<p>Hoenstly, if you put it like that idad, I have to say that only Edwards is capable of taking those states. He is electable in Ohio and Florida in my opinion.</p>
<p>
You ought to get in-country more often. The Democrats only picked up a U.S. Senate seat, the governor’s mansion, the lieutenant governor, the Attorney General’s office, the Secretary of State’s office, the State Treasurer (missed the State Auditor by about 1 percent), and a House seat. Probably would have picked up more in the House except that the GOP has done a pretty good job of gerrymandering in Ohio.</p>
<p>Other contested states that I expect Democratic improvement in for 2008 are New Mexico, Colorado, New Hampshire, Iowa, and Maine. Nevada and Arizona are maybes. Florida…I don’t know. The only Democratic state that I’m the least bit worried about is Michigan and I think we pull that in the end. Indeed, it will be hard to find many states where the Democrats do worse in 2008 than they did in 2004 and 2000. Georgia, maybe. Looking at the House and Senate races in 2006 vs. the Bush/Kerry vote in 2004 has got to depress the hell out of GOP strategists. The “R” brand is damaged goods and Iraq is going to be welded to every R candidate.</p>
<p>As of this week, the poll averages in Florida show Clinton with a 25% lead over Obama and a 27% lead over Edwards:</p>
<p>Clinton: 39.9%
Obama: 15.6%
Edwards: 11.7%</p>
<p><a href=“Pollster”>Pollster;
<p>She dominates the polling with Hispanic/Latino and Jewish voters, which comprise a significant chunk of the Florida vote. Obama killed himself this week in Florida with his willingness to immediately meet, without precondition, with Fidel Castro and Holocaust-denier Ahmadinejad. Florida is a major, major problem for Obama and Edwards because it’s a huge delegate state and they’ve moved their primary up to January 29th. Clinton is killing them.</p>
<p>For all intents and purposes, Edwards is finished in the race for the nomination. His only prayer is to win Iowa, but then he doesn’t have a war chest for the onslaught of states immediately after – NH, Nevada, SC, and Florida – plus all of the Super Tuesday states, including California. That’s why he’s making a desperate effort to move hard left with his poverty tour after restructuring his campaign organization over the 4th of July.</p>
<p>Obama’s also in a position of searching for an early primary win. South Carolina was supposed to be Obama’s firewall, with 50% of the Democratic voters being African American. But, the two most recent polls show Clinton with a double-digit lead in the state. I suspect that Obama’s people believe the polls, because Obama went live today with radio ads in South Carolina specifically targeted at black radio (with an R&B announcer and a message very different than his national message). </p>
<p>Clinton’s lead in Nevada is even bigger than Florida. Edwards is courting the unions there hard. I think Obama’s written it off.</p>
<p>New Hampshire is still competitive for Obama. He’s currently down about 12% to Clinton. Edwards is toast there. He’s down in the single digits in New Hampshire, having been overtaken by Richardson who has been running a lot of TV advertising in the state.</p>
<p>Both Obama and Edwards are trending down in the national polls.</p>
<p><a href=“Pollster”>Pollster;
<p>For what their worth at this early date (next to nothing), the head to head matchups show Clinton in a virtual dead heat with Guiliani and beating all the other Republicans in Florida. I haven’t seen a lot of polling in Ohio, but remember that it adjoins Clinton’s upstate NY territory where she has worked her ass off for eight years. Nationally, Guiliani appears to be the Republican’s strongest candidate, but his trendlines in the polling are tanking like McCain’s. I think the evangelicals are going to kill him in the primaries.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The problem for the Republicans is that their “southern strategy” has been so successful they’ve painted themselves into a corner. The Deep South is pretty much all they’ve got, along with some big empty states in the West. Even some of the Southern states are moving away from them with demographic shifts in places like Virginia. Not to mention that they have killed themselves trying too outdo each other with Latino-bashing over the last couple of months. It’s almost like the party of the old white guys never thought to look at the demographic trends going forward. </p>
<p>They’ve been bailed out more than once by inept Democratic candidates and campaigns (Gore, Kerry). I don’t see any signs of ineptitude in the Clinton campaign. It’s been fun to watch their message discipline over the first six months…from the NYTIMES features to the Fortune Magazine cover to the rollout of the Hill and Bill Show in Iowa. They aren’t missing any tricks and the few times Obama has tried to hit them, they’ve counterpunched him back into the ropes.</p>
<p>Serendipity can be wonderful:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Courtesy of <a href=“http://www.swingstateproject.com%5B/url%5D”>www.swingstateproject.com</a>, 7/26/07</p>
<p>Are you her campaign manager, interesteddad?</p>
<p>No. Her Campaign Manager is Patti Solis Doyle, the first Hispanic woman in to manage a Presidential campaign.</p>
<p>I think the pooh-bahs of the campaign are the former head of the DNC Terry McAullife (fundraising), pollster Mark Penn, media consultant Mandy Grunwald (Clinton 1992), senior advisor Ann Lewis (deputy campaign director for Clinton 1996), and ex-Schumer staffer Harold Wolfson (communications and I assume oppo research). Some guy named Bill is also involved in the strategy.</p>
<p>It’s just a fun election cycle to follow closely. The Democrats have a really strong group of candidates and an energized voter base (really engaged, really early).</p>
<p>And the Republicans? I don’t think anybody can figure out their race. I sure can’t, especially with Fred Thompson apparently too lazy to even get in the race. Wide open. I don’t think they like any of their candidates.</p>
<p>The very sizable voting block, which was crucial in reelecting Bush, comprised of the Evangelicals, are rallying behind (the candidate who isn’t a candidate) Fred Thompson. None of the rest of the Republicans offered up so far suit their “social and values” stance. Interesting article yesterday in the hometown paper, Idad. I will link to it, if you didn’t read it, but I suspect you did.</p>
<p>Well, I think the evangelicals want Arthur Branch (the Law & Order character) – not [url=<a href=“American Family News”>American Family News]Fred</a> Thompson<a href=“the%20pro-choice%20lobbyist”>/url</a>.</p>
<p>They are letting that little ditty go, apparently.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/07/25/thompson_gains_among_social_conservatives/[/url]”>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/07/25/thompson_gains_among_social_conservatives/</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s exactly what I was thinking, epiphany. ;)</p>
<p>I don’t know that I would write off Edwards so readily, ID. I know what the polls say, but frankly-- I think people lie when asked about their voting preferences. Admittedly, HC will be difficult to beat-- mainly because of her money and her (Bill’s) clout, but if she gets that nomination, I fear the Democrats might be in trouble-- again.</p>
<p>
Oh I understand that. I think Obama is very appealing. I’d love to vote for him when he’s got a little more experience (yes, Beltway experience) under his belt.</p>
<p>You see, mathmom, this is why I really think Edwards is the better compromise candidate. He has more experience than Obama but I think he has some appeal to Republicans. He is way more a ‘tratiional family’ figure than HRC. And I still associate HRC more with “the democratic machine” (I think babar said that) than anyone on that stage on Monday. She’s been accused of coming across as robotic, which unfortunately also fits that machine imagery in an unflattering way. I do recognize that just switching genders is a big plus, to a lot of people. They’ll assume that she’s less tied to the machine than a guy would be. But I don’t know: Feinstein’s not part of the machine?</p>
<p>I like Edwards. Unfortunately, I think he made a big mistake by teaming up with John Kerry during the last election. Hopefully he doesn’t have Kerry campaigning for him. I think he needs to disassociate himself completely from Kerry.</p>
<p>(Not sure who has the better hair, but Kerry is much less attractive.)
(imho)</p>
<p>I work very close to Boston. I still see way too many Kerry/Edwards bumper stickers nearly everyday!</p>
<p>I agree with what you say, epiphany. I also think that Edwards has been much more forceful and decisive this go round. I realize as a VP candidate, he had to tred more carefully, but even when he was trying for the Pres nomination before, he was not as forceful as he could have been in debates, nor in his plans/ideas (in my opinion). He is now. And I do think his heart is in the right place. </p>
<p>That said, I think <em>all</em> the candidates are just a bit too slick and polished (with the exception, maybe, of Kucinich?), but that just seems to be part and parcel of politicians, certainly when they get to this stage. Edwards really is the least offensive, in many ways, of the 3 who can possibly win this nomination. I actually like his solid ideas, too. I do like Obama, but he has little substance, at this point. </p>
<p>sokkermom: I’d say Kerry definitely has the better hair, but oh that face. What a downer. From what I’ve read, I don’t think Edwards and Kerry are real close these days. ??</p>
<p>jack:</p>
<p>Edwards got 3 votes (including S) during the last primary election in NH from the three (independent) registered voters in our household.</p>
<p>Not so sure now. S has turned very ( extremely) conservative after living in North Carolina for 3 years. What’s up with that? :eek:</p>
<p>I’m not a huge Hilary fan, but I also don’t get the animosity. I do think there’s a case to be made for the candidate who seems to have the best chance in the general election even if I like one candidate a bit more than the other. This year our primary is early enough, I may actually have some real choices. I always feel like there is no there there with Edwards, but I’ll be looking at both Edwards and Clinton carefully before making up my mind for sure. I’d be happy to see Obama as VP for either of them.</p>
<p>I don’t think she has anywhere close to the best chance in the general election. She carries the highest negatives, and perhaps the lowest ceiling. She also has the most baggage. Her “cautious” Iraq stand may come back to haunt her.</p>
<p>I am praying (to God Almighty) that the Republican Party solidifies behind “abortion-lobbiest” Fred Thompson. He is the worst campaigner I’ve ever seen, leaving throngs scratching their heads after every appearance and 8-minute stump speech promising to “do the things we know need to be done.” The media has labeled his platform the “Seinfeild platform” – a campaign about nothing.</p>
<p>James Carvelle had it exactly right in a speech last fall. Presidential campaigns turn on mistakes. Candidates get tired. Hungry. Cold. Disoriented. And make mistakes that kill them. </p>
<p>Thompson has already made the most brain-dead mistake I can imagine. Anyone who follows Presidential elections knows that Florida is a key state – like in, oh, 2000 for example. Anyone who follows Florida knows that the Cuban American community is an essential part of the Republican base. So what does Thompson do at his third appearance? Talk about the risk of Cuban refugees carrying suitcase nuclear weapons.</p>
<p>Clinton was all over the Florida media within 12 hours of his speech stirring up headlines about how appalling it is for someone to compare the brave Cubans escaping Castro’s communist tyranny to terrorists. Mistakes like that against a big league campaign opponent are deadly. Of course, she had to carry the water alone as none of the other Democrats saw fit to stoke the news cycle fires – perhaps the reason that Clinton has a 25% lead in Florida.</p>
<p>The Republican that worries me the most is Guiliani. He takes a lot of the social issues off the table in the general election. On the other hand, that could also mean a lot of evangelical Republicans sitting on their hands.</p>
<p>I actually feel sorry for the Republican field. Their base forces them to support Bush’s surge and call for things like “doubling Gitmo” and “we need more torture” and “stay in Iraq until we win”. Yet, an aggressive Democratic nominee is going to take these video clips and beat them over the head in the general election.</p>
<p>“I’m not a huge Hilary fan, but I also don’t get the animosity.”</p>
<p>I wouldn’t classify my own reaction as animosity, but I do definitely “get” why a large portion of the country has animosity towards her. Those people are generally not on the coasts, overall. The party machine on the coasts needs to wake up to the middle & the south, and unfortuantely the party machinery rarely does this, or at least doesn’t do it enough. It doesn’t matter what i-dad says about Hillary stirring up a crowd of all women, or in NY. (I would be shocked if she <em>didn’t</em> stir such a crowd.) Does she stir a crowd in Kansas, in Texas, in Indiana – the voting crowd, not the selected crowd? </p>
<p>I’m really afraid of insiders being out of touch with the voting public in the <em>whole</em> country.</p>
<p>Guiliani has a lot of personal issue baggage. He and Hillary may both have problems with women voters.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/Giuliani.htm[/url]”>http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/Giuliani.htm</a></p>
<p>Conservative voters would have a very tough time if they had to choose between Clinton and Guiliani !</p>