That’s interesting. I’ve long thought that the better looking of the candidates generally wins. From my straight male perspective:
I’d much rather have looked like Kennedy than Nixon
LBJ was an aberration, I’d rather have looked like Goldwater
Nixon, Humphrey, and McGovern all were attractiveness-challenged. At least Nixon had a little more hair.
I’d definitely rather look like Carter than Ford.
I’d much rather look like Reagan even at his age then than either Carter or Mondale.
I don’t see much to choose from between schoolmarmish Bush Sr. and shrimpy Dukakis.
I’d much rather look like Clinton (and have his way with ladies) than either Bush or Dole.
Bush and Gore would be a tossup in my book.
And of course who would want to look like Kerry?
Now if I looked in the mirror and saw Warner’s face, I’d probably drop it. I think physical attractiveness is definitely a factor and that his could be a problem for him.
Right now Bush has a 41% approval rating in Texas. Traditionally, incumbent candidates draw vote totals very close to their approval rating. If Bush were running this year he would stand a real chance of losing in Texas. Of course Bush won’t be the candidate next time and whoever the Democrats pick will be portrayed as an anti-Christian terrorist-lover by the AM radio hate-machine before the election. But also the next Republican candidate almost certainly won’t be a Texan either. So the bottom line is that Texas leans to the Republicans, but it isn’t unthinkable that a Democrat could win there.
It will if he can come up with reasons why Wal-mart’s practices, while good for its stockholders, are bad for the business climate in general. And I’m sure that would not be difficult.
Oh, I probably will. If it still seems like that’s where all the action will be in 2007. I will not work for Hillary, at least not in a run for President.
I don’t think she’s a viable national Democratic candidate: I just don’t think she can win. Her negatives are already high enough and fairly solid, and they can go higher. And, she’s bland, with none of the talent of her husband. She represents all the sorts of traditional Democratic power structure I generally work against. Of course, I’m not a Howard Dean fan either: I don’t much like the old school or the self-annointed new school.
Hillary could become a great very powerful and influential Senator. She’s actually pretty darn good at it. But an executive? President? Nah. First of all I don’t think it’s likely to happen, and second of all, it’s a wrong move in this giant chess game of fate.
No Republican COULD win California in a 2 person, head to head race. The runoff was a weird situation, one that no short-term future election is going to duplicate.
In 2008, Hillary/Warner/Whoever will win California easily. McCain/Giuliani/Condi/Whoever won’t bother campaigning much in California, and rightly so.
Sorry, you’re completely wrong. There are NO circumstances under which ANY Democrat could win Texas in 2008. Now, if we look LONG term, assuming the Hispanic population in TExas continues to grow rapidly, the Democrats certainly can and will make strong showings down the road. But not any time soon.
Still, I hope Hillary thinks like you. I HOPE she spends weeks and millions of dollars campaigning in a state she has no chance to win. But I suspect she’s way to smart to do something that unproductive.
I think you are writing off California too quickly. The right republican {not on the right } would have a chance against the wrong Democrat. Reagan did win California.
Rudy G vs Hillary **might ** give California to the Republicans. It is conceivable.
Did Reagan win California both times or just in '84? I’m not sure how to look that one up.
I went all the way back to 1952. 50 years of results.
1952 = Ike (R)
1956 = Ike (R)
1960 = Nixon (R)
1964 = Johnson (D)
1968 = Nixon (R)
1972 = Nixon (R)
1976 = Ford (R)
1980 = Reagan (R)
1984 = Reagan (R)
1988 = Bush (R)
1992 = Clinton (D)
1996 = Clinton (D)
2000 = Gore (D)
2004 = Kerry (D)
So California has only been going Democratic in Presidential Elections since Clinton. I don’t think the Dems better assume that California is in the bag unless another Religious right winger runs like lets say Jeb Bush. Moderates have made a good showing in California.
So if the Republicans run Rudi Giuliani the pro-choice, pro-gun control, adulterer from New York City against a Southern Democrat Texas will be in the bag for Rudi?
I doubt the Democrats will bother with Texas much in 2008 so it will basically be given to whomever the Republicans nominate (probably not Giuliani). But to say under NO circumstances could they win is silly.
} would have a chance against the wrong Democrat. Reagan did win California.