You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #3: According to Terry McAuliffe's calculations, Hillary would've won 2000 and 2004 by 10-15% [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-04-08 02:58 PM
Response to Original message
3. According to Terry McAuliffe's calculations, Hillary would've won 2000 and 2004 by 10-15%
Edited on Fri Apr-04-08 03:02 PM by blm
Because Clintons know how to run campaigns.

Too many Dems believed this Clinton 'legend' that cast them as giant slayers because they forgot the reality of 1992 - Poppy Bush expected to be impeached if he remained in office for a second term, and he WANTED to lose.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
  -If Hillary were a great candidate for president, she'd be way ahead. undeterred  Apr-04-08 02:55 PM   #0 
  - Get ready for remarks about. Cult, Lies, youth, whatever they will throw at you for saying this.  Zachstar   Apr-04-08 02:56 PM   #1 
  - actually, I blame the way her campaign was RUN, more so than whether  Lerkfish   Apr-04-08 02:58 PM   #2 
  - Huh?  Bornaginhooligan   Apr-04-08 03:03 PM   #6 
     - I guess I'm postulating that a well run campaign can cover a multitude of sins  Lerkfish   Apr-04-08 03:40 PM   #13 
  - According to Terry McAuliffe's calculations, Hillary would've won 2000 and 2004 by 10-15%  blm   Apr-04-08 02:58 PM   #3 
  - According to my dog's calculations, if I had won the lottery  undeterred   Apr-04-08 03:02 PM   #4 
  - If Obama were a great candidate for president, he'd be way ahead.  MetricSystem   Apr-04-08 03:02 PM   #5 
  - He is and He is.  undeterred   Apr-04-08 03:04 PM   #7 
  - And yet...  WillBowden   Apr-04-08 03:32 PM   #11 
  - Considering Clinton has hundreds of times more name recognition and the backing of the establishment  GarbagemanLB   Apr-04-08 03:05 PM   #8 
     - "the establishment"?  undeterred   Apr-04-08 04:09 PM   #16 
     - So does McCain  Taxmyth   Apr-04-08 06:10 PM   #21 
  - There's no evidence that your observation is true.  Deep13   Apr-04-08 03:05 PM   #9 
  - Though I kind of agree.  Symarip   Apr-04-08 03:06 PM   #10 
  - How she failed to capitalize on links to Bill's extensive network of poltical allies is incredible  JVS   Apr-04-08 03:38 PM   #12 
  - But don't you think it was sexist and uncalled for that Obama  jgraz   Apr-04-08 03:58 PM   #14 
  - He didn't have to be such a mensch.  undeterred   Apr-04-08 04:12 PM   #18 
  - go away with your LOGIC, it is not wanted  krawhitham   Apr-04-08 03:59 PM   #15 
  - Exactly.  Window   Apr-04-08 04:10 PM   #17 
  - K&R  azmouse   Apr-04-08 05:17 PM   #19 
  - Y'know, if she just promised her followers  Symarip   Apr-04-08 05:20 PM   #20 
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC