubble

They may be Dem activists who mostly associate with like minded people. The ones I know tend to work in non-profits or among sophisticated urbanites. In other words, they don't personally encounter the kind of antipathy toward Clinton on a regular basis that the rest of us do, so they assume it's exaggerated. A friend of mine who is a Clinton supporter was honestly stunned by the negative responses (flipped off, thumbs down motion, etc.) she was getting to her new bumperstickers. I was like, where have you been?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

6. I Am A Political Scientist

I have a serious question...First I'll lay a factual foundation

All the empirical data suggests she is doing quite well and has a decent chance of winning.There is also a great deal of expert opinion that she is doing quite well also...

Is all this a chimera?

[mrreowwr_kittty]

9. If she's the nominee, I hope it isn't

But scores of people on this board telling you they encounter hostility toward HRC on a regular basis should count for something too.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

17. It's Anecdotal Evidence

I'll lay another factual foundation.

I had a boss who managed several professional associations with tens of thousands of members and traveled the entire continental United States frequently... He told me and several of my colleagues in a staff meeting in 1994 he never met one person who voted for Bill Climton...

How can I possibly rely on anecdotal evidence after hearing something outrageous as that?

[mrreowwr_kittty]

22. Sounds like he was in a bubble of his own. nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

25. My Buddy And I Voted For The Duke In 88

Our boss ( a different one) thought we were Martians... That's why anecdotal evidence is misleading...

Most folks talk to folks who think like them, get their own views shouted back at them, and consequently think everybody thinks like them...Think DU...

[mrreowwr_kittty]

44. That's true of your friends and social circle

But many of us have family members and co-workers with different views, with whom we may "agree to disagree". A few people are fortunate enough to live, work, AND socialize with like-minded people. But that can create a 'bubble' state where it's as you describe.

Essentially, I'm agreeing with you but I you and I differ on what we perceive to be the extent of it. My Clinton supporting friend acted like the people flipping her off were Martians. She was, of course, aware of the irrational Clinton hatred before but she'd honestly bought into the idea that "everyone is over it now".

[karynnj]

95. I agree

Even in the real world this happens. I live in a county that is very Republican. In 2005, two outstanding (DFA supported) Democrats ran a very energetic race for the assembly - the lower house of the legislature. The Democrats had a large number of house parties where the candidate(s) spoke to friends and neighbors of the hosts. We agreed to do one after we attended one and were impressed. What we found was that nearly all of the friends we invited had already attended one. It took paging through the directory from the high school to find people we knew only through our kids to find a dozen "new" people to come. The end result was they did only marginally better than previous sacrificial lambs who did nothing - at least in the vote in my town.

Though Democrats were considerably lower than half the population, we were all connected by no more than 2 or 3 "degrees" - even though this is a NYC suburban area, not a town where everybody knows everybody. I was trying to get some independents and Republicans - because the candidate would likely have appealed to many of them and you can't win the county without them - but even my best friend in the neighborhood was not interested because she was a Republican. I found that in calling about 50 to 60 people that almost all of them were Democrats or leaned Democrat- even though I previously had no idea what the political leanings of most were - especially when I got desperate and was calling every mom I ever was in a carpool with. My friends and acquaintances were most definitely not a representative sample of the town.

On the internet, it is more extreme. We cluster by interests and reinforce the biases of people within the group. I seriously wonder if this will create a pattern where many people become more invested in their candidate in the pre-primary or primary - becoming more certain that that candidate is uniquely better than anyone else and where attacks are viewed more personally by people who in past elections may never have heard each little attack on their primary favorite. In 2004, there was less willingness on the part of some to rally around the chosen nominee - often due to hurt feelings, even though Kerry's campaign was nowhere near as aggressive toward other candidates as previous campaigns have been - most of his fire was directed at Bush.

Many posts speaking of how we need to stop attacking Hillary now - in increasingly militant terms - miss the fact that it will be necessary for Hillary to gain the willing support - even as a second (or nth) choice, in the general election. Slamming the supporters or people who do not have a choice yet works against this. It is hard not to mentally link the attacks of Hillary supporters on you or the candidate you favor to Hillary Clinton, especially if you see that they are echoing attacks of known HRC operatives - like Wolfson. These feelings are then validated because they match the feelings of "friends", which is not surprising as most "friendships" are between people within a group. For the campaigns, it may lead to a case where, even if these attacks work to win the primary, more people, inclined to be activists, end up with grudges, real or imagined, that will genuinely hurt in the general election, if those people either do not actively support the candidate (as they would have in an earlier year.) or they do so but are unable to disguise their lack of real affection for the candidate.

The internet, which has the power to unite us - also has the power to allow us to create communities of similar thinking people - even when in the population as a whole that belief is rare. To use your example, your boss's situation is even more common in self selected internet communities, than in real life.

[AdHocSolver]

36. Fact: Bill Clinton won only because Ross Perot took away enough votes from Daddy Bush. n/t

[DemocratSinceBirth]

50. Au Contraire

In 1992, Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton defeated incumbent President George Bush. Almost every analysis or reference to the 1992 presidential race claims that Perot's presence on the ballot cost Bush the election. No facts are cited, it is merely asserted.

Perot did a lot of damage, it is true. During the spring primaries in the big industrial states like New York and Pennsylvania, when attention might have been paid to Clinton and former California Governor Jerry Brown as they fought each other and debated a domestic agenda for the new administration, all the media covered was the "undeclared" candidacy of Ross Perot.

< Digression - What is an undeclared candidacy? Especially when there were already several independent parties qualified to be on the ballot, but which were not considered worthy of coverage: The New Alliance Party, LaRouche for President, the Libertarian Party, the Socialist Party, the Prohibition Party and the Independent Voters Party. Why was Perot, who was not running, receiving more coverage than the candidates who were running? The answer is money. The American press is not a free press, it's a bought press. Perot promised that, if he ran, he would spend $100 million in media advertising. The press supported the undeclared candidacy of Ross Perot to fatten their own pocketbooks. The minor party candidates, who had no money to spend on media, could therefore be ignored.>

But did Perot defeat Bush? First, look at the turnout. Perot got 19,660,450 votes. The total turnout was more than 13 million higher than in 1988. So, even though Perot got a lot of votes, 13 million of those voters didn't vote in 1988. Clinton ran 3.1 million votes ahead of Dukakis, but Bush received 9.7 million fewer votes than four years earlier. The two party vote fell by 7 million. So, Perot only took 7 million votes from the two parties combined. If Perot had not been in the race, would those 7 million Perot voters who voted for Bush and Dukakis in 1988 have voted for Bush by a sufficient margin for him to overcome Clinton's 3.1 million vote lead. Those 7 million Perot voters would have had to favor Bush over Clinton by 5 to 2. Or, even if all 19.6 million Perot voters had voted for one of the major party candidates, they would have had to favor Bush by a 58% to 42% margin to overcome clinton's lead and tie the race. Was this likely in view of the fact that the other 84 million voters were favoring Clinton by 7%, 53.5% to Bush's 46.5%?

The 1992 presidential election was an analyst's dream. Usually, the presidential candidate runs far ahead of the rest of the ticket. Perot's presence in the presidential race combined with an absence of running mates for lesser offices meant that Clinton and Bush ran behind their respective party's nominees for Governor, Senator and the House. Consequently, it was easy to follow Perot's voters as they voted for other offices. They voted for Democratic and Republican Governor, Senator and House of Representative candidates in sufficient numbers to give them higher vote totals than Clinton and Bush.

This assumes that all Clinton's supporters voted for the other Democratic candidates and all Bush's supporters voted for the Republican candidates for Governor, Senator and the House. Since Republican candidates for other offices received more votes than Bush, and Democratic candidates for other offices received more votes than Clinton, this is a statistically valid assumption. The higher vote totals for the non-presidential candidates had to come from Perot's voters.

In the Governor's races, Perot's voters cast 18% of their ballots for the Republican candidates; 56% of their ballots for Democratic candidates, 17% for independent candidates, and 8% did not bother to vote for Governor. If Perot's voters had voted for Bush and Clinton in the same proportion that the voted for the Republican and Democratic candidates for Governor, Clinton's lead would have increased by 7.5 million votes.

In the Senate races, Perot's supporters voted 27% for the Republican candidates, 24% for the Democratic candidates, 23% for the independent candidates, and 24% skipped the Senate races entirely. (This does not include states that did not have Senate races.)

In the House races, Perot's voters cast 22% of their ballots for Republican candidates, 19% for Democratic candidates, 18% for independent candidates, and 40% did not vote in House races.

Perot's voters voted overwhelmingly for Democratic Governor candidates, and only marginally in favor of the Republican candidates for the House and Senate. Perot's voters favored Republican Senate candidates by 2.28%, and Republican House candidates by 2.69%. Because Perot's voters were only 1/5th of the total, that translates into about another 500,000 votes or 0.5% for bush if they had voted in a two way presidential race the same way they voted for the Senate and House. That is about 1/7th of the margin by which Bush lost.

If Perot cost Bush the election, the proof must lie somewhere else. On a statistical basis, it's essentially impossible to make a case for Perot costing Bush the 1992 presidential election. The election results show that Perot took many voters from Clinton among his supporters who demonstrated a low interest in politics by voting only for President and Governor, while taking marginally from Bush among those who demonstrated more commitment by casting ballots for Congress.

This analysis can be further confirmed by comparing the 1992 and 1996 results where Perot's vote dropped by 10 million compared to 1992. By comparing the vote totals for Clinton in both years with Bush's and Dole's (assuming Dole voters and Bush voters were the same voters) it is possible to conclude that in 1992 Perot's presence on the ballot cost Bush: Montana, North Carolina, Colorado and Georgia. However, Perot cost Clinton: Florida and Arizona in 1992. So, in 1992, Perot cost Clinton 32 electoral votes while costing Bush 37 electoral votes. Bush lost by 100 electoral votes, so 5 more would not have given him victory.

This same analysis shows that if Perot had not been on the ballot in 1996, Dole would have carried Nevada instead of Clinton. So, by any measure, even admitting that Perot's presence may have cost Bush a few electoral votes in 1992, it was no where near enough to change the outcome of that election, nor the Clinton - Dole contest in 1996.


http://www.leinsdorf.com/perot.htm


Now, could you please provide us instances where you see flaws in Mr. Leinsdorf's analysis

[AdHocSolver]

The flaws I see are in your analysis.

You wrote:

.....
In 1992, Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton defeated incumbent President George Bush. Almost every analysis or reference to the 1992 presidential race claims that Perot's presence on the ballot cost Bush the election. No facts are cited, it is merely asserted.
.....

I merely choose to believe that the rest of the analysts, who agree with each other, and disagree with Mr. Leinsdorf, are correct. I also cannot believe that only Mr. Leinsdorf analyzed data, and that no other analysts used any data to come to their conclusions.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

58. Then Post Their Findings And We Can Discuss Them

Just saying analysts came to different conclusions doesn't refute Mr.Leinsdorf's analysis without providing their analyses...

Post their analyses so they can be discussed...

Here's a link to google to get you started:


http://www.google.com/

[karynnj]

96. The one thing that this ignores

is that when he was in the race, Perot directed all his fire against Bush. If you look at GHWB's approval rating - it was driven below 40% before Clinton became the nominee. But,in mid 1991, his approval rating was high enough that those considered to be the top tier Democratic candidates - Mario Cuomo, Al Gore and Bill Bradley stayed out. The question is how much of that shift in approval was due to Perot running that independent populist campaign against Bush. His biggest impact may have been to deflate GHWB's approval before the race started.

It is very hard to argue that any reasonable candidate would not have won against a President with a 33% approval rating near the election day. (Even Dukakis likely could have won had this been the year he ran.)

[rinsd]

107. One also has to factor in the ecomonic downturn was at its worst in the early going.

Giving Perot an opening to be a populist in the first place.

[karynnj]

113. Exactly

Though the economy was beginning it's upturn before the election - it was too late.

Perot, the economy, the fact the media turned on Bush I, all set the stage for an election the Democrats couldn't lose.

Clinton had 2 opponents - one a President at 33%, who was often shown on TV getting ill in Asia and a man who in dropping out convinced many he was loony. It was the easiest race since LBJ beating Goldwater.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

52. How Is That Germaine?

The gentleman claimed that he never met one person by 1994 who voted for Bill Clinton ... How does the erroneous assertion that Perot abetted Clinton on his path to the presidency make his observation less absurd?

[CTyankee]

93. I used to fall for that one too. I had to stop and think about it when Reagan won

his first term. I am looking at the polls, which if done scientifically are amazingly correct.

Good luck with your factual points. Good polling is what I am looking at: size of poll, methodology, etc, before I make up my mind about Hillary.

I wish more people on DU would learn the lesson I have learned and the one you are trying to get across!

[AdHocSolver]

40. Your empirical data and a nickel will buy you a five cent cigar.

In 2004, all the empirical data said "anyone can beat Bush", "John Kerry is the most electable candidate", and "we don't need any Republican states to beat Bush". So the 'experts' at Democratic Party Headquarters anointed John Kerry our candidate, and we got four more years of Bush/Cheney.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

54. Where Is The Empirical Data That Suggested Kerry Was A Lead Pipe Cinch?

I never thought he was...

I used to have endless arguments in the Fall of 04 with DUers who thought he was...They , god bless some of them, let how they feel , lead them to think that's the way things will be...

But I digress...


I'll wait for you to provide evidence and not your opinion that Kerry blew what was an easily winnable election...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

55. Here's The Polls From The Last Three Months Of Campaign 04

http://pollingreport2.com/wh2004a.htm#2way


It was a close race with Kerry trailing in most of the polls...I'm disappointed they didn't go back further but they would show essentially the same thing...

No dispassionate observer thought beating a war time president would be easy even one as brain addled as Bush*...

[RaleighNCDUer]

61. Which is why I, for one, cannot trust polls, particularly when polling

has become a big business.

The exit polls said Kerry won. Exit polls have always been trustworthy. Why is it that they were wrong, this time, and the other polls right? To me, it says the methodology or the veracity of the polls must be questioned.

But since you live and breathe polls that would never occur to you.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

68. I'm A Logical Positivist

I can't do or believe things just because somebody told me something... I need empirical proof...Heck, when I went to Sunday School I was told all kinds of things that defy rational understanding and they even had a book to buttress what they were telling me...


Oh, we can discuss the efficacy and reliability of survey research later...

Most of my friends, relatives ,business clients, and vendors are voting for HRC but it would be preposterous for me to believe they represent anything larger than my friends, relatives, business clients, and vendors

[RaleighNCDUer]

71. Well, there you are.

I have one relative who is virulently pro-Bush, and the rest of us are spread between Biden, Obama, Edwards and Kucinich. None of us supports Hillary. Of my friends, only one has lukewarm support for Hillary, but really prefers Richardson (but the way he's doing in the polls...etc.). Noteably, I have no business clients or vendors - those are circles which are totally alien to me. The very sound of it suggests business and wealth. I'm in the education establishment, and none of my collegues support Hillary.

So, pro-business DLC types strongly support Hillary. Well, I knew that. But that is not a huge demographic of the Democratic party. As mentioned elsewhere, we all have our bubbles.

Some of our bubbles are going to be popped in a few months.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

72. The Man With The Ninth Grade Education Who Cuts My Lawn Isn't A Pro- Business DLC Type

I'd bet my life he doesn't know who they ae...

Most of my friends and vendors are graphic artists not "businesspeople"... See what happens when you assume...

Oh, I purposely described my "bubble" and said I don't make any inferences from it...That's why I look at the data...It's that logical positivist thing again...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

73. I Know You Hate Polls

But the polls suggest Hillary's base is working class and older folks...

Sept. 11 (Bloomberg) -- Presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton is dominating the Democratic field among working-class and older voters in early primary states, while Republican Fred Thompson is making inroads among religious voters, particularly in the South and at the expense of rival Mitt Romney


http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=a13LI0ADayWg&refer=politics

[RaleighNCDUer]

75. But I thought you said her primary support was in

young, working class minorities.

I'm sure you can fine the polls that will say that, too.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

76. Not Sure About That

To the best of my understanding these are the groups Hillary Clinton's doing the best in

-elderly voters

-working class voters

-voters without college degrees

-women voters

-African American voter, especially women...Barack Obama does better with African American men...

Barack Obama is doing best with folks who earn over $100,000.00 and have advanced degrees...

It is your right to reject all survey research but then we are left with our opinions and nothing to base our opinions on but our own opinions... As somebody involved in education you should know that stands the pursuit of knowledge on its head...


It's late...Have a nice evening


DSB

[AdHocSolver]

66. You are adept at spinning what I say to set up a straw dog that has to be defended.

First, I never claimed that YOU thought Kerry was the only candidate who could win. I never said that I thought that the election was an easy win.

The conventional wisdom among Democratic Party leaders was that Kerry was the "most electable candidate" and that we should end the primary battles and get behind one candidate to show solidarity. I read this in magazines, newspapers, and I heard it from our state party leaders. These are most likely the same people pushing Hillary Clinton.

This strategy was STUPID because it cut off the suspense and excitement of the primary election that was worth millions of dollars of free media publicity for the Democratic Party. Moreover, once Kerry was anointed, he became a central target for the Republicans. They no longer had to wonder how to campaign. Their strategy was handed to them on a silver platter. The Hillary supporters want to give this monumental advantage to the Republicans again. I am against handing the Republicans another four years in the Whitehouse.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

70. The Idea That Any Party Should Rally Around A Leader And Avoid A Protracted Primary Battle Strikes

Me As Sound...

That's why primary challenges to sitting presidents are usually discouraged...

The more important question is who to rally around...


Did Kerry run a great campaign ?

Nah

Did he blow a easily winnable election?

Doesn't seem like there's a lot of evidence to support that...

For instance, Jimmy Carter blames his 1980 defeat on Ted Kennedy's primary challenge... There were still hostages and runaway inflation... But it didn't help...

I'll ask you a question...You seem to be implying presidential elections are popularity contests...Was there anybody more socially inept than Richard Nixon?

But he won because he wanted it more than anybody and was willing to do whatever is necessary to get it...

At the end of the day you believe Hillary is too polarizing to win and has an unpleasant personality to boot... They said the same thing about Richard Nixon and he won the greatest pop vote and Electoral College landslide in the twentieth century...

[PurityOfEssence]

78. That's a dreadful idea

The great strength of a long primary season is to see who can take it over the long run, who can dish it out, who can come up with the rallying cry, and who truly has the "stuff". It's a long, drawn out audition process with numerous call-backs. This is a great tool. It shows who's the best candidate and who would be the best leader in what is a constant crisis job.

To fear dissent and fall in step early is reckless. Who knows what skeletons are there to leap out of the closet? Who's to say whether the person can really take the heat and perform well repeatedly in one exhausting encounter after another?

The long primary season is our friend. 1984 was a disaster. Perhaps Hart couldn't have beaten Reagan, but he had a decent shot; Mondale was a stiff, a droopy-lidded, casual stiff sparring with a heavyweight lightweight: Reagan. The coronation of someone picked by the establishment is a supremely bad idea.

The Republicans are good. When the idea of a short primary season and an early agreement has been raised by others, one of the appeals usually is that we could hurt our person too much by infighting. I don't know if this is your opinion, too, so I won't put words in your mouth. I will try to dispel this notion: the Republicans are SO good that they'll find the weak spot and exploit it expertly. The primary season is our training session where we find out each other's vulnerabilities before committing to someone who's got a glass jaw.

This primary season is a disaster, and the juvenile antics of Florida and Michigan just make it worse and skew it more toward those with more money and machine support. What a deplorable state of affairs.

[karynnj]

101. That consensus that Kerry was the "most electable"

was not really pushed until he won 5 of the 7 contests on the first multi state day in the first week of February. In NH, where he was already liked, his IA win showed him to be electable. That was the natural momentum winning would give anyone - but especially a Senator from a neighboring state - not to mention a state where many 2004 NH people might have worked or lived. After the multi state day where the MA Senator had won IA, NH, MO, DE, NM, AZ, and ND, it was clear that he was the favorite. In OK - likely one of the places a NE Senator would do the worst, he was at 27% compared to 30% for the Southerns, Clark and Edwards. the only other state won by someone else was SC. Look at that list of states - ignoring NH, if a MA candidate wins those - he is likely winning almost everywhere. (Do you remember all the "sunny" JRE article between the NH win and those contests? - the media did suggest an alternative candidate.)

No pundit going into the Iowa caucuses gave Kerry a chance of winning either IA or the nomination. Even as the moving average polls in IA showed a steady trend to Kerry in the last weeks, it is rare to find an analysis that even suggests that he could come in second. It wasn't the press pushing for him - I would bet that one factor was the reunion with Rassman that happened only days before the caucus. It showed a very unique glimpse into a very private person - and it was extremely positive. Using this was fair - he did risk his life to save someone.

In Kerry's case, the media gave Edwards credibility long after it was over. A NYT op-ed written in the last week of February,said that it was known the winner was named "John", the question was the last name. At that point Kerry had won 16 states and Edwards had won SC. Kerry also had double digit leads in the states being decided the next week - except for VT. Other papers, magazines and TV news also considered it an open contest - stating that he was the prohibitive favorite was the simple truth at that point. The next week it was over - because Kerry easily won every contest, except VT - and he then had near the number needed to claim it - with many many states left to vote.

The story with HRC, who will likely be the candidate is different. The media has said she is the front runner from around Nov 3, 2004 and she is ahead bby double digits now when not a single vote was cast. Dean was ahead for a short time by double digits, but nowhere near the years Hillary has. Also, Hillary is a more "know" commodity now than Dean was in 2003. I wish I could convince myself otherwise, but it will take a major event - that is unlikely to occur - to change that.

If you want to blame anything in 2004, blame the fact that they had moved the primaries up. Maybe the results would have been different if there were more time between NH and the first multi state day - which could have minimized the happy Kerry footage from when he won IA and NH - but the reality can also be seen in the polls - within days of Iowa, people flocked to Kerry. Part of it was liking what they saw when he stood surrounded by firemen and veterans happily accepting victory in Iowa. In 2008, this will be like 2004 on steroids. The other thing is that the maneuvers in MI and FL may pull the rug out from people planning to use Iowa as a springboard. Official or not - if they are first to vote, they will have an impact and they will impact Iowa.

[karynnj]

100. All the empirical data did not say anyone could beat Bush

In December 2003, in head to head polls Dean was always behind Bush - even by as much as 20%. Generic Democrat was behind about 12%.

Only as Bush was hit - especially by Dean and Kerry - where previously the media had muted to almost silence any criticism of Bush, did his approval ratings fall from the high 50%s. Kerry, after he won Iowa and NH, was the first to poll competitively against Bush. In late February, the only 2 candidates polled against Bush - were Kerry and Edwards. Kerry did far better. People kept citing a rule that below 50% is a sure win for the opponent - but if you looked at the recent past races, there were no candidates in the mid to high 40s - so placing that cut off in a range where there was no data was not good statistics. It ignores that some of the disapproval was from the Pat Buchanan wing of the party - and they were not going to vote for a Democrat.

People like HRC opted not to run in 2004 because it was considered unwinnable - until it seemed that Kerry was in a close race or winning. As it was he came very close to winning - though he had the cable media, parts of the Catholic church and government terror rating against him as well as the Republican party. Even if you assume Kerry was a bad politician who won the nomination by magic, the party could have compensated more for that realyzing that his credentials, character and history made him a uniquely good candidate at that time. Consider how many of his positions are now seen as right - on foreign policy. Look at how his 2004 Healthcare plan and alternative energy/environmental plan have influenced all the 2008 plans. Imagine if just Begala and Carville, the 2 most prominent Democrats on TV, had spent say a day looking through Kerry's positions and meeting with long time Kerry people, and then actively praised Kerry on their shows. Never was a Presidential nominee given less support by the "Democratic" people in media. (the fact that the NYT and WP were seen as Liberal - but were pushing Bush on Iraq in their reporting - hurt because people assumed the bias went the other way.)

Kerry was hurt throughout the summer by a media that did little to cover his speeches, history or positions. The two big stories were the death of Ronald Reagan and his cannonization as an American saint and Clinton's book tour, selfishly placed in July 2004. Both made it hard for Kerry to get any coverage and both in the way they were covered helped Bush. The media playing with the already disproven before they came out SBVT lies hurt as did the media's analysis that the Republicans had a great convention that focused their fall campaign. Every major party candidate in my life time has had each network many puff pieces leading to the convention - including a biography that edits their life to create a story that made it seem their was a reason they rose to being one of two men who would be President. They even did this for W in 2000. The best Kerry got was the PBS Frontline double biography.

For all of you who buy the CW that Kerry's convention should have been more Moveon.org like, consider that the CW going into the convention was that Kerry had to show he was Presidential and likable and the consensus after his speech was that both were done. Now, think back to 1992. Clinton had a similar good spirited, positive convention, followed by a mean spirited Republican one (Remember Marily Quayle and Pat Buchanan). The media registered disgust with the RNC and it hurt GHWB. If Kerry had a Bush bashing convention, he would have been out right then - and it would have been said that he didn't have a positive message. The media - in general - put their foot on the scale, when they did not show any disgust with the 2004 RNC convention - not even when people mocked the Purple heart,

In a

[GrpCaptMandrake]

102. No, no , no!

Don't say "cigar" in a Subject line!

You'll turn the thread into a tobacco-ban discussion!

I don't think I could take a thread that combined two of DU's most notoriously irritating subjects.

:silly:

[rinsd]

106. No, that was conventional wisdom, things that "everybody knew"

Kind of like now how Hillary is going to drag down tickets and other CW that is not supported by empirical data.

[RaleighNCDUer]

59. Yes. nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

63. Clever

We are stuck in Iraq because we have a leader who can't be "bothered by no stinking facts."

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

10. Most people are non-confrontational and sense the political views of others

I don't think people's perceptions that everyone thinks "x" are just craziness. Those of us with strong political ideas often tip others off as to how to be agreeable.

Lots of plumbers, cab drivers and bartenders leave us with the assumption that they agree with our world-view. It's a way to get along with people.

So we all have a host of anecdotes about people conspiratorially telling us that they agree with us.

Let's face it... almost everyone thinks the country secretly agrees with them. In extreme cases people become poll-deniers, and even view all unfavorable election results as the result of fraud.

I don't dismiss any particular anecdote, I dismiss them all... including my own anecdotal evidence. I assume most of us are trying to get through life with a minimum of fist-fights, and that we all offer some inclusive signs of agreement to those whose spere we enter. "Talking about the weather" is a basic mechanism for reaching a quick, pleasant concensus, since everyone has the same weather.

Anecdote can be informative metaphor and rich and worthwhile snapshots of the human comedy, but it's a terrible predictive tool.

[bellasgrams]

14. I think I'm close to making up my mind between

Clinton & Richardson. I have ruled out the rest for now. I still like Richardson and he could probably be as good as Hillary, but when I listen to her and I remember her from past years I remember lots of good things. And don't bring up NAFTA because she and Bill disagree on that one. Yep, I could sure take 8 years of Clinton, without the Dirty Repb. tricks and meanness. They hate the Clintons and did everything they could to manipulate the public against them. Some here on DU actually fell for it.

[RaleighNCDUer]

64. If she disagrees with Bill on NAFTA, why has she not said she

would do anything to fix it?

Hmmm?

[Tesha]

104. That's certainly the case in New Hampshire.

> Many of HRC's most ardent supporters are in a protected bubble

That's certainly the case in New Hampshire.

All the party regulars (who are pretty much DLC to the core)
are behind Hillary and they mostly talk among themselves, so
everyone they talk to is behind Hillary.

Only out here in activist land, where you meet the people
who don't have paid positions or big party titles, support
for Hillary is tepid *AT BEST* and non-existent at worst.
If Hillary is the nominee, then when the time comes to
walk the wards, those paid and titled party big-whigs (sic)
are going to have to do put a lot more miles on their
Pradas and Guccis than their highly-uncallused feet are
used to.

Tesha

[mrreowwr_kittty]

105. Same here

Clinton's supporters where I am come in 2 varieties: Over 65 years old and the aforementioned Prada-sporting DLCers. Neither group does a lot of door-to-door work. The college students and younger working folks who do the lion's share of pounding the pavement, leafletting, and all kinds of crucial grunt work are supporting other candidates. Several of them have already told me that if HRC gets the nod, they will work for local candidates only.

[sniffa]

109. do i have to show you a poLL?

:rofl:

[ChiciB1]

112. DING, DING, DING! Do Prada's & Gucci's Do THAT Stuff???

I know I won't be campaigning for her!

[Sparkly]

4. You might be right about the opposition here on DU

but national polls seem to tell a different story.

Policy-wise, I just don't see any vast differences between the Democratic "top three" candidates.

As I've said, none of them make me leap for joy nor shriek with hatred; they're just politicians and pretty much what I'd expect. Yet I find myself defending Clinton very often because she's singled out so frequently.

You asked how it can be surmounted. My thought: Watch the REPUBLICANS!! And consider that one of them is the alternative to one of the Democrats.

[w4rma]

7. National polls are a mile wide and an inch deep, this early, before the GOP starts attacking. (nt)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

8. I Agree 100%

But right now it is the most reliable data we have...

If we reject it then we are left with a pissing match as to whose opinion is best...

[w4rma]

11. I reject general election polls. They are unreliable because they don't take into account depth of

support.

[Sparkly]

13. That may be, but...

they don't connect with the vehement dislike of her seen here.

[w4rma]

20. I live in Virginia. I can call myself an Edwards supporter and practically pass myself off as a

conservative here if I want to and still push people towards progressive positions. However, folks can't say anything positive about Hillary to about half of all Virginians without getting a nasty stare back.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

15. They Ask People How Firm Is Their Support Is?

And how likely they are to transfer their support to another candidate?

[w4rma]

18. They ask, but the results are extremely unreliable this early before partisan attacks begin. (nt)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

23. We're Discussing Different Phenomenons

Or conflating issues...

The OP's position is that "everybody" hates Hillary Clinton...

You're at least willing to concede that a plurality or bare majority like her now but can be but not like her later...

Those are two diametrically opposed positions...

[PurityOfEssence]

77. Balderdash, and offensive to boot.

My position is FAR from being that "everybody" hates Hillary Clinton. After making so many reasoned and measured posts, how do you so thoroughly fall off the wagon and start engaging in ridiculous superlatives like that?

The gist of my post is that "many" of her supporters rail at the seemingly endless hoards of rapscallions saying horrible things about her while simultaneously saying there really isn't that much opposition. That's the disconnect: they're everywhere, but there just aren't that many of them.

How the hell could I even be talking about a big group of Hillary supporters and winnow it down to merely "many" of them if EVERYBODY hated her? If everybody hated her, she wouldn't have any supporters at all. Okay, fine: I'm lampooning with cheesy rhetoric, but your very characterization of my position is beyond absurd.

It's not like I didn't beat it into the ground enough in my overlong original post, but let me take a few more swipes at it here: opposition to her is wide and deep. There is enmity from the left, hatred from the right, disgust from the middle and some of the opponents have VERY deep feelings about it; many of these people don't just casually dislike her a little, they REALLY don't like her.

Nowhere have I said that "everyone" is against her or anything of the sort. That's an extreme mischaracterization and smacks of a deliberate attempt to marginalize my position by painting it as simplistic and the stuff of a facile sub-dilettante.

It's pretty damned obvious she's got support; hell, she's got somewhere around 20 points on her nearest rival in her own party. Maybe your head is clouded by sub-thread bickering, but if you give the thread-starter a casual read, it's obvious as hell your analysis is simply wrong AND ill-mannered.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

92. These Two Statements Seem Mutually Exclusive To Me Or In Disharmony

"My position is FAR from being that "everybody" hates Hillary Clinton. After making so many reasoned and measured posts, how do you so thoroughly fall off the wagon and start engaging in ridiculous superlatives like that?"


-Purity Of Essence


"This board is a perfect example: if so many people have such trouble with her HERE, then she's got REALLY BIG problems in the outside world. On this board, the anarchists, socialists, greens and other "marginal no-accounts" have no love for her, which is easily dismissable as nattering from the fringes, but many mainstream liberals, progressives and even moderates here have EXTREME trouble with her too. Dislike for her actually exists in every sub-sector of affiliation on this board. That's a BIG problem; it's not just the agitation of a few bitter nobodies or pie-in-the-sky adolescents, it's literally everywhere."

-Purity Of Essence

It is really futile to argue this subject. No minds will be changed...Folks are at an impasse...It's just an opportunity to abuse one another.

[PurityOfEssence]

116. Then perhaps a dictionary would be of help. Odd to hear "harmony" invoked in a tone-deaf rejoinder.

"Everybody" is a superlative. Flatly saying that I say "everybody" has this proclivity is not only misquoting, it's dismissing me as simplistic. The second quote there is literally filled with qualifiers from stem to stern.

Effectively, you're dismissing me as facile by using a facile and incorrect misquote. I actually take care in my snotty little screeds and they're done not for revenge but to inject some sense or perspective into what I consider VERY dangerous exercises of groupthink.

I may very well suck, but I suck in a nuanced and somewhat honorable way, and I take pains to be fair or at least accurate. That's why I take exception to being sniped at and backhanded as some kind of raving clod. It also reflects on the message, and I think the message is EXTREMELY important.

Many of the Clinton camp are hell-bent to shut everybody up and stop the terrifying prospect of having to think. It's like many expressions of religion: a ravenous craving to destroy any uncertainty. Sure, the team with the ball that's ahead wants to sit on it and run out the clock, but in this case it's a TERRIBLE idea, and it's not like they have some RIGHT to do it.

Can you remember ANY example of a VIABLE politician vying for the presidency who had such vehement opposition from so many different directions? I can't. I can't even come close to an example. That's a big deal.

This matters. There's a reason why it's sucked up so much energy from so many people.

This is not a molehill.

[AdHocSolver]

53. In 1491, people told Columbus that the most reliable data we have is that the earth is flat.

Hillary Clinton has an inherent disadvantage, a significant disadvantage, that no other candidate has. This is that, since 1992, she has been demonized by the right wing. It has been reinforced and developed to a high art. As with Pavlovian conditioning, this has created a subconscious distrust of Hillary that many voters will not be able to overcome.

Bill was demonized also, but he has enough charm and folksiness that helps people overcome the conditioning. Hillary projects a supercilious attitude that makes one not quite trust her. People who say they like her this far ahead of actual voting, may very well pull back from voting for her when the time actually comes to do the deed.

This election is far too important to make her the nominee, to see whether or not this is a correct judgment about the election. There is enough "evidence", anecdotal or otherwise, against handing Clinton the nomination.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

56. It's Late At Night For Sophistry, Obscurantism, And Non Sequiturs

You haven't supplied anything but your own opinion that she can't win... That's not good enough...
Oh, everybody I know is voting for Hillary so you can please spare me your anecdotal evidence ... We are mired in Iraq because a certain person denigrated facts and elevated "gut" reactions...

[Sparkly]

12. I think they're attacking to the extent they want to...

I just think they save their big guns for the general election.

I do agree that the polls aren't everything at this point -- I think things can shift quickly, within the parties at least, once states actually start voting...

[w4rma]

21. Republicans want Hillary as the nominee. They are holding back until they are sure their attacks

won't affect the Democratic primary outcome.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

27. St. Teresa Of Avila

"More tears are shed over answered prayers than unanswered ones"...

And did you watch the Pug debate?


Senator Clinton was the topic du jour...

[RaleighNCDUer]

67. Exactly. And the 'attacks' were very low-key, at best, while the

'common assumption' was that Hillary would be the nominee. By ignoring Obama and Edwards, they relegate them to 2nd tier, helping ensure that Hillary will be our choice.

I am damn sick of repukes choosing our nominees.

[RaleighNCDUer]

65. That's my sense, too. nt

[Bitwit1234]

5. Most Hillary bashes are a member of the J-E-A-L-O-U-S-Y

cult. Their canadate is not number one.

[PurityOfEssence]

33. It's hard to argue with meticulous reasoning like that

so I'll just say "piffle".

[burythehatchet]

89. My 9 year son makes much more cogent arguments. Maybe the poster is 8?

[youthere]

108. I was surprised the "nanner nanner boo boo" was omitted. That would have made the argument airtight.

:rofl:

[Viva_La_Revolution]

43. and those of us who haven't picked a candidate yet?...

why do we dislike her, O Swami? :shrug:

[Forkboy]

98. Boy, you really boiled that down to it's essence.

:eyes:

[Carrieyazel]

24. With Hillary, It CAN'T be surmounted. We MUST nominate someone else to win.

Excellent post. You are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT about the level of opposition. People on these boards dislike her, every segment of the Democratic coalition has problems with her, and of course she is hated by many Indeps and nearly all Repukes, as you know. This is a recipe for disaster in the general election. There is no way for her to win against a possibly electable Repuke.

And add on to that her lame political skills, cold calculation and pandering to all possible sides; she can easily be taken down. That type of candidate almost never wins. She is an AWFUL candidate.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

26. As a Clinton apologist...

I really dislike her. Sincerely. I always have. And I think other people dislike her as well, and come by their distaste honestly.

My support is entirely a matter of prediction. There is no rational reason I have seen to consider her less electable than any other Democrat and voluminous evidence that she is the most electable of the bunch. That is the entirety of my basis for supporting her.

To me, the most important words a living American has written were in a dissent by John Paul Stevens. At heart, I am more intersted in Stevens' successor than I am in Bush's successor. One is a means to the other.

Everyone should oppose her in the primaries, if inclined to do so. I don't really even WANT to encourage anyone to vote for her in the primaries, because if she cannot win the primaris in the face of stiff opposition then she's not the politician I think she is. I want her to be tested, and fail early if that's what's in the cards. I am not even planning to vote for her myself! If she needs my vote to win the nomination then she's in trouble. I like Joe Biden and will vote for him, probably a month after the race is over. (My state comes late in the game)

My conclusion that Hillary has the best chance of surviving the gauntlet is not merely derived from polls. It is also based on a life of close observation of American electoral politics.

All are free to disagree. It is just my theory.

But when people say things that boil down to "she cannot win because I hate her," it gives me a very dim view of their capacity. And when people recycle trash from the RW playbook it gives me a dim view of their sincerity.

Not all Clinton-haters conflate their feelings with the feelings of the nation. But some do, and when I'm in a pissy mood I give them hell for it.

Speaking from the other side of the divide, let me say that it would be nice if Clinton-detractors recognized that many Clinton supporters support her as a means to winning an election. For some of us it has nothing to do with some policy issue, or matters of right and left.

And part of the reason for my faith in my predictive abilities is that I AM REALLY GOOD AT IT. I always have been. Nobody should defer to my analysis based on my own sense of my reliability, but I have good reasons for thinking my mental model of American national, electoral politics is worthwhile. So I will stick with my analysis until new information leads me to change it. It could happen tomorrow.

And everyone else who believes their model of politics is better will continue to believe that, as they should.

I grew up on Michael Harrington. I would gladly support a classic Democratic-Socialist that I believed had the best chance of winning. But given the choice of an ideological dream candidate with a 95% chance of winning and a DLC centrist with a 96% chance of winning I would take the later. That 1% is that important to me, just as it would be if I were playing Russin roulette.

I hate republicans that much. And I am far more interested in arresting a slide than I am in ultimate progress. The former is prerequisite to the later.

[Sparkly]

28. That was SO well-said!

Thank you! :applause:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

30. I Used To Be A Devotee Of Michael Harrington And Dorothy Day

I read "The Other America" and "Toward A Democratic Left"

I still find much to like in the Catholic Church's "social doctrine" which influenced both of them...

Now my goals are much more modest...

As to your other point, the belief of the Hillary can't win crowd has taken on theological dimensions...

[ruggerson]

39. Which dissent?

Did he write the dissent in Hardwick? I'm too lazy to google it. :)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

42. I Thought Kennedy's Majority Opinion In Lawrence Was Great

Comapared To Thomas, Roberts, Scalia, and (Sc)ailito he's a prince...

We are so fucked if the Dems lose...

I'm suppporting HRC because she looks like a winner...If she ceases to stop looking like a winner I will support another candidate...The stakes are too high for vanity...

[ruggerson]

45. That's my take on it

We have to win this. Period. Whatever it takes. Whether it's Edwards or her I don't care. I just want the Republicans OUT.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

49. The Election Is Thirteen Months Out

It's a long way from the lip to the cup...

I think Marx had ir more right than wrong...Events shape history not men...Lots of people here say that we lost this race or that race because the candidates sucked but I bet if you looked at each presidential race events had more of an impact on the eventual winner than personalities... That's not to say the candidate doesn't matter; only to say the political environment plays a large part...This should be a great environment for Dems in 08...

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

51. It was actually a dirty-books case

that held that though Stanley v. Georgia said it was legal for persons to own obscene materials, that trafficking in such was obviously a different matter.

Stevens began his dissent with something along the lines of:

"The majority has ruled today that a person can legally possess something he cannot legally acquire..."

It's the all-time great "I call bullshit on this" dissent, and an utter demolition of the concept of "decriminalization"

Mostly it moves me because the issues in the case are GLARING but he was the only one with the guts to offer a plain reading of the case.

Since "the press" is a means of mass-dissemination of speech it is insane to criminalize speech explicitly on the basis that somebody might hear it. The court said that "hearing" free speech is a higher right than speaking it, and that outlawing speaking does not even deprive the listener of his right to hear because he would be free to hear the speech it if it existed, which it doesn't because it's illegal." It's one of the most intellectually bankrupt SCOTUS decisions of all time, which is saying a lot.

(I am okay with limited ways of limiting dissemination of speech, like sound ordinances and not mailing people porn who don't want it, or not having billboards that say "fuck you." But to imprison citizens on the legal theory that disseminating speech has no nexus with the right to speak is shocking.)

Stevens called bullshit on deciding a case based on no reasoning other than whether the victims were politically unpopular... that hearers warrant higher constitutional protection than speakers because there are more hearers than speakers. It's a de facto plea for judicial honesty and distance from politics.

Sorry I can't remember the case. Late 1970s, I assume.

[RaleighNCDUer]

69. But the DLC is an integral part of that slide to the right.

They are the 5th column in the Democratic party. It is their positioning that makes a real centrist like Kucinich look like a loony leftist. A vote for the DLC is always a push toward the way we don't want to go. They will always start from a 'moderate' or 'centrist' position, then compromise to the right, while the repukes start from the far right and compromise to the not-so-far right.

It's a loser's game.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

118. A thoughtful post, but I must disagree.

First let me say that I am less in the Anybody-But-Hillary camp and more in the Nobody-But-Gore camp. But I do not consider myself a Hillary hater. I am simply repulsed by some of her key votes, especially on the IWR, both for pragmatic and moral reasons.

There is no rational reason I have seen to consider her less electable than any other Democrat and voluminous evidence that she is the most electable of the bunch. That is the entirety of my basis for supporting her.

A post Nobel poll indicates a plurality of Democrats (44%) would vote for Gore if he declared, making him the instant front runner.

http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/prnewswire/NYW11617102007-1.htm

In CNN post Nobel poll, Gore did better thean HRC against Giuliani. 52-46 vs. 49-47. Note that Gore is outside the margin of error, while HRC is inside (4.5 %).

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/10/16/20754/961

I submit these are rational reasons to consider her less electable.

To me, the most important words a living American has written were in a dissent by John Paul Stevens. At heart, I am more intersted in Stevens' successor than I am in Bush's successor. One is a means to the other.

This is a classic and persuasive argument for the putatively most electable Democratic nominee. Support that potential nominee because of the historic implications for another GOP nominee to the SCOTUS. Most of my life I have been persuaded by that argument, whether or not enthusiastic about the eventual nominee. However this election may well be sui generis and trump that classic argument. A growing number of scientists (most prominently James Hansen) are warning that we have a short window (perhaps even ten years) to take major global action to combat global warming or face holocaust perhaps within the first half of this century.

In other words, without the right president to lead the world, ostensibly important issues such as SCOTUS nominees, Iraq, healthcare, etc., will become IRRELEVANT. Note that the science in this regard has become increasingly pessimistic and alarmist over time and there is no reason to expect that trend not to continue.

My conclusion that Hillary has the best chance of surviving the gauntlet is not merely derived from polls. It is also based on a life of close observation of American electoral politics.

I also like to think that I have spent many decades closely observing American politics. I offer what I hope are salient points about HRC and our chances:

1) running a northern senator is a recipe for failure, historically. JFK is the exception which proves the rule.

2) in the last three elections, Iraq has been the deciding factor and it will be again in 2008. In 2002, the Democrats did not differentiate on the war (many voted for the war) and lost the election. In 2004, the Democrats did not differentiate on the war efffectively (Kerry's IWR vote) and lost the election. In 2006, the Dems did effectively differentiate on the war (e.g. Jim Webb, Jack Murtha, the ultimately unsuccessful Ned Lamont, anti-war vet candidates, etc.) and won in a landslide. In 2008, Iraq will again be the driving force in the election. If HRC is the nominee, the Dems will not be able to effectively differentiate on the war (a la Kerry) and the result will be put at risk.

3) By contradistinction, a clear and consistent anti-war candidate (most notably Gore) would give historical momentum to our chances and maximize our differentiation on Iraq, as evidenced by the recent CNN poll cited above where Gore did better than Clinton in a heads-up match with Giuliani.

As to your allusion to your predictive capabilities, I have no reason to doubt that. You strike me as a person of rationality, sincerity and that rare quality of intellectual honesty. But I have some recent success with predictions. I predicted mid-range negative consequences for the pro-invasion votes of Democratic presidential contenders. I predicted that if Bush actually invaded Iraq it would destroy his presidency and ignite a much greater level of grassroots terroristic fervor among radical Islamists. I predicted that Kerry would lose. I predicted that the Dems would likely "run the table" in order to gain control of the House and Senate. I predicted that Gore would win at least one Oscar and the Nobel Prize.

History is on the side of the eventual Democratic nominee, due to Iraq. But I predict that the race will be very close if HRC is the nominee due to her lack of differentiation on Iraq and her vulnerabilities in defending her Senate record (part of the historical reason senators lose presidential elections).

Further, I predict that if Gore is the nominee, he will either win handily, or by a landslide. The reasons for this are somewhat simple. Americans are desperate for change, just as they were in 1980 (because of stagflation and the debacle in Iran). Reagan, gave them a simple (albeit false and demagogic) reason to vote for him as a straightforward symbol of change. His message was less government and increased hawkishness in the Cold War (in the wake of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan). The result was a dramatic victory. Gore's message will also be simple: we need to end the war in Iraq ASAP, revitalize our shrinking middle class (viz. single payer healthcare) and dramatic action on climate change. In the wake of Katrina, his movie, unprecedented fires in the west and hurricane activity and drought in the east, Americans are rapidly moving in that direction.

Gore is a very attractive candidate not only because he represents change on Iraq and the middle class, but because he alone brings a message of morality that could save our only planet!! That is why Gore is clearly the most pragmatic and moral choice, in my view.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

119. Thank you for the thoughtful reply.

Your comments about Gore are appreciated. To be specific, I should have said "any other democrat IN THE RACE."

If Gore enters the race my only question will be his electoral prospects. And if he still looks like a winner as an announced candidate I will jump on the Gore bandwagon.

All things being equal, I would definitely prefer him to Hillary.

For most of this year I wanted nothing more than a Gore entry. Then I concluded it was not going to happen.

[Tom Rinaldo]

29. Opposition is real but not as intense or pervasive as this board tends to convey

And I am not saying that your opposition to Hillary Clinton isn't both real and intense, and I am not saying that you are irrational in your feelings either. I am saying that while you represent many people other than yourself, that there is something about the dymanics of who gets drawn to a political message board like this one and why, that results in a disproportionatly high degree of very passionate people participating on it, as well as a higher than normal percentage of people prone to buck the machine, whatever that machine may be. Not reflexively in a knee jerk kind of way, but there is an inclination in many of us in that direction.

Netroots activists will increasingly be the subject of sociological profiles I have no doubt. We are not randomly drawn from the population, not even the population of Democrats. One thing I can say from personal observation at the Yearly Kos convention is that we are overwhelmingly white as a group - though obviously there are many exceptions to that it holds as a generality. But I bet there are personality types that are over represented in the type people who will spend a dozen hours or more online each week.

So I am not sure how all this fits with feelings toward Hillary - other than to say that Hillary Clinton is statistically much more enthusiastically embraced by minority Democrats than by whites. But when I interact with people who are Demcocrats who are not either keyed into netroots or street activist circles, they tend to either like Hillary a little, like her a lot, or don't have strong feelings about her either way though they may feel better about one or more other Democrats.

The degree of dislike of her by many Republicans can be a real problem if it energizes their base. The degree of dislike of her by many activists could be a real problem if that part of our activist base can't swallow hard and get on with working for Clinton if she becomes our nominee. But there are a lot of people out there also who associate Hillary with the first Clinton Administration - who unlike many leftists at DU have very positive feelings about the first Clinton Administration. That acutally will be a positive motivator for some of those people to work hard for Hillary.

And there are some people who look at Hillary and think she is one smart lady who covers every base and leaves nothing to chance AND THINK THAT IS A GOOD THING even if someone like me gets turned off by a certain constant calculating style.

[PurityOfEssence]

57. Even if it's considerably less, it could still be insurmountable

Thanks for yet another well reasoned post. I still don't think the severity of the problem is as obvious as it should be.

I'm just saying that the depth and breadth of it is much greater than many would like to acknowledge. Perhaps I'm simply misreading much of the chatter from the polls, the media and my interaction with a pretty broad range of people, but I can't be TOO far off.

Another thing I didn't really dwell upon is the soft support issue. The Deanies and the Clark supporters in the last election were giddy with enthusiasm; they were on a mission and they had a fervor that was heartening for its positiveness even if one didn't like the candidate in question or the particular tactics at hand. I don't get that here. I don't get that at all. The terms "businesslike" and "efficient" keep cropping up, but there's a coldness about this that doesn't breed the kind of tsunami of support that a candidacy needs when it has to overcome such obstacles. Where's the zeal?

There are many foot soldiers of the party who simply aren't going to have their hearts in it. I'll be one of them, and that's not a threat or bit of pissyness, I just won't storm the parapets the way I would for a few of the other candidates, especially Edwards.

Should she be nominated, the best thing she has going for her is the lackluster line-up of mugs the Republicans seem to be fielding. Talk about a bunch of stiffs; they're B-actors if there ever were any.

As for covering every base, I don't think she has. Or perhaps it's like this: she's tried to be all things to all people and has said and done so many extremely contradictory things that the phalanx of sky caps behind her with all of that baggage are liable to trample her in lock-step.

Many of her advocates do what many advocates tend to do: highlight the positive and minimize, deny or obscure the negative. One of the many elephants in the room when discussing her is her husband. Sure, many people have misty-eyed memories of his presidency, but they also have the lies and accommodation of the right stuck in their craws. She has to stand up and take the heat for both her own many direct bits of deception and misrepresentation AND her husband's. That's a lot of ammunition to duck, and fabulous dancer that she is, that gets old. Krauthammer's a dick, but I laughed out loud when he called her "The Great Navigator". Talk about being damned by faint praise, that's a backhanded swipe that's hard to dodge.

In the end, if the Republicans can't dig up a more plausible candidate or one of the top ones can't get past some of his impediments, the sheer lack of an alternative gives her a shot. If so, it would be EXTREMELY sad to have missed an opportunity to get a real progressive (or dare I say, LIBERAL) in the office to take care of the damage done recently by the current junta, and should her stodgy and "safe" corporate actions trudge on as usual as we have major economic woes or international idiocy, it could all come down on the party's head and usher in another "new" era of selfishness and more Republican control.

Regardless, the point I'm making is this: it's extremely illogical to simultaneously state emphatically that she doesn't really have that much opposition while admitting surprise and outright shock at there being so much opposition. "There simply CAN'T be as much enmity as I see everywhere!" "I can't believe what I'm hearing but I know for a fact it isn't there!" "They're all so mean, but there's hardly any opposition!"

If they have all the answers, then they shouldn't be encountering things that don't fit. To claim infallibility while simultaneously railing at the wildly unexpected is...um...contradictory.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

60. Is Your Argument That There Is No Universe Outside DU Or Outside The Universe You Reside In?

I live in Seminole County, Florida...I don't believe there is one elected Democratic official...Should I believe there are no elected Democratic officials in America?

Respectfully, you remind me of the woman on the Upper East Side Of Manhattan that was flummoxed by Richard Nixon's landslide victory in 1972 because she never met anybody who voted for Richard Nixon..

Go to any medium to larger size city, Orlando, Boston, Miami, West Palm Beach, Chicago, Newark, Cleveland etcetera and ask garden variety working class folks if they will vote for Hillary Clinton... I suspect the results would surprise you..

The problem with some folks is they only talk to folks who think like them, get their own views shouted back at them, and consequently think everybody thinks like them...

And you suggest DU is emblematic of the Democratic party...DU is to the Democratic Party what the Outlaws are to motorcycle riders... Why do you think the most popular candidates here in 04-Kucinich, Dean, and General Clark fared so poorly in the Democratic primaries...Their success at DU was negatively related to their success in the Democratic primaries...The more popular they were here the less popular they were with Democratic primary voters...

It is what it is...

[PurityOfEssence]

74. Not at all

First off, I disagree strongly with your assessment of the '04 support on this board. I'd say it was more Kerry, Dean, Clark, and I was constantly in the thick of things.

Kerry had strong support throughout, Dean had very vocal and exuberant support early on and petering out as the primaries got under way. Clark had a very vocal and energetic bunch of supporters and often won the straw polls, but Kerry was consistently at the very top.

His supporters were enduring much of the same dynamic that Senator Clinton's are now, but with nowhere near the ferocity.

Although I live in a pretty liberal area, I interact with lots of different people from all sorts of professions and have quite a few conservative colleagues and associates. Admittedly, I'm quite forceful and biased with my opinions, but I'm a true fan of reality and honesty, and am a dedicated audience member. I've NEVER heard such animosity toward a front-runner in this party. Not even close. Most of these people will probably slog dutifully in and ink-a-blot the card, but they're not going to be out there winning people over, and quite a few are having a hard time with the concept of even voting at all.

My world is hardly insular, so I'm not just whistlin' dixie here.

While my research skills are much better with age, I also find myself trusting my instincts more with time, and they're serving me quite well. At the moment, they're red-lining on this one, and it's extremely frustrating.

Life is won or lost in the margins, and there are some absolutely deadly dynamics with her candidacy: soft support from the party-line voters, extreme dislike from the left, rabid dislike from the right and not that much awe-inspiring enthusiasm from even her biggest advocates.

The Deanies LOVED him in '03; they were on fire. There was even a lot of comfy warmth exuded from a lot of the Kerry backers here then, even if the tenor of that campaign was one more of respect and solidity than rock-star adulation. Nothing like any of that is evident with the Clinton support. There's some vengeance glee at the prospect of rubbing the right's nose in a return of the Clintons, and there's some genuine joy at the prospect of a female president, but I don't get very much exuberance for the policies. Dean had that.

I think this is all being underestimated, and it's a big deal.

[JNelson6563]

111. Bravo!

This, along with all your other posts in this thread--including the OP--are well done as usual POE.

:toast:

Julie

[Larynx Oblation]

31. It's Billary Not Hillary

I have always had a problem with the Clinton's. I considered Willy to be a Republic-rat and his so called bitter half as a Goldwater opportunist riding his pant leg into the White Houwzen.
I also am convinced that she and Janet Reno collaborated on the murder of innocent men, women, and children at Waco, Texas.
Don't even get me started on Willy's hand in the Iraq embargo that murdered (painfully) some 500-thousand children because they could not receive the proper med's for their ailments.
And Saddam Albright when questioned of it said "we think the price is worth it."

Bu$h, Clinton, Bu$h, Clinton=genocide, and the death of all dreams.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

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

[Larynx Oblation]

37. Bring On Your Sophistry

Which one in the pix is you?
"You won't last long here?" (I take that as a threat) "GOP talking points?"
Oh, you mean the reality I have gathered from reading John Pilger, and other GOP disseminators such as he. LOL

[niceypoo]

41. GOP disseminators?

Oh brother...

[Larynx Oblation]

46. This Is The Pilot Speaking...

the satire will be flying 10-thousand feet above your head. Enjoy your flight, and please fasten your seat-belt.

[niceypoo]

32. It's the useless FLAME BAIT posts like this one people are tired of

And I have never heard anyone state that her detractors were, "defective," as you say, so I'm not sure where you came up with that one. One thing I will say is that the endless vitriol thrown at her is dragging down overall tone at the DU.

I imagine that the lurking freepers (see post #31) here find endless hours of joy watching the circular firing squad with their anti-Clinton antics, and that more than a few join in the attacks knowing fully well that they can say whatever they want about her with no recourse. The whole debacle is making me sympathetic towards her, I might add.

I do suspect that the DU admins will put a stop to the whole Hillary hating movement, if she does win the nomination, and begin warning or banning those who engage in same.

It will be interesting to see how the Hillary haters react to the prospect of someone WORSE than Bush (Gulianni) looming on the horizon. I have the feeling more than a few will swallow their pride.

[PurityOfEssence]

81. There have been numerous posts of that sort

Those who oppose Senator Clinton are constantly tarred as "Clinton Haters", and the varying combinations of "freeperish misogynists" have bandied about endlessly.

Much derision has been leveled at those who don't like her or oppose her candidacy. Repeatedly, the term "socialist" has been used as a sneering dismissal along with the others. Yes, although the term "defective" hasn't been used as far as I've seen, the offhanded dismissal of people who DARE to dislike her or her actions as "freepers" or "misogynists" or "woman haters" are VERY COMMON. This marginalization is used regularly and with aplomb. Those who use it feel justified because of the abuse they and their candidate have either suffered or witnessed.

The concept of the justified backlash of the downtrodden is a tiresome one, and it's an inherently human failing, so railing against it too much is a waste of time. It does, however, never cease to amaze me how people hypocritically grant themselves the right to use truly ugly vitriol against one person as retaliation for the acts of another.

To those who oppose an immensely powerful group of people, being crushed underfoot and simultaneously labeled as some unspeakable cur is tantamount to being characterized by the orthodoxy as defective. Don't like Hillary? You obviously hate women. Well, that's a nice thing to say to a lefty, now isn't it? Who started it? To the Hillary supporter, the ingrate who dared point out something questionable about her started it and thus deserves to endure what is an extreme insult for a leftist. To the Hillary opponent, they were responding to the triumphal demands for conformity by uttering the unspeakable questioning of the nominee-presumptive. Who started it? It depends on how you look at it.

Some very mean and childish things have been said about her, and some very nasty things have been said in return, but I'll still stand by the statement as I originally made it: many of her supporters dismiss those who would question her worthiness of the office as defectives. It's been done many times. Hell, to many of us, being called a mere generalized "defective" is not as much of an insult to our core beliefs than being called a "freeper".

Beyond all this, it's simple math: she has more supporters (or close to it, even on this board) and she's way ahead in the polls. This causes more triumphal ridiculing from the "winners" and it draws more fire.

As a group, I don't think the Clinton supporters have been that horribly put-upon, and I don't think they've been particularly magnanimous and pleasant. That's a VERY broad characterization and is meant as a sweeping overview, but I still stand by it. All-in-all, they haven't been exceedingly horrible either, but that's not the point I was trying to make.

The point I was trying to make is to show the mind-boggling disconnect of shrieking about the volume and intensity of endless opposition while saying there really isn't that much of it. It's not a question of fairness, it's a question of basic perception: if one is firmly convinced that opposition to her doesn't exist to such a degree that it would jeopardize her electability, how can one be amazed at the incredible level of outcry? To do that, the person is saying that his/her observations are accurate, yet he/she is seeing something that can't possibly exist.

Don't make no sense.

Her opponents aren't "faking it", and I don't really think that it's just incredibly out of proportion here. It's real. The question is is it surmountable?

[JNelson6563]

114. "Flamebait"??

You call that civil, well-reasoned OP "flamebait"?? That is an outrageous thing to say. I've seen plenty of posts in regard to all the candidates that are total flamebait, this OP isn't one of them by any stretching of the term.

Your remark was completely uncalled for.

Julie

[AdHocSolver]

35. Clinton was the target of incessant vituperative attacks from the right for years, since 1992.

As unfair as it was, it created a mind-set in many people - many people who vote - that she is not to be trusted. Actually, Hillary was demonized, as was Bill. While many voters, at least among Democrats, can overcome this conditioning, many others will not be able to do so. The most important quality that voters require to vote for a candidate is that they can be trusted. Hillary already has a strike against her in this qualification.

The 2008 election for president will not be won by a Democrat who cannot get a significant number of independent and moderate Republican votes. This is because you can be assured that the Republicans will be out to steal votes and suppress minority votes as they did in 2000 and 2004. There is still a problem with voting machines in many parts of the country. The Democratic candidate needs a significant majority of votes to overcome this serious problem. If Hillary Clinton is the Democratic candidate, she will not get enough extra votes to avoid another election theft.

In 2004, Kerry was the "electable" candidate running essentially an "anyone can beat Bush" campaign. He ignored "red" states because he assumed he could win without them. I pointed this out in 2004 to Democratic acquaintences and they all reassured me that we can win without Republican help. That mentality got us four more years of Bush.

Clinton comes across with the same supercilious attitude that Kerry had. I was told that Kerry is so much nicer in person than on TV. I have heard the same comment about Hillary. Sorry, folks. That doesn't get you votes. The image most people have of her - that most voters have of her - is the image obtained from the right wing media since 1992. It may be unfair, but it exists, nonetheless.

This country cannot afford another Republican presidency of the Bush/Cheney ilk. This country is in decline and heading further in the wrong direction, and no Republican candidate has the will or ambition to change it. I am not willing to risk our country on the premise that I may be wrong about Hillary Clinton.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

38. The Right Wing Hated Bill Clinton So Much They Made Him Into The Third Most Popular President In

The History Of The Republic:



Who would have thought it? Some two years after he left office hounded by right-wing detractors and stained by his affair with Monica Lewinsky, Bill Clinton now ranks as this nation's third best chief executive, according to a recent CNN/USA TODAY/Gallup Poll.
Only Abraham Lincoln (chosen by 15%) and John F. Kennedy (13%) finished ahead of Clinton (11%) in the April poll, which asked Americans who was "the greatest" president. George W. Bush managed to tie Clinton for third place.


http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/2003-05-26-wickham_x.htm

And the right wing hated him so much that's he now as popular as Bush* is unpopular:


At this point, however, the former president is seen in favorable terms. Two-thirds of Americans said they approve of the job he did while he was in office -- virtually the reverse of President Bush's current approval rating, which stands at 33 percent. Clinton remains overwhelmingly popular among Democrats, and 63 percent of independents and even a third of Republicans also gave him positive marks.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/03/AR2007100302036.html?hpid=topnews


Hill's not Bill but she's a disciplined campaigner with a iron and focus like a laser beam that will not be deterred from her goal. My money is on her...

[ginchinchili]

47. I enjoyed your post. I agree with you. She's anathema to a big chunk of folks.

Personally, I think she's doing a good job as a New York senator: they seem to like her. However, it feels like she used New York. She should have had a driving desire to represent the people of New York in our great Senate. But I think it was more a personal driving ambition to become president and to use her senate seat as a stepping stone. Even her desire to be president seems to be more about herself and less about a passion to help our country in the countless ways it currently needs help. I'm trying not to let this campaign make me dislike her, but it's getting harder all the time and I don't want her to win the primary. I think that would be a major mistake for several reasons.

[sufrommich]

87. Well,at least you managed to stop short of calling her "uppity".

So which candidate is running without "a personal driving ambition to become president"? I'll make a prediction,should Clinton get the nomination,this argument that her ambition to become the president of the U.S. is "unseemly" or that her desire to go beyond being a senator "seems" to be more about herself, it will backfire. People will recognize the bald faced double standard for what it is.

[Mojorabbit]

62. It is still too early

If this administration finds a way to start problems in Iran, her vote will come back to haunt her whether that is fair or not. A lot can happen between now and the primaries. Her standing as frontrunner can be a dangerous position to be in. All it would take would be a few flubs that the press would be magnifying and the whole rankings in popularity could change. I still have no idea who I will support in the primaries though I have sent donations to several candidates.

[AtomicKitten]

79. I think electability is something that is being dismissed too carelessly.

Her candidacy could prove to be a real sticky wicket in the GE.

There is so much venom fueled by all kinds of material, genuine and imaginary alike, on both sides of the aisle, I predict if she wins the nod that all hell will break loose and it won't be pretty.

[saracat]

80. Fabulous post. I completely agree. The level of opposition is MUCH

deeper than some wish to acknowledge. I believe the Zogby Poll is spot on and it scares the you know what out of me. Hillary is just NOT a good GE candidate. Say what you will, not even discussing her many policy negatives, people just do not like her and she carries a lot of baggage. Many on DU dismiss what is being said on the other side of the aisle, like the GOP is just not going to vote.Well, she will motivate them like no candidate before. They will go to the polls to vote against her. And no matter what anyone wants to say, those Repukes vote and Dems don't.They just don't. Why we want to nominate our least electable candidate is beyond me.It really is and I know a great many Dems who don't get it either.And we aren't buying the spin.HRC is not "our girl" because we want to win.

[Perry Logan]

82. What a loser's argument. "If Hillary runs, the big bad Republicans will get mad and kick our asses!"

We're never going to beat anybody if we don't show a little spunk.

The anti-Hillary folks must be scared shitless of Republicans, to mount such a defeatist argument. In my mind, a candidate who doesn't energize the other side is a lousy candidate.

[ginchinchili]

83. That's not quite the argument.

It's a bit more complicated than that, but you know that. And it's not just Republicans we have to worry about. There are a lot of Independents and Democrats who don't like her as well.

[MethuenProgressive]

85. That's *exactly* the arguement made by many DUers.

"It'll be too hard!" is the mantra they've been conditioned to parrot.

[Carrieyazel]

97. No it isn't. The argument is: Nominate someone who WILL win.

You have to look at the reality of a national election. Too many Repukes and Indeps vote in these general elections. If you have a polarizer like Hillary who is viscerally disliked by non-Democrats and also disliked by a number of Dems, you have a recipe for sure defeat. Her base of establishment Dems isn't enough. It isn't "it'll be too hard". Hillary will not win period. Nominate someone else, though, and we will be energized and confident of victory.

[MethuenProgressive]

84. "It's not just some blatherings of the few" No, actually, it is.

The relatively few here who blather endlessly their echos of blogossip about Sen. Clinton are not representative of the general Democratic population. Polling proves that. The real voters don't care at all about Hillary's cat.

[wyldwolf]

86. PurityOfEssence, every poll except a certain online one differs with you

:shrug:

Now, I know you haven't made thousands of calls, sorted through data, and arrived at your conclusions. So the only other explanation for your post is severe denial.

[saltpoint]

88. Some voters cast support in primaries in a different context than they

vote in general elections, partly because of the nature and intensity of primary campaigns and partly because they don't have any choice.

Primary voters after the first week or so of February 08 won't have the same milieu (or choices) as primary voters in Iowa and New Hampshire, or the "super Tuesday" primary states. It's unfair and even absurd but that's how it stands until it's changed.

The level of opposition is a gauge running one way versus the degree of acceptability running the other. As an early state primary voter, the level of enthusiasm for Edwards or Obama or Biden for example might be extraordinarily high. If one's preferred candidate is eliminated from contention, then the degree of acceptability falls naturally but remains preferable toward the party's eventual nominee because there are still affirming attributions to our ticket versus the red team's ticket.

If I strongly prefer Edwards to Clinton in the primaries, I nevertheless would prefer her judicial picks to Rudy Giuliani's or Mitt Romney's, and would support her, if she wins nomination, in the general.

I do not believe Senator Clinton is the ogre her detractors paint her to be. But the primary milieu encourages specificity of one's Democratic wish-list.

[sniffa]

91. deLusion knows no party

but i'm sure there's a bunch of poLLs about to be posted in this thread. :eyes:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

94. What Would You Prefer People Proffer As Evidence

Without evidence you get arguments like "Billy Bob is gooder than Jethro because he's better"

[DemocratSinceBirth]

103. Not only that, as her lead has grown, she is also seen as the most electable Democrat—

Not only that, as her lead has grown, she is also seen as the most electable Democrat—50% of Democratic voters say Clinton is Very Likely to win it all if she is nominated. Another 31% say she is Somewhat Likely to win. No other candidate, in either party, comes close to those numbers.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php

[ChiciB1]

110. I Completely Agree With You... Friends Of Mine Don't Just Dislike Her...

they don't even want to SEE her! I'm printing up lots and lots of "issues of Hillary" and putting up a sign in my yard for anyone who wants the information to ring my bell and I'll give them a copy!

Sorry, she has turned off a LOT of people, and I was ONCE a supporter of hers!

[JNelson6563]

115. My real world experiences fit your OP

I do not understand those who are unwilling to see this issue clearly. In my travels I have asked lots of people for their views on the whole primary thing. I talk to many of my fellow activists across my 14 county Congressional district and several neighboring counties not in the district. I don't know of any who are Hillary supporters except for one.

I also talk to people who don't know or care much about politics. There are many names we DUers know quite well that many non-political types have never heard of. The one thing all these people I have talked to have in common is their negative reaction to the mention of Hillary Clinton. I find this quite troubling.

I have mentioned this several times here on DU and am generally told I don't get out enough or that my experience is not representative of the full picture or whatever. While the choice of words differ it always boils down to the fact that my concerns are dismissed out of hand, as if doing that magically negates the problem.

Julie

[never cry wolf]

117. Not wrong at all... Hillary may as well be named polaitry

I am convinced the MSM and RW nuts crave a hillary nomination, she is pre-swiftboated and half the country will not vote for her