Red State Dems Dismiss Hillary Spin On Losses
Democrats in the red states where Barack Obama has defeated Hillary Clinton are reacting with scorn to Hillary's dismissal of the importance of those states in general elections, The Huffington Post reports.
Hillary has argued in the week since Super Tuesday that her wins in states like California and New Jersey should be seen as the greater victories in consolidating the Democratic base, and that it would take a "tsunami change in America" for some of Obama's states to ever become competitive for Democrats.
But Matt Connealy, executive director of the Nebraska Democratic Party, dismissed her spin on the situation. "I don't think even Clinton should leave these predominantly red states alone," Connealy said. "I think that is a recipe that has not proven to be effective in the past."
Connealy added that a genuine 50-state strategy would benefit the party in multiple ways, in that it would "get the base motivated and force the Republicans to spend resources."
Full piece here.
In the end, Hillary will prove to be right about the red states.
February 13, 2008 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Color me skeptical of Sen Clinton's line here. I am sure that there are some primary contests which Obama won which will not under any circumstances go blue this Nov (e.g. ID, SD, LA, UT, etc). Then there are others which very likely will go blue with Obama as our man but not with Clinton (KS, MO, CO, NE and IA for my money). Then there are red states which could go blue with either candidate at our helm (NM and WV). While we are on the subject, Sen Clinton's remarks cut both ways - many of those red states which Obama won will not go blue, but I dare say that none of those blue states which Clinton won will go red regardless of whom we nominate. It is not as if Clinton is the only democrat who could carry CA or MA in a general election; a yellow dog could win those states if s/he had the democratic nomination. Finally, there are some blue states which I could forsee going red if Clinton is our nominee (MI and maybe WI specifically) but not if Obama is the nominee. Of course, I pretend to no special expertise, so no one should read anything I write as especially authoritative, but I stand by the claim that Obama could turn some of those red states blue and prove Clinton's line here wrong.
February 13, 2008 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good insights, Greg. I tend to agree.
February 13, 2008 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wouldn't bet the farm, but I do not think it unreasonable to hope, at least, that Obama might carry some coastal states in the deep south -- NC, SC, GA, AL, MS, LA. I can't imagine it with HRC as the nominee.
February 13, 2008 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, She is fundamentaly wrong about them. In the same way she was wrong about not spending resources in states where Obama is going to win. We have been loosing elections based on this flawed "Battleground State" strategy. The election is a national one. The delegates in the primary and the electors in the general are awarded on a state by state basis but public opinion swings nationaly. It is not true that, "As (place your cliche state here) goes so goes the nation." It is exactly the oposite. As the nation goes so go the swing states they are the states that are moost susceptible to swings in the national mood. If you want to win run every where. Even where one looses one wants to loose by as little as posible. Big losses in parts of the country effect the rest of the nation. She will loose in the end because she conceded some states to Sen Obama and he will win because he contested every state. If she got the nomination she would likely loose the general by running in the swing states and he will win by running for the president of the United States of America not for the president of the swing states.
February 13, 2008 8:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
As despised as Hillary is, she got 3 times as many votes as McCain in Colorado, and twice as many votes in Missouri and Kansas. But Kansas is Brownback country, and elected Dems there and in Nebraska are often ex-Repubs. Unlikely those states will go blue in our lifetime. Same with Iowa, if for different reasons.
thomaspaine downthread is right about Kentucky. It should be blue, and could be if Hillary headed the ticket.
February 13, 2008 10:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, it's actually Mr. Obama who would have a problem with Michigan AND Florida, since he is on record as opposing the seating of their delegates at the convention - and has threatened a lawsuit if an attempt is made. The democrats in both states have been very energized and really want their votes to count.
The situation in Florida is pretty serious, since it was the Republican state legislature that ordered moving of their primary in the first place.
February 14, 2008 3:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Regardless, the Democrats have always wanted to get more of a foothold and gain some ground back they've lost over the years. A long time ago I think I recall them wanting new recruits in those states. If you leave them out of the whole equation, so much for getting anything done when you do become president because congress isn't going to be all that blue.
Then there's the fact that the delegates are split depending on how well you do. You don't want to lost 3-1 or 4-1 in red states and expect to have an easy time in the nomination.
I live in a red state and would be very offended if I was left to drown in all the Republican BS that I have to go through on a local (this area of my state), and state level.
February 13, 2008 7:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is more evidence that Hillary and her surrogates will say and do and spin literally anything to get this nomination. And thank God she probably won't.
Someone needs to remind Hillary that while the Democratic nominee may have little chance to win in red states - a dubious claim, in my opinion - Democrats have even less chance of losing the states she has won. It's not as if any Democratic nominee is going to have to work hard to shore up support in Massachusetts, New York, or California. But Obama can put states like Virginia and Missouri in play. Hillary simply can not.
I've always had a sense during this campaign that her early support and "inevitability" was built on a foundation of sand. It never seemed like there were a ton of people who genuinely liked her; her strength came more from her political machine and name recognition than anything else. And now that Obama is running a better campaign and earning some recognition of his own, voters are awakening to the idea that there is a viable Democratic alternative to Hillary and abandoning her in droves.
I wouldn't be surprised to see the same thing happen in states to come. Not that Obama is going to win by 40 points in Texas, but I bet he seriously cuts into her lead well in advance of March 4.
February 13, 2008 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Edwards Weighs Clinton Endorsement
Former Candidate Torn Between Clinton and Obama in Democratic Race
By RICK KLEIN and RAELYN JOHNSON
Feb. 13, 2008 —
As he weighs a possible endorsement in the Democratic race, former Sen. John Edwards is as split as the party he once hoped to lead and is seriously considering supporting Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, despite the sharp criticism he leveled at her on the campaign trail, according to former aides and advisers.
In deciding between his one-time rivals, Edwards appears deeply divided. Several former advisers likened his thought process to a heart-versus-head split with his heart favoring Sen. Barack Obama's strong message of change, and his head attracted to Clinton's tested nature and commitment to tough fights.
Though he sometimes aligned himself with Obama and against Clinton as a candidate, several Edwards campaign insiders say the former senator began to sour on Obama toward the end of his own campaign, and ultimately left the race questioning whether Obama had the toughness needed to prevail in a presidential race.
"He is much more torn than people realize," said one former aide who has stayed in contact with Edwards. "Honestly, he has serious reservations about both of them."
Several people close to the former North Carolina senator say he may ultimately stay neutral in the race, joining former Vice President Al Gore on the sidelines of the tightest Democratic race in decades.
That may become a stronger possibility if Obama continues to build momentum toward the nomination: Edwards does not want to back a losing candidate, and neither does he want to join a bandwagon, aides and associates say.
But former campaign aides who have stayed in contact with Edwards say he is eager to play a major role in the race, and is mindful that his backing would only carry weight if it comes relatively quickly before the March 4 primaries in Texas and Ohio, which could effectively settle the nomination fight.
He also appears to realize that endorsing Clinton would likely carry the most weight, since it would be more unexpected and would provide a jolt of energy to a campaign that is suffering a rough patch, particularly in the wake of Tuesday's election results, which saw Obama sweep Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia.
If Edwards does choose to endorse, the natural choice would still seem to be Obama, whose outsider status and strong anti-Washington rhetoric is a close fit with the populist streak Edwards brought to his 2008 campaign.
Just last month, at the ABC News/WMUR/Facebook debate shortly before the New Hampshire primary, Edwards came to Obama's defense when Clinton went on the attack.
Obama, Edwards said, "believes deeply in change, and I believe deeply in change. Anytime you speak out for change, this is what happens. The forces for the status quo are going to attack."
But notwithstanding his often caustic criticism of Clinton, on a series of high-profile issues most notably health care and energy policy Edwards stands closer to Clinton, D-N.Y., than to Obama, D-Ill. Clinton has taken care to mention the similarities between her health care plan and Edwards' on the trail in recent days.
Another veteran member of Edwards' inner circle said the former candidate is approaching the possibility of an endorsement with a fresh mind. In reexamining both candidates, the former aide said, he is attracted not only to Clinton's policy portfolio, but also to her long track record as first lady and as a senator.
"He's now in a position where he's thinking, who's really ready to be president?" the veteran aide said. "I know that he believes she's going to do what she says he'll do. Not that that isn't the case with Obama, but there's more maturity there [with Clinton]."
Clinton and Obama have been actively wooing Edwards in the hopes of getting one of the last big Democratic endorsements available. Clinton traveled secretly to Chapel Hill, N.C., to meet with Edwards last week; a similar meeting with Obama was rescheduled from Monday night after it received wide press attention.
Both have begun sprinkling their stump speeches with more talk of poverty Edwards' signature issue. Over the weekend, Clinton told an audience in Maine that she would lean on Edwards' expertise if she's elected president.
"There is a lot John and I have in common," Clinton said. "I will be a fighter, and I intend to ask John Edwards to be a part of anything I do in the White House."
The fact that Edwards' endorsement is in demand is in part a statement on how close the Democratic race is. Edwards won 40 delegates before dropping out, but those so-called Edwards delegates are under no obligation to follow his direction at the Democratic National Convention.
If he hits the trail for a favored candidate, he could be of particular help in attracting the votes of white males a key swing group in the contests that have taken place to date. But as a string of high-profile politicians have made clear, endorsements rarely translate into votes in primaries and caucuses.
An Edwards endorsement of Clinton would be uncomfortable in large part because of Edwards' own words. As a candidate, Edwards kept up a running and biting critique of Clinton, and set up his candidacy in large part in opposition to Clinton and the type of politics he claimed that she represented.
He tagged Clinton as a "corporate Democrat" who refused to take tough stands on key issues, and he strongly suggested that she's too polarizing a figure to win a general election. He blasted her record on trade and health care, and said she was too indebted to insurance and drug companies to bring real change to Washington.
"Good people are caught up in this system, and I've given some examples of the places that I think she's caught up in it," Edwards told the Associated Press in October. "And I also, secondly, think that she continues to defend it. And I don't think you can bring up the change this country needs if you defend a corrupt system that doesn't work."
At one point, Edwards even refused to commit to backing Clinton is she were to become the nominee, though he later clarified that he would support whomever the Democratic Party nominates.
But toward the end of the campaign, Edwards directed some fire at Obama as well. Edwards blasted Obama when he refused to specifically condemn an independent group that was spending money on his behalf despite the fact that Obama was harshly critical of Edwards over support he was getting from an outside advocacy group.
"If he really means what he says and this is not just talk he should speak up and denounce this kind of divisive politics," Edwards said. "It is not what the Democratic Party needs."
And at the last Democratic debate that featured Edwards, he took a sharper tone with Obama, joining Clinton in questioning why Obama voted "present" on a series of controversial measures in the Illinois state senate.
"What I didn't hear was an explanation for why over 100 times you voted 'present' instead of yes or no when you had a choice to vote up or down," Edwards said.
With three options on the table an endorsement of either of his former rivals, or maintaining neutrality the final call is Edwards' alone. He is keeping close counsel, consulting primarily his wife, Elizabeth, according to former aides.
His decision could come down to what he envisions as his role in a Democratic administration. The only Cabinet job he seems interested in is the post of attorney general. While he has said he has no interest in a second run for vice president, one former aide said he certainly wouldn't turn down such an offer, in part because such a path seems to be his only realistic shot of ever becoming president.
But Edwards has told several associates that he envisions himself outside of government, working on poverty in a manner similar to the way Gore has taken on environmental challenges as a personal cause.
As one former aide pointed out, Gore didn't need to make endorsements or accept another government post to make his transition.
HILLARY WILL LIKELY RECIEVE EDWARDS ENDORSEMENT
ABC.COM
February 13, 2008 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Edwards has waited far, far too long to make an endorsement and therefore squandered any influence he may have had -- if any. I don't foresee anyone getting their knickers in a bunch over this.
February 13, 2008 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think I will wait to hear from John Edwards instead of taking the word of a fervent supporter of Hillary, who earlier today was posting some race baiting comments about the Wisconsin Primary, on behalf of Hillary. It almost reads like Bill Clinton posting under a new name.
February 13, 2008 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let us not judge Hillary and her statements too harshly. As she once said of Obama, she's "very frustrated."
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/01/hillary_on_the_debate_obama_is_very_frustrated.php
February 13, 2008 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting. Clinton says the democrats might as well write off North Dakota and Nebraska, both of which have elected democratic Senators; but the democrats should compete in Oklahoma, which has elected, arguably, two odd the looniest republican senators in existence.
CNN analyst, Rolland (I don't know his last name) made the point the other day that Clinton's remarks will probably not go down well with democrats running down the ticket in the states of which she has been dismissive.
It seems to me to be arrogant in the extreme to dismiss various states in which she lost because her largely inept campaign (Mark Penn) chose early on to write them off. A grave error that likely doomed her campaign.
February 13, 2008 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting. When it comes to counting MI and FL delegates, Clinton's argument is: "...I hope to be president of all 50 states and U.S. territories, and that we have all 50 states represented and counted at the Democratic convention."
But when she gets her ass handed to her in primary after primary, caucus after caucus, turns out *those* states don't count: Caucus states are undemocratic and cater only to party activists. Southern states have "a very strong and very proud African-American electorate" naturally predisposed to vote Obama. And "red" states will never choose a Democrat in the general election anyway.
I guess she's not planning to represent *those* states. But she's the candidate of the common man, and Obama is the candidate for the liberal elite. Makes perfect sense to me.
Riddle me this: if Clinton is such a "fighter," why is she so quick to give up entirely on so many states? Looks to me like Obama is picking his battles far more wisely - and winning them, too.
February 13, 2008 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
The most important thing to take from the red/purple states isn't whether or not they can be carried in the November presidential election (although that is very important and only Obama can do this), but rather what effect the presidential nominee with have down the ballot. As we saw with Donna Edwards last night, Obama supports flocked to the polls and gave her a huge boost, Hillary can't bring out people like that, indeed, the exact opposite is true for her, she would bring Republicans to the polls in record numbers to take her down, and with her will go every Democrat down the ballot running in red/purple and even light blue districts and states across the country. We need people to understand this point, and this is the point that has been at the center of Dean's incredibly successful 50 state strategy, which the Clintons want to throw out for the "us vs them", "just win 51% of the vote and call it a day" kind of mentality.
This blog does a good job of summing it up:
http://thepersonalispolitical.tumblr.com/post/25882167
February 13, 2008 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I almost agree with you here, but as I said above, I think that either Clinton or Obama would stand a chance of flipping WV and NM. Otherwise, I agree that all of the flipping that can be done will be done by Obama or not at all.
February 13, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm having a hard time imagining the super delegates from the states she completely ignored going for "She doesn't give a damn about my state, but I'll endorse her anyway."
I think we're in for some big surprises in the SD count, and soon.
February 13, 2008 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
The 50-state strategy is the only winning strategy. Any states, no matter how red, will lose down-ticket candidates if we abandon them. It's not just about the pres. candidate, it's about all the other dems running in all 50 states.
February 13, 2008 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
The most amazing thing to me after reading news story after news story, post after post, and comment after comment, is that we keep seeing these wild gyrations on the part of Hillary's campaign. She wants to be the president of all 50 states (including Florida and Michigan), except for the states she loses - those don't count. And she doesn't think it's worthwhile to contest red states as Democrats won't win those anyway (then WTF is she doing in Texas???), but she will spend all day talking about the states she's won like NY and CA - which Democrats would win in the general election no matter who their candidate was.
Notice how, by comparison, Obama's campaign is so quiet, disciplined, and unified by comparison? He's focused simply on being the better candidate in every election, all around the country. Your staffers probably don't have to work hard at staying "on message" when the message has been the same from day one.
It never occurred to me until the last few days, but this draws pretty significant distinctions between the two candidates' leadership styles and management abilities. Frankly, the Clinton campaign has been a frazzled mess which is getting exposed only now that they are in dire straits.
February 13, 2008 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seconded. When I hear the Clinton campaign's claims about how red states don't count, I can't help but think they're making Obama's point about partisanship vs. unity for him.
February 13, 2008 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, no, no, the 50 state strategy doesn't work. Dems don't stand a chance in states like Montana or Virginia and here's no point is extending any resources there. Just look at the '06 elections...
Oh, wait.
February 13, 2008 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for bringing up Virginia. I used to live in Virginia. There is no way it will go blue in the GE, especially if Obama is the nominee, because racism is very much alive and well throughout the state. The results of its open primary are not trustworthy, especially when you take into account the low number of Republican votes.
Sorry, you won't convince me otherwise about Virginia. I'd go so far as to apply the same logic to a few other red states that held open primaries and caucuses and resulted in extremely uncharacteristic numbers for the state.
February 13, 2008 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
For what little my opinion is worth, I agree with you that Obama will not carry VA. I do not believe that either Obama or Clinton can carry a single southern state. They each have baggage that will so thoroughly motivate the opposition that they will not win anywhere down south (VA, FL, AR and LA very much included).
February 13, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Hillary has the better shot at Arkansas and Tennessee against McCain than Obama does. Haven't studied the numbers, though, so I can't support the hunch.
Btw, I'm glad you brought up "baggage." I really wish progressives would stop using Republican talking points like "baggage." For all her so-called baggage, Hillary Clinton has done extremely well since she left the WH. Everyone seems to forget that she had absolutely "no chance" to win a senate seat in NY state (let alone be re-elected to it). Everyone seems to forget that she was supposedly going to be laughed out of the presidential race (that was before she became the frontrunner; after she became the frontrunner she was then accused of a sense of "entitlement"—based on what I don't know, since everyone always says she's going to lose). Republicans can count on the public's forgetfulness, and they exploit it at every opportunity. "Baggage" and "Clinton fatigue" are right-wing fabrications. Don't believe it. Or at least don't give it credit without supporting the concept with real numbers. She's won two elections despite her resoundingly bad press.
February 13, 2008 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you "a better shot" you mean that she stands an ice-cube's chance in Hell vs a snowball's, sure I agree. Otherwise, I think that this is silly. Al Gore could not carry TN, and it was his home state. I see no plausible scenario whereby either Sen Clinton or Sen Obama carries a single southern state. I would be delighted to eat those words, but such is my honest perception of the electoral realities in store.
February 13, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I generally agree with you about the South. Especially if McCain picks a Southerner as a running mate, which he is likely to do.
February 13, 2008 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well you can count me among that class of "everyone." I certainly do not remember that Hillary Clinton was considered unlikely to win her NY senate seat at any point. Can you point me to some sort of artifact of this thinking (some op-ed column from that time, perhaps, or suchlike)?
February 13, 2008 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you're registered with the NYT online, here are two articles about each of Hillary's senate runs.
If you're not registered with the NYT, just Google "Hillary" and "carpetbagger."
February 13, 2008 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Remember, Harold Ford narrowly lost the Senate seat in TN, and TN has the lowest African American population of any state in the deep South. Harvey Gantt nearly unseated Jesse Helms in NC back in the 90s, and NC has the second lowest. With strong African-American turnout, the coastal states could come into play, including Virginia , and carry some Dems into state and local office, too. Don't write off the South just yet.
Hope.
February 13, 2008 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I grew up in the area and still have relatives scattered through Old Dominion. I'm not sure about the GE with today's demographics.
Obama will certainly energize Democrats who may dust themselves off and actually turn out to vote. It seems that Virginia has conservative areas and urban areas and the divide that's certainly familiar--urban liberal; rural and small town conservative; suburban areas "somewhere in between". If the Democratic vote is really energized, then the conservative areas will be a bit neutralized and the liberal areas will probably go gung-ho with turnout.
Excitement really matters and Obama certainly generates excitement. It may be enough to win the states that have been "trending". These states may have arrived.
February 13, 2008 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
And Hillary was strongest in those parts of VA that are most conservative. Will they turn out for McCain? Turnout is everything.
February 13, 2008 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
How did Wilder become governor, then?
February 13, 2008 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
These types of comments by clinton really reveal how politically tone deaf her and the campaign are. It was easy to spin the loses without insulting the dem voters in those states and demeaning them. You need the people who voted to come out for the nominee in november, not piss them off. She really isn't a very good politician and she is not running a very good campaign. Kind of revealing about the style of governing that she would bring to the white house, which the vast majority of americans don't want.
February 13, 2008 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
How can anyone really support a national leadership candidate who writes off entire states so easily?
February 13, 2008 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ar eyou listening Red State Superdelegates? Hillary is writing off your state, forget about winning any marginal House/Senate/State Office seats, Hillary doesn't think they matter.
Of course this emphasizes that Hillary is following Karl Rove's 50%+1 strategy, neglecting that you can't push anything through the Senate under those conditions.
If you Really want to see a progressive agenda succeed, we need a President that will unite the country, not one that will give mor eof Rove's division.
February 13, 2008 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
"All the queen's horses and all the queen's men
Ain't gonna put Hillary back together again."
After all the parodies in the last few days of why Obama's wins "don't really count" she keeps coming up with new ones! Now she's saying - what? That she's not even going to bother trying to win "red states" in the general election? WTF?!?!?!
Can any Hillary supporters give a good reason to have her as our candidate if she's not even going to try? If she's already giving up on the general election why is she bothering with the primaries?
February 13, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
WI went for Al Gore 50/49.Kerry won it, but it was a virtual tie. You can't get closer to a swing state than that.
So how will Clinton try to spin her impending loss there?
February 13, 2008 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Presidents don't govern in a vacuum. Bill Clinton got himself re-elected in 1996, but since the Republicans controlled Congress and the rest of the country, how much could he accomplish?
Barack Obama not only has the best chance of swinging some red states blue, but the enthusiasm and interest he generates will help elect Democratic Congressmen, Senators, and Governors,... and Democrats to lesser offices nationwide. And a lot of these younger politicians will be the future of the Democratic Party. The Clintons don't seem to care about that at all.
BTW, did you see that David Wilhelm, Bill Clinton's campaign chairman in 1992 (now living in Ohio), has come out strongly for Barack Obama? I haven't seen in on TPM (but maybe I just missed it). Here's how the New York Times put it:
He [Wilhelm] said in a conference call today that Mr. Obama was more electable than Senator Hillary Clinton. Mr. Obama’s campaign is evidence of his leadership, he said, calling it “masterful.”
“He has out-worked her, out-organized her and out-raised her,” Mr. Wilhelm said. “I know organizational excellence when I see it, and the Obama campaign, win or lose, will serve as a model” of execution of strategy, message discipline, application of new technology and small-donor fund raising.
February 13, 2008 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Out here in the Chicago burbs we have a good shot at taking out Repub placeholders in IL-13, IL-10, IL-06, and even Denny Hastert's open seat in IL-14 if the nominee is Obama. With Hillary we have no chance. That coattail difference may be more pronounced here in Barack's home state but I think it's a factor all over the country.
February 13, 2008 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh so its all about IL-- give me a break. You want to make a diffenence in the effectiveness of the Dem leadership in congress then take out SEN MCCONNEL. Kentucky should be ranked up there as an important part of your Down ticket stragetgy. MCCONNEL is up for reelection this year in the BLUEGRASS. A majority of the state is reg as DEMS. We can take him out but we need a high turn out in GE. If we are going to go with a nominee for your purposes then we might want to look here were removing the Head of the GOP Senate is possible but KENTUCKY will flip if OBAMA it is the ticket. Clinton carried this state. We have a chance to Ditch Mitch but McConnel is already at work and he will make mince meat out of OBAMA and ride it all the way back to the senate.
February 13, 2008 7:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm a long-time lurker, but I just had to comment on this:
used to live in Virginia. There is no way it will go blue in the GE, especially if Obama is the nominee, because racism is very much alive and well throughout the state.
I don't know if readytoblow has indeed blown that gasket, but it's readily apparent that s/he has blown off history.
Doug Wilder was elected governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia in 1989.
Clearly, there is still racism, but it will not be the first time the Commonwealth elected an African-American statewide.
February 13, 2008 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like Obama, Doug Wilder was leading in the polls before the election and just barely squeaked into office. The election was close enough to go to a recount. Read up here. Also:
In the election aftermath, few argued that Wilder had removed race as a factor in Virginia politics. What he had done, most analysts agreed, was to skillfully avoid racial pitfalls.
Reference here.
Haven't blown a gasket yet, but I stand by my assertion.
February 13, 2008 7:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
WTF is she doing in Texas???
This was the first question that came to my head too. It just shows how vacuous the logic is.
February 13, 2008 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
She is fundamentaly wrong. In the same way she was wrong about not spending resources in states where Obama is going to win. We have been loosing elections based on this flawed "Battleground State" strategy. The election is a national one. The delegates in the primary and the electors in the general are awarded on a state by state basis but public opinion swings nationaly. It is not true that, "As (place your cliche state here) goes so goes the nation." It is exactly the oposite. As the nation goes so go the swing states they are the states that are moost susceptible to swings in the national mood. If you want to win run every where. Even where one looses one wants to loose by as little as posible. Big losses in parts of the country effect the rest of the nation. She will loose in the end because she conceded some states to Sen Obama and he will win because he contested every state. If she got the nomination she would likely loose the general by running in the swing states and he will win by running for the president of the United States of America not for the president of the swing states.
February 13, 2008 8:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Another veteran member of Edwards' inner circle said the former candidate is approaching the possibility of an endorsement with a fresh mind. In reexamining both candidates, the former aide said, he is attracted not only to Clinton's policy portfolio, but also to her long track record as first lady and as a senator.
"He's now in a position where he's thinking, who's really ready to be president?" the veteran aide said. "I know that he believes she's going to do what she says he'll do. Not that that isn't the case with Obama, but there's more maturity there [with Clinton]." Does ANYONE believe this? Does Edwards believe it? Does he think that anyone else will?
February 13, 2008 8:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is the essential fight within the Democratic Party at this point. Howard Dean's notion that we should never have abandoned the Red States versus the Clinton/DLC triangulation philosophy. To me, the DLC presents a weak, defeatist case, while Dean's approach is bold and expensive. But it looks to the future. The DLC is thinking in niggardly terms. They're working from the economics of the bad old days when Bill Clinton was busy killing the Democratic Party and elevating the Republicans to prominence. We don't need it. Howard Dean is right and Obama's campaign is the proof. There won't be any huge surprises, but Obama can take the purple states like Virginia. Hillary will lose them to McCain.
February 13, 2008 8:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't see Edwards endorsement helping any candidate. I think he's waited to long.
February 13, 2008 9:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
The longer I see Democrats debate this issue, the more disastrous I see a Clinton candidacy being.
I keep hearing that McCain will magically unite the Republican party and coast to victory in all of the "red states". Did nobody notice that McCain shivved Arkansas' former governor in the back in Washington state last weekend? Or that he enlisted Huckabee's support to shiv Mitt Romney the week before? Doesn't anybody think it might be kind of a neat idea to tell Huckabee's voters, and Romney's, that they have an alternative to voting for a guy who has practically admitted he doesn't give a rat's ass about the people he steps on on the way to the nomination?
People are correct that Obama can't bring the entire country together by the force of his rhetoric. Keep in mind, neither can McCain. He's alienated a good chunk of his voting base already and seems to be in the process of alienating a good many more while he campaigns. Clinton is getting reamed for doing the same thing on this and other Democratic sites but what McCain has been doing is far worse.
Democrats should not concede a single state before they have to. Every single one, from Utah to Mississippi, and even Arizona, can be taken. And yes, I'm aware the Republicans took Utah with 73% last time out. But that was then and this is now. McCain will be the weakest candidate the Republicans have fielded since at least 1964. Stop arguing which Democrat might be able to keep Michigan and Pennsylvania from going red and start arguing about which candidate is best suited to wiping him off the map.
I'll give you a hint. It's not the one who says that the 30 states which voted Republican last time don't matter because they're going to vote Republican this time. It's the one who gives all of those states the best reason to vote Democratic. The desire to teach the Washington cheat a good lesson may not be the best reason to vote for someone, but it's a start. Stop saying that disgruntled Republicans have no choice but to vote for McCain this November because it will turn out to be true. Huckabee voters owe him jack squat. If you don't take advantage of that, you don't deserve to win.
February 13, 2008 10:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
A gentle word of advice: 'lose' not 'loose'.
February 14, 2008 7:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
What a great general election strategery she has by foregoing states that have been traditionally "red". What happened to her ability to fight R's on their own turf? Another poster made a very salient point in that the state's she's won will likely go to the Democrat's nominee anyway, so what's the big deal. States like TX are fairly solidly Repub, so a win there is meaningless by her standards. But more importantly, a strong continual 50 state strategy is the only way to rebuild the Democratic party back to the level where it can hold the WH and both houses of Congress with enough clout to actually change things.
I want my nominee to fight the R's everywhere they go and I want them to have a chance in those purple states like VA has become, or KS, or MO and the likes. Her claims here once again show that she is not the candidate for me, nor for large portions of this country that do not live on a coast.
February 14, 2008 8:11 AM | Reply | Permalink