How would a Pataki vs. Obama race play out?

[redcommander]

I would expect there would be a third party pro-lifer that would run to take votes away from Pataki, but it might make some states that have leaned Democrat since 1988 to go back into the Republican fold.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

395-143

[tpfkaw]

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

lol wut

[redcommander]

lol wut

I'm guessing Palin runs as an independent an peels off diehard pro-lifers, and Pataki's kind of conservatism helps him win in New England. I think Pataki would also probably be doing well in Washington and Oregon too.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

I don't think an issue like abortion would be relevant enough in the 2012 climate to spark the enthusiasm for a 3rd party candidacy.

[tpfkaw]

I'm guessing Palin runs as an independent an peels off diehard pro-lifers

I was thinking more Pat Robertson.

Christian Right groups have threatened to mount a serious third-party candidacy (or at least heavily support the Constitution Party) if the GOP nominates a pro-choicer.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

lol wut

I'm guessing Palin runs as an independent an peels off diehard pro-lifers, and Pataki's kind of conservatism helps him win in New England. I think Pataki would also probably be doing well in Washington and Oregon too.

There's really no reason whatsoever to think Pataki would have any special appeal in New England. He'd be lucky to finish in the low 30s in Massachusetts and Rhode Island. Being pro-abortion will lose him plenty of conservative votes and certainly isn't going to cause some great GOP swing among the Catholic Democrats who dominate those states. Maine and Connecticut are slightly less absurd, but still quite a stretch. Pataki wouldn't win those unless he's already winning a nationwide landslide. Same for New Jersey and Delaware.

Washington and Oregon aren't going to vote GOP if a conservative third-party candidate is siphoning off lots of Republican votes in the eastern parts of the states.  Republicans in those states are quite conservative.

[Psychic Octopus]

Pataki would be destroyed if this was a normal election, assuming Obama's current approval rating holds. But if he does win the nomination, part of me says that he wouldn't even win a single state if a strong third party Tea Party ticket makes it on the ballot in all fifty states. No way would he garner significant support being both anti-gun and pro-choice. He'd be massacred in the conservative states by the other, presumably more conservative third party. The only votes he'd win would be from the dwindling Republican moderates, and hardcore partisans. I have no reason to believe he would be popular with independents at all, considering that if this was a three-way race, he and the Tea Party candidate would be going at it constantly, attracting negative press, and allowing Obama to sit back and win in a massive landslide.

Of course, George Pataki has no shot at the Republican nomination whatsoever, so the point is moot.

[Eraserhead]

Obama would wipe the floor with him, of course.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Pataki would be destroyed if this was a normal election, assuming Obama's current approval rating holds. But if he does win the nomination, part of me says that he wouldn't even win a single state if a strong third party Tea Party ticket makes it on the ballot in all fifty states. No way would he garner significant support being both anti-gun and pro-choice. He'd be massacred in the conservative states by the other, presumably more conservative third party. The only votes he'd win would be from the dwindling Republican moderates, and hardcore partisans. I have no reason to believe he would be popular with independents at all, considering that if this was a three-way race, he and the Tea Party candidate would be going at it constantly, attracting negative press, and allowing Obama to sit back and win in a massive landslide.

Of course, George Pataki has no shot at the Republican nomination whatsoever, so the point is moot.

Why do certain people here seem to believe that there is some silent majority of Rockefeller Republicans in this country? If there ever was one, it certainly isn't the case today.

As if all the Republicans had to do was nominate a "moderate" who supports abortion and gun control and they'd sweep every election, undoing decades of partisan and ideological re-alignment.

[Mechaman]

lol wut

I'm guessing Palin runs as an independent an peels off diehard pro-lifers, and Pataki's kind of conservatism helps him win in New England. I think Pataki would also probably be doing well in Washington and Oregon too.

There's really no reason whatsoever to think Pataki would have any special appeal in New England. He'd be lucky to finish in the low 30s in Massachusetts and Rhode Island. Being pro-abortion will lose him plenty of conservative votes and certainly isn't going to cause some great GOP swing among the Catholic Democrats who dominate those states. Maine and Connecticut are slightly less absurd, but still quite a stretch. Pataki wouldn't win those unless he's already winning a nationwide landslide. Same for New Jersey and Delaware.

Washington and Oregon aren't going to vote GOP if a conservative third-party candidate is siphoning off lots of Republican votes in the eastern parts of the states.  Republicans in those states are quite conservative.

Totally agree here man.
What is it with some people on this forum who act like conservatives don't exist in the northeast?

[Nichlemn]

lol wut

I'm guessing Palin runs as an independent an peels off diehard pro-lifers, and Pataki's kind of conservatism helps him win in New England. I think Pataki would also probably be doing well in Washington and Oregon too.

There's really no reason whatsoever to think Pataki would have any special appeal in New England. He'd be lucky to finish in the low 30s in Massachusetts and Rhode Island. Being pro-abortion will lose him plenty of conservative votes and certainly isn't going to cause some great GOP swing among the Catholic Democrats who dominate those states. Maine and Connecticut are slightly less absurd, but still quite a stretch. Pataki wouldn't win those unless he's already winning a nationwide landslide. Same for New Jersey and Delaware.

Washington and Oregon aren't going to vote GOP if a conservative third-party candidate is siphoning off lots of Republican votes in the eastern parts of the states.  Republicans in those states are quite conservative.

Why wouldn't Pataki do relatively well in New Jersey? New Jersey is D+4 (leaning Democratic but hardly overwhelmingly so). But that's with pro-life Republican nominees. If Pataki is at 50% nationwide but underperforming in a lot of socially conservative states, he has to be overperforming somewhere and New Jersey seems like the most logical place.

[Mechaman]

lol wut

I'm guessing Palin runs as an independent an peels off diehard pro-lifers, and Pataki's kind of conservatism helps him win in New England. I think Pataki would also probably be doing well in Washington and Oregon too.

There's really no reason whatsoever to think Pataki would have any special appeal in New England. He'd be lucky to finish in the low 30s in Massachusetts and Rhode Island. Being pro-abortion will lose him plenty of conservative votes and certainly isn't going to cause some great GOP swing among the Catholic Democrats who dominate those states. Maine and Connecticut are slightly less absurd, but still quite a stretch. Pataki wouldn't win those unless he's already winning a nationwide landslide. Same for New Jersey and Delaware.

Washington and Oregon aren't going to vote GOP if a conservative third-party candidate is siphoning off lots of Republican votes in the eastern parts of the states.  Republicans in those states are quite conservative.

Why wouldn't Pataki do relatively well in New Jersey? New Jersey is D+4 (leaning Democratic but hardly overwhelmingly so). But that's with pro-life Republican nominees. If Pataki is at 50% nationwide but underperforming in a lot of socially conservative states, he has to be overperforming somewhere and New Jersey seems like the most logical place.

Okay maybe New Jersey, but Massachusetts and Rhode Island (while losing New York)?!
That's pretty ridic, especially if the Republican vote is being split.

[DrScholl]

Alabama would be in Palin's column as well, no way they would vote for Pataki over her, the same might also be true for Mississippi and Louisiana.

[Psychic Octopus]

Alabama would be in Palin's column as well, no way they would vote for Pataki over her, the same might also be true for Mississippi and Louisiana.

And Wyoming. Plus there is no way Barack Obama loses anything in New England in this scenario, after getting in the mid fifties to low sixties there in 2008. Plus the split of the GOP on idealistic grounds would never allow for them to get that far. Obama won't bleed massively to Pataki, and even if he did that would be counterbalanced with Pataki bleeding massively to Palin.

In all likelihood, I'd see something where Obama wins around forty five states, with Wyoming, Idaho, Utah, Alabama, and Oklahoma voting against him, possibly for Palin. So, laughably, Pataki doesn't win a single electoral vote, and allows for a repeat of 1912. Of course, this assumes that Palin is well-funded and politically powerful as Ross Perot in 1992. This isn't possible without a massive war chest.

[milhouse24]

I see no reason for anyone in the midwest or south ever voting for a Northern Yankee even if he or she was GOP or democrat.  NOrtherners are generally atheists and the rest of the country is very christian.  Its as much about spiritual personality than it is about "just the economy" for citizens outside the North. 

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Obama wins. Obama might be about as inspiring as a moldy bagel, but he's 10 times more inspiring than Pataki.