Scott Walker vs Elizabeth Warren

[Baconlord]

Walker would win.

He would choose either a woman or an Hispanic  person as his running mate.

[© tweed]

Warren would get coup'd or shot before she were sworn in.

[bballrox4717]

If Walker were to face Warren or a woman in the election, I don't think he'd be likely to pick a woman for VP. Martinez is a good pick and would be a good VP for a Republican, but I don't think it's good politics for a Republican to dive into.

A female VP would be useful for Walker and the Republican party. In the likely event Warren loses, Republicans would get the milestone of the first woman elected to national office.

There's also more that Martinez brings to the ticket, to the extent that a guy named Sebastian Martinez with Susana Martinez's accomplishments would be one of Walker's top choices for running mate. Putting five electoral votes into play isn't bad. She would be the first Hispanic candidate nominated for national office. She doesn't carry Washington baggage, and allows Walker to campaign on a theme of executive experience. Brian Sandoval has many of the same benefits, but he's Pro-Choice, so he's less likely to be chosen.

The image of putting a woman at #2 next to a ticket headed by a woman by the GOP would be seen as pandering in a best case scenario. The GOP isn't going to win on identity politics, especially among women voters. I realize Martinez is a good pick and it wouldn't be fair to her, but that's just how politics works.

[Mister Mets]

What on earth would make anybody think Walker would be popular in Iowa?

He's won two elections in a neighboring state with a similar PVI. Candidates also tend to do better in neighboring states. See Obama and Indiana in 2008.

Looks like someone brought into the mega-coattails argument.

I don't think it makes a huge difference, but it may be worth a handful of points.

Iowa has been within two points of the national margin in the last four elections. So any candidate who wins the General Election by more than four points (which I'd expect to be the case in this match-up) will probably take the state.

[auburntiger]

Walker/Rubio vs. Warren/Warner:

tossups are VA, PA, NV, CO, IA, MN.

Gut says warren wins MN, NV and Walker wins IA. PA, VA, and CO are down to the wire and could produce a 269-269 if warren wins all 3.

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

I'd flip NH unless Ayotte was his running mate, but I agree with this map.

[henster]

People underestimate Walker he'd give Hillary a run for her money I think he's a stronger candidate than Christie.

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

People underestimate Walker he'd give Hillary a run for her money I think he's a stronger candidate than Christie.

Agreed, he would unite the GOP base, and also his economic record wouldn't get as much bad press.

[IceSpear]

This would be a very interesting race.

Walker - 285
Warren - 253

Ohio would decide the election.

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

The thing about Pennsylvania is that Warren would probably be too liberal for the state, unlike Clinton.
But yeah, New Hampshire might go to her.

[henster]

Unless she's running against Cruz or Paul, Warren would lose to any sane GOP nominee.

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

Unless she's running against Cruz or Paul, Warren would lose to any sane GOP nominee.

Agreed, we could be talking about a reverse 2008 if Warren and Walker/Christie get nominations. However if Cruz gets the nomination..haha...

[IceSpear]

Unless she's running against Cruz or Paul, Warren would lose to any sane GOP nominee.

Agreed, we could be talking about a reverse 2008 if Warren and Walker/Christie get nominations. However if Cruz gets the nomination..haha...

Reverse 2008 I doubt, unless there's an economic collapse (don't forget that padded Obama's margin significantly).

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

Ah, forgot about that.

[henster]

It wouldn't be a blowout it would probably be a 5 point win for Walker which is pretty big for Republicans since they've only won the PV once out of the past six elections.

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

I would bet on Warren to beat Walker, Christie or any Republican. Her not being electable is a myth. People said that about Obama a little bit before he won by 200 evs.

Except that she will be coming off a Democratic president  if she ran in 2016, Hillary is a better fit for the Dems because she is supposedly moderate enough to appear different than Obama.

[IceSpear]

I would bet on Warren to beat Walker, Christie or any Republican. Her not being electable is a myth. People said that about Obama a little bit before he won by 200 evs.

All these maps and predictions are fun and everything, but the one X factor that nobody can account for is the political environment, which tends to be even more important than the candidates themselves.

It would've taken a really, really horrible candidate, probably plagued by scandal, to lose in the 2008 political environment. Most Democrats would've won. If presidential elections were held every 2 years instead of every 4, Obama would not have been re-elected.

In a neutral or pro-Dem environment, Alex Sink would've easily beaten Rick Scott in Florida. In a neutral or pro-GOP environment, there's no way Kay Hagan would be a Senator right now. Just a couple examples.

[henster]

Didn't Warren call for a $22 minimum wage not too long ago and she had a similar "you didn't build that" comment in 2012. She'll be painted as a far left liberal who's anti-small business.

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

I can see Warren winning the 2020 election if a Republican wins in 2016, but that's it.

[IceSpear]

I would bet on Warren to beat Walker, Christie or any Republican. Her not being electable is a myth. People said that about Obama a little bit before he won by 200 evs.

All these maps and predictions are fun and everything, but the one X factor that nobody can account for is the political environment, which tends to be even more important than the candidates themselves.

No question. But we know that the political climate (and incumbent party) has varied a lot over the last quarter century. And Democrats have won the popular vote 5 of 6 times. This race would be 2 non-incumbents. In the last 25 years, Republican non-incumbents are 0 for 4 in the popular vote. Democratic non-incumbents 3 for 4. Those races had demographics less favorable than the Democratic nominee will have in 2016. I don't think there's any basis for saying Warren is too liberal for America. I'd bet any opponent of hers would, after a campaign, be more alienating to moderates than she. I base that on the country agreeing with Democrats on a solid majority of issues. Plus, she'd be a hell of a campaigner and debater. Scott Brown had approvals in the 70s or something a year or less before Warren beat him by 8 points.

6 elections is a very small sample size though. If in 1990 you only looked at the last 6 elections, you'd think Democrats were going the way of the Whigs. I think Democrats do have a structural advantage for the time being, but it's not anywhere near insurmountable and could easily change at the drop of a hat.

While demographics look appealing for Democrats, gains among Hispanics tend to be offset by GOP gains with whites.

[IceSpear]

Didn't Warren call for a $22 minimum wage not too long ago and she had a similar "you didn't build that" comment in 2012. She'll be painted as a far left liberal who's anti-small business.

I don't know about the first thing, but nobody ever cared about "you didn't built that" in 2012 besides FOX watchers (already solidly GOP), so why would anyone care in 2016?

[Comrade Funk]

People underrate Warren. A lot of her populism would actually resonate imo.

[Mr. Illini]

Here we are.

269-269, how about that? Without even calculating it on my own. Very polarizing race IMO.

[morgieb]

Tight. I suspect America still has a better taste for right-wingers (though this is slowly fading away) over left-wingers (and FWIW I don't think either of these guys are particularly close to the political centre) though, so Walker probably edges it due to a better performance in the Midwest.