It's not the red or the blue states that matter - it's the purple states. Voter turnout makes a huge difference there - and the GOP will turnout to vote against Clinton even if they are not excited by their own candidate. And with the way the GOP race is going, there's not a lot of excitement about any single candidate. Similiarly, moderates/independents don't like Clinton very much - so, especially if McCain is running, she has a huge uphill battle there.
and if it mobilizes peopel to come out and vote down party lines against her, I still don't see why it would hurt her chances of winning. if the winner was based on a simple majority, then yeah I can see that being a problem for her. But all it means is that the red states will have a bigger turnout. She'll still take NY and California and the other traditional blue states. She'll probably win Florida too because I think she'll take the Hispanic vote over any other candidate.
I'm a moderate conservative and I like Hillary more than anyone else on the Dems side. In fact I like her even more than Rudy/Mitt. yes she's cold and calculating, but her goal at the end of the day is to go down in history as a great leader, and in order for that to happen, the US would have to flourish under her. I think she's pragmatic in that way.
So you think Purple states have no Republicans in them? Ohio, Florida, Missouri, Nevada, Colorado, and the 7 or 8 other states in play don't have any Republicans who'll come out to vote against Hillary?
Ummm..you remember how close the elections have been in various states over the course of the last two elections?? In 2004, Ohio, New Mexico and Iowa were too close to call the night of the election and weren't finally tallied until the next morning. We're talking about margins of victory at less than 5%.
i don't know the electoral votes for those states, but I think all she needs to do is win Florida and she'll be good. I think she has a much better chance of taking Florida than the other candidates based on the Hispanic vote.
You just described every evil dictator I can think of- 1. cold and calculating 2. a goal to go down in history 3. aspires to be a great leader
Certainly if they win Florida or Ohio, they win and overcome all the other problems. That's also exactly how the Dems lost the last two elections - they leave so few competitive states that they absolutely have to win. Florida has gone Republican the last two elections, and is even more so now w/ a popular GOP governor. If you make more states competitive, then you're not wedded to having to win Florida. Hillary makes fewer states competitive by being Hillary - both strengthening the GOP and lacking appeal to independents.
Thats a very good point. I still think that Hillary will take Florida easily based on the Hispanic vote. The upcoming primaries should give us a better indication. If she wins by 10-15%, then I'm pretty sure that theres no way shed lose Florida in a general election
I am telling you that this scenario doesn't always happen. Dems tried "Anyone but Bush" in 2004 election. They selected Kerry because they thought he had a better chance to beat Bush, even though this guy was as dull as it gets. They just wanted Bush out of there. You know how it turned out. The "Vote against Bush instead of voting for Kerry" didn't work for Dems, I don't see it work for GOP either. The qualities of candidates do matter.
I couldn't agree more. If the Republicans put up John McCain because they think he has a good chance to win, they deserve Hillary. There will be nothing uglier than having John McCain as lead news story trying to defend his record for 4 or 5 months.
This is partially true - the Dems ran on that. But at the same time, the GOP ran on that too. They got out their base in mass numbers with a "fear Kerry" campaign. In that election, both sides got their base out in pretty good numbers. The GOP has been long known as much better at the "draw out the base" strategy to win. It's how they won the last two elections without much support for moderates. But that's the big difference between the two parties: the Dems *need* moderates to show up in huge numbers and/or the GOP base to NOT show up in huge numbers to win. They created this problem with their limited-state strategy. They conceded so many states over the years to the GOP, and now they are in this mess where they can't just win with their base in their states while the GOP can. To Howard Dean's credit, he has really, really pushed the 50-state strategy to get more states in play in the future. How far along that is and how much that will affect 2008, I'm not really sure. With Hillary, I suspect they'll be playing the same game of gotta win every blue state and hope for Florida or Ohio. It's not a good strategy to success, though it's something that the Dems have built themselves over a long period.
This post may have been made as a "joke," but it shows what Ms. Clinton is fighting against and what she gets little credit for... the sexist, knee-jerk reaction to a woman running for the Presidency. A lot has been made of possible prejudice against Obama, but Clinton faces much the same thing. Ever heard of the "glass ceiling?" When it comes to this particular office and women, the glass ceiling has proven to be bullet proof, so far. In this forum are many, many examples of what I'm talking about. Posts that, at their heart, are not based on Clinton's record or her leadership abilities, or what political party she belongs to, but on the fact that she is a woman. Like her or not, and I'd rather have a different nominee, myself, she's a huge target simply because she's a woman, and being a strong woman just adds to the prejudice. India, Israel, Germany, Great Britain, and many other major states around the world have had women as their leaders, but not the United States. So I'm placed in the uncomfortable position of defending a woman I'd rather not be the nominee because I am sick to death of sexism and prejudice against women in this country. Chew on that, folks, and I'm sure I'll get posts claiming that what I said simply isn't true. That if it was another woman, not the "hated Hillary," the reaction would be different. Right. Impeach Bush.
To be a w****, wouldn't men have to agree to sleep with you? She's merely a pushover who can't even keep her own man happy.
I disagree on how Bush won the last election. I think you seriously under-estimated the effect of Karl Rove and his tactics. GOP never feared Kerry. Not even a little bit, IMO. They attacked him so bad and so successfully that when you talked about 2004 election, the "Swift boat for vet" and "Flip-Flops" are still vivid to date. Kerry was beat so bad by "Swift boat" and he never escaped the image of "Flip-Flops" throughout the election. GOP didn't get out their base, their "base" were always there for Bush. But they did an excellent job discouraging Dems to vote for Kerry. In the end, many Dems realized Kerry was a lousy candidate and it overweighed the thinking of defeating Bush. They just stayed home and didn't bother to vote. I believe this time it will be another way around. The GOP candidates are so flawed on one issue or the other in the eye of conservative voters and they might have to press a handkerchief to their noses and select a candidate who they think has the best chance to beat Hillary. If it is McCain or that Mitt "flip-flop fake conservative" Romney, Hillary (assume she gets the nomination) and Bill will just hit them as hard. I think there is a big possibility that GOP voters get discouraged like Dems did the last time around because they think their guy is not whole lot better than Hillary.
Well looking at one of the examples you have given, Germany for instance.......I cannot recall anyone accusing Merkel of being a w****. I mean I'm sure it's been said, but I've personally never heard it and I know many many Germans. There are a lot of people pissed off at her closer ties with Bush but I've yet to hear anyone accuse her of doing/saying to get what she wants. And no, the post was not just a joke.
sadly for you, the facts say otherwise. both the Democrats and Republicans turned out in record numbers and percentages, at least in terms of modern elections. As Kerry often trumpeted, he got more votes than any other democrat in history. Bush just got more- the GOP ground game was exceptional, and the base came out in droves. whether that dynamic repeats itself in 2008 is an open question. i don't see democrats voting in droves for hillary, nor do i see repubicans voting in droves for any of their candidates. Obama has the potential to generate high turnout, but his core constituency (young voters) has historically not voted in large numbers. a big unknown is whether the iowa experience will translate into the general, particularly if he's been savaged by the clintons in the run-up.
