> >Hillary Clinton can't win the South, and she doesn't excite
> >working-class folks in states like Ohio and Florida.
>
> Not exactly. There's a sub-demographic of working class women who
> like government social programs and go to church. They like
> Hillary, and there are a of them in Ohio.
Indeed, Hillary Clinton has probably already bagged both my mother-in- law and father-in-law (a retired Presbyterian pastor). :-| But they always vote Democrat no matter what (:-0), so that's not saying much.
Take a look at this:
<blockquote>April 29, 2005--If Senator Hillary Clinton is nominated to run for President in 2008, 39% of Ohio's Likely Voters say they will definitely vote against her. Just 32% will definitely vote for her while another 25% say it depends upon who she runs against.
<http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/Ohio%20and%20Hillary.htm></ blockquote>
Granted that this is from Rasmussen and it's also from last year, so the results have to be far more conservative than real sentiments out there, but I don't see Hillary Clinton riding the waves of liberal church-going women of Ohio to the White House.
Carrol wrote:
> Electoral predictions are a flimsy basis for political analysis.
> But the following is correct, regardless of DP fortunes:
>
> > More accurately, women can't turn to electoral politics on
> > this one. Few voters make abortion a litmus issue.
True, but, aside from smoking, another vice that I've acquired since I came to the States is poll-watching (to which I never paid attention in Japan). I think I've gotten Americanized! :-0
BTW, is the archive down? I can't locate Nathan's reply to me on Fitch & Bok.
Yoshie Furuhashi <http://montages.blogspot.com> <http://monthlyreview.org> <http://mrzine.org>