Hillary Clinton leads among Democrats in almost every poll, but can she really win?
This is the first in a series of articles in which will analyze the campaigns of the nationally prominent candidates.  The analysis is based on information we've gathered from ratings, comments and debate at U4prez.com. As has often been said before, U4prez members aren't "likely voters", they are voters.
There can be no doubt that Senator Clinton enjoys passionate support from a committed base.  She has been rated more times than any other nationally prominent candidate on the site and she leads the Democrats. While we are still at the early stages of the election process, it would appear that Mrs. Clinton has the nomination wrapped up.  Yet we still hear the constant buzzing of "unelectable" in the background. The negatives are just too high. Is that tide starting to turn?  A recent Gallup poll  surmises that Hillary's negative numbers aren't any worse than BIll Clinton or George Bush had prior to their election victories.

Behind those numbers is a disturbing trend if you are a Hillary supporter.
The Gallup poll misses the point.  Yes,  the negatives are similar to others who have gone on to win. So what?  Let's be honest, it's not so much the number, as it is the intensity of the number.  While she has racked up over 2500 votes, she trails many prominent Republicans.  The reason for this is her negatives are so  high. Every day Hillary Clinton receives several ratings or "votes" of ten.  These are her die hard supporters. She also receives several ratings of one.  When we contrast this with Fred Thompson, who leads the prominent Republicans, and trails only U4prez candidate Ray McKinney we see a completely different pattern.  Mr. Thompson enjoys the same passionate support that Hillary enjoys. The difference is in the negatives, or lack thereof.  The u4prez members who do not support him, are likely to vote him a three or four at the lowest.  What this indicates, is that these voters would probably support Fred, if he were the Republican nominee.  In the worst case, they are not likely to go out and  vote specifically against him.

Is there any way for Hillary to turn off those negatives?
Yes, but words alone won't work, it's going to take action..  For Hillary Clinton to have any real chance of becoming president she must neutralize the negatives, or the "anti-Hillary" crowd.   The voter who doesn't like what Hillary stands for, and in fact has a high negative opinion of her, isn't going to listen to her campaign speeches, or advertised sound bites.  Her ambling move to the center is a step in the right direction. But with no concrete legislation, or voting records to back it up, it comes across as disingenuous rhetoric.  To capture the attention of those committed to voting against her, she's going to have to introduce legislation, or support legislation that is contrarian to her perceived image.  For this gambit to work, it's going to have to be both loud and controversial.  A sotto voce on gun control just isn't going to fill the bill. 

So is there an issue she can run with?
Actually, there are two, and believe it or not, one of them is health care. The disastrous health care plan devised in the early 1990's could produce a golden opportunity for Senator Clinton to pull in a new and very broad support base.  Hidden in that ill conceived concept was Tort reform.  If in short order Mrs. Clinton can pull off a major piece of legislation aimed at protecting doctors and pharmaceuticals from frivolous or excessive law suits, she could turn the tide.  This issue is probably her best chance, because she would only alienate the trial lawyers.  This is a golden opportunity to pare down the negatives,and it would create an opportunity for her to be to the right of Fred Thompson on a very important issue.  While in the Senate Thompson voted against medical malpracticeTort reform believing it to be a state issue.

The other opportunity lies in Iraq. This is a bit more dangerous, but the reward would be much bigger.  The danger lies in alienating her base.  It would appear on the surface that supporting the war in Iraq would crush her chances at the nomination.  But this isn't really the case when we look a little deeper. She has never been at the forefront of the anti war movement, and has in fact taken quite a bit of heat for her tepid support of the war on terror, and specifically the war in Iraq.  If the senator from New York where to introduce legislation committing the troops to Iraq or supporting the war, she would quickly neutralize one of her largest groups of detractors.  She may not get their vote, but she may stop them from voting against her.

The bottom line?
It's going to be un uphill struggle, and conventional wisdom is probably right, she can't win. The gallup poll is simply a surface comparison and doesn't delve in to the level of negative feeling for Senator Hillary Clinton.   The vitriolic comments on U4prez about Hillary don't bode well for the future.  The Democrats on the site, while not necessarily negative, still fall in to two camps; die hard supporters, or those resigned to try and support someone else in the primary.  Actions speak louder than words, and to win, she's going to need some awfully loud actions. 

Eric Gurr
U4prez.com