Writes Marc Humbert:While the [New York] endorsements came as no real surprise, the Giuliani camp made it clear there was a multilayer agenda at work. Besides demonstrating to other GOP contenders that he probably had New York locked up and they should keep their distance, Giuliani was also sending a message to Republicans nationwide that he was the one GOP contender who could put New York and other states in the Northeast in play for the party.
"This time we are not giving up on New York. This time we are going to win New York, and we are going to win California, and New Jersey, and Connecticut and Pennsylvania," he said in Syracuse. "We are going to contest this election in every state and not give away half the states before the election even begins."...
Such numbers, according to a top Clinton ally, show not why Republicans should pick Giuliani, but why Democrats need to pick her.
"You cannot win the White House as a Democrat without New York. It would be like trying to win the White House as a Republican without Texas. It just can't happen," said David Pollak, co-chairman of New York's state Democratic Committee.
"I don't think you could make the case that the others are bad candidates, I just think Hillary is by far in the best shape right now against Giuliani if he is the nominee because he does put New York in play," Pollak added. "I'm not saying he wins New York, but he puts it in play."
I realize she's the Senator from New York, but that doesn't mean she's all that much stronger than the other Democratic candidates in New York. Clearly, Giuliani is the only Republican candidate that has a chance in those big blue states. This has been one of Giuliani's big arguments. The question is whether Hillary can take that argument -- which is a good one -- and leverage an argument of her own -- which is not so obvious.
[Clinton and Giuliani] were opponents in the 2000 Senate race in New York until Giuliani dropped out in the face of prostate cancer and a disintegrating marriage. Polls at the time showed the two running about even.
That was also, of course, the year that saw the disputed presidential election being decided by court rulings that gave the Electoral College victory to Republican George W. Bush after Democrat Al Gore won the popular vote.
"It would be a twisted version of 2000 if Barack Obama won the presidential vote by a million votes, but lost the Electoral College because he didn't win New York," said Pollak.
Thanks for reminding us of Al Gore, who would not have lost in 2000
if he had won his home state.
पोस्ट्स
१४ टिप्पण्या:
The Democrat nomination for President goes to whomever Andy Stern, Gerald McEntee, Reg Weaver, Eddy McElroy, John Gage, John Sweeney and Jimmy Hoffa agree it should go to, no matter what anyone else says, especially Kos and his Children of the Corn.
Right now, the Hillary! has the momentum with them, so she's probably the nominee.
Al Gore, who would not have lost in 2000 if he had won his home state.
I find that this is a useful fact to bring up when Democratic partisans whine about losing that election.
Me, I take it as evidence that the nominating process is seriously flawed.
Democrats should take a couple of lessons from the last 40 years and realize that they have gone 0-3 when nominating VPs and 0-2 when nominating senators.
Ann says: "Thanks for reminding us of Al Gore, who would not have lost in 2000 if he had won his home state."
True, but that's really nothing more than a red herring, especially considering the fact that he carried the overall popular vote and also would have won had the Florida vote not been tainted.
(And I hope you don't think the Supreme Court's intrusion was the right thing to do...do you??)
*Polk and Wilson also lost their state of residence, but won the electoral vote. And...Harrison, Taylor, Lincoln and G.W. Bush lost their birth state, but won the electoral vote.
As for Florida, do you also still believe the Jewish vote went to Pat Buchanan.
"Clearly, Giuliani is the only Republican candidate that has a chance in those big blue states."
He is the only formally declared candidate who has a chance. What is Thompson's polling there?
Trey
Giuliani has so many skeletons in his closet, along with ties to unsavory characters, situations and corruption he won't even make it through the caucuses.
Plus, the man lies through his teeth on a regular basis. (Anybody catch him on Letterman?)
"and also would have won had the Florida vote not been tainted"
Not what the journalists' recount showed.
Clearly, Giuliani is the only Republican candidate that has a chance in those big blue states. This has been one of Giuliani's big arguments.
Not so clearly.
Romney leads in Iowa and NH polls. Romney is also curiously doomed in his home blue state of TedKennedyLand, but polls ahead of Giuliani in moderate Blue States. He is free of the "New Yowkas" demanding to be in charge when they are just an old city connected to a collapsed Upstate economy stigma that attaches to aggressive, pushy New Yorkers like Bloomberg, Giuliani, Trump, Schumer, NYTimes editors, ACLU Headquarters.
Giuliani, on the other hand, is associated with "strong against terror" and polls better than Romney in the South. But so far no one has gone after Rudy's quite large closet of skeletons.
(I'm writing off McCain because he has taken his "vote for me because I was captured by the enemy and suffered" image as far as it would go - and immigration betrayal from McCain-Kennedy as well McCain-Feingold and his erratic behavior doom him.)
Gingrich may come in with McCain's collapse, only to find to his shock that voters still don't like the Idea Man.
Thompson too, but he is the Republican version of John Edwards. A smooth talking empty suit who never did executive work and has an undistinguished 1-term Senate record.
Looks like???
Hillary-Romney, IMO, with Hillary definitely having the edge a year and a half out from elections.
If the contest is between Hillary! and Rudy, I imagine the presidential debates would be completely free of personal swipes and big on the issues. [Two glass houses]. At that point, I think Rudy would outmatch Hillary!, and it is just about the time most of the electorate starts getting interested.
Giuliani has so many skeletons in his closet, along with ties to unsavory characters, situations and corruption
Wow, he and Hillary really are similar in some ways.
touché freeman.
Although I find myself wondering, from a purely objective view, whether Americans have a gender bias regarding corruption. Assuming all things [scandals] being equal, will they be harder on Hillary than they would Giuliani/Nixon?
Gore? Home state? heck, I'm still wondering what would have happened if Florida hadn't been fixed.
If Gore had won his home state, it wouldn't have mattered what happened in Florida.
Giuliani has so many skeletons in his closet, along with ties to unsavory characters, situations and corruption [...] Plus, the man lies through his teeth on a regular basis. (Anybody catch him on Letterman?)
I'd love to see Hillary try to run on the "I'm honest and corrupt-free" platform. That should be good for a collective giggle from the electorate.
True. but he didn't and therefore it did.
i no longer ride the horse about gore/florida other than the entire episode was an embarrassment to the system and i fail to see how it worked at all.
perhaps the only good is that kat harris isn't holding any office whatsoever.
What is troubling, and I was at a political planning meeting for long island democrats this last week, is the amount of attention being placed on potential voting machine fraud. a guiliani/clinton race would be so fractious and potentially so divisive that zealots of both stripes would look for anything that could tip a key precinct...
unfortunately, i think that is a correct observation.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा