Tell Me What State Hillary Clinton Can Carry That Either Kerry or Gore Couldn't

[THUNDER HANDS]

Poll question: Tell Me What State Hillary Clinton Can Carry That Either Kerry or Gore Couldn't

If there's one reason I don't support Hillary right now, it's because I don't see the potential for any electoral vote shift in 2008. I have no idea what state or states she's carry that Kerry or Gore failed to.

So you tell me, which state would she pick up?

[THUNDER HANDS]

1. 30+ views and one vote

I should have included a NONE option.

[usregimechange]

19. That would have got my vote.

[MethuenProgressive]

38. Fixed set-up false misleading garbage poll.

Because you only allow one choice. She'll win more than just one he didn't.

[Capn Sunshine]

47. I have to agree

The political climate is SO different regarding public desire to change parties in the White House, even Hillary, weak as she is, could probably carry more than one additional state.

Assuming she gets some different campaign advisors,fires Chris LeHane, and disavows her internet gang of rabid thugs.

[itsrobert]

2. You should of ask what state she can carry that Kerry and Gore did?

nt

[aquart]

3. Then don't vote for her in the primary.

Are you planning to do this poll for the male candidates? Didn't think so.

[THUNDER HANDS]

8. do you think this is a male-female thing?

really?

[aquart]

22. Do you think it's NOT? REALLY?

[Capn Sunshine]

50. It seems like as long as Hillary is female

her online supporters will maintain that EVERY post is a male-female thing

Thank god we don't do this with Obama. It's not always just about race. That would get old really fast.

Yet this is a good idea to them.

[last_texas_dem]

10. Cheap shot

Shouldn't a post regarding Clinton at least have to have *some* mention of gender before it is implied to be sexist?

[aquart]

20. IS he/she/it asking the same question of the male candidates?

Because the only candidate with a poll about carrying states is the only one who is female.

So, no. He/she/it doesn't have to mention gender to be what appears to be appallingly discriminatory.And I'll bet money there's a court decision to back me up somewhere.

[last_texas_dem]

24. So if one asks any questions regarding Clinton

and doesn't do the same for the other candidates does it automatically imply that one is doing so for sexist reasons?

[aquart]

57. And Hillary's accused of not answering the question asked?

I'm pretty sure MY question was simply to ask if the fellas were going to be polled on what states THEY can carry? Why can't you answer the question that was posed? Hmmm?

[last_texas_dem]

58. OK, here's your answer

Perhaps the OP was curious about what states Hillary Clinton could carry and decided to post a poll about it. Perhaps the OP didn't think it would be necessary to post similar polls about all of the male candidates as well because Clinton was the candidate he was curious about. Perhaps the OP didn't realize that to ask any question of Clinton but not of all of the male candidates is sexist because Clinton happens to be a female, regardless of whether his curiosity about whether Clinton could carry any states that Gore and Kerry didn't carry had anything to do with her gender or not. But of course that would be a totally irrational and ridiculous thing to assume. :eyes:

[Mojambo]

14. Puhlease. What a frickin reach.

I know the whole gender thing is a big part of the play book, but come on!

[aquart]

21. So a poll directed ONLY at the female candidate is fair and unsexist?

That's your position?

BTW, I'm not a member of the Clinton campaign and I've never seen this imaginary "playbook." But I know what I think about the behavior on DU and I'm wildly unimpressed. So when I see sexism, I'll SAY sexism.

[Mojambo]

26. This poll could easily be done on any other candidate

And perhaps if any other candidate were the presumptive front runner it would be.

The fact that the question could be asked of any other Democratic nominee is pretty clear evidence that it can't possibly BE sexist.

Just because a poll question is only directed at her doesn't make it sexist. I suppose you could make the argument that it's unfair to only poll about Senator Clinton, but sexist? Ridiculous. She's getting the same kind of treatment any clear front runner gets. Why do people have to lay off because she's the only girl?

If you think you see sexism here I think you need to check your prescription.

[gmudem]

55. Don't break your arm grasping for that straw. NT

[PresidentObama]

4. Definitely not Missouri. I can tell you that as a Missourian.

I think she could win New Mexico or Iowa, and maybe Ohio.

[JI7]

5. Ohio is no longer controlled by the Republicans , if she runs against Rudy

or Romney she could win Arkansas, maybe West Virginia.

Iowa, New Mexico, and Nevada also.

but this goes for all Democrats.

[last_texas_dem]

6. I don't think any of those states would be definite carries for Clinton

I think she'd be in striking distance in IA and NM; they were both narrowly carried by Gore and narrowly lost by Kerry. And I think she might have a shot at some of the others, but they would all be tough, close matches- unless the Repugs manage to nominate a particularly weak candidate.

I know there are polls that show Clinton currently prevailing in several of these states. I am not someone who just thinks that all polls are just flat-out untrustworthy or anything like that, but I do have doubts about polls in states this far ahead of the election, even if they are polls I like the results of. I do think there is a possibility Clinton could prevail in, say, FL or OH, and I know there are polls that show her prevailing at this point, but it's nothing I would put money on at this point. I would think VA might be a particularly strong state for Clinton, but I don't know that they are yet "blue" enough to go our way in a Presidential election, despite the positive trends our way in recent elections. WV voted for Bill Clinton both times so that might mean something, depending on whether their "red" trend had to do with simply liking Shrub (shudder!) or if it had to do with them moving towards becoming a solidly red state on the Presidential level.

[Colobo]

7. I'd say Ohio.

[sandnsea]

9. What states could Rudy take from Hillary

People ought to consider that too.

[Kahuna]

36. Right now PA and NJ are leaning Rudy. Meaning he's out polling

Hillary right now. That's not good.

[Lucinda]

48. That's different that I have seen. Do you have links on the NJ info?

[saltpoint]

11. We don't know yet, do we? First we have to see who wins our nomination,

and then who wins the Pukes' nomination, and who in both parties is chosen as the veep noms.

Then we have to check the news from the Middle East and gauge each ticket's sure-footedness with that, then look at the markets and see if the economy still sucks or not, and then watch to see how events and unforeseen forces jostle things around to their liking.

We should have a better idea of things roughly a year from now.

[JI7]

16. i agree

i think Romney will be the easiest to beat. and Rudy possibly will be also. add in that a third party will likely split the puke vote.

Huckabee and McCain are probably the strongest Republican candidates. but they have little chance of winning.

any of the Dem candidates will win Arkansas, Ohio, West Virginia, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Mexico and maybe others if Romney is the Republican Nominee.

Rudy will either be a total disaster as a nominee or people will continue to call for the "leader of 9/11" crap and people will just be terrorized into voting for him. but with everything that has happened the people may not fall for it as easily as before.

i would not be surprised of Romney only wins Utah.

[saltpoint]

17. Very good analysis of the GOP weakness going into the election cycle.

Agree on Rudy -- he could horsewhip voters into some level of support but right now he just isn't closing the deal with the fundies, and the fundies are the ones who tend to show up in large numbers in the primaries. Bad news for Rudy.

Agree also on Romney. There's a potential of his getting the nomination but I think our ticket will bury him alive in the general. Huckabee is already gaining ground on him in Iowa. It's going to be a bloodbath on the Republican side for their nomination, which will strengthen us and will be fun to watch!

[Auntie Bush]

44. Got a link for that pearl of wisdom?

"We should have a better idea of things roughly a year from now." LOL

[saltpoint]

45. Hi, Auntie Bush. I was aiming for maximum understatement, but

obviously I didn't make the cut.

O well.

Back to stocking the shelves at JoAnne fabrics!

[CK_John]

12. Hillary will be up against Mitt/Lynne Cheney, what states will they carry?. n/t

[Mojambo]

13. I'd say Ohio, but I think ANY Democratic nominee is going to get Ohio

The people there are about as fed up with the GOP as anywhere in the entire country.

[autorank]

15. "K" Street, N.W. Washington DC 20036 n/t

[Yukari Yakumo]

18. Where's the "Most of the Above" option? {nt}

uguu

[JTFrog]

23. In the same place as the NONE option. n/t

[CnAnPB]

25. Magic Rat, do you want me to be brutally honest ?

God Bless

[Perry Logan]

27. Where do I check "All"?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

28. Arkansas, Florida, And Ohio

DSB

[JNelson6563]

29. Be fearful of losing MI

With our primary mess leaving only Clinton and Dodd on the ballot and Granholm (the termed out, beleagured Gov. looking for a cabinet appt.) ponying up her Clinton endorsement, once again Dems across MI are feeling like their vote doesn't count and that they are simply here to serve the larger cogs of the machine. MI has not been blue by a mile or anything, it's been a tough battle to go blue each race.

Last year the base in MI told the big cogs in the machine where to stick it when rejecting their chosen one for the AG position and chose the other candidate for the slot. This guy had less of a chance of winning and most knew it but were mighty sick and tired of having their choices made for them.

This current situation also looks like the big cogs are trying to do it again and the little people may, once again, tell the big cogs where to stick it.

Be afraid of MI going into the red column for the first time in an age. Be very afraid.

Julie

[rucky]

30. All we need is one. n/t

[Kahuna]

31. none.

I really don't see her picking up any. But depending on the GOP opponent she could possibly lose a couple.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

32. Many

I really see her picking up many. But depending on the GOP opponent she could possibly pick up a dozen.


FIXED

[Kahuna]

35. Yeah right. Name them.

nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

42. FL,OH, AR, NM, and IA

The dozen was irrational exuberance

[AzDar]

33. 'State of War with Iran' ....she's on top o' that, all right.

:rofl:

[Sparkly]

34. Arkansas. nt

[ileus]

37. She's going to carry all 50........

[lojasmo]

39. None. EOM

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

40. Ohio, Iowa, Virginia, New Hampshire

[IndianaGreen]

41. Hillary will not carry Ohio, and she will lose Pennsylvania

She won't take Nevada (Harry Reid's seat is in deep jeopardy), and as to Florida, it's up for grabs.

[blm]

43. Kerry won Ohio, NC, Florida, Iowa and New Mexico - the RNC stole those states and

Terry McAuliffe's DNC let them do it.

[Alexander]

46. My answer is "None, she would lose states".

States like Iowa and New Mexico, which were razor-thin margins both times, would be out of reach for Clinton.

[HughBeaumont]

49. Uh, does anyone who voted "Ohio" actually LIVE here?

Once again, this is how Ohio voted in 2004 for a decorated war veteran who volunteered to be a moving target. All of that grey represents Bewsh supporting counties.

In a recent Plain Dealer poll of Northeast Ohio voters, the numbers are pretty scary for Hillary:

Would Vote For/Would Not

Republican Rudy Giuliani 57% 43%
Democrat Barack Obama 56% 44%
Republican John McCain 56% 44%
Republican Fred Thompson 54% 46%
Democrat John Edwards 52% 48%
Republican Mitt Romney 51% 49%
Democrat Hillary Clinton 45% 55%
Democrat Dennis Kucinich 32% 68%

Your front runner is at a net -10% to an ineffective mayor. 55% of voters would not consider voting for her. In a poll conducted in the heavily Dem part of the state.

As it is, we'd have a better chance with Obama or Edwards. But both of those candidates are "dead" according to some people.

Now, can anyone imagine ANYthing changing on that map should the former First Lady named "Clinton" gets nominated against Ghouliani? Someone who everyone in them grey areas have been trained to hate since 1993? Someone who is unapologetically free trade when Ohio has lost so many jobs (6,800 last month, in case anyone was asking) these past 7 years? Someone who wants to continue this war up past 2013? Someone who still wants Big-Insurance health care? Someone who thinks national security is more important than civil rights???

Ever been to counties in Ohio south of Cuyahoga and Lorain? I have, because I drive through there on the way to DC sometimes. My wife did home visits in these areas and also has relatives in a few of these counties.

"Clinton" isn't even a beloved name up here in the Northeast. It's downright HATED in those grey parts of the state.

I believe what I see and hear. Polls - not so much. There are still more than a few people still sporting W04 stickers in the Northeast.

You also have to understand that conventional wisdom does not work in this state at all. People who do not live in Ohio don't seem to get that Strickland and Sherrod Brown aren't Hillary Clinton. That's "tiger prevention" logic. Just because this state elected two relatively baggage-free, untouchable-by-MSM Dems doesn't mean the state is going to warm to a Clinton candidacy.

Brown ran on a populist message and spoke to the labor of this state and country, while his opponent simply had his face firmly planted in Bewsh's ass. Strickland is a minister, which gained him a lot of rural votes. Let's also not forget that they ran against two first-round draft pics of the most unabashed right-wing nutcases Ohio has ever seen in politics: Bewsh's most reliable rubberstamp Mike DeWine and Bewsh's most reliable 2004 flunky Ken Blackwell. Let's not forget still that Bob Taft, Strickland's predecessor, has the honorable distinction of being the one politician that screwed his own state as bad as Bewsh has screwed America.

Hillary would not win this state. You can BANK on it. Edwards or Obama - they may have a chance. If Clinton is our candidate, forget it. The rurals hate her. HATE her. These people do not care about positions. They will only care that she's a Clinton. The reality is, you need rural votes. John Kerry didn't seem to get that. That's why 2004 was close enough for them to steal again.

Why should we take the risk with so much at stake?

If anyone thinks Hillary, who realistically is going to divide the left and center (and it's unbelievably naive to think she won't), not pick up fence sitters and mobilize every ass-backwoods, hellfahr 'n' brimstone rapture-right nutcase out from under their porch steps in droves for the sole purpose of "stickin' it to them anti-Murkin commeh Clintons once and fer all!!!!", is going to turn Ohio . . . My GOD they need to wake up and smell the damned coffee.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

51. Whatever-OHIO - Latest Poll

44% Giuliani
49% Clinton

42% Romney
51% Clinton

37% Huckabee
54% Clinton


http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportEmail.aspx?g=8684e5c8-ef95-410f-b1d2-e3f623b34ed2

[HughBeaumont]

52. Whatever - I LIVE HERE AND YOU DO NOT!!!!!

The PD poll was taken in the same means yours was. ALL POTENTIAL VOTERS. Christ.

Keep on believing Hillary Clinton cares for anybody besides Hillary Clinton. Keep on believing all of them red counties are going to warm up to Hillary after the MSM unleashes holy hell on her. Keep believing PA and WI, which barely went for Kerry in 2004, won't be in danger of turning should this party choose her.

[Basileus Basileon]

56. Ladies and Gentlemen, the Great State of Ohio posts on DU under the name of "HughBeaumont."

Thank you for your contributions, Ohio. I always liked Cleveland. Sorta.

[HughBeaumont]

59. Because ridicule is always the key in a perceived understanding of a state.

I'd sure like to know where it was said that I posted for the whole state of Ohio.

Voting patterns don't lie, however.

Here's a slight clue though - the less baggage a candidate has, the more likely the state is to accept them.

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/states/ohiomap2000.html

Gore did a great job as VP. So why the huge sea of red (besides some proven chicanery in both OH and FLA) in 2000?

Gore ran a confused-messaged DLC platform that the voters could not relate to. Rather than run off of his attributes, he stupidly took on Holy Joe as his VP and tried to distance himself from that administration. Plus, thanks to the MSM demonization, the trust factor was not there. At that point, anything "Clinton" was mud, including those associated with him.

Republicans in Ohio were on a roll at that point, collecting Senate and House seats even as all of their factories closed and their jobs outsourced.

I'm just saying lessen the risk. It doesn't absolutely HAVE to be Hillary.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

60. If anything, that makes your view lest reliable, not more

Because it increases the temptation to substitute anecdote for statistical evidence, and reduces your ability to be objective.

Anecdotal evidence is worthless.

Your personal experience is worthless, (unless that experience is of taking a professional-standard poll with a scientific method and hundreds of respondents).

Statistical evidence is the only kind with any valid predictive power.

And living somewhere doesn't help you aquire that.

[TheFarseer]

53. thanks for the thoughtful analysis

I think you are correct. I know none of our candidates have a chance of winning Nebraska but I think Hillary won't even crack 30% here. I think we will be uncompetitive in house and senate races because she'll get every nutcase in the state to come out and vote against her.

[HughBeaumont]

54. When Thomas Frank wrote "What's the Matter With Kansas" . . .

You could write the same damned thing about Ohio. If there's anything us Ohioans know, it's that conventional wisdom often doesn't work well here - at all.

Ohio loses jobs by the metric ton, yet throughout the 90s and 00s, people in this state still elected idiot free-trade loving corporate mouthpieces like Mike DeWine and George Voinovich as their senators. Taft was possibly the most corrupt governor in the state's history, yet they re-elected his inept ass. And this collective state still believed the whole "Main of Gawd" BS about Bewsh - enough to put him in office, twice. Or at least made it close enough to steal. This despite Ohio's reservist battalions losing hundreds of soldiers in Bewsh's Failed War of Choice.

I think it all comes down to a quote I heard on Sicko: "An educated, healthy and confident nation is harder to govern." Well, one would think "Scared and pessimistic" would seem like a good reason to vote in your best interesets . . . until you mix a whole lotta DUMB in there.

Then, your results become that map just above. :(

[sampsonblk]

61. Ohio and probably 2 or three others

Prepare to be surprised. She is very good at campaigning.