Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: AzaleaCity5691
It's hard to predict the dynamics of 2008 this far in advance, but on the Democrat side it could be effectively like 1996--Hillary essentially in the position of an incumbent running for re-election, because of the Clintons' access to money. The Soros types might be tempted to fund a more openly leftist candidate like Feingold, but the main goal is to win, and someone like Feingold may be seen as a loser in the general election.

The Democrats can write off the South, like the Republicans used to. They very nearly won an electoral college majority in 2000 and 2004 with no Southern states...winning New Hampshire in 2000 (which Bush carried by 7,000 votes) would have given Gore the magic number of 270 electoral votes.

21 posted on 05/14/2006 10:39:36 AM PDT by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]


To: Verginius Rufus

Actually, they can't write off the South. Since Arkansas became a state, never, and I mean never, has a Democrat been elected President without winning Arkansas. Hillary was never popular in that state, because while for everything else, Bill was one of them, Hillary never was, and she could never act like she was. Bill's popularity in his gubernatorial days hinged on keeping his wife in line, which he did fairly well from 1983 on.

The reason I think that they do nominate a Southerner is because they're not writing off the South, they want Arkansas, they want West Virginia (if Kerry had won just those two states, he'd be Presidents), etc. I suspect Kerry only won New Hampshire because he was, in spite of all else, a New Englander.


24 posted on 05/14/2006 10:57:30 AM PDT by AzaleaCity5691 (The enemy lies in the heart of Gadsden)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson