Jump to content

Yay Hillary is running


voyager12

Recommended Posts

So what I'm hearing here is that the Democrats won't concentrate on the South because they want to concentrate where they actually have a chance of winning.

The Republicans won't concentrate on the South because they consider it already won. So all candidates can just write off the South, in one way or another~~~

But the South is the most populous region of the USA. How can both sides ignore the largest region??

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 193
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Because all the other regions put together are much larger than the south. Democrats have a chance of winning in New Mexico, Colorado, Arizona, and Nevada... the fastest growing states in the country.. and all are trending democratic.

Look, the country is evenly divided, with more or less an equal amount of electoral votes going to each party. There are only a few states that are needed to shift that balance over: Ohio, or a combination of those western states I described above.

If both parties ignore the south, the south will still turn out and vote for their party, which happens to be Republicans. The Democrats just don't have the resources or time to commit to trying to erase 15-20 point deficits in the polls. Like i said, they will look at Arkansas and West Virginia and Tennessee, and maybe even North Carolina.. but yo'ure not going to see a lot of Democrats campaigning in Alabama and MIssissippi.... just like they won't campaign in the Dakotas or Nebraska.

It makes much mroe sense to campaign in battle-ground states because we have a winner-takes-all electoral college system. If it was a popular vote, you'd see people concentrating more on the south where hte biggest gains could be made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you would assume have the Republicans clench victory by winning those 25 electoral votes by a narrow margin? It'll be easier to pick up all of those states than either NC or VA.

Virginia hasn't supported a Democrat since 1948 with the exception of Johnson.

North Carolina last supported a Democrat in 1976.

Are these areas getting more liberal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am well aware of what happened with Jim Webb in Virginia. North Dakota has two Democratic Senators and a Dem. in the house, and they haven't supported a Democrat for president in quite a long time either.

A 50 state strategy is a good strategy for building/keeping majorities in congress and building general support.. but for specific presidential campaigns it just doesn't pay off to ignore states that are very close and could go your way in order to spend time in a state that voted for Bush over Kerry and Gore by 13%

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

A 50 state strategy is a good strategy for building/keeping majorities in congress and building general support.. but for specific presidential campaigns it just doesn't pay off to ignore states that are very close and could go your way in order to spend time in a state that voted for Bush over Kerry and Gore by 13%

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That just proves that Kerry was an extremely bad candidate. It says nothing about future chances in the state. I am as liberal as they come and I almost didn't bother to vote in the 2004 election because Kerry was the only alternative to Bush. I finally went, but I had to hold my nose while I voted for him. He was a terrible candidate, and a terrible politician in general.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't buy that argument Marc.. because you're arguing that Bush is a better alternative than Kerry. If you don't like either candidate, you vote for the lesser of two evils.

Clinton did better than any Democrat since Johnson and yet Virginia and North Carolina both still picked Bob Dole over Bill Clinton. That just says to me that Virginians will support a hardline conservative over a moderate even when the moderate is a popular incumbent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because all the other regions put together are much larger than the south. Democrats have a chance of winning in New Mexico, Colorado, Arizona, and Nevada... the fastest growing states in the country.. and all are trending democratic.

Look, the country is evenly divided, with more or less an equal amount of electoral votes going to each party. There are only a few states that are needed to shift that balance over: Ohio, or a combination of those western states I described above.

If both parties ignore the south, the south will still turn out and vote for their party, which happens to be Republicans. The Democrats just don't have the resources or time to commit to trying to erase 15-20 point deficits in the polls. Like i said, they will look at Arkansas and West Virginia and Tennessee, and maybe even North Carolina.. but yo'ure not going to see a lot of Democrats campaigning in Alabama and MIssissippi.... just like they won't campaign in the Dakotas or Nebraska.

It makes much mroe sense to campaign in battle-ground states because we have a winner-takes-all electoral college system. If it was a popular vote, you'd see people concentrating more on the south where hte biggest gains could be made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't buy that argument Marc.. because you're arguing that Bush is a better alternative than Kerry. If you don't like either candidate, you vote for the lesser of two evils.

Clinton did better than any Democrat since Johnson and yet Virginia and North Carolina both still picked Bob Dole over Bill Clinton. That just says to me that Virginians will support a hardline conservative over a moderate even when the moderate is a popular incumbent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that it will be a very interesting campaign, but I wonder of she will be able to get the nomination. On a national level she could be a contender, but getting nominated will he the hardest part.

The people who historically have turned out for the primaries have been the far polar ends, while the centrists sit back and wait to choose in the general election. Because of this, Hillary

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must agree that Kerry was a political idiot. How pathetic not being able to beat a loser like Bush! I knew in advance he had no chance in the South, or in Florida.

I'll never forget that day in 2004 in downtown Philadelphia when Bill Clinton, his majesty, joined Kerry onstage at a political rally. Thousands of people showed up crowding Philadelphia's center city. The national broadcast media was there en mass. It was Bill's comeback from heart problems, and the crowd was going bonkers when he came out.

He introduced Kerry. THIS WAS KERRY'S GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY to speak to the nation about what he wanted to accomplish. But all he spoke of was how bad Bush was. His speech was so damn boring the media shut it off after about 3 minutes. Same old droning John Kerry. I voted for him though, but with absolutely no enthusiasm about it.

I think the Democratic candidates for president in 2008 should study Kerry's 2004 candidacy. It must have been the most lame effort seen in American politics in years. The mistakes made should not be made again.

You can say what you want about Hillary, but my bet is that she's way too smart to make mistakes Kerry made. She has finesse, she's probably one of the smartest people in the Senate. Whether or not you like her, it's obvious she's too polished to make the same mistakes as trifling Kerry~~~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, sure ;)

Just like Bush really means "Democratic party" when he says "Democrat party"

Hillary had a pretty riled up crowd in Iowa.. though Edwards is running ahead of Clinton there because Edwards has spent a lot more time there. I can't wait to see the look on all you conservatives faces when Hillary wins the election. I'll be sure to have my camera ready. That'll probably be the highlight, at least for me, of her likely 8 years in office.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^^I'm a bonified card carrying liberal, and I think she can't win the general election. But if she does win, I'll be happy about it of course.:)

Did anyone here happen to see Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee on Meet the Press? He's announced intentions of forming an exploratory committee for a presidential campaign.

With opponents like this, the Democrats should be totally ashamed of themselves if they lose in 2008. Another lackluster performance by a Republican hopeful~~he opened his remarks with a totally banal statement that meant absolutely nothing, and continued to say nothing of substance the entire interview. B*O*R*I*N*G..........for those of ya'll that didn't see it, it was nothing more than an excerise in rhetorical shallowness.

What little of substance he did say wasn't very appealing. A quote of him praising GWB was read by Tim Russert, and Huckabee said he still felt that way about Bush. He spoke of being a Baptist minister, and how it effects his judgement today. It was not reassuring for those of us dedicated to separation of church/state.

He is clearly setting himself to the right of McCain and Guiliani in hopes of winning religious votes in the Southern primaries. With a presentation like his, I can't imagine his popularity going any further than the evangelical vote.

McCain is pandering and flip flopping, and looks terrible on TV. In my humble opinion, Guiliani is the only one of the Republican hopefuls that appears to be in the same league as Edwards, Obama and Hillary. For once the Democrats are outclassing the Republicans in a primary season!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the election is going to be interesting. I think a lot of people silently support the war in Iraq and it will be reflected in the presidential election. I predict the Republicans will win the Presidency by 52-48. I think in future Senate and Congressional elections, the trend to 'toss the incumbents out" (I think there was more of that than 'sending the President a message on Iraq') will continue, so the Democrats will gain seats in both houses.

Just my .02.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the election is going to be interesting. I think a lot of people silently support the war in Iraq and it will be reflected in the presidential election. I predict the Republicans will win the Presidency by 52-48. I think in future Senate and Congressional elections, the trend to 'toss the incumbents out" (I think there was more of that than 'sending the President a message on Iraq') will continue, so the Democrats will gain seats in both houses.

Just my .02.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just don't think the Republicans have any plausible candidates for 2008. Giuliani? The man is pro-choice, pro-gay marriage.. there is no way he'll win the primary. No, no.

McCain? I've lost almost all my respect for him. He was one of my favorite Republicans.. but all his pandering has made me sick. He's a man that wants power, not to lead our country.

Huckabee? He's going to run the compassionate conservatism line.. "We need family values", but he'll stress also including the other 95% of what Jesus said, about helping the poor. That will appeal to Catholics and more liberal evangelicals.

Romney? One word that killed his chances in the Republican party from the beginning: Morman.

People say Hillary isn't electable? Look at who she's running up against.. she has a good chance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does it not seem to bother any of you that Hillary is a pathological liar? When we first went to war with Iraq, she said verbatim that she looked at the intelligence herself and knew that Saddam had WMD's and that it wasn't a decision based on politics. Now she's saying that Bush "tricked" her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.