Would Clinton really have done that much better than Obama in Appalachia? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 29, 2024, 01:05:32 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Trends (Moderator: 100% pro-life no matter what)
  Would Clinton really have done that much better than Obama in Appalachia? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Would Clinton really have done that much better than Obama in Appalachia?  (Read 3589 times)
Asian Nazi
d32123
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,523
China


« on: November 23, 2012, 08:33:56 PM »

Not unless she starts prancing around Appalachia championing how amazing clean coal is and regularly badmouths renewable energy.

Her color would probably allow her to do less bad, but the death of unions and the Democratic shift left on social and environmental issues makes victory in Appalachia impossible.
Logged
Asian Nazi
d32123
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,523
China


« Reply #1 on: November 29, 2012, 04:46:01 PM »

Yes, but because she was more centrist than Obama.  Obama far and away is just not a good fit for the region politically--he's WAY too liberal.  Not that Hillary Clinton's not pretty far-left herself, but just not as much as Obama.  So, although she probably wouldn't have done a whole lot better, she would have performed better than he did.

Obama and Clinton had the same positions on cap and trade, healthcare and taxes.  On what issues was Obama far more liberal?  I can't think of any.

Skin color. Tongue
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.018 seconds with 13 queries.