Boxer could win the presidency if she tried

[Lenape85]

This is yet another "praise Barbara Boxer" thread, and we need a lot of them these days.

Many people might think that in 2008, Boxer might be our best bet. However, many will claim that a Jewish woman from California could never play in the heartland. One some counts, they may be right, but look at what we have here.

Boxer would be able to win the West Coast states easily, and could win all the states Kerry won as well, knowing the demographics.

However, there is also Florida, which has a big Jewish community. Since Boxer is Jewish, that could help her a bit in the sunshine state.

Also, Ohio could be a possibility also; unlike Kerry, she has always been opposed to NAFTA, and that tends to play well in the rust belt.

And unlike Kerry, she would be standing tall against the vote fraud that Kerry merely paid lip service too. She also tends to have a strong party strategy and is independent of the DLC.

If she wins all the states Kerry won in 2004, plus Forida and Ohio, that would be 299 electoral votes. That's assuming she will be willing to challenge vote fraud before it happened.

[leyton]

1. Eh, I don't know. Could she win New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona?

Senators are a bad idea in general, and I don't think the country is ready for a woman to lead.

I'd rather us not work on the formula of winning the Kerry states plus one more. That didn't go so well - we need to try and make inroads in the South and the Southwest. If Boxer could win New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, I might be game. But otherwise, I'd like a candidate who can greatly expand the map.

[FtWayneBlue]

2. Well, anyway

She would have MY vote!

[Cleita]

3. Uh, we know Hillary will probably run so why

not Barbara? I think she could win New Mexico because the demographic is similar to the ones she won over in very red counties in California. Nevada is full of Mormon Republicans, so don't expect much from them and Arizona is full of white retirees from red states. I don't underestimate Barbara though. She runs very successful campaigns and she really campaigns in every nook and cranny of possible voters.

[leyton]

9. Uh, I didn't mention Hillary.

I don't think she should run. You make a good point that Boxer wins very thorough victories, which is a plus. I do like the idea of a candidate who competes for every vote.

[Lenape85]

4. But Boxer has a great voting record

She was against NAFTA, so she would whup whatever Republican's ass on that issue, potentially helping us out in the Rust Belt.

She was against the IWR and could be a strong voice for trying to phase out this horrible war.

These are assets that John Kerry and many other senators did not have.

She's also Western, which could help in Nevada, Colorado, and New Mexico.

[vpigrad]

7. Why would you say Clinton is a bad idea?

> Senators are a bad idea in general

WTF! Clinton is a santor, and you're saying it's a bad idea for her to run? Again, WTF!

[leyton]

8. Well, I didn't mention Clinton in my post.

It is a bad idea for her to run. She is a polarizing figure and I'll bet her negatives are pretty high.

Senators are a bad idea in general for several reasons. Being in a legislature forces them to take stances on every issue, which creates no-win situations. It also forces them to compromise, which can easily be misconstrued as a flip-flop. Senators also tend not to have executive experience and thus are less likely to be able to manage a national campaign and/or the country itself.

[iwantmycountryback]

10. I don't see why she couldn't win New Mexico and Nevada at least

She is from a state in the same areas and probably has pretty similar demographics. Bush won these states by tiny margins so I think she could. She obviously gets a lot of hispanic votes in CA, so she could probably do it in these states.

[yardwork]

5. She would have my vote!

[mitchtv]

11. third highest vote getter in the country

after chimp and Kerry

[nostamj]

6. anyone know if she scheduled for any Sunday talk?

maybe someone will ask if she's interested in a run...

[Rosco T.]

13. Clinton/Boxer perhaps? n/t

[ComerPerro]

12. The first female or minority President will be a Republican

Suppose our nominee in 2008 is female or is a minority. We wouldn't stand a chance. While we would have the votes of some women (excluding the Bush voting, self hating, Ann Coulter types) or most of whichever miority group is represented by our candidates, it wouldn't matter. After all, we get these groups' votes anyway. The people we have to pander to are the bigots, the sexists, and the racists.

I guarantee, if we run Boxer in 2008 all you will hear is how she is too soft and that we need someone tough for tough times. While they won't actually come out and say it, they will tiptoe around saying that a woman can't effectively lead the country.

However, if the GOP runs a female or minority, they will have their base and many well-meaning moderates vote for them. Also, you will see people like Limbaugh and Hannity calling us racist or sexist because we are not supporting this person. And we will be branded as hypocrites.

For proof, just look at Bush's cabinet.