Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 19, 2014, 09:30:20 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Atlas Hardware Upgrade complete October 13, 2013.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
| |-+  U.S. Presidential Election Results
| | |-+  2008 U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderator: True Federalist)
| | | |-+  2008- what do you think would have happend with diffrent canidates?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 Print
Author Topic: 2008- what do you think would have happend with diffrent canidates?  (Read 5564 times)
Landslide Lyndon
px75
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9067
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: -5.22

View Profile
« Reply #25 on: May 21, 2010, 04:08:29 am »
Ignore

Anyone but McCain equals Dem landslide. A different Democratic candidate shifts a few close states here and there, but doesn't change the map fundamentally. (The real struggle for the Dem nomination was for who becomes the anti-Hillary early on... and that field was arguably wide open, so there's a lot of quasi-plausible contenders here.)
Yes, yes definitely. Had Romney or Thompson or Huckabee won the nomination, it would have been a blowout.

That's the CW but I'm skeptical. As I mentioned elsewhere, Romney and Huckabee had their own sets of strengths and weaknesses and nobody can say for sure how the campaign would have played out if one of them was the nominee.

Romney wouldn't have been so massively outspent, had a far better grasp of economics than McCain and his campaign would have been arguably much more efficient.
OTOH, his corporate past, his phoniness and his Mormonism would have hurt him.

Huckabee was the most charismatic of the three, his economic populism was well suited to the 2008 campaign, he could have pummeled Obama for his bailout vote and his candidacy would have kept the republican base enthusiastic.
OTOH, his lack of national security credentials, his overt religiosity and his inability to raise funds were serious cons.     
Logged

Bob Findley: "You're a real dyed-in-the-wool son-of-a-bitch. Anyone ever told you that?"
Steve Everett: "Just close friends and family,"

Clint Eastwood's "True Crime", 1999.
Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4702
United States


View Profile
« Reply #26 on: May 21, 2010, 07:53:05 am »
Ignore

I don't think Hillary would've won in a landslide. The longer your past, the higher the negatives.
Logged

I'm Derek and I approve this message.
Bo
Rochambeau
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14392
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

View Profile
« Reply #27 on: May 28, 2010, 05:12:24 pm »
Ignore

I don't think Hillary would've won in a landslide. The longer your past, the higher the negatives.

That's not always true.
Logged

Mr. Morden
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17964
United States


View Profile
« Reply #28 on: May 28, 2010, 05:58:46 pm »
Ignore

I wonder how John Edwards would have done, assuming no affair with Rielle Hunter.

For that matter, I wonder how Gore would have done.
Logged

HOG & Blondie: A Tale of Atlas Future

What is your opinion of this thread?

Watch Dave being briefed by the mods.

Being a moderator is basically like one giant party.  Except you're the one ruining the party and everyone hates you.
Bo
Rochambeau
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14392
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

View Profile
« Reply #29 on: May 28, 2010, 06:21:34 pm »
Ignore

I wonder how John Edwards would have done, assuming no affair with Rielle Hunter.

For that matter, I wonder how Gore would have done.


Edwards:



Gore:

Logged

Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4702
United States


View Profile
« Reply #30 on: May 29, 2010, 09:08:07 am »
Ignore

I wonder how John Edwards would have done, assuming no affair with Rielle Hunter.

For that matter, I wonder how Gore would have done.


IT WOULD HAVE BEEN EXPOSED.
Logged

I'm Derek and I approve this message.
Bo
Rochambeau
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14392
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

View Profile
« Reply #31 on: May 29, 2010, 02:11:55 pm »
Ignore

I wonder how John Edwards would have done, assuming no affair with Rielle Hunter.

For that matter, I wonder how Gore would have done.


IT WOULD HAVE BEEN EXPOSED.

He means that Edwards would not have had his affair with Hunter in the first place, thus Edwards would have had nothing to expose.
Logged

tb78
tb75
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4672
United States


View Profile
« Reply #32 on: May 29, 2010, 03:11:52 pm »
Ignore

Gore vs McCain:



Gore/Obama-355

McCain/Thune-183


Gore vs. Huckabee:



Gore/Obama- 295

Huckabee/Brownback- 243
Logged
Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4702
United States


View Profile
« Reply #33 on: May 29, 2010, 09:16:26 pm »
Ignore

I wonder how John Edwards would have done, assuming no affair with Rielle Hunter.

For that matter, I wonder how Gore would have done.


IT WOULD HAVE BEEN EXPOSED.

He means that Edwards would not have had his affair with Hunter in the first place, thus Edwards would have had nothing to expose.

Well he did have the affair. You mean if it just didn't happen?
Logged

I'm Derek and I approve this message.
Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4702
United States


View Profile
« Reply #34 on: May 29, 2010, 09:18:41 pm »
Ignore

With John Edwards, we would simply pick apart every case he's ever been involved with and treat it as if he were on the wrong side. Or how bout he was making millions off of others' misfortunes. The difference between a guy like Edwards and someone like Bill Frist is if one were to witness an accident, Bill Frist would save a few lives as a doctor. John Edwards would demand to know if it were the tire or the car because someone is owed money and he is entitled to some of it. Those ambulance chasers just make me sick.
Logged

I'm Derek and I approve this message.
Bo
Rochambeau
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14392
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

View Profile
« Reply #35 on: May 30, 2010, 04:08:42 pm »
Ignore

I wonder how John Edwards would have done, assuming no affair with Rielle Hunter.

For that matter, I wonder how Gore would have done.


IT WOULD HAVE BEEN EXPOSED.

He means that Edwards would not have had his affair with Hunter in the first place, thus Edwards would have had nothing to expose.

Well he did have the affair. You mean if it just didn't happen?

Yes. Read the bolded part.
Logged

Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4702
United States


View Profile
« Reply #36 on: May 31, 2010, 11:53:55 am »
Ignore

Oh then we would've picked apart his cases as an attorney to make it look like he was on the wrong side of every issue.
Logged

I'm Derek and I approve this message.
Bo
Rochambeau
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14392
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

View Profile
« Reply #37 on: May 31, 2010, 02:39:07 pm »
Ignore

Oh then we would've picked apart his cases as an attorney to make it look like he was on the wrong side of every issue.

Then the GOP would have failed epically, since no one would have cared about that. All they would have cared about would have been the economy. Thus, any Democrat would have defeated any Republican (except maybe Colin Powell) in a landslide in 2008.
Logged

tarheel-leftist85
krustytheklown
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1222
United States


Political Matrix
E: -8.90, S: -0.70

View Profile
« Reply #38 on: June 06, 2010, 10:56:05 am »
Ignore

John Edwards [no affair]/Hillary Clinton v. Mitt Romney/Condi Rice



Edwards/Clinton - 516 EV - 60%
Romney/Rice - 22EV - 39%
Others - 0EV - 1%
Logged

Bo
Rochambeau
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14392
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

View Profile
« Reply #39 on: June 06, 2010, 11:14:04 am »
Ignore

John Edwards [no affair]/Hillary Clinton v. Mitt Romney/Condi Rice



Edwards/Clinton - 516 EV - 60%
Romney/Rice - 22EV - 39%
Others - 0EV - 1%

No way Edwards picks Hillary for VP, unless it is a very close race between them for the nomination, and even then I'm not sure he picks her (since Obama didn't).
Logged

Ameriplan
WilliamSargent
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1211
Faroe Islands


View Profile
« Reply #40 on: June 07, 2010, 11:21:17 pm »
Ignore

I don't think Hillary would've won in a landslide. The longer your past, the higher the negatives.

That's not always true.

Yeah but it's true for any Clinton, who would've been haunted by Slick Willie's handling of terrorism that possibly led to 9/11, his personal problems that kept him distracted while the national security rug was being pulled out from under him.

Additionally, her healthcare credentials would have been called into question after she screwed up in Arkansas.

If Edwards would have won, we would have had a field day after his sexual escapades.

Obama was the only candidate whose background was clean enough not to be called into question.

He did have questionable connections though and he was lucky enough to face a man who didn't have the gonads to bring them up.

An extremely fortunate circumstance led to the presidency of one of the most incompetent men who could have possibly won it.

BO: I support offshore drilling!
BP: There was an oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
BO: Oh sh**t never mind.
Logged



Bo
Rochambeau
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14392
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

View Profile
« Reply #41 on: June 08, 2010, 01:17:07 am »
Ignore

I don't think Hillary would've won in a landslide. The longer your past, the higher the negatives.

That's not always true.

Yeah but it's true for any Clinton, who would've been haunted by Slick Willie's handling of terrorism that possibly led to 9/11, his personal problems that kept him distracted while the national security rug was being pulled out from under him.

Additionally, her healthcare credentials would have been called into question after she screwed up in Arkansas.

9/11 occured under Bush Jr.'s watch, not under Clinton's. Also, terrorism and Clinton's affair weren't big issues in 2008. As for healthcare, Hillary could claim that she learned from her mistakes and that her GOP opponent will not implement any reforms at all. If going to a racist church for 20+ years didn't hurt Obama, then none of those things would have hurt Hillary in the general election.
Logged

Ameriplan
WilliamSargent
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1211
Faroe Islands


View Profile
« Reply #42 on: June 08, 2010, 07:14:02 am »
Ignore


9/11 occured under Bush Jr.'s watch, not under Clinton's.

That's true, but I mean, didn't Bill Clinton see something like 4 attacks on U.S. interests during his administration? (WTC 93, Embassies in Africa, Beirut, and the U.S.S. Cole). He didn't do much after those, if I recall. I wonder why?
Logged



Bo
Rochambeau
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14392
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

View Profile
« Reply #43 on: June 08, 2010, 01:12:07 pm »
Ignore


9/11 occured under Bush Jr.'s watch, not under Clinton's.

That's true, but I mean, didn't Bill Clinton see something like 4 attacks on U.S. interests during his administration? (WTC 93, Embassies in Africa, Beirut, and the U.S.S. Cole). He didn't do much after those, if I recall. I wonder why?

Because he was a coward, that's why. I agree that Clinton deserves some blame for not preventing 9/11, but Bush Jr. deserves some blame as well. Bush Jr. received that Bin Laden Determined to Strike the U.S. Memo in August 2001, where it specifically talked about the possibility of al-Qaeda hijacking planes, yet he did nothing about it. He could have at least increased security at the airports. Anyway, I don't think her husband's failure to prevent 9/11 would have hurt Hillary much in 2008 because people were mcuh more worried about the economy and losing their jobs that year. And since the economy was booming under Bill Clinton's watch, many voters who were worried about the economy would have flocked to Hillary since they would think that she and Bill will be able to fix the U.S. economy again.
Logged

Ameriplan
WilliamSargent
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1211
Faroe Islands


View Profile
« Reply #44 on: June 08, 2010, 02:46:20 pm »
Ignore


9/11 occured under Bush Jr.'s watch, not under Clinton's.

That's true, but I mean, didn't Bill Clinton see something like 4 attacks on U.S. interests during his administration? (WTC 93, Embassies in Africa, Beirut, and the U.S.S. Cole). He didn't do much after those, if I recall. I wonder why?

Because he was a coward, that's why. I agree that Clinton deserves some blame for not preventing 9/11, but Bush Jr. deserves some blame as well. Bush Jr. received that Bin Laden Determined to Strike the U.S. Memo in August 2001, where it specifically talked about the possibility of al-Qaeda hijacking planes, yet he did nothing about it. He could have at least increased security at the airports. Anyway, I don't think her husband's failure to prevent 9/11 would have hurt Hillary much in 2008 because people were mcuh more worried about the economy and losing their jobs that year. And since the economy was booming under Bill Clinton's watch, many voters who were worried about the economy would have flocked to Hillary since they would think that she and Bill will be able to fix the U.S. economy again.

I agree, but I don't think I would have been convinced, especially since he created an unsustainable bubble that loomed large over his successors.
Logged



Dallasfan65
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5438


Political Matrix
E: 5.68, S: -9.74

View Profile
« Reply #45 on: June 08, 2010, 03:01:37 pm »
Ignore


9/11 occured under Bush Jr.'s watch, not under Clinton's.

That's true, but I mean, didn't Bill Clinton see something like 4 attacks on U.S. interests during his administration? (WTC 93, Embassies in Africa, Beirut, and the U.S.S. Cole). He didn't do much after those, if I recall. I wonder why?

He was busy bombing medicine factories.
Logged

Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4702
United States


View Profile
« Reply #46 on: June 11, 2010, 04:31:48 pm »
Ignore


9/11 occured under Bush Jr.'s watch, not under Clinton's.

That's true, but I mean, didn't Bill Clinton see something like 4 attacks on U.S. interests during his administration? (WTC 93, Embassies in Africa, Beirut, and the U.S.S. Cole). He didn't do much after those, if I recall. I wonder why?

He was busy bombing medicine factories.

Yep anything to take public eye off of his misdemeanors.
Logged

I'm Derek and I approve this message.
Bo
Rochambeau
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14392
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

View Profile
« Reply #47 on: June 11, 2010, 05:07:06 pm »
Ignore


9/11 occured under Bush Jr.'s watch, not under Clinton's.

That's true, but I mean, didn't Bill Clinton see something like 4 attacks on U.S. interests during his administration? (WTC 93, Embassies in Africa, Beirut, and the U.S.S. Cole). He didn't do much after those, if I recall. I wonder why?

He was busy bombing medicine factories.

Yep anything to take public eye off of his misdemeanors.

You Republicans are hypocrites. When Clinton tried to do something against terrorism, you guys said that he was doing too much back in the 1990s. Now you say he wasn't doing enough.
Logged

Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4702
United States


View Profile
« Reply #48 on: June 14, 2010, 02:15:34 am »
Ignore


9/11 occured under Bush Jr.'s watch, not under Clinton's.

That's true, but I mean, didn't Bill Clinton see something like 4 attacks on U.S. interests during his administration? (WTC 93, Embassies in Africa, Beirut, and the U.S.S. Cole). He didn't do much after those, if I recall. I wonder why?

He was busy bombing medicine factories.

Yep anything to take public eye off of his misdemeanors.

You Republicans are hypocrites. When Clinton tried to do something against terrorism, you guys said that he was doing too much back in the 1990s. Now you say he wasn't doing enough.

He never did anything to fight terror. In 1998 the US Embassy in Africa got bombed and in 2000 he didn't do anything about the USS Cole either. Remember Oklahoma City. McVeigh had a pocket full of phone numbers from Iraq and the FBI wasn't allowed to investigate. All of these things went unaccounted for. Bush was handed the biggest mess in the history of any president. Oh, and the Clinton/Gore recession started in March of 2000.
Logged

I'm Derek and I approve this message.
Bo
Rochambeau
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14392
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

View Profile
« Reply #49 on: June 14, 2010, 07:52:13 am »
Ignore


9/11 occured under Bush Jr.'s watch, not under Clinton's.

That's true, but I mean, didn't Bill Clinton see something like 4 attacks on U.S. interests during his administration? (WTC 93, Embassies in Africa, Beirut, and the U.S.S. Cole). He didn't do much after those, if I recall. I wonder why?

He was busy bombing medicine factories.

Yep anything to take public eye off of his misdemeanors.

You Republicans are hypocrites. When Clinton tried to do something against terrorism, you guys said that he was doing too much back in the 1990s. Now you say he wasn't doing enough.

He never did anything to fight terror. In 1998 the US Embassy in Africa got bombed and in 2000 he didn't do anything about the USS Cole either. Remember Oklahoma City. McVeigh had a pocket full of phone numbers from Iraq and the FBI wasn't allowed to investigate. All of these things went unaccounted for. Bush was handed the biggest mess in the history of any president. Oh, and the Clinton/Gore recession started in March of 2000.

Clinton did try to kill Biden Laden several times. He wasn't very effecient at doing it, but I read that the GOP criticized him for being too obsessed with Biden Laden before 9/11. I agree that Clinton should have responded to terrorism more strongly and decisively, but the GOP didn't exactly support what he did try to do against terrorism. Bush could have also done much more to prevent 9/11, such as increasing airport security after that Biden Laden Determined to Strike the U.S. memo was given to him. As for the dot-com recession, the economy began to slow down and the stock market (NASDAQ) began to collapse under Clinton, but the recession itself officially started under Bush Jr.'s watch.
Logged

Pages: 1 [2] 3 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines