http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.asp?cycle=2008
2007-09-08 07:23:12 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
no, I don't think so, I think theres a lot of support for Obama, and I also view Edwards as having this thread through the needle strategy of taking iowa and new hampshire and getting momentum
he is leading in iowa,
I think Edwards is a serious candidate that can, not strong enough yet to say he has it - but Edwards might be able to get enough momentum to be the candidate
i'd rather it be him than her
2007-09-08 07:37:45 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
No. Her husband is probably the greatest fundraiser in the history of the Democratic party, and her relationship will translate into votes. It would probably help her more in the general election. Unfortunately Obama, and I don't mean to be offensive here, just realestic by a bref analysis of the recent polls. Senator Obama has a lock on the african american vote, and unfortunately not much else. These are votes that the clintons count on and would usually get.
There is also the Gore vote. he's not going to run, yet he has significant suppport. Once he turns them lose, I think they are unlikely to go to Senator Clinton.
Senator Clintons support hangs at about 38%. I'd venture to guess these are the "soccer" moms, mostly.
As her husband has chrisma, she turns people off, and indeed many find her offensive. With Senator Obama taking voters that would otherwise be , I think, support Senator Clinton. I don't think she is going to break through the 38% glass celing, even with her husbands chrisma, and sacks full of money.
So, if we take the numbers that John Edwards has, the fact that clinton is not likely to break through the 38% mark; and we add Gore's supporters to Edwards, from a breif analysis of a nation-wide poll; it looks like edwards is sitting pretty
However if Edwards can win a couple of early primaries say Edwards 40% and Clinton 35%, even the money couldstart flowing his way.
Of course I could be worng about this, if the Clintons have put together significantly stronger organizations then Edwards can in the right states, after all that is what pesidential politics is all about.
This is from a snap analysis of a nation-wide poll. Let us not forget that presidential politics even at the nomination level is not nationwide but state by state, hence the genious of the founding fathers; and more work for analysts.
As I wirte this an Edwards-Obama ticket looks pretty attractive.
Now do I like them? It's tough; Edwards is on the wrong side on life issues. It's tough not being abled to vote for anyone. The Democrats are on the wrong side of the life issues, and the Republicans are on the wrong side of everything else. oh, for the days of RFK and Tip O'Neil.
I recognize, admire and praise President Bush for appointing so many Catholics to the Supreme Court. Fortunataly in the near future I see the Life issue as going away as the Court undoes it's mistake with regard to abortion.
But no, Senator Clinton's personality alienates too many voters. It is a huge negative, outside of New York. And money won't fix it.
2007-09-08 14:45:32 · answer #2 · answered by johnnydepp1118 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Would you quit with the 'conspiracies'? LOL
Seriously, she is getting the corporate support and a lot of it. We can only hope that the voters will realize who and what she truly represents. I'm thinking that we'll have the largest voter turnout ever, simply because people will vote against her and not necessarily for a better candidate.
2007-09-08 14:40:16 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
She has had the nomination (not the election) in the bag since 1992. Have you listened to any of the Democratic 'debates'? They're not debates. They're auditions for her VP. NONE of the men 'running' dare challenge her.....they're all vying for #2.
2007-09-08 15:58:30 · answer #4 · answered by Cherie 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It's true money talks...but for those who listen to what is being said...well it doesn't bode well for Mrs. Clinton.
She spends too much time talking about taking OUR money, by force if necessary. Does that mean she wants to silence us?
2007-09-08 14:29:33 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
I also noted a lot of corporate sponsorship. However, she can scream all she wants. Hitlery will not be our next president.
2007-09-08 15:23:18 · answer #6 · answered by Moody Red 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think Romney does. He has spent a lot more than Hilary, and hes only 7 million behind her.
2007-09-08 14:30:45 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
She has a lot of cash in her bag, but she will never be President!~!
2007-09-08 14:28:06 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋