Hillary's negatives a problem?
August 14th 2007 08:56
By most accounts, Hillary Clinton is the odds-on favorite to win the Democratic primary next year. That could spell trouble for the Democrats, however, in the general primary. According to a recent AP article, many Democratic insiders are plenty concerned about the impact Hillary would have in November:
Things do look bleak for the Republicans next November. They were trounced in 2006 and they haven't exactly done anything to redeem themselves since then. And the most popular choice among the current lineup of candidates for the Republican nomination seems to be "none of the above". Conservative voters aren't exactly feeling "inspired" right now. However, Hillary Clinton could definitely change that.
Conservatives obviously aren't fond of the Clintons (Hill or Bill). As a result, there will be plenty of "broken glass" Republicans hitting the voting booths in 2008 if Hillary gets the Democratic nomination. What's a "broken glass" Republican"?
So nominating Hillary certainly could drive a lot of otherwise uninspired voters to the polls. If that happens, it could cost the Democrats the presidency and it could certainly (as the AP article states) hurt all other Democratic candidates on the ballot next November. Likewise, it could affect any voter referendums.
If Hillary gets the Democratic nomination, she could possibly win. But I truly believe that her presence on the ballot would hurt the Democrats more than it would help them. If that happens, you may see a lot of Democratic voters kicking themselves after the election for, once again, failing to choose a more "electable" candidate.
Looking past the presidential nomination fight, Democratic leaders quietly fret that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton at the top of their 2008 ticket could hurt candidates at the bottom.
They say the former first lady may be too polarizing for much of the country. She could jeopardize the party's standing with independent voters and give Republicans who otherwise might stay home on Election Day a reason to vote, they worry.
They say the former first lady may be too polarizing for much of the country. She could jeopardize the party's standing with independent voters and give Republicans who otherwise might stay home on Election Day a reason to vote, they worry.
Things do look bleak for the Republicans next November. They were trounced in 2006 and they haven't exactly done anything to redeem themselves since then. And the most popular choice among the current lineup of candidates for the Republican nomination seems to be "none of the above". Conservative voters aren't exactly feeling "inspired" right now. However, Hillary Clinton could definitely change that.
Conservatives obviously aren't fond of the Clintons (Hill or Bill). As a result, there will be plenty of "broken glass" Republicans hitting the voting booths in 2008 if Hillary gets the Democratic nomination. What's a "broken glass" Republican"?
Polls show New York voters are not incensed by the thought of Clinton running for president two years into a second Senate term, but the notion still enrages so-called “broken glass” Republicans. That term was coined in 2000 to describe those supposedly so intent on wiping out all traces of the Bill Clinton administration that they would be willing to do anything, including walk over broken glass.
So nominating Hillary certainly could drive a lot of otherwise uninspired voters to the polls. If that happens, it could cost the Democrats the presidency and it could certainly (as the AP article states) hurt all other Democratic candidates on the ballot next November. Likewise, it could affect any voter referendums.
If Hillary gets the Democratic nomination, she could possibly win. But I truly believe that her presence on the ballot would hurt the Democrats more than it would help them. If that happens, you may see a lot of Democratic voters kicking themselves after the election for, once again, failing to choose a more "electable" candidate.
| 43 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Jim Stillman
Political Certainty
Bill may have screwed Monica but George W. and Mr. Rove screwed the country, managed to get thousands of our young people killed or maimed, alienated allies and encouraged our enemies.
Bottom line? You’re probably right on all counts.
Comment by PopulistConservative
Angry Electorate
As for Bill, he's just the epitome of a snake-oil salesman. He's phony-acting and sleazy. He degraded the office of the presidency by acting like an oversexed frat boy. The office of the presidency requires a certain amount of decorum and decency. Do I think he killed Vince Foster? No. But he irks me to no end because of who he is and how he acts.
You make a comparison of Clinton to Dubya. Well, clearly, I'm no fan of Dubya. However, what Dubya is or isn't doesn't change how I feel about Clinton.
Hillary suffers from her association with Bill. Also, she is very shrill and condescending. She looks like someone who would just as soon spit on you as talk to you. And she is complete phony in her own right. She plays that whole position-shifting game more than anyone.
Also, it bothers me how vicious the Clintons are in sending out their attack dogs. They keep files on all their "enemies" and try to smear anyone who dares to challenge them. And, yes, some Republicans (Rove, for one) do the same thing. I don't like it when either one does it.
The bottom line for me is that I absolutely do NOT want ANY more Clintons or Bushes in the White House. As a country, we need to move on. If HRC becomes the president, you can be ready for four (or eight) more years of misery. They bring out the worst in a lot of people.