Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SecretMethod70
She's definitely not unelectable, no question there - there are plenty of people who would support her for a variety of reasons. It's important not to underestimate the vitriol that others have to her though...I honestly think a Clinton candidacy is about the only thing that could truly mobilize the Republican base. Maybe it wouldn't be enough for them to win, maybe it would, but they'd certainly be mobilized.
|
Sometimes I wonder.
We often hear about can't miss candidates. They get so built up for so long that when it comes time for the actual election we are over the hype and frankly sick of being repeatedly told who we are going to vote for. The anointed candidate goes down in a hail of chads and the electorate goes against what they were told and does their own thing. Sometimes it is the smallest of things that serve as an excuse for this shift (Dean's scream for example).
I wonder if this works in reverse. We've been told for so long now that Hillary is this polarizer, that she's the one we should love to hate, that to so many she is the anti-Christ, and that her candidacy will bring out the passions of those who hate her guts with torches and pitchforks. But when is it too much? When do we stop being afraid and switch to sympathizing with a candidate that has weathered a merciless assault? I think the results in New Hampshire indicated there might be something to this.
The Republican faithful will rail on her mercilessly. Democrats, regardless of the primary jockeying, should she win, will rally around her more strongly because of the attacks. The people in the middle--the ones who really decide the election--are going to be the ones that will go one way or the other, siding with the bully or the bullied, and much will depend on the conduct of both along the way.