Guiliani vs. Edwards

[tarheel-leftist85]

The swing states are in gray:

On Election Day, Edwards loses the popular vote to Guiliani:
Edwards--49.20% (299 EV)
Guiliani--49.35% (239EV)
Constitution party garners the largest share of 3rd party vote--0.75%
Libertarian--0.30%
Green--0.30%
Others--0.10%

Edwards does horribly out west (where even most "Democrats" are libertarians--not comprehensively liberal).  Edwards does extremely well in the peripheral South (where using race as a means of distracting people from economic darwinism is less successful than in the Deep South; I bet Fmr. Charlotte Mayor/"proud liberal" Harvey Gantt would be less likely to get 47+% and win overwhelmingly white counties in many blue states, as he was able to do in North Carolina; and Ford would have won in Tennessee had he not supported the Paris Hilton tax cuts and been more economically liberal and less didactic but just as proud of his religious heritage).  2006 made me extremely proud to be from the Peripheral, Non-Aristocratic South--and if Edwards (or another non-DLC Democrat) gets the nomination, I think I'll be proud once more; despite what the libertarian media says about compromise (as evidenced by their infatuation with economically-darwinistic "moderates" like Arnold and disdain for true Democrats like Heath Shuler, Larry Kissell, Jim Webb, John Tester, Nancy Boyda, and John Yarmouth).  Edwards has a decent shot at breaking 60% (more likely against Mitt Romney, though) in Arkansas, 55-56% in North Carolina (and yes, he had pretty high disapprovals, but on election day of 2004 51% of NC voters had a favorable opinion and 46% negative--the ambulance chaser/breck-girl name-calling by the elites, similar to how they successfuly demonize other true liberals like Jimmy Carter and Feingold and Pelosi, did not stick and he would've been re-elected by his 1998 margin), 53% in Tennessee and Kentucky, 52% in Florida, and razor thin victories in Oklahoma (the shocker of the night along w/ California going Rep.) and Virginia (SW Virginia would be the key, as Dem. margins might be slightly narrowed from 2005/6 in the wealthier DC suburbs).  John Edwards proves himself in the Great Plains winning 4/5 states (making it reasonably close in Nebraska).  I think this election is the polar opposite of 1992 (which featured three people who wanted to privatize that which is the public domain--just nominal disagreement--if any at all--on "family values," human rights, and foreign policy).  This election is almost the happy-ending to Thomas Frank's What's the Matter With Kansas? where liberals stand for more than abortion.  If we expose the true commonalities among our opposing party (and our opponents have every right to those economic opinions and they can legitimately discuss them w/ us w/o us giving any ground to them unlike the collusion b/w the philanderers Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton), there's no stopping us.  The resulting maps may look a little different, but the Democratic Party will truly be liberal--not racist, nor libertarian--but comprehensively liberal, committed to the notion of dignity for all.

I'm so excited for America now that we are in a post-DLC/Clinton/McAuliffe era, and now we have a true two-party system.  Thank you to the netroots and true Democrats/liberals/progressives who believed in Larry Kissell (NC-08), rather than dismissing him and NC-08 as being completely backwater, unlike the DLC and Dem. establishment that thinks victory lies in wealthy suburban districts, no matter how many jobs we have to ship overseas or how many stupid compromises we make (like "Don't ask, don't tell."--either you're a first-class citizen, or you are no citizen at all) or no matter how many MNCs we have to placate to get the big bucks.  It seems as though Democrats are finally realizing (with the hard work of the netroots) that America should be committed to dignity for all (decent jobs w/ no working poor, family values coupled with tolerance, environmental protection, protection of constitutional rights--incl. the 2nd amendment, and an end to foreign policy where the "enemy of my enemy is my friend") and that that should be the determining factor in policymaking.

Sorry for the rant, I had a lot to say!  And I'm a little pestered at the continued demoralizing of the Democratic victories and "misunderestimation" of Edwards and overestimation of cross-dressing, anti-2nd amendment, philandering Rudy Giuliani.  Just what exactly did he do after 9/11 (something concrete, please; I know symobolism is big in the Post-New Deal world)?  What did he do to make NYC safer, besides hiding the poor people and taking away people's 2nd amendment rights?  I think these are legitimate questions, so if anyone is completely certain of the answer, I'd be grateful to your response.

BTW, How does NYC city govt. work:  Is the mayor mainly a figurehead, breaking ties on city council or what not?  Does he/she have major legislative power? (i.e., Can he just decree statutes for the city?).

[tarheel-leftist85]

I respectfully disagree with some of the arguments/rhetoric above:

First of all, the trial lawyer stuff ain't gonna work:  It didn't in 1998, it didn't in 2004.  And I have numbers, not just speculation from cable news networks and the libertarian media (I only watch C-SPAN now b/c I don't need pre-fabricated opinions).  But my research shows this (not that numbers really matter to anyone in today's world):

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/1998/states/NC/S/exit.poll.html
http://www.time.com/time/press_releases/article/0,8599,662804,00.html

The "beltway types" actually loathe John Edwards.  The DLC/Clinton coalition elicited the conspiring of Tom Vilsack to thwart Edwards in Iowa caucuses where has a very decent chance to win (which Vilsack will soon find out).  Bill "NAFTA-loving" Clinton flew out to a conference to make sure that Nevada wouldn't be 2nd caucus/primary b/c of two large unions allying w/ each other (a service industry union and a textile union:  I think it's called UNITE-HERE).  He's not doing the fancy fundraisers, the establishment would rather have Clinton or Bayh--someone with amorphous positions (who could get the big bucks from investment firms by compromising on trade, unionization, healthcare, etc.)--rather than a Carter or a Bobby Kennedy or a John Edwards with true principles.  Besides trial lawyers, Edwards receives most of his donations from textile unions.  I know labor unions aren't big among "New Democrats", but I'd love to see how well we'd have done in Minnesota, Missouri and even Virginia (where unions are not a large presence but may likely have saved Jim Webb).  These types of Democrats and the Republican higher-ups are extremely fearful (usually masked by an angry or dismissive attitude), and the Clinton types are overtly or secretly adored b/c they compromise our economic principles while giving fodder on cultural issues.
Also if the choice is b/w two socially-liberal candidates, the economic liberal will win (at least in the EC).  In 1976, for instance, Ford and Carter were similar (with Carter, perhaps, being slightly more conservative) in regards to social issues--but overall, the Religious Right couldn't depend on either (Just like they really can't on Reagan or Bush as states like Kansas and Indiana are discovering, as Reagan signed into law as governor one of the most loose abortion laws in the country.).  This is b/c this country is pretty selfish and me-oriented (starting with the baby boomers, but I'm afraid with my Ayn Rand-loving generation too).  Religion is only relevant if it involves no sacrifice nor expense among the haves.  1964, was also this type of election to some extent.

Like I said, I think Edwards has a high probability of losing the PV and winning the PC--the first Democrat to do so.  I think we may see states on the battleground table on both sides that the McCain/Giuliani/Shays-loving media never thought possible.

And the only ammunition they have is "pretty boy" and "ambulance chaser."  If we are gonna fight that way, I guess we'll have to get out the tapes of Giuliani's apparent cross-dressing penchant and testimony from his family/former mistresses about how his mistresses were allowed to live in the house with his children or how he took them to penthouses that overlook ground zero.  Or we can talk about economic issues and whether assuming the enemy of your enemy is your friend and how darwinian economics play a role in the destabilization of the family--more damage than Betty Friedan or same-sex marriage could ever do.  It can be a campaign of images and name calling or issues--it's all the same to me.

[tarheel-leftist85]

First of all, *Edwards* didn't lose NC, *Kerry* did.
Clinton was unable to carry NC b/c he would get in bed w/ anyone trying to triangulate his way to victory...you're not going to have much enthusiasm among true Democrats with a Clinton or a DLCer.  The last two real Democrats--Carter and Johnson--carried NC.  Carter almost carried in 1980 even w/ a 10pt. national PV victory for Reagan.  The last senate race to have a margin of victory greater than 10pts. was Democrat Sam Ervin's in 1974--62 to 37.  Bowles was unable to win b/c he was a product of the Clinton administration and a liberal apologist (apparently ashamed of being called a liberal).  I'm still waiting to see specific numbers where Edwards would lose to a Republican if he had decided to run for re-election.  Despite all of the speculation, no one has produced such numbers to support such an assertion.
Demographically, I see Giuliani being the first Republican to win the 18-30 yr. old group since 1988 IIRC.  He would trounce Edwards with the Reaganite younger baby-boomers, but lose the election with older baby-boomers and senior citizens.  This would also be the first election in quite some time where you'd see a huge class divide.  I would also expect a similar breakdown for McCain (except Edwards would lose less among 18-30 year olds and do worse with older people than if it was Edwards v. Giuliani).  People knew plenty well that Edwards was a liberal when he ran in 1998.  The pejorative "liberal" works well when the "Dem." is a DLCer that will screw the people of NC w/ NAFTA and CAFTA, but it is almost immaterial when there are true differences among the candidates.  That's why the seemingly aloof (but really pro-DLC) media wrote off Larry Kissell and dismissed Heath Shuler as a "conservative."  Larry wasn't running in some ritzy suburban district, so the powers in the Democratic party (which are soon to be wrested from them by grassroots forces) wrote him and the citizens of the district off as bible-thumping whackos.  I think the exit poll from 2004 shows that 20% of those who had a favorable opinion of Edwards voted for Bush.  Though I try to use concrete numbers, that what I see when talking with my fellow Tar Heels:  About 1 out of 5 conservatives/Repubicans say they'd vote for Edwards knowing full and well that he is a "Lib".  The difference is that he, unlike Democrats in before the downfall of the DLC-era, emphasize economics rather than abortion, and committment to principles rather than triangulation.  Until someone can produce numbers with a hypothetical race where Edwards would've lost a bid for re-election, it'll be difficult to convince me otherwise.  Even if Edwards lost to Giuliani, I'd be heartened knowing that there were two distinct ideologies for once in a presidential election.  Moderates and independents are drastically overrated by the media for starters, and they can be further divided among libertarian types and populist types and, I'm sure, many others.  The younger independents and moderates would most assuredly break for Guiliani; I'm not so sure about older independents and moderates (ones like my Depression-era grandparents).

[tarheel-leftist85]

Not cocky, but Pretty Boy Edwards would get hammered.  Edwards would sweep the trial lawyer vote however.

Where are some of you getting this Edwards takes NC stuff?  Surely not for what he did for Kerry in that state in 04.  The Dem ticket was wiped out in NC.  The beltway types think Edwards is wonderful.  No one else seems to think so.

Why would he take NC?

1) Kerry lost NC by 13 points, but the exit polls showed a 51-46 positive rating for Edwards despite being on an extremely unpopular ticket in the state.

2) Aaginst another social moderate, it gives voters a reason to vote on economics, something Edwards ran well on. 

3) NC is trending democratic.....slightly. 

4) he's not considered the washington insider Gore was when he lost Tennessee

Sorry, dude!  I don't think they're gonna listen to our facts/numerical evidence, calling people "delusional" and rhetorization is their m.o.

[tarheel-leftist85]

  I'm surprised a "powerhouse" home stater like Edwards would not have been good for at least 2 or 3 points in 04.

He probably was.  Kerry lost NC by less than Gore did despite doing about 3% worse nationally.

Hey, I was about to say that

Also, the Democratically-trending counties were also faster-growing that most of the Republican-trending coounties (Union Co. and a couple of others are exceptions).

56.03-43.20=12.83 [Bush margin of victory, 2000]
56.02-43.58=12.44 [Bush margin of victory, 2004]
47.87-48.38=-0.51 [Bush margin of victory 2000, Gore +0.51]
50.73-48.27=2.46 [Bush margin of vicotry, 2004
2.46-(-0.51)=2.97 National Bush swing from 2000-2004
12.44-12.83=-0.39 NC Bush swing from 2000-2004
-0.39-2.97=-3.36 Bush Trend from 2000-2004

And that's w/ Edwards as VP to a "Massachusetts liberal" (etc., etc....sigh)--and the last time the Dem. was one of those, he barely broke 40%...VPs may've mattered in 1960, but not today.  Otherwise, Bush would've picked Santorum or Tommy Thompson or Spencer Abraham or an Ohio Rep.  Just b/c NC is trending  one way doesn't mean that Democratic electoral dominance will ensue:  Expect Geogria to break 60+% Republican regardless of either party's candidate.  I also think the west coast may become more competitive.

I'm still waiting for someone to produce a Burr v. Edwards poll!  Those NC senate elections are never close.  Burr would've wiped Edwards away; heck, he even wiped away a guy who was affiliated with Bill Clinton (who is absolutely loved in this state for NAFTA and CAFTA and his Giuliani-like respect for his wife).  Can't produce the any numbers, but trust me.