TPM Cafe: Hillary thinks she can "win a bunch more states than Kerry"

[flpoljunkie]

http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2006/dec/06/report_hillary_thinks_she_can_win_a_bunch_more_states_than_kerry

By Greg Sargent

According to a Dem Congressman who had a private discussion with Senator Hillary Clinton about her impending Presidential run, Hillary thinks she can win a "bunch" more states in 2008 than John Kerry did in 2004, today's New York Observer reports. The Congressman, Eliot Engel, spelled out the conversation with Hillary in an interview with the paper:

Hillary Clinton called Representative Eliot Engel on Monday morning to ask him to support her potential candidacy for President of the United States.

“She essentially asked me if she were to do this, she would hope that she would have my support,” said Mr. Engel. “I told her she would.”

In a half-hour conversation, the two asked after each other’s spouses, joked about taking full Spanish-immersion lessons together and reminisced about thrashing their primary opponents in this year’s election.

Then Mrs. Clinton laid it out for him.

“She told me that if she did this, she thought that there were a number of states she could win,” said Mr. Engel. “She could win all the Kerry states plus a bunch of other states. We talked a bit about Ohio and Florida.”

[The Count]

1. Earth to Hillary: Kerry DID win those states! "THIS TIME, all votes shall be counted"

Edwards foolishly dissing Gore in 2004 before folding and shutting up about the whole damn thing....

[venable]

7. what do you mean

Edwards dissing Gore and folding?

I don't understand. Seriously.

[The Count]

29. When he said "THIS TIME" they'd be counted - he implied he'd outdo Gore.

Then he went home. Just pointing out repeats of history. Of course, Kerry's crying over teacups quote fits just as well. I am tired of all that poetic justice.

[venable]

37. I don't think the 'this time'

is a diss at Gore. It's a diss at the opposition to 'counting the votes'.

Gore took it to the Supreme Court. Can't do more that that. Edwards would know that.

[The Count]

38. "This time , every vote will be counted" - was a demagogic posturing, turned

into famous last words. It certainly was a reference to 2000, and not flattering to Gore.

[venable]

42. oh, please

that is an incredibly inaccurate description of a moment. harsh and unfair.

think, for just a bit, about that moment: a crowd of several thousand has been waiting for hours in the rain. it is cold. they won't leave. it is 2 am. the results look bad. in fact, the election has been called for w. the election tabulations stink to high heaven because they contradict the exit polls dramatically. the crowd won't leave. it is rainy and cold. they don't want to let go. the polls stink. what to do? you must be honest: go out and make a promise that all their hard work may have come to naught, but only when it is determined that truthfully, factually, mathematically, legally, and accurately all the votes will be counted. this statement has nothing to do with Gore. One could only construe this as a swipe at Gore if they were very paranoid about how Gore is treated.

It has to do only with this election.

IF IT SPEAKS TO ANYTHING ELSE, it speaks to Republicans. This is so obvious I am not sure why I'm even having to type these words.

Please read this: I said it in the previous post, and I say it again, please read: THERE IS NOTHING MORE GORE COULD HAVE DONE. EVERYONE KNOWS THAT. NOBDOY IN THE WORLD BLAMES THE SUPREME COURT DECISION ON AL GORE.

Come on, now.

[The Count]

46. A lot of people blame Gore for not doing more (what? I dunno)

Maybe less today than in 2004, after true defeatism was illustrated.

[chimpymustgo]

47. But don't transfer that inaccurate slam to Edwards. It just ain't so.

So stop, already.

[The Count]

50. Okey-dokey. Edwards did count all the votes...is that what you want said?

:shrug:
because I still say Kerry won in 2004.

[KingFlorez]

2. I think she could win them too

Perhaps even Colorado, New Mexico and Iowa as well. The climate is shifting and 2008 will be very different than 2004.

[paulk]

3. Kerry probably also thinks that HE could win a bunch of other

states, too. I expect everybody considering a run thinks that.

Or they wouldn't be running.

[David Dunham]

5. Kerry if he runs will be a dead man walking.

[paulk]

8. nice, substantive post there

I mean, really - if you've got nothing to say, why even make the effort?

[rinsd]

9. Good point (nt)

[GreenArrow]

4. well, why not?

I didn't think she could win in New York, thought there was no way. I was wrong. Could she win a National race? I wouldn't rule it out. She could win New Mexico, Iowa, Nevada, maybe Colorado, maybe Ohio, just to name a few that were lost last time.

But she's not a candidate I could get behind.

[vogon]

10. Why did you think she would not win New York?

This is a state where Gore beat Bush by 25% in 2000 without even campaigning there.

It's no big deal that Hillary could win in New York. Why didn't she try in Arkansas where her husband had a 63% unfavorable rating in 2000?

[GreenArrow]

17. her first election, not her re-election last month

I didn't think she could win because she would likely come off as a carpetbagger. Apparently, she made a good enough impression on the voters up there that they sent her to office.

[Eric J in MN]

15. She'll probably win states Kerry lost, but also lose states Kerry won.

Wisconsin, for example, isn't in the bag for the next Democratic presidential candidate just because Kerry narrowly won it.

[GreenArrow]

19. very little's in the bag

but I think Hillary could take Wisconsin.

Then again, I'd rather not find out.

[wisteria]

6. She could lose them all too. n/t

[AtomicKitten]

11. this might happen

[Clark2008]

31. Snort...

:spray:

[WildEyedLiberal]

12. I think more or less any Dem could win more states than in 2004

The mood of the country is drastically different. People didn't pay attention, got wrapped up in the flag and yellow ribbons and allowed themselves to be bamboozled by the single biggest propaganda effort our country has ever seen. In fact, I'd venture to say that if Hillary Clinton had run in 2004 she would have won far FEWER states than Kerry did - and that's the only kind of comparison that matters. Anything else is simply bloviating.

But I would be willing to bet cash money that Hillary Clinton would not be capable of winning Florida, either in 2004 or 2008.

[AtomicKitten]

13. Nope, I'm pretty sure

this is bloviating too:

"In fact, I'd venture to say that if Hillary Clinton had run in 2004 she would have won far FEWER states than Kerry did - and that's the only kind of comparison that matters.

Anything else is simply bloviating."

[WildEyedLiberal]

24. Any "predictions" about 2008 or alternate scenarios of 2004 are "bloviating"

Because no one knows for sure, do they? I expressed my opinion, which is every bit as valid as Hillary's prognosticating, since neither can be confirmed by real world events. My opinion is worth as much and as little as the rest of the prediction garbage on this website.

[Eric J in MN]

14. I don't think Hillary Clinton can win Florida.

And I don't think sinking a lot of money into Florida would help her.

[ElizabethDC]

20. As a Floridian, I'm doubtful that any Dem will win there in '08

Regrettably, the Republicans have made more and more gains in each of the last few elections in Florida. I don't think any Democratic presidential candidate can count on getting those electoral votes in '08. That said, I don't think it's a totally lost cause just yet, but it doesn't look good.

[PeaceProgProsp]

16. She saw the SurveyUSA poll which shows that she can.

[Eric J in MN]

18. Against whom? NT

NT

[skipos]

25. McCain thumps her on SUSA. She has 45+% of the U.S. already commited to voting against her.

[SOS]

40. Quinnipiac and Marist say she loses

In the Quinnipiac University poll's previously reported trial heats in Florida, perhaps the nation's most important swing state in a presidential election, Sen. Clinton has also trailed the equally well-known Sen. John McCain of Arizona and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani. In a May 24 survey, Sen. Clinton trailed McCain 48 - 42 percent, and Giuliani 49 - 42 percent.

"Within the Democratic Party, there are some who argue that Sen. Clinton might have difficulty winning a general election. These results might give support to those voices," said Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1297.xml?ReleaseID=918

Polling shows McCain with a consistent single-digit edge over Clinton in hypothetical 2008 match-ups. A Marist/WNBC survey conducted in mid-September showed McCain at 49 percent and Clinton at 42 percent.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2006/10/mccain_vs_hillary_part_one_of.html

[Doctor_J]

21. With the way the Senate behaved during Gates' confirmation, and

with Mitt Radio about to reclaim a monopoly on the airwaves, there won't be much of anything left of the Democratic Party by 2008.

[fujiyama]

22. I seriously doubt she could win

PA, WI, and even MI if she were up against say, McCain...

And I have no reason to believe she'd win OH, which is usually more conservative than PA.

Granted, things are different now and the margins Dems won some of those states are much different than '04, but for all people dismiss McCain for being the Bushie hack he is, the media will still falsely claim he is a "maverick" and a "moderate".

[Clarkie1]

23. Regardless, Clark will win more than either. nt

[mtnsnake]

26. That's what I like. Confidence. Without it, you're a goner. She's got it, eh.

:smoke:

[IndianaGreen]

27. She is as delusional as Bush!

Hillary will carry less states than Gore or Kerry, both of which won their respective elections had there not been electoral shenanigans by GOP.

[Redneck Socialist]

28. Hillary would win three states tops...

maybe five.

California, New York, Massachusetts and maybe Connecticut and Rhode Island. That's about it.

[Le Taz Hot]

49. Caifornia????

OH, I highly doubt that. The progressives and liberals can't stand her and she will have no grassroots save for the party faithful who would campaign for satan if their State Democratic Chair (Art Torres) ordered them to do so. Really, she has virtually NO base here. If she is the nominee, and you read it here first boys and girls, California will go Red in 2008.

[Clark2008]

30. Bahahahahahahaha!

Wait... wait...

Bahahahahahahaha! :rofl:

No... seriously...

Bahahahahahahaha! :rofl: :rofl:

Sorry... I can't stop laughing at the thought that Hillary would pick up even ONE red state, much less "a bunch more."

Bahahahahahahaha! Sniff...sniff.

[zulchzulu]

32. Mrs. Clinton is sure to be VERY popular in the South

So popular indeed! They will all find their way out of their homes to make sure they get out the vote....and vote for whoever she is running against.

[Clark2008]

36. Don't forget the Great Plains States!

More red than the South... or the Devil!

[antiimperialist]

44. I disagree

Clinton would probably win Arkansas and Florida in the South, only.

[Lipton64]

33. Apparently she still thinks it's 96'.....

but controlling your husband by squeezing his balls to the point of extreme pain to do your will isn't exactly the same thing as being president any more.

[SmellsLikeDeanSpirit]

34. Hillary would get creamed against McCain. McCain would be past the 350's in EV.

The only Repug, Hillary could beat would be Newt or Brownback. I imagine a Hillary/McCain race to be like this....

Popular Vote
McCain 53%
Hillary 46%
Other 1%

Electoral College
McCain 359
Hillary 179

Only states Hillary wins are: Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, DC, Delaware, Illinois, California, Washington, and Hawaii.

[antiimperialist]

45. Obama would fare no better

He's as liberal as Hil is, plus he's half black, and many Southerners are racist.

[SmellsLikeDeanSpirit]

48. I don't expect any democrat to do good in the south on the presidential level.

The real bread and butter is the southwest. Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, and Arizona. However if McCain is the nominee you can just right off the southwest too. If this happens, its down to the old favorites Florida and Ohio.

[robcon]

35. Hillary is the best campaigner I know of.

She'll win, IMO, in the general election.

[Clark2008]

39. That doesn't mean squat.

You can be the Barnum & Bailey of campaigners, but, if your persona has been vilified for 15 years, then it's not going to do you any good. People simply don't like or trust Hillary Clinton: Democrats, Republicans and Independents.

Deserved or not, Hillary is considered a flat speaker, a dowdy woman on the one hand, but a "flaming librul" hothead on the other. She's not well liked in the so-called Heartland, and that's where we need to pick up votes in order to win.

Like it or not, the Dems HAVE to play to the South and the mid-West to win. HAVE TO.

[Timmy5835]

41. It's a moot point

Clinton has little liberal and moderate support. She will win very few states.

[antiimperialist]

43. McCain would be hard to beat

Because voters have been mislead to think that he's some sort of independent moderate who is not an imperialist elitist neocon.