Skip to main content

I would just like to say that I am not committed to any democratic presidential candidate. I tend to lean slightly in one direction or another, but I won’t pick who to support until the end of the year. I want to say that those who write Hillary off, or think that she "can't win," are fooling themselves. Hillary has strengths, and she has weaknesses. But her weaknesses tend to relate to strengths she would have as president (such as having had been in the white house for 8 years, which allowed the right to trash her continuously and erode some support for her).

2008 is starting to look like it just may be a very good year. And no, I don't say this because over at tradesports.com, investors are overwhelmingly betting that Hillary will be the next president, and that dems will keep the house and senate. The war in Iraq is destroying republican chances, along with their core long term strengths (such as being the better party on national security). Their base hates all three of their front runners. I don't even see how Romney became a frontrunner. The polls sure don't make him out to be. I think the media just decided to decree one day that Romney is a frontrunner, and through mass repetition, it became truth.

So people who say Hillary cannot win, have to tell us who can beat her. Pro-Bush Mccain? Huckabee? Brownback?

I have noticed something regarding early general election polls. In every election since 1992, the democratic candidates (or the generic "unnamed" democrat) always started out polling about 10% less than the likely republican. This was even the case early in 1995 regarding the 1996 election. But one key occurrence could be observed with regard to these polls. The republican, while often polling 10% or 15% higher than the democrat, never quite broke above 49%. And as the election got closer, almost all of those undecided voters broke for the democrat. There are 3 conservatives per every 2 liberals in this country, and so democrats rely disproportionately on support from moderates. Moderates tend not to follow politics as closely, and tend to be less opinionated. This could be the explanation for this phenomenon.

So if polls have shown Hillary behind Mccain, does the same occurrence show itself? Yes, because Mccain rarely breaks above 49%. It is the support of Hillary (and any other democratic opponent) whose support fluctuates, not Mccain’s (not as much anyway). Recent polls have shown the gap narrowing, with some showing a considerable narrowing, or Hillary polling ahead. I think that whatever the polls say, if there are still high numbers of undecided voters late in the year, unless the democrat is polling around 50% already, we can expect those undecided to break for the democrat enough to put them at least at 48%. Then the issue becomes independents.

Kerry lost, not because conservatives showed up. They showed up in the same numbers in 2006, and voted the same way. Kerry lost because he tied Bush amongst independents. About 30% of voters are conservative, and 20% liberal (the difference is even greater than 10% in many polls, even if not much greater), while the national number of democrats vs. republicans is about equal (about 33% each, with the number for dems often being slightly higher). The cause is that moderates break heavily for the democrat. Since moderates break so heavily for democrats (because many self identified moderates are self identified democrats), the fact that moderates break by a certain margin for democrats doesn't tell you much. The key is independents. This means that to win, Hillary doesn't have to win republicans who hate her. She simply has to win the independent vote by a margin of at least 5%. Kerry won independents by a margin of only 1%, and almost won. So if Hillary can be more appealing to independents (or make the republican less appealing), she will not have any problems winning the election.

This is how she wins red states. There are not two different Americas, the red and the blue. The only difference between the states, that make them red vs. blue, is the concentration of republicans and of conservatives. States with higher concentrations are red, states with lower are blue. But it is a continuum. There is far more difference between Utah and Ohio, than there is between Ohio and Oregon.

On election day, 2000, Bill Clinton had an approval rating of 57%. Of all the states that gave him an approval higher than his national 57% average, Gore won all, except Florida (debatable). Only New Mexico and Iowa went for Gore and gave Clinton an approval lower than 57%.

States are more like a continuum than a homogenous bunch that can be placed into distinctive groups. Some are more red, some less. Some are more blue, some less. Light blue states are very similar to light red states. States vote in relation to the national popular vote. Kerry did slightly worse than Gore in the popular vote, and slightly worse in the electoral college. Clinton did much better than Gore in the popular vote (his margin over Dole), and much better in the electoral college.

So how does Hillary win "red states?" She wins the popular vote by at least 1%. Since each state has a number of electors equal to the number of US congressional seats they have, plus their two senate seats, the electoral college skews in the direction of rural states. This was why Gore won the popular vote but lost the electoral college. But Gore only won the popular vote by 0.5%. Had he done ever so slightly better, he would have won the couple hundred more votes he needed to win Florida or New Hampshire (both of which he only lost because of Nader). Had Gore doubled his popular vote margin (to 1%), he would have won the election.

If Hillary wins the popular vote by 2%, she will win all Gore and Kerry states, plus AR, OH, and maybe NV. Increase that to 3%, and she picks up AR, OH, NV, and maybe MO. Increase that to 4%, and she picks up AR, OH, NV, MO, and maybe FL and CO. (You may dispute my FL projection, but FL is a very republican state at the statewide level, and Kerry did better in AR, OH, NV and MO than he did in FL). If you continue to add a point, you add another couple of states.

Likewise, if she (or any dem) does slightly worse than Kerry in the popular vote, she (or any dem) will do slightly worse in the electoral college. A loss of 3% would probably lose you WI. 4% might lose you WI and MI, and so on.

In addition, Hillary is not any more likely to cost us down-ticket races (house, senate ect) than any other democrat given her popular vote numbers. Any democrat who either loses by a narrow margin (say about 4% or less), or wins, wont hurt, and could help, our down-ticket candidates. Kerry lost by a 2.5% margin, and outside of seats lost because of Texas redistricting, democrats had a net house pickup. With those Texas seats, democrats had a loss of only a couple of seats. If she is more likely to lose by a margin of 5% or more, then yes, she can hurt our down-ticket candidates. But is she more likely to lose by a margin of 5% or more than any other candidate? If you think she is, then is she more or less likely to lose by that margin than another candidate after they have the collective vomit of the fringe right wing thrown at them (something which Hillary has had thrown at her every day for the last 14 years)?

My point is that there are not two countries with different histories and values. The country can be described as a continuum. In 2000 the outcome fluctuated on the midpoint fulcrum of Clinton's approval (probably because the popular vote was a tie). Clinton's approval translated to the popular vote margin, which translated into the outcome of the election.

So Hillary can win (and will) if she wins the popular vote by a large enough margin. Some states, like Nebraska, won’t vote for her. This is not because there is no chance they would choose to, but because to win a state like Nebraska, she would have to win the popular vote by about a 30% margin. Democrats won the house popular vote nationally by about a 10% or 15% margin in 2006, and almost won a deep red Nebraska congressional seat (and did win a deep red Kansas congressional seat). In 2004, when democrats lost the national house popular vote by several points, they were crushed in the same congressional district in Nebraska (and in the district in Kansas).

So Hillary has to win the popular vote. She is already ahead in the popular vote in several recent polls, and close behind in others. We can expect enough of the undecided voters to break her way (as they have broken the dems' way during the last 4 presidential elections) enough so that if she wins independents by a margin of 5% or so, she will win the popular vote enough to win the White House.

Winning independents will require money, and it will require skill and strategy. It will require framing your general election opponent as you want to frame him. It will require being skilled enough and experienced enough to not be surprised by anything. It will require being knowledgeable enough about how republicans function to be able to withstand the vitriol thrown at you by the right-wing media.

Can Hillary do these things? If she can, she can win independents by at least a few percentage points, and thus win the election.

Originally posted to politicaljunkie2008 on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 07:25 PM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Preriliction (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    atdnext

    Notice: This Comment © ROGNM

    by ROGNM on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 07:28:11 PM PST

  •  could she win sure (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    atdnext, TomP

    but she probably runs about 5% percent worse nation wide....let's just all take that chance she pulls it out, my opinion is she would lose the house and Bush leaves office with 30% approval and a smirk....

    this is your mission: TERMINATE the Bush presidency

    by nevadadem on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 07:31:33 PM PST

    •  hillary hurting downticket races (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      atdnext

      which is now in the above article, or read it here:

      In addition, Hillary is not any more likely to cost us downticket races (house, senate ect) than any other democrat given her popular vote numbers. Any democrat who either loses by a narrow margin (say about 4% or less), or wins, wont hurt, and could help our down-ticket candidates. Kerry lost by a 2.5% margin, and outside of seats lost because of texas redistricting, democrats had a net house pickup. With those Texas seats, democrats had a loss of only a couple of seats. If she is more likely to lose by a margin of 5% or more, then yes, she can hurt our downticket candidates. But is she more likely to lose by a margin of 5% or more than any other candidate? If you think she is, then is she more or less likely to lose by that margin than another candidate after they have the collective vomit of the fringe right wing thrown at them (something which Hillary has had thrown at her every day for the last 14 years)?

      •  Yes But Why (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Grannus, TomP

        This diary's argument seems a bit tautological (i.e. "Hillary can win the election as long as she wins the popular vote by at least 1%").  Yes, the math suggests that it would be hard (though not impossible) to lose the electoral vote under those circumstances.

        But will those circumstances apply?  It's worth asking whether, in a competitive election, Hillary can (a) win the popular vote, and (b) win any states that Gore and Kerry couldn't.

        By a "competitive" election I mean one in which the Republicans have nominated a plausible candidate and Iraq hasn't made it completely unimaginable for him or her to win.  I expect the election will be close, in spite of all the obvious reasons why it shouldn't be.  I'm not convinced Hillary would lose, but I could see her running several points below other solid Democratic candidates.

        Of course, we might face a different situation, in which the GOP brand is so damaged that any breathing Democrat will likely win.  But in that case, the question we should ask is not whether Hillary can win, but whether she would make the best president among all our candidates.

        I haven't seen that argument made yet.

        •  how does that solid dem perform (0+ / 0-)

          now vs after the right wing has spent months trashing them?

          The Bible is a book of old Jewish fairytales-Bill Maher

          by politicaljunkie2008 on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 08:39:26 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Taking Out the Trash (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            tabbycat in tenn

            I hear what you're saying.  If they can take a boy scout like Al Gore and make him out to be a corrupt liar, if they can take a war hero like John Kerry and turn him into an effete pacifist, then a billion bucks of negative ads and noise machine innuendo will strip a lot of the bark off any of our candidates.

            Point taken.  Admittedly, it's not quite fair to compare Hillary's negatives right now to a newbie candidate who hasn't yet faced the GOP noise machine.  And I give Hillary credit for resilience.

            But still: all our candidates are not equally vulnerable to right-wing smears.  They do not have equal skills in fighting back.  They are not equally likeable or charismatic or inspirational.  They do not bring the same amount of political or life experience to the race or the job.  They do not all start out with a couple of strikes to overcome with large segments of the population.  All these things will be factors.  

            Having conceded that Hillary could win with a stiff Democratic breeze at her back, my question remains: what in your opinion makes Hillary a stronger general election candidate than her rivals if the race is a close one?
             

  •  Hillary takes Historic Trip (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Nulwee

    -8.63 -7.28 It's time for a Nationwide Strike, nothing less will work. If Bush wont shut down the War, we shut down the nation.

    by OneCrankyDom on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 07:32:14 PM PST

  •  yes, she could win (12+ / 0-)

    but i'd prefer that some other dem did...

    © 2006 "certain thoughts are prayers. there are moments when, whatever the attitude of the body may be, the soul is on its knees." -victor hugo

    by Laurence Lewis on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 07:33:39 PM PST

    •  if I could pick the next president (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Turkana, atdnext

      it would be hillary. she is the person most likely to do a good job, given her experience and resources (bill, ect)

      •  i very much disagree (12+ / 0-)

        gore is far and away the best possible next president. hillary's much too dlc for my taste. should be a lively primary season, though. and if she's nominated, i will certainly vote for her.

        © 2006 "certain thoughts are prayers. there are moments when, whatever the attitude of the body may be, the soul is on its knees." -victor hugo

        by Laurence Lewis on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 07:52:23 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  She'd be a good President, but (4+ / 0-)

          a compromising one--one who would constantly triangulate to prevent the perception that she's too liberal and too weak for the nation. She'd be another Bill Clinton--minus the charisma and philandering--and that's because she was half of Bill when he was in office.  They're a team.

          And that's the real problem for me: she's the spouse of a former President.  It's legal that she run for President, but isn't this the sort of thing that the Jefferson Bill Clinton was named after would have hated?  Isn't this what Thomas Jefferson was referring to when he wrote John Adams:

          "The artificial aristocracy is a mischeivous ingredient in government, and provision should be made to prevent its ascendency. . . . there seems to be. . . a traditionary reverence for certain families, which has rendered the officers of the government nearly hereditary in those families."

          Wouldn't Hillary be a kind of second Clinton Presidency by proxy, especially since Hillary and Bill are so close politically?  Wouldn't we chafe if Laura Bush ran for President in eight years?  Isn't there, finally, something unseemly and anti-democratic about a Presidential spouse--male or female--becoming President? Legal, yes.  Preferable to McCain, sure.  But not good, ultimately, for nurturing the democratic instinct in America.

          •  i have no problem with a presidential spouse (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            cosbo, blueoasis, maconblue

            if s/he's qualified- which hillary clearly is. but the triangulation part is exactly my problem. we need a dem who isn't afraid to be a dem.

            © 2006 "certain thoughts are prayers. there are moments when, whatever the attitude of the body may be, the soul is on its knees." -victor hugo

            by Laurence Lewis on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 08:18:28 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Well, Hillary is certainly qualified, (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Turkana, TomP

              and she's a good, moderate, get-things-done Senator. Even with the Dick Morris birthed triangulation, I'd vote for her over any Republican, despite the damage she might well do to the party's ideals.  

              But is this the road we want America going down?  We had papa Bush, and we have his son, and we can have Jeb, and he's quite qualified in his own sleazy way, and we can have another Clinton, but isn't this fostering a kind of political laziness, a lack of truly free choice, a further enervation of the ever-shrinking American capacity to listen for issues rather than look at personalities; or worse yet, couldn't this foster a kind of dynastic tribe mentality in America, where elections are played out ad infinitum like Boston-New York rivalries to the delight of delirious revenge-seeking fans?  

              Thomas Jefferson wouldn't like it one bit.

              But John Adams might.

              •  the difference (0+ / 0-)

                democrats pick the person best qualified. if that person is hillary, they will pick her. if she isn't they wont. republicans don't, they pick who the party bosses decree will be the nominee.

                if hillary is the most qualified, she will be nominated. the fact that the republcian process is fucked doesn't mean we should pick a less qualified person

                The Bible is a book of old Jewish fairytales-Bill Maher

                by politicaljunkie2008 on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 08:42:56 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  The Party's Ideals Are Right of the People (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                undercovercalico

                economically and on the Middle East, as far as I can see.

                We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy....--ML King, "Beyond Vietnam"

                by Gooserock on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 11:42:40 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  Thanks for this "maconblue" .... n/t (0+ / 0-)

            NO MORE DYNASTIES! No more triangulation! No more lies! No more war! No more corporatists! ELECT PROGRESSIVES NOW!

            by Hornito on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 09:27:29 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  I agree with you, but is Gore running? n/t (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Turkana
      •  2008 (7+ / 0-)

        How many "red" states is Hillary likely to win?  If the answer is close to zero, then this is a recipe for another close loss...and the global disaster of 12 to 16 years of Republican control.  

        All of the Repubs will distance themselves as far as possible from Dubya in 2008.  Its obvious that most uncommitted voters have short memories and are easily fooled by swiftboating attacks and media ad blitzes.  

        Hillary starts out with about 47% of the electorate saying they "definitely will not consider" voting for her (according to a recent Marist Poll).  We need to choose the strongest candidates for the general election, not the weakest ones...

        •  partially agree (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          maconblue

          but the strongest candidate would probably be some middle-brow moderate who doesn't scare the pundits- exactly what hillary's trying to be. we need a real dem- and that might not mean the easiest race, but a real dem can, certainly, win! i agree with the diarist that hillary can pull it off. she's not going to need any deep red states, and some of the purple ones are turning blue. she'd have a tough race, but she could do it. i'd just prefer some other people...

          © 2006 "certain thoughts are prayers. there are moments when, whatever the attitude of the body may be, the soul is on its knees." -victor hugo

          by Laurence Lewis on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 08:43:05 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  I'm not very internets savvy (0+ / 0-)

          and I wrote a diary to support just your point.

          If I'm out of line, I apologize.

        •  you say she can't win red states (0+ / 0-)

          without providing a mechinism. why is it she can't win Ohio (which voted for Bush by 2%) but can easily win Wisconin (which voted for Kerry by less than 1%)? Your argument makes no logical sense.

          The Bible is a book of old Jewish fairytales-Bill Maher

          by politicaljunkie2008 on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 08:47:57 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Yeah that's *not* just conservatives (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          cosbo, TomP

          Anyone who voted in/before the 90s seems to have made up their minds about Senator Clinton, and unfortunately, they're Republican leaning.

          And while the youth generation is more liberal than others, it's not lacking in many future (or current) Republican operatives.  

          That makes for an uphill battle.  If you want to work twice as hard in a climate inherently less hostile on behalf of the "other party," have at it, but I won't be as emotionally fraught as last time if the Democrats lose in 2008.

          (-7.88, -6.10) Your flag decal won't get you into heaven anymore/It's already overcrowed from your dirty little war

          by Nulwee on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 09:04:03 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Exactly my thoughts (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cosbo, Turkana, TomP

      I have never felt that there is no way she could win (although others have a better chance), but I do not want her to be president, and will not vote for her.

      The most un-American thing you can say is, "You can't say that." -G. Keillor

      by EvilPaula on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 08:26:52 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  well . . . (6+ / 0-)

    I agree that Clinton could win in the general election if she positions herself strategically. It's not hard to imagine any Democrat winning right now, especially with Iraq being FUBAR and the Bush-McCain axis of evil veering toward political suicide.

    That having been said, do we really want Clinton to be the nominee? She's certainly better than just about any Republican, but I'm not convinced that she's ideologically my cup of tea.

  •  I wasn't born yesterday (0+ / 0-)

    and all my friends and family will be voting Democratic in 2008. In 2007, however, we can shape the discourse.

    There are many pretenders in the field right now. All have their pluses and minuses...  Let's use this time to be idealistic.  I ask you to look at a Gravel/Freudenthal ticket.

    Spare me the logistics and the favorite son/daughter sniping; tell me how a liberal/pragmatist ticket fantasy is better right now in Jan 2007?

  •  Wow (7+ / 0-)

    There's a lotta Hillary boostin' goin' on.

    Let the great world spin for ever down the ringing grooves of change. - Tennyson

    by bumblebums on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 07:37:25 PM PST

  •  Edwards. Edwards. Edwards. (8+ / 0-)

    "we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex" Dwight D. Eisenhower

    by bobdevo on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 07:39:17 PM PST

  •  For most of us, the problem isn't (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Hornito, Spud1, sandmancan, TomP

    Whether she could win...of course there are those who think she would lose (evidently they are suffering from overexposure to Limbaugh or something of that nature), but I think there are many more of us still hoping for someone with a more progressive outlook, someone not married to the national security apparatus as Hillary is. If we want to roll back the Patriot Act and get our troops out of the middle east, we need someone with more of a sincere commitment to constitutional ideals and peace than Hillary. If we want Medicare for all, we need someone who is not in bed with Big Pharma, as Hillary is. Hillary would not be as bad as the Republicans, and I'm sure she would do everything in her power to increase availability of contraception and abortion, but aside from that another Clinton administration would be business as usual, minus that booming economy we had when Bill when in the White House.

    "All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." --I.F. Stone

    by Alice in Florida on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 07:40:07 PM PST

  •  Two terms, and 2/3 majority. (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jbou, norm, atdnext, Nulwee, RichmondLib

    Single payer, public funding, energy conservation, diplomacy, UN funding, minimum wage, equal pay, world opinion, foreign aid, I/P solution.

    Listen Before You Talk.

    by ormondotvos on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 07:40:20 PM PST

  •  Winning's not the point (4+ / 0-)

    A blind dog could win next time out if she was on the Democratic ticket.  This is not about winning.  It's about the best candidate for the country.  I've got nothing against Hilary; she'd be a fine candidate.  But she's in the pocket of AIPAC.

    Enough said.

  •  Please, no Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton (12+ / 0-)

    enough is enough.

  •  My biggest worry about Hillary Clinton is that (7+ / 0-)

    I don't think she can win the general election. I can see her winning the nomination but not winning the election because there are too few people who can be convinced to change their minds about her. I don't know many that have neutral feelings about her. That may just be due to my location (TN) but I know people who HATE her but couldn't tell me why in any specific way. They just do.

  •  Yeah she can win (5+ / 0-)

    IF

    Two or more of the following happen

    1. Iraq keeps blowing up in Bush's face.
    1. The Democratic led Congress doesn't have any serious blunders or leadership scandals.
    1. The GOP backs away from the wingnuts and nominates someone they don't like
    1. The mainstream media stops parroting GOP talking points that paint her as the antichrist.
    1. The election is tomorrow.

    As far as politics go, two years is a very long time and a lot can happen.

    So many impeachable offenses, so little time...

    by Cali Techie on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 07:45:59 PM PST

  •  Tags (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    txlosthorn

    Fixed your tags.

    Interesting diary too.

  •  I live in a red state (13+ / 0-)

    (NC) And NO politician is as radioactive as Hillary Clinton.

    Do you realize that most of the heavyweight right-wing blowhards that now are sitting perched at FOX news got their entire careers from spewing hate at Hillary Clinton (they hate her way more than Bill).  

    It isn't rational, but it is deep-seeded right now in red state America.  I think she does not have a good shot of picking up any state that Kerry didn't, (well maybe Ohio).

    I mean I've seen people almost throw up into their mouths on hearing her name.  Its sad, but it is what we have to deal with.  

    I think she is the only candidate we have that will actually help reunite the fracturing of the republican party that we are witnessing right now.  I don't care how 'centrist' she is.  I don't care how talented she is.  2 years and half a billion dollars won't make up for the last 15 years where her name has been made poisonous in red states.

    "There have been tyrants, and murderers, and for a time they can seem invincible. But in the end they always fall. Think of it. Always." -- Mahatma Gandhi

    by duha on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 07:49:57 PM PST

    •  Did a Democrat win your state the last time? (0+ / 0-)

      No? Well then it doesn't matter if we get someone different than Hillary Clinton.  They won't win again.

      "The Future's So Bright, I Gotta Wear Shades."--Pat MacDonald

      by hopscotch1997 on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 07:52:35 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's deep seated in mainstream America, not just (7+ / 0-)

        the right. HRC is not electable.

        17. Ne5

        In chess you may hit a man when he's down -- Irving Chernev, on Przepiorka v. Prokes, Budapest, 1929

        by Spud1 on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 07:56:47 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  45% of voters love hillary (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Spud1

          or at least have favorable views of her. so are they out of the mainstream? what about the 10% who don't like or dislike her that much? maybe not all of the 45% who hate her are out of the mainstream, but 30% of that 45% are out of the mainstream.

          The Bible is a book of old Jewish fairytales-Bill Maher

          by politicaljunkie2008 on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 08:54:22 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  In politics (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Spud1, blueoasis, duha, TomP

            it's harder to be positive than negative.  To persuade people to vote for someone is harder than to denigrate someone.

            Favorable does not mean love.  That doesn't mean legions of volunteers, or people who promise to turn up and vote.  It means favorable.  

            Similarly, there are plenty of Republicans who 'respect' Clinton, (though maybe not as many who despise her) and think she's strong on defense and respectable in her office.  But they'd never vote for her.  Not in a million years.

            (-7.88, -6.10) Your flag decal won't get you into heaven anymore/It's already overcrowed from your dirty little war

            by Nulwee on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 09:12:05 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  It's not about my state, (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        polecat, blueoasis, elie, jpspencer, TomP

        but about the states that this diary proposes that Hillary will pick up that Kerry didn't.

        I think it is a significant factor to think about if you have one candidate where there at least is the strong possiblility in this climate of picking up a couple 'red' or 'purple' states and another candidate that has no shot at making red state gains (Hillary Clinton).

        "There have been tyrants, and murderers, and for a time they can seem invincible. But in the end they always fall. Think of it. Always." -- Mahatma Gandhi

        by duha on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 07:58:58 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Awfully close to giving you a 0. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Hornito, blueoasis, TomP

        We're doing a fine job in turning NC blue.  Just beat Charles Taylor (NC-11), ALMOST beat Robin Hayes (NC-8), we HAVE a Democratic Governor, and Democrats control the legislature.

        So back off.

        And, duha had a point about Hillary's radioactivity in Red states.  How about electing someone who will unite the country instead of dividing us further?  HRC might make a good VP, because her negatives don't really matter as much and it puts her in as President of the Senate.  (and who knows, in 8 years a lot is possible)

        Happy little moron, lucky little man. I wish I was a moron, my God, perhaps I am! -- Spike Milligan

        by polecat on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 08:29:21 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Back off likewise. n/t (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          polecat

          "The Future's So Bright, I Gotta Wear Shades."--Pat MacDonald

          by hopscotch1997 on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 08:32:35 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  And it *does* matter if she's on the ticket (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            blueoasis, TomP

            because she can have seriously negative effects downticket.

            Can't believe you wrote:

            Did a Democrat win your state the last time?

            No? Well then it doesn't matter if we get someone different than Hillary Clinton.  They won't win again.

            Sheesh.  It does matter.  The Senate.  The House.  The State Legislature.  The county and city local government.  The judgeships that are elected.

            Happy little moron, lucky little man. I wish I was a moron, my God, perhaps I am! -- Spike Milligan

            by polecat on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 08:39:42 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Colorado (5+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Hornito, polecat, blueoasis, duha, TomP

              After seeing all the progress being made here in Colorado, I shudder to think of what a DNC in Denver will be like if Hillary gets the nomination. What a potential disaster for the party and for progressive politics in this country if she makes it that far. Just when the reputation of Democrats is on the upswing for once, a Hillary nom would set us back a decade, if not more.

              And I'm not just talking about the reaction of the far right, or even the near right. I'm talking about the reaction of the left - seriously, who here is excited or intrigued about the prospect of another Clinton presidency? For gods fucking sake, can't we have an election for once without a Clinton or a Bush? Can't we fucking MOVE ON?

            •  see my post above (0+ / 0-)

              she only hurts the downticket candidates if she loses by more than a very narrow margin (see 2004, when all but a couple of house democrats were reelected, and several house republicans lost). but any candidate will hurt downticket candidates if they lose by more than a narrow margin. the question is if she is more or less likely to lose by more than a narrow margin than another candidate, after the right wing slime machine has trashed that nominee.

              The Bible is a book of old Jewish fairytales-Bill Maher

              by politicaljunkie2008 on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 08:59:00 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  hillary isn't radioactive in OH, MO, AR ect (0+ / 0-)

          she isn't hated by "states," she is hated by voters in those states. some states have more voters who hate her than other states. very few states have voters where a majority (51%) hate her. most states she cannot win (such as Nebraska or Idaho) have high numbers of people who hate her. adding the people who don't like her, and the people who are impartial but end up breaking against her, is what creates the number of people who cause her to lose the state.

          The Bible is a book of old Jewish fairytales-Bill Maher

          by politicaljunkie2008 on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 08:56:49 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Where do you get that idea. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            polecat, blueoasis, duha

            I am from Missouri.  Seh will lose Missouri, while Edwardsor Obam could win.  She will drag down the ticket here.  

            Do you know politics here? I'm not taking about the other states you mention, but I know Missouri. She is not popular here.  

            •  Jane Fonda would do a better job (5+ / 0-)

              of making permanent the decimation of Georgia Democrats, but Hillary's a close second.  I admire her tenacity, and her political instincts, and I'd vote for her in the general, but she'd be to Democrats in the South what Pat Robertson would be to Republicans in the North: a disaster for the party.  And this isn't about winning the next election in Georgia, because the South is likely meaningless in 2008 anyway (and Georgia certainly is).  It's about building the future of the party in every state.  Edwards can help build the party, Clark can help build the party, Obama can help build the party.  Hillary can win, sure, but can she help build the party?

              •  Maconblue: Good Line! (0+ / 0-)

                ...she'd be to Democrats in the South what Pat Robertson would be to Republicans in the North: a disaster for the party.

                Nice gem.

                Happy little moron, lucky little man. I wish I was a moron, my God, perhaps I am! -- Spike Milligan

                by polecat on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 06:03:32 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

        •  In in Missouri, but gave Kissell (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          polecat, tabbycat in tenn, blueoasis, duha

          a couple $25 contributions last time.  Kinda of adopted him as a House candidate from somewhere else.  He came so close (lost by less than 1000 votes, if I recall right) and he's running again.  Kissell 2008!  He is great. A high school history teacher. I will support him again and he will win this time.

          I don't think HRC at the top of the ticket will help with Kissell.

          On another note, I just was in NC between Christmas and New Years.  Lenoir, Ashville, Raleigh-Durham, and Wilmington.  Beautiful state.  I had not been there since 1972.

          I think NC gets a bit of a bad rap.  It's more of a Southeastern State, with some pockets of real progressive folks.  It's no Mississippi.  An economically populist message could resonate, but the one thing HRC is, is that she is no populist.  

          More than 15 years ago, Harvey Gantt, a black candidate, almost defeated Helms.  Considering there have been only 3 black Senators since Reconstruction(Ed Brooke R-Mass; Braun D-Il; Obama D-Il), that's pretty damn close.  NC is doing better on that than a lot of so-called liberal states.  Connecticut put Lieberman in.  Enuf said.  No room for them to look down on NC.

          It trends Republican, but it is not unwinnable.  The right candidate could prevail, but I do not think HRC can in NC.    

    •  Same way here in TN. Of course, no Democratic (6+ / 0-)

      nominee is likely to win the red states anyway, but I assume many in the purple and critical states feel the same way. I don't think their hate is rational but it is very much real.

      •  It's definitely irrational (5+ / 0-)

        but it has been droned in time and time again over so many years that it is basically insurmountable at this point.

        One advantage that she has is that they've already thrown everything and then some at her, but I really don't think, even with all the money that she will have, that she can really make inroads in the purple states.

        "There have been tyrants, and murderers, and for a time they can seem invincible. But in the end they always fall. Think of it. Always." -- Mahatma Gandhi

        by duha on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 08:02:01 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'd debate the (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          polecat
          point about "they've already thrown everything at her" that comes up every time about this.

          Considering she votes and speaks on issues in the Senate daily, why is the flow of new garbage they're going to try to throw at her going to suddenly stop at some point?

          One misstep in a place like the Senate where every vote is compared against every other vote, and you have yourself another "I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it."

          •  I agree (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            BlueEngineerInOhio, blueoasis

            I mean more of the digging up dirt, smear machine, swift boat, tricks that could blindside someone like Obama who hasn't been vetted the way that someone like Hillary has.

            Being evaluated on how she is voting is great.  If only the right wing smear machine kept it to that.  How Kerry dealt with the portrayal of his votes was Kerry's problem.

            "There have been tyrants, and murderers, and for a time they can seem invincible. But in the end they always fall. Think of it. Always." -- Mahatma Gandhi

            by duha on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 10:36:15 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  what states give you about 350 electoral votes? (0+ / 0-)

        Gore+Kerry states, plus

        AR, FL, OH, MO, NV, CO

        can you see hillary winning these? I sure can.

        The Bible is a book of old Jewish fairytales-Bill Maher

        by politicaljunkie2008 on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 09:01:23 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  See above. You're dreaming adding Mo. n/t (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Hornito, blueoasis
        •  HRC will NOT win Nevada........... (0+ / 0-)

          And I say this as someone who has been involved in Nevada politics for over 35 years. You can take it to the bank.

          Conversely, give Nevada a Gore, Clark, or even an Edwards, and they'll go blue.

          NO MORE DYNASTIES! No more triangulation! No more lies! No more war! No more corporatists! ELECT PROGRESSIVES NOW!

          by Hornito on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 10:03:05 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  of those 6 states (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          blueoasis

          of those 6 states you mentioned, I can't see her winning any but possibly OH, and thats just because the republican machine is now reeling from 2006, and scandals.

          "There have been tyrants, and murderers, and for a time they can seem invincible. But in the end they always fall. Think of it. Always." -- Mahatma Gandhi

          by duha on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 10:46:16 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Radioactive ain't the half of it . . . (7+ / 0-)

      There are a LOT of average Americans who will not stomach a vote for Hillary. Sure, the whole Clinton legacy has been constantly shat on by conservative freaks since he left office, but the fact remains that "the blowjob" is never gonna be forgiven nor forgotten by a good chunk of middle America. Sure, that wasn't Hillary's fault, but she suffers from it all the same.

      Don't people ever wonder why Hillary choose to run for the Senate from a state that wasn't Arkansas? A state where she still had a lot of good will, and whose political equity between Dems/Repubs should have been easily overcome by her name recognition? She wouldn't have won in Arkansas, not after Monicagate. Bill knew it, she knew it, and so they found a place from which she could be elected.

      She won't win in middle America.

      •  there was no senate race in AR in 2000 (0+ / 0-)

        and most people have forgotten monica, paula jones, travelgate ect. the rest could care less.

        The Bible is a book of old Jewish fairytales-Bill Maher

        by politicaljunkie2008 on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 09:03:26 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I don't think that's why (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        tabbycat in tenn, blueoasis, duha

        I think a good portion of Middle America hate Hillary Clinton because they see her, quite frankly, as an uppity woman too big for her britches and not in the least apologetic about it. The blow job doesn't enter into it, because if Bill Clinton could run for a third term, he'd win, hands down.

        Now, I'm no Hillary fan, because I think she's been too much a part of the Democratic Leadership Council that led the Democrats to loss after loss in the 12 years the Republicans controlled Congress. Her other problem, in my view, is that she lacks the ability to inspire passion and commitment from her fellow Democrats, both in Washington and at the grass roots. The next Democrat in the White House is going to be relentlessly attacked. They are going to need to be able to inspire loyalty, and I don't think Hillary inspires that kind of loyalty.

        "Nothing worth having comes without some kind of fight. You've got to kick at the darkness until it bleeds daylight." --Bruce Cockburn, "Lovers In A Dangerous

        by AustinCynic on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 09:34:21 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  She only HAS to pick up Ohio (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      polecat, tabbycat in tenn, TomP
      (I think, I don't think reapportionment will make us lose any more votes.)

      What about New Mexico, Iowa, Nevada, and maybe Arizona and Colorado?

      The other question is if we LOSE any states; I guess Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and New Hampshire are the most perilous.

      •  if she wins OH, she will win a lot more (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        BlueEngineerInOhio

        she (or any dem) wont win Ohio because of ads in october. it will be clear if she is going to win these states like ohio or not long before election day. and if she does, the there will likely be a wave strong enough to knock several states in our direction.

        The Bible is a book of old Jewish fairytales-Bill Maher

        by politicaljunkie2008 on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 09:04:51 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  HRC will NOT win CO, NV or AZ, and I.... (3+ / 0-)

        sincerely doubt she would win NM either. Just not going to happen. In these areas, where rural voters make up a great percentage of the total, HRC hasn't a chance. Might as well just give it to McCain or whomever the Repugs pick...

        NO MORE DYNASTIES! No more triangulation! No more lies! No more war! No more corporatists! ELECT PROGRESSIVES NOW!

        by Hornito on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 10:06:36 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  You think? (0+ / 0-)

          Colorado is trending blue, Ritter will come out strong for the Dem candidate and Udall could have considerable upticket influence.

          NM is always a close state, only way will it be a clear GOP win is if they already have a landslide locked up.  If Richardson is the VP candidate I'd go as far as to say it's a lock (in no way can you compare NM to where Gore couldn't win TN or Edwards win NC, two MUCH redder states.)

          NV...well, Ensign pwn3d Carter by a wide enough margin that you many have a point.  Like NM, too purple a state to hand to the R's outside of a landslide, and I'd imagine Reid would have a positive influence.

          AZ...ok, longest reach of those states, especially if McCain makes the ticket.

          Rural voters make up a good deal of NH, MN, MI, WI, and IA and Kerry and Gore went 4-1 in those states with each loss being narrow.  The "big-government conservative movement" only makes the Republicans even worse off in those Western states.

    •  how many people in NC hated Kerry in 2003? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      maconblue

      How many do now?

      Hillary has been through the right wing slime machine. no other candidate has.

      the fact that NC voters may not throw up for candidate X now doesn't mean they wont when the right is done with them.

      most people who hate hillary, even if they don't hate obama or edwards or any others, aren't going to vote for any democrat.

      The Bible is a book of old Jewish fairytales-Bill Maher

      by politicaljunkie2008 on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 08:52:41 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I did put it out there (0+ / 0-)

        that it is an advantage for her, she's been through the right wing slime machine more than anybody over the course of the last 15 years.

        But I do think because of that, she's in a different category than the other candidates, in the sense that she won't be able to 'win over' disillusioned right-leaning moderates in red/purple states, the way that Edwards or Obama or Clark, etc. may be able to.  Its a closed door, with Hillary Clinton.

        "There have been tyrants, and murderers, and for a time they can seem invincible. But in the end they always fall. Think of it. Always." -- Mahatma Gandhi

        by duha on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 10:55:50 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  The only person more divisive (5+ / 0-)

    than Hillary is Kerry.  Neither one should get the nomination as it is a sure fire way to defeat.

    Half the Democrats I know can't stand her, the other half love her.  Now how do you think that will transfer to the Republicans, of course they'll say they want Hillary, right up to the time they enter the booth.

    DAGGER 24 hour news service...your post could make news!

    by lightnessofbeing on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 07:50:43 PM PST

  •  She may have A chance to win (6+ / 0-)

    but does she have the BEST chance of all Dems TO win?

    "Stay close to the candles....the staircase can be treacherous" (-8.38,-8.51)

    by JNEREBEL on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 07:51:23 PM PST

  •  No she can't n/t (6+ / 0-)

    17. Ne5

    In chess you may hit a man when he's down -- Irving Chernev, on Przepiorka v. Prokes, Budapest, 1929

    by Spud1 on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 07:53:47 PM PST

  •  Why Throw The Right A Bone Like This? (8+ / 0-)

    Sure the Fox News people will lie about anybody the Democrats choose as their standard bearer, but Clinton is alone in that just her name mobilizes Republican voter turnout against her. Why give them a gift like that?

    If you want to win not just a slim majority but a SOLID majority with Congressional and Senatorial coattails across the country, Clinton is not the ideal Democratic candidate. I don't know who is just yet, and I'm willing to let that play out, but Clinton would make the race closer than it has to be after Bush's disastrous presidency.

    "The game's easy, Harry" - Richie Ashburn

    by jpspencer on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 07:54:58 PM PST

  •  Yes, Hillary can win... (5+ / 0-)

    But I guess what interests us is how she wins, and where she wins. I know that quite a few Dems are worried about whether or not she will cost us seats, but I think some people worry about it too much. If John Kerry didn't cost us any seats (outside the TX redistricting), then how could Hillary Clinton?

    For me, I'm no longer worrying about who can best win. Now, I'm concerned about who is best for the country. This is what I'll be looking for as I make my decision for the primary.

    : )

    •  Kerry didn't cost us seats? (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      michael1104, atdnext, blueoasis, TomP
      Debatable...the way he wrote off most of the South/Plains hurt a LOT of the close open-seat races.

      If he had worked harder in Kentucky (a state Clinton won) Mongiaro could have beaten Bunning.

      I don't think Edwards wrote off his home state, but about Burr vs. Bowles?

      Didn't Daschle complain that Kerry shouldn't have ignored South Dakota?

      •  Well, writing off the South is still an issue... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        BlueEngineerInOhio

        That we wrestle with. It was amazing that we kept as many seats down there for as long as we did, I guess mostly because they were ol'-style Blue Dogs. Unfortunately, we even came close to losing two seats in Georgia last year!

        Perhaps there's hope in Kentucky and North Carolina, just as we're rediscovering hope in Virginia. How are the demographics changing in those states? Is there a type of NOVA there that can begin making the rest of the state purple?

        I really don't know about the South. I don't think we should completely abandon the region. However, I must ask this question: What the heck can we do to win anywhere down there?

        •  We see that the President has no clothes (4+ / 0-)

          a lot of people are starting to view him as the anti-Christ (especially after the Mail thing).

          You'd be surprised.  If you ran someone like Clark/Edwards (or the reverse), you'd probably pick up a very significant electoral majority.  I think Gore/Clark or Gore/Edwards would be even better, but that seems to be off the table for now.

          Happy little moron, lucky little man. I wish I was a moron, my God, perhaps I am! -- Spike Milligan

          by polecat on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 08:42:03 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well, is Clark running? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            polecat, BlueEngineerInOhio

            I still haven't seen anything that confirms that he is running. And besides, while I very much admire him and his work for other Dem candidates last year, I still haven't been convinced as I don't know enough about where he stands on the issues...

            And just how well can he do in the South? How well can he do in the Midwest? In the Mountain West?

            Again, I like Clark...
            I just need to know more about him and his candidacy before I make decisions about him and how well he can do in 2008.

            : )

            •  I don't know. (0+ / 0-)

              The pressure for him to declare (IF HE'S GOING TO) must be immense.

              Unless he's waiting to be drafted as VP.

              Who knows.  The window of opportunity is diminishing.  Will probably close right after the SOTU address.

              Happy little moron, lucky little man. I wish I was a moron, my God, perhaps I am! -- Spike Milligan

              by polecat on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 06:06:23 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  you don't need to win the south (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          BlueEngineerInOhio, atdnext

          the gore and kerry states, plus AR, FL, OH, NV, MO, and OH alone get you to about 350 electoral votes. take away FL and you are at about 330.

          I have seen several state-by-state polls. hillary beats any republican (including huckabee) in arkansas

          The Bible is a book of old Jewish fairytales-Bill Maher

          by politicaljunkie2008 on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 09:08:16 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well, I consider AR and FL to be "Southern"... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            BlueEngineerInOhio, TomP

            But, I digress... ; )

            Yes, I can definitely see Hillary win Arkansas...
            And perhaps, she can take Florida.
            As for Ohio, I feel good about Ohio...

            But what about the West? I'm curious as to how she will poll in Colorado, Nevada, Arizona, and New Mexico. Can she appeal to libertarian-leaning voters there?

            What about the Midwest? Will she reignite old Clinton-related "culture wars" in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Iowa?

            And how exactly will her candidacy affect Congressional races? Will she cost us seats in the South? Will she open up new opportunities in the Northeast? How will she affect the West?

            But then again, I have the same questions about all the other candidates, as well...

            : )

        •  Edwards can help bring back the South. . . (3+ / 0-)

          not in 2008, though I think he'd win the Presidency if nominated, but he'd begin to lay the groundwork for African Americans and working class Southern whites to rethink the party's seriousness about their concerns.  The South can come back in a hurry to the Democratic party (with a candidate like Tester or Webb running nationally, you'd see a good deal of return), but 2008 has to lay the foundation for that return.

          •  Still have to work in (0+ / 0-)

            baby steps.

            I'd say even in a fairly heavy landslide (i.e. Clinton over Bush I/Dole, not something as drastic as Dukakis/Mondale) the only Southern states we have a clear shot at are VA and FL.  MAYBE Arkansas, don't know for sure how much Hillary is still liked there or whether Wes Clark would affect things as VP; you have to be pretty conservative to win statewide there (Pryor, Lincoln...not like fairly outspoken Virginia populists like Kaine and Webb)

            It sucks that most of the South really wasn't close at all in '04, although when you look at in the terms that Florida, as ugly as it was to lose by 5%, was only about 2% more pro-Bush than the rest of the country it doesn't look as bad.

      •  Edwards hardly ever campaigned in (3+ / 0-)

        NC in 2004.  The Kerry folks wrote it off very early.  Edwards was in rural areas in the midwest and west.  That does not mean he necessarily would win NC, but a ticket with him on top insted of Kerry would do better in NC.  

  •  Hillary doesn't inspire me one bit (5+ / 0-)

    If she did, I'd give her a chance. But she's woefully lacking in the connection factor. She's like a huge media creation with no personal touch. Like an aloof personality with a cold touch. It's hard to describe.

    I'll support her if she wins the nomination though. But my primary vote goes elsewhere.

    The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in times of crisis, remain neutral.

    by ten10 on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 08:02:33 PM PST

  •  re: (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    atdnext

    "She wins the popular vote by at least 1%. "

    I predicted in 2004 that we would win the electoral vote WITHOUT winning the popular vote, i.e. a reverse of 2000, and I was off by only 118,775 Ohio votes (if not less.)  There just didn't seem to be much nationwide polling suggesting Kerry would win (exit polls aside,) but it seemed more likely he'd make it to 270 electoral votes just because of how those votes were distributed.

    I think this is likely again, if the Republicans win large Southern states by big enough margins but the Democrats pull through in Ohio and a western state or two.

    Of course, we'll never hear the end of it from the "screw the popular vote, electoral college is all that matters" Republicans then (who also didn't think that electoral votes mattered when Clinton didn't crack 50% but plastered Bush 41 and Dole in '92 and '96.)

  •  InTrade is cheering - (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    atdnext

    Right now it had the following (as cents on the dollar):

    Hillary @ 25 vs. McCain @ 20 to win

    Democrats to win the presidency @ 55 vs. Republicans @ 44

    Dems win the senate @ 74
    Dems win the house @ 80

    How in mercy's name can McCain not know the true cost of war?

    by Wee Mama on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 08:15:27 PM PST

  •  Bush won, proving any arsehole can, so what? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blueoasis, terafnord

    The young man who has not wept is a savage, and the old man who will not laugh is a fool. George Santayana

    by Bobjack23 on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 08:28:54 PM PST

  •  You make an interesting point (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    atdnext

    Do you think she has a shot in VA?

    http://www.keen.com/jiacinto For DC related travel advice, please visit that link.

    by jiacinto on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 08:32:36 PM PST

  •  of course Hillary can win. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Hornito, blueoasis, maconblue

    Unless the GOP nominates a moderate "outside the Beltway" candidate for President, every Democrat from the Presidency down to dog catcher will be running against the dead, stinking political corpse of George Bush. What are the chances of a moderate getting the 2008 GOP nomination? (in 2012, maybe...)

    Though we'd probably get a bigger margin of victory for the White House with generic Democrat. Or Marilyn Manson. Or perhaps Charlie Manson.

    That's why there are so many people running for the Democratic nomination.

    The question you should be asking is which Democratic Presidential candidate would be best for America if elected?

    IMHO, the last DLCer left standing is the wrong answer.

    Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

    by alizard on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 08:35:57 PM PST

  •  It's not about electability. (6+ / 0-)

    She's not worthy of trust. She is partly responsible for the mess we are in today. I'll let Bob Harris explain.

    In the wake of 9-11, it wasn't just George W. Bush telling the world "every nation has to be either with us or against us."  It was Hillary, as you can hear for yourself.

    In October 2002, during the debate about giving Bush authorization to invade Iraq, it wasn't just Dick Cheney telling the world in that Saddam Hussein had links to Al-Qaeda.  It was Hillary, from the floor of Congress.

    And in February 2005, it wasn't just John McCain claiming that democracy was taking root in Iraq, and that the insurgency was in its last throes.  It was Hillary, standing right at John McCain's side.

    Yeah.  So President Hillary would be soooooo much better about Iraq.  Clap louder, everybody.  Make it come true.

    Let us rid ourselves of the fiction that low oil prices are somehow good for the United States.

    by M Aurelius on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 08:42:43 PM PST

  •  Whwther she can win or not isn't the question (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    atdnext, TomP

    it's whether we, as Democrats, want her to be our nominee.  And that, I think, should depend on whether she reflects our party's sentiments, not some calculus of who can win.  I happen to think she's smart, able and talented.  She is far better than any conceivable Republican.  I will enthusiastically support her if she is our party's nominee.

    While I have not ruled anyone out just yet, I will likely not support her in the primaries.  The main reason I am not likely to support her is her position on the war, which is out of step with my own views and, I think, the views of the majority of our party.  On the biggest issue of our times, she has been consistently, and unrepentantly, wrong.  Since we are likely to be in Iraq when the next President takes office, I want to elect someone whom I know will end this tragic error and set right our nation's place in the world.  She has a lot of convincing to do to get me to feel that she is that candidate.

    Bush 41 to 43: "See, Son, your problem in Iraq is the same one I had with your mother: neither one of us pulled out in time."

    by mattinla on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 08:48:36 PM PST

  •  This got me thinking, so is it more difficult for (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TomP, maconblue

    HRC to emerge from the primaries unscathed enough to be a strong candidate nationally?
    I thank you for this article, interesting thought provoking article

  •  McCain will be out by spring (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blueoasis

    The McCain doctrine of more troops will fail and his only option will be to complain the plan was doomed and the need for a real escalation of 50k to 100k more troops.

    Only then can she win, otherwise she will not get my vote in a primary, nor could I work for the campaign. We need someone who will motivate us to knock on doors, Imho thats not going to happen with Hillary.

  •  It would be very hard to get Hillary to win (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blueoasis, TomP

    and given that she's pretty bad on most issues of importance to progressives, how is it worth the trouble electing her? As long as she's got a John Kerry position on the war, she's not going to amount to much.

    If your name was George Walker instead of George Walker Bush, your candidacy would be a joke.

    by dole4pineapple on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 09:23:15 PM PST

  •  Sure she can win (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tabbycat in tenn

    All of our candidates can win. Look at all the big 3 thus far, Edwards, Obama, and Hills. I really don't understand the negativity about them, to me this is an emabarassment of riches for our party, best group we have seen in years.

    If you were to combine the best aspects of each of them (Hill's toughness and experience in dealing with the right, Edwards' principled stand for progressive stances and sharpness in his stance, and Obama's persona, incredible speaking ability, inspirational narraitive, and progressive voting record) we have the perfect candidate.

    As such, we have to choose, and for argument's sake today, amongst the three. What most here say, and that I agree with, is that each of them would be a great president, we just want to make sure we get the best one who can get elected. They can ALL get elected. People forget how popular the Big Dog still is, you could even call it Hillary's biggest asset. I heard republicans say they might have gone dem if it had been Edwards, not Kerry, in 04. Obama has it all, and if there are some po-dunk states that won't elect a black man, let them be on the losing side, because rest assured, they will lose.

    What we should be more concerned with is exactly what each of them will do as president. With Hill, I think we get alot of what Bill did, which while not perfect, was damn good. Do we get out of Iraq? Personally, my thought is that if we are still in Iraq in similar numbers in 08 as we are now, even Hillary will be saying that we need to get the hell out now. More importantly, would she fix our foreign policy? I believe she would do well. Bill tried very hard to bridge gaps with Isreal and Palestine, and reached out to North Korea. What about domestically? She will try to get healthcare for all, which we all support. She will pursue progressive causes to a great extent. As much as the other two? Probably not. But we will be in a great position compared to the current situation. The only drawback I have seen with her is that, as the attempted first woman pres, she will take an extra effort to "be tough" in handling the country. I know she can, she doesnt have to prove it. But she will try to prove it, and that could lead to problems.

    With Obama, I see great judgment (Iraq War). I see him being able to win people over on the other side, and this will help him get a more progressive agenda passed. I also hope that once a black man is pres, it will help our country get over the racist BS that has held us back for so damn long. As long as we still have to mention the "electability" of a black pres or see political ads in TN when Harold Ford runs for the senate, we have a problem. Will it ever end? Maybe not, but having a minority in the White House will help, and we will all be better for it.

    Edwards may truly be THE MAN as well. He has support from moderates and progressives. He is passionate, which is always a winning position. He is passionate about New Orleans, about poverty, and about equality. His voting record may have been conservative for a dem, but that was a long time ago. JFK didn't have a perfectly progressive record either. But in the years since JE has been a national figure, he has traveled, he has dug into serious world issues, he has seen the positive response to his courage. As we all know, the expanding of experience and perspective will make one more progressive, and this is my thought with JE. How will the repubs look putting ol' warmonger McCain up there agaisnt the young and optimistic Edwards? Foolish, thats what. It isn't just us here at DK, the whole country has had it with the mideast colonialism, the religious right wing BS, the stripping of freedoms, and the fear mongering, the whole country has seen enough of that, as we saw in November. I have heard serious repubs here in TX say they hate Bush. And McCain, the frontrunner and heir apparent, is not only following his lead, but taking it even more extreme. This is absurd. Call me overly optimistic, but I think all of the Big 3, even Richardson, Clark, or Gore if they run, whoop his ass.

    The tide has turned, the (neo)conservative wave came and went, and it is time to sling back to reality. We WILL win in 08. It is only a matter of which great pres will come from our party. Also remember this, the more things spiral down, the more people pay attention, and the more they do, they bluer they vote. Because we have the better ideas and we are ALWAYS out in front. WE restarted this country after the Depression. WE ended southern segregation. WE started the environmental movement. What did THEY do? THEY carried on in Vietnam as long as possible (though LBJ did as much damage as any), THEY resisted the Civil Rights movement (and the end of slavery, for that matter), THEY have been against any progress toward equality and advancement we have made. WE are right, and lets not forget it, dammit.

    •  Your post inspired me! Truly wonderful. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rscottrewak
      •  aw shucks (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        tabbycat in tenn

        Thank you for the rec :). But it is our candidates that are the ones who are inspiring. Look what Hill has had to deal with from the right since 92 (and emerged smelling like roses). Look at what Edwards has accomplished, working his way through college and law school and having unparrallelled success defending the common man agaisnt big corporations in court and beating them. Obama rising from a torn family and obscurity to head of the Harvard Law review, then bypassing corporate dollars to teach and improve lives in Chicago. I realize the issues people may have with his religious stance, and I myself am agnostic and am not a fan of it, but the reality is he is part of a very liberal church, and he takes progressive positions. If that helps us get things done, it is a positive, not a negative. When you compare our guys to theirs, it is no comparison. I commend McCain's Vietnam experience, especially in light of what Bush did during that time. But does this make any of his positions right? He has been wrong at every turn. And Keating 5 is bigger than any scandal any of the dems might have to deal with. Again, WE will win!

  •  Thanks for the diary! (3+ / 0-)

    Yours and a few others in the last week have proven the lie that bloggers are hysterical lefties who demonize Hillary.  The conversation here has been amicable, open, and reasoned.  And it sounds like most of us can support Hillary if nominated, though most of us won't support her as our first choice to reinvigorate a party too beholden to power, too timid, too short-sighted, and too lacking in inspiration and vision.

  •  If Hillary wins, the Democratic party loses (0+ / 0-)

    It's as simple as that.

  •  she has a better chance (0+ / 0-)

    of winning than Obama or Edwards.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site