In which states would Hillary have done better than Obama and worse than Obama?

[Derek]

This map looks about right to me, though I think I would switch RI, SD and Arizona.

I'd only flip AZ, but yeah, that's a good map.

I agree with that too. Wyoming who knows? I don't think any math has been done between Obama and Clinton matched up against McCain there. I'm not sure if Clinton would've won Florida or Ohio either.

No, Hillary would have won FL and OH, and she would ahve done so by a larger margin than Obama. She was much more popular among blue-coillar workers and seniors than he was.

Obama appeared as moderate though. Hillary Clinton wouldn't have been able to avoid her positions on social issues and in a state like Florida that will not go over well. Ohio is similar but the economy may have tipped it to her favor. I think Hillary and McCain would've come down to Ohio like Bush and Kerry.

[HAnnA MArin County]

This map looks about right to me, though I think I would switch RI, SD and Arizona.

I'd only flip AZ, but yeah, that's a good map.

I agree with that too. Wyoming who knows? I don't think any math has been done between Obama and Clinton matched up against McCain there. I'm not sure if Clinton would've won Florida or Ohio either.

No, Hillary would have won FL and OH, and she would ahve done so by a larger margin than Obama. She was much more popular among blue-coillar workers and seniors than he was.

Obama appeared as moderate though. Hillary Clinton wouldn't have been able to avoid her positions on social issues and in a state like Florida that will not go over well. Ohio is similar but the economy may have tipped it to her favor. I think Hillary and McCain would've come down to Ohio like Bush and Kerry.

Obama, a moderate? LOL on what planet? The entire media (left and right) painted him as the more liberal candidate. Hell, even right-wing commentator Ann Coulter said that she would vote for Hillary over McCain because Hillary was more "conservative." You may not remember but liberals hated her when Obama came along, all because of her vote for the Iraq War and because she's a foreign policy hawk.

IIRC, she did win the disputed primary in Florida. Social issues weren't nearly as big of an issue in 2008 as they were in 2004. Like someone said above, Florida has many of the demographics in her favor and is the oldest state in the nation, so she probably could have won senior citizens over McShame. Plus, I read somewhere where there are a lot of transplants from New York who live in South Florida. I don't know; I won't speculate on Florida politics, but she did have the endorsement of Sen. Bill Nelson, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, etc.

No doubt in my mind she would have won Florida and by a bigger margin than Obama.

[Joe Republic]

IIRC, she did win the disputed primary in Florida.

As the only actively participating candidate.

Incidentally, the exit poll for that primary showed Clinton leading among all ideological groups except 'conservatives', who supported Obama.

[Tender Branson]

Click here:

http://www.surveyusa.com/ECV_50-State_results_030608_vs_Obama.html



http://www.surveyusa.com/ECV_50-State_results_030608_vs_Clinton.html



OK, it was early, but you get a sense.

Clinton would have done much better in the South, primarily AL, MS, AR, KY, TN, FL, MO and WV, mainly due to racist people who voted for McCain instead.

Just click at the crosstabs of Alabama and Mississippi and so on and you`ll see the evident racism in these states. Clinton would have got about the same amount of Blacks that Obama did.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Clinton does better
Clinton does worse

[yougo1000]

How the election would probably turn out.

[Derek]

Tennessee is about as likely to go democrat as Texas.

[Bo]

How the election would probably turn out.

lol. Just some friendly advice: Study politics more before posting maps again.

[DS0816]

05.30.2010 | In Election 2008, Barack Obama [D-Illinois] was elected the 44th president of the United States over John McCain [R-Arizona] by 7.26% in the popular vote: 52.87%–45.60%. To offer a Hillary Clinton [D-New York] scenario that also has her winning the popular vote by the same margin—a shift of the national vote from 2004 of 9.73% to the Democrats—isn’t much of a challenge. One can say, “Ah, he does better in the Plains, she does better in the South.” All in all, that Democratic contest came down to who was more electable. Truth is, the Republicans didn’t have a prayer. So here’s a comparison where they both would’ve garnered the same percentage of the vote.

ELECTION 2008
— Barack Obama —

• Dark Red: Republican Shift (McCain overperformance)
• Red: Republican Holds (Democratic Shift)
• Light Red: Republican (5 points or less; Obama carried the female vote)
• Dark Blue: Democratic Holds (Democratic Shift; all 2004 John Kerry)
• Blue: Democratic Pickups (Nine states plus Nebraska #02)

John McCain [R-Arizona] • 173 | Barack Obama [D-Illinois] • 365

ELECTION 2008
— Hillary Clinton —

• Red: Republican Holds (Democratic Shift)
• Light Red: Republican (Clinton would have carried the female vote)
• Yellow: Toss-up
• Dark Blue: Democratic Holds (Democratic Shift; all 2004 John Kerry)
• Blue: Democratic Pickups (Ten states … ?)

John McCain [R-Arizona] • 128 | Hillary Clinton [D-New York] • 360 | Toss-up • 50

[Bo]

I really don't see LA as being a toss-up. Too many blacks left there after Katrina. Same with GA. GA is too conservative for Hillary to win, at least in 2008. Keep in mind that Obama strongly energized black voters in GA to the extent Hillary would have likely been unable to do.

[DS0816]

I really don’t see LA as being a toss-up. Too many blacks left there after Katrina. Same with GA. GA is too conservative for Hillary to win, at least in 2008. Keep in mind that Obama strongly energized black voters in GA to the extent Hillary would have likely been unable to do.

For the third time in their histories, Louisiana and Georgia did not back the winning Democratic presidential candidate in 2008.

La. previously said no to 1948 Harry Truman (and went for Strom Thurmond) and 1964 Lyndon Johnson (as it was one of the five deep-south states that backed Barry Goldwater). Also backing Goldwater, instead of LBJ, in 1964, Ga. said no to a 2nd term for 1996 Bill Clinton (opting instead for Bob Dole).

Ga. is now a top-10 state (in population), and Obama won 54% of the female vote there. Historically, all prevailing Democrats have carried Ga. and/or neighboring Florida. The 1960s and 1990s winners went one-for-two (1960 John Kennedy won Ga.; 1964 Johnson won Fla.; 1992 Clinton won Ga.; 1996 Clinton won Fla.). 2008 Barack Obama followed that path and flipped Fla. into his column but was 5 points within doing the same in Ga.—one of three (of a total 22) states that held for John McCain in which Obama won the female vote (bellwether Missouri and Montana, which voted the same with Colorado since 1948, were the other two). Thing is: Obama got just 40% of male vote in Ga. If both genders would’ve moved up a couple numbers each, that might’ve delivered the state. (George W. Bush, in 2004, won 56% females and 62% males, to take the state by 16.5%; this resulted in Democratic shifting of females by 20 points and males by 6 points.) I think Hillary would’ve campaigned for Ga., won the female vote (maybe even better), and it would’ve been a question about males. For a Hillary Clinton-is-the-nominee scenario, that puts Ga. into toss-up.

As for La., in 2004 John Kerry garnered 45% of the female vote. That’s four points less than neighboring Arkansas (in which its females gave Kerry 49% of their vote). Males gave Kerry 39% of their vote. But Obama went down in La. with a decline of support from both: 42% females, 34% males. Like with Ark. (in which Obama only received 39% of the female vote), the state rejected Obama. But, like with Ark. (which, prior to President Obama, had backed all winning Democratic candidates), La. would’ve gravitated toward Hillary and she would’ve won the female vote there while the males would’ve shifted in her direction (how much so is doubtful). It all would’ve become a matter of the campaign/pollings. Had Hillary been the Democratic nominee—would she have done well enough in La. to flip the state into her column? (Sen. Mary Landrieu lamented about the La. pollings, once the general started up, that Obama would not win La. It disappointed her because La. had carried for the winner in every election since 1972.) And part of Hillary’s general-election campaign, compared to Obama’s, would’ve involved—partly—a more traditional Democratic route to winning the Electoral College: along with Iowa and bellwethers Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, Fla., and Missouri, go after West Virginia, Ark., La., and Ga. (and see about Kentucky and Tennessee possibly in play). With Colorado, Virginia, North Carolina, and Indiana in play—as well as Montana (which was underestimated; I’m one, during that period, who saw the possibilities of flipping it!)—because they were a big part of Obama’s route, one wonders if the Hillary camp would’ve been on alert to pursue them (I think they would’ve been, especially with Colo. and Va., both carried in single digits for 2004 Bush). So, with much regard to not only history but also the two genders’ votes and for similar voting patterns to its neighboring state of Ark. (which Hillary’s husband governed, at the time of his 1992 election, and for the fact that they haven’t disagreed on a presidential election since 1964), this is why La. is a toss-up.

[President Mitt]

I really don’t see LA as being a toss-up. Too many blacks left there after Katrina. Same with GA. GA is too conservative for Hillary to win, at least in 2008. Keep in mind that Obama strongly energized black voters in GA to the extent Hillary would have likely been unable to do.

For the third time in their histories, Louisiana and Georgia did not back the winning Democratic presidential candidate in 2008.

La. previously said no to 1948 Harry Truman (and went for Strom Thurmond) and 1964 Lyndon Johnson (as it was one of the five deep-south states that backed Barry Goldwater). Also backing Goldwater, instead of LBJ, in 1964, Ga. said no to a 2nd term for 1996 Bill Clinton (opting instead for Bob Dole).

Ga. is now a top-10 state (in population), and Obama won 54% of the female vote there. Historically, all prevailing Democrats have carried Ga. and/or neighboring Florida. The 1960s and 1990s winners went one-for-two (1960 John Kennedy won Ga.; 1964 Johnson won Fla.; 1992 Clinton won Ga.; 1996 Clinton won Fla.). 2008 Barack Obama followed that path and flipped Fla. into his column but was 5 points within doing the same in Ga.—one of three (of a total 22) states that held for John McCain in which Obama won the female vote (bellwether Missouri and Montana, which voted the same with Colorado since 1948, were the other two). Thing is: Obama got just 40% of male vote in Ga. If both genders would’ve moved up a couple numbers each, that might’ve delivered the state. (George W. Bush, in 2004, won 56% females and 62% males, to take the state by 16.5%; this resulted in Democratic shifting of females by 20 points and males by 6 points.) I think Hillary would’ve campaigned for Ga., won the female vote (maybe even better), and it would’ve been a question about males. For a Hillary Clinton-is-the-nominee scenario, that puts Ga. into toss-up.

As for La., in 2004 John Kerry garnered 45% of the female vote. That’s four points less than neighboring Arkansas (in which its females gave Kerry 49% of their vote). Males gave Kerry 39% of their vote. But Obama went down in La. with a decline of support from both: 42% females, 34% males. Like with Ark. (in which Obama only received 39% of the female vote), the state rejected Obama. But, like with Ark. (which, prior to President Obama, had backed all winning Democratic candidates), La. would’ve gravitated toward Hillary and she would’ve won the female vote there while the males would’ve shifted in her direction (how much so is doubtful). It all would’ve become a matter of the campaign/pollings. Had Hillary been the Democratic nominee—would she have done well enough in La. to flip the state into her column? (Sen. Mary Landrieu lamented about the La. pollings, once the general started up, that Obama would not win La. It disappointed her because La. had carried for the winner in every election since 1972.) And part of Hillary’s general-election campaign, compared to Obama’s, would’ve involved—partly—a more traditional Democratic route to winning the Electoral College: along with Iowa and bellwethers Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, Fla., and Missouri, go after West Virginia, Ark., La., and Ga. (and see about Kentucky and Tennessee possibly in play). With Colorado, Virginia, North Carolina, and Indiana in play—as well as Montana (which was underestimated; I’m one, during that period, who saw the possibilities of flipping it!)—because they were a big part of Obama’s route, one wonders if the Hillary camp would’ve been on alert to pursue them (I think they would’ve been, especially with Colo. and Va., both carried in single digits for 2004 Bush). So, with much regard to not only history but also the two genders’ votes and for similar voting patterns to its neighboring state of Ark. (which Hillary’s husband governed, at the time of his 1992 election, and for the fact that they haven’t disagreed on a presidential election since 1964), this is why La. is a toss-up.

...

...

Very excellent analysis Android #43!

[DS0816]

I really don’t see LA as being a toss-up. Too many blacks left there after Katrina. Same with GA. GA is too conservative for Hillary to win, at least in 2008. Keep in mind that Obama strongly energized black voters in GA to the extent Hillary would have likely been unable to do.

For the third time in their histories, Louisiana and Georgia did not back the winning Democratic presidential candidate in 2008.

La. previously said no to 1948 Harry Truman (and went for Strom Thurmond) and 1964 Lyndon Johnson (as it was one of the five deep-south states that backed Barry Goldwater). Also backing Goldwater, instead of LBJ, in 1964, Ga. said no to a 2nd term for 1996 Bill Clinton (opting instead for Bob Dole).

Ga. is now a top-10 state (in population), and Obama won 54% of the female vote there. Historically, all prevailing Democrats have carried Ga. and/or neighboring Florida. The 1960s and 1990s winners went one-for-two (1960 John Kennedy won Ga.; 1964 Johnson won Fla.; 1992 Clinton won Ga.; 1996 Clinton won Fla.). 2008 Barack Obama followed that path and flipped Fla. into his column but was 5 points within doing the same in Ga.—one of three (of a total 22) states that held for John McCain in which Obama won the female vote (bellwether Missouri and Montana, which voted the same with Colorado since 1948, were the other two). Thing is: Obama got just 40% of male vote in Ga. If both genders would’ve moved up a couple numbers each, that might’ve delivered the state. (George W. Bush, in 2004, won 56% females and 62% males, to take the state by 16.5%; this resulted in Democratic shifting of females by 20 points and males by 6 points.) I think Hillary would’ve campaigned for Ga., won the female vote (maybe even better), and it would’ve been a question about males. For a Hillary Clinton-is-the-nominee scenario, that puts Ga. into toss-up.

As for La., in 2004 John Kerry garnered 45% of the female vote. That’s four points less than neighboring Arkansas (in which its females gave Kerry 49% of their vote). Males gave Kerry 39% of their vote. But Obama went down in La. with a decline of support from both: 42% females, 34% males. Like with Ark. (in which Obama only received 39% of the female vote), the state rejected Obama. But, like with Ark. (which, prior to President Obama, had backed all winning Democratic candidates), La. would’ve gravitated toward Hillary and she would’ve won the female vote there while the males would’ve shifted in her direction (how much so is doubtful). It all would’ve become a matter of the campaign/pollings. Had Hillary been the Democratic nominee—would she have done well enough in La. to flip the state into her column? (Sen. Mary Landrieu lamented about the La. pollings, once the general started up, that Obama would not win La. It disappointed her because La. had carried for the winner in every election since 1972.) And part of Hillary’s general-election campaign, compared to Obama’s, would’ve involved—partly—a more traditional Democratic route to winning the Electoral College: along with Iowa and bellwethers Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, Fla., and Missouri, go after West Virginia, Ark., La., and Ga. (and see about Kentucky and Tennessee possibly in play). With Colorado, Virginia, North Carolina, and Indiana in play—as well as Montana (which was underestimated; I’m one, during that period, who saw the possibilities of flipping it!)—because they were a big part of Obama’s route, one wonders if the Hillary camp would’ve been on alert to pursue them (I think they would’ve been, especially with Colo. and Va., both carried in single digits for 2004 Bush). So, with much regard to not only history but also the two genders’ votes and for similar voting patterns to its neighboring state of Ark. (which Hillary’s husband governed, at the time of his 1992 election, and for the fact that they haven’t disagreed on a presidential election since 1964), this is why La. is a toss-up.

...

...

Very excellent analysis Android #43!

If that is praise, I thank you. If it is not…well, then, use your imagination.