Clinton vs. McCain → additional blue states

[Duke David]

Imagine Hillary Clinton would have won the nomination by the Democratic Party.

Which states would she have won in addition to the states that voted for Obama?

(You can click on up to all 22 options.)

[Senator Snowstalker]

AK, KY, TN, LA, and WV, but she loses NC and IN.

[Duke David]

AK, KY, TN, LA, and WV, but she loses NC and IN.

I'm pretty sure she would have won Missouri, too.

She may have lost North Carolina, but Indiana would have gone even bluer than under Obama.

[Senator Snowstalker]

Dammit, I forgot Missouri. Guess I forgot it was a McCain state.

Indiana...remember that it's close to Chicago, and therefore Obama put a bit more emphasis on it than another Democrat would have. I'd say it would vote for McCain by 5 points or so.

[GPORTER]

The Clintons could get a scare and loose Ohio, Florida, and Missouri to McCain. But, they win Arkansas, Iowa, New Mexico, and Nevada to still win the election. The electoral scare comes from the sex scandals with Bill Clinton in the past.

[MilesC56]

I could see McCain squeaking out KY and TN. I agree that she would have lost IN and NC; she wouldn't have been able to match Obama's sky-high black turnout in those states. Though she'd win IN if she picked Bayh as VP. I'd also say she'd do better than Obama in AZ because she was stronger with hispanics in the primary.

[Duke David]

My suggestion:



Clinton: 443
McCain:  95

[NHI]

360-178

[JulioMadrid]

360-178

this + KY and probably - CO

[Prez Duke]

She was constantly getting outpolled in Colorado, Michigan and I believe Nevada as well. Granted, this was before the stock market collapse, but she was not popular out west like Obama. She was also weaker in Virginia. That said, one can assume the Democrats would fall into line after her nomination.

[justW353]

Hillary Clinton wasn't going to win Colorado or Nevada.

Give her MO and AR, take away IN, VA, NC (along with CO and NV).

LOL atbthe guy that said she'd take Arkansas with 60% of the vote, and win Louisiana.  Also, no Democrat was winning Kentucky and Tennessee in 2008, and a Democrat would win Texas before Appalachia.

Bunch of homers in here.

[Secretary Polnut]

The only 2008 'red' state that I would give to Hillary would have been MO, she would have lost NC, IN and maybe CO.

I'm actually relatively confident she might have held NV, if Obama could win by 13, she could have scraped in, VA... maybe.

She could have made WV, AR, KY and TN competitive and maybe given McCain a fright in Texas. But I doubt she wins any of them. But equally doubt she would have matched Obama in the margins, especially across the midwest and the coasts.

[Duke David]

LOL atbthe guy that said she'd take Arkansas with 60% of the vote, and win Louisiana.  Also, no Democrat was winning Kentucky and Tennessee in 2008, and a Democrat would win Texas before Appalachia.

That's why Bill Clinton didn't win one single state in Appalachia, whereas he took Texas by a wide margin.

[shua]

Missouri and Arkansas, but not by much. The interior South is less Democratic than it was in the 90s, and Hillary would be seen as further left than Bill was.


326-212

[Duke David]

Missouri and Arkansas, but not by much. The interior South is less Democratic than it was in the 90s, and Hillary would be seen as further left than Bill was.

I think there's no doubt at all that Hillary would have won West Virginia.

[justW353]

LOL atbthe guy that said she'd take Arkansas with 60% of the vote, and win Louisiana.  Also, no Democrat was winning Kentucky and Tennessee in 2008, and a Democrat would win Texas before Appalachia.

That's why Bill Clinton didn't win one single state in Appalachia, whereas he took Texas by a wide margin.

Haha.

Bill Clinton had a lot of advantages.  He was a southern Populist, first running against two opponents who split votes, and then an uncharismatic Senator who was essentially a throw-away candidate.

Bill Clinton has more charisma than his wife by a huge margin.  In 1992, he was lost Texas because the incumbent President was from Texas.

Appalachia isn't going Democrat anytime soon, and by comparing 1992 Bill to 2008 Hillary, you're making yourself sound like a fool.

[Duke David]

In 1992, he was lost Texas because the incumbent President was from Texas.

Bill Clinton lost Texas despite the fact that there were two opponents from that state.

Even in 1996 he wasn't able to carry Texas (though Perot was still participating), whereas he won each state in the Appalachian region (+ Louisiana) in both elections.

[shua]

Missouri and Arkansas, but not by much. The interior South is less Democratic than it was in the 90s, and Hillary would be seen as further left than Bill was.

I think there's no doubt at all that Hillary would have won West Virginia.

Hillary would have won against Romney but not against McCain.

[justW353]

In 1992, he was lost Texas because the incumbent President was from Texas.

Bill Clinton lost Texas despite the fact that there were two opponents from that state.

Even in 1996 he wasn't able to carry Texas (though Perot was still participating), whereas he won each state in the Appalachian region (+ Louisiana) in both elections.

15 years later, you expect his wife to do the same? 

[Duke David]

15 years later, you expect his wife to do the same? 

Of course.

Recall her overwhelming performance in Appalachia during the primary season.

[shua]

15 years later, you expect his wife to do the same? 

Of course.

Recall her overwhelming performance in Appalachia during the primary season.

operative word.

[Duke David]

operative word.

Let me remind you of the fact that all primaries in Appalachia were open.
That means every citizen was allowed to take part in the election process.
Furthermore, she performed there so outstandingly that the primaries acted as a prognostic of the general elections.

[Secretary Polnut]

operative word.

Let me remind you of the fact that all primaries in Appalachia were open.
That means every citizen was allowed to take part in the election process.
Furthermore, she performed there so outstandingly that the primaries acted as a prognostic of the general elections.

Sorry but that's not at all a strong indicator. If you take Arkansas out with a 'favourite son' element and Tennessee which actually now has a GOP registration advantage (and gave Clinton a proportionally modest 13 point win)... most of the Appalachian primaries were held after the GOP had decided on a nominee.

One of Clinton's problems was that many of those who voted for her in the primary may not have voted for her in a General election against McCain.

The dynamics are not in any way comparable for you to be able to make a claim like that.

[shua]

operative word.

Let me remind you of the fact that all primaries in Appalachia were open.
That means every citizen was allowed to take part in the election process.
Furthermore, she performed there so outstandingly that the primaries acted as a prognostic of the general elections.

Everything I've seen indicates that the 2008 WV primaries were closed.

[Mynheer Peeperkorn von Thurn und Taxis-Hohenlohe]

My suggestion:





Clinton: 443
McCain:  95

lol wat?