would hillary win any bush states?

[Reaganfan]

People will see a guy on the ballot who promises to continue the war in Iraq indefinitely, and they'll vote for the main candidate running against him.

I disagree. Hillary is not anti-war...neither is Giuliani. If the War on Terror in Iraq is the main issue next year, and we have two candidates that want to change or end the war but are not staunch anti-war...then the voters move to likeability, which Rudy has much more of than Hillary.

Hillary wants to set a date for ending the war. Giuliani wants to continue it indefinitely. Huge difference. I also have no doubt you'd say unambigously anti-war Obama and Edwards would lose Ohio.

Yes, they would both lose Ohio. For obvious reasons, of course.

Such as? And the "too liberal" argument won't work in a state that elected Sherrod Brown.

In a national election, it hurts more. Also, 2006 was a more unfriendly year for the GOP than 2008 will be. But no, Obama is inexperienced and very liberal, and Edwards is a guy who believes in two Americas and no war on terror. They would get creamed.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

And yet they want to pull out of an unpopular war that polls show is the biggest issue against a guy who wants to continue it indefinitely and supports the unpopular "troop surge" and all that.

[opebo]

Obama and Edwards would lose Ohio.

Yes, they would both lose Ohio. For obvious reasons, of course.

Such as? And the "too liberal" argument won't work in a state that elected Sherrod Brown.

In a national election, it hurts more. Also, 2006 was a more unfriendly year for the GOP than 2008 will be. But no, Obama is inexperienced and very liberal, and Edwards is a guy who believes in two Americas and no war on terror. They would get creamed.

Obviously the only reason Obama would lose Ohio is because he is a Black, BM.  As for Edwards, the view that there are Two Americas is precisely why Sherrod Brown won, and why any Democrat is likely to win OH in 2008, BM.  After all, Ohio is moving left not so much due to 'the war', as due to economic collapse, BM.  Edwards would win Ohio easily, BM.

[Sensei]

People will see a guy on the ballot who promises to continue the war in Iraq indefinitely, and they'll vote for the main candidate running against him.

I disagree. Hillary is not anti-war...neither is Giuliani. If the War on Terror in Iraq is the main issue next year, and we have two candidates that want to change or end the war but are not staunch anti-war...then the voters move to likeability, which Rudy has much more of than Hillary.

Hillary wants to set a date for ending the war. Giuliani wants to continue it indefinitely. Huge difference. I also have no doubt you'd say unambigously anti-war Obama and Edwards would lose Ohio.

Yes, they would both lose Ohio. For obvious reasons, of course.

Such as? And the "too liberal" argument won't work in a state that elected Sherrod Brown.

It was either Brown or DeWine, and DeWine got a lot of criticism for his campaign tactics, leading to unpopularity, so the people elected Brown, and I'm glad they did. I just don't consider the analogy applicable, though.

[Padfoot]

Ohio will also depend a lot on the popularity of Gov. Strickland at the time of the election.  Even though he won't be on the ballot, I imagine his influence will be large.  I believe he has already endorsed Clinton and the Columbus Dispatch recently ran a "what if..." editorial depicting a fictional phone call between Clinton and Strickland in which Clinton asks Strickland to be her running mate in order to improve her chances in Ohio.  I doubt that she will choose our governor to run with her but anything could happen.  Regardless, I think that Strickland will have a sizable impact on the election and the Ohio result will be tied closely to his popularity.

[Eraserhead]

People will see a guy on the ballot who promises to continue the war in Iraq indefinitely, and they'll vote for the main candidate running against him.

I disagree. Hillary is not anti-war...neither is Giuliani. If the War on Terror in Iraq is the main issue next year, and we have two candidates that want to change or end the war but are not staunch anti-war...then the voters move to likeability, which Rudy has much more of than Hillary.

Hillary wants to set a date for ending the war. Giuliani wants to continue it indefinitely. Huge difference. I also have no doubt you'd say unambigously anti-war Obama and Edwards would lose Ohio.

Yes, they would both lose Ohio. For obvious reasons, of course.

Such as? And the "too liberal" argument won't work in a state that elected Sherrod Brown.

In a national election, it hurts more. Also, 2006 was a more unfriendly year for the GOP than 2008 will be. But no, Obama is inexperienced and very liberal, and Edwards is a guy who believes in two Americas and no war on terror. They would get creamed.

O RLY?

You are entitled to your opinion but I see no serious evidence to back up your claim that Obama and Edwards would be creamed there. Not to mention 2008 is looking like it will be FAR WORSE for Republicans then 2006 was so far.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Obama would struggle in Ohio because of his race, but could ultimately win the state against a weaker Republican.

Meanwhile, I think Rudy is the only candidate who stands a chance against Hillary or Edwards there.

Iowa, New Mexico, Colorado, Missouri, Arkansas (Hillary/Edwards only), and Nevada are all up for grabs as states a Democrat could carry over the GOP nominee.  Virginia, too, if things really fall apart for Republicans.

[Eraserhead]

Why does everyone think Ohio is so racist?

[poughies]

good question..... I guess the notion of blue collar worker?

[Smash255]

People will see a guy on the ballot who promises to continue the war in Iraq indefinitely, and they'll vote for the main candidate running against him.

I disagree. Hillary is not anti-war...neither is Giuliani. If the War on Terror in Iraq is the main issue next year, and we have two candidates that want to change or end the war but are not staunch anti-war...then the voters move to likeability, which Rudy has much more of than Hillary.

Hillary wants to set a date for ending the war. Giuliani wants to continue it indefinitely. Huge difference. I also have no doubt you'd say unambigously anti-war Obama and Edwards would lose Ohio.

Yes, they would both lose Ohio. For obvious reasons, of course.

Such as? And the "too liberal" argument won't work in a state that elected Sherrod Brown.

It was either Brown or DeWine, and DeWine got a lot of criticism for his campaign tactics, leading to unpopularity, so the people elected Brown, and I'm glad they did. I just don't consider the analogy applicable, though.

If Brown narrowly won then I might say the analogy isn't applicable, but its not like this race was close.  Brown knocked off an incumbent Senator by double digits that is a pretty big deal.

regarding Ohio, hillary wins, Obama wins, Edwards win, doesn't really matter who they face the chance of Ohio going Republican is slim.

[Reaganfan]

good question..... I guess the notion of blue collar worker?

Coming from someone who has spoken to people about the issue, the reason for some...which I strongly oppose...is the issue of Obama's race. The black population is increasing dramatically near Cleveland and the surronding suburbs in Cuyahoga County. In my hometown, it is estimated the black population increased from 17% in 2000 to well over 30% this year. This has lead to many people...white and black...getting tired of their new "neighbors". Small towns near Cleveland that have been running with business for generations are shutting down and moving away business. That's why you often hear "businesses are leaving Cleveland." The Cleveland Plain Dealer has editiorals that often stress the importance of this issue without offering a phrase that will send Jesse Jackson up here.

The point is, I know of probably 5 people, Democratic Kerry voters in Ohio...that would stay home if the election were between Obama and someone else. Keep in mind...I don't know that many people currently...but if I know 5 non-Obama stay at home Democrats in Ohio...imagine how many others there are in the state...and the nation as a whole. I know it's wrong, and I acknowledge that. I mean, the first person I ever voted for was an African American man. I would never hesitate voting for a person due to their race. But, if George W. Bush could be at 45-50% approval and win Ohio against Al Gore and John Kerry...why couldn't the much more popular Rudy Giuliani and John McCain against weaker candidates such as Clinton and Obama?

[Tender Branson]

Yes. IA, NM, OH with a slightly worse chance of picking up NV, CO, MO and FL.

Possibly AR. There are only a few older polls out there showing her ahead of Huckabee by double-digits. She was also ahead of Giuliani/McCain in the 2006 SUSA polls. But lets wait until early 2008 to see if AR is really competetive for her.

[AndrewTX]

yes she should....

The following states I think are on the table:

New Mexico
Nevada
Colorado
Ohio
Iowa
Florida
Arkansas

 That looks about right. Florida might be the toughest.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Why does everyone think Ohio is so racist?

Care to play a fun game?  It's called "spot the black Democrat."

Can you find him/her?

OHIO STATEWIDE 2006
Governor
Ted Strickland (D) – 60.54%
Ken Blackwell (R) – 36.65%

Secretary of State
Jenn Brunner (D) – 55.03%
Greg Hartmann (R) – 40.45%

Attorney General
Marc Dann (D) – 52.61%
Betty Montgomery (R) – 47.39%

Treasurer
Richard Cordray (D) – 57.87%
Sandra O'Brien (R) – 42.13%

Auditor
Barbara Sykes (D) – 49.36%
Mary Taylor (R) – 50.64%

[Likely Voter]

Why does everyone think Ohio is so racist?

Care to play a fun game?  It's called "spot the black Democrat."

Can you find him/her?

OHIO STATEWIDE 2006
Governor
Ted Strickland (D) – 60.54%
Ken Blackwell (R) – 36.65%

Secretary of State
Jenn Brunner (D) – 55.03%
Greg Hartmann (R) – 40.45%

Attorney General
Marc Dann (D) – 52.61%
Betty Montgomery (R) – 47.39%

Treasurer
Richard Cordray (D) – 57.87%
Sandra O'Brien (R) – 42.13%

Auditor
Barbara Sykes (D) – 49.36%
Mary Taylor (R) – 50.64%

i shouldn't laugh but that is funny.

[HardRCafé]

I wonder where I got the idea Marc Dann was black.

[SPC]

Hillary could win NM, IA, OH, FL, NV, CO, VA, or AR, in that order.

[poughies]

Hillary could win NM, IA, OH, FL, NV, CO, VA, or AR, in that order.

I like the list.

Dems should put a significant effort into winning nevada.... They could play hippidy doo... New mexico, iowa, arkansas is a winner.... new mexico, iowa, nevada is a tie (and probably a winner)... virginia and new mexico or nevada is a winner... i mean there are a ton of combos.... THE FACT however is that u want to win all of them.... put Republicans on the defense....

I mean despite the fact Gore fell one state short he had a hell of a lot more states on the table than Kerry did.....

[Nym90]

OH, IA, and NM.

Possibly WV, AR, CO, NV and FL as well.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Ohio will also depend a lot on the popularity of Gov. Strickland at the time of the election.  Even though he won't be on the ballot, I imagine his influence will be large.  I believe he has already endorsed Clinton and the Columbus Dispatch recently ran a "what if..." editorial depicting a fictional phone call between Clinton and Strickland in which Clinton asks Strickland to be her running mate in order to improve her chances in Ohio.  I doubt that she will choose our governor to run with her but anything could happen.  Regardless, I think that Strickland will have a sizable impact on the election and the Ohio result will be tied closely to his popularity.

Well as I said in another thread, he currently has a 59-32 rating. What's impressive though, is he has a net positive among Republicans and conservatives:

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=4a083a4d-17a8-4274-b7d1-1a357e72a0d7

[Likely Voter]

Hillary could win NM, IA, OH, FL, NV, CO, VA, or AR, in that order.

I would agree with that and also say that the first three to four would lean her way and the last three-four would lean the other

[Reaganfan]

Ohio will also depend a lot on the popularity of Gov. Strickland at the time of the election.  Even though he won't be on the ballot, I imagine his influence will be large.  I believe he has already endorsed Clinton and the Columbus Dispatch recently ran a "what if..." editorial depicting a fictional phone call between Clinton and Strickland in which Clinton asks Strickland to be her running mate in order to improve her chances in Ohio.  I doubt that she will choose our governor to run with her but anything could happen.  Regardless, I think that Strickland will have a sizable impact on the election and the Ohio result will be tied closely to his popularity.

Well as I said in another thread, he currently has a 59-32 rating. What's impressive though, is he has a net positive among Republicans and conservatives:

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=4a083a4d-17a8-4274-b7d1-1a357e72a0d7

I actually don't mind Governor Strickland.

[Tender Branson]

Ohio will also depend a lot on the popularity of Gov. Strickland at the time of the election.  Even though he won't be on the ballot, I imagine his influence will be large.  I believe he has already endorsed Clinton and the Columbus Dispatch recently ran a "what if..." editorial depicting a fictional phone call between Clinton and Strickland in which Clinton asks Strickland to be her running mate in order to improve her chances in Ohio.  I doubt that she will choose our governor to run with her but anything could happen.  Regardless, I think that Strickland will have a sizable impact on the election and the Ohio result will be tied closely to his popularity.

Well as I said in another thread, he currently has a 59-32 rating. What's impressive though, is he has a net positive among Republicans and conservatives:

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=4a083a4d-17a8-4274-b7d1-1a357e72a0d7

I actually don't mind Governor Strickland.

You are nor alone. Today´s Quinnipiac polls shows him with a 61-15 approval rating, his highest yet.

Democrats approve 68-13, Republicans 54-19 and Indies by 59-14.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1322.xml?ReleaseID=1082

[Person Man]

Depends on who runs. Hillary will always have a chance at Ohio.

If Guiliani runs, she will lose her ability to gain any libertarian swing states in the west, but will be able to win back some of the working class conservative votes in the upper south. Those states would be Wva., Missouri, Arkansas and maybe...just maybe Kentucky, though I would personally use Kentucky like Bush used New Jersey, just a way to freak my opponent out.


If Romney runs, I would guess his Mormonism would do the same thing though N.M. might be on the table.


If Thompson runs, I think Thompson would act like Bush trying to get a third term with maybe slight difficulties getting out working class fundies.

[Rob]

You are nor alone. Today´s Quinnipiac polls shows him with a 61-15 approval rating, his highest yet.

Democrats approve 68-13, Republicans 54-19 and Indies by 59-14.

Golly, I guess our resident Ohio expert let us down.

But I think Kasich would be a good candidate, though at the current pace of Strickland's moves it could be a repeat of 2006 just in reverse in Ohio in 2010.