Posted on 10/21/2001 6:22:06 PM PDT by Dan from Michigan
Many freepers are scared to death of Hillary becoming president. I'll say this. There is no way in hell, NONE, that Hillary can win in 2004 as long as the Electoral College is around. I don't know how the 9/11 bombing will effect anything, but even pre-bombing, she couldn't do it. On the same note, Edwards can do it.
Looking at by region.
Northeast
There are 25 swing votes, 1 vote that leans dem, and 78 solid dem votes here.
Vermont, Mass, Rhode Island, Connecticutt, New York, New Jersey, and Delaware are all solid dem in presidential elections. Only the worst of the dem candidates would lose one of those seats. 78 votes.
Maine - 1 vote here could swing(leans dem), but the state itself is solid dem, as well as one of the two districts. - 1 vote.
Pennsylvania - This state is a swing state. It all depends on Philly and Pitt turnout against the rural areas which way it goes. If Philly vote frauds like before, it's Dem. If enough GOP'ers vote there, it could go GOP. The GOP imo NEEDS this state in 2004. There are a lot of blue collar pro-lifers and NRA supporters here. 21 votes.
South/Border States
64 votes Solid GOP, 36 votes lean GOP, 68 Swing, 5 leans dem, 13 Solid Dem.
The solid dem votes are Washington DC and Maryland. 13 votes.
The Solid GOP vote is South Carolina, Bama, Mississippi, Texas, and Oklahoma. 64 votes.
The Rest:
Virginia - Leans GOP. I almost put this in solid GOP, but this state was 52% for Bush I believe. North VA is very liberal. The governor's race is important here. Guns and THE MILITARY are issues here as well. A STRONG dem could put this state in play, but unless Bush turns into Hoover, he'll win VA. Some Hillary type can write off VA. 13 votes
Georgia - Leans GOP. This is a dem state statewide, but not when it comes to presidential elections. I think it is slowly moving to the right. Atlanta area is liberal, but I think it is another Virginia now. 15 votes
Kentucky - Leans GOP. This state IMO had been moving right. Klinton won it twice, but Bush did well here. It's moving toward another Indiana. GUNS are bigger here than most states. HCI gave KY an F-, and Scotty Baesler was shown the door. 8 votes.
West Virginia - Leans DEM. This state may have woken up. They still went dem in almost every election besides Reagan and Bush II. It all depends on cross vote by gun owners and pro-lifers. Conservative socially, but liberal economically. IMO, Bush got an upset here. 5 votes.
SWING STATES
North Carolina - 15 votes. This state did very well for Bush, but I put this state as a swing for one reason. JOHN EDWARDS.
Louisiana - 9 votes. This state is VERY conservative, but 30% is black, and New Orelens is liberal to the core.
Tennessee - 11 votes - This state is also conservative, but Clinton won it twice, and Sundquist is really looking bad on tax issues. Memphis is liberal as well. A strong dem could win. Gore was a phony.
Arkansas - 6 votes - Klinton's old state. Does the dem establishment still have it? I can't yet put this as solid GOP, not with Little Rock and Pine Bluff.
Florida - 27 votes. The swing state of swing states. GOP Panhandle, Jacksonville area and West Florida vs Palm Beach, Broward, Dade, Talahasee(sp), and Gainsville. Tampa area and Orlando area swing this either way.
Midwest
28 votes Solid GOP, 65 Swing votes, 32 votes lean dem. Indiana, the Dakotas, Kansas and Nebraska are solid GOP.
Illinois - 22 votes Dem lean. Chicago is the problem. Daley Machine. Rest of the state is conservative.
Minnesota - 10 votes. Dem Lean. This used to be solid dem, but Bush almost won it. St Paul/Minneapolis is the problem there, but this state IS winnable with a STRONG candidate.
Iowa - 7 votes. Swings. Moving slightly to the right, but still the home of Tom Harkin, and the Quad Cities still have a lot of pull. Winnable by either site as the last election shows.
Missouri - 11 votes - conservative state, but St Louis and KC are problems. The fraud wasn't enough last time.
Wisconsin - 10 votes - The problem - Madison and Millaukee. This state is conservative in rural areas. Could go either way.
Michigan - 17 votes - I almost put this as leans dem. Detroit, Flint, Southfield, and Ann Arbor are problems. Regional state. Many conservative dems in Monroe county, South Wayne, Macomb, and up North. Many RINO'es in Oakland. Out west is Solid Conservative. Ann Arbor is Commiefornia dem. Detroit, Flint, and Southfield are black.
Ohio - 20 votes - Slightly more conservative than Michigan, but similar story. Dayton, Cleveland, and Toledo are problems there. Easier for GOP to win though.
WEST
15 Solid GOP, 29 Swings.
Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, and Utah are solid GOP.
Colorado - 9 votes - Swings. Almost put as GOP lean, but the race was too close last election. It's Denver and Boulder vs the rest of the state. A lot of immigrants there as well lean dem in their voting. It would take a strong dem though to win this.
Nevada - 5 votes. Swings. similar to Colorado.
Arizona - 10 votes - This state is growing so fast with seniors and immigrants, it's hard to tell. I think this one is up for grabs.
New Mexico - 5 votes - Bush SHOULD have won this last time. Up for grabs.
PACIFIC
3 votes solid GOP, 73 votes lean dem, 4 votes solid dem.
Alaska is solid GOP, and Hawaii is solid dem.
Washington State 11 votes - Almost put as swing, but Seattle/Tacoma is very liberal and growing. It can be won by a strong GOP candidate.
Oregon - 7 votes Same as Washington State. Easier to win by GOP than Washington.
California. 55 votes - I almost put this as solid dem, but one thing stopped me. Gray Davis. If Davis loses, the GOP has a shot in 2004. If not, this is solid dem.
Overall.
110 Solid GOP, 36 lean GOP, 187 Swing, 111 leans dem, 95 Solid Dem. (I think I'm off by one on my numbers but can't find it).
Could Hillary keep her base, and then take 64 votes?
In the Northeast, there are 25, Penn and NH.
In the South, there are 68, Florida, Tenn, Kentucky, Louisiana, and Arkansas
In the Midwest, there are 65, Ohio, Mich, Iowa, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Missouri,
In the West, there are 29, Colorado, Nevada, Arizona, New Mex.
I think Hillary would have trouble taking ANY of those states.
Now Edwards? That's a different story.
She barely won the senate seat in New York despite the fact that it was being vacated by a fellow Democrat and her GOP challenger (Rick Lazio) was a virtual unknown who entered the race very late in the game, after Giuliani dropped out. Giuliani would have creamed her had he stayed in the race. But destiny had a different fate in mind for Giuliani. He was meant to be mayor of NYC at this time.
Based on the reaction Hillary got last night (from an audience of city workers), Hillary wouldn't get elected for any public office in new New York today.
Believe that ms. clinton will never allow Edwards to get the nomination in 2004 because that would block her for 2008! Just my opinion. I expect Sen Kerry of MA to be their nominee!
I think that it is quite possible that he is the person who leaked information about the war to the Washington Post. He is on the intelligence committee, and right before this happened he was all over the television posing as an "expert" on intelligence. Now he has disappeared. I also note that Senator Bayh backed President Bush on his clamping down on information (this was in The Indianapolis Star today.) Bayh is also a rival of Edwards. Ha!
IF we can somehow show that Edwards is an opportunist (which he is) and is careless wih secrets, he can be negated. Then we will have to worry about Bayh.
I pray to GOD that the US has wised up (especially since Clinton) to phony little preening pricks like Edwards.
N.C, TN, AK, VA( If Warner wins, this will be a battle ground), LA, and WV.
I think he's a viable VP candidate, though.
Of course, a lot will depend on how beatable Bush looks in November of 2003. If he looks like a lock, they might run Gore just to totally flush him down the toilet. That way he would have lost 2 elections and the Democrats would be free to run whomever they want in 2008 without any ghosts of Gore.
I think a dark horse is Joe Biden. His chances are hurt some if the GOP takes the Senate in 2002, but he has mucho seniority in the Senate (he was elected in 1972) regardless. He also was hurt by the plagiarism, but I don't know if anyone will remember or care about it.
John Kerry is the most out-in-the-open candidate, but the Dems have to win a Southern state, and I don't see how he could do that.
Another interesting thing is that Bush has the option of picking a new VP in 2004. It would not be surprising or shocking for Cheney to retire (as it would have been for Bush I to drop Quayle in 1992-- as was discussed some). That gives Bush the chance to totally neutralize the "we want change" independents in 2004. There are people that just like change and would gravitate (even if it's just a flirtation) to the party out of power. They like the excitement of it being "new." Bush could steal that thunder with a new VP (especially if he picked someone like Rice). If this occurs, electoral projections can really change.
If Kerry is it, I don't know what to expect.
My money is still on Roy Barnes, Georgia Governor. Governors become presidents.
Edwards I think will run. He'll have a tough re-election in NC, and I think may have an easier time running for the presidency, and running for senate.
I just hope Edwards fouls up.
How many people in this country would vote for a guy with a wart on his lip?
I hope you have some up and coming GOP'ers in NC. Edwards needs to be taken out.
These Empty suit, TRIAL LAWYER, slick haired, and fast talking RICH DLC Democraps REALLY PO me. I'll take 100 Boniors over 1 Edwards or 1 Waxman.
Never overestimate the intelligence of the public, as a man far wiser than me once pointed out.
BTW I don't understand Kerry either!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.