You Are Among The Elite!

Wednesday, November 07, 2007

Hillary Won't Be Elected


I have said since 1998 that I hope Hillary is the democratic nominee in whatever year she decides to run. At this point she is considered the next President of the United States, but I am firmly of the belief that she is unelectable in a general election.

First, consider the above chart. It comes from the Pew Research Center in an analysis of polls versus actual elections. In contested primaries, the leader in the dem polls only won the nomination about 50% of the time. The republican polls were more accurate, and the leader won in virtually every instance.

I have no idea how the dem nomination will go, but I think Hillary will probably win it. She took some shots the other day at the debate, but she will emerge relatively unscathed. The Clintons seem to have the gift of being teflon coated. At least the dem debate was educational for the GOP and how to deal with Hillary.

In a general election, the populace looks for leadership. I will grant you that the GOP has some image problems because of Iraq, and I remain optimistic that the tide has turned and the public will see that the mission there was correct from the beginning. Though painful, a year from now the waffling on whether the vote to send troops was appropriate will bite dems and republicans in the butt. The left has spent the last three years campaigning on an "America has been defeated" platform, and the public has edged that direction as well because the mission has been painful. As the Marine recruiting poster says, no one ever promised you a rose garden. no one likes war, but sometimes they are necessary and everyone likes a winner. Hillary's straddle-the-fence position on Iraq will be an ugly mess for her next year.

Then we have Hillary's proclamation that she has a million ideas but America can't afford them. This will be a GOP campaign commercial for the next year, and rightly so. My 15 year old daughter has some great ideas, too. "Why can't people just get along? Why can't everything just be free and then there wouldn't be poor people? Why doesn't the government just make a law that everyone gets the same health insurance and the government pay for it?" I am not raising a democrat in my home, but you see how the touchy-feely naivete' of a 15 year old girl mirrors the democratic position on serious issues? My daughter will have a much different take on it when she asks the question that my 17 year old asked me last year when she got her first paycheck: "If I worked 20 hours at $8.00, why is my paycheck only $125?"

We can't afford Hillary, and since she is proposing some incredibly expensive and as equally socialist plans, as more and more people can't afford their mortgages and then realize that Hillary wants to take another piece of their paychecks, they will shy away from the left. If people vote with their wallets, next year those wallets will slam shut on more government pick-pockets.

The populace wants leadership, and that means honest solutions to honest problems. It means being able to say the things that people don't want to hear. It means mobilizing military forces when necessary. It means sacrificing a few lives to secure our nation. Hillary is still trying to be all things to all people.

Immigration is one of the most serious issues of our time, because of not only the economy and our culture, but for national security. The GOP could gain some serious points from moving to secure our borders, but have failed to do so in the past. Hillary, as with all politicians, says that we need reforms. We don't need reforms and we don't need laws and we don't need amnesty and change. We need to empower our law enforcement and military to secure our borders. There is a deep resentment in America over this, and Hillary isn't addressing it either.

Hillary is in the Michael Moore section of the dem party. She isn't talking like it at this point, but she is being incredibly deceptive. After she gains the nomination, the GOP will make an concentrated assault on her and her positions. Her past liberalism cannot be overlooked. The left believes that the political wind changed with the last mid-term elections, but they couldn't be more wrong.

This is the main thrust of why I don't think she can win. America elected Reagan, and elected the current President because of conservatism. A good economy, followed by a national unity about 9/11. The dems won the mid-term elections because of the continuous anti-war, hate-Bush drum pounding from the left. The winds didn't change, and they still aren't changing. People are looking for solid leadership and someone to take the helm and march forward.

We don't have any real conservatives, except for Fred Thompson to counter her at this point. The GOP needs to step up and stop being timid. We need one of our candidates to take the helm and stop worrying about what the media or the left says about them. We need a candidate to take the Reagan playbook and take the message straight to the people. YouTube, MySpace, Blogs, FoxNews, Talk radio - anywhere except for trying to please Katie whatshername on the nightly news. The people need to know that we have a serious leader to vote for. Now we just need to find out which one has what it takes.

18 Posts From Readers:

A Newt One said...

This is an excellant, well thought out post. I would also add that Hillary has other problems too. She has no appeal in the South, she is shrill, she is divisive and many people just don't like her. Against Thompson, she gets her clock cleaned in both the red and the purple states.

The Liberal Lie The Conservative Truth said...

Well said and well written. There are three things that I have always thought would keep Hillary out of the White House.

1. she is a sitting Senator. Only garfield and Kennedy were elected as sitting Senators. This country likes even a Senator to have some type of executive experience BEFORE being Presidetn. Whether VP, CEO of a company , Governor or head of a large law firm like Thompson.

2. to get the nomination she has to show her true liberal face, which she is and it is killing her in polling with likely voters for next November.

3. if nominated she must try to act moderate for a general election which will kill her with the liberal left and as such sink her in the election because of their anger against her abandining the moonbats!'

Like you I want her to get the nomination because she and her baggage mean advantage GOP!

Robert (Conservative Commentary) said...

Newt, you are right about the southern aspect of this. Being from Alabama it is just second nature that we don't appreciate her liberalism. I think she harbors a life-long grudge about not being born Massachusetts blueblood.

It is getting harder and harder to win without the south. The population is growing as is the status in the economy. Michigan is losing out to new manufacturing facilities (Mercedes, Kia, Honda, Toyota, Nissan) and jobs are moving south.

She is devisive, and that is why I like her as an opponent in the general election. She will have the 40% on the left, the 40% ont h right will mobilize against her despite the GOP candidate, and the 20% in the middle won't be swaywed by waffling and huge tax increases.

Thanks for the help...I should have put a little more thought into my analysis.

Ken, you are right about the sitting senator issue. in this case I don't think it is a consideration because other factors such as the public's knowledge of her outweigh this..I hope I am wrong about that, and it is one more point in our favor!

heidianne jackson said...

robert, the msm is trying very hard to cover her blemishes, but the latest poll shows that "as many people would vote for her as would vote against her at this point." the msm is trying to spin this as proof that she's electable.

fred is a true conservative as is hunter. i know hunter can't get the potus nomination, but i believe fred can. it's encouraging to see him step up his game in iowa and new hampshire and i am behind him 100%!

Shaw said...

"fred is a true conservative as is hunter."--heidianne jackson

Well good for Fred for getting rid of his friend Philip Martin who provided his campaign with the use of his private jet and who was a convicted cocaine drug dealer and who broke parole.


"Thompson's frequent flights aboard Martin's twin-engine Cessna 560 Citation have saved him more than $100,000, because until the law changed in September, campaign-finance rules allowed presidential candidates to reimburse private jet owners for just a fraction of the true cost of flights.

Martin entered a plea of guilty to the sale of 11 pounds of marijuana in 1979; the court withheld judgment pending completion of his probation. He was charged in 1983 with violating his probation and with multiple counts of felony bookmaking, cocaine trafficking and conspiracy. He pleaded no contest to the cocaine-trafficking and conspiracy charges, which stemmed from a plan to sell $30,000 worth of the drug, and was continued on probation."

That shows that Fred really knows how to discern "character."

Of course, had this been Hillary, you guys would have been screaming for her to be hanged by her toenails. But Fred?

*crickets*

I've seen absolutely NOTHING on the conservative blogs about Fred's close friendship with a convicted drug dealer.

Robert (Conservative Commentary) said...

Nor do I see on the liberal blogs how a certain Massachusetts senator commited vehicular homicide and walked away from it, which is about as relevant.

Shaw said...

Robert (Conservative Commentary) said...
Nor do I see on the liberal blogs how a certain Massachusetts senator commited vehicular homicide and walked away from it, which is about as relevant.


Aw c'mon, Robert. Ted Kennedy isn't running for president in the 2008 election cycle.

Can you come up with something relevant?

Are you trying to say that because Ted Kennedy was involved in a tragic, egregiously stupid scandal in, when 1969? that excuses the present-day Fred Thompson from having a convicted drug dealer in his campaign?

Oy!

Can you guys please expect your guys to be accountable?

Or are you saying you want Fred Thompson to be as accountable as Ted Kennedy?

Oy!

Pathetic.

Robert (Conservative Commentary) said...

She is married to a former President who committed perjury while in office.

Can you actually discuss the topic of the post?

Shaw said...

She is married to a former President who committed perjury while in office.

And Rudy! Giuliani's father was a convicted felon who spent time in prison.

Does that disqualify him from running for president?

I can't believe you brought that up.

Are your serious?

Shaw said...

She is married to a former President who committed perjury while in office.

And Rudy! Giuliani's father was a convicted felon who spent time in prison.

Does that disqualify him from running for president?

I can't believe you brought that up.

Are your serious?

Shaw said...

Can you actually discuss the topic of the post?

I was replying to a statement made by heidianne in this thread:

"fred is a true conservative as is hunter."--heidianne jackson

If that's against your rules, please say so, and I won't engage in replying to what other people say on your blog.

Robert (Conservative Commentary) said...

Feel free to discuss anything you wish! The only rule I have here is that there is no criminal or violent speech. I prefer that everyone remain civil as adults should be, but that isn't even required....lol.

WomanHonorThyself said...

from your mouth to Gods ears!

Conservative Chic said...

Excellent post Robert and spot on! I used to cringe whenever I heard Hillary was up in the polls, but like you, I don't think she can pull it off. I think the more she opens her mouth, the more ammunition it provides the GOP.


"I've seen absolutely NOTHING on the conservative blogs about Fred's close friendship with a convicted drug dealer."

And I've seen absolutely nothing on liberals blogs regarding the money Hillary has taken from criminals.

Robert (Conservative Commentary) said...

What a grat jab there Jenn! Thanks!

Shaw said...

Jenn,

The Huffington Post is one of the top liberal blogs. It ran four stories on Hillary and Hsu:

Hsu
Find degrees from accredited online universities. Request free info.
http://www.CourseAdvisor.com

And the Daily Kos--the top liberal blog:

Daily Kos: Hillary Clinton, Norman Hsu, connections with Chinese ...And how big a fundraiser was mr Hsu for Hillary Clinton? ... Daily Kos dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/8/31/03342/9460 - 22k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

Daily Kos: Hillary, Hsu, the '08 Horse RaceClinton that persists right here on Daily Kos. How many of us at this point in 2003 were thrilled about Dean and ambivalent about Kerry? ...
www.dailykos.com/story/2007/9/21/21532/7921 - 53k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this
[ More results from www.dailykos.com ]

Daily Kos: Hillary Clinton, Norman Hsu, connections with Chinese ...

Daily Kos: Hillary Clinton, Norman Hsu, connections with Chinese military Too Hot for Swamp Gas.
www.gatorcountry.com/swampgas/showthread.php?t=18919 - 107k -



Dems' Dirty Donors: A Rogues' Gallery - Politics on The Huffington Post
September 19, 2007

...Clinton's Hsu-shock went on into this week, with the LA Times reporting that the Chinese-American donor had treated members of...


The News - 09.19.2007 - The Huffington Post
September 19, 2007

...Clinton's Hsu-shock went on into this week, with the LA Times reporting that the Chinese-American donor had treated members of...


Jailed Fundraiser Paid For Clinton Staff Trips To Vegas - Politics on The Huffington Post
September 18, 2007

...either party would yield many skeletons. The problem isn't Clinton or Hsu. The problem is a system that compels candidates to spend

Of course, there are others, but you guys know how to use Google so I'll let you do the rest of the research to find out that Jenn's "jab" was not so great. In fact, it was just plain wrong.

Plenty of liberal blogs were all over the story about Hsu.

Conservative Chic said...

Shaw, Shaw, Shaw......You did your research and I give you credit for googling. But did you really read the articles? I honestly don't see how you could have and still use them as evidence.

For example in Huffington's....The first one barely mentioned Hillary's name and when it did, it of course said she had no knowledge of this whatsoever and is looking into it and will investigate further. The next one told of her generosity by giving it to charity.

You can't just google things and present them as evidence. Yes, it was a liberal blog, and yes, it "mentioned" Hillary and Hsu, but that doesn't mean that it actually took her to task for what she did. It criticizes Hsu plently, but it makes Hillary out to be the victim. (Poor ol' me, I didn't know about any of that).

It manages to put a positive spin on it, so in my opinion your examples and null and void.

You mention about Fred Thomson but don't you realize there is a difference in what happened in one's past (not that it's still not important, don't get me wrong) and what someone is doing currently and quite illegally I might add.

Why would I blog about something that happened years ago. I do try and stay current. I won't sit here and tell you that Fred Thompson is perfect or that he never makes mistakes, but I trust him and his beliefs and when it all comes down to it, that is what matters.

Shaw said...

And I've seen absolutely nothing on liberals blogs regarding the money Hillary has taken from criminals.--Jenn

Hey! You guys keep pushing back the goal posts every time I counter an assertion.

You did not qualify what sort of reporting you were looking for. All you asserted was that there was no mention of what Hillary money controversy.

Robert does this to me all the time when I find evidence to counter what he has posted.

As to your comment that the Thompson/Martin controversy was about something that happened "in the past"--are you serious?

Every single conservative blog--EVERY ONE--mentions Ted Kennedy's tragedy/scandal all the time. That happened in 1969! Robert brought it up in this post! Conservatives bring it up all the time.

Okay, if that's because what he did is a measure of his character, then who Fred Thompson choses as his close friends is a measure of his character--and Rudy! Giuliani--whose close friend, and whom he recommeded to head Homeland Security, has just been criminally indicted.

You guys can't have it both ways.

You can't dismiss Thompson's and Giuliani's poor judgment just because they are in your party.

Other Stuff