Clinton And McCain

[Meta Blog]

Originally from Myrhaf,

Lately I have read a flurry of opinions that Hillary will never be president. Big Lizards says it’s time for Hillary to move on. Arianna Huffington is anti-Hillary, as is Andrew Sullivan and Molly Ivins. Democrats don’t like her much.

I still think she is the one to beat, simply because she has the organization and fund raising might. But three years is a long time and anything could happen.

John Hinderaker thinks Hillary can’t win. In that post he also writes some positive words about John McCain:

Yesterday, I heard John McCain on Michael Medved's radio show. It was a reminder of how good McCain can be. And how conservative: the first caller said that McCain is regarded as a moderate Republican, and asked, what is the difference between a moderate Republican and a moderate Democrat? McCain responded, "Well, first of all, I'm a conservative. I have a lifetime rating of 82% from the American Conservative Union, and the only reason it isn't higher is because a lot of conservatives disagree with me on campaign finance reform. So, I'm a proud conservative."

Later, a caller asked McCain whether he was critical of President Bush's telephoning the anti-abortion demonstrators in Washington. McCain said not at all; this was a tradition that goes back to President Reagan. McCain said that he has a 27-year pro-life voting record. He was unapologetic and unequivocal.

McCain's age is an issue, but not an insurmountable one if he comes across as mentally and physically vigorous in three years, as I'm pretty sure he will. We and other conservatives have parted company with McCain on several important issues, most notably taxes and regulation of political speech. But he will be a powerhouse Presidential candidate, and it may not take too much to win over conservative Republicans like me. Especially if the choice comes down to McCain or a Democrat like Hillary Clinton, whom I'm pretty sure McCain would trounce.

This is depressing because it's a sign of how the Republican base will rally around McCain. Their loathing of Hillary Clinton is so great that they will easily forget his weaknesses. His popularity with the media, swing voters and the few moderate Democrats left makes him electorally attractive. He’d wipe out any Democrat. The Republicans, who care about power more than individual rights, will gladly back a sure winner.

I’ve written about McCain here. In a Clinton-McCain contest I’d vote for the Democrat in a hearbeat. A return to gridlock would remind Republicans that they used to stand for smaller government, back when dinosaurs roamed the earth. I fear I am in a small, small minority among registered Republicans.

I think the next President of the United States will be a man who exhorts Americans to “sacrifice for a cause greater than self-interest.” And he means it. He has suffered greatly for America. He’ll make sure the rest of us suffer, too.

[softwareNerd]

My crude understanding of Presidential elections is that:

1) It's usually going to be close between the Democrats and Republicans. So, victories are based on small margins (a few percent moving one way or the other)

2) There are (very roughly) three major groups that matter:

a) The hard-core Republicans [who will always vote that way, but may not go to the polls for a McCain type]

The hard-core Democrats [who will always vote that way unless they vote a protest-vote for Nader or simply stay away]

c) People who can be swayed to vote against their normal pattern.

The ideal candidate motivates their own base just enough to get them to vote, but with subtle promises and a cheerful personality that appeals to the swing voters and makes the opposition's base stay home.

The more a candidate openly promises stuff to their own base, the more they risk bringing out the other side -- in protest, and the more they risk turning off the swing voters.

On his own, McCain cannot convince the Republican base (at the margins) to come out and vote for him. If Hillary stands against him, she might bring out his base, in protest. So, a Hillary candidacy does make a McCain (or Guliani) run more likely.

Like you, if this were to happen, I'll find myself voting for Hillary. Sadly, I know many friends who think McCain or Guliani are the lesser evil.

The bottom line is that a Hillary candidacy makes possible a more middle-of-road Republican candidacy. That could be McCain; but, the Republican king-makers might conjure up a surprise moderate who is better than Hillary.

[EC]

I don't care who runs versus Hillary. I will still vote against her. She has to be one of the most dispicaple people on the face of the Earth. Remember, everyone she was the one who tried to socialize medicine in the early nineties. If she were "President" she would try again and maybe succeed. In other words, a vote for Hillary is a vote for eventual dictatorship in America and at increasingly breakneck speeds. Not only that, but imagine her addressing this nation while pretending to be President.

[The Wrath]

I honestly don't understand how anyone on these boards can advocate voting for Hillary over anyone to her right. I would vote for Pat Robertson before I would vote for Hillary Clinton.

Yeah, John McCain is a fascist gasbag, but so is Hillary Clinton. And at least McCain isn't a socialist to nearly same degree. If Hillary is elected, I fully expect her to be the liberal Richard Nixon. She will use the CIA and FBI to go after political opponents, try her utmost to silence opposing viewpoints, and drastically speed up our race towards socialism.

I despise McCain for his assaults on freedom of speech, but at least his assault treats everyone equally...restrictions are placed on everyone, no matter what side of the political spectrum the occupy. Hillary would try to silence the right-wing while letting the left run amok.

John McCain may not have many redeeming features, but he has fewer despicable flaws.

[softwareNerd]

I don't care who runs versus Hillary. I will still vote against her.

I would vote for Pat Robertson before I would vote for Hillary Clinton.

Those two comments highlight how good a Hillary run will be for the Republicans. As I said above:

If Hillary stands against him, she might bring out his base, in protest.

As for who is the greater evil, we'll just have the agree to disagree.

[Evangelical Capitalist]

The only cause I can see to vote for Hillary would be as a means of inducing gridlock. I think we've seen rather convincingly what happens to the federal budget when the same party controls both Congress and the White House. A Democrat in power in either of those places forces the Republicans back into their "small-government" stance. When the Republicans are in power, they become as statist as anyone else. The question is whether they will have any credibility as proponents of small government anymore.

[softwareNerd]

I agree. Gridlock is a key principle and one ought not let one's disgust at a Hillary presidency cloud that. With a McCain or Guliani in the White House, congress will hardly be able to stop any "practical" white house plans. With Hillaryn there, we'll have all the politcal junkies watching Caongress and the president fight it out through their proxies on TV; meanwhile, we can get on with our lives.

Anyhow, I don't think she'll win. If the dems are smart, they'll nominate someone else: right now Mark Warner is running a close second after Hillary in the bookie's odds.

[The Wrath]

It doesn't matter if the Democrats themselves are smart. What matters is what the people who vote in the Democratic primaries want.

Howard Dean was unelectable...but that wasn't why he lost the primaries. If he hadn't gone crazy on a 70 year-old Vietnam vet, he would have won the primary and then Bush would have won the general election by a lot more than 1%. His "I have a scream" speech (this is my cell phone ringer, by the way) was just the nail in the coffin.

I see the argument from gridlock, but the problem is that the Democrats are poised to take back Congress. Tom DeLay, Scooter Libby, Jack Abramoff, and Teri Schiavo are all spelling a Democratic victory in the next Congressional elections, not to mention the disapproval of Bush's handling of the war. If they win, then you can't use gridlock as a reason to vote for the Hildabeast (to borrow Neal Boortz's nickname).

The only thing that might cause me to vote for Hillary is that she would rapidly increase the rate at which this country gets screwed up...bear with me for a minute.

Right now, we are moving slowly towards statism...exactly what form of statism is unknown and irrelevant. If we move slowly, most people don't notice and, therefore, are unwilling to do anything about it. If you put someone like Hillary in the White House and speed up the move towards statism, people will take notice and be more likely to do something about it. In other words, I'd rather the country get screwed up while there's still time to fix it, rather than wait once we've gone past the point of no return.

[fatdogs12]

I see the argument from gridlock, but the problem is that the Democrats are poised to take back Congress. Tom DeLay, Scooter Libby, Jack Abramoff, and Teri Schiavo are all spelling a Democratic victory in the next Congressional elections, not to mention the disapproval of Bush's handling of the war. If they win, then you can't use gridlock as a reason to vote for the Hildabeast (to borrow Neal Boortz's nickname).

I would be shocked if the Democrats won congress back. I think that the country has really drawn sides more so than any time in recent memory. What do you put the chances of the Democrats winning the house at?

[The Wrath]

I'm not gonna give a precise percentage, but I'll just say that it wouldn't surprise me at all.

[gags]

I would be shocked if the Democrats won congress back. I think that the country has really drawn sides more so than any time in recent memory. What do you put the chances of the Democrats winning the house at?

I'd say 60/40 the Dems win it back. The Republicans have been taxing and spending our money like drunken sailors and a decent sized chunk of their base is pissed off about it.

My only problem with the Hillary wins and we get gridlock (and gridlock is good) argument is that I don't think the Republicans have the balls to stand up to her with any consistency. She and her husband are media darlings and the Republicans have crumbled time after time in the face of determined opposition. All Hillary has to do is claim that the Repubs are denying healthcare to the elderly while planning to cut the school lunch program and the Repubs will fold like a $5 suitcase. On top of that, the President can do a lot of damage without the consent of the Congress.

As far as Hillary vs. McCain is concerned, that's alot like a choice between shit and garbage. I guess I'd hold my nose and vote for the garbage.

[EC]

I still think Condoleeza Rice will be our next President.

[gags]

I hope you're right. Unfortunately, the American people have already shown themselves to be vulnerable to the lies of a Clinton. The idea of her as president makes me ill.

[The Wrath]

I still think Condoleeza Rice will be our next President.

God, how I wish this were true, but I think any chance that we ever had of seeing her as president has faded. She has repeatedly stated that she is not interested in running for president. I suppose if there was enough of a call for it, she might run, but I just don't see it happening.