States Kerry Won that Hilary Could Lose

I intially was crafting this post to respond to the notion that Hillary might not run in 2008. My short answer is that “it could happen.” But anyway, a Democratic strategist on TV asked Pat Buchanan this morning what state Kerry won that Hillary would possibly lose. Buchanan mumbled something about McCain making it competitive everywhere. Given Buchanan’s (typical) incoherence I will now do the unthinkable and help Pat Buchanan out (oh my god!)…

States Kerry won that Hillary could conceivably lose:

1. Pennsylvania- She’s too liberal socially, too conservative economically (i.e. willing to accept laiseez-faire). She’s also too close to Santorum’s view on the war in Iraq.

2. Michigan- In addition to reasons cited for Pennsylvania, she’s a dedicated free-trader-NOT a fair-trader. In Michigan-and the greater industrial Midwest-laiseez-faire free-trade is barely as popular as civil rights for blacks in Alabama circa 1963. Combined with her support for more liberal immigration laws, watch the GOP play the “immigrants are taking your jobs” card to stressed out under 50K workers in greater Midwest.

3. Wisconsin- See Michigan and Pennsylvania but add that her husband’s support of a ban on snowmobiling through federal lands to be a locval issue in which Hillary will be asked to go against the policies of her husband.

4. Oregon and Washington- These states are not oversized versions of Portland and King County. Any assumption that they are is misguided to say the least.

Finally there is the point that no evidence has been put forth that Hillary could win states Kerry lost-something she would have to do even if she carried all the Kerry states. Does anybody have any evidence that she could carry Ohio? Or Florida?

Note: The list of states above and the accompanying reasons are partial lists. Anybody who wants to contradict or add to the states and reasons should feel free to do so.

Bookmark and Share

About Nick

Teacher of Social Studies. Born in the 1970s. History major, music minor. Big Baseball fan. Economic progressive.
Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to States Kerry Won that Hilary Could Lose

  1. Ginny in CO says:

    Nick,

    I can’t see Hillary winning Colorado – even with the changes in voter mood. Two reasons: James Dobson and the Hispanic vote. The Colorado Bishop that threatened Catholic voters who vote for pro choice candidates would very likely find a reason to make Hillary unacceptable to Catholic Hispanics.

    Any stats on the Hispanic vote based on gender of the candidate- and/or voter? It is still a very male dominated culture, which could decrease the Hispanic vote nationwide.

  2. mbk says:

    More generally, I don’t think that Hillary has the Right Stuff to win a general, national election. She lacks the people-skills of her husband, and does not (to my mind) have a definable center. Most importantly, I think that the whole Clintonian triangulation/DLC approach will NOT play in the 2008 election, and even now is becoming irrelevant.

    Reaching the majority of the country and building consensus is important; but triangulation is only one way (and, in my opinion, already an outdated way) to win consensus.

    Oh, please, let’s not have a Clinton dynasty following a Bush dynasty. It’s time for fresh air.

    Personally, I think that Hillary would do a great job with a leadership position in the Senate, and I hope that she has the good sense to stay there.

  3. Ginny in CO says:

    mbk,

    The really great history teacher both kids had in high school had this projection:

    ’08 Hillary
    ’16 Jeb
    ’24 Chelsea
    ’32 a next generation Bush – TBD

    Really makes you queasy to even laugh at it.

    I agree that Hillary cannot make it on Bill’s unique charm and intelligence. Definitely a great successor to Harry.

    Besides, the right wingers want her to run for Pres so they can get her out. How wonderful would it be if they had to start working with her as the Senate Majority Leader ๐Ÿ˜†

  4. KJ says:

    mbk said, “Oh, please, letโ€™s not have a Clinton dynasty following a Bush dynasty. Itโ€™s time for fresh air.”
    ~~ You know I agree with you 100 percent!

  5. pen says:

    Lets not have a clinton dynasty in the whithouse or anywhere else in Washington.

    Let Durbin be the next majority leader at least he has a core and he doesn’t mind smacking it the the rethugs. If Hill gets the majority leader seat and continues to work the triangulation game the dems are doomed anyway.

    I never thought I’d say this after 2000 but I’m sick of Bill Clinton and His whole damn family just like I am the bushwhackers.

    Now the dems need to realize hill would be a disaster as pres and so would mccain.

  6. pen says:

    to the post in question: There isn’t a state JK lossed that hill could win.

    I wouldn’t be suprised if she lost a New England state to.

  7. Pen

    Ouch! ๐Ÿ˜‰

    You could be right…

  8. Ginny in CO says:

    Pen,

    I think there are other contenders for Senate Majority Leader who would be much better for the progressive work to be done than Hil. I personally suspect her and Bill of being too awed and gullible of the financial – military complex to fight them.