Re: 15 States to Watch in the US Presidential Elec
Sammie I love your posts
but here I think I'll disagree. It seems to me this kind of conventional analysis is a bit outdated. The last election I think it can be accurately be applied to is 1988 with Dukakis which is 20 yrs ago.
In 92 Bill Clinton was hardly the most liberal candidate and in any case he won. (although I readily concede without Perot in the race the outcome would probably have been different). In 2000 no matter how liberal Gore may have been he did receive more votes than Bush so how bad of a candidate could he have been.
In 2004 Kerry lost to Bush by about 2.5% which is the smallest margin of victory for an incumbent president since WW2 so again how bad of a candidate could he have been.
Your analysis may prove true in this cycle as the left clearly refused to support Mrs. Clinton because of her war vote (although I'm not sure she is all that far to the right of Obama) but if Obama wins then it will continue to be an outdated analysis pushed by those who cling to the idea that we are a conservative country.
(to me we reside at the conservative end of a liberal universe)
LOL....I'm laughing because I pretty much disagree with your entire post, except the 1988 part.
In '92, Clinton was indeed not the liberal candidate, but Dems were thristy for a win. The lone time that I can recollect they were willing to sacrifice their liberal agenda. Many, in the '80's, seriously wondered if the Dems would ever win again after the Reagan housecleaning revolution. Also, Clinton benefited from a lot of weak Dem opponents who were poorly funded like Tsongas and Brown. And, I do think Clinton would have won despite Perot. It would have been closer in the electoral college as Clinton would have lost some SE and western states without Perot. Most pundits at the time, based on polling, found Perot's impact almost equal to Bush and Clinton (a smidgen more impact on Bush). Revisionist, mainly from the GOP, like to act today as if Bush re-election was destroyed by Perot.
In 2000, Gore (whom I love) inexplicably forget his entire Tennessee senate and VP days and ran as an old time liberal. Had he kept with the Clinton record and his own biography, he would have won states like NH, TN and WV and consequently the election. Gore moved to the far left out of pressure from...yep, those primary liberals who can't simmer down and be glad for a win. Besides, his nomination was pretty much pre-ordained since he was the sitting VP...although there were liberal elements of the party working the Bradley angle....so, it really wasn't a cycle where Dems got to actually pick a candidate like in '88, '92, '04 and '08.
In 2004, honestly!!! That's your worst argument. Bush should have never been in the game. Close, as in 2.5%, doesn't count. He was another Yankee liberal that only "sells" in the northeast. Liberals were falling all over themselves because he was Howard Dean without the scream, and he had a military record, which he couldn't even capitalize on. America was ready to move on past Bush, but the Dems could only offer up Kerry. America said, 'no thanks.' Why would the liberals ever think that in just a few years after 9/11, America would jump on John Kerry's shoulders.
Obama...let's just wait and see. I'm not positive he is a liberal. And I'm not sure he and Hillary aren't the same politically, too; she did a better job in the ladder months of the election shifting to the middle, so she was positioned to his right, but I'm not sure that is where she really is.
.