Tuesday, January 24, 2006

Who Can Win the Red States? Hillary, huh...

Confession: I am a donor to Hillary's Senate campaign.

But did anyone see Hillary's "Plantation" comments on MLK day? I didn't think anything about it until I saw the video on The Daily Show. I was stunned by how inappropriate and patronizing it seemed. The video really gave me a different perspective on how broad her appeal as a Presidential candidate would be.

Seems some in the Clinton team have been arguing that Hillary can win Red States. The reason why they believe this? She did so well in upstate New York, which they compare to the make-up of red states. Arianna Huffington challenges this argument with a line of reasoning every Warner supporter know.

Sounds very convincing. The trouble is, it's wrong -- as Marisa Katz shows in this week's New Republic in her terrific takedown of the Upstate = Red State myth. "Numbers-wise," Katz writes, "upstate [New York] is far more purple than red." And she reminds us that "even in this less-than-hostile-terrain" Hillary "actually lost upstate by three points to her 2000 opponent, Rick Lazio."

Even more damning is the fact that the presidential runs of both Al Gore and John Kerry attracted more upstate voters -- and carried more upstate counties -- than Hillary did. "If Gore and Kerry won upstate New York," writes Katz, "but couldn't make sufficient red-state inroads, Clinton's loss upstate doesn't seem to bode well for her potential in truly red parts of the country." The final nail in the upstate/redstate coffin: Hillary's upstate numbers are very similar to those of the senior senator from New York, Chuck Schumer -- and, as Katz zings it, "no one is talking him up as the Democrats' best chance to reclaim the White House." Read entire post.

Hillary hasn't even announced yet for President, and we all want her to do well in her Senate race in 2006, so I don't think the case needs to be made yet about who can win in Red States. But in the next few years, Democrats need to find a strategy in at least some Red States to be competitive for the Presidency.

One thing I do know is that Bush beat Kerry by 9 points in Virginia. Warner does not need "iffy" hypotheticals to prove he can win red states.


At 8:14 AM, Blogger HillarySupporter said...

I am a Virginian and I think Warner was a great Governor. But just because he won once and has a high approval rating (or as mason dixon notes - the "highest" approval rating ever) anything could happen in a presidential election. Let’s not forget Warner ran once for office in Virginia - in a presidential year (1996) and lost. There is much lower turnout in off year elections in Virginia such as the gubernatorial one in 2001 Warner ran in. My vote in 2004 was not a “pro-Kerry” vote. It was an “anti-Bush” vote. Kerry didn’t excite me to do anything. Hillary does. She gives me something to both vote for, and work my ass off for. She brings hope to many that are losing it. It’s funny that you are already going negative – trying to tell people why Warner not Hillary can win in red states. At least the candidate you are pushing is on record saying that if he runs his candidacy will be about what he has to offer and not what other candidates don’t – or they really do have to offer but you just go around saying they don’t. Because that’s the case isn’t it? And while we are on it your post “Right Hand to Deliver State of the Union Rebuttal” is outrageous. I think its time that those drinking the Warner koolaid start to give Kaine some credit for the campaign HE RAN. He ran one on what he believed in and won. And he has been elected to office many more times then Warner ever has. It is Governor Tim Kaine giving the Democratic Rebuttal, not Former Governor Mark Warner’s right hand.

At 11:01 AM, Blogger Nuada79 said...

My vote in 2004 was a Pro-Kerry vote. Not only did I vote for him, I volunteered in his campaign here in Iowa. I even scraped up enough money to be able to donate the $2,000 maximum contribution. Yes, I actually liked him, I grew up in MA with him as one of my senators. But I also thought that truth would win out. In that, I fell into the same trap Democrats, Liberals and Progressives fell into back in 1988 and 1984 and 1972. Hold fast to your ideology, rally the base and just shout louder next time...you will win.

I'm in grad school to be a history teacher, so of course I tend to look to the past for possible answers. How did FDR rebuild the modern Democratic Party? How did Truman and Kennedy keep it together enough to win office over the next 30 years. Why are we, as Democrats, no longer the majority party in this country?

Let us be honest. We have approximately 90% of the black vote, a majority of the Latino vote and just as many special interest groups as the other side. What we no longer have is a stranglehold on the working class white vote. You know, that section of the population that makes up the demographic known as THE MAJORITY OF THE COUNTRY!!!

We have let the GOP become the party of God and National Defense, the cross and the flag make up their party platform. And it's not that we Democrats are anti-religion or anti-military in reality. But that's what Bush capo-regimes have been telling the country. We are the party of abortion, gay marriage and asking the EU for permission to defend ourselves from terrorism. ("Global Test"...AHHH!)

Now I'm not some Mark Warner groupie. But I voted on ideology before. Now I want to win. That's what the GOP does. They back who can win in November and then turn their ideology into law.

Now I grew up in a very middle class lifestyle in a very working class town. Through my education I am enlightened enough to see through the GOP's lies. But I can relate to some of the people who do not.

I can not see how Hillary can get working class white people to vote for her, particularly men. I'm thinking of the fishermen back in MA, the farmers here in Iowa and all the lunchpail hard-hat types that go to work every day in order to feed their families, getting no personal expression out of their work and not giving it a second thought.

The problem is, people don't like her. I'm a Democrat and I don't like her. A Warner or someone like him comes without her baggage and if he's from the south, with extra benefits. Almost any major player besides a Northeast Liberal makes the GOP work that much harder.

Just imagine Hillary as our girl. How do we win then? The GOP puts in McCain and he's a war hero. They put in Gulliani and he's America's mayor. They put in Allen and he's Bush with public speaking classes. They put in Condi and watch the women and blacks peel away. They put it Romney, he won big in my home state, one of the bluest of the blue.

At 3:17 PM, Blogger HillarySupporter said...

The Kerry campaign was one of the worst campaigns ever run. This is no secret. He was also one of the worst candidate's ever. John McCain will never get the GOP nomination - neither will Rudy. Chris Lehane said it best this morning in the New York Sun - "It's pretty clear she's in a class by herself," Mr. Lehane said. "If she was on the ticket in 2004, would a Democrat have won? I think the answer is yes." Hillary and Bill Clinton raised more money and got more votes out for John Kerry in 2004 then any other democrat. If Mark Warner is so great how come he didn't come close to deliver Virginia for Kerry?

At 8:55 PM, Blogger Daniel Dennison said...

hillarysupporter... Give me a break, you quote Chris Lehane who was fired by the Kerry campaign and has been butt kissing the Clinton's for a job. Why don't you ask Grover Norquist to explain why he thinks taxes are bad?

Hillary as a Presidential candidate will not get new voters to vote Democratic, plus she will energize the Republicans. Kerry got 9 million more people to vote for him than al Gore did in 2000 and we still lost. At some point, Democrats have to accept we are a minority party and find a way to build a majority party. This means we need to find new Democrats.

As to your comment on Right Hand, where in my post did I give credit to Warner for Kaine's victory. Kaine was Warner's LT for four years and his go-to guy hence the name his right hand man. Sounds to me like your a little sensitive about something... What is bugging you?

At 1:32 PM, Blogger Nuada79 said...

I'm not one to do on-line debates. I usually don't see the point of them. But.....

Yes, the Kerry campaign was crap. So was the Gore campaign. I dread what the Hillary campaign would be like. By '08 she will only have run two races, both in a blue state that keeps getting bluer, against second and third rate opponents.

Don't mention money, it may be the root of all evil but it is not the root of all votes. Ex-DNC head Terry McAuliffe raised more money in '04 than every before and maybe the Clintons played a role in that. (The Dems are actually starting to match the GOP dollar for dollar.) Well, we still lost. No amount of money can help a crap campaign.

Now I'd love to see where the hell Bill and Hillary gained votes for Kerry. New York? Yeah, like it was going to be a nail biter there without their help.

It is all about the electoral college, 2000 showed us that. What red states could Hillary turn blue? Hillary could get 100% of the vote in states like MA, NY and CA, win the popular vote by 10 million and still lose. 2000 also showed us how we are losing electoral votes. Gore couldn't even carry his home state of Tennessee. Bill Clinton carried it and Arkansas in '92 and '96.

Why didn't Warner get Virginia for Kerry? Did Kerry even campaign in Virginia? The Democratic governor of Montana, (his name escapes me right now), had a great quote. The interviewer asked if the gay marriage issue hurt Kerry in Montana because Kerry is from Massachusetts, even though his views on this issue were nearly identical to Bush's. The Governor said, "yeah, probably.....Kerry didn't even come out here, for all they (Montana's voters) know, he married some guy".

At 1:43 PM, Blogger Nuada79 said...

By the way.....why does everyone seem to think that McCain can't get nominated as the GOP's man?!?

Yes, he is outspoken and free-willed. Yes, he does not pander, (so far!), to the radical right wing religious freaks.

BUT he IS a conservative!!! He's a hawk on defense, pro-Iraq war, pro-life and backed Bush in '04. McCain is not a moderate. Rudy is a moderate, that's why he won't win.

Yes, the radical right wing would like someone else, just because McCain doesn't bow and scrape to them. But the prospect of Hillary Clinton in the White House would have them lining up to support him, IF his numbers come out the best against hers. Remember, he's pro-life and a hawk on defense. He may not like them but he still agrees with them about 95% of the time. In the end, that's all that really matters.

And don't think he can't win. Too many moderate independents and conservative Democrats think McCain is a "middle of the road" type guy. If even some of them keep thinking that, McCain verses Hillary would be a landslide for the GOP.


Post a Comment

<< Home

Listed on BlogShares