<p>If Hillary ran, she would get around 60 percent of the woman vote (according to polls). Likewise, she would probably get around 60 percent of the hispanic vote (they love the Clintons, excluding Cubans) and of course 90 percent of the black vote. If she is able to retain John Kerry’s percentage of the white male vote (which should be possible because she IS MORE moderate than Kerry) she will win the Presidency.</p>
<p>Does all this talk about Hillary matter? While she does have a very vocal group of suporters, she is also universally despised by the overwhelming majority of Republicans and a good number of Democrats. You cannot expect her to garner many votes from Republican or even centrist women. Without those votes, a democrat would face a uphill battle in any election. </p>
<p>However, the biggest issue would be for a “Yankee” democrat to secure the nomination. While the democrats have demonstrated to be dumb enough to repeat their mistakes, it is pretty obvious that they need the SOuth to carry a presidential election -yes those damn red states! </p>
<p>Stick another NorthEastern on the democrat, especially a carpetbagger like Hillary, and the Republicans walk away with the election. Does anyone really expect that fewer people will vote Republican next time? The key is to find more voters for a democrat ticket, and this key has to be found in a Southern state. </p>
<p>The good thing -for the Dems- is that there are a few candidates who could provide some fresh blood … and ideas -like NM’s Richardson, for instance. However, I am not holding my breath for the “left establishment” to recognize that fact as long as the stale names of Clinton and Dean are tossed around as the best tickets to return to the former and ephemeral glory.</p>
<p>Xiggi, while I agree that Hillary is an extremely polarizing figure, she is not a far left candidate at all. She is one of the more moderate Democrats and I believe that she has a chance to win several southern states. For example, Hillary had a great deal of support in Arkansas and was expected to run for governor in 1988 until Bill decided to run again. Also, Bill Clinton is extremely popular in Missouri, and his popularity could help Hillary win the state.</p>
<p>N1bigdude, I won’t get into a debate, but there is a problem with your point about the Hispanic votes. The democrats do NOT really understand what it takes to secure their votes. In the past elections, this growing group was taken for granted. While Clinton earned about 72% of the hispanic vote and Gore about 65%, the picture was quite different for Kerry as her barely carried a majority of the hispanic voters. When looking at the hispanic voters, “experts” expect voters to follow the old tradition, yet ignore that this group also represents a great number of voters who are catholic and are traditionalists. Experts also ignore that this group also represents small business owners and professionals. Actually, I would go as far as claiming that the dems’ expert ignore the fact that the hispanic voters know how … to read as well! </p>
<p>As far as women, it would be esay to overestimate the draw of Hillary. While she could carry a great number of single women, the same could not be said for married women.</p>
<p>xiggi, I love you’re “Gone with the Wind” kind of talk. Yankee and carpetbagger
OT, I should have been at the “Scholar” reality TV show, I would have won the Gone with the Wind question without a doubt. Heck, I read this book at least 4-5 times and at least in 2 languages.</p>
<p>Hillary is not a far left candidate and could carry several states in the South? </p>
<p>Okay …</p>
<p>Why is this debate still going on?</p>
<p>A woman may win the presidency within my lifetime, but it sure as hell isn’t going to be in 2008 no matter how qualified/perfect for the job she may be (and hillary is very polarizing and far from perfect).</p>
<p>I was a political hack, I would make a comment like the OP. (no offense to the OP) to reinforce the dislike for HC, to move the undecided away from HC, and put doubt in the minds of those favor HC. If I am pro HC, I would ignore the comment. Journalism at its best. Its Newspeak. </p>
<p>The farmer can plant sweet corn or feed corn and the buyer won’t know the difference until the corn is cooked, 90 days after planting. </p>
<p>One of the problems that colleges is that they don’t do a very good job of critical analysis.</p>
<p>Please give me examples that prove that she is far left… The only instance I can recall is her support of universal health coverage in the early 90s (which by the way, Bill Clinton supported). She is part of the Senate Arms Service committee and has supported the war in Iraq as well as all funding for it. She is devoutly religious and has been a Methodist since her childhood. Hillary supports abortion, but believes it should be “safe, rare, and legal.” Also, many Republican senators have found her easy to work with and have even praised her. I’m sick of all this Republican spin; will people please start to look at the facts?</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Depends on whether the Dead GI Body Count Meter is still ticking in Iraq come election time.</p>
<p>Just ask the ghost of LBJ whether being bogged down in an unpopular war can turn a huge win at the polls into a big loss in the next go around.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, if it clicks a few hundred thousand more times (200x what it already has) we’d be at the level of a democraticly started and escalated Vietnam.</p>
<p>Xiggi, I can find the numbers if I have to but Kerry did not “barely carry” the Hispanic vote. It was somewhere around 60-40. The early analysis based on the NEP data was just flat wrong and later analysis, without much controversy, corrected it. You are correct, though, in that the “Hispanic” vote is often glossed and lumped into an amorphous whole, which isn’t correct. (Side note: of 106 Republican legislators in Texas, there’s ONE Hispanic. Hurrah. Great diversity.)</p>
<p>You’re also wrong about the Dems having to carry a Southern state to win, though it would certainly make it a lot easier.</p>
<p>In 2008, the Dems have to hold the states they took in 2004…and I’ll make book on that proposition…and do ONE of the following:</p>
<p>a. Take Florida
b. Take Ohio
c. Re-take Iowa, retake New Mexico or take Nevada, take Colorado.</p>
<p>I can sift the Electoral College and state voting trends with the best of them.</p>
<p>I agree with TheDad re Dems in 2008. With Bush/Kerry, it came down to one state, Ohio.</p>
<p>Wheather Hillary would win of not actually depends on her opponent. I hear that McCain is going to run. He better start getting to work early if he wants more support.</p>
<p>Who ever wins, I’ll be happy because the darkness of the Bush dynasty would be over :)</p>
<p>I think Hillary will be much stronger than people realize. Republicans who hope that she will run thinking that she would be easily beaten are fooling themselves. However, she needs to stop giving polarizing speeches like she gave last week. If she can discipline herself to come across as a moderate, she could be a potent force.</p>
<p>I agree with Xiggi on Bill Richardson - even I could see myself voting for him. He seems very impressive. His non-polarizing attitude would be good for the country.</p>
<p>As far as having a woman president, I think it will happen when a woman candidate is not viewed as a feminist. People are wary of someone who comes into office as a special interest candidate. For example, when Margaret Thatcher was PM, she didn’t run as a “woman”, but rather on her platform which was gender neutral. This will be Hillary’s biggest hurdle to overcome since most people view her as a “feminist” candidate. That is why Rice may actually have an easier path, since people don’t look at her as a “black” or as a “woman” but as a highly capable, intelligent person.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Don’t count on it. They’ve got Jeb waiting in the wings, and by time he is finished it will be about time to get started on the next generation.</p>
<p>What happens if HRC runs against a McCain-Powell ticket? Or a McCain-Rice ticket?</p>
<p>In fact, I worry that the Republicans will get their act together early behind McCain from the beginning (I can’t be the only one whose noticed that he’s trying to appease the far right of the R’s <em>and</em> still appear to be moderate)–while the D’s spend the campaign season bashing each other again.</p>
<p>We could do a lot worse than McCain-Rice, or Richardson-Lieberman (not that poor Joe Lieberman would be stupid enough to run again).</p>
<p>
Unfortunately, I see it the other way around. The conservative base of the Republican party is very lukewarm/hostile toward McCain. On the other side, the Dems have turned themselves into a love fest. I see the Republican primaries as a bloodletting and no healing afterwards. The Dems will likely have a token primary season and then a Hillary coronation. If so, this may be the Republicans only hope for unification - a common hatred for Hillary similar to the Dems common hatred for Bush. If the Dems nominate someone like Bill Richards and then unite behind him, I think he has a very good chance of winning.</p>
<p>“Xiggi, I can find the numbers if I have to but Kerry did not “barely carry” the Hispanic vote. It was somewhere around 60-40. The early analysis based on the NEP data was just flat wrong and later analysis, without much controversy, corrected it.”</p>
<p>TheDad, I am guilty as charged.</p>
<p>I admit that I did not participate in the “over-analysis” of the defeat. While I remember the Sailer dispute, I attributed most of the discussion to a battle of embarrassed pollsters who had missed the projections by a mile. Pollsters like Bendixen and Zogby still predicted the Hispanic votes for Bush to be below 30%. That said, your number is indeed correct. </p>
<p>Based on the NBC retraction - and further retraction of the retraction- it does indeed appear that the votes were divided as you say (about 60-40) and below the early results I was pointing to (56-44). However, even with the smaller percentage, I believe that the trend matters more than the absolute percentage number. The Hispanic population represents one of the fastest growing “source” of votes. While democrats could typically count on the holy trinity of black votes, single women, and hispanics; the latter group is now very much in play. It is a given that the Republicans can expect Reagan-like numbers from Hispanics and not the 25% that democrats would grant them. </p>
<p>As far as playing state-by-state analysis, people are making fortunes in playing the if and if games. My hope is that the country identifies A candidate that can bring some changes and that the political map of the United States becomes less of a sea of red flanked by blue shores.</p>
<p>One last thing: elections are decided in November. What people think about candidates two years before the voting booths open matter little to none. How many voters would have given a chance to Bill Clinton when the primaries started? Who was the “favorite” son of the democrats 5 months before the primaries in the past election?</p>