« More on Bush stumping for Sherwood | Main | NYT features snacking op-ed »

October 26, 2006


It proves as much as it does to point out how average her victory was for U.S. Senate.

And this selection of yours is fairly relevant:

"While things could have gone much worse given how polarizing she was, it proves almost nothing about her ability to win over voters in the the battleground states of the industrial Midwest, let alone the South."

Not meaning to troll or anything, but that suggests that if she had done better among those voters, that it would have proven something about her ability to win battleground voters.

Favorable environment, tons of money, who's to say those won't continue to be factors in 08?

Another Senate race that puzzles me in a similar fashion is Dick Lugar's race. I've seen about half a dozen commercials for Lugar in one weekend, but his only opponent is a very poorly funded Libertarian with no public policy experience. He can't seriously be concerned, and he's too old to run for president again so what's the deal with the ads? Wouldn't that money be better served as a PAC contribution to tight GOP races like NJ, MS, TN and maybe VA?

I think the reasons she's campaigning hard in NY are straightforward: (1) anything less than an improvement on 2000 and she's damaged goods. Absent a way to fine tune that, you campaign hard, especially when (2) it can help down-ticket congressional candidates in a state where there are apparently a number of GOP seats ripe for the picking.

Not everything Hillary does is nefarious; of course she's looking out for her own interests, but those dovetail with the Democratic Party's here (as well as the country's, I would argue.)

The comments to this entry are closed.