Posted on 11/17/2014 7:56:35 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Somehow, the message Hillary Clinton’s nascent presidential campaign took from 2014 is that the former secretary of state is a rising star and Democrats are winning the future. That is the inevitable takeaway from an interview Talking Points Memo’s Dylan Scott conducted with President Barack Obama’s former battleground states director for his 2012 campaign, Mitch Stewart.
According to this seasoned Democrat, Clinton can reasonably expect to expand on Barack Obama’s 2008 successes with minorities and do him one better as a result of Clinton’s appeal to working class white voters. In fact, Stewart says, Clinton can expect to flip red states in 2016 like Arizona, Indiana, Arkansas, Missouri, and Georgia to claim 382 votes in the Electoral College.
None of these states are likely to be the key 270th electoral vote, Stewart emphasized. The electoral tipping point is still likely to be the traditional battleground states: Iowa, New Hampshire, Virginia, Ohio, Colorado and Nevada. But if Democrats can make these other states competitive, it gives them more room for error and forces Republicans to expend resources in places that have traditionally been marked down as wins for them before the campaign even starts.
“If Republicans have to spend resources in Arizona and George to make sure that they win it, that means that they’re spending less resources elsewhere,” Stewart said. “The further we can play into their field, the more money they’re going to have to spend playing defense in places they’ve normally taken for granted.”
Stewart’s outlook is a common one in the Hillary 2016 universe. The New York Times‘ Amy Chozick reported earlier this month that Clinton supporters have a term for it — the “New Clinton Map,” which combines white working-class women with the Obama coalition to expand the electoral playing field.
Other top Democratic strategists, not as immediately involved in Clintonland, agree that they might be onto something.
The Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza calls this rather rosy appraisal of Clinton’s electoral appeal out for its “ridiculousness.”
It’s easy to assume — and the Clintons almost certainly are assuming — that the former first couple of Arkansas have a special connection to the Natural State. After all, Bill Clinton spent years as the state’s governor and used it as a launching pad for his presidential bid in 1992.
That was a very long time ago. And even in the past six years, Arkansas has moved heavily away from Democrats at the federal level. In 2008, both U.S. senators from Arkansas were Democrats, as were three of its four House members. Following the 2014 elections, all six are Republicans. ALL SIX. President Obama won just 37 percent of the vote in the state in the 2012 general election after watching someone named John Wolfe win 42 percent of the vote in the Democratic presidential primary against him.
Would Hillary Clinton do better than that? Yes. But the idea that the Arkansas that helped push Bill Clinton into the national spotlight has anything in common, politically speaking, with the Arkansas of 2014 is a fallacy. As for the idea that Obama’s race was the fundamental reason for his poor showing among white working-class voters, here are two words for you: Mark Pryor. As in, the two term incumbent senator — and son of a former governor and senator in the state — who just lost badly in his bid for reelection. Pryor took just 31 percent among white voters and won an even more meager 29 percent among whites without a college education. (The exit poll didn’t break down income level by race.)
Missouri and Indiana are slightly — emphasis on slightly — less clear-cut as such huge reaches when it comes to Clinton’s presidential prospects. Obama’s successes in both states in 2008 — he won Indiana and lost Missouri by less than 4,000 votes — would seem to provide significant encouragement for the Clinton forces. But subsequent election results in both states make 2008 look far more like the exception than the rule for Democrats.
Cillizza’s analysis is correct, but it probably misses the point. Stewart’s bullish assessment of Clinton’s abilities, pronounced confidently in a leftwing publication, are perhaps less of an attempt at political analysis and more of an appeal to calm the rising concerns among liberals that Clinton is not up to the task of retaining the White House for Democrats.
From The Nation magazine, to MSNBC’s Morning Joe, to David Axelrod, the left is no longer concealing their lack of confidence in Clinton’s abilities as a campaigner. Even those who are convinced of Hillary’s appeal fear that 2016′s anti-Democratic headwinds will be too strong for even a popular figure like the former secretary to overcome. Unrealistically optimistic forecasts like those offered by Stewart are only likely to inspire more panic on the pragmatic left.
Oh, that is true.
Nevertheless, any Demon Rat--Hitlery, Michelle Obama, Fauxachontas, the socialist NYC mayor, Dennis Kook-cinich, ANY DemonRat starts with a huuuuuge advantage.:
Gallup's daily polling from last year showed these states as the most "Democrat" of all 50...how many electoral votes does ANY DemonRAT start with, then--meaning they don't have to campaign in these states because the voting population is so dense, so uneducated, so addicted to government that the DemonRat is assured of winning the state?
You also ought to throw in a couple of other states: Wisconsin and Pennsylvania....both of those states have, sadly, voted for the DemonRat candidates in EACH OF THE LAST SIX PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS....so, sadly, here is what the DemonRat starts with:
247 votes...sucks, I know. But we cannot avoid reality. Has Obama done so much damage to the DemonRat party that some of that advantage is mitigated? Maybe. But not much.
Now, let's look at what the Republican starts with. Here are Gallup's most Republican states in 2013:
So, let's add those states with the same criteria as we applied to the DemonRats. States SO solid for Republicans that campaigning shouldn't be done there--you add...Texas and Mississippi. That is it. Believe it or not, every other state has voted Democrat at least once since 1992. So here is the "solid" Republican map, as I see it:
105 votes. Paltry.
In other words, the Demonrat starts out needing ONLY 23 electoral votes to find...whereas the Republican has to find 165.
Resources are limited--and the Demon Rat can put their monies and operations in many places.
Ohio, Florida, Virginia, Missouri, are all deeply competitive but they are almost MUST wins for the Republican--the 'rat can afford to lose them because it can afford to cobble together 23 votes elsewhere.
I don't want to be depressing, but realistic.
If someone wants to shed light and hopefully suggest I have missed something, I am open to that possibility.
Please note, the "solid" designation may have shifted...I can't imagine, really, Kentucky or Louisiana or Tennessee or West Virginia or Arkansas or Georgia REALLY voting for a Democrat. But how much does that help the Republican? And just for fun, let's add in Indiana and North Carolina--two states that went for Obama in '08 but went for Romney in '12. Let's see:
Well, that helps a wee bit. Now the Republican is at 179 votes. So s/he is short by 91 votes.
The Republican starts out needing 91 votes, the DemonRat only 23.
Thoughts, anyone?
The Clintons have been sucking up to the RINO side of the republican party for years. They are betting on crossovers from the republican party to put her over the top.
Heck, just the other day W called Bill he brother by another mother!
*puke*
The few liberals in my family tell me that they don’t care for her, but see her as maybe their best chance to finally gain complete control of SCOTUS.
I don’t really agree with that assessment (by the time Obama’s two terms are up, the country will be sick & tired of *all* Dims), but damn if they don’t have killer instinct regarding the courts..
ROFL on that image!
they use the term “tipping point” and, as I’ve noted, FLA is no longer in that column as it has become more GOP than average. Prob stayed the same as COL VA NV have drifted left.
Pennsylvania has moved toward the GOP. I have no articulate theory on it. Industry. Coal. Rural-living.
Republicans have to win FL, OH, CO and NV to win - all states Obama carried in 2012.
PA is not winnable because of Philly. So it leaves those four states plus VA which nowadays is very difficult to win because its flipped from Red to Purple.
The path is there but its easier for a Democrat than a Republican in Purple states due to changing demographics.
As it stands the GOP is at a disadvantage and has to run the boards to win the White House.
Its the political reality come 2016.
Delusional.
These just might take hillary out of the running.
Six trivia questions to see how much history you really know. Be honest, it’s kinda fun and revealing. If you don’t know the answer make your best guess. Answer all of the questions (no cheating) before looking at the answers. And no, the answers to these questions isn’t all “Barack Obama”.
Who said it?
1) “We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.”
A. Karl Marx
B. Adolph Hitler
C. Joseph Stalin
D. Barack Obama
E. None of the above
2) “It’s time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few...... And to replace it with shared responsibility, for shared prosperity.”
A. Lenin
B. Mussolini
C. Idi Amin
D. Barack Obama
E. None of the above
3) “(We).....can’t just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people.”
A. Nikita Khrushev
B. Joseph Goebbels
C. Boris Yeltsin
D. Barack Obama
E. None of the above
4) “We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give up a little bit of their own ... in order to create this common ground.”
A. Mao Tse Dung
B. Hugo Chavez
C. Kim Jong II
D. Barack Obama
E. None of the above
5) “I certainly think the free-market has failed.”
A. Karl Marx
B. Lenin
C. Molotov
D. Barack Obama
E. None of the above
6) “I think it’s time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in (the) entire economy that they are being watched.”
A. Pinochet
B. Milosevic
C. Saddam Hussein
D. Barack Obama
E. None of the above
Scroll down for answers
Answers
(1) E. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/29/2004
(2) E. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 5/29/2007
(3) E. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
(4) E. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
(5) E. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
(6) E. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 9/2/2005
NV now has a GOP legislature and in CO the Senate is now under GOP control.
In VA, Democratic Sen. Mark Warner barely beat an underfunded GOP candidate.
So things are looking brighter for 2016.
If she is nominated, it won’t matter what Republicans do. She will lose. She screws up everything she touches. I don’t think she’ll be nominated, 2008 was her year but she screws up everything she touches.
2012 margin of victory by Bambi
1.Colorado, 5.37%
2.Pennsylvania, 5.39%
3.New Hampshire, 5.58%
4.Iowa, 5.81%
5.Nevada, 6.68%
6.Wisconsin, 6.94%
Ryan helped WISC, so that is now inaccurate ... did Mormonism help Romney in NV?
FL VA OH all appear to be more in the GOP camp. If CO is ever forever lost, we are cooked.
That’s what I’m thinking. If Kerry (the Democrat version of Bob Dole) can win 246EVs after 9/11, I’m guessing that almost any Democrat nominee can win those states. (I’d say keep an eye on Michigan, but suspect that Clinton would do a few points better among white voters than Hussein did.)
I don’t trust the direction Virginia is going. The Dems had no GOTV machine and still won during this dramatic wave year, and the suburbs outside of D.C. are only going to get more populated (including more illegals and lots more fraud). And NM seems gone.
This all adds-up to the Democrat needing to win only one more state.. Ohio, Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada - any one would do the trick.
If the GOP is considering splitting electoral votes in Michigan and Wisconsin, I’d say do it. It would give them a tiny bit more breathing room against the Democrat in ‘16.
And I’d also prioritize passage of more voter ID laws. I’m convinced that there are states in the “blue wall” that are built on illegal voters.
Oui, one suspects, and also that Jerry Moonbeam might appear as her Veep candidate.
There is no honor among the corrupted, and one suspects that Hillary will be shown the door at the last moment (and Warren will be able to do what Mister Obama did, use the fact that she had little political voting history to her advantage.)
I would love to be wrong, btw.
.
I also tried to review the use of Palin in fall 2008. She went immediately to CO. Grand Junction, Greeley, Col SPrings, Loveland. Golden. All the right places.
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_10771372
Then did they get distracted by the national interviews with Couric, etc.? And the hockey game in Philly?
The Palin effort to bring out the rural and Christian base ... seemed to lose steam in CO. Did they quit on it?
Who the f cares. The elites will get whomever they want that will screw us people. ONLY a total revolution will get the real America back but this train has passed the station.
Lizzie best hope, that Hill’s kill boys- are well retired.
Wash this interview in Colorado and everyone high on pot?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.