The idea that Hillary Clinton is the most likely person to win the presidency for the Democrats beggars belief. It’s certainly possible she could win – but then look at the position from which she’ll start. But how a Republican could beat Obama or Edwards beats me.
Another case of a sclerotic party unable to assert its own interests over those of the most powerful within it. Here is Karl Rove licking his chops.
The conventional wisdom now is that Hillary Clinton will be the next president. In reality, she’s eminently beatable. Her contentious history evokes unpleasant memories. She lacks her husband’s political gifts and rejects much of the centrism he championed. The health-care fiasco showed her style and ideology. All of which helps explain why, for a front runner in an open race for the presidency, she has the highest negatives in history.
Hillary might make a better president than the others – it’s hard to know – but she offers by far the biggest chance for the Republicans to win the unwinnable election.
Agreed. Hillary’s problem bears some similarities with Howard’s in the current polls – levels of disapproval or dissatisfaction that are considerably higher than the opposition. This places a ceiling on how much support she can manage to win over, because a decent chunk of the population is set against her (and against Howard). This means that she will have to do a very good job of winning over the remainder of the electorate.