Why cant Hillary win?

[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?

[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?

[Mr. Morden]

Schumer also had the advantage of incumbency in 2004, whereas HRC did not in 2000.  I just don't find it all that surprising that a Democrat running for an open Senate seat in a heavily Democratic state would win by "only" 10 points.  It's not at all uncommon for Republicans to do well in statewide races in Democratic states, as long as they distance themselves from the national party somewhat, and don't cozy up too much to religious conservatives.  That doesn't necessarily mean that their Democratic opponents are bad candidates.  I'm sure there are plenty of other examples of viable presidential candidates who didn't have a huge margin of victory when they first won public office.  I'm just too lazy to look them up right now.