She don't mean a thing 'cause she ain't got that swing
If the Democrats want to win the White House, they're going to need to win swing states like Ohio and Missouri. And guess what: Hillary can't do it.
| Posted at 1:43 PM | Permalink |
|
About
This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on September 23, 2007 1:43 PM.
The previous post in this blog was Mum's the word.
The next post in this blog is More on Friday night's east side MAX riot.
Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.
Comments (7)
If, and I do mean IF, it comes to the big three... I choose and will vote for Edwards..but Gravel is my first choice, and he ain't got a chance.
So sad that the Bush dogs are so in control and true dimmos are lost to the big money corporate masters.
On the home front is Merkley wins he will be another Bush dog.
I wonder how much Mexican money is being poured into this election?
Posted by KISS | September 23, 2007 3:33 PM
Leaving the Show Me State, up past Hannibal, up the Ohio, up the Wabash, up the Tippecanoe, overland to Cleveland -- where Kucinich is a Buckeye's favorite son. Show us his numbers, why don't they?
Posted by Tenskwatawa | September 23, 2007 3:47 PM
That's a rash conclusion to reach based on two remarkably close polls--so close, in fact, that many of the matchups yield results within the margin of error of 4.3% points.
Plus, another poll by a different outfit less than two weeks ago had Clinton the only one of the three major Democratic candidates with a statistically significant lead over Giuliani.
And in Florida, the latest poll has Clinton ahead of Edwards and Obama vs. Giuliani (she's tied, 44-44, Edwards loses 46-42, Obama loses 46-37).
I'd be happy with Edwards as the nominee, but I do suspect Clinton would run the strongest general-election campaign, despite all the baggage she carries. If you saw her make the run of the Sunday chats this morning you saw an amazingly disciplined, focused candidate.
Posted by Pete | September 23, 2007 5:48 PM
Wasn't Kerry an "amazingly disciplined, focused candidate" - you know...the more "intellectual" before he actually had to campaign?
Seems to me that the Democrats are not learning from their mistakes. Last time, they went with the candidate who was the most 'electable'. Maybe they should stick with principle for a change. The people might just surprise you.
Posted by butch | September 23, 2007 5:58 PM
Wasn't Kerry an "amazingly disciplined, focused candidate" - you know...the more "intellectual" before he actually had to campaign?
Oh, God, no, I certainly didn't see Kerry that way in fall 2003, or at any point during the Democratic campaign. And I don't think many other people did. He may have been cast by dimwit pundits as "sober" or "serious" when they decided to make Dean out to be some kind of weirdo, but was Kerry viewed as shrewd and skilled in the way Hillary Clinton now is? Not even close.
Anyway, my point wasn't to suggest that Clinton (or anyone) should or shouldn't be nominated based on the perception that she or he is most electable; that appears to be Jack's position. In fact, my point is that reading much into polls right now is a fool's game.
Posted by Pete | September 23, 2007 6:43 PM
Reagan/Bush, Reagan/Bush, Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush... Clinton?
Yeah. Think I'll pass.
Posted by Alan DeWitt | September 23, 2007 7:51 PM
reading "She don't mean a thing 'cause she ain't got that swing" I immediately thought "Doo-ah doo-ah" So in the spirit of the "tram" (rimshoot) May I humbly submit for your consideration:
Hillary (Doo-ah doo-ah)
or just Hillary (Doo-ah)
Posted by dman | September 24, 2007 10:30 AM