Doesn't Primary math hurt HRC in 2008?

[Perky]

Does anyone really think theat HRC could win Iowa, New Hampshire or South Carolina?

Vlisak has to be presumptive in Iowa. So maybe everyone else takes a pass there. But Edwards should take SC and perhaps NH if JFK does not run.

Hilary would have to wait until Super Tuesday to breakthough and even then it might be in only one or two states. Someone is going to have serious momentum by then.

This is not be contrued as Hilary Bashing. I just don't see how she can pull it out given the early primary schedule.


Thoughts?

[shoelace414]

1. who thought Kerry would be the nominee

back in the year 2000?

except for the Vice Pres.. it seems like "traditional wisdom" doesn't work.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

9. Pretty much everybody once Gore dropped out.

He was the consensus favorite.

[lapfog_1]

2. I've never been all that keen on her

and after some of the votes AND COMMENTS recently, I'm even less
keen on her.

Boxer would be so much better. As would Dean, Clark, Gore ( he can
talk about lock box again... and this time some people will actually
listen ) and a bunch of others (even Edwards if he can find a way to
stay in the news). Just my humble opinion. She makes an OK
Senator from NY, will likely have her hands full winning re-election.
Let's let her concentrate on that.

[Perky]

3. (amen)

I agree. And History does not treat Nominees from the Senate well regardless.

My concern is that she is a lightning rod for GOP fundraising and takes dollars out of the hands of those who have a much better chance of winning.

Again....not bashing just being pragmatic.

[theboss]

4. I think Hillary! would bury Edwards in NH

She'e better known, has the better organization, and is just as experienced in the door-to-door campaigning in that state as he is.

Having said that, she doesn't need to win any of those to win the nomination. With her money and name recognition, she would be in it until the end. If she can string together a few strong showings early to make it Hillary v. Edwards or Hillary v. Viksack, she will probably win.

It's the same exact template Bill followed. He lost both Iowa and NH, but managed to make it Clinton-Tsongas (with Jerry Brown as the Beaver). Then, he romped.

[CWebster]

5. Of course the entire Democratic wing of the Democratic party

might sit it out this time. Do you think the swing voters can claim her as their own?

[theboss]

6. I still don't reall understand that quote

All I know is that there are a lot of Democratic interest groups that still owe a lot of chits to the Clintons. All Bill has to do is make a few calls and Hillary will have the union vote and minority vote locked up with all the Hollywood money she can spend. Add to that a probable split of the women's vote and that should be more than enough to get through a Primary season.

Whether she can win a general election, however, is still a subject of debate.

Generally, speaking here are the keys to a primary win:

1. Money. Hillary will bury anyone in this area - even Gore, Kerry, or Edwards.

2. Name recognition. Better than Edwards. Probably better than Kerry or Gore. Clearly better than anyone else.

3. Organization/get out the vote efforts efforts. This means unions. This means seniors. This means black churches. The Clinton machinery was brilliant at this and it all automatically goes to her. Edwards won't have this. Gore and Kerry could, but a lot of their organization was Clinton hand-me-downs anyway. This is also where Dean went totally belly-up in '04.

4. Day to day campaigning. This is probably still Hillary's weak point and is where Edwards would easily trump her, I think. Still, she did better in New York at this than anyone expected. And she still has Bill who is probably the best Democrat ever at this.

5. Debates. Probably a draw across the board unless Gore is involved. Gore is clearly her better in this area. Edwards is pretty good too. Same with Kerry.

Dean of course would be the wild card in all this depending on where he throws the DNC machinery. But I still think a lot of that organization will owe the Clintons come '08.

[CWebster]

7. The Democratic party is not the personal property

of the Clintons to use as the vehicle to pursue their personal ambitions.

[theboss]

11. Well, someone needs to tell them that...

The Clintons are in the same position the Kennedy brothers were in from '68 to '76. They will always have first crack at the mechanisms of the Party, and everyone else has to wait in line.

[CWebster]

12. We will see

But is likely she is moving in the direction an increasing number of Dems aren't interested in going.

She is open season for the worst Republican and media liberal target shooting, but the real liberals don't recognize her as one of their own. If Kerry couldn't trounce the worst president of our times, by pandering to the center, how far will Hillary's appeal go with a potential opponent who may be less polarizing than Bush?

How long can Democrats tolerate another politician who distances themself from the fundamental principles to shield themself from the Right's bullying--especially when they are bound to bully anyway. In that case, might as well stand up for something--it might actually win the voters' confidence, rather than their disdain.

[theboss]

13. Depends on how good at it she is, particularly on immigration

To me, Kerry's problem was that he never really distinguished himself from Bush in any meaningful way. The Clinton strategy has always been to draw grand distinctions between yourself and your opponents - whether it's to the right or left. Clinton ran far to the right of Bush on China for example. He ran far to the right of the rest of the party on trade. He then ran hard to the left on health care, abortion, and gay rights.

The real sign over the next four years is how hard to the right Hillary runs on illegal immigration. I think she is going to try to box Bush in on this issue from the right in the hopes of shaking up his base a bit and getting centrists to look at her with new eyes. This will be the "Free Trade" of 2008, where she shows herself to be a free-thinking Dem not trapped by old Orthodoxy.

I also think she is betting that her Iraq votes and confirmation votes will be old old news by then - and then just as proof that she is not a rabid partisan.

Then she can unfurl all the Leftist rhetoric she wants at the Base with her Right flank well protected.

It's actually a brilliant strategy for anyone other than her. I think she is ultimately too personally polarizing to win a general election.

But I think the formuala is right:

Be tough on defense/terror. Run hard to the right on illegal immigration. Look willing to compromise. Run Left on everything else.

[CWebster]

14. A formula that has outlived its time

How many failures will it take to see it?

[theboss]

15. As long as Bill Clinton is alive, I imagine Democrats will try it

The real problem with it is how defeatist it is. Democrats have to first admit to themselves that their true values aren't winnable in order to embrace the triangulation.

[Tom Rinaldo]

8. Clark beat Edwards in New Hampshire

And Clark did not have the momentum of a strong Iowa finish behind him like Edwards did, since Clark didn't compete in Iowa. There are a nuumber of Democrats who could compete well in New Hampshire.

[Yupster]

10. I think as soon as Hillary announces,

the networks will go onto 24 hour Hillary coverage, and no other candidate will get a breath of news. It will be over as soon as she announces.