Hillary the unstoppable?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Since it is really too early to ask this question, let’s do it: Can anybody stop Hillary?

Can any of the other Democrats in the race stop Hillary Clinton from getting the nomination? Who? And how?

Yes, it is only mid-September and voters will probably not start voting in Iowa until at least Thanksgiving (if you don’t get that joke, you haven’t been reading Politico enough), but the dynamics have not changed much since the race began.

A bunch of national polls released this week all show the same thing: Hillary is still way ahead of the pack, crushing her nearest rival, Barack Obama.

CNN: Hillary ahead by 23 percentage points.

New York Times/CBS News: Hillary ahead by 18 percentage points.

USA Today/Gallup: Hillary ahead by 21 percentage points.

Rasmussen: Hillary ahead by 21 percentage points.

ABC News/Washington Post: Hillary ahead by 14 percentage points.

RealClearPolitics, which does an excellent job of compiling and averaging the polls, showed Hillary ahead of Obama by an average of 19.6 percentage points in February. Today, it shows her ahead of Obama by an average of 19.4 percentage points.

That’s not much slippage after seven months of campaigning.

And Hillary’s average lead over John Edwards started out at 25.8 percentage points in February and is at an average of 28 percentage points today.

It will be extremely difficult for Hillary to maintain such a huge lead all the way to the beginning of the primary season — polls almost always narrow — but she has a lot of ground she can give away and still be a prohibitive front-runner.

What’s that you say? National polls are largely meaningless because the nominating process is a state-by-state contest?

You are correct! So let’s look at how Hillary is doing in the early-primary states:

In Iowa, Hillary is now ahead by an average of 2.6 percentage points.

In New Hampshire, Hillary is ahead by an average of 17.8 percentage points.

In South Carolina, she is ahead by an average of 11.8 percentage points, in California by an average of 22.3 percentage points and in Michigan by an average of 16 percentage points.

Let’s consider why Hillary was not supposed to be doing this well.

The early rap against her was that she was cold and polarizing. The current rap against her is that she is cold and polarizing and that hatred of her will energize the Republican base and defeat the Democrats in November 2008.

This comes courtesy of Elizabeth Edwards, who recently told Time magazine, “I want to be perfectly clear: I do not think the hatred against Hillary Clinton is justified. I don’t know where it comes from; I don’t begin to understand it. But you can’t pretend it doesn’t exist, and it will energize the Republican base. Their nominee won’t energize them, Bush won’t, but Hillary as the nominee will. It’s hard for John to talk about, but it’s the reality.”

It may be hard for John to talk about it because he can’t get a word in edgewise, but in any case, the argument has a glimmer of truth to it.

The counterargument, however, is that while Hillary might energize Republicans like no other, she also might energize Democrats like no other. A recent Gallup poll found Hillary “the most well-liked candidate” among Democrats with a “warmth” rating of 82 percent to Obama’s 72 percent and Edwards’ 68 percent.

And Steve Elmendorf, a top Democratic strategist who is supporting but not working for Hillary, says the Republican base will be energized against any Democrat.

“The Republicans will demonize our candidate and say electing a Democrat will lead to free abortions and gay marriage and all the other bogeymen,” he says. “It is not about personalities; they will demonize our candidate on the issues they care about.”

Chris Lehane, who is not aligned with any campaign but worked in Bill Clinton’s White House, says that what will really energize voters on Election Day is their feelings about the past eight years.

“The biggest flaw of the current occupant of the White House is that he does not seem to be up to the job,” Lehane says. “Being up to the job is Hillary’s greatest strength.”

In the beginning, many (including me) thought Hillary would be forced to admit she made a mistake in voting to authorize the Iraq war and would be forced to apologize for it.

That hasn’t happened, and she doesn’t even get asked about it in the debates anymore.

In August, Edwards and Obama were sure they had found the chink in Hillary’s armor: They challenged her to stop taking money from Washington lobbyists, and she refused.

But has that gone anywhere? Not yet. What about her having to return $850,000 in campaign contributions from hinky sources? Might that not damage her? It might.

So far, however, Hillary goes into each debate as the designated adult and emerges the same way. And she has the poll numbers to prove it.

So far.

David Axelrod, Obama’s chief strategist, says that Hillary’s campaign is trying to convince people of the “myth of her inevitability” as the Democratic nominee, but that it really is just a myth and a myth that eventually will catch up with her.

“Hillary is a quasi-incumbent in this race and, as such, a lot flows to her,” Axelrod says. “She is a way station for a lot of voters. But as this thing becomes more engaged, particularly in the early states, that will change. And I think Iowa will set the tone.”

In Iowa, Axelrod says, “Our numbers are a little different than these polls, but they all say the same thing: It is a very tight three-way race, and it might very well be throughout (the primary process), and we are comfortable with that.

“We have an enormous amount of enthusiasm and an organization powered by that enthusiasm,” Axelrod says. “And that is going to tell at the end.”

The sooner it tells, the better for all Hillary’s opponents. They really don’t have that much time.

Did I say Iowa might start voting by Thanksgiving? Make that Halloween.

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uui...0B33F2D5A288C57

[no name 1]

Interesting article.

[GaryC 7]

Since it is really too early to ask this question, let’s do it: Can anybody stop Hillary?

Can any of the other Democrats in the race stop Hillary Clinton from getting the nomination? Who? And how?

Yes, it is only mid-September and voters will probably not start voting in Iowa until at least Thanksgiving (if you don’t get that joke, you haven’t been reading Politico enough), but the dynamics have not changed much since the race began.

A bunch of national polls released this week all show the same thing: Hillary is still way ahead of the pack, crushing her nearest rival, Barack Obama.

CNN: Hillary ahead by 23 percentage points.

New York Times/CBS News: Hillary ahead by 18 percentage points.

USA Today/Gallup: Hillary ahead by 21 percentage points.

Rasmussen: Hillary ahead by 21 percentage points.

ABC News/Washington Post: Hillary ahead by 14 percentage points.

RealClearPolitics, which does an excellent job of compiling and averaging the polls, showed Hillary ahead of Obama by an average of 19.6 percentage points in February. Today, it shows her ahead of Obama by an average of 19.4 percentage points.

That’s not much slippage after seven months of campaigning.

And Hillary’s average lead over John Edwards started out at 25.8 percentage points in February and is at an average of 28 percentage points today.

It will be extremely difficult for Hillary to maintain such a huge lead all the way to the beginning of the primary season — polls almost always narrow — but she has a lot of ground she can give away and still be a prohibitive front-runner.

What’s that you say? National polls are largely meaningless because the nominating process is a state-by-state contest?

You are correct! So let’s look at how Hillary is doing in the early-primary states:

In Iowa, Hillary is now ahead by an average of 2.6 percentage points.

In New Hampshire, Hillary is ahead by an average of 17.8 percentage points.

In South Carolina, she is ahead by an average of 11.8 percentage points, in California by an average of 22.3 percentage points and in Michigan by an average of 16 percentage points.

Let’s consider why Hillary was not supposed to be doing this well.

The early rap against her was that she was cold and polarizing. The current rap against her is that she is cold and polarizing and that hatred of her will energize the Republican base and defeat the Democrats in November 2008.

This comes courtesy of Elizabeth Edwards, who recently told Time magazine, “I want to be perfectly clear: I do not think the hatred against Hillary Clinton is justified. I don’t know where it comes from; I don’t begin to understand it. But you can’t pretend it doesn’t exist, and it will energize the Republican base. Their nominee won’t energize them, Bush won’t, but Hillary as the nominee will. It’s hard for John to talk about, but it’s the reality.”

It may be hard for John to talk about it because he can’t get a word in edgewise, but in any case, the argument has a glimmer of truth to it.

The counterargument, however, is that while Hillary might energize Republicans like no other, she also might energize Democrats like no other. A recent Gallup poll found Hillary “the most well-liked candidate” among Democrats with a “warmth” rating of 82 percent to Obama’s 72 percent and Edwards’ 68 percent.

And Steve Elmendorf, a top Democratic strategist who is supporting but not working for Hillary, says the Republican base will be energized against any Democrat.

“The Republicans will demonize our candidate and say electing a Democrat will lead to free abortions and gay marriage and all the other bogeymen,” he says. “It is not about personalities; they will demonize our candidate on the issues they care about.”

Chris Lehane, who is not aligned with any campaign but worked in Bill Clinton’s White House, says that what will really energize voters on Election Day is their feelings about the past eight years.

“The biggest flaw of the current occupant of the White House is that he does not seem to be up to the job,” Lehane says. “Being up to the job is Hillary’s greatest strength.”

In the beginning, many (including me) thought Hillary would be forced to admit she made a mistake in voting to authorize the Iraq war and would be forced to apologize for it.

That hasn’t happened, and she doesn’t even get asked about it in the debates anymore.

In August, Edwards and Obama were sure they had found the chink in Hillary’s armor: They challenged her to stop taking money from Washington lobbyists, and she refused.

But has that gone anywhere? Not yet. What about her having to return $850,000 in campaign contributions from hinky sources? Might that not damage her? It might.

So far, however, Hillary goes into each debate as the designated adult and emerges the same way. And she has the poll numbers to prove it.

So far.

David Axelrod, Obama’s chief strategist, says that Hillary’s campaign is trying to convince people of the “myth of her inevitability” as the Democratic nominee, but that it really is just a myth and a myth that eventually will catch up with her.

“Hillary is a quasi-incumbent in this race and, as such, a lot flows to her,” Axelrod says. “She is a way station for a lot of voters. But as this thing becomes more engaged, particularly in the early states, that will change. And I think Iowa will set the tone.”

In Iowa, Axelrod says, “Our numbers are a little different than these polls, but they all say the same thing: It is a very tight three-way race, and it might very well be throughout (the primary process), and we are comfortable with that.

“We have an enormous amount of enthusiasm and an organization powered by that enthusiasm,” Axelrod says. “And that is going to tell at the end.”

The sooner it tells, the better for all Hillary’s opponents. They really don’t have that much time.

Did I say Iowa might start voting by Thanksgiving? Make that Halloween.

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uui...0B33F2D5A288C57

Edited September 14, 2007 by GaryC

[Jasman0717 9]

Hillary will do it herself

[GaryC 7]

Hillary will do it herself

She is her own worst enemy.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Oh, I don't know. She pretty much walked into NYS's Senate seat even though she's not a New Yorker. When it was time to campaign, she said and did all the right things. She managed to convince the conservatives in upstate and the liberals in the city that "she's their gal". She's a smart campaigner, no doubt about that.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Oh, I don't know. She pretty much walked into NYS's Senate seat even though she's not a New Yorker. When it was time to campaign, she said and did all the right things. She managed to convince the conservatives in upstate and the liberals in the city that "she's their gal". She's a smart campaigner, no doubt about that.

duh. NYC is a huge liberal enclave. more than enough votes.

[no name 1]

Say what you will about Hills, but even the article states she has consistently maintained her national lead. Time will tell.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Oh, I don't know. She pretty much walked into NYS's Senate seat even though she's not a New Yorker. When it was time to campaign, she said and did all the right things. She managed to convince the conservatives in upstate and the liberals in the city that "she's their gal". She's a smart campaigner, no doubt about that.

duh. NYC is a huge liberal enclave. more than enough votes.

She did well upstate too.

[no name 1]

Fairly big leads in both elections....

2000 - Clinton winning over Rick Lazio 55 percent to 44 percent

2000 data by county:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/results/N...et.exclude.html

Definitely not all NYC.

-----

2006

Hillary Clinton is viewed favorably by 63% of the state's voters, including 45% who have a "very favorable" opinion of her. Just 35% have an unfavorable view of their Junior Senator. Nationally, opinion of Hillary Clinton is more evenly divided.

source

She won 2006 with 67% of the vote over second place of 31%. There is a map showing how much stronger she is over the entire state, not just NYC.

source

[AnaAndDaniel 0]

maybe Larry "I have a wide stance" Craig?

Daniel

:energetic:

[Hematoma 0]

Say what you will about Hills, but even the article states she has consistently maintained her national lead. Time will tell.

Leading a donkey race is'nt sayin much. The road she travels leads to defeat. I'm wondering what the hell kind of tactics she's gonna use when she loses. Lawyers and chad counting i'm sure.

[Jasman0717 9]