Why cant Hillary win?

[MissCatholic]

OK in the last 3 months we have the following approval ratings

New York = 60%
Arkansas = 51%
New Hampshire = 48%
South Carolina = 23%
Virginia = 37%
Michigan = 46%
Iowa = 45%
Oregon = 53%

If anybody has any other approval ratings for the senator then please e-mail me or add them onto the list.

Yes hillary is in the 40% in many states but i think most candidates would be like that. But the 51% in Arkansas is a very interesting stat because it means she is defintely electable. Arkansas is a red state and if a democrat can win a red state then thats a plus. If she nominates Wesley Clark or Mark Warner then Arkansas is in the bag. With the state of Michigan 46% is a solid effort to date and Hillary can say 'vote for me if you preferred the economy of the 90s or dont vote for me if you prefer the economy of this decade.

Another important factor is that states with female governors or senators are more likely to vote for a female candidate for president in a recent poll. This might explain the good marks in Michgian and New Hampshire which will be battleground states. So Washington, Connecticut, Maine, Hawaii, California and New Jersey could all be classed as definte wins for hillary if she runs a soid campaign which is very likely.

So why cant she win consdierring these marks. if she carries Arkansas then she can win against any candidate.

[Clay]

She can win.

I also don't understand why some people think she can't.

[MODU]

Approval ratings don't translate into votes, especially against undefined competitors.

[Max]

Approval ratings don't translate into votes, especially against undefined competitors.

Absolutely. You give approval if you like someone, but you vote for someone if you think he'd make a good President.

I think being a woman, a liberal, a New Yorker and a Clinton is to much to get the moderate votes that decide elections.

@In The Land of the Insane: Is Arkansas that red? I always thought of Arkansas to be the most Democratic state in the South?

[Nym90]

Clinton certainly can win, though she is far from the Democrats' strongest candidate.

[Please Delete my account!!]

Perhaps this poll will tell you why she CAN'T WIN!!

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/Hillary%20Meter.htm


With only 26 percent of voters saying they'd definently vote for her and almost 40 percent saying they'd definently vote against her, that makes it really hard for her.  Not saying it can't be done, but it's an awful steep mountain to climb.  Unless those numbers change drastically, she would have to carry over 70 percent of the undecideds which is virtually impossible even with the best of candidates.   If you Democrats want to get the White House back, you better deep six the she-b**ch

[Republican Michigander]

Hillary has no blue collar appeal whatsoever. Zip. Zilch Zero. Bill on the other hand did. That's why Bill won, and Hill ran 5-6% behind Gore in New York despite Bush on the ticket. 

Hillary loses Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan, Iowa, New Hampshire, Arkansas, and maybe Minnesota.

[Max]

Hillary has no blue collar appeal whatsoever. Zip. Zilch Zero. Bill on the other hand did. That's why Bill won, and Hill ran 5-6% behind Gore in New York despite Bush on the ticket. 

Hillary loses Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan, Iowa, New Hampshire, Arkansas, and maybe Minnesota.

Does "blue collar" mean something like working class?

[Republican Michigander]

Hillary has no blue collar appeal whatsoever. Zip. Zilch Zero. Bill on the other hand did. That's why Bill won, and Hill ran 5-6% behind Gore in New York despite Bush on the ticket. 

Hillary loses Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan, Iowa, New Hampshire, Arkansas, and maybe Minnesota.

Does "blue collar" mean something like working class?

Populists.

[Vasall des Midas]

Hillary has no blue collar appeal whatsoever. Zip. Zilch Zero. Bill on the other hand did. That's why Bill won, and Hill ran 5-6% behind Gore in New York despite Bush on the ticket. 

Hillary loses Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan, Iowa, New Hampshire, Arkansas, and maybe Minnesota.

Does "blue collar" mean something like working class?

Yes.
Hi btw. Das macht vier von uns ... oder fünf.

[agcatter]

low likability index

[Gabu]

Hillary has no blue collar appeal whatsoever. Zip. Zilch Zero. Bill on the other hand did. That's why Bill won, and Hill ran 5-6% behind Gore in New York despite Bush on the ticket. 

Hillary loses Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan, Iowa, New Hampshire, Arkansas, and maybe Minnesota.

Does "blue collar" mean something like working class?

The term "blue collar" is an English idiom that refers to people working in jobs that require manual labor - the term is derived from the blue color of the collar of work clothing.  Its opposite is "white collar", which refers to people working in jobs that are not labor-intensive, such as lawyers, bankers, etc.  "Blue collar" workers tend not to make nearly as much money as "white collar" workers, and as such, the terms are also used to refer simply to lower class and upper class people, respectively.

Welcome to the forum, by the way.

[TheresNoMoney]

She can't win.

[ilikeverin]

Because no one thinks she can.

[MODU]

Because no one thinks she can.

And a large portion of her party doesn't want her to win either.

[Gustaf]

Except Arkansas those are all poor numbers, all, except Arkansas and Oregon, are below Kerry's result. (and New York but that's a home state). In fact, for a senator to not get more than the basic party line in her state is pretty bad.

[Mr. Morden]

Hillary has no blue collar appeal whatsoever. Zip. Zilch Zero. Bill on the other hand did. That's why Bill won, and Hill ran 5-6% behind Gore in New York despite Bush on the ticket. 

Despite Bush on the ticket?  Why is that relevant?  Is there a reason why Bush would be especially popular in NY back in 2000?

Couldn't you explain HRC running 5-6% behind Gore by the simple fact that a NY Republican like Lazio is bound to perform better in NY than someone running as a "national" Republican like Bush, by virtue of the fact that NY is to the left of the country at large?

[nclib]

So why cant she win consdierring these marks. if she carries Arkansas then she can win against any candidate.

The only reason why her numbers are high in Arkansas is because she is a former first lady of that state. The fact that she is doing well there does mean she can carry any other Bush states. (Arkansas plus the Kerry states does not give enough electoral votes to win - only 266).

To answer the thread question, the reason Hillary can't win is not because of her views, being a Clinton, or being a Senator from New York, but it is simply the fact that she is a strong powerful woman and sadly America isn't ready for that.

[Republican Michigander]

Hillary has no blue collar appeal whatsoever. Zip. Zilch Zero. Bill on the other hand did. That's why Bill won, and Hill ran 5-6% behind Gore in New York despite Bush on the ticket. 

Despite Bush on the ticket?  Why is that relevant?  Is there a reason why Bush would be especially popular in NY back in 2000?

Couldn't you explain HRC running 5-6% behind Gore by the simple fact that a NY Republican like Lazio is bound to perform better in NY than someone running as a "national" Republican like Bush, by virtue of the fact that NY is to the left of the country at large?

Bush dragged the ticket down in NY as Gore got 60% there. Reverse Coattails are common when it's a 10%+ win/loss.

[Mr. Morden]

Bush dragged the ticket down in NY as Gore got 60% there. Reverse Coattails are common when it's a 10%+ win/loss.

I don't understand your argument.  If Bush is unpopular in NY, then why is it a surprise that he does worse in NY vs. Gore than Lazio does vs. HRC?  Isn't that exactly what one would expect?  Why does that reflect badly on HRC?

[MaC]

OK in the last 3 months we have the following approval ratings

New York = 60%
Arkansas = 51%
New Hampshire = 48%
South Carolina = 23%
Virginia = 37%
Michigan = 46%
Iowa = 45%
Oregon = 53%

Card stacking.  And Arkansas is only because of support for Bill.  Notice how 51% doesn't say a lot for winning a state since the ME is usually at least 3%.

[Max]

The term "blue collar" is an English idiom that refers to people working in jobs that require manual labor - the term is derived from the blue color of the collar of work clothing.  Its opposite is "white collar", which refers to people working in jobs that are not labor-intensive, such as lawyers, bankers, etc.  "Blue collar" workers tend not to make nearly as much money as "white collar" workers, and as such, the terms are also used to refer simply to lower class and upper class people, respectively.

Welcome to the forum, by the way.

Thanks for your explanation, I never heard of this term before.

And thanks to all of you who welcome me so friendly to the forum!

@Lewis Trondheim: Schön, hier auf einen "Landsmann" zu treffen!

[Republican Michigander]

Bush dragged the ticket down in NY as Gore got 60% there. Reverse Coattails are common when it's a 10%+ win/loss.

I don't understand your argument.  If Bush is unpopular in NY, then why is it a surprise that he does worse in NY vs. Gore than Lazio does vs. HRC?  Isn't that exactly what one would expect?  Why does that reflect badly on HRC?

I'm just saying in a bad republican year in NY, she should have gotten more than 55 or 56% considering Bill's popularity, and the support for feminists and rich celebrity liberals there.

[Gustaf]

Bush dragged the ticket down in NY as Gore got 60% there. Reverse Coattails are common when it's a 10%+ win/loss.

I don't understand your argument.  If Bush is unpopular in NY, then why is it a surprise that he does worse in NY vs. Gore than Lazio does vs. HRC?  Isn't that exactly what one would expect?  Why does that reflect badly on HRC?

I'm just saying in a bad republican year in NY, she should have gotten more than 55 or 56% considering Bill's popularity, and the support for feminists and rich celebrity liberals there.

I think it's fairly clear. A popular politician should be able to have broader appeal than just the party base (which for Democrats in NY is about 60%). Hillary got only 56% and doesn't look to get more than about 60% this time. Compare that to out-spoken liberal Chuck Schumer who got 71% in 2004, also with Bush on the ticket.

[Nym90]

With regards to Clinton's numbers in New York in 2000, you have to remember that she was at a disadvantage not being a native of the state. Lazio essentially had the home state advantage like Bush in Texas in the Presidential race.

Her 2006 numbers will be more indicative of her overall vote getting ability. Whether or not she pulls a higher percentage of the vote than Kerry or Gore got in New York will be meaningful.