Journal ces's Journal: Hillary, Blacks and Women 30
Something I've been wondering since the race for the Democratic Party nomination for 2008 has started heating up:
Where the heck does the notion that Hillary has some special base of support among blacks or women come from?
Can anyone point me to proof of this? Poll crosstabs? Anything?
Or is the assumption that because she is a woman she has a lot of support among women? That because President Clinton was/is popular in the black community that popularity will somehow transfer to her?
Because I don't know about you, but I'm finding genuine Hillary supporters to be pretty rare around these parts. Liberals dislike her almost as much as the conservatives. Those that don't hate her find her incredibly condescending and tone-deaf. Even among Democratic party officials and activists the only ones who seem to like her at all are those who care only about process. Everyone else seems to be scared she'll cause problems in down-ticket races.
really? (Score:2)
i dunno about that... i've seen some things posted on line that make me wonder if this could be possible.
me - i don't care either way because i'm convinced that the only thing we can be sure of in regards to the next administration is more of the same as we've had in the past.
Well, (Score:2)
Wow, the lameness filter has new teeth. (Score:2)
God, I hope Rob is at Penguicon this year. I missed him last year, and have always wanted to invite him to suck my cock in person. What an asshat.
Re: (Score:2)
Plus, (Score:2)
Evidence for her support (Score:1)
According to the January 24, 2007 Gallup poll [galluppoll.com], women are more likely to support her in the primaries than men, 37% vs. 29%. She also receives nearly twice as much support from nonwhites as from whites, 50% vs. 28%.
Re: (Score:2)
Also the other question is how much of that "support" is solid.
Thanks, that is more solid than the hot air from all of the gasbags who crow about her support among women and minorities.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
She has the nomination sewn up already, there's not even a contest.
I wouldn't bet on that (but I wouldn't bet against it either).
There are a lot of people in the party (especially outside the NE Corridor) who would rather not see her be the 2008 nominee.
OTOH pretty much everyone else faces an uphill battle on one front or another.
At this point Edwards stands the best chance to knock her out of the race early based on his organizaton in both Iowa ans New Hampshire.
Considering who she's likely to face in '08, its' very likely that, while she is unelectable, she'll win anyway. More a matter of the other side losing it than her winning.
Ugh ... I may just have to vote third-party in that case. Depending on how many toes HRC steps on during her
quote my father (Score:1)
Although my father was a yellow dog democrat and might have voted for her anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Also who is to say what the events of the next 12 months will bring.
For example if the current administration decides to mix it up with Iran where a candidate stands on that could greatly effect their chances.
Right now she's not doing to well in the polls out of Iowa either. Both Iowa and NH have a habit of dethroning front-runners.
Re: (Score:1)
Hillary is 100% unelectable (Score:1)
my hand's up (Score:2)
Look, these terms like "the black vote" and "the female vote" are absolutely meaningless. They are the products of this self-licking ice cream cone of media and political consultants. It is too early to tell who is going to get the nomination, we'll have our choice between two people who have been damaged and compromised by the campaign finance process.
My greatest hope is that the person who wins t
Re: (Score:2)
I like Hillary and I am neither black or female. She's been my Senator for 6 years and she's done a good job
I like her fine as a US Senator from NY, I'd much rather have her as President than the current occupant of the oval office, however for a number of reasons I'd really rather not see her as the Democratic Party nominee in 2008.
Look, these terms like "the black vote" and "the female vote" are absolutely meaningless. They are the products of this self-licking ice cream cone of media and political consultants.
True, but as I said way too many people are trying to trumpet Sen. Clinton's "inevitability" because of those factors.
It is too early to tell who is going to get the nomination
True but Clinton and McCain are both the clear front-runners on each side and the clear establishment candidates. I hope someone else is the eventual nominee for bo
Re: (Score:2)
Before you go into those, I remember that when Howard Dean was the early front-runner in 2004 a number of people (not necessarily you) were saying the same thing. As it turns out, I believe that Dean would have badly beaten Bush in 2004, and perhaps he might have even also taken office. I have become very wary of all of the early handicapping. Whomever runs is going to have to do so in the context of what
Re: (Score:2)
Before you go into those, I remember that when Howard Dean was the early front-runner in 2004 a number of people (not necessarily you) were saying the same thing. As it turns out, I believe that Dean would have badly beaten Bush in 2004, and perhaps he might have even also taken office. I have become very wary of all of the early handicapping. Whomever runs is going to have to do so in the context of what happens in the world in 2007 and early 2008. My crystal ball is broken....
Well I was a Deaniac from June 2003 until he flamed out in the primaries, so I do remember the reasons people didn't want to see Dean become the nominee. I'd like to think Dean would have hammered Bush, but with the way Dean's campaign was being run in late 2003 I'm not so sure that would have been the case.
The flipside is it means the money front-runners can stumble and stumble badly in the primaries.
As for why I object to her, it has little to do with the handicapping and more to do with other factors.
Re: (Score:2)
If the elections were held today? This is trap that I endeavor not to fall into. With respect, this is another product of the political infotainment industry. It doesn't matter what the result would be today. It really doesn't.
I have watched Hillary Clinton campaign up close. She's good at it. People who actually get face time with her come away liking her. I was in the 1992 Clinton campaign and
A View from Abroad (Score:2)
Judging by Kerry that would make her par for the course for the Democrats, though, wouldn't it?!
Re her support among African-Americans, according to MyDD [mydd.com] (who supports his analysis with a table of figures supposedly from the Pew Research Center [pewresearch.org]):
Re: (Score:2)
Judging by Kerry that would make her par for the course for the Democrats, though, wouldn't it?!
First I don't think Kerry was that bad. Second Clinton is a whole order of magnitude or two worse.
Thanks for the other info. I suppose I could have dug it up myself if I'd bothered to look.
I was just sick of hearing (or reading) talking heads repeat that little bit of Conventional Wisdom without backing it up. I just assumed it was one of those things that was CW on the basis of it being the oft-repeated CW with nothing to back it up.
Female and Liberal and Old (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
True all politicians have to lust for power in order to want to run for office, but she goes way beyond that. Mind you I find the same naked ambition disturbing in male politicians as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Yep, that's it! Although most politicians or power hungry/greedy types exhibit this to some extent, she projects it (at least to me) to the point where it is scary to think of her with "supreme executive power"
How About Dynasty? (Score:2)
Myself, I’m not cool with turning The Button into a family heirloom.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd feel much better about America if the 2008 nominees for both parties reflected the notion of this country being a meritocracy.