I’m hard pressed to name a single state that Kerry carried that would be in danger of turning red in 2008. On the contrary, Ohio and Florida may well turn blue. I don’t think the candidates matter, if you like the war in Iraq and want one in Iran, vote Republican. If you don’t, vote Democratic. The way the war is going, a Democratic loss is virtually impossible to imagine.
I am having a lot of very serious doubts about the validity of exit polling in general. I think there’s a lot of people out there who might express open-mindedness (or even lie) to polls, but when they get behind that curtain, they’re going to pull the levers like the same old racist/sexist/homophobic troglodytes as usual. I have a sneaky feeling this is going to be election where the polls look good for Hilary, but in the cold light of morning the day after elections, she’ll lose to the white guy, and all the polls, pundits, etc. will be backpedalling like threatened crawdads.
I just looked at the 2004 electoral map and I could see New Hampshire switching. It went for Kerry but <>1% and there’s a habit of being contrarian in voting there. Otherwise, the close Kerry states:
Pennsylvania
Michigan
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Oregon
I concur will likely stay blue. The close Bush states:
Ohio
Iowa
New Mexico
Nevada
could switch. Especially if Hillary (the presumptive nominee at this stage) chooses someone like Bill Richardson as her VP. I hate to say it but he’d likely put NM, AZ, and maybe NV in serious play just by doing commercials En Espanol.
Well yeah, but Kerry lost.
And let me take the converse position and say that Hillary would have a much harder time flipping the red states from the 2004 electoral map than either Obama or Edwards.
I don’t think so at all. Ohio would have gone for Kerry but for the suppression of minority votes and tinkering with the electronic ballots. They recently had a purge of Republican state offices and I think they’re ripe for the picking. New Mexico is definitely in play, and if Richardson is on the ticket it turns bright blue. Colorado is in play, as are Virginia and Florida. Dare I say Nevada with its changing demographics is in play. Missouri elected a Democratic senator. The map is ripe for picking for Democrats and has slim to none pickings for the Republicans.
That might matter in the primary, but are liberals going to vote for the Republican in the general election? I suppose they might stay home, or vote for Nader (or whoever is filling the “Nader” spot this time around), but my guess is that liberals will be pretty focused on taking back the White House from the Republicans in 2008, and will probably not stay home/vote for 3rd party protest vote candidate, not even for Hilary.
Bingo. I’m as liberal as they come and can’t stand The Cackler, but I’d gladly hold my nose and vote for her rather than have projectile vomiting while punching the card for Rudy.
One factor that the Gallup analysis does not consider, however, is the fact that, unlike most of the other candidates in previous elections to which Gallup compares Hillary, a considerably higher than normal percentage of people have already made up their minds about her. For example, while Bill Clinton in 1992 had high negatives, many of the people with negative impressions also reported that they were uncertain, and had not made a final decision. So, Clinton had the opportunity to counteract their first impressions and win their support. In contrast, many more people have already locked themselves in about Hillary, so she has much less wiggle room.
Sua
*This is from (my recollection of) an NPR report. I tried to find a cite, but my Googling skills were not up to the task
I wouldn’t be so sure. Many liberals are disillusioned about the Democratic politicians based on the lack of results from the supposedly Democratic congress. Last I heard, this congress is getting a higher approval rating from conservatives than from liberals. The Democratic presidential candidates have refused to promise US troops would be out of Iraq by 2013, so they are now seen as Bush-lite. I’ve heard some liberals say they’d cast a write-in ballot for Gore rather than vote for Hillary. Even if they don’t follow through with that, I’m sure turnout would be low, and grass-roots support would not be strong.
You misread my post. I didn’t say that there aren’t red states ready to flip. I said that Hillary is the least likely of the leading Democrats to actually flip them.
My apologies. We’re in agreement. Additionally, I think the next Congress will have the fewest Democratic seats if Hillary is the nominee. No coattail effect, more like radioactive pantsuittails.
Hmmm? The article does address this:
The public is fickle, apparently just because they’ve known about someone for along time doesn’t mean that their opinions about that person aren’t open to change.
This is essentially my point, again with the possible exception of Ohio.
I just don’t see HC having great appeal among most middle-American swing voters.
To shed some light on my point, I’ll use a vastly-oversimplified example, using two kinds of swing voter. One is an urban, educated 40 year old professional. He or she lives in Boston, or Chicago, or southern California. S/he usually agrees with Dems on social issues and Republicans on fiscal/defense issues.
The second does not live in a major urban area. Maybe a small city in Virginia, or Missouri, or New Mexico. S/he attends church, didn’t graduate from college, and works in a blue-collar or technical field. At least one member of the extended family belonged to a union at some point. S/he usually agrees with Repubs on social/family issues and Dems on fiscal issues.
IMO, HC will do extremely well with the first category, but not so well with the second. But the first type of voter mostly lives in Blue states, which the Dems already have in the bag, while the second lives in the type of state that the Dems need to pick up.
Because the primary-voters-to-be don’t seem interested in him.
If she would stop saying “Ya know” 87 million times in an interview. ARRGH
Oh yeah, almost forgot…she could stop making ridicukous suggestions like the $5,000 bond us taxpayers would have to give to every new baby. As a parent that’s just about the most offensive thing I’ve ever heard. My children are my responsibility and she should keep her statist hands as far away from them as possible.
Oh, come on - “it takes a village” and all that. 
My take is that the MSM has decided, with some justification, that the Democratic primary voters haven’t got the IQ of a poundcake. Given their heads, they’re gonna pick a left-wing empty suit like Kerry again, who couldn’t even beat Bush with all the help the MSM could give .
So they have picked the one they want - another Clinton, who shares a name (and receives advice from) the last Democrat to win the White House. A bit of lip service to Obama, who after all is black (more or less) and therefore deserving of a few crumbs from their table. Maybe he will accept the VP slot, and they can pat themselves on the back for being generous and letting a less-qualified black person into their club. The other candidates don’t have the name/poll recognition that HRC has, and therefore the MSM (composed as it is of 70%+ of yellow dog Dems , but who are not stupid enough to back a socialist like Kucinich in a general election) has decided that Hilary is da shitz.
If she fucks up - she won’t, with Bill advising her and her own steely determination to be elected - the MSM can do what it can to protect her lead.
Whether or not it will be enough to get her into the Oval Office remains to be seen.
Regards,
Shodan
Even more so, it has a more recent habit of becoming suburban Boston. Both House seats went Dem last year, as did the statehouse. Shaheen is way ahead in the Senate polls, and figures to finish the Dem sweep up there.
She won’t gain anything by apologizing for telling the truth (well, okay, it wasn’t all that vast, just very well funded, and is better called a cabal than a conspiracy, but just look up “Arkansas Project” if you don’t think it was real). Anyway, the people still refusing to face the possibility that they got fooled into supporting a hate campaign are dealing with it by continuing to nurture their hate (and there’s a fine example in this very thread), and nothing she could say would change that with them. But a candidate doesn’t have to get every vote, just more than the other guy, and who’s that going to be?
Nothing in the very large link showed head-to-head. I think you are mis-interpreting the polling data you are looking at. The fact that HRC is way ahead of the Dems and Rudy is only significantly ahead of the other Republicans does indicate how HRC is polling against Rudy.
I agree she is electable, but your cite does not support the first sentence.
Jim