Can anyone demostrate that Hillary will increase GOP turnout?

[rinsd]

I have asked this several times so here's another chance to take a crack at it.

Please demonstrate that Hillary Clinton will increase GOP turnout.

Not that she is the most disliked by the GOP but that she will increase turnout.

[chubby190]

1. I would argue

that because this 'campaign season' has been going on for so long that both parties will have low turnout. I think most people are getting burned out on this whole political quackery.

[TwilightZone]

2. A couple of thoughts...

In reality, she probably will increase GOP turnout, in part because she's a woman. There is obviously still a lot of inherent sexism in this country, and that's often displayed quite clearly in the Republican Party. I suspect that some people will turn up to vote against her for that reason alone.

In a similar vein, there is, of course, a lot of inherent racism in this country, and Obama would likely spur a few racists to the polls simply because he's black.

Second, Hillary is, of course, a Clinton. No one in recent memory has caused the Republicans to stammer and babble as much as Bill and Hillary, and I suspect that they'll use that as a basis for getting out the vote.

Will the turnout be significantly higher for those reasons? I doubt it.

More importantly, I don't care. I'm going to vote for the person that I think is best suited for the presidency, not for who our opponents hate the most. I couldn't care less what they think.

[Odin2005]

43. I don't think Racism is going to be an issue with Obama.

There seems to be a good number of moderate Republicans that are willing to vote for Obama. that will more then offset the racists.

[TwilightZone]

59. There's little doubt that it will be an issue to some.

The hope is that it's a largely irrelevant one.

Regardless, fear of racism, just like fear of sexism, shouldn't keep us from nominating the best person for the job. We base our decisions on qualifications. Not everyone does, unfortunately.

[niceypoo]

3. Don't be fooled into thinking the smear machine would react any differently...

...if any other person wins the nomination. What the right wing smear machine did to Bill and Hillary isn't just a, 'Clinton thing," it is a Republican thing. Had Gore taken office he would have immediately come under one frivolous attack investigation after another. The same thing would have happened to Kerry, probably even more intensively. This is what the right does. This is post Reagan conservatism, short on ideas, long on smear tactics.

[rinsd]

7. Gore was attacked mercilessly as was Kerry.

The attacks on Gore were so vicious and ingrained in people's minds that before Inconvenient Truth came out and he won the Nobel his negatives were in the high 40's.

[ginchinchili]

121. That's because they were the nominees. One of the things that is hurting Hillary...

is the attitude with her and her supporters that the Democratic primary is over. It's not. But by all means, continue to express that attitude to everyone you meet.

[jenmito]

20. This isn't about the smear machine. It's about how Repub. voters HATE the Clintons and

have for YEARS. I's just common sense that people who hate a candidate will vote against them. Remember "ABB"? Well there is now "ABC" whether you want to face it or not. Of course the GOP will smear whomever our nominee is. That has nothing to do with the visceral hate so many people have for the Clintons. I've heard many Repubs. say they HATE Hillary and even though they're not happy with their candidates, they'd definitely vote for the Repub. to stop Hillary from becoming president. These same people actually think Obama is a nice guy. There's no visceral hate for him.

[TwilightZone]

21. Well, except for the racists.

Don't discount the possibility that GOPers would vote against Obama simply because of his race. That is arguably as much of an issue as "Hillary hate".

Neither racism nor "Hillary hate", however, is a legitimate reason for not nominating the respective candidates. We should choose our candidate based on qualifications, not on suspected GOP reaction.

Edit: typo

[jenmito]

22. And what about the sexists?

Racism and sexism cancel each other out. The visceral hate out there for the Clintons will bring out the Repub. voters. I AM voting for Obama based on his qualifications. And helping to heal this country by ending the Bush-Clinton dynasty/cycle of hatred is one of his qualifications.

[TwilightZone]

23. See above.

I already addressed the sexism issue: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3637373&mesg_id=3637423

"Racism and sexism cancel each other out"

You cannot be serious. Life is not a checklist.

[jenmito]

24. I saw it. I disagree with your last two paragraphs...

I AM serious. As a matter of fact, I bet there are MORE people who wouldn't vote for a woman than wouldn't vote for a Black man. I think the sheer hatred for all things Clinton will energize their base and bring out their voters more than sexism OR racism. And Hillary has to deal with both the Clinton hatred AND the sexism.

[TwilightZone]

32. Thank you for confirming my point.

My point was that racism and sexism are not equivalent issues. I did not indicate which I thought was more prevalent.

If you want to let the Republicans bully you into being afraid of a candidate, that's your choice. I choice to make up my own mind.

[jenmito]

36. Nice try.

:eyes: I'm not letting ANYONE bully me into being afraid of a candidate or make up my mind for me, including you.

[TwilightZone]

58. You may not, but there are countless posts advocating exactly that.

The number of "we shouldn't nominate Hillary because she'll rally the base" posts are nearly infinite.

I find the argument ridiculous.

[jenmito]

78. You misunderstand me...

I DO think Hillary will rally their base. I also think she'll demoralize OUR base. Your claim that you didn't mean to say racism is worse than sexism is not believable. I think you said it just to try to prove me wrong and I ain't buyin' it. Hillary has quite a few things going against her-the biggest one being that she's a Clinton. All the years of Bush/Clinton need to come to an end already. I think the country is longing for something and someone NEW with FRESH ideas. Hillary's the same ol' same ol' and if anyone's argument is ridiculous it's yours.

[TwilightZone]

94. "Demoralize our base"

The information available disagrees with you: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3637373#3638995

Of the top three, Hillary has the *lowest* percentage of Dems that said they would stay home/not vote.

She also has the highest percentage of people who would "vote enthusiastically" for her.

Your claim that you didn't mean to say racism is worse than sexism is not believable.

You said that they were equivalent (canceled each other out). I simply disagreed.

Do you really believe that they are equivalent issues?

[jenmito]

105. I don't believe that poll for a SECOND.

I question the people coming up with these stats. The meda (including pollsters) want Hillary to be our nominee so they're making her look inevitable. Sorry, it doesn't add up at ALL with everyone I know as well as everyone other people know. You hear the same thing over and over and over again: "I don't know who these people are. I don't know ANYONE who supports Hillary."

Yes, I think they're equivalent IF not that sexism is worse. You definitely implied that racism, not sexism, was worse. And I think sexism combined with anti-Clintonism will doom us in '08. People who don't want Hillary in the WH is not limited to Repubs.

[rinsd]

107. So polls citing her negatives amongst GOPers are kosher?

Bu polls showing her with stronger Dem support are not?

Even when conducted by the same firm?

:shrug:

[jenmito]

109. I posted a poll from CNN showing 80% of Repubs. dislike Hillary compared

to about 47% who felt that way about Obama, and that wasn't believed at all by Hillary supporters.

[rinsd]

110. If memory serves that was because you quoted from the TV, posting links later

I would believe her negatives are at 80% with the GOP because they are the mirror opposite with Dems where she has 80% approvals.

[jenmito]

112. Yup, I quoted the poll posted on the tv on CNN. Nobody believed me until the transcript

was available and posted the next day. It was a poll of regular Repub. voters.

[rinsd]

113. Well you have to understand that your word will not always carry the day.

And that it is best to post with links.

But like I said, 80% would not surprise me since I have seen similar figures via Zogby.

[jenmito]

114. That's a shame that people here would accuse me of making it up when

I paused the screen, typed exactly what the poll said, and said where I got it from, promising to post the transcript when it was available the next day which I did.

[AdHocSolver]

29. That viewpoint has given us mostly Republican presidents for the last fifty years. n/t

[TwilightZone]

31. You might want to read my post again.

I'm saying that racism is not a legitimate reason for voting for or against a candidate.

Do you disagree?

[mark414]

37. well, Louisiana just voted in an Indian governor

and Louisiana is almost as red as you can get...go figure :shrug:

[niceypoo]

55. This is about the smear machine...

...dont fool yourself

[jenmito]

79. No it's not. They'll smear ANY Dems. The Repub. hate for the Clintons is there and

has been there for many years.

[zulchzulu]

4. Here's an article with some analysis...

http://www.slate.com/id/2088820

She brings a divided right together. There are all sorts of interesting fissures these days among conservatives. Neoconservatives are divided about whether to remain faithful to Donald Rumsfeld. Supply-siders (a group that, for convenience' sake, Chatterbox lumps with Paul Krugman's "Starve-the-Beasters") are mad at the neocons for waging a costly war that makes future tax cuts unthinkable. The military is mad at the Bush White House for stretching its resources too thin (a subject Chatterbox hopes to expand on later this week). Libertarians are mad at the Bush White House for post-9/11 infringements of civil liberties.
How to reunite these warring factions? Imagine an imminent presidential run by Hillary Clinton. Clinton-hating is perhaps the sole unifying principle left in the GOP.

---

Nostalgia. The longing to re-create Clinton-bashing unity isn't based solely on political calculation. The right actually misses its halcyon days of concocting insane Clinton conspiracy theories (remember the Mena airport?). Bliss it was in that dawn to be alive! Now that they're in power, folks like Theodore Olson have to act respectable. It's mostly worth it, but it's a lot less fun.

---

Fund raising. Some of the longing to re-create Clinton-bashing unity is based on political calculation. If the rank and file can be riled up into thinking a Clinton restoration is imminent, they will give generously to Republican candidates and causes.

---

Belief that American politics is dynastic. For years, Republicans braced themselves for a Kennedy restoration that never happened. With George W. Bush, it did happen. Is this the future pattern of presidential politics? Chatterbox suspects not, but conservatives are temperamentally sympathetic to primogeniture. That's how Dubya got elected in the first place!

---

Belief in their own Hillary caricature. The standard Republican view of the former first lady is that she's a power-grabbing bitch. By pretending that Hillary's scheming to seize the presidency, conservatives can claim to offer evidence for their view.

---

A longing to make the 2008 presidential race interesting. Conservative journalists are no less inclined than other journalists to root for developments that will spice up political coverage. A Hillary bid would certainly achieve that.

More here:
http://www.slate.com/id/2088758/

[wyldwolf]

5. yeah. Analysis. We get that daily at DU. But where is answer to the OP's question?

[rinsd]

6. Analysis? Its a bunch of unsupported supposition from 2003!

[zulchzulu]

9. So you don't see how any of that transfers to the 2008 race?

The same issues regarding a Draft Hillary movement in 2003 and how it was in part done by Republicans certainly plays the same way in 2008.

If you think that's irrelevant, then you indeed must not really be looking for "an answer" to the notion that the Republican base would be empowered by a Clinton nomination.

Act like it's not an issue. That's your choice.

[rinsd]

10. The political climate of 2008 is very different from 2004.

And yes I think its irrelevant when I ask for some to demonstrate how Hillary will increase GOP turnout and you give me an oped with no evidence citations from 2003.

[zulchzulu]

26. I could show you other info and you'd still reject it

It's your choice...

[rinsd]

27. Feel free to show me any evidence.

[TwilightZone]

8. I suspect that the dynamic has changed a bit since that was written four years ago.

[Forkboy]

11. I honestly don't understand how anyone can look back on the last 15 years...

and not see the completely insane and irrational hate the Right has for the Clintons.Yes, they will attack and hate any of our candidates, but they have a special hate for the Clinton's that is borderline psychotic (hell, it's over the border oftentimes).

There's no way to prove they will because it hasn't happened yet.I can't prove that global warming will be as bad as many suspect, but I'm not foolish enough to ignore the very clear warning signs that would indicate they might be right either.

Look at the repub debate the other night.Whose name did they constantly throw out as red meat to that audience? Do you think it was just because she's the current frontrunner, or because they know what buttons to push on their base?

Personally, I think even with that she can win.But it does potentially make the decision close enough that it scares me, because for some reason close elections don't go our way.And if someone wants to accuse me of being scared of the Right, they're spot on! Anyone who isn't anymore is batshit crazy, imo.But those same people better damn well not turn around and tell me I have to vote for Hillary because of the Supreme Court.

[OwnedByFerrets]

15. Great response!!

[rinsd]

16. Response

I do not dispute the hatred that the right has for Hillary but how does that translate to turnout. That is the question I seek and answer to.

"Look at the repub debate the other night.Whose name did they constantly throw out as red meat to that audience? Do you think it was just because she's the current frontrunner, or because they know what buttons to push on their base?"

She is the frontrunner and she is a hot button. They are attempting to scare their audience to the polls. But just because they are trying that doesn't not mean it will work.

[Forkboy]

18. Again, I don't know how it can be proven until it happens.

Considering the hatred they have for her though I think it's very dangerous to assume it won't have an impact.I know that's not the concrete data I suspect you'd like, and I apologize for not being able to prove it.This is just my own opinion based on what I still see from them to this day when it comes to all things Clinton.The name alone makes them deranged.Deranged people by their very nature are unpredictable.

[rinsd]

28. The problem is measuring that impact.

"The name alone makes them deranged.Deranged people by their very nature are unpredictable."

Very true.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

61. "Deranged people by their very nature are unpredictable."

"Deranged people by their very nature are unpredictable."

That's why they are generally ineffective also...

[Forkboy]

67. Except for when they're not.

[Nedsdag]

30. Thank you for saying this:

"But those same people better damn well not turn around and tell me I have to vote for Hillary because of the Supreme Court."

That meme just doesn't work. It didn't work in 1988, 2000, or 2004, so I wish people would stop using that excuse to vote for her. You vote for whomever you want. This isn't North Korea where they "vote" and only one name is on the ballot.

[AdHocSolver]

35. Close elections don't go our way because then it takes little effort to steal the election.

If Gore, in 2000, or Kerry, in 2004, had won even a couple more states, then the vote stealing in Florida and Ohio would not have helped the Republicans. Clinton is polarizing and would produce another close election. Gore won the election and Kerry won in 2004. Neither became president. Why give the Republicans another golden opportunity.

[enough already]

41. There isn't one red state she can flip n/t

[saracat]

83. Amen Forkboy!

[Double T]

12. I believe the gop HATES Hillary as much as 'WE'..........

despise bushco. That is one hell of a lot of incentive for the gop to go vote and make sure HRC is not the next President.

[TwilightZone]

13. Turnout in '96 was actually lower than turnout in '00.

The voting rate of all citizens both registered and nonregistered rose from 58 percent to 60 percent...between the 1996 and 2000 elections.

http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/voting/000505.html

So, if the GOP hates the Clintons enough to rally the base, why was turnout lower in '96 when Bill ran than in '00 when he didn't?

Interesting, hmm?

[OwnedByFerrets]

14. Anecdotally, I know that it will decrease Democratic

turnout. I have had many of my friends say that if she gets the nomination, they will just stay home. And no, telling them they are idiots wont change their minds, so don't recommend that I do so. In my little world, I have found NO ONE who wants her as the nominee.

[TwilightZone]

17. Your anecdotal evidence doesn't match the data available.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3625157

[OwnedByFerrets]

25. Never said it would....nonetheless, its what I have to share.

[bunnies]

19. Of course no one can prove it...

I think its just a chance some dont want to take.

[AdHocSolver]

33. You are asking the wrong question.

No one can predict the future in that way. However, I would expect that a Clinton candidacy would energize the Republicans to vote "anybody but Hillary" in 2008.

I have a moderate Republican friend who voted for Bush in 2000, but he was so disappointed with Bush that he voted for John Kerry in 2004. From what I have been seeing in the media, the Republicans are really not happy with the choices they have on the Republican side. With their unhappines with Bush, their is a good chance that some Republicans and independents will vote Democratic this election, provided they feel "safe" with the Democratic nominee.

This race is not going to be determined by policy issues, or even by party affiliation. It is going to be based on the voters feeling "safe" with the next president. Clinton does not have the aura of trustworthiness. Even beyond the right wing propaganda about the deviousness of the Clintons, her own voting in the Senate, her "triangulating" all sides of an issue (I would label it more accurately "quadrangulating"), her refusing to admit that the Iraq war resolution was a mistake, among many other reasons, does not make me, nor a lot of others, excited about a Hillary Clinton presidency.

As the 2000 and 2004 elections taught us, the Democratic candidate will not win without a sizeable lead over the Republican. An evenly split vote as occurred in those elections will give the Republican machine another opportunity to cook the vote counting to steal the election. A Clinton candidacy will mean another close vote and very probably another stolen election. I don't want to see that happen.

[Dr Fate]

34. It's not for me to demonstrate. The GOP voters may demonstrate it for you soon enough.

But like Forkboy said above, I think she could possibly beat them by a hair even with that.

Still, I would prefer not to take that chance- I think we could have a much more comfortable margin with almost any other candidate.

[slick8790]

38. Did you watch the republican debate on sunday?

Hillary was mentioned THIRTY FOUR TIMES compared to none for any other democrat. And the audience and focus group went NUTS. They wackadoos go rabid at the thought of another clinton.

[cuke]

39. Do they hate Gore any less? Kerry? Edwards?

It's not hard for the repukes to stir up hate in their minions whenever they want

[enough already]

42. Yes

They hate all of those mentioned less.

[cuke]

45. Have you got any evidence for that?

Or am I supposed to take the word of some stranger on the Internet?

[Forkboy]

49. The last fifteen years.

One would think you might have noticed.Believe what you want.

[Dr Fate]

52. Prove that the sky is blue- but dont ask me to look out the window.

n/t

[Forkboy]

53. No shit, huh?

I worry about people sometimes, I really do.

[PurityOfEssence]

54. "I said it in Hebrew--I said it in Dutch--

...I said it in German and Greek:
But I wholly forgot (and it vexes me much)
That English is what you speak!"

From Lewis Carroll's "The Hunting of the Snark, an Agony in Eight Fits", one of the gems of world literature...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

62. The Biblical Argument, Ay

God said it, it's in the Bible , I believe it...No need to verify...

Got ya...

[cuke]

64. They think their delusions are obvious to all

I remember them being no less vicious to Gore as they were to Hillary, but the haters see what they want

These same posters do not seem to see the right-wing spew that appears on DU on a daily basis

[Forkboy]

68. Give it up already.

Don't blame me if you lived in a cave for the last fifteen years.

And I'll tell you this once and hope it sinks into that lump on your shoulders...I don't hate Hillary, and I certainly never hated Gore.I see the right wing spew on this site, but unlike you I see against more than just the one you grovel before.

One of these days I hope you actually make a point, because so far you're batting zero.

[cuke]

69. Did you assume I was referring to you?

[Forkboy]

70. Like you weren't.

More of that vaunted cuke honesty.

:rofl:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

72. Can't We All Just Get Along

I assure you if a Puke was kicking your or cuke's ass I'd come to your defense, both of you...

[Forkboy]

76. And I would do the same, for you, him, or anyone here, even those I don't like.

But I also won't let him accuse me of ignoring shit I haven't ignored, and hating Hillary when I don't.If she had been running in 2000 I would have voted for her in a heartbeat (the last seven years hasn't made too many on our side of the aisle look very appealing anymore).In another thread I gave him examples of the same thing he claims he hates and he brushed them aside like they didn't matter, because they were too old to count apparently.Like there's some kind of outrage expiration date or something.

I'm sick of people here who whine about something but turn a blind eye to it when it's coming from their camp.I like both Edwards and Kucinich but I've bitched about both of them, too.Kucinich IS spacey and not a very good legislator...Edwards position on gay marriage sucks, and his voting for IWR sucks even more.I'm not blinded by any candidate, because I understand all of us are flawed, and it's a matter of weighing the good against the bad for all of them.And I'm also waaay too cynical to ever get that wrapped up in any politician anyways.

I do thank you for the thought of you sticking up for us though.It's always nice to know someone is willing to cover your back.That feeling is a big factor in the people I choose to associate with.If I feel I'm just as likely to get stabbed in the back by people who are supposedly with me as I am from those I oppose then I have a hard time being friendly.And I get that feeling from a lot of people here.There's some I would never want to turn my back on, sadly.

[cuke]

81. DSB doesn't need your help. Democratic candidates do

but when rw bullshit is posted, you are nowhere to be found.

[Forkboy]

84. Yeah yeah...we heard your lame ass wrongness the first time.

Tell it to the judge.

[cuke]

87. Lots of right wing threads with no Forkboy on them

Contrary to your claim, you don't fight against the rw slime and you even repeat it

And I noticed you don't even try to refute the notion that it is a right wing meme

[Forkboy]

88. Lots of right wing examples shown to you that said didn't matter.

Contrary to your claim, you don't see to give a shit about it when it's from people you agree with.

The hatred for the Clinton's is not a right wing meme, and if you think it is then you're even more foolish and blind that I already suspect is the case.

I can hardly wait to see what your next lame non-point will be.

[cuke]

89. Making up stuff won't help you

I have posted criticisms on every thread I've seen that uses a rw source.

Wish I could say the same for you, but I posted links to threads and you are nowhere to be found on those threads.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

71. If We Nominated Jesus The Rethugs Would Crucify Him On A Cross Built By Right Wing Evangelicals

DSB

[Forkboy]

73. Except jesus isn't running, Hillary is, and after Jesus they hate her the most.

[cuke]

82. And you are happy to repeat that "fact"

while claiming you fight the right-wing propoganda

[Forkboy]

86. Quit making a fool of yourself.

I know that's a tall order, but for the sake of all of us, do try.

[cuke]

90. I noticed you won't deny that it's a right wing argument

Even * and Rove are making that argument, and you have no problem repeating what * and Rove said

[Forkboy]

91. Saying the right hates her is a right wing argument?

You are one dim bulb.

[cuke]

93. Both * and Rove made that argument

They both said that HRC would win the Dem nom, but would lose the GE because so many people don't like her. It was widely reported across the nation, and DU had numerous threads about it.

So how is it not right-wing propoganda?

[Forkboy]

95. Only I said she'd win the GE.

The right wing hates Hillary.If you can't see that I have nothing left to say to you, as your cognitive skills are so off the radar as to be invisible.

Have fun storming the castle! :hi:

[cuke]

96. * and Rove agree with you

"The right wing hates Hillary"

[Forkboy]

97. So, is your argument that the Right DOESN'T hate Hillary?

:rofl:

Ok, thanks for showing everyone your thinking skills. Christ, you make me long for a flamewar with wyldwolf.At least he's intentionally funny.

[cuke]

98. My argument is that it's a right wing argument

which you haven't denied as you repeat it

[Forkboy]

100. Now who is the one dodging?

Does the Right hate Hillary or not?

[cuke]

101. Not dodging

I'll be very clear

Unlike you, I do not repeat right-wing propoganda

And * and Rove didn't say "repukes hate Hillary". They said voters don't like Hillary. You agree.

[Forkboy]

102. Oh, you're dodging, and it's clear to see for all of us.

Does the Right hate Hillary? Why won't you answer this simple question directly?

[cuke]

103. Not dodging

"Why won't you answer this simple question directly?"

I don't repeat right wing propoganda. You do

[Forkboy]

104. You're funny, and clearly dodging.

But I understand why, and I don't blame you.You know you're trapped here because you know the Right does indeed hate her, and the second you admit it you're agreeing with Rove and Bush. :rofl:

Thanks for playing.Cya in the funny papers.

[cuke]

108. The right hates every Democrat

And I have never agreed with repukes, but you have agreed with * and Cheney, and you admitted it.

[Name removed]

74. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[enough already]

40. How about the Gallup poll this week?

A full 50% of LIKELY voters say they will NEVER vote for her. EVER! So let's say your fantasyland belief that the pukes will just turn out like normal comes true. It won't matter. Half of those likely to come out have already made up their minds about her, and that no doubt includes at least a portion of our own party. She can't win.

But by all means, let's continue our death march to her nomination.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

60. Here's The Latest Gallup Poll And Other Polls

http://www.pollingreport.com/C2.htm#Hillary



You shouldn't make things up on the internet where those things can be verified...It makes you look, errrrrrrrr_____________________---

[PurityOfEssence]

44. Can you prove that it won't?

Just to be fair so we don't waste too much time, please state what would be acceptable evidence for you.

[illinoisprogressive]

46. Hillary is also depress dem turnout

[rinsd]

50. Actually Obama depresses turnout amongst Democrats (at least in comparison to Hillary)

All told, 57% of Democrats who express a candidate preference say they are certain to support that candidate, much better than the 44% of Republicans who say they are certain to support their first choice for the Republican nomination. But the Democratic number is inflated by Clinton supporters -- 67% of Democrats who name Clinton as their first choice say they are certain to support her, compared with just 44% of Democrats who support any of the other Democratic presidential candidates Thus, it appears that the Democrats' advantage in candidate enthusiasm over Republicans is largely attributable to heightened excitement among Clinton backers.

That idea is further underscored by the fact that 64% of all Democrats say they would vote for Clinton "enthusiastically" if she were the party's presidential nominee in 2008, significantly higher than the comparable percentages for Obama (49%) and Edwards (41%).

http://www.gallup.com/poll/102001/Fifty-Percent-Democrats-Back-Clinton-Latest-Trial-Heat.aspx

[PurityOfEssence]

47. Here's an interesting WaPo article

Of course, it's talking about numerous Democratic operatives and their internal polls pointing to huge unfavorables for her, but that's not your question. You asked for some evidence. There's a statement from the Greenville S.C. Democratic Party Chairman who says just this, but he's just saying it without further justification.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/13/AR2007081300599.html?tid%3Dinformbox&sub=AR

Here's a clip from the evil NewsMax from Roger Stone where he says the same thing. Still, no polling done with that specific question, which is presumably what you want. Sniff at NewsMax if you will, but Stone's not a total idiot.

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/7/8/200213.shtml?s=al&promo_code=36CD-1

[DemFemme]

48. I'd like to see this asked of Republican likely voters in a poll

"Will you be more likely to vote Republican on Election Day if Hillary Clinton is the nominee?"

Substitute with Obama, Edwards, etc. and repeat question. The answers should prove enlightening
if the pollster is impartial and doesn't have connections to any campaigns.

[rinsd]

51. I would like to see polling like that as well.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

63. Wow

Is the assertion embodied in your premise that if we nominate anybody but Hillary all the Republicans will stay home and the Democrats will win by unanimous acclamation?

[RebelSansCause]

56. by turning away moderate voters who would have voted

democratic instead of republican because of who she is, that, in my opinion at least, increases GOP turnout. it gives them votes we could have had.

[wyldwolf]

66. polling disputes your contention

[Stop Cornyn]

57. I cannot demonstrate how it will be cold on election day in Maine, but common sense says it will be.

[wyldwolf]

65. I can

The part of the world NH is in will be further from the sun than it is in the summer. Science.

Can you demonstrate a scientifically arrived at precedent in regards to the OP?

[Perry Logan]

75. I say let them turn out. The "higher GOP turnout" argument is an argument based on fear.

Surely, we we don't want a candidate who puts Republicans to sleep. I don't think any of the Democratic contenders are as dull as that!

Don't forget: Republicans are crazy. They freak out at all the best people.

[Forkboy]

80. So is the "vote for Hillary or the SCOTUS gets even worse" argument.

[ginchinchili]

116. Chill out for a minute. Not all republicans are crazy.

Only their leaders. That's an important point to remember going into this election.

[antiimperialist]

77. Many also wrongly assume that the GOP won't swiftboat Obama or Edwards if they win

It might be true that Hil is the most hated Dem. in GOP circles now, but if Obama wins the nomination, for example, the right-wing media backed by its accomplice, the mainstream media, will find a way to make things up about Obama and exaggerate whatever he says and does. Same goes for Edwards. Whatever sympathies Obama may arise from conservatives will disappear. Do you doubt Rush limbaugh will step up his game and throw vile accusations against Obama or Edwards if they are nominated?
Any Democrat who is pitted against the GOP winner will be hated at the end by GOP'ers.

[harun]

85. Do you think Hillary may actually have more immunity to this

type of attack due to her already being attacked for the last 15 years?

I think she might but I still think it is too risky to run her as the nominee. Ticket should be Edwards/Obama. Let them attack that ticket all they want, it won't stop them from winning.

[DrFunkenstein]

92. You Could Trace their Fundraising Numbers According to Her Mentions

If you don't believe poll after poll, maybe hard cash will do the trick.

[rinsd]

111. I have brought that up as a possible experiment.

The RNC recently has been using her in a mailer calling her a juggernaut flush with cash.

Of course we won't be able to look at those numbers until Jan right around Iowa so that doesn't do us much good.

[dionysus]

99. you know there are many ways to demostrate that it could happen

you also know that noone can prove something that has yet to happen. we'll have to look at the turnout numbers after the elections. i think she'll drive up turnout for rethugs, but we won't know until it does or doesn't happen.

[AtomicKitten]

106. Demonstration.

http://vwt.d2g.com:8081/vwt.jpg

[ginchinchili]

115. You offer a challenge that's impossible to take.

It can't be demonstrated until the election, but we can extrapolate from what we do know.

Keep in mind that everything from this point on is political strategy, on the parts of all the candidates. Why do you suppose at the last Republican debate they were all using Hillary as part of that strategy I just mentioned? One thing I can assure you of; it's not that they all forgot themselves and were expressing their fears. If you have your finger on the pulse of American politics you know Hillary will increase GOP turnout just like adding measures banning gay marriage to ballots increases GOP turnout. The problem for you is that you have to be able to be objective to recognize it.

[cuke]

117. Because Hillary is the front runner

In 2003, when Dean looked like the frontrunner, they couldn't stop talking about him

[ginchinchili]

119. This is not true. They talked more about the Democrats as a whole.

It was nothing like what we're seeing now. It amazes me how Hillary's supporters come up with any excuse except the truth. The obvious reason they kept bringing up Hillary is because it makes those watching like the Republican candidate who's attacking her. Period. It's pretty simple. Dislike of Hillary is something they all have in common. It's about the only thing they all have in common. It's because they know Republican voters bristle at the thought of have her as their President.

A little word to the wise for Hillary supporters. Rather than pretend the animosity doesn't exist and ignoring it until it comes up and eats you alive, recognize it as one of her obstacles--all candidates have their obstacles--and figure out strategies to get around that obstacle. I assure you that that's how she's approaching it. Not by denying it.

[cuke]

120. Nope

Dean was on every talk show, on the covers of 3 major magazines, and they were all talking about "Dean, Dean, Dean"

And please stop pretending that anyone has said that she wont be attacked and don't pretend that the repukes will go easy on any dem. You're the only one in denial about how every dem will be attacked with everything they have

[ginchinchili]

122. Then why did it start with Karl Rove before the primary every started?

As I said, denial is only hurting your candidate. You're arguing that the world is flat. It's not and people haven't questioned that for a long time. And now you and other Hillary supports are coming out insisting that the world is flat. Repeating it over and over again is not going to make the world flat, nor does it mean that Hillary is not anathema to a large segment our the American population, more so than any other candidate. The world is not flat.

[cuke]

124. The same reason it started with Rove in 2003 - BEFORE the primaries

You do remember that Dean did not win the primaries, so obviously they couldn't attack him as the frontrunner because he wasn't the frontrunner. By that time, Kerry was the front-runner, and they attacked him.

Like I said, it's you that is in denial. You can't even admit the obvious fact that Dean got a lot of coverage when he was the frontrunner. You're the only person I've ever seen deny that.

[Colobo]

118. No. Obama is our best candidate.

She's good too, but Obama and Edwards are better.

[ginchinchili]

123. Except that we're at war and Obama has ZERO foreign policy experience.

That's a fact that would defeat him in a general election. Americans aren't willing to take a chance on the security of their country, and that's how it would feel, rightly or wrongly.

[fightindonkey]

125. LMAO! The Myth Created By The GOP About Clinton. People, Wake Up.