What is Hillarys number 1 red state target

[MissCatholic]

Not talking about iowa or new mexico.

But from the states that gore nor kerry won.

[opebo]

Nevada will tip eventually anyway, but obviously Ohio is the target.

[MissCatholic]

Hillary is far more electable in Ohio than Kerry.

My husband with the help of the private sector created 26 million jobs. i can the same.

[MODU]

Ohio, for the same reason as in the other thread.  She would need to hit the big, split states to ensure a possible victory.  PA and OH are her to big targets.

[ian]

The only vote for Colorado.  Just because Democrats are gaining every year there.
And to anyone who put Arkansas, there is absolutely no way she could ever win the state.  We like Bill, but typically, Arkansans hate Hil.

[TomC]

Florida- wonder how the retirees are feelin' about the Republicans' plan for social security?

[Moooooo]

Florida- wonder how the retirees are feelin' about the Republicans' plan for social security?

One of the main reasons I believe Nelson will win re-election in 2006.

[opebo]

Florida- wonder how the retirees are feelin' about the Republicans' plan for social security?

One of the main reasons I believe Nelson will win re-election in 2006.

Ah!  Excellent point!

[Rob]

She doesn't have a shot at any red state.

[TomC]

Yeah, they said Reagan would get trounced, too.

[Rob]

Yeah, they said Reagan would get trounced, too.

You're comparing the quality of Hillary's candidacy to Reagan's? Wow.

[TomC]

Yeah, they said Reagan would get trounced, too.

You're comparing the quality of Hillary's candidacy to Reagan's? Wow.

Yeah, I know he wasn't very smart, but he had some good one liners.

But seriously, until Oct 1980, many thought he's have no chance of winning because he was too conservative, a follower of Goldwater. Similarly, many think Hillary won't win because she's too liberal. Well, electorates change, especially when one party screws up the economy and our place in the world. By 2008, America's going to be pretty open to change.

[opebo]

Yeah, they said Reagan would get trounced, too.

You're comparing the quality of Hillary's candidacy to Reagan's? Wow.

Yeah, I know he wasn't very smart, but he had some good one liners.

But seriously, until Oct 1980, many thought he's have no chance of winning because he was too conservative, a follower of Goldwater. Similarly, many think Hillary won't win because she's too liberal. Well, electorates change, especially when one party screws up the economy and our place in the world. By 2008, America's going to be pretty open to change.

Yes I think anticipating a severe economic downturn or stagflation is reasonable.

[TomC]

Yeah, they said Reagan would get trounced, too.

You're comparing the quality of Hillary's candidacy to Reagan's? Wow.

Yeah, I know he wasn't very smart, but he had some good one liners.

But seriously, until Oct 1980, many thought he's have no chance of winning because he was too conservative, a follower of Goldwater. Similarly, many think Hillary won't win because she's too liberal. Well, electorates change, especially when one party screws up the economy and our place in the world. By 2008, America's going to be pretty open to change.

Yes I think anticipating a severe economic downturn or stagflation is reasonable.

Some will be doing fine, but the middle class is getting squeezed- at the pump, with health insurance costs, outsourcing. I don't see that Bush has any plan to deal with these issues, thus, whatever the econ stats are, the middle class is NOT going to be better off. Hope I'm wrong.

[Rob]

But seriously, until Oct 1980, many thought he's have no chance of winning because he was too conservative, a follower of Goldwater. Similarly, many think Hillary won't win because she's too liberal. Well, electorates change, especially when one party screws up the economy and our place in the world. By 2008, America's going to be pretty open to change.

One crucial ingredient to Reagan's success was his personality. Hillary doesn't have that going for her, and therefore will be a much worse candidate.

[opebo]

Yeah, they said Reagan would get trounced, too.

You're comparing the quality of Hillary's candidacy to Reagan's? Wow.

Yeah, I know he wasn't very smart, but he had some good one liners.

But seriously, until Oct 1980, many thought he's have no chance of winning because he was too conservative, a follower of Goldwater. Similarly, many think Hillary won't win because she's too liberal. Well, electorates change, especially when one party screws up the economy and our place in the world. By 2008, America's going to be pretty open to change.

Yes I think anticipating a severe economic downturn or stagflation is reasonable.

Some will be doing fine, but the middle class is getting squeezed- at the pump, with health insurance costs, outsourcing. I don't see that Bush has any plan to deal with these issues, thus, whatever the econ stats are, the middle class is NOT going to be better off. Hope I'm wrong.

It is like 1980 all over again, only worse (due to the removal of the social safety net).

[Rob]

It is like 1980 all over again, only worse (due to the removal of the social safety net).

The rich ladyboy-chasing expatriate living in Thailand feeling middle America's pain. I love it!

[opebo]

It is like 1980 all over again, only worse (due to the removal of the social safety net).

The rich ladyboy-chasing expatriate living in Thailand feeling middle America's pain. I love it!

Irrelevant.

[TomC]

Only worse due to the fact anything not resembling afundamental Christian lifestyle is under attack. Economic conditions- especially inflation and unemployment- will certainly not be as bad as the Carter and early Reagan years.

[Rob]

The rich ladyboy-chasing expatriate living in Thailand feeling middle America's pain. I love it!

Irrelevant.

It's relevant. Since you have no personal experience of these things you so solemnly pontificate on, that renders your opinion irrelevant.

[MODU]

Florida- wonder how the retirees are feelin' about the Republicans' plan for social security?

They probably don't care, since they are already pulling Social Security.  Benefit changes won't occur for years.

[opebo]

The rich ladyboy-chasing expatriate living in Thailand feeling middle America's pain. I love it!

Irrelevant.

It's relevant. Since you have no personal experience of these things you so solemnly pontificate on, that renders your opinion irrelevant.

Um.. do you think any Bush ever experienced any economic want?  Heck very few Democratic candidates have, much less those on your side.  No, a wealthy onlooker can still see what is wrong with America - often much better than the working class.

[TomC]

Florida- wonder how the retirees are feelin' about the Republicans' plan for social security?

They probably don't care, since they are already pulling Social Security.  Benefit changes won't occur for years.

Yeah, they are probably planning on dying soon.

[opebo]

Um.. do you think any Bush ever experienced any economic want?  Heck very few Democratic candidates have, much less those on your side.  No, a wealthy onlooker can still see what is wrong with America - often much better than the working class.

"My side"? I supported Kerry. There goes your whole point, LOL.

No, the point still stands.  Just substitute 'GOP' for 'your side'.  Almost no one in power has ever been poor - they all come from the upper class.  Naturally, that is how a heirarchy works.

[Joe Republic]

I'll say Ohio, but I actually have no idea how generally popular or unpopular she is here.  Her husband may have won it both times, but that does not mean she will too.