<p>
</p>
<p>It’s all down to Iowa for Edwards. He’s gone “all-in” and pushed all his chips on a classic “Iowa strategy”. Win the caucus and use the bump to vault up in New Hampshire and quickly generate the funds to compete in the 20 or so primaries a week or two later. Basically, the strategy that Jimmy Carter patented.</p>
<p>The challenge? Clinton and Obama already have the money to compete nationally and both are making major efforts in Iowa, too.</p>
<p>Still very much a horse race…</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_giuliani_vs_clinton-227.html[/url]”>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_giuliani_vs_clinton-227.html</a></p>
<p>“Guiliani has a lot of personal issue baggage. He and Hillary may both have problems with women voters.”</p>
<p>Boy do I agree with this. I just don’t think that polls tell the whole voting prediction story when it comes to HRC. Lots of traditional women were really turned off by her whole “It Takes A Village” theme. Now, I know why she said that, but again, I can actually relate to why many women would be turned off by that. She also has, to say the least, an unconventional marriage. She hardly represents middle America.</p>
<p>This is why I maintain that Edwards for P, Obama for VP, is safer as a ticket strategy than Hilary + anyone. (Edwards won’t be settling for a VP spot, anyway, and H + O will make it appear too high-risk, it seems to me. Nor will Hillary go for a VP spot, I bet. She’d prefer to stay in the Senate, I would guess.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree with your point, but those are the wrong states. Solid yellow dog Republican states like those are irrelevant to the Democrats in the general election. The key states are places like New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, Iowa, New Mexico, etc – swing states that have been hotly contested for several election cycles. Remember, the Democrats only need the states Kerry won plus either Ohio or Florida (or some combination of smaller swing states). They don’t need, and shouldn’t even bother, with Texas. Just like the Republicans would be wasting their time to contest Massachusetts.</p>
<p>The thing to remember is that Bush barely carried Ohio and only squeeked out a tie in Florida – and that’s before the days of 29% approval ratings for Bush and the Republicans.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Believe me, I know. And, I’m sure that the Clinton campaign has an oppo research file on Guiliani that they started collecting before he backed out of the Senate run against her in 2000. I think Clinton’s friends at the New York Times would be happy to help along the way. Nevertheless, I’d still rather run against a Republican positioned hard-right on all the social issues. It’s always best when your opponent has abandoned the center.</p>
<p>The fun thing about a Guiliani campaign would be seeing if an aggressive Democrat can provoke an appearance by the nasty, angry Rudy, especially during a debate.</p>
<p>“The key states are places like New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, Iowa, New Mexico, etc – swing states that have been hotly contested for several election cycles.”</p>
<p>so tell me, Mr. Assistant Campaign Manager, how is she doing in those swing states? Personally, I’m not real confident in her ability to carry NH, Ohio, or Iowa.</p>
<p>I can speak for at least 2 voters in NH. Not voting for Clinton in the primary. We personally never answer the polls. We get at least 3 political calls a day. The winner for the past few weeks for number of calls has been the Obama campaign. :D</p>
<p>My state is basically irrelevant, and my county and district even more so. My local caucus without any doubt will go to Kucinich (as it did in 2004), with Obama a somewhat distant second (he could go up if it is thought that he might defeat Hillary).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Interesting. </p>
<p>When did we hear something really similar? Oh, yes that was during the past elections. I guess that it did not worked that well as the nomination process sent a half-baked northerneastener Wahington washed out suit to the voting urns. </p>
<p>If the newspapers of those days were correct it seems that last time the Dems won was with a distinctively different candidate who came from nowhere, saw his opponents self-destruct or decide not to challenge an invincible Bush, Sr, and ended up emerging from a group of lackluster candidates. How much of an energized voter base did Bill Clinton have 18 months before the elections? </p>
<p>And, for what is worth, YOUR leading candidates still has to overcome the negative vote of people who consider her unelectable because of socialist agenda and simply because she is who she is. If she becomes the final choice, do not underestimate the impact of apathic voters going to to voting booths just to ensure SHE would not be our first president who brings back furniture to the White House. </p>
<p>At the end of the day, all a republican candidate might need to do is scaring voters of what a Clinton White House would be when the “other” Clinton wears the pants and makes the final decisions. You might be surprised by how deep the anti-HRH sentiment runs in this country! </p>
<p>As much as may wou want the Evangelist to pick the Rep candidate, I’d think they also pick Hillary over any of the other Dems. </p>
<p>As I wrote before the Kerry-Bush elections, Super Bowls and World Series are not won in August.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>New Hampshire:
Clinton has maintained a double-digit lead in the primary polling from day one in New Hampshire, although I would say that Obama is still viable. I have no doubt that the Democrats will clobber the Republicans, across the board, in the general election. Have you seen the poll numbers for Jeane Shaheen over incumbent Republican Senator John Sununu? It’s stunning. The war has wiped out the Republican party in the northeast.</p>
<p>Iowa:
The caucus polling has been mixed, but the general concensus is that Edwards maintains a slight lead in a race that is a virtual dead heat. If you enjoy campaign strategy, it’s been fun to watch the Clinton campaign in Iowa since they kicked off their serious effort in July, starting with the statewide Hill and Bill show. Let’s just say all three candidates have been putting major resources into Iowa.</p>
<p>Ohio:
There hasn’t been a lot of Ohio polling yet. However, the most recent Ohio poll was released about two weeks ago:</p>
<p>Clinton 35%
Obama 17%
Edwards 13%
Gore 12%
Undecided 15%</p>
<p>Clinton 44 - Giuliani 42
Clinton 40 - Giuliani 35 - Bloomberg 10
Clinton 45 - McCain 41
Clinton 47 - Thompson 38</p>
<p>Obama beats all the Republcans, and basically ties Guiliani</p>
<p>Gore beats McCain and Thompson, but loses to Guiliani.</p>
<p>Bush’s approval rating in Ohio is currently 29%.</p>
<p><a href=“TIME | Current & Breaking News | National & World Updates”>TIME | Current & Breaking News | National & World Updates;
<p><a href=“http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1322.xml?ReleaseID=1083[/url]”>http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1322.xml?ReleaseID=1083</a></p>
<p>I think you’ve said a lot of important things there, xiggi, including about the timing. It was mentioned that Obama may have “peaked too early.” But what about HRC? If she looks to be the indicated nominee, the Republicans will begin their rhetoric pronto, including the “socialist agenda” stuff.</p>
<p>I-dad, Did you even <em>watch</em> the post-debate feedback? You didn’t see that in fact OBAMA “clobbered” Hillary in the informal (nonscientific) NH group?</p>
<p>And some of your other statistics merely confirm that among die-hard dems, HRC is usually the fave, but not AGAINST REPUBLICANS, necessarily.</p>
<p>Obama is making some moves in NH. They might be baby steps, but they are steps none the less…</p>
<p>From Boston Globe:</p>
<p>"Wednesday, July 25, 2007</p>
<p>NH Congressman endorses Obama
MANCHESTER, N.H. – Democratic New Hampshire Congressman Paul Hodes, a freshman from Concord, is set to endorse Barack Obama’s presidential campaign tomorrow, the Globe has confirmed.</p>
<p>The event is set for tomorrow morning in downtown Concord, where Obama’s advance staff began working Tuesday night to develop the staging area, sparking rumors inside the New Hampshire political community about who the endorsement might be from."</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, watching the Clinton campaign counter-attack the Republicans has been interesting. They are the only Democratic campaign that is aggressively attacking the Republicans. Clinton has done it consistently in the debates. She has done it with her high profile demand for Sec. Gates to plan a withdrawal of troops. She received a long letter from him today confirming that he is indeed driving such planning. You can see Clinton discussing this issue (and a great Rumsfeld impersonatin) in a video interview with the Des Moines Register’s editorial board here:</p>
<p><a href=“http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070720/VIDEO05/70720057/1001/NEWS[/url]”>http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070720/VIDEO05/70720057/1001/NEWS</a></p>
<p>I mentioned the swift attack on Thompson’s “Cuban terrorist” blunder.</p>
<p>And, one of the more humorous examples has been Clinton’s daily response to Mitt Romney, sticking ferociously on message about his flip-flopping.</p>
<p>Earlier in the week, Romney compared Clinton to Karl Marx. The Clinton campaign responded:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yesterday, Mitt said that Clinton is so liberal she couldn’t get elected in France. This morning’s response:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is clear that the Clinton campaign is determined to go right at Romney’s fatal flaw with a daily pounding of the “flip-flop” message for a year and a half. It’ll be like 2004 where you couldn’t say the name Kerry without thinking “flip flop”. Where are the other Democratic candidates?</p>
<p>Your premature glee frightens me, I-dad. I worry that this is what the party is doing, too.</p>
<p>Interesting polling information concerning HRC/others from Pew</p>
<p><a href=“http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/344.pdf[/url]”>http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/344.pdf</a></p>
<p>I agree about timing. Frankly, I think both Clinton and Obama may have “peaked too soon.” </p>
<p>All I know is, my next door neighbors are old time rabid Republicans; they are now sick to death of Bush and this war. I think they might actually vote Democrat this year. Seriously. And it won’t be for HC.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>sokkermom, your son didn’t live in NC; he lived at Duke. There is a difference. Just kidding. Really. (Well, sort of.) ;)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A proof that the leftist academic proselitism does not work well with students who can think for themselves. :)</p>
<p>Post 182 . Sokkermom what is it with you sending us poll numbers? Are you becoming a believer?</p>
<p>jack,
My husband is also an old time rabid Republican (it’s been very difficult!) who is sick to death of the war and Bush and is likely to vote for a Democrat - He likes Edwards and Obama but would never in a million years vote for Hillary, not because she’s a woman but because she’s a Clinton.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What’s not to like? </p>
<p>First, Bush/Cheney show no signs of doing Republican candidates any favors. They are preparing to announce a strategy in Iraq through 2009, ensuring that the war will remain the number one issue. Quite literally, the Bush/Cheney administration doesn’t give a flip what anyone thinks.</p>
<p>Second, the Democrats are going to put an allstar cast on the campaign trail in the general election. Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, Al Gore – all directed towards their constituencies. Those are some serious heavyweights.</p>
<p>Trust me, I do not take the Republicans lightly. I’m sure it will be a close, hard fought election. But, it will be a nice change of pace to see the Democratic campaign not roll over and play dead when the attacks begin.</p>