It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Why Can't Hillary Win the Presidency?

page: 1

log in


posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 12:17 PM
I've said all along, there is no way Hillary Clinton can win (a fair election) for the presidency. I'm going on my gut instinct here. I say she is just too reviled by a large number of the electorate. It doesn't matter whether or not she is positioning herself near the middle - half the population do NOT trust or like her.

Here's this article onnit from Slate:

But Why Can't Hillary Win?
Sen. Clinton's electability problem.
By Jacob Weisberg
Posted Friday, July 29, 2005, at 1:39 PM PT

Political insiders mostly agree: Despite being an early front-runner for the 2008 Democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton faces long odds of ever being elected president. But if she can't win, why can't she?

posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 12:20 PM
The article makes an interesting comparison with Britain's former PM Margaret Thatcher. She wasnt exactly a "warm, likable" candidate and Britain wasn't exactly without its share of sexism at that time. How did she get elected and what made her so effective?

At the time, I was a big supporter of Reagan and I saw her as his absolute equal and partner on the world stage. What do you folks across the pond think of this?

posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 01:03 PM

What?! No comments about HILLARY?!

Where's everbuddy at?

posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 09:46 PM

Originally posted by EastCoastKid

What?! No comments about HILLARY?!

Where's everbuddy at?

I've already told you why I think she'll win in another thread. It's not that Hillary is going to decisively win, it's that the republicans will lose, because there isn't a candidate out there who can unite both wings of a fracturing GOP. The only reason the GOP is fracturing, is because of an increasingly greedy power grab by the Moonies and Religious Right that's turning off moderate independents, and shutting out fiscal conservatives within their own party.

The warning signs came when Conservative Pundits attacked members of their own party: Arlen Spector, Lindsey Graham, John McCain, Sandra Day O'Conner, even David Souter. It's not just about being Republican anymore

It's about being the right kind of Republican

It's the same mistake that democrats made by driving out conservative Democrats. And in shortening the lengths of the GOP tentpole, they're shutting out some traditional, populist voters.

Now, how this all works out is simple. Hillary driving towards the middle. She's gonna win the Democratic primary. Nobody else has a chance. So, she has two years to drive through the middle and lower her unfavorable ratings among moderate conservatives, and raise her positive ratings with undecided voters.

In 2000 and 2004, geography worked against Democrats. In 2008, geography actually works to their advantage. The Americans whom which Hillary has the highest unfavorable ratings with are all located in the same two geographic areas - the South and the West. States that Democrats wouldn't be able to carry anyway.

However, her lowering unfavorables and undecideds are primarily located in swing states like Ohio, Iowa, Florida, Pennsylvania, Missouri. Remember, all Hillary has to do is get one more state than Kerry or Gore did.

One state, and she's the next president.

That's why the selection of the next GOP candidate is so important. Because, that candidate would need to court the moderates (Socially liberal and fiscally conservative) away from Hillary, but also be enough of a hardliner to rally his own base.

The only way that happens is if Christians elect someone who won't uphold their moral and ethical standards.

Also, has it appears more and more likely that the U.S. will be decreasing their troop reserves in Iraq by 2006, and perhaps pull out completely by 2008, there won't be a "war candidate". They won't be able to benefit from a 9/11 type situation, which highlights their own favorable issues.

Voters tend to believe the following..

Republicans are good at National Defense
Democrats are good at the Economy and Social Security.

Soccer Moms won't be voting against terrorists anymore, and by proxy, for Bush. Those Soccer Moms will be voting for jobs and the economy, and by proxy, voting for Hillary.

posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 10:00 PM
My crystal ball is a bit cloudy on this issue...

There are so many variables in this equation, and so much time between now and 2008, it's really hard to tell. But I certainly wouldn't count Hillary out yet...she's done a great job at remaking her image, hardly anyone remembers how hated she was in the early years of the Bill Clinton administration during the Hillarycare debacle.

posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 11:12 PM
Hilary would win the 2008 election, if it was actually legitimate. The conservative administration has been shooting themselves and their supporters in the foot for five years now and its only getting worse. The most mainstream alternative to a conservative administration would essentially be guaranteed a win in 2008. It wouldn't matter who is running. Imagine the 1968 elections and the riot at the Chicago DNC convention. I wouldn't want to be near any Republican functions in '08 for fear of my life.

Though that requires an actual fair election to take place, which I am not going to imagine will happen.

[edit on 31-7-2005 by Frith]

posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 12:15 AM
LOL! I love it! If Hillary wins, it'll be legit! Man, no bias around these parts!

Hillary would have a better chance at winning had she not tried to become middle of the road. I doubt there are 10,000 people who don't know who she really is; trying to do a makeover only makes her look like what she really is - a power-mad internationalist/elitist.

posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 12:53 AM
No, TC, it's called being a political whore. Whatever she's gotta be.

She's so much that, that I predict the powers that be could select her for their little diebold club. Why? Because she would do just about anything they bid her to do. As long as she can be PRESIDENT.

That is precisely why I do not like her, and why I never liked her husband. I actually had professors in college who said Clinton was as conservative as Bush I. He wanted desperately to be everything to everyone.

posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 12:59 AM
By the way, Bill was also a CFR member, Tri-Lat member, and also a member of the Bilderbergers. He was a power-whore, too, and with globalist connections. He didn't, however, have Hillary's intense fire.

posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 01:03 AM

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
By the way, Bill was also a CFR member, Tri-Lat member, and also a member of the Bilderbergers. He was a power-whore, too, and with globalist connections. He didn't, however, have Hillary's intense fire.

Yes you're right on his memberships to those august bodies. The fact of the matter, though, is, she is the brains of the operation. He, I think, was far more into it for the personal glory/fame. She's the serious operator. I wouldn't trust her as far as I could throw her.

posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 01:52 AM
It is to early to say if Hillary will make a run for the whitehouse dont discount a wilcard from leading the dems out of the wildness.

nattering about the "tragedy" of abortion.

Dose Hillary really bevlie this or is it a shallow attempted to win votes from regliouse wackos?
If its a shallow attempt to win votes its probaly a waste of time may regliouse nuts dont live on plant reality but they are still smart enough to see thou such statments.

posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 02:06 AM

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
LOL! I love it! If Hillary wins, it'll be legit! Man, no bias around these parts!

I've always thought GW's win was legit, even if I didn't like it. One of the major reasons why the Dems lost, is that they've lost so much local and county ground to the Republicans. Had they not virtually abandoned Ohio for so many years, they might have been able to scratch up 150,000 votes.

Ralph Reed and New Gingrich had the right idea over a decade ago. Win everything, no matter how small. Turn everything red at the local level, from the dog catcher to the county coroner, and it will eventually add up.

posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 07:49 AM

Originally posted by xpert11
Dose Hillary really bevlie this or is it a shallow attempted to win votes from regliouse wackos?
If its a shallow attempt to win votes its probaly a waste of time may regliouse nuts dont live on plant reality but they are still smart enough to see thou such statments.

It won't work. I think she'll also piss off a lot of her core constituents (nationally) pandering to the right.

posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 05:45 PM
and here's why.

1. Pundits underestimate her negative "draw"
Conservatives will be crawling out from under every rock, manhole cover, and basement door to vote against her. They will die of heart-attack standing in line in the snow to shut her out of the ovoid office.

2. She's too shrill
The article ECK linked too mentioned the shrew-factor. She reminds you of the 7th grade teacher you lived in fear of. Yes, Mrs. Nichols, I will not talk in class. . .

3, Too easily framed as a Leftist
Whether it's true or not is irrelevant. The question is, whether the label can be made to stick. Yes, a lot of swing-state undecideds are giving her good numbers. But just wait until after the final televised debate, when the GOP candidate hints about her being a "card-carrying liberal." It worked on Kerry. Bush sucked, every debate, except the last one, where he accused Kerry of "needing the UN's permission to wage war." Kerry couldn't say a simple "No." He kept qualifying his answer. And THAT is the REAL reason he lost. He let the "global" tag stick.

4. She's been all over the map
She has said so many "over-the-top" statements since being governess of Arkansas in the 80's, that you can find a negative quote from her for any situation. Arlen Specter has this, just like Ted Kennedy does. It makes people unelectable.

posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 09:09 AM
ECK: seriously talking out of ya bum there, mate!

Your professors were right: Bill Clinton was more of a fiscal conservative than either Reagan or Bush, while being a social progressive. There's skads of articles on how the Right turned to the politics of personal destruction exactly because Clinton beat them at their own supposed core strong points.
TC is tight there with you in the butt talk pool: since when is ambition a trait we discount in a presidential candidate? You can't put the twice appointed Dim Son up as the standard Thomas, he's the anomoly. All people who have EVER been president have been ambitious.
Now you two butt talkers - please show me proof point one on where Hillary has done a full reverse of her position(s)? Getting to be a national candidate means getting into disclosure and fleshing out your positions, articulating on things you may not have expanded upon previously. You're damn skippy it's going to take the tenor of the day when it happens: people opposed to Bush are speaking in 'faith' terms ( who the f*** ain't praying with these criminal azzclowns in charge!?!?!), as are conservatives who did vote Bush but don't like the way their religion has been co-opted by the Cabal's use of the Right fringe.
Giving indications that she'll bring back the sole economic juggernaut that was Clinton's term, in this sea of 20 years of GOP destruction by 2008, will appeal to a ton of folks.
Clinton has already gone up against the Bush Cabal and whipped their monkey azz - you folks wern't here for the Rick Lazio campaign after Guilliani. It was classic Rove politcs of personal destruction (PPD).
Look around the board to the staunch Team Bush supporters - White, male, Christian & overwhelmingly authoritarian. America is not that male, or that white, or that scared of smart women. The PPD launched against her will be a double edged sword that will cut them more than it cuts her, as evidenced in the Lazio campaign.
The fact is, her record as NY Senator has been impeccable.

But, this is all mental masturbation folks.....until we own up to the fact that our voting mechanics are corrupt, why even talk about it? Paper ballots, a week long vote tabulation, kisosks from the Fed.Gov. not partisan vendors who don't have to submit source code......all these things have to happen before a vote in this country is ever again deemed legitimate.

posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 08:39 PM
Hillary Clinton is generally seen as poll whore just like Bill without the charisma. She might pull the Democratic nomination and depending upon whom she goes up against, I think she could win the presidency. I doubt if anyone in the Republican party dismisses her political power.

Frankly though, I think her largest appeal is with the liberal elite a la New York City. I really think her largest base of support would be among those who are voting for a class of people, not a politician. I don't think she's going to appeal to swing voters.

Ultimately, I think, based upon the charisma factor (hers), Wesley Clark is a more likely nominee. Clark, at least, has a personality.

[edit on 2005/8/2 by GradyPhilpott]

posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 01:34 PM
This is what Jacob Weisberg in Slate has to say about Hillary's electability:

Yet Hillary does face a genuine electability issue, one that has little to do with ideology, woman-hating, or her choice of life partner. Plainly put, it's her personality. In her four years in the Senate, Hillary has proven herself to be capable, diligent, formidable, effective, and shrewd. She can make Republican colleagues sound like star-struck teenagers. But she still lacks a key quality that a politician can't achieve through hard work: likability. As hard as she tries, Hillary has little facility for connecting with ordinary folk, for making them feel that she understands, identifies, and is at some level one of them. You may admire and respect her. But it's hard not to find Hillary a bit inhuman. Whatever she may be like in private, her public persona is calculating, clenched, relentless—and a little robotic.

With the American electorate so closely divided, it would be foolish to say that Hillary, or any other potential nominee, couldn't win. And a case can be made that the first woman who gets elected president will need to, as Hillary does, radiate more toughness than warmth. But in American elections, affection matters. Democrats lost in 2000 and 2004 with candidates Main Street regarded as elitist and aloof, to a candidate voters related to personally. Hillary isn't as obnoxious as Gore or as off-putting as Kerry. But she's got the same damn problem, and it can't be fixed.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

top topics


log in