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 #23: Uh no... [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
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-23-07 10:36 PM
Response to Reply #19
23. Uh no...
Perot had no effect on the outcome in either 92 or 96...exit polls clearly showed that Perot voters would have nearly split their votes between Bush and Clinton. Possibly one state would have shifted to Bush, nowhere near enough to change the outcome. He had even less effect in 1996

Hillary ran against two weak candidates. Yes this is true, and why do you think the Republicans could not find anyone stronger willing to take her on? Because they knew she would lose. Guiliani ducked a confrontation with her, and by 2006 the machine Hillary, Spitzer, and Schumer had built has nearly decimated the Republican Party in New York...

"But now she is, where half the country or more is sick of the Clintons and/or HATE Hillary. "

Wrong again, polling clearly shows Bill Clinton continues to be the most popular Democrat in the country, and Hillary's negatives are about where any general election candidate ends up...and lets be frank, Hillary is like a general election candidate having been subject to attack for 15 years...and as I have pointed out, she is polling ahead of all Republican candidates, and right now would switch between 3 and 8 previously red states...

Look here... http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=10&year=2007&base_name=how_polarizing_is_hillary

And of course the Republicans are going to attack...they would attack any candidate that we put up. As you point out they smeared Kerry into losing. Sorry, but Kerry was inept at dealing with it...Hillary clearly is not...

"'The Clintons.' Just part of your reasoning is why Hillary will not win, and why people are sick of them. They dont want a 2 for 1 deal here. In the eyes of many voters, that shows a weakness of Hillary, that she needs a co-president."

Show me any evidence this is true...in fact just the opposite is the case...most people believe Bill will be an asset to Hillary. And far from being viewed as being weak, she consistently is seen as the strongest of the candidates...

I live in Virginia...where Hillary is outpolling all Republican candidates...and I hear quite a positive buzz about her here...


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | 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