Why vote Hillary? She's the only democratic that can win in Florida?

[AngelFromKansas]

The Clinton message was always Florida, Florida and Florida. Republicans can't win without Florida. Democrats believed and embraced this philosophy until defeat in 2000 and 2002.

Howard Dean firmly believed and still does to this day, that democrats must surrender Florida for the benefit of other states. Instead of funding the democratic gubernatorial candidate in Florida, Dean sh**ted the money to fund campaigns in Arkansas, Colorado and Iowa. Even when the gubernatorial race got close in Florida, Dean refused the temptation. After the Foley scandal, democrats still refused to fund many of the tight house races due to the high advertising costs as other states would suffer.

This apathy towards Florida allows us to understand why Dean is eager for Florida not to push its democratic primary forward. He doesnt want candidates to go and spend millions just for one states delegates. His he right? Or is it because this is Hillary's wildcard? Can she carry Florida against a McCain or Giuliani?

The recent poll from Florida has her receiving 45% of the possible democratic voters. This is a big lead when states such as CA, MI, ME and IA have obama and clinton neck and neck in the low 30s. Bill carried Florida in 92 and 96 and always stated that to win Florida you have to show real commitment. Once you have there trust, they will stand by you. Thats why Dubya won in 2000 and 2004, they respected his brother enough to give dubya their vote. Will the same happen with Hillary?

If Hillary carries Florida, the republicans cant win? even hard fought victories in new hampshire, wisconsin, ohio, iowa and new mexico wouldnt put them over the top.

[Tender Branson]

Under normal circumstances, I doubt Hillary could carry Florida. I see her getting maybe 48% there, but that´s it. Better focus on keeping the 2004 states, Ohio and Iowa while campaigning aggresively in bonus states like NM, NV and CO and putting the rest of the money into these states.

[Stranger in a strange land]

The Clinton message was always Florida, Florida and Florida. Republicans can't win without Florida. Democrats believed and embraced this philosophy until defeat in 2000 and 2002.

Howard Dean firmly believed and still does to this day, that democrats must surrender Florida for the benefit of other states. Instead of funding the democratic gubernatorial candidate in Florida, Dean sh**ted the money to fund campaigns in Arkansas, Colorado and Iowa. Even when the gubernatorial race got close in Florida, Dean refused the temptation. After the Foley scandal, democrats still refused to fund many of the tight house races due to the high advertising costs as other states would suffer.

This apathy towards Florida allows us to understand why Dean is eager for Florida not to push its democratic primary forward. He doesnt want candidates to go and spend millions just for one states delegates. His he right? Or is it because this is Hillary's wildcard? Can she carry Florida against a McCain or Giuliani?

The recent poll from Florida has her receiving 45% of the possible democratic voters. This is a big lead when states such as CA, MI, ME and IA have obama and clinton neck and neck in the low 30s. Bill carried Florida in 92 and 96 and always stated that to win Florida you have to show real commitment. Once you have there trust, they will stand by you. Thats why Dubya won in 2000 and 2004, they respected his brother enough to give dubya their vote. Will the same happen with Hillary?

um hate to nitpick, but clinton didn't win florida in 1992. He did win it in 1996 though. I think Colorado, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Ohio, New Mexico, and Iowa will all be much easier for the dems to win in 2008 than florida.

[tarheel-leftist85]

yes, FL and AR--but it wouldn't be enough to combat losses in the Rust Belt

[Gabu]

The recent poll from Florida has her receiving 45% of the possible democratic voters. This is a big lead when states such as CA, MI, ME and IA have obama and clinton neck and neck in the low 30s.

That says nothing whatsoever about Hillary's ability to win Florida over a Republican.  Those 45% of Democratic voters are probably going to vote for the Democrat no matter who gets nominated.  To win in Florida, a Democrat has to appeal to independents, too, and all signs point to Clinton having trouble with that.

[MODU]

It all depends on who she is running against.

[Sensei]

Florida went for Bush in 92 by a point, even with Perot getting 18%, so It only ever went for Clinton in 96. Then again, what didn't? The dem. candidate doesn't matter too much in Florida, in my opinion. If its a good year, he wins, and if its average to bad, he loses.

[Eraserhead]

Obama and Edwards could carry Florida against anyone except maybe Giuliani.

[Reignman]

Probably (depends on the GOP candidate), so I voted yes. I think any Democratic candidate has the edge against most GOP candidates.

[adam]

I don't see anyway that a polarizing candidate like Hillary Clinton could win a state that is trending Republican. I'm not going to say it's impossible, just highly unlikely. Perhaps against a Brownback, Tancredo, or Hunter. Against any of the likely GOP nominees however, I don't see it happening.

[Padfoot]

I think Florida is a hard state to gauge due to its ever changing demographics.  The Census estimates that over 1.2 million people moved there from other states between 2000 and 2006.  Can anyone honestly say that they know how those people are going to vote in 2008? 

[Citizen James]

I think the fundemental premise here, that Hillary is the only Democratic candidate who can win Florida is flawed at best, and more likely closer to absurd.

The idea that Republicans would have a far more difficult time winning without Florida is true - it's a big state.  But not impossible.  It used to be believed that Republicans couldn't win without California, now many rightwingers sneer at the golden state with the most EVs.  Demographics change.

As to who would do best at winning Florida - I don't think it's Hillary.  Hillary would tend to draw the wingnuts out of the woodwork to vote against her.  I think even most of the fundies would 'forgive' Romney for being Mormon in order to oppose the much hated Clinton.  Obama has more charisma, Richardson has both ethnic and moderate appeal (has anyone mentioned lately that he's hispanic ), and Edwards has his populist charm.

[opebo]

It is pretty silly to focus on Florida, partly because it is a fairly strongly GOP leaning state, and partly because it is so oddball.  Very difficult to figure out and constantly changing.

Ohio on the other hand is quite simply falling into the Democrat lap - it is very similar to Michigan with a bit of Pennsylvania thrown in: not a terribly complex State.  It has basically 1) whites who are getting poorer, 2) whites who are religious to the exclusion of caring how poor they are getting, 3) Blacks who are getting poorer, and 4) a very small number of well off whites.  Few Hispanics or any other group, not much demographic chance, just hopeless whites and blacks getting poorer together. 

No state can experience the kind of massive collapse of standard of living that Ohio has experienced and still vote for the people that caused it.  Florida is by contrast 'fast growing', and though miserably low-wage, the people there have never known anything better.

Ohio is the place to focus, and massively, in 2008.  Florida is way, way down the list.

[Reaganfan]

I think Florida is a hard state to gauge due to its ever changing demographics.  The Census estimates that over 1.2 million people moved there from other states between 2000 and 2006.  Can anyone honestly say that they know how those people are going to vote in 2008? 

Well...we saw how they voted in-between that census in 2004...and it was even more for Bush despite many Kerry fans expecting a victory.

[Mr. Morden]

Clinton didn't win Florida in 1992, and in fact, supposedly back in 1992 during a Clinton campaign strategy meeting, Carville said "you don't throw money into a black hole" to justify why the campaign wasn't spending that much on Florida.  At that time, Florida was considered a pretty Republican state, though of course things have changed since then.

In any case, the premise of this question is pretty silly.  Both major party candidates are going to focus their resources on whichever states the polls say are closest, because that's what gives them the best chance of winning.  This is the way it's been for years, and it isn't going to change in 2008.  If the polls show that the race in Florida is close, then both parties are going to bombard it with advertising $ and attention.  If the polls show that isn't close, it's going to be ignored.  The same holds for the other 49 states as well.

[AngelFromKansas]

I think Florida is a hard state to gauge due to its ever changing demographics.  The Census estimates that over 1.2 million people moved there from other states between 2000 and 2006.  Can anyone honestly say that they know how those people are going to vote in 2008? 

Well...we saw how they voted in-between that census in 2004...and it was even more for Bush despite many Kerry fans expecting a victory.

did we now? i dont remember that at all. i remember we thought we won florida in 2000. oh yes we did win in 2000

[Reaganfan]

I think Florida is a hard state to gauge due to its ever changing demographics.  The Census estimates that over 1.2 million people moved there from other states between 2000 and 2006.  Can anyone honestly say that they know how those people are going to vote in 2008? 

Well...we saw how they voted in-between that census in 2004...and it was even more for Bush despite many Kerry fans expecting a victory.

did we now? i dont remember that at all. i remember we thought we won florida in 2000. oh yes we did win in 2000

Um...ok?? LOL

[MODU]

I think Florida is a hard state to gauge due to its ever changing demographics.  The Census estimates that over 1.2 million people moved there from other states between 2000 and 2006.  Can anyone honestly say that they know how those people are going to vote in 2008? 

Well...we saw how they voted in-between that census in 2004...and it was even more for Bush despite many Kerry fans expecting a victory.

did we now? i dont remember that at all. i remember we thought we won florida in 2000. oh yes we did win in 2000

Since you are still new on this site, we will not wash your mouth out for the above comment.

[Reignman]

I think the fundemental premise here, that Hillary is the only Democratic candidate who can win Florida is flawed at best, and more likely closer to absurd.