Hillary in 2008? Polls show her beating almost everyone

[CRYINGWOLFOWITZ]

How does Hillary do against conservatives?

Hillary: 50/46/46
Jeb: 47/37/35
(three polls)

Hillary: 51
Rice: 43

Hillary: 40
Frist: 33

Hillary: 41
Pataki: 35

How about liberals who have no chance of winning their party's nomination?

Giulani: 44
Hillary: 43

McCain: 43
Hillary: 41

If Hillary wins the popular vote by 5-10%, she wins the election hands down, and takes MANY red states with her.

The problem with 2004 was the the dems didn't have anyone that they really were passionate about. Kerry wasn't polarizing that thus didn't have as many enemies. Bush was polarizing and had many, and we saw how that turned out. With polarization comes enemies, but also die hard friends. Bush is very polarizing, so was Bill Clinton.

While it is too early and I am not telling anyone which way to vote, an unknown presidential nominee, unless they have Bill Clinton's abilities, have great problems getting their name out and winning over passionate supporters. Hillary is polarizing, but well known, and a "rock star" as they say. With this comes enimies, but if her name recognition gives her a 5-10% lead in the popular vote, all the enimies she has will matter for not.

[Radical Activist]

1. Those polls are a result of name recognition.

That won't mean anything in November of '08. Polls this early are useless.

One reason Bush was polarizing is that he was seen as someone with conviction who held to his beliefs. People never had that feeling about Kerry and they aren't going to think that about Hillary either.

[CRYINGWOLFOWITZ]

17. I remember saying the same thing in 2003

Kerry, Dean, Edwards, they don't have name recognition, Bush does so this is to be expected. That may have actually been correct, but Kerry was never able to overcome Bush's recongition. If you start with an advantange (like Hillary now) you are going to be harder to overcome in the long run. Run someone with ever advantage today, not a candidate who we hope will overcome these issues.

[Radical Activist]

21. Are you suggesting there were voters who didn't' know who Kerry was?

Name recognition in a Presidential race is not a problem in the general election. What is a problem is allowing the Republicans to define our candidate, and the Republicans have spent over a decade defining Hillary in a negative way to the public. That's a bigger disadvantage than someone the public has never heard of.

[CRYINGWOLFOWITZ]

23. people did not know kerry from the beginning

and and thus were not PASSIONATE about him. it is silly question to ask if people didn't know who kerry was. People knew who Bush was from 1997/1998 and people were passionate about him. Regardless of the cause, people were not passionate about Kerry and are about Hillary.

[blm]

31. Except for the few who understood Kerry's decades of historic achievement

and especially the fact that he investigated and exposed more government corruption than any lawmaker in modern history.

We happen to be a VERY PASSIONATE bunch. Thanks for ignoring us and history.

[blm]

28. Most voters STILL don't know much about Kerry. The media wouldn't let them

know anything more about him. The media gave the Swift liars more time than they gave Kerry's spokespeople.

Hell, most Democratic voters didn't know it was Kerry who uncovered IranContra and BCCI. Most would even say, "IranContra sounds familiar, but....What's BCCI?"

[Radical Activist]

56. True, people knew the Republican version of Kerry.

Even though Kerry had a lot of name recognition. We have a similar problem with Hillary. Everyone knows who she is but the Republicans have spent years defining her to the public in negative ways. They've already beaten Hillary.

[blm]

63. Kerry did NOT have any name recognition. He was always treated as

a senator of NO record in the Senate by the GOP controlled broadcast media.

They deliberateley kept his true record from being discussed.

Most people here on DU, even, had little knowledge of Kerry's work because they used the mainstream media as a source for their news. A mainstream media under GOP control.

[Radical Activist]

77. You're not talking about name recognition.

Name recognition is nothing more than knowing the guys name. You're talking about people not knowing his record. Even the people who were mislead about his record knew Kerry's name, so yes he did have name recognition among those people. Likewise, even those who have been mislead about Hillary recognize her name.

[Misunderestimator]

71. Interesting... I volunteered at the polls on election day, and one of the

other volunteers (she was a teenager, but still) thought the Dem nominee's name was "Kerry Edwards" :shrug:

[wyldwolf]

30. of course. What's your point?

People recognize the name "clinton." Obviously they have a good impression of the name despite the RW smear machine.

[Radical Activist]

54. My point was stated and fairly obvious.

That polls this early are meaningless.
What Democrat has higher negative ratings the Hillary? They are few and far inbetween.

[Quixote1818]

83. Unfortunately name recognition can win elections

Look at Arnold in California. Do you really think he won based on experience his qualifications? As a Wes Clark fan, I realize Hillary will be very hard to beat in 2008. How she runs in the general election will depend on who she is up against but I would give her the nod at winning it all right now.

[tedoll78]

2. I typed this last night..

Barring some bizarre change in the political landscape, I don't see Hillary losing her media-bestowed "aura of inevitability" when it comes to our party's nomination.

If the economy heads south between now and 2008 (and there's too much that can go wrong.. deficits, debt, oil supply/demand, etc).. our nominee will have much greater chances than in 2004.

[CRYINGWOLFOWITZ]

18. our candidate is already going to have a better chance than 2004

2002/04 were both 911 elections. The democrats outright won two of the prior 3 elections and probably won the 3rd (picked up senate, house, governor seats and won the popular vote, probably FL also). 911 caused 2004. It wont be as much of an issue even in 2006, as can be seen by the absolute inability for the reps to corner the dems again. I don't remember public corruption charges against Delay or the reps making an ass out of themselves over a brain damaged woman in 2002. Bush will be a lame duck the attention as early as 2006 will turn away from bush and the prior 6 years and towards 2008.

[iconoclastNYC]

64. Bush will campaign hard for the canidate

So don't count him out. He will have a huge impact on the next presidential election.

[autorank]

3. Think of every year until 2007 as dog years - 7 to 1. Who knows by then.

I like the post and it's good news that someone who supposedly pisses people off is spanking the opposition. But, we've got a long way to to so I'll take this as good news and see who else emerges. If Clark comes on strong, he'll beat her in the primaries, I suspect. But again, it could be someone we're not even thinking about. In my fantasy 2008 version, Durbin emerges and wins in a landslide. Oh well...

[CRYINGWOLFOWITZ]

19. Clark and Durbin

Don't have any name recognition. The chances that either of them could beat a former first lady is zero.

[autorank]

24. Oh really.

That's total bullshit. Clark had a huge percentage when he entered the raise without any name recognition at all, simply because he was a Democrat and a General. People don't vote on name recognition, they're more likely to consider someone that they know. What do you think, that the election will be held with people having the same name recognition as they do today. It's a long time. And another point, once the heat of a campaign starts, people really start deciding based on how the candidates behaves. Hillary is a public droid, same old, same old every time. Remember, she's never run anything in her life, nothing. Want someone with that background running the country. Change her name to Hillary Smith, D, Sen, NY and ask yourself who'd consider her for President based on what she's done so far in the Senate and her previous stab at government, a failed health program that was blown out her ass by incompetence.

How about focusing on preventing election fraud in 2006 and pushing for the strongest, best funded Democrats we've ever had. It may be our last chance.

[CRYINGWOLFOWITZ]

36. absolutely name recongition matters

Do you think Bush would even have been nominated for anything had his last name not been Bush?

As for being a "droid" you cannot tell that when you go to her rallys. They love her.

Also she has what matters, and what clinton had, political skill. She is an expert in damage control and crisis management (something Kerry was not).

[autorank]

50. It matters, yes; it will change by the primaries; it's not everything.

Otherwise, why didn't Neal Bush, Billy Carter, and Nixon's brother get elected to anything? My point was that it will not be static, things will change. Look at Dean, from Gov of Vermont to national force with no name recognition. Bush would not be President is his name were Schmertz, in fact, as we both know, he'd probably have never gotten a job were he not a Bush. The name stands for something, in Bush's case tax cuts and mindless religiosity. Just as Clinton stands for something (great!) but it's just starting. Wait and see what happens as things progress. Besides, she's nothing more than a bit to the left of Ben Nelson at this point. I do not want her as my nominee with that voting record.

[dsc]

68. He did that against a bunch of other no names

and even with that didn't do all that great. He won one primary as did both Dean and Edwards but his was won with the narrowest margin of the three.

[ThumperDumper]

4. I worry that...

she won't get the votes of anyone who calls themselves conservative, especially men - even swing-votor and independant party men.

However, nobody - I mean NOBODY scares Republicans like Hillary. The prospect of her winning could cause them to do some very stupid things. Panic meltdown.

[CRYINGWOLFOWITZ]

25. neither did kerry

Or Gore, and neither were very polarizing. The point isn't finding someone we think conservative will like, but rather someone who can decively win the popular vote. If they do that, it wont matter how many conservatives do or don't vote. Clinton won twice not because conservatives voted for him, but rather because they didn't vote at all.

Yes the reps despise hillary at least as much as they did clinton. Hillary isn't subject to the 22nd amendment yet, bill is. The great thing is that if hillary is elected president, the day after the election a 50 year democratic majority will emerge over night, since every republican in the country will commit suicide.

[iconoclastNYC]

65. How many conservatives did Clinton score?

Why on earth do people think that democrats need to win over conservatives. We have to win over independents and moderates NOT conservatives. And we wouldn't even need to do that if we'd run a true populist campaign like Dean did, which brings the politicaly apathetic back into the democratic fold.

Chasing after conservatives has lead us into the ditch.

[JNelson6563]

5. Dream on

Yeah, her enemies won't matter. Like Bill's didn't matter. Uh huh.

So how was life in the cave during Clinton's administrations?

Then there's the whole matter of those in the Dem base she has alienated. I still clearly recall how physically ill I felt watching her capitulate on the Senate floor when it came to IWR. Guess what. I still think "sell out" when I think "Hillary". More bd news, I ain't alone.

When will DUers quit trying to shove DLCers down our throats?

Julie

[CRYINGWOLFOWITZ]

26. COME ON CLINTON? DINO???

Don't tell me that the clintons are not real democrats. COME ON.

No clinton's enemies never did what they wanted. They threw EVERYTHING at him and yet he finished two terms and went out with 67% approval. Every politician has enemies. Not every politican has friends. Hillary has, as I said, many die hard enemies (like Bush and Bill) but at least an equal number of die hard friends. Kerry's problem was that people were never passionate about him. If Hillary runs, every democrat will feel as though they are living in the 1990s all over again. Nostalgia will run throughout the party. Don't tell me you don't get awestruck when you think about the 1990s and only the second democratic president in 30 years.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

38. NAFTA, GATT, WTO, 96telcomm, welfare deform, iraq war vote,bankruptcy bill

defense of marriage act, patriot act, mfn for china...the lsit goes on

alll horrid unjustifiable rw stuff the clintons have supported over the years in order to advance their self-serving yuppie selves with their corporate paymasters

[Dude_CalmDown]

60. If she's a Dem then I'm not.

You couldn't pay me to vote for her. Kerry was the last fake Dem I will ever vote for.

[Lone Pawn]

74. I don't think you understand what a "Democrat" is then.

I believe you're actually thinking about what a real Green party member would be. Kerry and Hilly ARE Democrats.

[JNelson6563]

66. Don't put words in my mouth

I said she was a sell-out. She's capitulated too much to Team Bush. And Bill's enemies did a great deal of harm to him. He was hog-tied when it came to going after bin Laden and you know it. They spent $150 million to nail him on something (anything!) and they managed to keep Clinto scandals in the news 24/7. Your outrageous statement that Hillary's enemies can do her no harm was absurd.

And you're counting on "nostalgia" to win the day??? That's as stupid as hoping hatred for an opponent will make you a victor (remember the Kerry campaign plan??)

Face the facts, the days of right-leaning DLC is over. Way over. Dems are sick of being sold out again and again.

Welcome to the new world. :hi:

Julie

[Individualist]

69. Good post, Julie

Hillary is the reich wing's dream nominee. Not only are many dems disgusted with her move to the right, there would be no crossover vote from repugs, who have demonized her for years.

[haypops]

6. Doesn't look that good to me

McCain a liberal? How so? I think its so unfair that Hillary is so disliked, but the Republican machine has been at it so long.

[still_one]

11. you are right about that one, mccain is no liberal

and the more you see of him the more you realize that he is a spinless ass who stands for nothing

anyone who allows his wife and family to be lied about in the 2000 repuke primary, and then supports the man who attacked his wife and family, is no man

[Inspired]

13. Right on!

You nailed this one. McCain sold his soul to the devil. I personally will do everything I can to keep the devil's spawn from running this country. Spineless ass indeed.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

39. GOP would have no problem backing mccain or giuliani

they're enough of neocons on foriegn affirs to make the party elite happy. they'll send the word out through FAUX, hannity, and the GOP propaganda machine and the base will fall in line

remember it's not the conservative form of 'christianity" thes epoele believe in. their religion is republicanism above all else.

they'll have no prob justifying any hypocrisy a mccain or giuliani candidacy makes them appear to have. just look at rush, o'reilly, bennett, and the others who get out of jail free with this folks

[davidinalameda]

16. Hillary has no one to blame but herself

she has tried to move to the center-right lately with her comments on abortion, her vote on Iraq, etc

[CRYINGWOLFOWITZ]

27. mccain is a moderate RINO

Go to freerville and type in MCCAIN 2008 and see how passionate they are for the guy who almost beat bush in the primaries.

[CRYINGWOLFOWITZ]

37. Kerry wasn't as disliked

And still lost. How much you are despised doesn't matter in an election, just ask Clinton or Bush. What matters is how much you are loved.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

44. and a lot of us don't love,hillary, the corporate party-line automaton

so if she's thenominee, the base stays home and isn't excited by empty slogans like 'it takes a village" or trite gimmicks like a "listening tour"

the economy is a wreck. wages are at an all-time low. jobs are disappearing. people want someone who can lead us in reforming the out-of-control corporate joke our economy has become

the guy working two jobs to make ends meet isn't going to get excited by an empty, meaningless campaign

when will this party ever learn? if you want to win back the base, go populist!

hil.lary will be the latest in a string of bad DLC advice, right after, mcaulliffe, kerry, daschle, gore, gephardt, and the rest

[funflower]

7. Just imagine... President Rodham Clinton

It's too good to imagine.

Wish I could believe it could happen.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

45. only good thing is rush would have a coronary on election day

and hannity would be confined to amadhouse, where he would remain in a fetal position

still, as entertaining as that would be, she's a dlc phony and we gain nothing from her. she would only be a placeholder until the next dumbya or ronnie comes along and gives the country yet another 8 years pushing to the right.

we need to push back from the left and she simply doesn't have the guts or the morals to do it. she's a self-serving yuppie

[funflower]

48. She sounds pretty good to me right now....

relatively speaking.

[still_one]

8. its all bs

the repukes will put up either hagel or assholes brother jeb

in reality the government controlled media want hillary to run in 2008, so they can bring up the crap like the swift pukes which have nothing to do with the issues, but sway people

[CRYINGWOLFOWITZ]

29. Hagel is a old time conservative

A Goldwater type. Not the new, deviant, christo-fasicst santorum type.

Jeb said he isn't running. Even if he did (which I so hope) Hillary would crush him (look at my polls).

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

41. he also is a BBV crook

if he's the nominee, he'll "win" by the biggest landslide in electoral history

[bush_is_wacko]

9. Not if the pukes control the machines and NOT if that poll was legitimate!

Please just keep her in NY. the Freepers will lie to confuse the issue for sure. They hate her really!

[billbuckhead]

10. We're losing cause we don't have working class candidates

Workingclass hero Wes Clark would have won the hearts of the American middleclass in a way that Kerry, Gore and Hillary cannot. No matter how much I love Hillary, Al and John, they just don't connect with the middleclass the way Chimpy or Bill Clinton do.

[still_one]

12. i agree, if the dems really want to win, put wes in

I cannot think of another dem right at this time who would stand a chance

I know kerry wants to try again but he had his chance and blew it. During the campaign when he was in the Grand Canyon, and they asked him if he had to do it over again knowing what he knows now, would he still have given * the authority to go into iraq, and he said yes, I knew it was over.

We need someone who wants to win...

[Inspired]

15. Working class hero?

I like Wes Clark...sort of. I hardly know him. And that is HIS fault. The true working class hero is John Edwards....who would be POTUS right now if he were the 2004 nominee.

[Rooktoven]

20. I agree with you 100%.

Bush wouldn't have gotten away with that "I'd rather have a beer with him" crap.

I'd bet a grand (that I don't have right now) that Edwards runs in 2008.

[Inspired]

33. Thank you

I know that I'm not in the majority here with my views on John Edwards so any agreement is a breath of fresh air.

Please visit OneAmericaCommittee.com to see what John Edwards is up to. Sign up for the blog. John, yes we call him John, posts frequently on what he is up to. Right now is cause is poverty, jobs and opportunity.

Will he run in 2008? It depends on Elizabeth's health but I'd bet my retirement fund on it...well what little is left after this miserable economy.

[CRYINGWOLFOWITZ]

34. money money money

I am going to give $2000 (which I have) to Hillary's campaign in 2007 and another 2k in 2008. I would encorage you to donate to whoever is the next nominee like you did to the last.

[Clark2008]

35. No, it's not his fault. It's the media's.

Clark had some fantastic domestic position papers and the media didn't cover them, pigeon-holing him, instead, into a one-trick pony and fawning over your guy, who has tons less experience in what it takes to be president than Clark.
If John Edwards, who's made well over $50,000 a year since he started working, is "working class," then I must be destitute.

[Rooktoven]

73. John Edwards put himself through law school.

That gives him "working class" origins in my book. Let's be realistic. No one currently in the "working class" can afford to run for president.

To be honest I think Clark and the media screwed JRE over. Clark was the media darling when he was putting his toe in the water, and he chiose to make his coming out party the same day as Jophn Edwards. Smart tactical move, but not very friendly in my book.

I think Clark's strength is disproportionately represented here on DU, whilke JRE's is under-represented. If it's a one-on-one Clark versus Edwards in the primaries, JRE wins going away. John Edwards was screwed by lack of media exposure more than ANY other candidate in 2004. It won't happen again, because he'll have at least part of the spotlight this time from having been on the ticket last go-around.

[CRYINGWOLFOWITZ]

32. clark's campaign

Never picked up steam. Did he even win any primaries other than the OK one he just barely won?

[Inspired]

43. Thank God

not everyone here is a Clark supporter. But Edwards only won one too. I guess to me the difference is that Edwards came a very close second in many states, including OK. I admit that I am very biased on the subject of Edwards though.

Clark didn't even campaign in Iowa. Silly strategy if you ask me. It shows a real lack of judgement that I think he even admitted to. Iowa isn't the most important state but jeez, it is the first in the nation and receives tons of media coverage. What is he up to these days? I hardly know anything about this guy except he is military. It will take more than that to sell him to me. Military? It actually makes me shudder :scared: when I know I should be impressed.

I really only want a Dem in the White House. I will support whoever that is. Don't forget though that Kerry was leading Bush in the polls for a very long time, too. The poll results above will be meaningless in early November 2008.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

40. then we go with dick durbin r russ feingold

godd blue collar middle class base sens these guys to washington. they know how to talk to the average joe-not hillary and back-patting shrillness

[NVMojo]

14. just went to the local coffee shop owned by a republican gal who said

it was time for a woman to be president in this country and she didn't care if it was Hilary at this point cuz she was tired of all the "belly-bumping" men running this country into the ground with their egos.

[patricia92243]

22. I'll vote for proven winners - Bill as Pres; Hill as Senator.

[WI_DEM]

42. For the last time McCain is not a Liberal!!

and he could very well win his parties nomination.

[kentuck]

46. I assume you believe the polls ?

I do not . I think polls are used for political manipulaiton, especially this far out from an election...

[Alex146]

47. Pataki for persident?

I'm as sure as I'm sure of anything that he won't even win the govonors race. As president he'd appeal neither to hardline conservatives nor to liberals. He'd lose NY for sure. He'd lose the whole north east and he'd put the south back into play. I seriously think he might be the republican choice for a 50 state sweep- by the democrats. That being said I might be totally wrong. We shall see.

[iconoclastNYC]

67. I agree.

He reeks of 'loser', he's an incumbent governor who is polling way behind the state AG.

No way he'll get enuf early support to get far in the RNC primary.

[LaPera]

49. Exactly what the republicans want to hear...They want Hilary so bad

they cum in their pants just dreaming about it!!

Hillary as the democrat nominee means another four to
eight years of republican presidency...Hillary is NOT Bill Clinton!!

[SoCalDem]

51. Polls showed Gore and kerry winning too ...n/t

:eyes:

[Spider Jerusalem]

52. After the '06 mid-terms is a better time to worry about this.

Right now, it's an irrelevancy. If she doesn't get re-elected to the Senate next year, then I very much doubt she'd be a viable Presidential candidate. Of course, if the GOP's ratings keep drifting downward, come 2008 the Democratic Party could probably run the rotting corpse of Adlai E. Stevenson and still win, thanks to the inevitable backlash.

[wisteria]

53. Excuse me? Who wasn't passionate about Kerry?

I happened to peg him from the beginning as the front runner and I worked "passionately for his election". I would never be able to do that in regards to Hillary. She may have name recognition, but most of it is negative and comes from the Republican side. No matter how much the media and others "attempts to sell Hillary" it won't influence my opinion about her.She is not her husband and I find her void of true passion on most issues. I remember reading somewhere that she was a Young Republican while in college. Actually, I can see her in that role. Look, you have your opinions and I have mine, just don't try to insult my intelligence by presenting poles in her favor and expect that poles are indication enough to sway me to her side and support her. I want a Democratic president in 2008 also, I just don't want or thing it will be her.

[Lone Pawn]

79. Most of his voters.

[LynneSin]

55. Personally I think Guiliani & McCain have a better chance...

...than Rice. Frist is a "who-knows"

[KnowerOfLogic]

57. I will note vote for any dem who supported the war. nt

[Lone Pawn]

75. Have fun enabling Republicans.

I'm sure Rove thanks you for your wise decision.

[AzDar]

58. Polls aren't to be trusted anymore...we are being hornswoggled on this...

SOMEONE is shoving Hillary down our throats because she isn't electable..much like we were steered away from Howard Dean( a strong and threatening candidate) after "the scream". It's a red herring,imho.

[B Calm]

59. Boxer has a better chance than Hillary!

[Lone Pawn]

76. Yes, but only among DUers.

Unless you somehow believe that the way to get moderates and conservatives to vote for us is by demonizing conservatives and ignoring moderates.

[aeolian]

61. It's 2005, for fuck's sake!

[entanglement]

62. Must ...struggle...should'nt touch...Hillary thread...need 10 foot pole

get burnt...AAAAH :evilgrin:

[patcox2]

70. But Hillary is just republican light.

A lifelong commmitted "third path" DLCer. Everything she has done as a senator just connfirms this. Loved her anti-abortion speach. Notice hubby is endorsing "third path" (meaning sellout) Tony Blair.

Why would we want a republican light in office, instead of a democrat?

[Zynx]

72. Actually, Hillary might well just be a Republican

Not officially of course, but look at her background. I don't see any reason to believe she is even a "moderate" liberal.

[Lone Pawn]

78. Rephrase the question.

Why would we want a moderate Democrat in office, instead of a Republican?

[yellozebra]

80. It doesn't matter, Diebold will take care of it anyway.

Without auditable elections, we'll have repugs in power 'til judgment day. They will run Bubbles The Chimp this time, and we'll lose again.

[Swamp Rat]

81. Propaganda

Wanna buy the Mississippi River Bridge? :D

[aeolian]

82. ...sigh...

ok, let me say this in a bigger, redder font:

*ahem*

It's 2005, for fuck's sake!

Thank you.

[beyurslf]

84. I agree with the polarizing statement. For every person who hates her

there are one or two who love her. And they are the ones who will work hours and hours and hours for free to help her win. Most people who hate her will only go out and vote against her. Hate isn't enough to get them working for her opponent.... they will have to like that person too.