CO-PPP: No love for Hillary

[Person Man]

You gotta love how voters say they agree with the Democratic position on every issue polled, then say they're going to vote Republican anyway.

Hah I know right?  

Freedom State.

Indeed. Bush is the most behind.

I  enjoy your dislike of the Bush, but possibly for different reasons.  I've noticed a few of your posts stating your disapproval of him.  Mind if I ask why that is?  Just a bit curious is all.

People want a liberal, but not a pointy-haired know it all? But I digress. It seems that like the people they represent (preachers and big money), it just seems that Republican politicians seem to be always be one step ahead of Democrats in being smooth. Does Liberal == akward?

[Person Man]

So, why does Hillary do worse here than Obama does?

Because she's just not as good of a candidate.

Really? I'll take outperforming Obama in 49 states and losing Colorado.

There really isn't any state she would flip that Obama didn't win.  Doing a bit better in the ultra benighted South isn't any help.

Hell, even if she wins all the Gore/Kerry states and does as well as their best numbers in the South (45% in West Virginia and 46% in Tennessee and 47% in Missouri) WITH Ohio, she still loses (provided she loses Iowa, which is as bad as CO right now and the house stays R)....even if she is at 48-49% in VA,FL and NC. If Democrats simply focus on the West Coast and consolidating the Northeast+Florida, they lose.

[Person Man]

Hell, even if she wins all the Gore/Kerry states and does as well as their best numbers in the South (45% in West Virginia and 46% in Tennessee and 47% in Missouri) WITH Ohio, she still loses (provided she loses Iowa, which is as bad as CO right now and the house stays R)....even if she is at 48-49% in VA,FL and NC. If Democrats simply focus on the West Coast and consolidating the Northeast+Florida, they lose.

No, that's still a win:

Isn't that 269-269 (Kerry nor Gore won Nevada)?

[Person Man]

Hell, even if she wins all the Gore/Kerry states and does as well as their best numbers in the South (45% in West Virginia and 46% in Tennessee and 47% in Missouri) WITH Ohio, she still loses (provided she loses Iowa, which is as bad as CO right now and the house stays R)....even if she is at 48-49% in VA,FL and NC. If Democrats simply focus on the West Coast and consolidating the Northeast+Florida, they lose.

No, that's still a win:

Isn't that 269-269 (Kerry nor Gore won Nevada)?

It's 269-269 if Nevada goes R.  But if it goes D, as in the above map, it's 275-263 Dem win.

and imagine what it will be like after the 2020 reapportionment. I am guessing if a R wins in 2016, he will be heavily favored in 2020.

[Person Man]

So, why does Hillary do worse here than Obama does?

Colorado's Democratic base is very anti-establishment.

Sorry to ask, but what do you mean by that?

For example, one said they would vote for McCain if Hillary won in 2008 because they don't like dynasties. Things of that nature. Something about not being taking for granted.

[Person Man]

So, why does Hillary do worse here than Obama does?

Colorado's Democratic base is very anti-establishment.

Sorry to ask, but what do you mean by that?

Well, Hillary Clinton is a very establishment candidate.  She's a Washington insider, she has a lot of experience, she voted with the Republicans on foreign policy a lot of times, and her ideology as a whole is built around left-populism.  Contrast this to Barack Obama, who was fresh in the political scene at the time he first ran for president and represented a much younger generation of Democrats.  I don't have any statistics to back me up at the moment, but I'd assume that Colorado's Democratic base tends to be younger and ergo favorable to younger candidates.  (Colorado is also a more diverse state than say, Arkansas, so minority Democrats will tend to favor minority candidates.)  If Hillary underperforms with young voters, which I assume she will if she's the nominee, that will cost her states like Colorado where the base simply won't be there for her like they were for Obama.  Those losses could be made up for in states like Arkansas, whose Democratic base tends to be older, whiter, and not surprisingly, very favorable to the Clintons.

Also keep in mind that Colorado has better known universities than Arkansas.  Ergo, younger Democratic voters.

Another way of looking at it is seeing the US as not a collection of red states and blue states, but "libertarian" states and "populist" states.  It's a shoddy way of looking at things, sure, but the lesson from this is that older "white working class" voters tend to favor populist-based establishment candidates, and other states tend to be more supportive of newcomers.

That is, at least, my interpretation of things.  Ask me why Obama carried a rural, heavily white state like Nebraska over Hillary by such a huge margin and I couldn't tell you.  The key to winning a state is empowering the state's base and that should be enough to understand.

I thought of that, too. But Hillary did well in New Hampshire, right?

[Person Man]

So, why does Hillary do worse here than Obama does?

Colorado's Democratic base is very anti-establishment.

Sorry to ask, but what do you mean by that?

Well, Hillary Clinton is a very establishment candidate.  She's a Washington insider, she has a lot of experience, she voted with the Republicans on foreign policy a lot of times, and her ideology as a whole is built around left-populism.  Contrast this to Barack Obama, who was fresh in the political scene at the time he first ran for president and represented a much younger generation of Democrats.  I don't have any statistics to back me up at the moment, but I'd assume that Colorado's Democratic base tends to be younger and ergo favorable to younger candidates.  (Colorado is also a more diverse state than say, Arkansas, so minority Democrats will tend to favor minority candidates.)  If Hillary underperforms with young voters, which I assume she will if she's the nominee, that will cost her states like Colorado where the base simply won't be there for her like they were for Obama.  Those losses could be made up for in states like Arkansas, whose Democratic base tends to be older, whiter, and not surprisingly, very favorable to the Clintons.

Also keep in mind that Colorado has better known universities than Arkansas.  Ergo, younger Democratic voters.

Another way of looking at it is seeing the US as not a collection of red states and blue states, but "libertarian" states and "populist" states.  It's a shoddy way of looking at things, sure, but the lesson from this is that older "white working class" voters tend to favor populist-based establishment candidates, and other states tend to be more supportive of newcomers.

That is, at least, my interpretation of things.  Ask me why Obama carried a rural, heavily white state like Nebraska over Hillary by such a huge margin and I couldn't tell you.  The key to winning a state is empowering the state's base and that should be enough to understand.

I thought of that, too. But Hillary did well in New Hampshire, right?

White working-class New Hampshire?  She sure did.

I thought NH was educated and rural, not industrial.

[Person Man]

So, why does Hillary do worse here than Obama does?

Colorado's Democratic base is very anti-establishment.

Sorry to ask, but what do you mean by that?

Well, Hillary Clinton is a very establishment candidate.  She's a Washington insider, she has a lot of experience, she voted with the Republicans on foreign policy a lot of times, and her ideology as a whole is built around left-populism.  Contrast this to Barack Obama, who was fresh in the political scene at the time he first ran for president and represented a much younger generation of Democrats.  I don't have any statistics to back me up at the moment, but I'd assume that Colorado's Democratic base tends to be younger and ergo favorable to younger candidates.  (Colorado is also a more diverse state than say, Arkansas, so minority Democrats will tend to favor minority candidates.)  If Hillary underperforms with young voters, which I assume she will if she's the nominee, that will cost her states like Colorado where the base simply won't be there for her like they were for Obama.  Those losses could be made up for in states like Arkansas, whose Democratic base tends to be older, whiter, and not surprisingly, very favorable to the Clintons.

Also keep in mind that Colorado has better known universities than Arkansas.  Ergo, younger Democratic voters.

Another way of looking at it is seeing the US as not a collection of red states and blue states, but "libertarian" states and "populist" states.  It's a shoddy way of looking at things, sure, but the lesson from this is that older "white working class" voters tend to favor populist-based establishment candidates, and other states tend to be more supportive of newcomers.

That is, at least, my interpretation of things.  Ask me why Obama carried a rural, heavily white state like Nebraska over Hillary by such a huge margin and I couldn't tell you.  The key to winning a state is empowering the state's base and that should be enough to understand.

I thought of that, too. But Hillary did well in New Hampshire, right?

White working-class New Hampshire?  She sure did.

I thought NH was educated and rural, not industrial.

Clinton won because southeast NH (the most populous, urban part of the state) strongly favored her.  Obama did better in rural NH.

I think this speech may have had a slight impact too, but I'm not sure.  I do know that the NH primary was very close (less than 3% decided it), so it wasn't exactly "made" for either candidate.

But like I said, I can't explain why every state voted the way it did.  Colorado and Arkansas are pretty easy to explain, but many of the primary states were very competitive.

Although I seriously doubt Hillary will be able to actively campaign in Arkansas or have to punt on Colorado.

[Person Man]

2020 reapportionment of course won't happen by the 2020 election.  2024 would be the first presidential election using the 2020 census numbers.

Yeah and that might be the first good chance to pick back up the WH if it is lost in 16.

[Person Man]

So, why does Hillary do worse here than Obama does?

Because she's just not as good of a candidate.

Really? I'll take outperforming Obama in 49 states and losing Colorado.

There really isn't any state she would flip that Obama didn't win.  Doing a bit better in the ultra benighted South isn't any help.

Hell, even if she wins all the Gore/Kerry states and does as well as their best numbers in the South (45% in West Virginia and 46% in Tennessee and 47% in Missouri) WITH Ohio, she still loses (provided she loses Iowa, which is as bad as CO right now and the house stays R)....even if she is at 48-49% in VA,FL and NC. If Democrats simply focus on the West Coast and consolidating the Northeast+Florida, they lose.

Democrats will lose Florida in 2016 if the state matters if Rick Scott is still Governor. Scott will do everything possible to suppress votes unlikely to go for the Republican nominee unless he has nothing to gain. If Charlie Crist is Governor in 2016, then there will be an honest count in an open election.

Did any Democrat want the 2012 Presidential election to depend upon Florida?  

No. Democrats don't deliver there. If they can't deliver against Scott, what makes you think they will deliver against the National Republicans? Regardless of the fact that Scott will probably cheat or to be more precise cheat a lot harder.

[Person Man]

I was certainly glad to see Florida become anticlimax in 2012.  Romney lost it in the last week  with a stupid ad trying to link President Obama to Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro.

Well, that would explain a lot, wouldn't it?