Posted on 06/10/2007 12:01:53 PM PDT by Clintonfatigued
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton continues to dominate her rivals in the early Southern Democratic primary states, but her high negatives and polarizing image likely will keep the South in the Republican column in 2008, according to strategists and analysts in the region.
Still, analysts who track political trends in the Sunbelt states say Republicans have been hurt by the party's divisive battle over immigration, especially in the South. That could help Democrats next year in Southern states such as Florida and Arkansas if Republicans are not unified behind their party's presidential nominee, they say.
"I don't think Hillary Clinton would run very well among white voters. But if the Republicans not united around their nominee, that would give someone like Hillary an opportunity," said Merle Black, a political historian and analyst at Emory University in Georgia.
"I think there has been a lot of disaffection among Republicans in the South for President Bush, especially as a result of the immigration debate, but I don't think that creates more Democrats in the South. If the Republicans are able to nominate someone who puts a different face on the party, then the Republicans will be back in the ballgame," Mr. Black said.
Recent polls show Mrs. Clinton, the front-runner for her party's nomination, lengthening her lead among Democrats in party preference polls in Florida. But she trails former New York City Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, the Republican front-runner, by five points in a head-to-head matchup, according to a Quinnipiac University poll last week.
Former President Bill Clinton, the last Democratic candidate to make electoral inroads in the South, "will campaign for her and that will play itself out, but she is a very different candidate than Bill Clinton, and she will resonate very differently in the South,"
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
Newt Gingrich? Alan Keyes? [Neither one would be a good idea, of course, since neither could win the election]
Why? Southerners vote values not geography.
“Boy, did he ever get that right!”
The GOP needs a new face perhaps, but Ron Paul ain’t the right man, imo.
“Why? Southerners vote values not geography.”
Exactly. Just look how much John Edwards helped John Kerry in 2004. Edwards’ home state of North Carolina even went solidly Republican, in spite of many expectations to the contrary. Ideology still is very important in the South and I fully expect most, if not all, of the South to go Republican in 2008. Many people don’t realize just how conservative the region is. Quite frankly, I think there’s a greater likelihood that a Northeastern state would vote Republican than a southern state to vote Democratic - at least for the most part.
Please! John Edwards couldn’t take his own state.
Newt should shut his big ass mouth. He’s a has been and should crawl back under the rock he came from. It’s people like Newt who has hurt the republican party. It’s about character not pontificating.
“Only John Edwards would have a shot at the South.”
I take it you have never been to the South. Please tell me that’s true, otherwise you are delusional.
Against Rudy Guiliani?
I’m still open to convincing, but right now, the only man of the ten who I am 100% certain hasn’t voted for anything unConstitutional? Ron Paul.
“Newt should shut his big ass mouth. He’s a has been and should crawl back under the rock he came from. It’s people like Newt who has hurt the republican party. It’s about character not pontificating.”
Bump to every single thing you said. His judgment when it comes to building a party may have been the right stuff at the right time, but after he was elected Speaker, he’s been nothing but a failure, politically and morally.
“talk about a round-about way of calling it like it is.”
Well, Bill didn’t exactly sweep the South. He only got 4 Southern states in both elections.
The polls which are constantly being trumpeted by Dick Morris and other Rudy boosters that show him defeating Hillary or Obama in the South and elsewhere are a classic example of a false alternative. If the choice were Rudy and one of those two, (and one only) then these polls would have some credence. The problem with these polls is that it will not be between Rudy and a single Democrat. His positions, which are anathema to conservatives, will spawn a third party challenge that will peel off 15-20% of the GOP vote, placing many formerly bright red states in play. Rudy is the one Republican whose defeat is absolutely certain. Even McCain is not as much of a goner, although he is getting there fast.
Fred Thompson, on the other hand, is well positioned to pick up all the pieces. He is the only one who would both unite and energize the party and create an opportunity to pick off Reagan Democrats and independents. This is the only recipe for GOP victory in a tough year.
You bet.
All any Republican would have to do is show that infamous photo of her reading a book at an Arkansas game. They hate her. Even Rudy would be more acceptable.
Every day, I hope more and more she is the candidate. Any republican will win by a landslide. And that is not just the weed talking.
Yeah, the race will be between Fred and Romney, IMHO, and with Fred having a big edge. I can’t believe their aren’t any political pundents who give Fred a chance when in reality all the pieces are coming together for him.
Pick up pieces? That sounds too much like manual labor. Fred has a hard time energizing himself mentally. Don't ask him to actually roll up his sleeves and sweat.
The party will have to pick Fred up in his barcalounger and carry him across the line, because sure doesn't show any inclination to use his own legs.
I can’t figure out whether it will be Rudy or Romney that is left standing to face Fred. I think it is safe to say that FDT can, and will, dispatch either or both of them. IMHO
The only thing that has come together for Fred is an illusion hyped up by his supporters.
Run against Bush? He’s not going to be on the ballot. I’d run against RAT idiology of socialism and the fact they’re totally amoral.
Nice to see you on this thread bashing Fred as lazy, which I have seen on many threads you post on. You offer no evidence of this as if repeating it over and over again will somehow make it true. I remember the same complaints about Reagan, who carried 44 and 49 states. The GOP needs that kind of laziness.
Where would we be economically if Gore or Kerry had been elected? What would they have done to protect the US from radical Islam. Democrats do everything they can to help terrorists. What more does any thinking American need to know?
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.