Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Why does Hillary want to copy John Kerry's losing 2004 electoral strategy?

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
 
George_Bonanza Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 05:32 PM
Original message
Why does Hillary want to copy John Kerry's losing 2004 electoral strategy?
From the way Hillary talks, it seems like she wants to relive the 2004 election where the Blue states stayed Blue, the Red states stayed Red, and only the Purple states mattered. Is she so confident that Ohio or Florida will go Democratic? Is she willing to put all her eggs into the Diebold basket? I don't know about you, but I don't want to bet the country's future on the cleanness of elections in Ohio or Florida.

Wake up people. This is a LOSING strategy: it didn't work in 2000, and it didn't work in 2004. Obama's 50-state strategy may be untested, but at least it's a new way. Trying to rehash an old broken formula and expecting it to magically deliver is insanity. I'm just so frustrated that Hillary has learned nothing from 2004: Democrats will never out-macho the Republicans in the Al-Qaeda Age, even if it's a Vietnam vet against a draft dodger. If Kerry couldn't get the better of Bush, how's a former First Lady going to strong-arm a former Vietnam POW with decades of experience? We can't play the Republican game; we need somebody to set new rules, and only Obama can do that. Even if we lose, it'll change the direction of the Democratic party and lead us on our own path, not just playing by the Republican rules.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Debi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 05:33 PM
Response to Original message
1. Terry Mc's 17 state strategy!
Those other states DON'T COUNT :bounce:

:banghead:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sniffa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 06:43 PM
Response to Reply #1
11. 17 state strategy won once or twice
We need to keep going in this vein.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Exilednight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 08:29 PM
Response to Reply #11
18. It won once with Bill's second win. The first time he carried more states and used a 50 state ....
strategy. In his first win he carried MT, CO, GA, none of which he carried in red state strategy of '96.

The other problem is that it lost us control of the Congress since it doesn't defend blue Congressional seats in red states. It was the first time in 40 years that 1 of the 2 houses of Congress was not controlled by dems.

Dean changed that this last election cycle by employing the 50 state strategy against the will of the DLC. Even though the DLC hamstrung him, he still managed to put together a limited 50 state strategy that helped us recapture control of Congress.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 06:46 PM
Response to Reply #1
12. EXACTLY. Kerry was STUCK with McAuliffe's DNC. A 50-state strategy takes a 4yr COMMITMENT from DNC
Edited on Sat Mar-08-08 06:47 PM by blm
and constant rebuilding of the party state by state.

George is wrong when he calls it Kerry's strategy. ANY nominee would have been stuck with the weakened party infrastructures in all the states ignored by the DNC since the mid90s when they were left to collapse for 2000 and 2002 and 2004.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EmperorHasNoClothes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 05:35 PM
Response to Original message
2. It's just more proof how unoriginal her thoughts are
She's not a revolutionary candidate in the way Obama is. She's pretty much just more of the same, in a yellow pant suit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
XemaSab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 05:36 PM
Response to Original message
3. 'Cause she's a loser?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DJ13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 05:39 PM
Response to Original message
4. All those who look back and think Bill was a great campaigner forget
Bill NEVER won a GE with majority.

Never.

The Clintons are failures at GE's.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
democrattotheend Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 06:03 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. That's a really good point
I do forget that a lot. Thanks for reminding me!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 05:43 PM
Response to Original message
5. Yeah. Let's pour HUGE resources into states we'll never win.
The idea of spending a proportional amount of money based on the probability of winning is so offensive to you guys. I don't think Obama will be so stupid as to put huge resources into states he won't win in the GE.

He's running a "50 state" strategy right now because it was his only way to get any kind of share of delegates when HRC dominated all the big states. He will not try that same strategy in Nov.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrreowwr_kittty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 05:53 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Of course not. But some of those states, like NV, NM, and CO are winnable
Obama could pick them up and we wouldn't need to worry about OH or FL so much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
johnnydrama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 06:36 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. why not?
He'll out spend McCain 3-1 at least. Why not throw some money at a few of these states.

Maybe not the states he's trailing by 20+, but there are some typical R states that he's not too far back in.

Like Alaska, or North Carolina or South Carolina.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dansolo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 06:49 PM
Response to Reply #5
14. What about the coattails
Obama's strategy may allow us to pick up seats in Congress. That could be the difference between sweeping changes and more gridlock.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 08:15 PM
Response to Reply #14
17. Maybe. But the presidency is far more important: SCOTUS.
Congress changes every 2 years. If McCain wins, thats 20 years of an archconservative SCOTUS. You can only begin to imagine what will happen then.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Exilednight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 08:30 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. All SCOTUS nominations have to go through Congress.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Voice for Peace Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #14
44. Seats in Congress -- very important point when it comes to real change. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 06:52 PM
Response to Reply #5
16. Except Clinton's DNC from 1996-2004 let crucial SWING STATES like Ohio and Florida collapse
and New Mexico and Iowa and North Carolina.

All those states would have had much more valid vote counts had party infrastructure in those states been a point of concern for the national party.

You can't snow those of us who have been paying attention all these years as crucial states were ALLOWED to collapse by the DNC who sat on their hands and LET the RNC gain control of every level of the election process where the votes are allowed, cast and counted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KittyWampus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 08:31 PM
Response to Reply #5
20. forcing GOP to spend money EVERYWHERES is part of beating them nationwide.
Edited on Sat Mar-08-08 08:32 PM by cryingshame
building infrastructure and grassroots in all 50 states helps Democrats counter Election fraud and win for dogcatcher.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mooney Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 11:38 AM
Response to Reply #5
36. "States he won't win in the GE" is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
The only candidate who's guaranteed to lose those states is the one who refuses to campaign there. While it's true that Obama (or any Dem) will not win a lot of these states, we have to stop conceding them in election after election. It's a losing strategy that loses elections in the short term and alienates entire states in the long term.

I'm very happy we're wasting our money in these states. We as a party have failed to reach these people, and that needs to be addressed if we're going to have any kind of real national presence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cottonseed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 06:41 PM
Response to Original message
9. Hillary Clinton, "Ready for Duty".
The way she's sucking up to McCain you'd think she believes that she'll be running as a war hero in the GE.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jillian Donating Member (577 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 06:42 PM
Response to Original message
10. Like Wyoming? Do you think the Dems are going to win Wy in the GE?
Maybe you better lay off of that kool-aide.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheDonkey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 10:05 PM
Response to Reply #10
27. No but we have a chance at mountain states like CO
mayb
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
George_Bonanza Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 10:08 PM
Response to Reply #10
28. It's not only about winning
It's about spreading the Republicans thin. Look, if the race comes down to money, then Obama will easily trump McCain. If Obama can scare the Republicans enough in their supposed strongholds, then that means less attention in the big swing states.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 06:48 PM
Response to Original message
13. You're going to get TROUNCED in November if you think Republicans are going to change their stripes
and vote for Obama.

Also, ironically -it was precisely the unwillingness to get down, dirty and mean that cost us the 2004 election.

The so called high road doesn't work -it never has, because in the end, most Americans (particularly in the swing states) want someone who'll stand up and fight -even if it's for something that they don't personally believe in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Exilednight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 08:32 PM
Response to Reply #13
21. Let the 527's sling the mud. That's why they exist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BenDavid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 06:51 PM
Response to Original message
15. HRC plays a hell of a lot better in the following states then kerry
would ever do.....Tenn.....Ark.......New Mexico......Nevada.......Ohio.....Florida......remember all hrc has to do is win the states gore did in 2000 and add 10 electoral votes and there my friends is the election, and hrc can win this thing......if hrc won ohio she wins the election...if hrc win florida she wins the election....hell even if she were to win tenn she wins the election without winning florida or ohio.....

See hrc has a better chance to win the whole damn thing......and we had this thing won until obama decided he had to jump in and "UNITE US" and look what he has accomplished.Made the whole damn thing about race......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Exilednight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 08:39 PM
Response to Reply #15
23. If Obama wins the nomination, and loses in the GE - it will be because of Hillary's attacks now....
If Hillary wins the nomination, and loses the GE - people will be hard pressed to point to something that Obama did to pin the blame on.

Hillary is spending all of her political capital in trying to win this nomination.

My guess - Hillary is slinging the mud now and hoping that she wins the nomination, but if she doesn't she will play the "I told you so" card after the election. One problem, there will be several people who will not forget this election cycle and remember all the rovian attacks on her fellow Democrats.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 11:37 AM
Response to Reply #23
34. Oh give me a break.
If you think Hillary attacked Obama, you haven't seen nothing yet, if he gets the nomination.
Do you seriously think republicans will seat around and be afraid to attack him, and Hillary's "attacks" are the worst?
LOL.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 11:38 AM
Response to Reply #23
35. Oh give me a break.
If you think Hillary attacked Obama, you haven't seen nothing yet, if he gets the nomination.
Do you seriously think republicans will seat around and be afraid to attack him, and Hillary's "attacks" are the worst?
LOL.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Horse with no Name Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 05:25 PM
Response to Reply #23
46. So you put an inexperienced candidate with a padded resume
up and THEN want to blame SOMEONE ELSE if he loses?
Only on DU. :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 11:32 AM
Response to Reply #15
32. BALONEY - had DNC secured the election process after 2000 Kerry would've won in a landslide.
Are you trying to claim Hillary would have won in 2000 or 2004?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gore1FL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 08:37 PM
Response to Original message
22. The same reason
she wants to Copy Mike Huckabee's nomination strategy... Complete idiots running her campaign.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 08:41 PM
Response to Original message
24. Ohio is now Democratic - and had that been so in 2004, Kerry likely would have won
2008 is MUCH EASIER for any Democrat. DU is unimpressed with Bush, but he had a solid half the country behind him in 2004.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #24
33. OH is democratic right now, and a right candidate could easily
win it.
FL probably a lost cause for both.
I do not think Obama could win OH.
Maybe that's why he has to concentrate on red states.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
George_Bonanza Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:58 PM
Response to Original message
25. Some Hillary supporters think Obama will lose NJ, while Hillary will win TN
Who's the wishfully delusional one here?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Medusa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:59 PM
Response to Original message
26. Because she's a leader!
and she wants to lead us to yet another Democratic loss.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Exilednight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 10:10 PM
Response to Reply #26
29. of only 17 states.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 10:11 PM
Response to Original message
30. it's the script ever since the coup of 2000
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Unbowed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 11:29 AM
Response to Original message
31. Time for Democrats to stop ignoring red states.
Maybe with a little attention, they won't stay red states. New Hampshire didn't. There are other states that are polling higher for Obama than McCain but these are states that Clinton is saying don't matter.
One thing is for sure, it you tell voters they don't matter, they are not going to vote for you.

Governor Dean and Barack Obama are smart enough to look to the future. Terry McAwful is just about the worst adviser ever.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mooney Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 11:44 AM
Response to Reply #31
38. Exactly.
If we won't even show up to campaign, then of course we're going to lose. Red state denizens consider the Democratic party to be full of big city elitists who marginalize them and ignore them. The 17-state strategy gives them no reason to believe otherwise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Unbowed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 12:14 PM
Response to Reply #38
40. And if we don't show up in red states, how will they know that democrats are not
anything like the lies and stereotypes they have been fed by republicans for years?

And with the republican president at 19% approval, we Democrats have a great opening to press our case in red states. We need to offer these disenfranchised voters a viable choice, let them see what democrats are really about and what we have to offer.

Obama has been doing this and he's surprised a lot of people.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mooney Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 12:18 PM
Response to Reply #40
41. I agree with you that there's finally an opening
with Bush's approval ratings so low. If we don't take advantage of it and try to make a case to voters in areas that we always lose, then we deserve to lose. There's a rare opportunity here, and we'd be stupid not to try and capitalize on it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Unbowed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 12:32 PM
Response to Reply #41
42. You sum it up nicely with those two words: rare opportunity. That's it exactly! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mooney Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 12:47 PM
Response to Reply #42
43. I can't remember the last time we had this kind of opportunity
to make inroads with Republican voters. It would be tragic to throw it away.

I am convinced that a lot of why they don't vote for us is because they don't know what we stand for, and the case doesn't get made to them that every time they vote Republican, they're voting against their own interests. We are the ones who have to make this case. We can do it too, but it needs to be made every year at the local level and the state level.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VolcanoJen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 11:40 AM
Response to Original message
37. Clinton's "Insult 40 States Strategy" will be even more disatrous in November than Kerry's.
It's depressing as hell.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 05:23 PM
Response to Reply #37
45. Kerry was STUCK with the DNC's decade long targeted state sytrategy that collapsed
state party infrastructures in too many states including Florida and Ohio.

The nominee is forced to tap into the Dem party infrastructure that EXISTS in each state when he becomes the nominee. That is set up in the four years of the DNC chair's stewardship.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 11:48 AM
Response to Original message
39. "I was for it before I was against it"
She'll repeat that losing number too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Aug 29th 2014, 01:33 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

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