2009: Hillary could win! D-oh!

This came by email so I don’t have a link. It’s from Newsmax.

Warning: Hillary Can Win the Presidency
A new report from a top financial services company has a warning for those who dismiss Hillary Clinton’s chances of gaining the White House: Underestimate her at your own peril.

“We’re not making a flat prediction, but a plausible case can be made that she will become president on Jan. 20, 2009,” writes Greg Valliere, chief political strategist with the Stanford Group Company, a research group.

Here’s Valliere’s year-by-year scenario.

Her 2005 plan: Keep moving toward the center on national security and social issues. A litmus test will be the senator’s vote on the John Roberts nomination - if she votes to confirm the Supreme Court nominee, it would be a sure sign that she plans to run.

Her 2006 plan: Pull out all the stops for a landslide win in her Senate re-election bid. “Will any Republican of note be suicidal enough to take her on? We doubt it,” the report states.

Her 2007 plan: Raise tons of money. Clinton and her husband have access to tens of millions of dollars in campaign funding from a range of party activists. “She’ll probably set a record for the most money raised by any candidate for a nomination - and in the process will scare off most serious challengers.”

Her 2008 plan: Wrap up the nomination by early March, then watch a furious fight between mainstream Republicans and the religious right. If Sen. John McCain’s campaign gains steam, it could send “horrified” religious conservatives to the sidelines.

“Therein lies the heart of our analysis that Sen. Clinton could win the presidency: If McCain or another mainstream Republican wins the nomination, the religious right - so crucial in providing votes for George W. Bush - may sit at home,” Valliere writes.

When it comes to the general election, the report points out that if Clinton were to win all the states that Sen. John Kerry won last year, she would already have 252 of the 270 electoral votes needed to win.

She could then win the election by taking one big state that Bush won in 2004, such as Ohio or Florida, or a combination of several smaller states that Bush carried.

The report concludes: “Hillary is too polarizing to win, you say? People said that about her husband but he won twice.”

But the report also predicts that even if Clinton gains the White House, both houses of Congress are likely to remain under Republican control, which means “any activism by a President Hillary Clinton would be blunted by gridlock.”

Oh, I’m taking the possibility of a Hilary Clinton administration quite seriously. I’m praying daily that the country won’t be so stupid as to elect this woman who will say and do anything to get into office. And once there, send a pro-death ambassador to the UN to wreck even more havoc upon the poor of the world, try to pass more pro-death laws, and attempt to impose her particular brand of socialism on the nation when we still haven’t recovered from Johnson’s “War on Poverty” debacle.

The thing that is really worrying is that the Republicans might not go after her out of deference to her sex. Anyone who wants to run against her had better come out swinging and not let up until November 2008!

I actually think Hillary will win. That’s a prediction, not an endorsement.

It’s actually pretty amazing. She tried to socialize medicine as an unelected first lady. Now she is trying to appear as a moderate.

Nonetheless, millions will vote for her , and then be shocked – truly shocked and appalled – when she tries to social medicine and is far to the left of the mainstream.

[quote=Ani Ibi]The report concludes: “Hillary is too polarizing to win, you say? People said that about her husband but he won twice.”
[/quote]

Yep, very true. Bill Clinton was hated ferociously, and won twice – he was more hated the second time, and won by a larger margin.

To top that off, the hatred of Bill Clinton could be considered adoration when compared to the hatred of George W. Bush – a man who recieved over 60,000,000 votes.

Being polarizing does not mean you can’t win. In fact, the more polarizing, the more motivated the base seems.

It would be a cold day in H**l, over my dead body, before I’d vote for that woman.

[quote=anJayRN]It would be a cold day in H**l, over my dead body, before I’d vote for that woman.
[/quote]

Same here…This is the USA- not Communist Russia.

The sad thing is that people actually voted for her to begin with…:eek: and that they probably will vote for her again…:eek:

Do you think the Reps will put McCain against her? As a non Hilary hater I’d have a hard time choosing –

An election I’d actually have to think about hmmm –

[quote=Naphali]Do you think the Reps will put McCain against her? As a non Hilary hater I’d have a hard time choosing –

An election I’d actually have to think about hmmm –
[/quote]

It may be McCain, although there’s talk of Condie Rice taking her on–now that would be something to see!

I don’t hate Hilary–I don’t hate anyone. But, I certainly don’t like that Hilary is pretending to be a centrist just to win an election. How can anyone like that be trusted?

Besides that, and much more importantly, Hilary is a staunch supporter of PP, NARAL and NOW’s agenda to keep abortion on demand the law of the land no matter what the majority of the American people might want. I could never vote for anyone with this mind set no matter how much she tries to butter up pro-life voters by telling us she “sympathizes” with the pro-life position. Blech!!!

[quote=Naphali]Do you think the Reps will put McCain against her? As a non Hilary hater I’d have a hard time choosing –

An election I’d actually have to think about hmmm –
[/quote]

Sen Clinton will probably ask Sen McCain to be her running mate…but keeping in mind his arrogance…he will insist on running himself. Now…what if…he asked her to be his running mate?? :eek:

I still would not vote for either of them

Hillary Clinton will not become the first female president of the United States. In all likelihood, however, she will become a perpetual senator, ala Ted Kennedy, because she has political faults that are well-tolerated or at least survivable in New York.

Strikes against her:

  1. Social conservatives will fight her tooth and nail. Goodbye, back-door campaign… she has to win going wire-to-wire. Ouch.

  2. She doesn’t have a Southern accent or the manner that Southerners expect of those in power. Think of one successful female politician from the South that does not have that. There aren’t any. Goodbye Southern votes.

  3. She has too many quotes against her to ever look supportive of stay-at-home moms. Soccer moms?.. even if they don’t stay at home, most feel at least a little guilty for not being able to. Hillary doesn’t feel guilty. What’s wrong with her? Goodbye, suburban vote.

  4. Her husband has shamelessly betrayed her trust, she has tolerated it–and she hasn’t even been smoking anything? No one feels sorry for her. Bill Clinton may be a great strategist, but he is the anti-Nancy Reagan. He admires her, but he doesn’t adore her. Opponents: bring on your adoring spouse.

  5. Chelsea is a known quantity. She may be well-liked enough, but no one who’s on the fence about Hillary is particularly charmed by Chelsea. Opponents: bring your children or grandchildren between 1 and 5 years old.

  6. Heck, even the dogs belong to Bill. Does Mrs. Clinton even keep goldfish? What is it with her? Pet appeal: Zero.

Add 4-6. Most viable candidates have one or all of these things. The “aw gee” vote is lost, by a landslide. (And it’s more important than people like to think.)

  1. She doesn’t ride (not even English? Throw us a bone, here, Hil), she doesn’t camp out, she doesn’t garden… she doesn’t even ride a bike! The only manure she ever gets close to is verbal, and the wrong kind at that. Doesn’t she ever cut loose with some bad grammar? No Anglo-Saxon words? In private after the press catches your husband with another woman doesn’t count–that’s when you ought to be bringing out the cast-iron skillet. Ain’t no country in that girl. Goodbye, rural vote.

Hillary has many talents, but never ever has anyone ever described her as a “girl next door.” The first female president is going to be one of the following: girl-next-door (long shot…will have to be governor, first), mom-to-the-nation, or truly-matriarchal-grandmother (best bet).

**The Brits may have elected Maggie, but we Americans like our apple pie. We won’t be electing a school principal like Mrs. Clinton any time soon. **No offense to you hard-working school principals, but let’s face it: you and the dentists have never gotten a fair rap.

[quote=Della]although there’s talk of Condie Rice taking her on–now that would be something to see!
[/quote]

There is also talk of, if Vice President Cheney resigns due to health reasons, that President Bush will nominate Ms. Rice to be Vice President. This would set her up for 2008.

I’d love to see a strong black, strong woman, or strong black woman run for President. (I’d especially like to see a candidate who would beat Hilary Clinton in a landslide). The only problem is I do not think Rice would be a good candidate.

Don’t get me wrong. I like Condi Rice. I think she’s brilliant, and I think she’s been a credit to the Bush Adminstration. She is, however, an unknown quantity on too many issues. She is pro-choice, and that makes me question whether she would appoint justices that write laws instead of one’s who interpret it.

I’m not willing to jump on the Condi bandwagon just because she’s a strong, brilliant, black woman who could beat Hilary. We must have higher standards than that.

I saw that Joe Biden was going to try for the Dem nod too – does anyone have an opinion of him? He sounded pretty forthright to me –

I’m a flaming liberal in a lot of ways but I can’t say I have a great love for Hillary, were it between her and McCain I’d probably vote for McCain – I agree that she’s just trying too hard to seem like something she’s not – Still – I’d actually have to THINK about it –

Anyhow – Biden, in this interview I saw, mentioned he would love it if McCain would run as his VP – What thinks the conservative brain-trust?

[quote=Naphali]I saw that Joe Biden was going to try for the Dem nod too – does anyone have an opinion of him? He sounded pretty forthright to me –

I’m a flaming liberal in a lot of ways but I can’t say I have a great love for Hillary, were it between her and McCain I’d probably vote for McCain – I agree that she’s just trying too hard to seem like something she’s not – Still – I’d actually have to THINK about it –

Anyhow – Biden, in this interview I saw, mentioned he would love it if McCain would run as his VP – What thinks the conservative brain-trust?
[/quote]

McCain wants to be President, not VP. And I would be extremely surprised if McCain does anything with Biden.

Biden’s voting record is here:

vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=S0150103

[quote=Della]It may be McCain, although there’s talk of Condie Rice taking her on–now that would be something to see!
[/quote]

Whoah. Who’s talking? Any links? :bounce:

Her 2005 plan: Keep moving toward the center on national security and social issues.

In my opinion, this is part of the broader Democratic strategy which included the election of Howard Dean as chair of the party. Dean is going to swing the Party hard left, making the Dems look like they’re out of touch with mainstream America, but then Hillary comes out with more centrist stances, moving to the center, in a sense “saving” the Democrats. In turn, the Party will turn away from Dean at the left to Hillary at the center-left, making them look more out of touch with Dean and more in-touch with American core values.

That’s my thing, anyway.

[quote=Jay74]She is pro-choice, and that makes me question whether she would appoint justices that write laws instead of one’s who interpret it.
[/quote]

I don’t think there’s a connection between being pro-choice and being for liberal judicial activism. There are quite a number of pro-choice conservatives.

IMO, a race between Rice and Clinton would free pro-life Democrats from having to even consider voting Republican. If both candidate are equally pro-choice, one can then vote for either on the other issues.

I’m not willing to jump on the Condi bandwagon just because she’s a strong, brilliant, black woman who could beat Hilary. We must have higher standards than that.

Our standards have been pretty low already. When was the last time we had a strong, brilliant white man as President? Nixon, maybe? 30 years ago?

[quote=Richardols]I don’t think there’s a connection between being pro-choice and being for liberal judicial activism. There are quite a number of pro-choice conservatives.
[/quote]

I agree. I merely mean that her abortion position makes me question what her judicial philosphy would be.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.