Talk Elections

What do you expect?
This is what I expect...
()

Though this isn't all that unreasonable-

() - think of this as a tribute to BRTD...

No way McCain wins Iowa before New Hampshire, Nevada or probably even Pennsylvania (or a few other states for that matter).

Ethanol, anyone?

This map looks reasonable.  Certainly more so than the other one....  :P

I believe McCain would not do that good. Obama will take all the Ind vote away from him(which is where McCain's main support come from.

The first map seems realistic. I do think McCain would beat Obama in that general election match-up.

Hey, what makes everyone think that this matchup will be the same as the last?

I believe that McCain (esp a McCain/Lieberman ticket) would crush Obama

McCain would get 55% (B/C in 2004 + PA, MI, NH,CT,DE,WI,MN & OR)

1. Remember the entusiasm that McCovern generated or the fact that many people believed that Reagan would lose in 1984?

2. Congress

3. McCain's ability to get things done and build coaltions.

4. Indys and Repubs tactically voting against Clinton in IA actually shows the strength of the base.

5. Students will get bored between now and Novemeber.

6. Obama's problems with Blue collar voters and his weakness on national security.

http://thepoliticaltipster.wordpress.com/2008/01/07/why-a-mccain-vs-obama-contest-could-result-in-a-republican-landslide/

Hey, it could happen. But Clinton was also very young and won in an EV landslide. Again, this is experience vs. change. Obama could win with a "now or never" pitch.

McCain wins big on the back of America's profound and undying racism:

()

...do you think the Obama candidacy would create a racist reaction? i.e. calls for segregation ..etc...

McCain would win.  It is too easy to contrast the difference in experience between these guys.  I am FAR from being a conservative and I would strongly consider voting McCain in this race.

It wouldn't be overt, but I'm sure there will be subtle ads accusing Obama of drug dealing, for example.  Look at the anti-Harold Ford ad in Tennessee.

Minnesota Republicans like McCain.  Democrats will really warm up to Obama.  Democrats, no matter which way you slice it, outnumber Republicans in the state by a pretty good margin.

Unless McCain draws the majority of independents (unlikely with such strong competition from Obama), Minnesota EASILY goes for Obama.

The only thing Minnesotans like more than a maverick war hero is an underdog with a concern for the little guy.

McCain will not win. He main support comes from Ind voters. Obama will take most of them away from McCain.  McCain isn't that popular with the republicans at all.

Although Obama is begining to not do so well in Iowa... I could come down to either Huckabee or Romney at this rate...

Eh.  Remember how everyone thought George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan were lightweights?


Fair.  McCain will do well to run against Congress, because people do seem to prefer divided government.  However Jimmy Carter also ran against Washington gridlock - even when it was caused by his own party.  It worked.


Also fair, although his major legislative works, bills on immigration and campaign spending, don't exactly ignite passion among Republicans.  He's also well-known for voting against the Bush tax-cuts.


Is this a documented phenomenon?


A large part of this country is also bored with the war.


I don't know if there are a lot of blue collar voters in Illinois, but when it came to the Democratic primary in the Senate race, he blew all of his opponents out of the water and did well downstate, which is full of white voters.  I'd say that speaks to his crossover appeal.  As for national security, McCain has some advantage there but he is on record supporting a war that most Americans want to end sooner rather than later.

I'd predict something more like this:

()

• Colorado is a tossup.  It has an increasingly Democratic electorate, but I'm not sure yet if they would vote for someone as liberal as Obama.
• Florida is McCain country.  Katherine Harris's problems were personal and the state remains a bright spot for Republicans, I think.
• Louisiana is a tossup.  There simply hasn't been a national election held there since Katrina.  Jindal's victory could be seen as a vote against Democrats or a vote against incumbents; let's also not forget that it shows that Louisiana voters aren't as racist as some may think.
• Missouri is Democratic.  It voted for Clinton, recently tossed out Jim Talent, and is probably ready for a fellow Midwesterner.
• Ohio is Democratic.  I would list it as a tossup, but Bush only narrowly carried the state and the Ohio GOP utterly collapsed last year, when Sherrod Brown and Ted Strickland won easy victories.  McCain has national security credibility, but that type of credibility only just put Republicans over the edge in 2004 and it won't do so again.
• Nevada is a tossup.  See Colorado.
• New Hampshire is Democratic.  It switched teams from Bush in 2000 to Kerry in 2004, and dropped both GOP Congressmen in 2006.  I don't see any indication why this should change.
• New Mexico is Democratic.  McCain is from a neighboring state, which helps, but not too much.  Remember that New Mexico voted for DC's Gore over Texas's Bush, and nearly did the same for Kerry.  In addition, the high number of Hispanics who are tired of the Republican party will push Obama over the top.
• Pennsylvania is Democratic.  At the risk of oversimplifying the state, it seems a lot like Ohio, only a smidgen more favorable to Democrats.

That motivates me.

Louisiana will not be a tossup this year

yeah

Weasel,

I hope you're right.  But I don't think so.  I think Missouri is lean or even likely Republican.  While voters through out Jim Talent, he was hardly a good Senator or a smart campaigner.  He looked horrible in the debates with McCaskill.  And didn't she come from a well-known Missouri family? 

Plus, I think some states tend to vote one way for Senators, Governors and Congressmen -- and another way entirely for President.  North Dakotans keep sending Dorgan, Conrad and Pomeroy back to D.C.  But they vote consistently for Republican Presidential candidates.  I am just not sure how a state votes for Gubernatorial or Senate candidates necessarily translates into the Presidential race.  But like I say, I sincerely hope I am wrong.  I am so hoping for the days when there are more reliably Democratic states and Missouri would definitely be one of the ones I want us to pick up.

As to Louisiana, I think Hurricane Katrina displaced a large number of the folk who might have made a Presidential race competetive there.  And even before Katrina, Louisiana was going for Reagans and Bushes and Doles. There's another North Dakota.  Until Breaux left office, it had 2 D Senators. 

Yeah, but Clinton seems to do well in that area and Obama seemed to do well just across the river in Butternut Illinois.

This thread is funny.

Yes, but only because the credit collapse sent everyone's projections out the window. 

...or maybe not.

Read the generic elections predictions in my sig.

Sorry.  I have signatures turned off.

no

Basically, my argument is that people always say "My prediction would have been right, in a universe where nothing unexpected had happened!"  But unexpected things happen in every single election.  It doesn't seem to deter people from making ironclad predictions about what's going to happen in each succeeding election.

I see.  You're right about that.  That's why I always try to preface any predictions I make with a closed-universe where the political climate remains consistent and no major events have happened.  But I guess that's essentially impossible. 

He actually did come closer to winning Iowa than any of those other three states. Not that I would've disagreed with you at the time, of course.