Religions > Atheism > #Mrs Clinton: Still the best representative of democrat party values
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Kurt Nicklas" |
| Date: |
04 Oct 2007 04:49:10 AM |
| Object: |
#Mrs Clinton: Still the best representative of democrat party values |
October 04, 2007
Edwards, Not Hillary, is Dems' Best Chance
By Steven Stark
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/10/edwards_not_hillary_is_de=
ms_be.html
According to the latest conventional wisdom, Hillary Clinton is
threatening to turn the Democratic presidential-nomination race into a
rout. Key to her current appeal is the assumption that she's the
party's most electable candidate. In a recent NBC/Wall Street Journal
poll, 54 percent of Democrats described her as their best hope in
2008. (The other candidates lagged behind.)
There's only one problem with this faith in Clinton's electability:
it's wrong. On paper, John Edwards is the party's best chance for a
victory, even though his latest fundraising difficulties have made it
increasingly unlikely that he will ever be the nominee.
Sure, Clinton often runs ahead of the Democratic pack in polls that
track the candidates' strengths against possible GOP opponents. But
that's because she has already assumed the role of a nominee, and the
others have not. If Edwards or Barack Obama won the nomination, that
air of certainty would transfer to either of them.
In truth, Democrats who are supporting Clinton because of her
electability probably haven't been reading the latest polls carefully.
In current match-ups with Republicans, Clinton isn't looking
particularly strong, despite the GOP now being weaker and more divided
than it is likely to be a year from now. There are also early warning
signs that Clinton's presence at the top of the ticket could be a
disaster for her party's congressional candidates in many closely
contested races.
Mapping it out
The electoral college is currently more equally divided between the
two major parties than it has been at most times in history - hence
the now-clich=E9 Red- and Blue-State analysis. Democrats and Republicans
each enter 2008 with about 200 of 538 available electoral votes, 270
of which are needed to win. The key, then, for the Dems, is to get the
other 70 either by winning the toss-up states or, better yet, also
winning some states Republicans are taking for granted because they're
in the GOP base of the South and mountain West.
Clinton's problem is that, according to some polls, Rudy Giuliani is
currently running even or only slightly behind her in New Jersey,
Missouri, Ohio, and Pennsylvania - up-for-grabs states Clinton has to
sweep in order to win. Given his current showing, it's likely Giuliani
will win some of those contests in November 2008 and deny Clinton a
majority.
Even Fred Thompson, a regional candidate if ever there was one, isn't
doing that poorly against Clinton. In the latest Rasmussen poll, he's
trailing Clinton by only five points nationally. What's the disconnect
here? Everyone knows about Clinton's high negatives in the polls, even
if, for now, Democrats seem to be ignoring them. And it is still
possible to win an election even if 40 percent or more of the
electorate can't stand you. But it isn't easy.
Worse for Clinton still, some early polls suggest that she isn't as
strong in the populous suburbs as one would expect. In a recent Survey
USA Missouri poll, she ran even with Giuliani in the St. Louis metro
area. One can safely assume she carried the city handily, so the
disappointing results suggest weakness in the 'burbs that could spell
trouble with a Capital T in swing states.
Could Obama do better? He clearly doesn't have Clinton's high
negatives - a good sign - but he doesn't exactly have a wealth of
experience, either. And in an age of terrorism, that could count in
November. True, voters in 1960, during the height of the Cold War,
were willing to entrust the presidency to a young JFK. But he had been
on the national scene much longer than Obama, and Kennedy hardly won
by a landslide in a country that, at the time, was more strongly
Democratic.
Moreover, Obama's appeal in the Red States, while stronger than
Clinton's, probably wouldn't be decisive. Obama could get to 270
votes, but, like Clinton, would have to use a "max out" Blue State
strategy to do so. Still, he's a far less divisive figure, so his
general election chances would be better than Clinton's.
By contrast, if Edwards could emerge from his present difficulties and
win the nomination, he would likely mirror Giuliani's election
strategy. Edwards would try to hold the Democratic base, win some of
the swing states, and pick off a few Southern border states - such as
Virginia, North Carolina, and Tennessee - that traditionally go
Republican. It's worth noting that the only Democrats to win the
presidency since 1964, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, were - like
Edwards - both Southerners who ran similar electoral college
campaigns.
The goal for Edwards, then, is to persuade enough Democratic voters in
Iowa and New Hampshire to vote with their heads and not their hearts
when the nomination process begins in January. This is precisely what
happened in 2004, when there was a late surge in Iowa away from Howard
Dean to Edwards and John Kerry, based on the theory that those two
eventual nominees represented the party's best chance for success. If
anything, the desire to win is even stronger this year. It's a long
shot, but Edwards must press the electability argument. Right now, it
may be all he has left.
.
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: #Mrs Clinton: Still the best representative of democrat party values |
04 Oct 2007 05:14:50 AM |
|
|
Kurt Nicklas <nickl...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
According to the latest conventional wisdom,
If your rantings are any indication, there's
nothing "Conventional" about "Wisdom."
Now why don't you turn on your radio so that
fat drug addict can tell you what to think...
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: #Mrs Clinton: Still the best representative of democrat party values |
04 Oct 2007 06:51:54 AM |
|
|
On Oct 4, 6:14 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
Kurt Nicklas <nickl...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
According to the latest conventional wisdom,
If your rantings are any indication, there's
nothing "Conventional" about "Wisdom."
Now why don't you turn on your radio so that
fat drug addict can tell you what to think...
First, it was an article by Steven Stark and not Kurt's rantings.
Second, the point of the article wasn't anti-Democrat, it was to help
the Democrats win.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: #Mrs Clinton: Still the best representative of why KNICKKKERS Fails at Everything |
04 Oct 2007 10:11:04 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 02:49:10 -0700, Kurt Nicklas
<nicklask@bellsouth.net> wrote:
According to the latest conventional wisdom, Hillary Clinton is
threatening to turn the Democratic presidential-nomination race into a
rout
Pretty much like Her Husband did you poor hapless
fuckwits you loved, eh KNICKKKERS
BWHAHAHAHAHAH
CLICK
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
