Polls Show Clinton Campaign Collapsing In Early States

[naked gent]

Hillary Clinton's success after being elected Senator is what I think is relevant and important here.

Perhaps, but when you overstate your case by claiming that her margin of victory was "slim" in 2000 your larger point is lost in the inaccuracy of your details.

Clearly Jack is correct on this point. In fact I believe in politics when you receive 55% of the vote or more they call it a landslide.

And while her vote totals in NY are impressive its an open question whether she can get over 50% of the national vote.......something her husband, who seems to exceed her in popularity, failed to do twice.

 

[SixPackInBoxers]

Bill is Hillary's strongest asset. After eight years of Bush, we need some serious damage control, especially abroad. As much as our traditional allies have come to despise us, they still love Bubba. I see his role in a Hillary administration as being good-will ambassador at large. Bill will take care of foreign policy, while Hillary attends to domestic matters.

The interesting point here is that Hillary could not appoint Bill to any official position as it is forbidden now under US law now to appoint a family member. On the othar hand Obama could - and probably would - as many people feel Bill still has much to offer.

Anyone wanting Bill Clinton playing some sort of official role in foreign affairs should recognise that fact. He would not be eliminated from becoming Secretary of State, for instance, under Obama - he would be under a Hillary Presidency.

 

[MystikWizard]

I know Hillary just got the Des Moines Register Endorsement today. She and Bill had to work overtime for that one.

 

[NickCole]

Perhaps, but when you overstate your case by claiming that her margin of victory was "slim" in 2000 your larger point is lost in the inaccuracy of your details.

Clearly Jack is correct on this point. In fact I believe in politics when you receive 55% of the vote or more they call it a landslide.

A landslide is an overwhelming majority of votes. 55% is not an overwhelming majority.

In any case, the New Yorkers I know typically think of Hillary as barely winning in 2000 and winning overwhelmingly in 2006. If you or anyone else thinks "slim majority" is not a good characterization of her win in 2000, and you want to claim a victory over that, fine. Pop your champagne and celebrate whatever victory that is.

My point, which is a response to Midnight77's false assertion, stands.

The attitude about her changed markedly in those six years because she assessed the problems in New York State that a Senator could address and took effective action to deal with them.

In New York that's what we want in an elected official. And that's why we re-elected her and want her in our state. Evidence of that is her landslide victory in 2006 after having a chance to prove herself.