Can Hillary win more states then Gore or Kerry?

[PresidentObama]

Does everyone think Hillary Clinton could honestly deliever more states in 2008 then Senator Kerry or Vice President Gore did?

I don't at all. I have a hard time seeing her win Florida and Ohio. I doubt she'd move Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, or Iowa any closer back to us. And personally, I think she'd struggle to get past the fact a lot of people are against her before she even announces.

I don't remember this much hatred on the part of the GOP base, and as much question about a candidate from the Democratic base.

Time for an honest, open debate about Hillary :)

Lets keep it clean, please!

[SoFlaJet]

1. she ain't winning Florida

not with the election system still skewed AND screwed up favoring the GOP with Charlie Crist as governor...they are very reluctant to change anything down here while they are still in control

[ElizabethDC]

20. I don't think any Democrat is going to win Florida

and as a Floridian, I hate for that to be the case, but it's true.

[Hippo_Tron]

84. It would have to be a landslide to win Florida

Florida's election system is undoubtedly crooked. Fortunately Ohio will be cleaned up by the new Democratic state government.

[skipos]

2. No.

To say "yes" implies that there were lots of people who voted for Bush in 2004 that will vote for Hillary. I have never heard of one such person. I do know the existance of many who voted for Kerry but will not vote for Hillary. I am under the impression that there are many such people out there.

Too bad Hillary isn't a senator from AR, so she could at least be guaranteed to flip her homestate (like Richardson would).

I think her electoral map could rival Dukakis' depending on who she is running against.

[MonkeyFunk]

14. then how do you explain

that Kerry got 59% of the vote in New York in '04, but Clinton got 67% in '06?

Looks to me like those 8% were Bush voters who voted for Clinton.

[skipos]

21. 1. People vote differently in senate/gov elections, they are a lot less partisan

Would Romney win MA in a presidential race? No.

2. Her Repub opponent was weak as hell. Unless they nominate Jeb in 08, the Repub pres nominee will not be nearly as weak. Everyone knew that she was going to win in 06. That will not be the case in 08.
3. NY is extremely blue. Do you think she could have been elected to the senate in Tennessee? I don't.
3. Turnout is always lower in non-presidential elections. 2,962,567 voted for Bush in 04. 2,811,981 for Clinton in 06.

If Clinton is our nominee, we will have to start getting used to the sound of "President McCain" or "President Huckabee."

[MonkeyFunk]

24. well I disagree

clearly, Clinton is getting Republican votes in New York.

Also, she CAN win, and the chicken-littles running around here just crack me up.

She's not even my choice, but I just don't get why everybody falls for the right wing lies and smears against her.

[skipos]

32. Sorry, you can try to convince yourself that I am "falling for right wing lies"

or you can take my word since you don't know the 1st thing about me.

Hillary got 20% of the repub vote in 2006
Obama got 40% of the repub vote in 2004, so he would have TWICE the crossover appeal as Hillary, right?
Kerry won 81% of the vote in MA in 2002, so he must have had massive Republican support, right? If he was our nominee it would be the biggest Democratic sweep since Lyndon Johnson. :eyes:

Hillary would probably get 10% of the Repub vote, just as Kerry and Gore did. The problem is, nobody would inspire a greater republican turnout than her. That's why so many Repubs hope she is our nominee.

42% of FL DEMOCRATS "approved" of the way Jeb was doing his job before he left office. That is some serious crossover appeal there. Why won't Repubs make him the nominee in 08? Because a ticket with "Bush" on it would inspire massive Dem turnout.

[MonkeyFunk]

40. And yet

people change who they support. Clinton has NOT been campaigning nationally - in fact, she's kept a low profile for the last 6 years and concentrated on doing her job in the Senate.

There's a cognitive behavior called "False Consensus Effect". It states that people vastly overestimate the popularity if things they like, and vastly underestimate the popularity of things they don't like.

So people who hate Clinton underestimate her popularity. Similarly, people who love <insert candidate here> vastly overestimate his/her popularity.

The fact is, Clinton has as good a shot, if not better, than any of the candidates running. I saw a poll on CNN last week that showed Clinton with a 58% favorable rating. Polls show her currently beating McCain and Giuliani by a wider margin than any other candidate. That's not evidence that that's what's going to happen 20 months from now, but it is evidence against the idea that she cannot win.

[skipos]

57. There is the "False Consensus Effect"

and then there is the "DU effect." People think that just because you don't support a candidate that you "hate" them or are a victim of RW propaganda.

I don't even dislike Clinton. Or Nelson. Or Feingold. I am happy with our big tent.

I am well aware that Clinton leads many primary polls, so I know that many people want her to be President. Unfortunately, she, unlike any other candidate we can nominate, is loathed by many on the left and right. I made a ton of money betting on political races in 2006. I put money on Lamont back when he was a blip on the radar, I then put money on Lieberman when I saw that Lamonts victory wasn't huge. I follow my own analysis, not anyone elses.

You said that her NY senate victory shows a lot of crossover appeal, I negated that with many facts and statistics which you never even tried to refute.

The reason that I am very confident that Hillary will lose to virually any Repub (save Jeb or Gingrich) is based on the fact that I live in a progressive town, come from a progressive family, and don't know a single person who is enthused about her nomination except Republicans. I should note that EVERY Republican I know wants her to be our nominee. She, like Edwards, Clark and Obama, has her devout followers, but she has more people (on the left and right) who strongly dislike her than any other realistic candidate.

"I hope she's the candidate, because nothing will energize my like Hillary Clinton" - Jerry Falwell

The guy is a nut, but he know what his fellow nust want: HRC as the Dem nominee.

[marions ghost]

116. ditto

on the point that I don't see the progressive/liberal support for Hillary. I certainly don't think she has an edge among the women I know. If her main support is among Republicans, how can she win the primary?

[dsc]

68. He didn't have a Republican opponent at all (Kerry)

so that is a specious comparision.

[skipos]

76. Oh, I forgot that.

Regardless, there are many Dem senators and governors being elected by impressive margins, and it isn't a good indicator that they would make good presidential candidates.

[Hippo_Tron]

86. Skipos, a year ago I would've agreed with you

But I think that the GOP has dug themselves into such a hole that even Hillary is electable. Granted I think she has the worst chance at winning a general election of any of them, but she could still win in 2008.

[skipos]

94. Yeah, I am beginning to think that way too.

With McCain hitching himself to Bush's Iraq policy the same way he hitched his lips to Bush's ass in 2000, maybe HRC won't be a guaranteed disaster. I just think she will have a harder time winning the g.e. than any other realistic Dem candidate.

[AlGore-08.com]

43. In 2004, Chuck Schumer won New York by 71%

By the logic you're using, that means Schumer would be a better presidential candidate than Hillary Clinton.

You're comparing apples and oranges. Not only do people vote differently in Presidential and Senate elections, 2004 and 2006 were different election cycles. Between the two elections there has been a major shift in public opinion away from the Bush admin and the Republican party.

[MonkeyFunk]

44. No

I'm simply pointing out that Clinton HAS in fact convinced some formerly-republican voters to vote for her.

That's all.

The idea expressed that NOBODY who voted for Bush would vote for Clinton is patently false.

[AlGore-08.com]

55. Again, you're comparing apples and oranges

She wasn't running for President in 2006. The people who voted for her in 2006 were voting for her to be their Senator or against replacing her with John Spencer.

Again, one could use your argument to say that Clinton lost Democratic voters who had voted for Schumer only 2 years earlier. Building on that argument, you could also say that given the 2006 anti-Republican wave that gave Dems both Houses of Congress, it's a sign of HRC's weakness that she didn't get more votes than Schumer did in 2004, a year when we lost seats in both Houses of Congress.

[LiberalFighter]

71. Can't just go by percentage

What were the numbers in 04 and 06?

Did enough Republicans stay home to bump up Hillary's numbers?

[NewYorkerfromMass]

109. Numbers (not percentages)

Kerry ....... Bush ......Total turnout
4,314,280 . 2,962,567 . 7,448,266

Clinton ... Spencer(R)
3,008,428 . 1,392,189 . 4,700,632

Talk about apples and oranges....

[LiberalFighter]

110. The other factor besides mid-term vs presidential election years

is the opponent.

The best way to make a reasonable comparison would be to compare the results of the Senate race (state-wide race) with another state-wide race preferably at the top of the ticket other than President. In our state, the best comparison during presidential years would the the Governor's race and during mid-term it would be the Secretary of State's race.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

111. More numbers...

2000
Gore ........... Bush......Total turnout
4,107,697 . 2,403,374 . 6,960,215

Clinton ....... Lazio
3,747,310 . 2,915,730 . 6,959,662

2004
Kerry ....... Bush ......Total turnout
4,314,280 . 2,962,567 . 7,448,266

Schumer .... Mills (R)
4,769,824 . 1,625,069 . 7,447,818

2006
Clinton ... Spencer(R)
3,008,428 . 1,392,189 . 4,700,632

Spitzer ... Faso(R)
3,086,709 . 1,274,335 . 4,697,897

Interesting, 2006 governor's race had less overall turnout but Spitzer still got more votes than Hillary, and a better perecentage. (65.7% to 64.0%). Hmmmmm.....

2004 shows that Chuck (64%)is LUVED here in NY state, while Kerry (57.9%) was not loved as much.
And Clinton's numbers show that Gore was more popular than she was in 2000, but that she managed a higher percentage of the vote in 2006 (53.8% and later 64.0%)
I am not sure what conclusions to draw here.

Anyone else who wants to research NY State voting: http://www.elections.state.ny.us/portal/page?_pageid=35,1,35_8301:35_8306&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL

[UCLA Dem]

113. Not necessarily. Thats only if Repukes come out in the same numbers.

Yes, HRC may bring them out to vote against her, but on the other hand, Repukes maybe so disenchanted with their choices and the way the country is going in general they may just stay home.

[saltpoint]

3. With the weak GOP field this time, I'm beginning to think

we could run Richard Speck and sweep the electoral college.

Has anybody got the inside scoop on John McCain? He looks like a zombie. I'm serious -- he looks like a stroke victim. Definitely not the John McCain that whipped Dubya's fanny in the 2000 New Hampshire primary.

[still_one]

9. If the republicans put up a candidate who is more against our involvement in Iraq

than our candidate, then we will have problems

In 2006 the people sent a very strong message, and the main issue was Iraq. I find it quite disappointing that many of the Democratic candidates running, voted for the IWR, which gives us no advantage

Unfortunately, Kucinich probably won't have a chance, but he sure can keep the candidates honest

Gore and Clark didn't participate in the IWR vote, and that itself is an advantage, unfortunately, they aren't even running

[saltpoint]

10. Mostly you are talking about Chuck Hagel. I think McCain wants

8 million U.S. troops in there by tomorrow ight at the latest; same basically with Giuliani and Romney.

The rest of the GOP field is weaker still. I honestly think Hagel and Huckabee are the only sentient adults the Republicans are offering, and both of them have considerable obstacles to jump before they even get close to the nomination.

I take your point. But I'm saying the GOP field is incredibly weak for 2008.

[still_one]

28. I agree, there should be no excuse for the the Democrats not sweeping this in 2008

unless they nuance the issues

People REALLY WANT STRAIGHT TALK

[saltpoint]

29. You know what? I am totally psyched for this 2008 election on

all levels.

I want blue wins on every school board and county commission in the land.

Coast to coast.

I'm READY.

[still_one]

33. One thing for sure, there are a heck of a lot of republican seats up for election in the Senate

and if we win the Senate it will NOT be as narrow as it has been for the last ten years plus

[saltpoint]

80. I like that kind of talk, still_one. I already have a list of GOP

Senators we need to trash.

And a good number aren't even running in 08!

[still_one]

83. It's true, and you won't have to go out your way to much to trash them

they are doing a great job of it themseleves

[OHdem10]

103. Just to be the contrarian here,

Close your eyes, pretending you are Joe or Jane Sixpack.

It is election time--I mean almost time to cast that ballot.

Iraq is still hanging outthere, Iran is unsolved. Joe and
Jane have learned to fear terrorism(remember that) they
may be mad at Bush but the permanent fear has been planted
and I have not seen anyone do anything to change that. They
have been taught Liberals are weak on Defense and Crime and
our party is so afraid of offending someone they have
never stood up for Liberalism. They believe Democrats are
Liberals. Republicans have made sure they learned this.

Which party when faced with a decision for voting, do
you think they will choose??

The House and Senate have 2 years to change some minds.

[UCLA Dem]

114. Yea! And the camera caught him snoozing during the Iraq part of the State of the Union!

The Republicans I know are very disenchanted with their choices for candidates. They are actually envious that the Dem candidates are generating more coverage!!

[still_one]

4. I believe if she wins the nomination

she will divide the Democrats, and unite the republicans

Personally, I think it is a flawed strategy for the Democrats to present a candidate that voted for the IWR.

Wouldn't it be refreshing to have a candidate say I didn't vote for the IWR because it VIOLATED the war powers act, and gave responsibility to the president, that our founding fathers never intended. It was and IS the responsibility of Congress to declare war. If the executive branch must engage in a battle before going to Congress, after 60 days they are required to go to Congress, where Congres will either:

1. Declare war
2. Immediately have our forces come home

There is one exception after 60 days where Congress can extend the engagement to 30 days more to allow time to close up loose ends

NONE OF THAT WAS DONE

That anyone can make excuses for ANY CANDIDATE that voted for this resolution is beyond me

[PresidentObama]

6. "she will divide the Democrats, and unite the republicans"

Thats my concern about Hillary too!

[still_one]

11. Hillary is counting on the gender vote, name recognition, and money accumulated

The MSM are licking their chops that she is running, and it isn't for positive reasons

The biggest disadvantage the other candidate have, is that the press will give her more attention, and they will not be able to get their message out

[xultar]

5. I think she can. Plus all the anti-Hillary bullshit may push people to her side.

I'm beginning to see that it will show she's a fighter.

So. Thanks for all the anti-Hillary posts people. I think it will help her!

[still_one]

13. Do you know how she stands on the line-item veto for the executive branch?

Do you know what her position on NAFTA is?

Do you know what her position on Iraq is?

Do you believe those questions are anti-Hillary?

[xultar]

15. No they aren't anti-Hillary. But the she shouldn't say she worked hard cuz

she's woman posts are. The she's riding her husbands coat tails are. The ones where they say having her as president will be Bill's third term are. Posts about her not having makeup on are. The sexist bullshit posts are anti-Hillary.

No one is posting about NAFTA. No one is posting about her Bankrupcy vote.

[still_one]

26. I agree with you then. For me we should focus on the issues.

I am a guy, but recognize that many guys are intimidated by powerful women. She is definitely not as right wing as some would like to portray her, but she also has voted in issues that aren't particularly progressive, as you pointed out

Her major plus will be healthcare and education.

[xultar]

60. I would love it if people would post about her votes. They really never do.

[still_one]

85. You are right. If you just took her voting record, and took her name away from it

I have no doubt that they would say that record represents a progressive candidate in the majority of issues

[xultar]

87. Exactly!

[ginnyinWI]

7. well I, for one, have no interest in volunteering for her.

I would imagine a lot of others feel the same way. I don't trust her.

[PresidentObama]

8. Another concern of mine.

I volunteered 350-400 hours for Kerry, and while I'm biased for Kerry, I won't volunteer any time for Hillary in 2008. I will vote her, but thats it.

She doesn't seem to energize or excite a lot of Democrats. Now if it were Edwards, Clark, Gore, or Obama...I'd volunteer for sure.

[OKNancy]

12. A better question is can she win the states Bill Clinton did

I think she can and more. Once she and Bill get out there ( if she gets the nomination), she will be hard to beat. Things have changed for the Republicans too. Never discount the swing women's vote either. I think some people hang around DU too much. I know a lot of apolitical and even Republican women who say they will vote for Hillary. Now, she won't take my state, but she sure will take
back Iowa, and probably get Missouri and New Mexico.. maybe even Colorado. Look at what happened in Virginia! ( Who knows about Ohio and Florida.)

My opinion is that we will win no matter who we run.

[PresidentObama]

17. She isn't getting Missouri.

Sorry, but it's true.

Even with Governor Matt Blunt so unpopular, and in 2008 when he runs for re-election he'll probably lose. Even then, Hillary loses Missouri.

I can't see her winning Colorado either.

I don't think she'll win the states Bill Clinton did. I'm having questions if she can carry Gore and Kerry's states.

[OKNancy]

18. bookmark this thread

:-)

[PresidentObama]

19. Reason being?

[hijinx87]

42. Missouri is another state that just voted out a rethug in a state wide race

I don't understand the logic behind it being arbitrarily declared
unwinnable for a Democratic nominee, no matter who it is.

[PresidentObama]

67. Missouri doesn't confuse Presidential and statewide races.

Missourians will easily vote for the Democrat for Governor, Senator, or lets say State Auditor if they think they'll do a better job then the Republican.

Missourians often are less excited about voting Democratic for President. I know plenty of Claire McCaskill (this is before her win as Senator) supporters for her Governor bid in 2004, I talked to on the phones said they wouldn't dream voting for Kerry. Even though I got it out of them they didn't like Bush's handling of the war and didn't like a lot of the stuff he was doing.

hijinx87, do you live in Missouri? I'd bet not.

Missouri won't go for Hillary Clinton. No way, no how. Not opinion, it's fact!!

[hijinx87]

95. nope. I don't live in missouri.

I live in one of those red southern states that the entire board loves
to dump on. :evilgrin:

but your observations on the ground notwithstanding, I think it will only
become a "fact" once it happens. or, in this case, doesn't happen.

until then, I think it is probably only "damned unlikely". ;)

[still_one]

23. If she doesn't get the liberal Democratic vote she won't win

and her position on Iraq has been all over the place.

You indicate she and Bill Clinton will garnish support

What Bill Clinton did to labor is not particularly flattering. The trade agreements he negotiated were at OUR workers expense, and to the advantage of other countries.

What Bill CLinton did with the communication act allowed the fairness doctrine to be destroyed, and provide the environment for media monopolies

Thank God he never got the line item veto which he wanted so badly. Could you see bush with THAT KIND OF POWER?

You indicate you know a lot of republicans who will vote for her, will I know a lot of Democrats who won't

You praise Bill Clinton, but you want to know the truth, he was a sexual predator, and obviously thought less about the party or the country than his own personal pleasure. Even when he was warned by his staff to cut it out, his continued, and brought the Democratic party where it is today.

I have had enough of the Clintons, bushs, and most politicians from Texas

[OKNancy]

27. Uh, I didn't praise him or Hillary

I said they could win. Like it or not, lots of people like them and wish Bill were still around.
I don't have many worries about where liberals, such as myself, will go when it comes to a choice in the general election. I'm sure most folks remember what happened to Gore and won't make the mistake of voting third party. If they do... well, I won't type out all the cuss words I'm thinking.

[PresidentObama]

30. Bill isn't Hillary.

A lot of people who loved Bill won't support Hillary. Including a few of my friends, one of which owns a "I Miss Bill Clinton" pin :P

[still_one]

31. I know you didn't praise either one, but you indicated he would be an asset

all I was trying to point out was that it is a double edged sword. Yes, there are positives, but also negatives

Hillary's biggest problem is how she deals with the Iraq issue. We really do not know if she believes we should have a permanent presence in Iraq, and in fairness, most of the other Democratic candidates have been just as vauge

Regarding third party candidates, I tend to agree with you

If Hillary is able to motivate the women vote she will be hard to beat. I am not trying to be sexist, just observing an untapped resource. The 2006 election was won by the Democrats because of women vote.

[Donna Zen]

98. Expect to see a woman in the GOP vp slot

The GOP may be criminal, but they're not stupid.

Personally, it's looking more like we might face Hagel. He's very conservative, and while not the darling of the religious right, there are plenty of states he can win. Also, with Hillary on the Dem. ticket, the republicans are free to nominate a moderate knowing that their base will come out.

I guess I can't figure why the Dem. want to run with a candidate with one foot in the ditch? Those negatives will come back to haunt us.

[hijinx87]

46. that goes without saying.

no candidate will win a national election without securing their
party's base.

her national numbers are quite impressive, although she will clearly
never win DU's 0 electoral votes. :evilgrin:

[AlGore-08.com]

49. Do you realize in 1992 that Clinton only won the popular vote in 2 states?

In the 1992 election, Ross Perot won 18% of the popular vote. As a result, Clinton won the electoral votes of 31 states without winning their popular vote, and he only won 43% of the popular vote nationally.

Clinton's vote percentage in states he won in 1992:

States Clinton won with less than half of the vote
Nevada  37.36%
Montana  37.63%
Maine  38.77%
New Hampshire  38.91%
Colorado  40.13%
Ohio  40.18%
Wisconsin  41.13%
Connecticut  42.21%
Oregon  42.48%
New Jersey  42.95%
Iowa  43.29%
Washington  43.41%
Georgia  43.47%
Minnesota  43.48%
Delaware  43.52%
Michigan  43.77%
Missouri  44.07%
Kentucky  44.55%
Pennsylvania  45.15%
Louisiana  45.58%
New Mexico  45.90%
California  46.01%
Vermont  46.11%
Rhode Island  47.04%
Tennessee  47.08%
Massachusetts  47.54%
Hawaii  48.09%
West Virginia  48.41%
Illinois  48.58%
New York  49.73%
Maryland  49.80%

States Clinton won with more than half of their popular vote
Arkansas  53.21%
D. C.  84.64%

[Hippo_Tron]

88. Yes, with the strongest third party challenge since Teddy Roosevelt

There's a misconception that Perot only took away Republican votes. The exit polls say otherwise. 1/3 for Clinton, 1/3 for Bush, 1/3 would've stayed home.

Maybe he wouldn't have carried some of the very close states like Georgia and Kentucky. He still would've easily gotten 270 electoral votes.

[AlGore-08.com]

99. My point was that Bill Clinton is not some kind of magic vote magnet

It doesn't matter if Perot swung 1992 the election to Clinton or not - - the point is that Bill Clinton was not able to convince the majority of people in 49 states that he was the best candidate in 1992. At that point, Perot had dropped out of the race and jumped back in again. His VP candidate had been shown in the debates to be totally unprepared for any kind of elective office. The press had reported some really unflattering things about Perot, like his hiring private eyes to investigate business and political adversaries; Perot didn't help by claiming he had pulled out of the campaign because GOP operatives had attempted to disrupt his daughter's wedding. (Definitely in the WTF category... )

But despite the fact that Perot was taking major hits in the basic credibility department, Bill Clinton still was unable to convince the majority of voters in 49 states that he was the best possible Presidential candidate.

In 1996, even though Perot wasn't running, Perot still took 8 percent of the vote and Clinton was still unable to win the majority of the popular vote.

What I'm saying is that Bill Clinton is not some magic vote magnet. He's not some political genius who can get a ham sandwich elected.

[Alhena]

16. She'd beat McCain, but not Giuliani, IMO

McCain is a poor candidate- angry, old and yesterday's news. But don't underestimate Rudy's appeal if he can get past the Republican primaries. I saw him give an interview the other day and had to admit that he comes across as a likeable guy. I think he'd beat Hillary.

[EndElectoral]

22. I sincerely doubt she'd carry Pennsylvania if Giuliani or McCain ran against her.

[Nedsdag]

106. I agree.

You could add Michigan to the list in spite of the high union support.

[OrangeCountyDemocrat]

25. Would Florida Send Gore Down To Defeat?

I'd guess the voters of Florida would want to make certain that Gore won the state significantly this time around.

[SoFlaJet]

38. If Al Gore runs

he'll win the presidency in a landslide not seen since Reagan

[PhilipShore]

105. I agree -- Gore/Clark 2008

[IndianaGreen]

34. Hillary won't win Ohio, or carry Pennsylvania like Kerry did.

Hillary will have to fight off the usual rightwing smear machine, as any other Democratic nominee will have to, BUT she will also have to fight off a large coalition of antiwar organizations that hate her guts for her role in enabling Bush's policies in the Middle East. Add to that the inevitable Hillary triangulations on critical issues, that will certainly add to her alienation from progressive forces, and you have a recipe for an electoral disaster.

[hijinx87]

37. there is much more recent voting data to consider.

ohio and pennsylvania both went totally democratic in novemeber.

[IndianaGreen]

45. On the strength of an antiwar surge among the voters

Remember that Hillary backstabbed John Murtha's call for a troop withdrawal and that she also opposed the Kerry/Feingold troop withdrawal resolution and she opposed Kerry's filibuster of the Alito nomination.

The Left will do its damnest to remind voters of Hillary's lapses in judgment and her amoral triangulations on core issues.

[hijinx87]

47. that is subject to interpretation

perhaps the entire country swung left because they just
have a belly full of *.

and it is precisely the tendency to view politics in such
personal terms (backstabbed murtha?!? backstabbed?!?!) that
makes the candidate threads on DU so overheated.

[wisteria]

35. I think she may lose PA! n/t

[hijinx87]

36. ohio is entirely winnable, just for starters

did you notice which party virtually ran the table in
ohio in November?

[YvonneCa]

39. Hillary has two problems...

...IMHO.

1) The country wasn't ready for a 'non-traditional', working out of the household woman 'First Lady' in 1992, and those people are still there. I doubt (sadly) that they are ready for ANY woman as President.


2) There is a large contingent that would DIE if Bill moves back into the White House...they despise him that much. I think it would be poetic justice. :)


Soooo....While I think Hillary could be a good President, if she's nominated, I don't think she'll win.



And I still believe the country has lost its BEST choice...John Kerry.:patriot:

[hijinx87]

41. I think #1 is probably just not true.

we have been electing women to the house and senate for years. we
have a woman as speaker of the house. we have had women serve as
sec'y state (yea, yeah, she is a woman, is my only point) and as
ambassador to the UN.

and most of the people you are speaking of in #2 are lost to the
democratic nominee anyway.

[YvonneCa]

48. What you say is true...

...about electing women. And I'm FOR women in any elected job. It's not that women can't be elected or can't do the job...it's that HILLARY is a target for that same group that targeted her in 1992 about the 'baking cookies 'comment. I hope that has changed since then...and 14 years later, one would *think* it should have...but look what happened with 2000 and 2004. A large part of the population thinks differently than I do. If that hasn't changed, then she has a problem.

Add to that the 'Bill' group = She has an uphill road. Just my opinion.

[Hippo_Tron]

89. They didn't inherently have a problem with a strong first lady...

It's just that they had a problem with the perception that she had an equal hand in running policy in the west wing when nobody elected her to do so. Her poll numbers were great during the '92 campaign and that's what made the Clinton staff believe that they could put her in charge of health care.

Eleanor Roosevelt had already pioneered the strong first lady and America was long past having a problem with women working out of the household by the 1990's.

[blm]

50. Yes - because Dean is head of the DNC instead of Terry McAuliffe.

Dean is rebuilding state party infrastructures that Terry left neglected and collapsed throughout his terms.

Whether through incompetence, lack of concern, or deliberate neglect, the end result was that the election process was NEVER SECURED and party infrastructure was NEVER MAINTAINED in too many states.

Gore, many 2002 candidates, and Kerry all WON the votes, but Terry McAuliffe's DNC did nothing to SECURE the casting of the votes or the counting of the votes.

[Deep13]

54. Even without the fraud, victory was hit-or-miss.

We simply cannot rely on a procedure that depends on winning the coasts and the Great Lakes, especially since those states may not have the numbers for victory anymore since the last census. That strategy depends on winning every state in those areas. Failure to carry just one of PA, OH, WI or OR means defeat. We simply need someone with much broader appeal. Besides, the top of the ticket colors the whole ballot. I have to think the reason we did so much better in '06 than '04 is because Kerry was not heading the ticket.

[blm]

56. The exit polls told the story. Kerry won. DNC let RNC fraud go uncountered. Fraud

that they worked the entire FOUR YEARS to pull off.

Care to explain how all those 2002 candidates lost when the polls and the exit polls were in their favor?

Blame the man who got 65 million votes instead of the one who made sure that 5 million of those votes couldn't be secured. That will fix the system, won't it?

It was Terry McAuliffe's strategy to run only in targetted states, allowing the others to be too weak or to completely collapse. Dean's 50 state strategy would have seen a strong party infrastructure all over the country, and would have put Gore and Kerry over the top.

[Deep13]

59. You need to be in power to fix the system.

Part of the 50-state strategy is having candidates with broader appeal than McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, Kerry or even Gore.

[blm]

61. Baloney - exit polls told the story. Gore and Kerry won. The 2002 candidates WERE POPULAR

and lost, though they were supposed to win by 10% in some cases.

Explain that.

[Deep13]

62. The system was against them and being out of power we could not stop it.

"supposed to win" What the hell does that mean?

[blm]

65. Example 2002: Both Cleland and Dem Ga. Gov. had high popularity numbers. Both incumbents.

Both far ahead in poll numbers before election day. Both ended up losing.

[Hippo_Tron]

125. Dukakis had a 17 point lead following the Democratic National Convention

Dukakis being too liberal to appeal to the mainstream is nothing more than a myth. Dukakis lost because of Lee Atwater's smear campaign.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

126. Yep.

and he could have turned it around in the debates were it not for his aloofish response to Bernie Shaw's 'Kitty Dukakis rape/murder' scenario. As it was Lloyd Bentsen creamed little boy Quayle and had him for breakfast lunch and dinner- Duke could have done the same to Poppy had he not been off his game that night. (he said later he had a bad head cold) A good indicator of the real Mike Dukakis was his response to the "polluted Boston Harbor" ads, and how Reagan had refused to help pay for the clean-up and Mass. was footing the bill almost all on it's won. As Duke said, they recieved "not one dime" from the Feds to help pay for it. The sad truth is Duke wasn't ready for that sneak attack by Shaw, and sadly he had a good real life anecdote to pair with the answer he didn't make that night- Dukakis' father had been very badly beaten by an intruder late one night at his Brookline office and left for dead. So Dukakis had had the very real personal experience of violent crime.

The 'polluted Boston Harbor' and 'Willy Horton' ads unfortuantely painted the picture for Mike.

[PresidentObama]

69. Winning in 2006....

Had nothing to do with Kerry 'heading the ticket'

What the.....??

2006 had everything to do with Americans finally waking up, and smelling the coffee that the situation wasn't changing in Iraq.

Had nothing to do with Kerry being on 'the ticket' In fact, Kerry fundraising more then any other Democratic candidate added to that cause.

[Deep13]

77. In '04 swing voters decided two things.

First, Bush was in way over his head.

Second, Kerry was not the guy to replace him. All that fear mongering and swift-boating succeeded in causing people to doubt their safety with the unknown JK in charge, regardless of the objective facts.

So the idea that the voters suddenly woke up in '06 I don't think is well founded.

[PresidentObama]

81. It is well founded. It's what happened.

Americans in 2006 finally (I say finally, not suddenly like you used...because it was a long way coming) woke up, realized this isn't what they wanted, and finally were willing to do something about it. Saying it was because Kerry wasn't on the ticket is crazy, and untrue. Iraq was why people voted for change in 06'

Kerry was the right guy to replace Bush in 2004, and evidence proves Kerry won and was cheated. Just like Bush did to Gore in 2000. It's hard to argue Kerry lost it for us in 04' when he didn't lose. Second of all you ignore the role of the DNC. The DNC in 2004 was under McAuliffe, and useless. Dean and his strategy has turned the whole thing around, and lead us to victory in 2006.

Your theory that we won in 2006 because Kerry wasn't there is fuzzy at best, especially since Kerry raised more money fundraising in 2006 then ANY other candidate out there.

[Deep13]

90. Yeah Kerry was the right guy in fact.

Hell, any of them would have been far better than Dubya. That's not the point. People weren't deciding on the facts. They were going by gut impression. Fear is a primal instinct and it is hard for people to ignore it especially when the facts are being misrepresented. There is a reason why people listen to clowns like Bill O'Reilly. It is because that kind of gingoistic crap plays into people's fear.

[RegimeChange2008]

51. I'm new here, but maybe the original poster could tell me....

As a Kerry supporter, who are YOU backing now that John has dropped out, and who do you think has more in common with Kerry as far as liberal/progressive/anything-but-more-of-this-neocon-bullshit values goes.

From what I know of Kerry, I'd have to say Gore would be the clear choice, but I'd like to know what Kerry's supporters are thinking.

[PresidentObama]

73. I'm backing Gore and Clark.

Welcome to DU :)

[RegimeChange2008]

101. Thanks

And I would have to agree that Gore/Clark would be a solid ticket. I'm not officially in any camp yet myself, but I would definitely prefer Al Gore to anyone who is "officially" running at this point.

[karynnj]

123. As one Kerry person, I would support Gore if he stepped in

if he doesn't, I support Dodd, who is a very very long shot.

Why, he's not Hillary and has has a good record and he has good foreign policy experience. I was impressed with his speech against the torture bill and his recent positions on Iraq. I'm also impressed with the comments he had about his recent ME trip, that was partially with Kerry. (I think Edwards and Obama are too inexperienced.)

If Clark stepped in, I would watch him as well.

[Deep13]

52. Fly-over state activists sick of being burned by long shot candidates.

The feeling around here in Ohio is that for a candidate to be successful in November, he or she must appeal to swing voters of so-called fly-over states. These rock star Senators and former Senators just don't. The nation is probably ready for a woman president, just not HRC. After the 2004 debacle where we poured everything into a the campaign, we all agreed that we would not repeat that process unless midwestern states and Ohio in particular had a say in selecting the candidate. The NH primary really kills us. New York and New England candidates can campaign all day and they and their volunteers can sleep in their own beds at night. Southern or Western candidates need to expend great resources to do the same thing. After '04 we all decided that we would not lift a finger for HRC.

I guess the bottom line is if the party wants any help in November '08 for swing state volunteers, we need a candidate with swing-state appeal.

[KingFlorez]

53. I honestly think she could hold all the blue states and flip others

She knows how to get out there and campaign, plus I think 2008 will bring major changes in the electorate regardless of who is the nominee.

[AlGore-08.com]

58. Only if the Republicans run the worst campaign they're ever run in history

Clinton would be an extremely weak candidate. She's got almost no experience in office, she's made some really terrible votes in office (the IRW is only one of many), a huge number of people despise her (and almost everyone already has an opinion of her, so she's got very little room to build her support). And so far her campaign has been long on rhetoric and short on ideas.

Almost every potential Republican candidate has much more experience in office than she has.

A number of potential Republican candidates weren't in Congress so they didn't make the same disastrous votes that she did.

The media has already come down on the side of the potential republican nominees: Hagel gets more press over pushing back against the war than any of the Dems do. The press adore both McCain and Guliani.

It's way, way, way too early to assume that "anybody with a 'D' after their name will win in 2008 so we can afford to nominate anybody with a 'D' after their name".

[sutz12]

63. Well, since she's running and they ain't, I'd have to say.......yes.

:)

[ray of light]

64. I don't believe so. I'd like a woman elected. I'd rather see Pelosi

than her.

[politicasista]

66. or Boxer (but she isn't running) n/t

[dsc]

70. Yes

First, I think Ohio, Colorado, New Mexico, Iowa, and maybe Virginia and Florida could all be won by any Democrat in 2008 depending on events. The first two are trending Democratic and if the local Democrats do well could easily wind up as Democratic states in 2008. I fail to see why Hillary would do any worse in those states than Obama or Edwards. NM and IA were carried by Gore but not by Kerry. Kerry came close in NM. For the same reasons Colorado is trending Democratic I think NM is becoming more Democratic. Further Iowa is a swing state leaning toward us and will have Harkin on the ballot to help out. I fail to see Hillary having a worse showing in those states than other Democrats. That leaves the last two. Edwards would likely do better in those states. I fail to see anyone else doing better than she would in them. One obvious note about NM Richardson would likely do much better there than any Democrat and that might help in Colorado.

[SaveElmer]

72. Absolutely...

In my opinion any of the top three (Obama, Edwards and Clinton) would move the following...

New Mexico, Iowa, Colorado, Nevada and Florida or Ohio...

Several others could go either way...Arizona, West Virginia, Arkansas...possibly Virginia (but unlikely)

All depends on the Republican nominee...Arizona would be out of reach if McCain were the nominee for example...

[Nedsdag]

107. Forget about West Virginia.

That's a lost cause.

Colorado and Arizona may be swing states but not with Hillary at the top of the ticket.

[Hippo_Tron]

124. West Virginia is a true example of backlash conservatism

Even card carrying ACLU member Dukakis carried West Virginia in 1988. John Kerry wasn't any more liberal than Dukakis on social issues yet he lost the state in a landslide. West Virginia just decided it would rather stop abortions and gay marriage rather than have real workplace safety standards in the coal mines.

[Ignacio Upton]

74. She'll be lucky to hold PA, WI, MN, MI and OR

I would also ad NH to that list. And CA might only go for her by 5-7%.

[SaveElmer]

93. Not only will she win those states...comfortably...

She will add Iowa, New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada, and Ohio or Florida...and possibly West Virginia.

[Eric J in MN]

96. Why would Hillary Clinton do better in Wisonsin than Kerry? NT

NT

[SaveElmer]

97. I think any Democrat running...

Would win Wisconsin...

[AtomicKitten]

75. let's see ...

[PresidentObama]

117. How come the magic ball tells me nothing?

:rofl:

[PresidentObama]

118. How come the magic ball tells me nothing?

:rofl:

[thatsrightimirish]

78. Yes

I think Clinton will be a much stronger campaigner than Kerry was in 04. She will actually respond to swift boaters and not let attacks go ignored. That being said it really is impossible to tell who will win what state right now. I think it is perfectly logical to believe that Hillary can win Ohio and with someone like Richardson, Salazar, or Webb on the ticket she can win many other states. Remember Dean lost momentum in Iowa because a lot of people thought he was unelectable so they went with Kerry. And of course later that year Iowa went red.

[MasonJar]

79. Gore and Kerry both won, and that statement is accurate.

[MrSlayer]

82. No. She'll lose "blue" states and gain not a single "red".

Most importantly Pennsylvania. She gets the nod and PA goes red and she loses. We need to defeat her in the primary.

[sampsonblk]

92. What on earth makes you think that?

Why would PA turn red because of Clinton?

[MrSlayer]

100. Because it's a very close state.

And I don't think she can count on getting 87% of Philly and certainly not the huge percentage Kerry got in the traditionally Republican suburbs. Same deal with Pittsburgh. The rest of the state is all Republican. She loses in PA.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

115. Yes. Kerry did very well in traditional GOP 'burbs in PA

I did an analysis and Kerry actually gained in those counties while losing ground in Philly and Pittsburgh.



This link has the numbers but (warning) it is a big file: http://home.earthlink.net/~nashionale/id4.html

[sampsonblk]

91. She isn't a punk

Sometimes fighting back - for real - is all its about. Given how the GOP has screwed things up, and how weak their field appears to be, YES, I am certain Hillary has a chance to win more states than Kerry and Gore.

[jcrew2001]

102. depends on her VP choice

Her VP choice would help win some states:

Warner - would win Virginia
Bayh - probably won't turn Indiana
Richardson - will turn New Mexico
Vilsack - will turn Iowa
Clark - might help with a few swing states like Ohio, maybe Florida, maybe Missouri, Ark

[fuzzyball]

104. After Hillary is the nominee, 97% of democrats will vote for who?

HILLARY! Then add the soccer moms and she wins by 50 electoral votes.

[mtnsnake]

108. Her game plan is obviously geared toward doing just that

She's been out there courting the rural folks, and rural folks are the people who control the red states, so if she can pick up one or two red states and hold onto the blue ones, then she has a good chance.

Is she going to piss off some urbanites in the process? Of course she will, but she'll count on them to stick with blue when push comes to shove.

[enough already]

112. No chance in hell

and she'll be hard pressed to hold places they won.

[Infinite Hope]

119. CAN she? Obviously. WILL she? I wouldn't be surprised.

Gore's my man, but Hillary is more moderate and would put states from Florida to Arkansas in play. Further, some states in the West and Midwest have taken a shift toward the middle and left so she clearly benefits from the changing political realities.

[Chemical Bill]

120. Hell, Gore and Kerry won more than Gore and Kerry.

If the votes are unverifiable, I'm not impressed with any Democrat's chances.

Bill

[NewYorkerfromMass]

121. Funny

and sadly, most likely true.

[Tom Rinaldo]

122. The fact that it's a fair question points to her problem n/t

[ChiciB1]

127. I Don't Know WHY She Wins ALL the Polls... Almost Everyone I Know

don't want her as a nominee, and neither do I... but for some reason she HAS BEEN CROWNED!

Say it ain't so! I have been wondering for quite some time now just what I will do if she's the nominee. I'm not comfortable with her message, or many of her actions and I also don't think it's really very smart to have TWO families controlling America for DECADES!

So we had Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush and NOW we want another Clinton? Just doesn't jive for me!

[natrat]

128. as political frauds go she is a pretty obvious one

[oasis]

129. Yes.(eom)

[Doctor_J]

130. OH is coming over

whether it has anything to do with Hil or not is another story.