By Diogenes (articles ) | September 08, 2006 12:51 PM
I wish he were wrong, but I fear he's not. Poll-cruncher Dick Morris thinks Hillary has the best shot at getting into the Oval Office next time around. In addition to the traditional, locked-in constituencies (gays, unionized teachers, presidents of Georgetown), Hillary will be able to jack up the turn-out of unmarried women to her advantage.
Half of all women in the United States are single, and they voted for Kerry in 2004 by a margin of 25 points. But their turnout was only 59 percent, about 10 points below married white men or women. Even so, they dramatically increased their share of turnout, to 22 percent (from 19 percent in 2000). They were the only major demographic group to increase their vote share.
If Hillary runs, she will bring out single women in unheard of numbers. Likely, she will increase their turnout by about 6 to 7 million votes.
Those extra votes will be hard to offset. White men and married white women are already pretty well maxed out in their turnout. There were not a lot of Bush voters who stayed home in 2004. And very few Kerry voters will back the Republican in 2008.
Unsettlingly plausible. Plugging her for the nomination in 2004, Morris wrote that Hillary's candidacy would "turn a campaign into a crusade," and that should be equally true for the next presidential election.
On the other hand, Morris has not reckoned with the impact of the USCCB's Voter's Guide for 2008.
God help us all.
An appeal from our founder, Dr. Jeffrey Mirus:
Dear reader: If you found the information on this page helpful in your pursuit of a better Catholic life, please support our work with a donation. Your donation will help us reach five million Truth-seeking readers worldwide this year. Thank you!
Our Fall Campaign
Progress toward our final 2013 goal ($16,731 to go, assuming receipt of matching funds):
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
Posted by: Convert1994 -
Sep. 11, 2006 9:01 AM ET USA
Yes, Hillary DID demonstrate political savvy. She grabbed onto the coattails of a rising Democrat star, masqueraded as his devoted wife, and then took over at her first opportunity.
Posted by: Cupertino -
Sep. 09, 2006 3:10 PM ET USA
Sen. Clinton has demonstrated political savy in getting where she is. She is a natural for the Democrats and will be hard to beat for the Presidency. But, if elected, she will have exactly the same problems that Bush has: the budget, the war, social security, terrorism and domestic security, illegal immigration etc. A spirited and principled opposition will be much better for all of us than the disaster under Bush who has silenced all truly conservative instincts and produced a disaster.
Posted by: -
Sep. 09, 2006 1:47 PM ET USA
I am a single woman I did not vote for H in NY and I will not vote for her in any election, so not all single women are for H. Some of us do have minds of our own.
Posted by: hUMPTY dUMPTY -
Sep. 09, 2006 6:02 AM ET USA
I belive Dick Morris had a problem with female toes. However the naivete of the 2004 UCCB Guide for Voters was less than persuasive. Where are the Catholic Bishops of Old who understood political winds and used them to influence elections? Oh yes, the Presidency was the second bridge that Ted chose not to cross. AMDG
Posted by: Blessed Bucky Badger -
Sep. 09, 2006 12:17 AM ET USA
Agreed wpatc64. Who needs Hillary when we've got Dubya? Though he occasionally provides a little propaganda "pro-life" rhetoric, when the policy rubber hits the road he is all pro-abort: the 2001 embryonic stem cell research policy--guaranteeing a later demand for full funding, his $15 BILLION dollar AIDS package to fund IPPF, and now his allowance of selling the morning after pill as easily as candy. BTW, the Hillary presidency was decided long ago by the Bush / Clinton cadre of handlers.
Posted by: Clorox -
Sep. 08, 2006 8:58 PM ET USA
Hillary as prez, eh? Watch how the hallowed Patriot Act will be used against her opponents. The years of Republican neglect of the Constitution will exact an ugly price, I fear. Speaking of which, why is the Constitutionally necessary "declaration of war" now such a quaint idea?
Posted by: Janet Baker -
Sep. 08, 2006 8:47 PM ET USA
We can only hope and pray that what happened in Maryland will repeat itself. In 2002, for the first time since Spiro Agnew, a Republican won the governorship - and his opponent was a female Kennedy to boot. By the way - Ehrlich has shown himself to be quite the loser and I will not cast another vote for him.
Posted by: Pseudodionysius -
Sep. 08, 2006 8:07 PM ET USA
President Hillary Clinton rolls off the tongue like "Jumbo Shrimp". The ultimate oxymoron.
Posted by: TheJournalist64 -
Sep. 08, 2006 7:33 PM ET USA
A Hilary White House would be a disaster, but what has Bush done? Perhaps he has given us a couple of good Supremes, but they have yet to sing a really important song. For the rest, he has left our borders porous, rewarded his contributors, avenged his daddy to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars wasted on "nation building," and destroyed the Reagan consensus perhaps permanently. And left us a couple of trillion in debt. This is good?
Posted by: frjimc -
Sep. 08, 2006 7:03 PM ET USA
For years I feared a Teddy Kennedy presidential candidacy. Perhaps Hillary will come to the same conclusion Teddy apparently did: that with "negatives" like theirs, a win in the general election would not preclude the possibility that a member of the opposition's fringe might decide to take matters into their own hands. Kennedy saw the effects of such hatred up close and personal and decided not to run; are Hillary's "negatives" any less than his were? She is certainly hated....
Posted by: rpp -
Sep. 08, 2006 6:47 PM ET USA
I think I may expand my search of schools to complete my post-graduate work to include those abroad.
Posted by: Minnesota Mary -
Sep. 08, 2006 6:45 PM ET USA
I'm not sure what you are saying about the USCCB's Voter's Guide for 2008. If it is like the last one, Catholics will be given the green light to vote for Hillary. When I think about it, this country started to go down hill when women were given the vote.
Posted by: Quadratus -
Sep. 08, 2006 4:50 PM ET USA
Can the antichrist be a female?
Posted by: sparch -
Sep. 08, 2006 3:29 PM ET USA
We need to pray that a candidate will emerge who speaks the simple truth so all may understand. The choice must be made clear for all to see. May God lead us through these difficult years to come.
Posted by: Fr. William -
Sep. 08, 2006 3:20 PM ET USA
Hillary? President? I questioned/doubted her candidacy for US Senator in NY, but was wrong then as NewYorkers actually voted for her, someone who'd never lived in the state. If she's elected president of the US, however, we might consider that the Day of Judgment is near...
Posted by: Coemgen -
Sep. 08, 2006 3:05 PM ET USA
I was polled the other day and asked if the two options for president for was Hillary Clinton or Rudy Giuliani, who would I vote for. Not knowing the positions of Mr. Giuliani, I choose not to answer. Then I went and looked at his positions. Reflecting back on the pollster's question, in this case I'm flumoxed as to who is worse.
Posted by: -
Sep. 08, 2006 1:32 PM ET USA
She must get past the hard left in the primaries where only the hard cores participate. If she can, only the second coming will stop her.
Posted by: -
Sep. 08, 2006 1:25 PM ET USA
Lets pray and pray some more that all these "single women" are smart enough not to vote for Hilary!
Posted by: -
Sep. 08, 2006 1:16 PM ET USA
I don't care what Dick Morris says. Please tell me how Hillary Clinton will get the requisite number of white males to vote for her in 2008? She can't win with just female votes. Morris is assuming that Democrat votes will stay with Hillary in 2008 and I think there are MANY in that party who dislike her enough to sit out the election or cross over.