GMTom wrote:(oh and Ricky, don't get too caught up in how Women just adore Hillary, I know far more that hate her than love her! it's not going to be as much of a slam dunk as you think)

Well, maybe you do, but perhaps your sample is not representative of women as a whole. And maybe there's a silent constituency of people who know/suspect you dislike her and don't share that they see her favourably so as to avoid a debate about it that may damage a friendship.

So polling rather than anecdote may show us how hated she is among women in the USA:

Hillary Clinton 2016

A slew of recent polls on Clinton's chances for winning the Presidency in 2016 seems to aid to this sensation of momentum. A Washington Post/ABC News poll had 57% of respondents nationally backing a Hillary Clinton run for the White House. While obviously scoring high among Democratic men and women, 80% and 84% respectively, other categories show strong support as well. Among independent women Clinton scores 68% compared to 52% percent of independent men. Perhaps most surprisingly, Clinton has the support of 35% of Republican women compared to 13% of Republican men. Overall, Clinton has 82% Democratic support, 59% independent support, and 23% Republican support.

Hillary Clinton would crush GOP in 2016

The GOP is in serious trouble if Clinton does indeed run. Not only is she more popular than any of the Republican candidates among Americans in general, she’s also very popular among women, a group Republicans are struggling with. Among the three Republican candidates matched against Clinton in the poll, Clinton is favored among women by an average of 19 points. To put that in perspective, President Obama only beat Mitt Romney among women by 12 points.

and the same polls said Obama would lose a few years back! A black man had no chance, he was to left of center, etc. Things changed! And while polls are favorable NOW, they will change (maybe up, maybe down but they WILL change) also, Hillary's numbers have been tanking of late. A few months back she was unbeatable (in the polls mind you) those numbers have come back to earth in a big way.

and yes, it is anecdotal for certain (those who I know) but of my women friends, I think ONE is a big supporter, of the more liberal women, even they dislike her. And, no, not all of my friends are conservative, far from it! Then again, I live in Upstate New York, maybe she's not that well liked in the suburbs up here.

something that just hit me, It's certainly fair game however, are the Democrats "buying" votes of late? They ran Obama and he ran away with the black vote, most voting for him only because he was black. Now they talk about Hillary, trying to grab the women's vote?
Again, it's fair to do, but are they trying to get the best candidate or are they trying to buy an election this way?

GMTom wrote:and the same polls said Obama would lose a few years back! A black man had no chance, he was to left of center, etc. Things changed!

Not all polls showed Obama losing - just the ones that the Republicans clung to during the campaign (Rasmussen and Gallup mainly). The two companies mentioned in my links (so, the "same polls") both showed Obama ahead in 2012. They also showed him ahead in 2008.

Ah well, all the way up to the last election the right were denying the polling evidence, trying to make out that Nate Silver was hopelessly mistaken and that those they didn't like were skewed. So keep on pinning your argument on polls being more wrong than your perceptions.

And while polls are favorable NOW, they will change (maybe up, maybe down but they WILL change) also, Hillary's numbers have been tanking of late. A few months back she was unbeatable (in the polls mind you) those numbers have come back to earth in a big way.

The second link was from a week or so ago. Even with falling figures she is clearly more popular among women. Yes, things are going to change over time - especially as at the moment there's no clear front-runner for the GOP candidacy yet while HC is by miles the most popular among Democrats.

But all we can go on is what we have now. Which contradicts your impression of the current popularity of Hillary Clintom among women.

and yes, it is anecdotal for certain (those who I know) but of my women friends, I think ONE is a big supporter, of the more liberal women, even they dislike her. And, no, not all of my friends are conservative, far from it! Then again, I live in Upstate New York, maybe she's not that well liked in the suburbs up here.

Well, there you are. Even a foreigner like me knows that you can't judge the USA based on a small corner of a NE state. And even some of those non-conservatives in suburban upstate NY might well end up voting for Clinton if her opponent is

something that just hit me, It's certainly fair game however, are the Democrats "buying" votes of late? They ran Obama and he ran away with the black vote, most voting for him only because he was black. Now they talk about Hillary, trying to grab the women's vote?
Again, it's fair to do, but are they trying to get the best candidate or are they trying to buy an election this way?

Yes, how dare they 'buy' votes by running candidates who are popular with sections of society. When Republicans run a candidate who is popular with white males, is that also 'buying' votes?

Most black voters vote Democrat anyway, so you are completely wrong to say that most voted for him just because he was black. Most black voters voted for Kerry, Gore, Clinton, and would likely have voted for Hillary or whoever was the 2008 candidate. Now, there was a boost - largely from people who usually don't vote, but it was far from being the majority of black voters.

Similarly, women are already more likely to lean Democrat than Republican - http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/fast_facts/ ... er_gap.php - so a candidate popular with women is not a major stretch for them.

True most blacks vote Democrat but when Obama entered the ring, the number of black voters went through the roof! And those who never voted before did so for no reason other than being able to vote for a black man. These new voters had no idea what the issues were, they wanted a black man! Their votes count just the same as informed votes but it nonetheless resulted in buying votes. Could the same be true with Hillary?

I don't think so!
But it is an interesting thing to think about,
and yes it's fair, hell, why did the Republicans pick Sara Palin a few years back? Why did the Dems pick Geraldine Ferraro before then? Were either of these women the best candidates? Nope, they were ploys to get the female vote!

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear, my objective in this thread was to suggest that political positions are ultimately secondary to how the candidate looks, how "presidential" s/he sounds when lying to us.

I don' t have a man crush on Ryan as Freeman suggests. Though funny, I'm not a Ryan fan, not by a long shot. I do hate to see the Republican Party hijacked by the Tea Party.

I am curious to see how the GOP decides to proceed in choosing a candidate for 16. I suspect they will botch things like last time and the time before that.

As for your points RickyP, I'm afraid I wasn't clear enough or you didn't read carefully. Tom's points are closer to what I was driving at.

Does the candidate look the part? That's all that matters in America when it comes to swing voters and that is who crowns the king in this country, that' who you need to convince in order to win. I shouldn't need to defend that dynamic. Most here would agree with that assessment.

Obama looks and sounds the part....sadly, none of the rest of it matters all that much for swing voters. It really boils down to that. The rest, positions and spectrums, the will of constituents, are trappings for the most part.

When it comes to winning in this country, look the part, at least for the swing voters.

By the way, it won't be Hillary for this reason.

I know of two clever operatives who have figured this algorithym out, Plouffe and Axelrod.

These men are responsible for Obama being made. If the republicans want half a chance in 16 they need their own versions of "David and David.." And I'm not talking about the old one hit wonders of the 1980s (see 'Welcome to the Boomtown').

Tom, if Hillary runs, the enthusiasm factor for women will increase the turn out for women enormously.Yes, they'll vote for her just because shes a woman. (Obama on the other hand only increased the share of black vote from 92% to 94% if memory serves.) Women are 53% of voters. Blacks 8% ....If she has that appeal and runs against a social conservative .... it will get ugly.
And Ryan is ensconced in the social conservative core of the republican party as much as he is in the Tea Party (small government section).
He carries baggage that Obama didn't when he set out on his run. Obama was pretty much a blank slate that people could see anyway they wanted...

Hillary may carry some baggage too. But as Danivon's citations of polling indicates ... she has a core of support that ain't going anywhere. Moreover, if she runs, she'll probably be a consensus candidate for the Democrats .... and that will help.
Ryan is likely, if he runs, to face a certain New Jersey Governor in the primaries who will appeal to the traditional republicans . Christie will face a storm from the Committed Tea Party group since he's seen as too wishy washy ... by them. By golly he even spoke well of the President upon occassion...
Much will depend on how the debt ceiling and and shut down resolve ... But if there is damage and the Republican party pays for it in the mid terms... The Tea Party may well become a spent force,.... At which point Ryan is a non-starter...

Dag, with all due respect .... looks aren't everything.
Sarah Palin looked terrific. Perry looked terrific.
Both of them had to come up with ideas and communicate them ....
I grant you that Ryan is much better at communication than those two,..... but the ideas he's selling aren't popular - especially with women.

I think you underestimate your fellow citizens too much. Well, the slim majority of them anyway, are capable of looking past the veneer of a candidates and considering policies at least on a broad strokes basis...

RickP, by look the part I mean more than simply looks. Palin was a good looking woman, the minute she opened her mouth she lost the election. I'm talking about articulation of ideas, not the ideas themselves, swagger, demeanor...

Hillary is not going to cause unregistered women to register en-mass like blacks did for Obama. And you mention her baggage, most women detest how she stood by Bil when he had his extramarital affairs, all to further her political agenda. Toss in Benghazi and the fact that she now "looks old", sorry but that plays a big part even though it shouldn't. As Dag is saying, he thinks Ryan "looks the part", while I'm not so sure of that, I do know Hillary no longer has that "look" and she's thought of as bitchy, bitchy old woman isn't going to poll well when the numbers start to matter!

Do not discount the foolish factors! Nixon got crushed by Kennedy, Kennedy looked suave, he had makeup on, he won due in large part to his good looks. These stupid factors will only be revved up when looks pertain to a woman, and while a woman might be seen as bitchy, that same position by a man will not be looked down upon by the masses.

I don't even know if she will win her primary to be honest! Yes, she probably will but I can see her bright light dull over time.

Hillary was considered a shoo-in for the nomination 6 years ago of course, but it didn't work out that way. This time may be different though because the Dems don't seem to have anybody else coming through.

If she can win the female vote by a big margin then you have to think she's going to walk the election. Yes, the black vote will probably decline a bit (in overall numbers if not in percentage terms), but Romney dominated the white male vote and that advantage will probably recede as well.

tom

And you mention her baggage, most women detest how she stood by Bil when he had his extramarital affairs,

Bull.

Her favorability rating in August, 1998, after President Clinton acknowledged his improper extramarital relationship, was 63%. She was admired for her strength and her ability to move on. And so she did. Only two years later she was elected senator by the voters of New York, and spent eight years working for her constituents.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/22340 ... -could-win

tom

Toss in Benghazi

Ben Ghazi is only an issue on Fox news, and the folks who watch that are generally part of the 30% who will never ever support a Democrat. She won't win Alabama or Mississippi. But then she doesn't have to...

As for her looks.... Ain't a problem for other women. Won't be a problem for anyone but those who weren't going to vote for her come hell or high water... .

If Dags shallow theory about looks, communication and presentation were all it took then John Edwards would have been more competitive... The resume, the organization, and the political machine all matter too. That and the appeal of issues to a changing demographic with fiercely empowered women means - if she decides to run ...she'll be very hard to beat.
Demographics are very much on her side and the ideas that appeal to her demographic base aren't Paul Ryans...
Christie is the best shot the republicans have at the moment, because he's rational and will appeal to everyone for that .. (You should be hoping for that Dag if you are a traditional Republican.

Ricky, I am so glad you brought up Christie. I personally love the man. I think he is a wonderful politician. Why? Because he tells the truth, even at the expense of his political career. For that reason, he is as rare A dodo bird as ever there was. Unfortunately, he's fat. And for that reason alone, he will not have a chance.

At dinner tonight before I read your post I was telling a dear friend that I hoped Christie would do something dramatic in order to capture the imagination of the mob. As I see it, he has two years to lose all his weight and turn the election into a classic American sideshow. His effort would be a metaphor for everything good about what is left of the Republican Party. I am quite serious about this point. Putting Cristy on stage and having him turn his personal life around as far as his weight is concerned, would be the best ploy the GOP could possibly conceive of in order to take on whoever the Democrats put up.

Tom's right, Hillary is a hag. I'm sorry but that's how she comes across. For that reason, she will not get the nomination. I don't need to repeat Tom's arguments but I completely agree with him. She is done it's over. She is a polarizing character.

You can say that what happened in Benghazi doesn't matter, however, you would be very foolish to believe that. Benghazi was a major fumble and it happened on her watch while she was sound asleep at the wheel. But that is only one aspect of why she will be marked as a loser. There are many more that I could go into but won't for the sake of brevity.

It may sound as if it is a shallow theory Ricky, but I am right about it unfortunately. I wish to hell I was wrong. I wish to hell you were right. But you are so far off and so far removed from the reality of the situation that I must say you are naïve.

I can't remember Ricky if you are American. If not, your position would make more sense to me. I would then assume that you were comparing the American experience to that of another countries democratic system. However, if you are an American, then I'm not sure where you've been for the past 20 years.

I get that you are an optimist. I sense that from the many posts I read from you. However, I can't follow you on this one although I wish I could.

Ricky is indeed American ...NORTH American that is. He resides in the Great White North. (just around the corner/across the lake from myself in Toronto I believe)

dag

Unfortunately, he's fat. And for that reason alone, he will not have a chance

I despair.
Dag, you are describing an idiocracy, not a democracy.
I think there is some truth to the image is all narrative... But only for the portion of the populace that can strongly disengage their belief system from the need for supporting evidence.
When Ted Cruz can demonstrate in front of a war memorial complaining about the government shut down ... a shutdown he proposed and pursued .... and do so without a thought to the irony ....
you clearly demonstrate that facts on the ground often don't matter....

However, I think that irrationality is reserved for only about a quarter of the populace... They do have an awful lot of power in the republican party though. And they may indeed do as you say and elect a nice looking guy in a suit, with a suitable image. Ryan might fit that bill, but he did when he ran as VP along with Mitt the fairly empty suit. But it was Ryn's ideas (namely his budget and ideas on social issues) that were still born in the last election.

I do hope that Republicans come to their sense and nominate fat but competent Christie. he understand that when you are elected to govern, you should. And you should also believe in the inherent nature of governance .....
right now republicans are largely represented as radicals who want to blow up the country and then blame someone else. Their disapproval is at an all time high as a result. (And Ryan is responsible for a large part of that disapproval.)

That's right Ricky, Republicans are all evil!
Democrats on the other hand, they are even tempered, rational people who care about us so much, not a bad egg among them!

and "idiocracy"? You don't know as much about American politics as you thought. Yes, idiocracy fits us quite well quite often!