Poll: Hillary could put Texas in play...

"trust me, Kerry is gonna win in a landslide".

Hillary win in TX. She's got more chance winning here in VA and I'm just laughing at those chances.

and Clinton could have taken Texas with some (any) money. Instead we had to buy our own yard signs and bumper stickers.

I'm sceptical that it would have been that close without a strong third-party candidate. Remember, not Democrat has one a state-wide election in Texas in over 12 years.

There are SO few young and hip people in that state!

Not hip and cool enough...

:sarcasm:

:rofl:

There's an Obama poster around here that slams Hillary supporters over and over as not being "young and hip".

every vote counts IMO

Sometimes my smart ass gene takes over too quick!

They don't need to print new signs. They can just paint "Hillary" over "Dukakis" on the old ones.

I notice the poll did not include either Thompson or Romney. Anyway, I think the only candidate who has a remote shot at turning TX blue is Richardson because he's from the SW and is immune from the aforementioned slogan.

He oppose gun control?

Doesn't seem to be helpin him much!

...and everyone knows it. Besides after a smear campaign that points out HRC's pro-gay, pro-choice and anti-gun credentials, I think McCain would beat her there.

Cripes they elected a whacked out neophyte over Ann Richards...

You think McCain is too whacked out for them?

I don't expect TX to go blue.

McCain is regarded as anti-gun/pro-gun-control, and briefly served as a spokesperson for an organ of the ban-more-guns lobby, the now-defunct Americans for Gun Safety (the same group that sold the DLC on repeating the 1994 and 2000 mistakes in 2004). After seeing Senator Kerry go down in flames among gun owners in '04 on the "I support hunting, ban nonhunting guns" message, McCain has been giving lip service to gun owners here and there, but I think he's probably just playing both sides of the fence.

She definitely needs to address that issue. Edwards has taken steps in that direction, but I haven't gotten the impression that the Clinton campaign even understands the issue to begin with, and they really need to make the effort, IMHO.


----------
Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What? (written in '04, largely vindicated in '06, IMO)

not because she's a woman, but because she's now a New Yorker.

He certainly doesn't seem to be making much headway with Democrats...

After the Primaries?

November 6th, 2009

Hillary Clinton Elected 44th President of the United States

Defeats Rudolph Guiliani in Landslide



DU reaction: It's all name recognition



:rofl:

The activists, political consultants, etc who supported Hillary are crediting her victory to her right-of-center politics. In reality, she won it because most Democrats -- the 99% who are not activists, political consultants, etc -- voted for her in the primary believing she was Liberal. And this election was all about winning the Democratic primary. We could have nominated Gumby for president and still won this election after the debacle of the W administration.

Thanks I needed that!

These polls are going to change a lot over the next year, so it's silly to put any stock in them today. Hillary might lead in Texas now, but I remember in 2002 reading a poll that suggested Bush might win New York. This time next year will give us a better idea of whether or not Texas is in play. Right now is just far too soon, or I think so anyway.

She gets less than 33% support and everyone knows her. You honestly thing that the 30% undecideds are going to vote for her? They're undecided because they don't know which Republican to support yet.

Hillary has the support of Democrats, that's true. The Republicans are currently divided. That's why she's even close in this poll. But guess what? The Republicans will eventually nominate someone and the Republican base will rally. You know what will happen then? Hillary will still be at 33%.

Remember Congresswoman Busby?

I can't wait to see the smart-ass comments from Clinton supporters then.

Giuliani sounds and looks really weird down here. He's the stereotypical New York (no offense to New Yorkers, it's just a cultural comfort-level thing) businessman-looking fellow, and that's not popular in Texas. He won't inspire anyone. Plus, he loses the anti-abortion crowd and the family values crowd, and that's what has kept Texas Republican.

McCain is a war hero, so he gets more respect, and he doesn't look New York-ish.

Hillary has a strong, southern-sounding voice, without being abrasive. Like your Aunt Hazel. Her accent isn't very southern, but it is closer than the rest of the field. Plus, we've elected women to the governor's mansion and the Senate, so Texans aren't uncomfortable with a woman leader.

And, there are a lot of Arkansans in Texans. I've met quite a few who say they always vote Republican, but they plan to vote Hillary. I've met some who say that the Clintons were Satan's spawn, too, of course.

So, maybe she can poll well against the Republicans, given their options so far. I have a feeling Fred Thompson would negate her edge, though.

Don't forget, back in the hills and the woods in Texas this is the state that elected Ralph Yarborough, Jim Hightower, and Ann Richards, and produced regional politicians like Barbara Jordan, Sheila Jackson Lee, Henry B. Gonzales, and Mickey Leland. There is a strong strand of populism in rural Texas, and that populism oddly tends toward libertarianism. That's helped the Republicans more than the Dems, but with Republicans calling for runaway spending and more intrusive government, there's a chance it will turn. Also, Austin is liberal, San Antonio and the valley go Democratic usually, and white males are a distinct minority in Texas. Whites are outnumbered by African-Americans and Hispanics, and are quickly on the road to losing their numerical edge to Hispanics, who tend to vote Democrat in Texas more than Republican. Also, immigration will be big with Hispanics, and the xenophobia of the Republican candidates will offend many, and not just Hispanic voters.

Given Hillary's predicted edge with women voters, the demographics make it interesting.

And no, I don't think she will win here. But if she's the nominee, I'll do as much as I can to make it fun. :)

to keynote their state convention last summer before the 2006 election. And Clark was the most requested surrogate in red states. Clark is the one who can flip red states, including possibly Texas. The perceptions of red state voters are interesting: The more moderate Hillary is perceived as a flaming liberal. The more progressive Clark is viewed through the prism of his war hero/military general status as being more moderate. Wes Clark is a progressive wolf in military sheep's uniform. That is what can flip red states, not name recognition polling 9 months out from the primaries, and 18 months out from the GE. By definition, a red state has more Rs than Ds. To flip one requires that we hold our base, win Is, and make some inroads among Rs. I am in contact with enough DEM WOMEN who are, at best, lukewarm to HRC. Does anyone seriously think that Hillary gets any Rethug male votes? And Rethug women vote with their husbands. Do the electoral math folks! Hillary doesn't flip red states. Does she even hold NH, PA, WI for Dems?

but it would be nice, for sure!

But simply to be considered "in play" instead of being written off would be a huge difference.

But if you go read the Burnt Orange Report, the readers there seem to like John Edwards. Edwards out-raised all Dems in Texas the first Q. Chris Bell has endorsed Edwards, and so has Kirk Watson. Jim Hightower said Edwards was the most progressive candidate thus for.

http://www.burntorangereport.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3660

yes, campaigning, no).

As a result, I'm not sure what that poll was measuring, but it's not measuring how well the candidates' campaigns are winning over voters here in Texas because not a single TV spot, mailer, door-hanger, yard-sign, billboard, or radio piece has come into Texas yet.

And I think I read Obama also visited Austin and thousands turned out to see him.

My point is that any poll numbers for Edwards, HRC, and Obama are not a reliable measure of how well their campaigns are reaching their target audiences because they are not campaigning in Texas yet (apart from campaign events tied to fund-raising efforts).

Not a chance in hell. A delusional conclusion.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

No democratic candidate can win Texas not Clinton not Obama not Edwards....it is not going to happen!

They had it plastered as the first link on the news column. I damn near broke my computer chair while spinning around. :rofl:

Every cycle on DU we get many posts claiming progress in Texas and Georgia. I know you have to fight in those states and I don't want to discourage anyone, but a little bit of rational analysis would be nice. At least this is from a source, not a thread out of the blue claiming we'll win in Texas.

embarrassment to Texans that they'd turn their electoral votes over to the Democratic ticket in 08. A big party at my house if it happens.

But I still think it's a long shot, no matter who's on our ticket.

sniffing way too much glue...

Out of the current crop of dem frontrunners, Hillary is the one that my mom and dad like most. Interestingly, my grandmother, who normally supports the GOP, also likes Hillary.

While I have Hillary as my avatar, I'm also impressed Obama and Edwards (and of course, Gore!!). We are fortunate to have a great slate of dem candidates in the primaries.

he beats all Repub contenders.

What are they afraid of finding out in Texas?

would send to the right.

They haven't had to worry about Texas in a long time. If they have to spend time and money in Texas, that is great for us. It may not matter so much who we nominate. What matters is that they run a competent, determined campaign.

who I know. Yes, we've had one uppity woman Governor here, but Hillary is not Ann Richards!

Hillary is going to do better in all the polls of later primary states where people haven't gotten the chance to examine all the candidates as closely as the early primary states have. That's also why national polls are meaningless.

I also noticed that McCain gets 36% against Hillary but only 32% against Obama. There are a lot of undecided with Obama. People there don't know him as well as Hillary yet. The poll doesn't tell us much more than that.

I think that's the funniest thing I have heard today. :rofl: