Interesting Analysis of Sen. Clinton's win in New York

[TayTay]

http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/11/9/20156/8691

This is stunning.
SNIP

In an incredible wave year, in one of the blueish states in the country, we picked up just three House seats and one state Senate seat. There were three, maybe even four, more seats we could have taken. And we didn't come close to taking the state Senate, which we need to do to be in a position for redistricting in 2010. I'm no Evan Bayh fan, but at least in Indiana we got three seats out of three seats we could have gotten.

So be aware. At the top of the ticket, Hillary Clinton spent more money on her reelection campaign than any Senate campaign in the country, and had no opponent. And at the end of the day, despite all the money raised and all the campaigns she did events for, her name on the ticket in New York state helped no one but herself.

Hillary Clinton may win the nomination, and she may be able to win the White House. Or she may decide not to run for President, and become a wonky technocratic Senator. But regardless of what happens, don't expect her to bring anyone into office with her. That's not how the Clinton's work.

Contrast that with New Hampshire.

[TayTay]

1. Interesting comment in that thread too

Re: Hillary Clinton's Coattail Problem (none / 0)


This is positively creepy, to spend this much money against a no-name opponent in a race that was a lock since the day it was announced.

Does she really think that deluging NY State and parts of the surrounding states with this much advertising and campaign expenditures is the best way to secure her nomination and the presidency and the best use of this money? Or is she so massively and psychotically insecure that she felt the need to eliminate even the slightest shred of doubt as to her reelection chances?

I mean, this sort of behavior is pretty much along the same psychiatric lines as a deranged girlfriend (or boyfriend) calling his/her girlfriend/boyfriend every 5 minutes all day long to make sure that they still love them. The woman is NUTS!!!

And selfish, given how little time or effort she expended helping other Dems get elected at the local, state or national level. Holy Joe might have appreciated this, but we're never going to forget what she did to Lamont--or Kerry.

Given this, the whole flag burning and video game thing, voting for the war and still never saying that she regrets it, and Bill's suck-up to the Bushes, I'm beginning to suspect that maybe, just maybe, some of those right-wing Clinton haters from the 90's just might have been onto something after all...



by kovie on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 11:08:10 PM EST

[whometense]

4. VERY interesting.

I have a hard time buying into the idea that she is insecure. I'd lean more in the direction of selfish and monomaniacal. Bill Clinton's smoothness in dealing with people - his great political gift - is something his wife utterly lacks. So maybe she thinks that throwing money at the problem will overcome it.

That in the face of such colossal self-centeredness she also felt the need to pile on Kerry in the most disingenuous way possible. I still find it almost shocking that with no chance of losing her own election, she still sold him out for the chance of killing his 2008 chances. It is a consolation that the lefty blogosphere has called her on it - and apparently continues to call her on it.

How does this woman in any way (except for a similarity to the Margaret Thatcher style) imagine she is credible presidential material?

[wisteria]

6. You know, I gave her some $$ at Kerry's request and I got literature.

bumper stickers and a pin just from that one donation. Now, I suppose that would of been ok if I lived in NY and would of been able to vote in NY, but I live in PA. So, you know what, she had extremely incompetent staff, or figured I would be willing to promote her beyond NY.
Ugh,I threw it all out.
And, after her stabbing Kerry in the back, she has replaced Bush as the person I just can't stand to look at with out being repulsed. My husband feels the same way.

[Mass]

2. The only thing that mattered to her was to have a high %..

In 2000, she got less than Kerry and Gore did in NY State. She was not interested in bringing other people on her coattails. She did not even try. She was interested in having big headlines on how much she spent and how good her results were.

Anybody who thinks the Clinton do something for the good of the party is dillusional. It is about them and only them.

[wisteria]

3. Well, there you go, it is always about the Clinton's-always.

I am feeling down today with all the chatter about our party now electing "Regan Democrats" who are actually conservative in the old style of Republicans. It would appear from the media spin that the Clinton's and the DLC have won. I just figure they will use this "winning strategy" in 2008. Don't stand for anything and stay to the center.
I am happy our country has woken up and righted itself, but my gosh, now what do we end up with?

[whometense]

5. I know what you mean,

but honestly I've been reading just as much about how this meme the repukes are trying to promote is flat-out wrong. Charlie Pierce: http://www.prospect.org/weblog/2006/11/post_2000.html#014454

MEME-KILLING. K, boys and girls, it's meme-killing time again.

1) Democrats Elected Themselves A Bunch Of Republicans Anyway. This one seems to land most heavily on Heath Shuler, whose win in NC, along with the massive thrashing endured by Lynn Swann in Pennsylvania, helped break the traditional GOP stranglehold on former NFL stars. Point The First -- it doesn't matter. None of the "social issues" are going to be coming out of a Rules Committee with Louise Slaughter and Jim McGovern in the majority anyway, and Shuler was right there with Sherrod Brown on the economic issues that actually will emerge. Hang in the pocket. Heath. And this notion really fails at the state level -- and, yes, that's going to be my tin drum for a few days, thank you -- because most of the various rookies are in no danger of drifting toward some sort of Republican center. It's been years since Shuler threw one to the wrong team.

2) Remember How George Bush Worked With Democrats In Texas. Holy mother of god, this hasn't been a legitimate Republican talking point since approximately October 31, 2000. The Florida recount? The first round of tax-cuts? Signing statements? Unitary executive power? Valerie Plame? Max Cleland? Does any of this stuff ring a bell? The electorate lined up, very specifically, to make him a lame duck. Give the people what they want.

3) Rahm Emanuel Is God. This one goes to Chuck Schumer, too. Be generous. Howard Dean was right about Iraq before you were, and he was right about a 50-state electoral strategy before you were. Please feel free to mention both of these facts when they come to blow sunshine up your ass today.

Telling Chris Matthews off would be a good start.

--Charles P. Pierce

And then there's this Hillary-related post over at The Premise this morning: http://thepremise.com/archives/11/10/2006/641

[wisteria]

7. Wow, I never read the figures for the 1994 turn over. Massive really.

I have to wonder why the party didn't turn against the Clinton's at that point. I was obviously Clinton's fault that we lost so decisively.

[nolies32fouettes]

8. Don't be depressed. Who cares what label they put on them?!

What matters is that they're Democrats. They open the party to a big tent which is how it should be. They also brought out the young vote, the science-lovers vote, the peace vote, the fiscal responsibility vote, the improve lives for the middleclass and poor vote.

It's a win-win!

Also, look at the list of the 53 candidates John Kerry supported. He supported center-middle-left, etc! He picked people who he thought would be trustworthy and good for the American and World's best chances.

What they had to do was run the appropriate person for the region in which they live. There's no shame in that.

The Democratic party should be a big tent.

[ProSense]

9. Here is the list Noilie:

http://www.johnkerry.com

Kerry's goal was a Democratic take over!

[nolies32fouettes]

12. Thank you. And yo'ur right. He was instrumental in giving us that goal.

And the person who came closest to his support/win level was John Edwards.

That says something!

[sandnsea]

11. Rename them Truman Democrats

It moves it away from the Clintons and closer to the truth anyway. This wasn't a win for corporatist Democrats, it wasn't a win for radicalism either. It was a move for truth and accountability, Truman 'buck stops here' politics. Hillary and DLC types can't sell that because they don't get it. I don't exactly know who will emerge as a national leader, but the one that is able to present that kind of image is the one who will grab those people for their party. Actually, Harry Reid is about as good as it gets in that regard, so maybe it'll all turn out in the end. South Dakota rejected the abortion ban and I think that will send a clear message to our leadership. Gay marriage and Nancy Pelosi liberal label didn't hurt us a bit. I think things are looking really good and I actually don't think the Clintons are going to end up with this victory because McCaskill, Webb, Casey, know better for sure - and I don't think anybody own Tester.

[karynnj]

10. That is interesting

There was at least one article earlier this fall that mentioned that Hillary initially was helping only a few of the candidates - those with potential to win.

As things moved to the Democrats, she did add others - but she clearly didn't put her heart into helping Democrats as Senator Kerry did. I'm glad that the tide seems to be turning to some degree, now that Democrats can assess what really happened in 2005 - 2006 without the manic depressive fears and hopes of an imminent election.

As the smoke clears, I hope Kerry's contribution on the key issues and on motivating people for 2006 are seen more clearly. I think I will answer some 2006/Kerry jokes telling the truth - I was involved because of Kerry's astonishing effort of reaching out in lqate 2004. His leading on Iraq, Alito, and other issues - speaking up when doing so guaranteed instant dirision likely fed the spirit of 2006 far better than the Clintons' inaction and not making waves - till last September when BC fought back.

On Little Charlie's thread - the Independents for Kerry blog posted what he needed to do. He did all of that heroicly - Hillary was mediocre on helping others, mediocre on defining the issues and her piling on Kerry feeds the steretype of her being a cold, calculating woman. The combination - if people begin to see it, can sink Hillary.

It also may give Kerry the one thing he rarely has gotten - sympathy. I wonder if the reason Kerry rarely has gotten sympathy is because he has always rebounded. It also may be the jealousy caused by the fact that he is so good and talented.

[JI7]

13. Tom Reynolds who was caught up in the Foley Scandal

is from New York. he was in a bit of trouble but won in the end. what if she had put some of her effort into helping his opponent.