By: The Grey Havens Published On: 8/21/2007 8:00:43 PM
After this past week with Karl Rove making a punchline of himself with his unbridled projectionassault against the fair Mrs. Clinton, it's great to see the latest set of SurveyUSA polls which show Hillary expanding her lead against all Republicans. After all of the talk about Hillary's negatives, we could only expect other Democrats like John Edwards and Barack Obama to do even better.
Virginia. 13 Electoral Votes. Bush won 2004 by 8%. (6/11 results) Clinton 49 (44) Giuliani 46 (48)
Clinton 51 (50) Thompson 42 (45)
Clinton 53 (51) Romney 39 (40)
She's also expanding her lead in Kentucky and closing the gap in Alabama where Bush won by 26 points. If Flip-Flop Mitt, Grandpa Fred, and Fireman-in-a-Pothole Rudy can't deliver the South, just what are they hoping for? Maybe, like some other Republicans, they're hoping for another 9/11. Seriously Republicans, when your only hope is massive loss of life, maybe it's time to reconsider what you're working for.
Comments
Latest in a series of polls showing her doing well in red states (SaveElmer - 8/21/2007 8:05:06 PM)
Arkansas, Florida, Ohio, now Kentucky, Virginia, and Alabama...
Right now she is doing something nearly unprecedented...running an effective primary and general election campaign simultaneously...
Great news (DanG - 8/21/2007 8:12:38 PM)
Though I think Obama or Edwards would be more competetive in VA, it is good news that even Hillary will be able to keep our 13 votes in play.
Karl Rove is an idiot (The Grey Havens - 8/21/2007 8:27:29 PM)
LOL! (tx2vadem - 8/21/2007 9:12:05 PM)
That was random. Have you got that out of your system?
Oh on the topic of Rove's attacks on Hillary... How do you know he wasn't trying to play mind games with Democrats? In effect getting us to rally around her so that she is our nominee because that is who he wants to campaign against. Not my original idea, the media has been all over those statements like flies on . I believe I read the aforementioned argument in WaPo.
dreams (hrconservative - 8/21/2007 8:57:18 PM)
I remember similar polls for Howard Dean in 2003. Not going to happen
Certain? (tx2vadem - 8/21/2007 9:14:39 PM)
What makes you so certain? Also, what Dean poll are you referring to? I don't recall any saying he would win Virginia.
Maybe not against Rudy (DanG - 8/21/2007 9:21:35 PM)
but against Romney? Very possible.
George Allen's easy 2006, President in 2008 (The Grey Havens - 8/21/2007 9:54:59 PM)
That's what all the polls said...
and then BANG!!!
Jim Webb beat him and Allen's the new posterboy for ignorance, greed, hatred and the sickness that is Bush Republicanism.
Aren't you embarrassed to call yourself a "conservative" after Bush and his age of unAmerican aristocracy?
Dreaming (JScott - 8/21/2007 11:49:38 PM)
Refresh my memory the last time the Commonwealth vote was in the Blue for the electoral. I know we are happy electing Dems to Gov and possibly to the GA this Fall, but what were asking here does not appear to be very likely based on history. Maybe alot may depend on the Republican, but I just do not see Clinton carrying Virginia, but alot can happen in a year.
Nobody thought anyone would ever beat George Allen in VA (The Grey Havens - 8/22/2007 12:10:04 AM)
Surprise...
If you don't understand the changing demographics of Virginia, you should really do some research.
Agreed, Virginia is changing very fast. (Lowell - 8/22/2007 8:58:17 AM)
And not in a Republican direction, either. And the more Republican lawmakers do stupid stuff like the "abuser fees," the faster that change will be.
Still in the dark (JScott - 8/22/2007 10:46:29 AM)
I still think people who think the Webb election was merely about a Democrat winning that election are the ones in the dark. It is times like those I wish we had a real registration system but thats another debate. As I have said before on RK that election had more to do with the "the man" and not "the party". That election went the way it should. Virginians took a look at both men and chose the best one for the time and rightfully so. What pundits don't want is for that to become the trend. We just can't go electing the best people and the right people for the job given the times and expect a Party to control the political landscape now can we? As an independent-minded thinker I worked tirelessly in a rather red district for Webb with success and manage to get a great turnout of support from Virginia Republicans who otherwise would have simply just voted for Allen again had we not stepped up to the plate and brought issues to the forefront ( and I don't mean macaca either). I am proud of that. Would I campaign for Clinton in the same manner? No. Its not that I am not in support of the Dems per say , but in my estimation she simply is not the right girl for the right time.
The landscape that is changing is that the more career politicians put themselves and their Party leadership before the people the more people get driven out and away from the process, which some would argue the top leadership wants, but in the end if you listen to people out there they are looking at these folks as "individuals" for a change. Maybe the lesson of the Webb election is to get over the politics and elect the best people to get the job done regardless of electing someone because of the declared Dem/Rep affliation. Naive? maybe but that naivitee helped get Webb more votes than any other Dem running for Senate in my district in a long long long time.
Agreed (Doug in Mount Vernon - 8/22/2007 5:50:20 PM)
"Virginians took a look at both men and chose the best one for the time and rightfully so. What pundits don't want is for that to become the trend. We just can't go electing the best people and the right people for the job given the times and expect a Party to control the political landscape now can we?"
I think you're right about why Webb won. But where I differ with you is that right now, it's becoming increasingly clear to voters, whether they call themselves Republicans, Democrats, or Independents, that if they want competent and well-run government, the Democratic Party is their best choice. From that perspective, I think this post is on to something.
However, I also agree (emphatically) that Hillary is NOT the best choice, not by a long shot. I of course will support her if she becomes the nominee, but at this point, it will take a strong stomach for me.
I strongly believe Obama, Edwards, Richardson, or even Kucinich would be far better choices for leading our national out of the worst moral morass and vaccuum of real leadership into which we've ever been shockingly shipwrecked.