Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Hillary's SEVERE coattails problem.

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
 
RBInMaine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 08:52 PM
Original message
Hillary's SEVERE coattails problem.
OK Hillary fans, here is a serious question I have to ask and I want HONESTY (and thoughtful answers please - no silliness).
Whom do you truely think has the best NATIONAL coattails in the general election: Hillary or Barack? Remember, be HONEST now. You see, here
is where you go so wrong with your logic. First, EITHER Hillary or Barack would win the larger blue-leaning states no matter who wins them in the primary. However, given that HALF the country essentially distains Hillary (incontrovertable - just read ANY polling data you like for the last year), our DOWN-TICKET candidates in the "red" and "purple" states are cringing at the thought of a Hillary nomination. Trust me. Some will refuse to be seen with her. However, and remember this too, as much as Hillary writes off these states which Obama has won so handily in this primary, THERE ARE DEMOCRATS IN THEM from Governor on down. This is NOT just a Presidential election. It is a NATIONAL election with a chance to Dems in state legislatures, governorships, congress, and hell, even schoolboards and city councils. Obama is the best candidate in the BIG picture. This is why his overwhelming wins in so many more red states, especially west of the Mississippi River, are so important. It's a no-brainer. And this is why Hillary's scorched Earth tactics are so additionally damaging. She is hurting the whole party. The days of the 20-state strategy need to END once and for all.
GO DEAN and GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO BIG-O.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 08:55 PM
Response to Original message
1. A survey of the 2008 Dem contenders in various races shows they strongly prefer Obama.
Edited on Sun Mar-09-08 08:55 PM by AtomicKitten
This was discussed on Washington Journal this A.M. They KNOW Obama has capacious coattails and that is PRECISELY how we cobble together a cohesive majority in Congress.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kittycat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 08:56 PM
Response to Original message
2. It's not just the red/purple states - but Districts... IL-14 is a great example.
IL is a blue state, but our district is decidedly red. For the first time in decades, we flipped Hastert's old seat to Blue in our Special Election on Saturday. We have to RETAIN that seat this fall, and I have to admit - I'm concerned given that we won it by 4pts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
billbuckhead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 09:10 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. BS, Obama will lose battleground states and put California into play
While working class whites and Hispanics vote for McCain to protest Hillary's opponent being imposed on them by party elites, they may linger for other GOP candidates.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RBInMaine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 09:28 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. You're full of it. He is winning ELECTED delegates, fair and square !
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pinkpops Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 09:28 PM
Response to Reply #3
9. Would you mind stating what you mean by party elite in this context?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 09:28 PM
Response to Reply #3
10. I'm sure you have proof for this assertion, right? I'll wait right here while you post a link.
n/t.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KAZ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 09:41 PM
Response to Reply #3
14. You just ignored the post you replied to Hillybuckhead.
Edited on Sun Mar-09-08 09:41 PM by KAZ
Obama's commercial in this market was a breath of fresh air. Foster benefited big time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Olney Blue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 09:17 PM
Response to Original message
4. I don't know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
C_U_L8R Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 09:25 PM
Response to Original message
5. Historically, the Clintons have no coattails at all
not too good if you want to keep Congress and affect the Supreme Court
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pinkpops Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 09:30 PM
Response to Reply #5
11. Im thinking it is hard to have coattails without a national strategy - that
is, If you only target traditionally democratic and swing states, the best you can do is a bare majority.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fujiyama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 09:40 PM
Response to Reply #5
13. If you look at the map in '92 it's pretty amazing
because while Perot took large %s, Clinton won states like MT and CO, states that Hillary will likely write off almost immediately.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Johnny__Motown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 09:26 PM
Response to Original message
6. Another reason the SD tend to go to Obama
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeyondGeography Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 09:27 PM
Response to Original message
7. Harwood was pushing this angle hard on MTP today
and he only knows what he is told. There is obviously a lot of talk in the Party about how much better Obama does for those down-ticket.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fujiyama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 09:37 PM
Response to Original message
12. Her thinking is outdated
Edited on Sun Mar-09-08 09:42 PM by fujiyama
and very shortsighted. It's as though she's running to be "President of the Swing States of Election Years".

The fifty state strategy is vital to building the party from the ground up. That's why we won legislatures in Montana and other "red" states. It's also why BOTH senate seats are Dem held. The same goes with the Dakotas. We have Dems in both Senate delegations.

Now of course resources are limited and as it approaches election season, certain races will receive more attention than others. Obama isn't stupid. He's not going to throw millions into Alaska if polls show him down by double digits.

But isn't it important for someone running for president to at least try to appeal to all people rather than dismiss their vote before hand? There are democrats in these places and they actually fight the toughest battles convincing their neighbors they're not unpatriotic or whatever else the RWers try feeding them. When asked about Obama's victories, Hillary simply replied that "we're not going to win those states anyways". I expect the thinking from political pundits, but it stuns me that a person running for PRESIDENT would be blunt enough to just dismiss out of hand certain states or even parts of the country.

The irony is that is NOT how Bill won in '92. He won GA and LA, and while he certainly got help from Perot, he did very well everywhere. It looks like over the years, they became too damn cynical and forgot about why they're even trying to win.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RBInMaine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 09:43 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. Completely agree except a few points as to Bill in1992.
Actually, there is little doubt Bill would have won even without Perot had it been a two-candidate contest.
And, many studies show he Perot drew evenly from Bill and Bush-1 making it a wash. Some even show Perot helping Bush-1 a little in that race given that some "change" oriented I's and moderate R's who voted for Perot would have gone to Clinton.

Also, Bill won Georgia in '92 and I think also KY, WV, and TN.

All said, that's the past. GO OBAMA in '08 !!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RBInMaine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 09:46 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. Sorry, I meant...
to say that some of the studies showed that Perot drew more Clinton-leaning I's than Bush-leaning I's in '92. Oh well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fujiyama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 09:47 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. You sure that Perot took more from Clinton supporters?
Edited on Sun Mar-09-08 09:49 PM by fujiyama
I think they slightly leaned toward Bush, but then again that was a STRONG anti-incumbent election. Bush was going down regardless. Though I think Perot tipped a few states Clinton's way - MT and GA are two...

But he did run a campaign appealing to ALL Americans...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hart2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-10-08 07:11 PM
Response to Original message
18. If Hillary doesn't have coattails, then why does she wear those long pantsuits all the time? n/t
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 Wed Apr 24th 2024, 10:21 AM
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