Writing in the Weekly Standard, Douglas MacKinnon predicts “Hillary won’t run.” He believes the Democrats will fall back into their pattern of picking the most “electable” candidate and, right now, Hillary isn’t it:
So with that lesson well learned, I am here to say that Senator Hillary Clinton will not run for president in 2008. Guaranteed. Why? Because, from the Democratic party's point of view, it makes no sense for her to run. I'm talking, none.Two points. First of all, since when was the Democratic party rational? The Democrats are desperate to shed their image as a party of Northern liberal elitists, so they nominated John Kerry (from Massachusetts) for president and a crazy doctor from Vermont as their chairman. Their own pollsters beg them to stand for something, but they can’t get beyond “Bush bad.” Second, the Clinton money machine will steamroller over the competition:
There are two things you need for success in politics. Money... and I can't think of the other. ~ Senator Mark Hannah (R-OH), 1903Finally (three points!), there’s the powerful pull of nostalgia. The Democrats will suppress their doubts about Hillary, hoping to capture that “Clinton magic” again. Barbra Streisand will be involved.
15 comments:
please be right on this one! I want sooooo much to see Hillary give a concession speech on November 3rd.. better yet, at 11pm on November 2nd.. and wouldn't it be even better if she had the decency to abdicate her senate chair as Edwards did? then we might finally be rid of her for good!
and while I'm at it, I might as well wish for Congress to fix/dissolve Social Security and the Minnesota Twins to win a World Series
The Dems blinked on the GOP's "oh boy, oh boy, we're licking our chops over the prospect of running against Howard Dean" feint. They won't make the same mistake by biting on the "Hillary can't win" ruse.
Not because they've gotten any smarter, but because the Clintons have tendrilled their fingers deep, deep into the Democratic Party infrastructure. (Bill & Hil's behind-the-scenes puppeteering was the other reason why Dean was tossed aside so carelessly.)
The GOP shouldn't be too giggly about the prospect of another beatable Clinton.
Of course she'll run, and she'll win the nomination. And then she will lose the general election. Name me which red states will go for her. Other than possibly New Mexico, you can't realistically give me one.
...she'll win the nomination. And then she will lose the general election.
Lose to whom? Mitt Romney? George Pataki? George Allen? Mark Sanford? Chuck Hagel? Jeb Bush? Condoleezza Rice?
Name me which red states will go for her.
Nevada. Iowa. How about Arkansas, for old time's sake? You think Louisiana is in the mood to reward the incumbent party? Feel confident about holding Missouri?
But mainly, do you doubt that Hillary Clinton takes back Florida? And how about Ohio?
And remember, it won't take all 7 of those states to turn the trick. Either of the last two will do.
The fact that every midyear special election since 2004 in which control has switched parties has gone against the Republicans should be of concern, too.
You don't follow up four consecutive 52/48-type elections with a blowout. But you don't win the next 52/48 election with Bill Frist, either.
and the party that controls the White House has always lost seats in the interim election.. until recently
but no rules apply when it comes to Hillary and the democrats.. the Dems are so desperate to turn things around that they are using a chainsaw where a scalpel is appropriate
meanwhile, the very thought of another Clinton term, and particularly Hillary, is enough to bring GOP voters and workers out of the woodwork.. the democrats know she's the most polarizing figure they've ever had.. while she has the money and connections, she doesn't have the likeability that is required to win national elections
there is also the fact that the MSM is losing their grip on information.. in order for Hillary to win, the dems will have to push through a law that would categorize blogs as political supporters in order to limit their free speech.. that simply isn't going to happen
and finally, consider that Hillary's poll numbers are dropping faster than Bill Clinton's pants in an Arkansas hotel room.. yes, there are some people out there who would vote for her.. but she can't even rely on the majority of her democrat base
Here are the last four "polarizing figures" who were punished by the electorate: George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon. Two of whom would have won a third term in '88 or '00 (and some think Nixon did win 3 Presidential elections!).
Most people in 2004 voted for Bush or against Bush. Not many voted for Kerry. Against a crappy, unlikeable, uninspiring candidate, GWB only had a 3-pt. victory. And that was with a "get out the fundamentalists" campaign which pretty well cleaned out that GOP woodwork you're counting on.
If you think Hillary Clinton doesn't improve the energy, the numbers, and the funding over John Kerry's result, you probably also believe that foolishness about an imaginary anti-blogging law.
yeah, that imaginary anti-blogging law.. sorta like that imaginary Campaign Finance Reform law that limits any political ads 30 days before an election.. it's all a conspiracy theory
as for Hillary changing the numbers versus John Kerry, sure.. but IMPROVING them? who can say.. she's burned so many bridges with her "staying home and baking cookies" statement and 'standing by Bill when he screwed her over', as most women see it.. and then there's HillaryCare, which she keeps trying to resurrect, and "we're going to take things away from you for the common good", in case anyone forgot that "it takes a village to raise a child" since apparently parents are incapable
yes, I'd say Hillary is polarizing in a real definition of the word, as opposed to the liberal definition of the word, which really means "we don't like them".. sorta like the definition of an "international coalition" that only exists if France joins in with the two dozen other countries
oh, and Ronald Reagan was such a polarizing figure that the media had to invent a new political demographic for his supporters.. Reagan Democrats.. Reagan managed to squeak by with 489 electoral votes the first time around.. and only 525 the second (Mondale took only his home state)
as much as I think Bill Clinton is a slimeball, I don't consider him a polarizing president.. only in retrospect is he seen that way.. but again, that's the odd thing about liberals.. they look at Bush with such hatred that they assume Clinton was viewed the same way by conservatives.. not at all true.. we wanted him removed due to his treasonous actions, but I have yet to see him compared to Hitler.. altho there was the amusing parody in the Onion that compared him to a latin american dictator
here's my final thought on the topic of Hillary For Queen.. I mean, President...
it's not going to happen because Hillary simply annoys the average person.. here's her latest example during a public event just a few days ago..
"First family that comes and says 'I want to send my daughter to St. Peter's Roman Catholic School' and you say 'Great, wonderful school, here's your voucher,'" Clinton said. "Next parent that comes and says, 'I want to send my child to the school of the Church of the White Supremacist ...' The parent says, 'The way that I read Genesis, Cain was marked, therefore I believe in white supremacy. ... You gave it to a Catholic parent, you gave it to a Jewish parent, under the Constitution, you can't discriminate against me.'"
As an adoring, if somewhat puzzled, audience of Bronx activists looked on, Clinton added, "So what if the next parent comes and says, 'I want to send my child to the School of the Jihad? ... I won't stand for it."
it's good to know that Hillary, who sent her child to a very exclusive private school, won't stand for imposing the same decision on ordinary parents
Hillary's poll numbers sink every time she opens her mouth.. she was able to get elected Senator mostly by saying nothing.. along with setting up Pardongate deals with her husband's connections.. but she won't have the luxury of setting up town-hall meetings or listening tours with the audience a handpicked audience of supporters for a presidential campaign.. she'll have to preach to the whole congregation, rather than just the choir
...she'll win the nomination. And then she will lose the general election.
Lose to whom? Mitt Romney? George Pataki? George Allen? Mark Sanford? Chuck Hagel? Jeb Bush? Condoleezza Rice?
How about John McCain? Plus, I think three or four of those listed could beat Hillary.
Name me which red states will go for her.
Nevada. Iowa. How about Arkansas, for old time's sake? You think Louisiana is in the mood to reward the incumbent party? Feel confident about holding Missouri?
Nope, nope, nope, nope, nope. Hillary will win Arkansas the same way Al Gore won Tennessee.
But mainly, do you doubt that Hillary Clinton takes back Florida? And how about Ohio?
Baby, do I ever doubt it!
Face front, true believers!
Your optimism relies on hypothetical Repubby O'Candidate retaining Florida and Ohio and New Mexico and Iowa and Nevada and Arkansas and Louisiana AND Missouri in 2008. The GOP standardbearer needs to run this electoral table in a political climate where the undead John Kerry lost by just 3% back when things were going "well." Since then, the Republicans have been on a news cycle losing streak to rival the Washington Generals'. These past 15 months must seem like 5 years.
Fill in this blank: Republican hopes for 2008 are as strong as 2004, or stronger, because ___________.
John McCain would go a long, long, long way towards overcoming this negative momentum. But for the last decade, the powers in the party have had a major bug living up their ass against McCain. Will they swallow their pride on him? We'll see.
Mr. Friday's response is a confused melange of past hurts and scattershot insults. It's filled with so much bitterness that, if I didn't know better, I'd swear it was written by one of those hateful liberals.
"Mr. Friday's response is a confused melange of past hurts and scattershot insults. It's filled with so much bitterness that, if I didn't know better, I'd swear it was written by one of those hateful liberals."
and that, ladies and gentlemen, is a textbook example of projecting
John McCain would go a long, long, long way towards overcoming this negative momentum.
yes.. for liberals and the media.. oops.. didn't mean to be redundant.. conservatives want nothing to do with him
and that, ladies and gentlemen, is a textbook example of projecting
as opposed to the liberal definition of the word, which really means "we don't like them"
but again, that's the odd thing about liberals.. they look at Bush with such hatred that they assume Clinton was viewed the same way by conservatives..
My mistake...
Your optimism relies on hypothetical Repubby O'Candidate retaining Florida and Ohio and New Mexico and Iowa and Nevada and Arkansas and Louisiana AND Missouri in 2008. The GOP standardbearer needs to run this electoral table in a political climate where the undead John Kerry lost by just 3% back when things were going "well." Since then, the Republicans have been on a news cycle losing streak to rival the Washington Generals'. These past 15 months must seem like 5 years.
Fill in this blank: Republican hopes for 2008 are as strong as 2004, or stronger, because ___________.
Well, apparently I'm the only one making assumptions here: isn't your optimism based on the belief that Candidate Democrat will retain all of the blue states? Why should that be so when election trends and demographic trends favor the Republicans? That is, red states are expanding their populations while blue states (like MA) are shedding voters.
For your second point, I'll offer:
1) 4.7% unemployment
2) strength on national security
3) an opposition party that is adrift (according to their own pollsters)
Good luck with Florida.
Hi There, I was just blogging around and found your page!
Very cool,
I like finding all this variety.
If you are interested, go see my female japanese baby name related site.
It isnt anything special but you might still find something of interest.
Post a Comment