Yay Hillary is running

[DigitalSky]

My prediction is that Edwards will become the candidate with Obama as his VP

I also think that it will be Romney vs Edwards in 08.

[Snowguy716]

Just as FDR was not a Dixiecrat. The Dixiecrats still voted for him.

And yes, I know what a Dixiecrat is. It's the reason the north didn't vote for the Democratic party from the Civil War until 1932.

Gore won the popular vote and nearly won the presidency without the south. Kerry, had he won Ohio, would have been president without one single southern state supporting him. Winning hte presidency is entirely possible without the south.

[monsoon]

^Well if you knew what a Dixiecrat was and Jimmy Carter's record was, then you would not have tried to paste him with that label. You are shooting from the hip with some of your assumptions about the South and that one was a good example.

In regards to Gore and the Popular Vote, he got most of his votes from the South and the West due to the sheer numbers of people who live in these regions. For example, more people voted for Gore in North Carolina than they did in Minnesota.

[nowensone]

A few of the above posts have made reference to why some southerners don't like Hilary (or Democrats in general). I won't share my theories here because they'd likely get me banned.

[JDC]

I think Gore lost because he came across as a weak individual which will never get a person elected for our supreme leader.

[dpbaker]

Looks like Kerry has announced he will not run.....

[Charlotteman]

Sometimes I get so weary hearing folks say that Gore was a weak candidate in 2000. The fact is that Gore received more votes than any presidential candidate up to 2000. Including Reagan and Clinton. More votes than anyone in presidential history. Gore beat Bush in 2000 by a healthy margin in the popular vote. The reason Gore isn't president isn't because he was a weak candidate---it's because the ELECTORAL SYSTEM of our country is hugely flawed.

Also another side note--- I've been reading here comments about New Hampshire and it's long tradition of being a red state. I feel those days are permanently over. Kerry did quite well there in 2004. I feel N.H. is already there as a bonified blue state, and probably won't go with the Republicans for a long time.

I also think West Virginia has already turned into a red state. W.V. is a state the Democrats could always depend on with certainty. It went for Bush in 2000 and 2004. What's so amazing is that W.V. used to be SO blue, that even Gov. Dukakis carried the state in 1988.

It looks like a state swap to me. Unfortunately for the Democrats, N.H. has less electoral college votes than W.V.

[nowensone]

Gore did win the popular vote in 2000, and should not have given up so quickly on the Florida recount since fraud was eventually proven (long after anyone was listening). But the point is that had Gore been a stronger candidate the election would not have even been close - he would have made Bush the loser in a substantial way befitting that of anyone who runs that is a failed governor, a failed businessman, and does not have the necessary wits to run a country or be a diplomat. I could go on.

Saying Gore was weak in 2000 is not an insult, but an observation on a trait that a presidential candidate can not have the appearance of possessing, whether it is "right" or not it is simply how human beings choose their leaders. He was rather weak because he should have made Bush a non-factor, but did not even have the influence to win his own state. I think that since the 2000 election Gore has grown significantly and has developed strength and, more importantly, resolve about his convictions and is why he is now a worthy candidate (in my opinion). Do I wish he had been made president in 2000? Yes, I do, but that is milk long spilt.

[nowensone]

And as far as my theories about southerners go, I'll leave it to your imagination. It's probably more entertaining.

[dgreco]

It's rare for a candidate to choose a running mate before they're nominated by their party. If I remember correctly, John Kerry didn't choose Edwards to be his second-in-line until after the primaries were over. A few of the above posts have made reference to why some southerners don't like Hilary (or Democrats in general). I won't share my theories here because they'd likely get me banned.

[M. Brown]

This sucks. I don't think that enough people support her to make her win anyway. I think there are more people against her than there are for her. Unfortunately I could be wrong though. Look at what happened to GW.

[cinco]

Saying Gore was weak in 2000 is not an insult, but an observation on a trait that a presidential candidate can not have the appearance of possessing, whether it is "right" or not it is simply how human beings choose their leaders. He was rather weak because he should have made Bush a non-factor, but did not even have the influence to win his own state. I think that since the 2000 election Gore has grown significantly and has developed strength and, more importantly, resolve about his convictions and is why he is now a worthy candidate (in my opinion). Do I wish he had been made president in 2000? Yes, I do, but that is milk long spilt.

[Charlotteman]

Getting back to why so many Southerners hate Hillary----

I personally think those folks blame Hillary for her husband's deplorable trysts. Perhaps they think she "let" him do it, and accepted it. Maybe it's a way to still like Bill (and in a weird way blame Hillary for Bill's awful behavior)

When I lived in the South I can't remember hearing anything about her but negative remarks. When I would inquire why they disliked her so much "Because she's a liberal."

Can a presidential election be won without carrying one single Southern state? The South is America's most populous region. Let's hope Hillary bows out sooner than later. If she is nominated, we could have another 4-8 years of the same we've had since 2000.

[nowensone]

he did a poor job of selling himself in 2000. the problem that i have is why as americans we are obsessed on basing our decisions on the commercial rather than the product. not to nagate the importance of the "commercial" but it shouldn't take precedence over the "product". the man had a huge record of public service, served in the military, and was a heartbeat away from being our president for 8 years. my point is... the people of this country should have felt like they knew who he was.

well, i guess they did... they voted for him.

as for hillary... i've noticed that her campaign advisors are trying to brand "hillary" and are avoiding the "clinton" part.

mr. clinton has also been laying low... most likely they want the spotlight JUST on hillary, but she should be careful @ distancing herself too much.

[Charlotteman]

When I used to ask Southerners why they hated Hillary, about 90% of them said she was a "liberal". When I pushed it further, i.e. well what is so liberal about her? they would shrug me off and say "I just hate her."

Perhaps her unpopularity in the South is a subject worth researching. It is a profound thing, so I would think she already has teams working on it. I wish I knew what it was, then maybe I could make big money as a commentator:) And I don't think it's a generalization that Southerners dislike her. I think her unpopularity in the South is pretty much accepted by politicos and pundits.

[kayman]

Generally, most Southerners dislike of Hillary Clinton boils down to simply to "She is not like us", "She thinks different", and my old-time favorite (that I hear from folks 60+) "It says in the Bible that women aren't suppose to lead". The mantra surrounding the dislike of Mrs. Clinton is mostly just plain "follow-the-leader" ignorance of human nature, but for whatever reason some Southerners attempt translate it into morals.

I personally don't have problem with her, but she is just not IMO the type of leader when need at the moment. She is too stuck on social issues (which is very high on my totem), but we needs somebody to close out the Iraq mess, and I feel she isn't the candidate. Maybe in 2012, but not 2008.

[tombarnes]

Chuck Hagel in '08?

A refreshingly candid candidate, Chuck Hagel is happy to buck the Republican party line. I've met the guy and he really does seem to be decent and down-to-earth. Maybe he could be the nominee...

The Washington Post

[Snowguy716]

I think Arne Carlson would make a fine president. He's was a Republican, and served two terms as governor here, but has recently left the Republican party and supported the Democratic candidate for state auditor in the election (He's a big finance guy).

He is a fine example of someone who is skeptical to spend money, but is a champion of bi-partisanship. He isn't a big-business rich man, and never has been, and I think we need someone like that running the country.. someone who would know how to balance their own checkbook... or even know what a checkbook was.

[monsoon]

Chuck Hagel in '08?

A refreshingly candid candidate, Chuck Hagel is happy to buck the Republican party line. I've met the guy and he really does seem to be decent and down-to-earth. Maybe he could be the nominee...

The Washington Post

[Captain Worley]

I'd really like to see SC governor Mark Sanford run. He's been a great governor, IMO, but I'd hate to lose him.

[tombarnes]

Actually Hagel is the first GOP candidate that I would consider voting for in a long time. He does seem reasonable and willing to take political risk to buck idealology. McCain is the ultimate flipflopper and Guiliani just seems too detached from reality to be trusted with the job of being President.

[cinco]

i would certainly consider chuck hagel as el presidente. another GOPer i respect is arlen specter. i have noticed the last couple of years that s.c. senator lindsey graham has been jumping in front of the camera - every chance he gets. he comes across as mccain-esque.... a complete tool. i wouldn't be suprised if at some point he tries to jump in the "big game".... probably not '08.

interesting about hagel, though.... depending on how this iraq thing goes - he could be in as good of a position as any republican to win. in '06, iraq was the number 1 reason for people lining up to vote.

back to hillary.... i heard a report not too long ago that 51% of adult woman, now, live without a spouse. this figure has grown considerably in the last 30 years and now has tipped the scale. in the report it was noted that this statistic would most likely favor hillary's campaign. i reckon it would... what do you guys think?

[JDC]

Chuck Hagel, though I admire his willingness to "reach across the aisle," may face some pretty steep challenges come election time, that is, if the mainstream media does their homework.

Hagel was once the chairman of the voting machine operator/manufacturer American Information Services (now known as Election Systems & Software). In 1996 Hagel beat Benjamin Nelson, Nebraska's popular former governor, in the race for a senate seat. American Information Systems tallied 85% of the votes in that election. It was Hagel's first bid for public office.

Hagel still owns over $1 million in stock in the company that owns a quarter of ES&S.

The phrase "conflict of interest" comes to mind.

[Pillsbury]

Jimmy Carter was a self described Evangelical Christian from Georgia.. he was the last of a Dixiecrat-Northern Democrat alliance that was forged by FDR by stressing economics and not social issues, but was already falling apart by the 1960s. With Reagan, that connection was severed almost completely. Bill Clinton being a moderate, he attracted voters in his home Arkansas and among southern Louisiana voters. He was really a fluke in what has been a basically Republican shift in the south. You'll notice New Englands reluctance to support Jimmy Carter and instead relied on their traditional Republican leanings and voted for Ford. They even still supported Reagan, but New England solidified itself as a Democratic region during the '90s with only New Hampshire still holding onto the old ways.

There has been a basic switch in parties since the early 20th century with much of the mid-century caught somewhere in the middle. Things started to slide downhill for the Democrats in the south when Hubert Humphrey basically said the Democrats should stop thinking about states rights and work on civil/human rights in 1948. Notice that in 1964, when the Civil Rights movement passed, the deep south voted overwhelmingly for Goldwater. 1968, when Hubert Humphrey ran, they couldn't stand his stance on civil rights, so they voted for Wallace. In the fringes of hte deep south, there was less of a backlash and Humphrey did better in Tennessee, Arkansas, the Carolinas and Texas (Where Johnson basically bought Humphrey the vote).

With Bush/Gore in 2000, I think it showed the re-solidification of the south. Gore was a southerner, a guy who grew up on a tobacco farm. G.W was a transplant from Connecticut with old money/power that moved to Texas to get rich off of oil. Yet the south chose Bush over Gore. In 2004, they chose Bush overwhelmingly over Kerry. While one could argue that it was because Kerry was from the northeast, southerners voted happily for Democrats from the north before the 1960s.

So, no.. I don't think the Democrat, no matter who it is, will win most of the south. THey might, and I stress might, have a chance in Arkansas and West Virginia, and while they might do relatively well in North Carolina and Louisiana, they will be won by the Republican.

So, the next time you southerners are asking the Democrats why they dont pay attention to you and don't care about your wishes, you should have a pretty obvious answer. The Democrats are focusing on areas that they can win. They'll be hitting Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, and Colorado, and even Montana hard. THey'll also work in Iowa, Michigan, and Wisconsin, as well as Ohio, and possibly Arkansas, and West Virginia. They might glance at Florida and North Carolina, but that will mostly be looking to plant some seeds for future opportunity.

Republicans will try to shift the winds in Pennsylvania, Iowa, Michigan, and Wisconsin, and they won't focus much on the south either, as they know they have it won.

If Hillary wins the nomination, she will only need the Kerry states plus one more, and if the Republicans run Giuliani or McCain, she shouldn't have much of a problem picking it up.

[nowensone]

Chuck Hagel, though I admire his willingness to "reach across the aisle," may face some pretty steep challenges come election time, that is, if the mainstream media does their homework.

Hagel was once the chairman of the voting machine operator/manufacturer American Information Services (now known as Election Systems & Software). In 1996 Hagel beat Benjamin Nelson, Nebraska's popular former governor, in the race for a senate seat. American Information Systems tallied 85% of the votes in that election. It was Hagel's first bid for public office.

Hagel still owns over $1 million in stock in the company that owns a quarter of ES&S.

The phrase "conflict of interest" comes to mind.