Republicans counting on Hillary to mobilize their base in 2008 (NYT)

[Apollo11]

This from today's New York Times:

Republicans in Kansas say Mrs. Clinton’s presence on the ticket would unite their party in opposition to her and give dispirited conservatives a reason to get excited about the race.

Read all about it here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/04/us/politics/04ballot.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin

[Triana]

1. YEP. 'Tis what I've been saying all along....

...THAT is why the lamestream media is BENT on CHOOSING Hillary FOR us. WHO owns the media? Why BIG CORPORATIONS of course - and you can BET they want to keep Republicans in power in Washington. Therefore, it behooves them to promote a Hillary ticket and THIS is why!


There ya go.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

18. Investing in a TV might change your view of how much the media is pushing Hillary.

I have seldom seen such an unrelieved attack on anyone, ever.

Maybe McGovern after the Eagleton debacle... or Carter in mid-late 1980.

[Triana]

22. Did you notice? CNN, Faux, MSNBC, et al are on THE INTERNET...

...no TeeVee required. In fact, there's more info to be had without one.

[niceypoo]

26. Only problem with your little theory...

is that the republicans are always wrong. Pretty much everything they say, predict, project....turns out to be utter hooey. I would never bank on, 'The republicans are relying on the democrats to do blah...'. It is a way for them to influence people like you.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

2. From The Article You Cited

"Democrats say they have not polled on the issue, though a private survey that surfaced this year found that the nomination of either Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Obama could cut into support for House Democrats in tough districts."

[Apollo11]

4. There's a difference between Hillary and Obama

The more people get to see Barack Obama and hear his message, the more they like him.

Everyone already has an opinion about Hillary. Most of them won't change their minds.

Sorry I don't have a link to back-up this common-sense perspective.

[yellowcanine]

7. Common sense, alas is not that reliable. And not to be trusted. In 2004 common sense

said that Howard Dean was taking off and was going to be hard to stop. Did he even win one primary?

[Cha]

45. There's lots of examples

to use for common sense and that isn't one of them..anybody following politics for awhile would know that Dean didn't have a chance with his stance..he was getting it from the right and the left.

Dean had great run and like his signs said..Dean For America. Well, Dean is still for America.

[rinsd]

8. Not really. While his positives have stayed fairly constant he has seen an uptick in his negatives.

USA Today/Gallup Poll. Nov. 2-4, 2007. N=1,024 adults nationwide. MoE � 3.

.

"Next, I'd like to get your overall opinion of some people in the news. As I read each name, please say if you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of these people -- or if you have never heard of them. How about Barack Obama?" 12/06: ". . . Illinois Senator Barack Obama"

        Date        Fav     UnFav Never Heard of  Unsure
        11/2-4/07       53 	30 	7 	10 	
	10/12-14/07 	53 	32 	6 	9 	
	10/4-7/07 	54 	27 	11 	8 	
	9/14-16/07 	56 	29 	8 	7 	
	9/7-8/07 	48 	32 	11 	10 	
	8/13-16/07 	52 	29 	9 	10 	
	8/3-5/07 	48 	34 	9 	9 	
	7/12-15/07 	49 	26 	11 	14 	
	7/6-8/07 	53 	27 	11 	10 	
	6/1-3/07 	53 	25 	10 	13 	
	5/10-13/07 	55 	20 	16 	9 	
	5/4-6/07 	50 	24 	13 	12 	
	4/13-15/07 	52 	27 	10 	10 	
	4/2-5/07 	49 	24 	14 	12 	
	3/23-25/07      53 	24 	14 	9 	
        3/2-4/07        58 	18 	15 	9 	
	2/9-11/07       53 	19 	16 	12

You have to scroll down 
http://www.pollingreport.com/l-o.htm

[Dawgs]

11. It's not the negative number itself, it's the INTENSITY of the hatred.

Hillary is extremely hated by the right. Obama is disliked by the right because he's a Democrat.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

10. Of Course You Don't Have A Link

Because it's all ipse dixit...

[Dawgs]

13. I don't need a link to see the hatred for Hillary.

I see dislike for Obama because he's a democrat; not hatred.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

16. Of Course You Don't Have A Link

Because your argument is ipse dixit, also...

[Dawgs]

19. Of course I don't. My opinion is based on personal experience.

Exactly like I stated.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

31. Are We Arguing Personal Experience

Then I can't...Because if someone ripped Obama or Hillary or any Dem in my presence I would tell em to fuck off but that's just moi...

[Tesha]

38. Not true.

> The more people get to see Barack Obama and hear his message, the more they like him.

Not true. While I have a general feeling of "Sure, I'll
support Obama in the General should he win the nomination",
*EVERY* time I actually hear him speak, he disgusts me
with god-mongering and other pure-pander-plays.

It takes me several weeks to get back to that "Sure, I'll
vote for him..." stance.

I'd much rather Michelle Obama run; I've been to one of
her speeches and reacted much more positively to her
speech than to any of her husband's...

Tesha

[Apollo11]

43. Why is it pandering if Obama mentions his faith?

I am a non-believer but most voters are Christians of one kind or another.

Why should we let the GOP act like they own religion the whole time?

I can see no reason why most Christians should always vote Republican.

If Obama can help bring people to the blue side, that's fine with me.

[Tesha]

47. Because I *LIKED* our former secular brand of government

and I hate this bullshit theocracy we're rapidly diving
down into; might as well bring back the Middle Ages.

Tesha

[Apollo11]

50. You and me both

Although we have had "IN GOD WE TRUST" on currency and "ONE NATION UNDER GOD" in the pledge since the 1950s.

So it's not like Barack Obama is responsible for starting the anti-secular movement.

I have no reason to doubt his commitment to freedom of thought and equality of treatment among all faiths.

I don't think he has any plans to put any of us non-believers in prison.

[Tesha]

53. Of course there are prisons and there are prisons... (NT)

[iconoclastic cat]

3. Yeah, because they wouldn't mobilize otherwise. We should worry about provoking them.

Because being concerned that Repubs will attack the Democratic nominee for president is a worthwhile way to spend our energy.

[dmallind]

5. It's true!

They respected John Kerry has an honest and reasonable man with whom they just happened to disagree, and kept reminding their base of the importance of making rational informed decisions about voting.

The word is over (and incorrectly quite often) used on DU but this really is a meme. We have the press reporting on some joe sixpack voters repeating what they've heard from the media about other joe sixpack voters and natttering nabobs mentioning.

All while the evidence shows nothing of the kind, and any very minor differnces in negatives is explained very easily by the much more Occam-friendly explanation that Hillary has already being the target of focused smears.

Take it to the bank - and I will gladly accept wagers - WWHOEVER the Dems nominate will end up above HRC's current negatives. Whipping the base into a frenzy is what the Reps are good at. It will happen the same way, with the same tactics, regardless of who is the Dem nominee.

[yellowcanine]

6. Actually that article is more about Democratic fears than Republican calculations.

We should ignore what the Republicans might or might not do and focus on who would make the best President. Does anyone seriously think that Republicans won't try to make Obama the punching bag if he gets the nomination? I actually think that Republicans are trying to scare Democrats off of Hillary because they think she will be hard to beat. And I say that as a supporter of Barak Obama, at least as long as he still has a chance to get the nomination. Then I switch to the actual nominee. I refuse to play in the Republican mud pit.

[Carrieyazel]

9. And if numerous Dems fear her candidacy, all the more reason not to select her.

We need a candidate who can win. Someone with who there isn't fears that "their campaign will blow it".

Richardson fits the bill.

[gulliver]

12. Only Biden and Edwards would not excite the GOP base.

The two white guys are the only ones we have who would not get the GOP base in a lather. Hillary is Hillary and a woman. Both Obama and Richardson are minorities. There is essentially no chance the GOP won't go into this election hungry and mean. They have the stain of W too, and they will be in a hurry to start wiping it away.

That's why we need someone who can fight. We're not going to be able to nominate someone who will make them complacent. Not gonna happen. We need to nominate someone who can beat them. And no, I'm not completely sure who that is.

[Carrieyazel]

14. I see your argument. But I've also read stories about the GOP fearing Richardson the most.

Richardson is saving his fire for a possible general election campaign. And does being Hispanic and running for President hurt you as much in this nation as being African American or a woman; the race and the gender that have been discriminated against in this country since the very beginning?

[gulliver]

17. True

Hispanics don't seem to be discriminated against as much. However, immigration is turning white hot, and it is hard to say what a Richardson candidacy would do. People are unpredictable. I'm at a loss. I always thought Clark would be the best by far, and now that he is out, I'm looking at our candidates and wishing one of them would do something. Not sure what, but I think I am looking for them to start to expose and destroy the GOP. That is what I am looking for in a candidate.

[FatDave]

36. "There is essentially no chance the GOP won't go into this election hungry and mean"

I disagree. I think they might go into this election disillusioned with their party and questioning whether or not they've been duped their entire lives (or at least for the past 30 years). I think with Iraq, Plame, the lackluster candidates, the inability to raise funds, and let's not forget all the gay sex scandals, a lot of republicans may just stay home on election day. Unless the democratic nominee is somebody so objectionable to them that they can overlook that Romney is a mormon or that Huckabee talks about helping the poor.

Also, just between you and me, Edwards has a lot of potential to pick up a few republican voters.

[Perry Logan]

15. Yea. Let's put up someone who doesn't offend the Republicans too much.

[ilovesunshine]

20. Hate to disappoint y'all but many Republicans plan on voting for her.

I live in Arizona and she is quite the talk of many former Republicans such as myself. And, the talk is very positive.

ETA!

None of my Republican friends consider Obama an option at all. They rather have a hawk than a dove in the Oval Office.

[rhett o rick]

33. And exactly how is that to make me happy? nm

[Cha]

46. Yay, republicons for hillary..

I just know she appeals to ya'll and that is why I don't want her at all.

[AtomicKitten]

21. It is a familiar fight that the GOP is comfortable waging.

On edit: K&R and on to the Greatest page. :)

[TeamJordan23]

23. totally agree. nm

[rhett o rick]

24. Then why is Sean Hannity working so hard to discredit her? Is he just a little too early? nm

[jenmito]

28. In his mind she WILL be our nominee. So he's attacking her already.

[rhett o rick]

29. Good answer. I agree. He is, after all, only speaking to their base. nm

[jenmito]

30. Thanks. Yup.

:hi:

[sampsonblk]

25. Remember the Ravens!

In honor of the Baltimore Ravens who fought the impossible fight and almost won, let's quit worrying about what they are going to do and make them start worrying about what we are going to do to them.

Let's tighten our chin straps and give them hell, regardless of what they do.

[jenmito]

27. I said this MANY times. As recently as yesterday and I was attacked by

a poster here...initials "NH".

[Cha]

48. Who cares what

posters "attack" us? This is the primaries and we get to fight for whom we want..and I know posters like you come up with facts not stupid strawmen or distractions.

:hi:

[Catherine Vincent]

32. Who gives a good **** the republicans will unite?

As long as Democrats bring their lazy arses to the polls and outnumber them, it wouldn't matter.

[jenmito]

35. Those who want to WIN care.

Not only will it energize the Repubs., it will DE-energize the Dems. Why should we give them who they want?

[OhioChick]

34. You Bet Your Ass HRC Will Mobilize Them. n/t

[zulchzulu]

37. Someone I know who attends RNC batcave meetings has been saying this for months

If you have a molecular drop of political sense about you, this is a no brainer.
I'm always amused by those that think otherwise.

They. Don't. Get. It.

[Perry Logan]

39. Note that this argument is based on a craven fear of Republicans.

[Skidmore]

40. And no one unites better behind fear than Republicans, either.

[Alamom]

41. "Republicans in Kansas say"...so we let repukes choose who they want to run against.

Great strategy. :sarcasm:

This is so lame. Ditch Hillary and they will let another democrat slide right in without a fight....Right!

If they repeat "it" enough, "it" becomes truth. It works and they keep doing it.

[Apollo11]

42. It looks like Hillary is who they want to run against.

Maybe it would be smarter for us to pick someone the repukes would find it more difficult to attack?

Someone who can appeal to a broad range of voters nationwide including so-called "Red States".

But no matter who we pick you can bet the GOP will do whatever they can to keep the Whitehouse.

[Cha]

49. I don't want hillary because

I'm a'feared she'll lose to the nutcases..I don't want her because I think whomever is our candidate will win and I don't want her policies in the white house..fucking chickenshitwarhawk.

[Apollo11]

52. We don't know for sure if Hillary is a hawk at heart

It might be her advisors like Mark Penn telling her what to say on Foreign Policy.

See this article in The Washington Post, April 30, 2007
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/29/AR2007042901661.html?hpid=topnews

[Cha]

54. Whatever, Apollo..

A candidate is tied to their adviser and she's been tied to him for a long time..enabling bushit the whole way.

If a candidate can't think for themselves then they're as in this case..The penn candidate. Wind 'er up.

[Apollo11]

55. Exactly, zidzi ..

I don't know which is worse. If Hillary is really one of the most hawkish Democrats in the US Senate, or if she is only trying to act tough on "national security" because Mark Penn told her it's the only way to win the Whitehouse.

"I am running for President because I am sick and tired of Democrats thinking that the only way to look tough on national security is by talking, and acting, and voting like George Bush Republicans." - Barack Obama

http://www.barackobama.com/2007/11/30/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_35.php

[Cha]

44. And she's been trying

so hard to appeal to everybody. Well, let's hope the little nut cases can just be lazy and stay at home.

[Beacool]

51. Campaign Diaries debunk the NYT article

Please read;

http://www.campaigndiaries.com/2007/12/new-york-times-charges-again-that.html

[Sancho]

56. Good for us!

In the South, there would be a universal negative with Obama, but there are plenty of Republican housewives who hate war and will vote for a woman because of education and healthcare. That's my theory as to why Hillary polls well in SC for example.

Not even hubby knows who you voted for...of course we'll have to fix those damn voting machines.


:dem:

[Apollo11]

57. So everyone in the South is racist. Even black folks??

I cannot believe that "In the South, there would be a universal negative with Obama"

Doesn't this simply reinforce the stereotype that everyone in the South is KKK? :eyes: