Does Hillary honestly have a shot?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: vi_edit
And to answer the original question - No. I don't think Hillary has a legitimate shot and the D's are seriously compromising their chances at the presidency *again*.

In '04 they were in the drivers seat to run away with the election. But they put up a mumbling party puppet that appealed to no one.

Now they are in an even better strategical position and are putting up probably one of the most polarizing candidates they could muster. There's just too much that people can pick apart about Hilliary.

1) She's a Clinton. That sours a lot tastebuds.
2) She's a female. Let's face it, how many state and federal lawmakers are female? Answer: not many.
3) She's democrat.

Even with the open and secret backing she has, and the ace (Hubby) up the sleeve she can pull out at any time, I still think she has too much negative energy surrounding her to gain enough votes to pull it off.

I think she will win the battle (Nomination) but lose the war ('08 Election).
Well it won't be because she's running against somebody that's formidable.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
I think Hillary is just one more lying lawyer. She voted for the war, so she should not be president. She is too wishy washy, flip floppy. She has no real views and just votes liberal or whereever the polls point to the winning side. We need some leadership. You can not use the polls to lead the country.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: piasabird
I think Hillary is just one more lying lawyer. She voted for the war, so she should not be president. She is too wishy washy, flip floppy. She has no real views and just votes liberal or whereever the polls point to the winning side. We need some leadership. You can not use the polls to lead the country.

You just described everyone in the race but Ron Paul and Obama. Go anarchy!!
 

daveshel

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
5,453
2
81
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: daveshel
I don't think she is electable. Unfortunately, she has a good shot at the nomination.

So you are predicting a slam dunk win for a Republican President.

Afraid so. They won't even need swiftboat tricks - they can just support Hilary, who will lose to whomever they nominate. Only a 3rd party can beat them.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: daveshel
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: daveshel
I don't think she is electable. Unfortunately, she has a good shot at the nomination.

So you are predicting a slam dunk win for a Republican President.

Afraid so. They won't even need swiftboat tricks - they can just support Hilary, who will lose to whomever they nominate. Only a 3rd party can beat them.

Every single poll thus taken to the contrary. Not that a poll can't be wrong, but predicting doom this early with any degree of certainty goes against all the information we currently have.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,059
73
91
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Here is a brief run down of Thompson.

He has lived in the South, East, and West

He earned his law degree in 1967

He was appointed Assistant U.S. Attorney and served in that post from 1969 to 1972.

He has been involved in politics since the early 70's and was a key figure in bringing down a corrupt President.

Was instrumental in brining down a corrupt governor of Tennessee

Was a U.S. Senator from 1994 to 2003.

Here's some more info to add to Fred Thompson's resume. Fred Thompson was Nixon's mole during Watergate.

During Watergate, as minority counsel to Republican Senator Howard Baker, Fred Thompson was the one who spilled Nixon's beans by asking Nixon aide, Alexander Butterfield whether there was a White House taping system. The nation was shocked when he confirmed that the system existed, and as the saying goes, the rest is history.

It turns out Thompson's objective was not to bring evidence to light about Nixon's criminality, but rather, to prove that he was innocent of the charges against him. Since he was a Republican, I can't fault him for that. What does bother me greatly is, Thompson did more than hope his man was innocent. He has since admitted that he was a mole for the Nixon Whitehouse, and he violated his ethical and legal responsibilities to the Committee and phoned Nixon's lawyer to tip the committee's hand the day before asking that history rocking question in the publicly televised hearings.

Thompson said in an interview, "In retrospect it is apparent that I was subconsciously looking for a way to justify my faith in the leader of my country and my party, a man who was undergoing a violent attack from the news media, which I thought had never given him fair treatment in the past," Thompson wrote. "I was looking for a reason to believe that Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States, was not a crook."

I fear that, in the face of the disastrous presidency of George W. Bush, some people are still stupid enough repeat the same mistake and buy into another ethically challenged clown like Thompson, who acted unethically, surreptitiously, and illegally to help the worst criminal to hold the office of President in the our nation's history... UNTIL GEORGE W. BUSH.

Sooooo......clearly if you want to go by your criteria Thompson is far more qualified than Hillary.

Hillary's no prize. Thomson's no better. Why do we have to assume our choices are restricted to ethical dwarves and moral midgets? :roll:
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
12
76
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Firearms are the hallmark of a free nation[/b].

Well, then, let's get the hell out of Iraq! Mission Accomplished![/quote]

Iraq is a free nation. Purple fingers, elections, remember all that? We're not still working on "freeing" Iraq. That only took a week.
 

daveshel

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
5,453
2
81
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: daveshel
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: daveshel
I don't think she is electable. Unfortunately, she has a good shot at the nomination.

So you are predicting a slam dunk win for a Republican President.

Afraid so. They won't even need swiftboat tricks - they can just support Hilary, who will lose to whomever they nominate. Only a 3rd party can beat them.

Every single poll thus taken to the contrary. Not that a poll can't be wrong, but predicting doom this early with any degree of certainty goes against all the information we currently have.

They forgot to ask me. :D
 

b0mbrman

Lifer
Jun 1, 2001
29,470
1
81
Originally posted by: wnied
Let's be serious here for a moment. Are we advanced enough of a society and government to say that Hillary Clinton has an honest shot at the white house? Or should she relent and use her supporters to help advance Obama past any republican candidate? I am not looking to flame female candidates overall, I'm simply wondering if the fight is worth fighting to push a female candidate into the white house, OR would our votes be better spent pushing the first african american candidate?

~wnied~

Shouldn't we care about their policy and not about getting the first female/African American into the white house?
 

Hacp

Lifer
Jun 8, 2005
13,923
2
81
Hillary's going to win it all. I don't really see anything negative about her.
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
12
76
Originally posted by: Hacp
Hillary's going to win it all. I don't really see anything negative about her.

I'll bet you $100 she doesn't win. We can pick a neutral party to hold the money.
 

Hacp

Lifer
Jun 8, 2005
13,923
2
81
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: Hacp
Hillary's going to win it all. I don't really see anything negative about her.

I'll bet you $100 she doesn't win. We can pick a neutral party to hold the money.

Pliablemoose, is that you?
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: piasabird
I think Hillary is just one more lying lawyer. She voted for the war, so she should not be president. She is too wishy washy, flip floppy. She has no real views and just votes liberal or whereever the polls point to the winning side. We need some leadership. You can not use the polls to lead the country.

You just described everyone in the race but Ron Paul and Obama. Go anarchy!!

I'd love to see it come down to those two. Sadly, we'll probably end up with Giulani v Clinton. We'll have our choice between Jack Booted Authoritarian A or Jack Booted Authoritarian B.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Originally posted by: Hacp
Hillary's going to win it all. I don't really see anything negative about her.

You mean other than being a lying, conniving, carpetbagging snake in the grass? Yeah, if you can ignore that she's great.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,321
126
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
The American voter can/will back an unknown/underdog.

Much depends on the opponent and what the unknown can provide as a vision.

Look at Clinton & Carter.

Look what happened to Dewey.

Sheese...for a minute I thought you were going to insert Ron whats his name in there as the unknown underdog...lolol
 

Pliablemoose

Lifer
Oct 11, 1999
25,195
0
56
Originally posted by: Hacp
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: Hacp
Hillary's going to win it all. I don't really see anything negative about her.

I'll bet you $100 she doesn't win. We can pick a neutral party to hold the money.

Pliablemoose, is that you?

Nope, Nebor is more to the right than me, and the bastard has much cooler guns.

Sounds like we both like people to put their money where their mouth is. I pestered Conjur for nearly a year to make a thousand dollar wager over the 04' elections, he never would. :evil:

BTW, Thompson's going to be our next president... Never discount the Law & Order effect :camera:
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,816
1,126
126
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: vi_edit
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
I think people's fear of gun control lost the D's the 2004 Presidential election.

No, it was because Kerry had the personality & charisma of a 2x4.

The smart democrats keep their mouths shut about gun control.

No, I disagree. It's not about smarts, it's about the lack thereof by the people who equate gun control to "teh evil dumocrats want to take uway muh gunn".

 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
12
76
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: vi_edit
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
I think people's fear of gun control lost the D's the 2004 Presidential election.

No, it was because Kerry had the personality & charisma of a 2x4.

The smart democrats keep their mouths shut about gun control.

No, I disagree. It's not about smarts, it's about the lack thereof by the people who equate gun control to "teh evil dumocrats want to take uway muh gunn".

There's too much gun control already. We need less, not more.
 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,559
4
0
if you want to know who has the best shot at the presidency, just look at all the threads trying to convince people Hillary has no shot.
which means she is the one they fear.
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,978
0
0
I think Hillary should have Obama as her VP running mate. If they win it would be her best protection against assasination from some feeble minded bigot. As much as they might like to take out a woman president, knowing an african american would take her place would make them halt in their tracks.

If we really want to know who is going to win the next election just ask the supreme court....