Hillary Launches Re-election Website
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 09:19:01 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Congressional Elections (Moderators: Brittain33, GeorgiaModerate, Gass3268, Virginiá, Gracile)
  Hillary Launches Re-election Website
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3
Author Topic: Hillary Launches Re-election Website  (Read 5113 times)
Smash255
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,445


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: July 14, 2005, 02:15:08 PM »

I disagree with Tweed.

Schumer is more popular than Hillary and perhaps had an even worse opponent than Hillary will have in 2006. (look at the numbers)

Her chances of breaking 60% are about 95%.  Her chances of breaking 70% are about 20% in my mind at this point.

As for Jeanine Pirro, she will probably either run for re-election for Westchester County DA or potentially New York AG.  The chances of her running for Senate is fairly low in my mind. 

Her husband's problems will hurt her in whatever office she runs for, imo, much like Geraldine Ferraro as an example.

Most polls have actually had her approval about 2-3 points higher than Schumer's.  If its Pirro she will have a tougher time of getting to 70%, 65% no problem, possibly 70%.  If its this Nixon joke, she has a real good shot at reaching 70%, an even an outside shot at 75% as Tweed suggested (that might be pushing it, but this guy is a real joke)

Logged
YRABNNRM
YoungRepub
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,680
United States
Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: July 14, 2005, 03:17:18 PM »

I think Cox would be a much better candidate than Pirro. Pirro has too much of a background. While Cox's father-in-law was Nixon, no one cares about Watergate anymore.

The worst candidate would be John Spencer. He attacked Hillary for being a liberal in NEW YORK!!!! That's gonna work for sure....
Logged
Smash255
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,445


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: July 14, 2005, 03:25:20 PM »

I think Cox would be a much better candidate than Pirro. Pirro has too much of a background. While Cox's father-in-law was Nixon, no one cares about Watergate anymore.

The worst candidate would be John Spencer. He attacked Hillary for being a liberal in NEW YORK!!!! That's gonna work for sure....

Pirro has problems.  Anyone associated with Nixon is going to have problems.  SPencer is just an utter moron.  Regardless the NY GOP (minus the Rudy & Bloomberg (& Mike isn't really even a Republican) is in very bad shape.  the state GOP is about as bad as the Illinois GOP or Texas Dem party
Logged
YRABNNRM
YoungRepub
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,680
United States
Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: July 14, 2005, 03:31:19 PM »

I think Cox would be a much better candidate than Pirro. Pirro has too much of a background. While Cox's father-in-law was Nixon, no one cares about Watergate anymore.

The worst candidate would be John Spencer. He attacked Hillary for being a liberal in NEW YORK!!!! That's gonna work for sure....

Pirro has problems.  Anyone associated with Nixon is going to have problems.  SPencer is just an utter moron.  Regardless the NY GOP (minus the Rudy & Bloomberg (& Mike isn't really even a Republican) is in very bad shape.  the state GOP is about as bad as the Illinois GOP or Texas Dem party

I'll conceede the NYGOP is as bad as ILGOP when we have to run Alan ing Keyes but I don't think that is going to happen anytime soon. In 2006 the NYGOP is in bad shape for Governor and Senate, but afterwards and for some of the other offices I don't think our chance are as bad as you make them seem.

I still doubt anyone is gonna care that Cox is related to Nixon.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,612


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: July 14, 2005, 03:33:03 PM »

I expect Hillary to win 65-33 or so.
Logged
YRABNNRM
YoungRepub
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,680
United States
Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: July 14, 2005, 03:34:10 PM »

I expect Hillary to win 65-33 or so.

I expect you to have your head slammed in a car door but Smiley
Logged
© tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,563
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: July 14, 2005, 03:42:15 PM »

I saw Cox on CNN and all he talked about was how Hillary's a carpetbagger.  that won't work not if it didn't work in 2000.
Logged
YRABNNRM
YoungRepub
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,680
United States
Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: July 14, 2005, 03:43:12 PM »

I saw Cox on CNN and all he talked about was how Hillary's a carpetbagger.  that won't work not if it didn't work in 2000.

It's better than attacking her for being a liberal.
Logged
Keystone Phil
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 52,611


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: July 14, 2005, 03:44:11 PM »

I saw Cox on CNN and all he talked about was how Hillary's a carpetbagger.  that won't work not if it didn't work in 2000.

I saw that about a week ago, too. At this point, I think the GOP's goal should be to keep Clinton from getting passed 55 - 60%. That would be something to celebrate. It's going to be difficult but it's what should be done.
Logged
© tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,563
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: July 14, 2005, 03:45:54 PM »

I saw Cox on CNN and all he talked about was how Hillary's a carpetbagger.  that won't work not if it didn't work in 2000.

It's better than attacking her for being a liberal.

Arguable.  25% of people would go for that anti-liberal talk, maybe 30%.  It's a big question mark when you go carpetbagger, the amount of people that care could be very low and you risk getting blown out really badly.
Logged
© tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,563
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: July 14, 2005, 03:46:30 PM »

I saw Cox on CNN and all he talked about was how Hillary's a carpetbagger.  that won't work not if it didn't work in 2000.

I saw that about a week ago, too. At this point, I think the GOP's goal should be to keep Clinton from getting passed 55 - 60%. That would be something to celebrate. It's going to be difficult but it's what should be done.

She got 55% in 2000.  If you hold her below 65% now, it's a victory.  55% is not happening.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,612


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: July 14, 2005, 03:48:23 PM »

I saw Cox on CNN and all he talked about was how Hillary's a carpetbagger.  that won't work not if it didn't work in 2000.

It's better than attacking her for being a liberal.

Arguable.  25% of people would go for that anti-liberal talk, maybe 30%.  It's a big question mark when you go carpetbagger, the amount of people that care could be very low and you risk getting blown out really badly.

No one cares about the carpetbagging. That Senate Seat went to a carpetbagger in 1964, 1970, and 2000. As of 2006, she'll have been in NY for over 7 years.  Pataki is really unpopular upstate, which will likely translate into votes for Hillary.
Logged
Keystone Phil
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 52,611


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: July 14, 2005, 03:48:27 PM »

I saw Cox on CNN and all he talked about was how Hillary's a carpetbagger.  that won't work not if it didn't work in 2000.

I saw that about a week ago, too. At this point, I think the GOP's goal should be to keep Clinton from getting passed 55 - 60%. That would be something to celebrate. It's going to be difficult but it's what should be done.

She got 55% in 2000.  If you hold her below 65% now, it's a victory.  55% is not happening.

I know she got 55% in 2000 but I was still hoping to keep her there. Very unlikely though. I guess we should aim for her staying at 60%.
Logged
Keystone Phil
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 52,611


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: July 14, 2005, 03:49:25 PM »

As of 2006, she'll have been in NY for over 7 years.

Since she was sworn in in January 2001, how would she be a Senator for over seven years in 2006?
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,612


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: July 14, 2005, 03:50:48 PM »

As of 2006, she'll have been in NY for over 7 years.

Since she was sworn in in January 2001, how would she be a Senator for over seven years in 2006?

Lived in NY, not been Senator.
Logged
Keystone Phil
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 52,611


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: July 14, 2005, 03:52:29 PM »

As of 2006, she'll have been in NY for over 7 years.

Since she was sworn in in January 2001, how would she be a Senator for over seven years in 2006?

Lived in NY, not been Senator.

I misread. Didn't she move to NY in early 2000? It's still not over seven years.  Tongue
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,612


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: July 14, 2005, 03:53:07 PM »

As of 2006, she'll have been in NY for over 7 years.

Since she was sworn in in January 2001, how would she be a Senator for over seven years in 2006?

Lived in NY, not been Senator.

I misread. Didn't she move to NY in early 2000? It's still not over seven years.  Tongue

Middle of 1999.
Logged
AuH2O
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,239


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: July 14, 2005, 04:12:30 PM »

Were I running against her, I would focus on her Presidential ambitions. Ask her to promise to serve out her term if elected, etc. Won't beat her but in combination with a decent campaign maybe it could keep her under 60. Certainly the carpetbagger approach won't work.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,612


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: July 14, 2005, 04:14:03 PM »

Were I running against her, I would focus on her Presidential ambitions. Ask her to promise to serve out her term if elected, etc. Won't beat her but in combination with a decent campaign maybe it could keep her under 60. Certainly the carpetbagger approach won't work.

She said she'd serve out her first term, and no one believed her. Now if she doesn't promise the same, no one will care.
Logged
© tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,563
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: July 14, 2005, 04:20:33 PM »

Were I running against her, I would focus on her Presidential ambitions. Ask her to promise to serve out her term if elected, etc. Won't beat her but in combination with a decent campaign maybe it could keep her under 60. Certainly the carpetbagger approach won't work.

Cox also said that in a made-for-TV soundbyte.  "She cares more about the polls in Iowa and New Hampshire than the people and interests of the state of New York."  Or something similar
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: July 14, 2005, 04:52:59 PM »

I expect Hillary to win 65-33 or so.

For once, I agree with fern.
Logged
Smash255
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,445


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: July 14, 2005, 05:05:17 PM »

I saw Cox on CNN and all he talked about was how Hillary's a carpetbagger.  that won't work not if it didn't work in 2000.

I saw that about a week ago, too. At this point, I think the GOP's goal should be to keep Clinton from getting passed 55 - 60%. That would be something to celebrate. It's going to be difficult but it's what should be done.

She got 55% in 2000.  If you hold her below 65% now, it's a victory.  55% is not happening.

I know she got 55% in 2000 but I was still hoping to keep her there. Very unlikely though. I guess we should aim for her staying at 60%.

Not happening
Logged
dazzleman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,777
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: July 14, 2005, 10:14:55 PM »

The goal has to be to force her to the left so that she damages her presidential campaign.

I'm currently reading a bood about this woman by none other than
Dick Morris.  It's still mind-boggling after all this time that so many people would be foolish enough to vote this dreadful woman into office.
Logged
© tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,563
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: July 14, 2005, 10:25:27 PM »

dazzleman, it's doubtful you can force her anywhere in the campaign.  She doesn't have to say anything meaningful, she doesn't have to defend herself from the opponent, she can just say nice things about NY and women and families and win easily.
Logged
dazzleman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,777
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: July 14, 2005, 10:30:55 PM »

dazzleman, it's doubtful you can force her anywhere in the campaign.  She doesn't have to say anything meaningful, she doesn't have to defend herself from the opponent, she can just say nice things about NY and women and families and win easily.

unfortunately, you're right.....New York has just gone down the toilet completely....
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.058 seconds with 12 queries.