Posted on 04/13/2005 1:10:44 PM PDT by Constitution Day
You know, it seems to me that we agree as to voter ignorance, but we don't agree on the scale. You think they are ignorant nationally (i.e., on the future of the country as a whole), and I agree, but I also think the ignorance extends locally. In principle, I agree with you re. voter greed. I am just not sure that people think about their Senator's ability to bring home the bacon (or pork). I think a lot of Hillary's "soccer mom" voters would talk about her empathy, how she cares about children (gag), etc., and would perceive themselves as voting for her based on more national issues (or at least national issues on the Oprah model... you know, national child care, that kind of stuff). I'm not sure they factor in their U.S. Senator's role in the budget process. Philosophically, yes, I think many voters go for that "take from the rich and give to me" mentality (without realizing that in many cases, per the Dem model, they ARE the rich). I think the difference in our viewpoints is in the way in which we believe that general voter desire translates into races at a particular level. I think the bottom line is not to count out Hillary based on her "unelectability" or "un-likeability." The GOP needs to take her races very, very seriously, but I think they surely will do so.
I feel somewhat responsible for that. I was just a stupid college kid and I didn't know any better. I had learned my lesson by 1980.
This from the LA Times:
"Two Republicans - John McCain of Arizona and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island - have said they would vote with the Democrats against the rule change."
Tell me again how McCain would be better than Hillary?
McCain is a pain in the butt, but compare his voting record in the Senate against Hillary's and try to convince me that she's more in step with the conservatives.
Thanks...sorry to mess up your bookeeping.
( :-D
No one in their right mind would read my bookkeeping!
Of course there are many here and elsewhere that are, shall I say, mentally challenged?
However, I will give consideration to your plea and place you in the "Don't-be-lulled-into-complacency-just-because-us-freepers-detest-her-so-much." list just in case we are audited by the P/C police. ;)
BTW ... No need to be sorry. My list was confiscated by a person, or persons unknown and my backup was stolen.
Now where did I put that aluminum foil? ;)
That is very true. The Dems have been able to count on that vote, and never have had to do a thing to earn it. Even if that vote just became up for grabs, the Dems are in deep doo-doo.
Voting record. Right. I think this qualifies as just a tiny bit bigger than pain in the butt status. I suspect if Hillary recovered her Goldwater Girl roots and became a born-again Republican tomorrow, you'd be finding some way to rationalize her behavior as well. You GOP lemmings are a real hoot.
She would grieve for Bill as much as Scarlett O'Hara grieved for her first two husbands.
In the balance I think she would take advantage of a living Bill by using his star power (which I fail to understand) or a dead Bill by making his memory sacred.
Steyn has done his homework--North Dakota is one of the states which will have a gubernatorial race in 2008--but it is also a generally Republican state (except for its Congressional delegation) and pays its governor one of the lowest salaries of any state. Chelsea will more likely choose a state like Washington or New Hampshire which pay better and aren't in "flyover country."
Had John Kerry an additional 60,000 votes, a leftist Senator with a dubious record of no distinction would have defeated a wartime Republican incumbant. Hillary is a LOT stronger candidate than Kerry.
Please elucidate your thesis.
Further, the loathing of Hillary is so intense that it could even cut into the usual third party protest vote on the right as well as increase voter turnout.
We can mess with the numbers to come up with whatever we want the spin to be. Had Bush gotten 20,000 more votes combined in Wisconsin and New Hampshire, Bush would have won 300 electoral votes to Kerry's 238.
And there are Republican women who would.
Further, the loathing of Hillary is so intense that it could even cut into the usual third party protest vote on the right as well as increase voter turnout.
The loathing of RINOs is pretty intense too, especially after this garbage over judges, the border, spending, and the continuing regulatory straitjacket.
We can mess with the numbers to come up with whatever we want the spin to be.
You make a good point there, but the point remains: Kerry was a weak candidate with an extreme leftist record. Hillary is a savvy political operative who's been talking about border security.
Nobody thought she would crush Rick Lazio the way she did.
My wife and her female friends are a mixture of centrist Dems and Republicans. They might disagree on particular policies but they all agree on one thing. They all despise Hillary. I know this is anecdotal but there will be some sloughing off of votes normally expected to be Dem. I also believe that certain Hispanics and Blacks will have a tough time pulling the lever for her. Between her strident speech quality and her championing of abortion she may very well be unelectable.
I found the same thing with my wife and female friends. Each and every one, with the exception of my die hard mother, stated they would never vote for Hillary.
My mother, A Massachusetts liberal, when asked whom she would vote for between Condoleeza and Hillary, stated she "would vote for the most qualified".
Now I love my dear old mother, but ... ;)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.