Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 22, 2014, 10:36:17 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
| |-+  Election What-ifs?
| | |-+  Past Election What-ifs (US) (Moderators: Bacon King, Dallasfan65)
| | | |-+  Clinton vs. McCain → additional blue states
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Print
Poll
Question: Which states would have gone Democratic if Hillary had run in 2008?
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
Georgia
Idaho
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
North Dakota
Oklahoma
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
West Virginia
Wyoming
Show Pie Chart

Author Topic: Clinton vs. McCain → additional blue states  (Read 3246 times)
Duke David
Atheist2006
Full Member
***
Posts: 240
Germany


View Profile
« on: September 25, 2011, 04:19:55 pm »
Ignore

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.)
Logged

  Wink Cheesy Cool Embarrassed Grin Huh Kiss Lips sealed Roll Eyes Sad Shocked Smiley Tongue Undecided Angry
 
Economic: -8.30 / Social: +7.09

Snowstalker
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17874
Burkina Faso


Political Matrix
E: -8.45, S: -4.26

View Profile
« Reply #1 on: September 25, 2011, 04:22:56 pm »
Ignore

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

Duke David
Atheist2006
Full Member
***
Posts: 240
Germany


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: September 25, 2011, 04:27:00 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged

  Wink Cheesy Cool Embarrassed Grin Huh Kiss Lips sealed Roll Eyes Sad Shocked Smiley Tongue Undecided Angry
 
Economic: -8.30 / Social: +7.09

Snowstalker
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17874
Burkina Faso


Political Matrix
E: -8.45, S: -4.26

View Profile
« Reply #3 on: September 25, 2011, 05:17:52 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged

GPORTER
gporter
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7347
United States


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: September 25, 2011, 08:36:00 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged

the birth of modern america & onward timeline(http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=195483.new#new)results of four most previous elections.....
election 1912
Underwood: 267 Cutchens: 264 Lafolette: 0 Debs: 0 266 to win
election 1916
Underwood (i): 224 Curtis: 254 Johnson: 53 266 to win
House Underwood (i): 26 Curtis: 12 Johnson: 10 25 to win
election 1920
Roosevelt: 260 Lowden: 271 McAdoo: 0 266 to win
election 1924
Thomas: 262 Lowden (i): 269 266 to win
Miles
MilesC56
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16080
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.03, S: 5.74

P P P
View Profile
« Reply #5 on: September 25, 2011, 11:05:40 pm »
Ignore



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.
Logged


Duke David
Atheist2006
Full Member
***
Posts: 240
Germany


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: September 26, 2011, 03:43:46 am »
Ignore

My suggestion:



Clinton: 443
McCain:  95
Logged

  Wink Cheesy Cool Embarrassed Grin Huh Kiss Lips sealed Roll Eyes Sad Shocked Smiley Tongue Undecided Angry
 
Economic: -8.30 / Social: +7.09

NHI
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3637


P P P
View Profile
« Reply #7 on: September 26, 2011, 05:55:09 am »
Ignore


360-178
Logged
Niemeyerite
JulioMadrid
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6693
Spain


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: September 26, 2011, 09:53:40 am »
Ignore


360-178

this + KY and probably - CO
Logged

My evolution (by The Political Matrix):
E: -6.06 -> -6.97 -> -6.97 -> -8.13 -> -7.29 -> -8.26 -> -8.65 -> -7.03
S: -6.78 -> -6.09 -> -7.30 -> -7.13 -> -8.09 -> -8.35 -> -9.04 -> -8.61
Duke
AHDuke99
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20098


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: September 26, 2011, 10:33:57 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged
justW353
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1781
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: -2.09

View Profile
« Reply #10 on: September 26, 2011, 11:11:07 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged

So a lack of knowledge means I'm not welcome here? I've always wondered why there's a lack of Republicans on this forum and now I'm beginning to see why.
Senator Polnut
polnut
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14076
Australia


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: September 26, 2011, 11:38:39 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged


Dogma is a comfortable thing, it saves you from thought - Sir Robert Menzies
Duke David
Atheist2006
Full Member
***
Posts: 240
Germany


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: September 27, 2011, 01:26:31 pm »
Ignore

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. Roll Eyes
Logged

  Wink Cheesy Cool Embarrassed Grin Huh Kiss Lips sealed Roll Eyes Sad Shocked Smiley Tongue Undecided Angry
 
Economic: -8.30 / Social: +7.09

shua
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11871
Kuwait


View Profile WWW
« Reply #13 on: September 27, 2011, 01:55:47 pm »
Ignore

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
« Last Edit: September 27, 2011, 02:23:18 pm by yeoman shua »Logged

Duke David
Atheist2006
Full Member
***
Posts: 240
Germany


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: September 27, 2011, 02:31:55 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged

  Wink Cheesy Cool Embarrassed Grin Huh Kiss Lips sealed Roll Eyes Sad Shocked Smiley Tongue Undecided Angry
 
Economic: -8.30 / Social: +7.09

justW353
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1781
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: -2.09

View Profile
« Reply #15 on: September 27, 2011, 02:48:14 pm »
Ignore

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. Roll Eyes

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.
Logged

So a lack of knowledge means I'm not welcome here? I've always wondered why there's a lack of Republicans on this forum and now I'm beginning to see why.
Duke David
Atheist2006
Full Member
***
Posts: 240
Germany


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: September 27, 2011, 03:19:49 pm »
Ignore


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.
« Last Edit: September 27, 2011, 03:23:37 pm by Atheist2006 »Logged

  Wink Cheesy Cool Embarrassed Grin Huh Kiss Lips sealed Roll Eyes Sad Shocked Smiley Tongue Undecided Angry
 
Economic: -8.30 / Social: +7.09

shua
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11871
Kuwait


View Profile WWW
« Reply #17 on: September 27, 2011, 04:24:30 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged

justW353
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1781
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: -2.09

View Profile
« Reply #18 on: September 27, 2011, 06:10:17 pm »
Ignore


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? 
Logged

So a lack of knowledge means I'm not welcome here? I've always wondered why there's a lack of Republicans on this forum and now I'm beginning to see why.
Duke David
Atheist2006
Full Member
***
Posts: 240
Germany


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: September 28, 2011, 05:28:27 am »
Ignore

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

Of course.

Recall her overwhelming performance in Appalachia during the primary season.
Logged

  Wink Cheesy Cool Embarrassed Grin Huh Kiss Lips sealed Roll Eyes Sad Shocked Smiley Tongue Undecided Angry
 
Economic: -8.30 / Social: +7.09

shua
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11871
Kuwait


View Profile WWW
« Reply #20 on: September 28, 2011, 04:06:16 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged

Duke David
Atheist2006
Full Member
***
Posts: 240
Germany


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: September 29, 2011, 06:20:09 am »
Ignore

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.
Logged

  Wink Cheesy Cool Embarrassed Grin Huh Kiss Lips sealed Roll Eyes Sad Shocked Smiley Tongue Undecided Angry
 
Economic: -8.30 / Social: +7.09

Senator Polnut
polnut
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14076
Australia


View Profile
« Reply #22 on: September 29, 2011, 07:44:51 am »
Ignore

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.
Logged


Dogma is a comfortable thing, it saves you from thought - Sir Robert Menzies
shua
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11871
Kuwait


View Profile WWW
« Reply #23 on: October 01, 2011, 02:49:27 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged

Mynheer Peeperkorn
Peeperkorn
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1657
Uruguay


Political Matrix
E: 2.58, S: -8.35

View Profile
« Reply #24 on: October 28, 2011, 06:41:56 pm »
Ignore

My suggestion:





Clinton: 443
McCain:  95

lol wat?
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines