Edwards vs. Giuliani

[nclib]

If Edwards and Giuliani were the nominees, in a 50-50 race, what would a map look like?

[Jaggerjack]

Edwards won't carry many southern states. Maybe Arkansas. Maybe Florida. But Giuliani's views on Iraq would damage him harshly in the Northeast.

[Reaganfan]

Giuliani: 300
Edwards: 238

[poughies]

right i mean edwards equal economics wouldn't play at all in ohio ... yea okay. and Giuliani is carrying penn he is carrying nj..

Giuliani: 300
Edwards: 238

[Wiz in Wis]

Giuliani: 300
Edwards: 238

FAIL

WIN

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Edwards: 365
Giuliani: 173

[7,052,770]

[12th Doctor]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Go smoke another one.  Edwards would never carry PA, and if he were such a force on the ticket in terms of Southern appeal, then how come he failed to make hardly a dent in the GOP lead in his own state in 04?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I agree Edwards doesn't win NC, but no pro-war candidate is winning PA. Or NJ and CT for that matter. Flip NC and VA and I agree with the map.

[Ebowed]

Giuliani wouldn't win anything in the Northeast.

[Nym90]

I think some of you failed to notice the question is what the map would look like in a 50-50 race, implying a popular vote tie. No way one candidate would win 365 electoral votes if the popular vote was tied.

In a tied race between these two candidates, I would expect the map to be the same as 2004 except with Giuliani winning New Hampshire, while Edwards would win West Virginia, Ohio, and New Mexico.

[DownWithTheLeft]

[Beet]

[Sam Spade]

An Edwards-Giuliani match would look nothing like the 2000/2004 contests.  thefactor is the closest to what a rough guess might be, though I disagree with a few of his conclusions.

[Nym90]

An Edwards-Giuliani match would look nothing like the 2000/2004 contests.  thefactor is the closest to what a rough guess might be, though I disagree with a few of his conclusions.

You really think regional loyalty would be that strong? I just have a hard time seeing most of the South going for any Democrat unless the Democrat wins by a large margin nationally, but I suppose it's possible the combination of Giuliani's social issue positions plus Edwards's "native son" background could sway some of them.

Another often unspoken issue is, would the South have any problems with voting for a Catholic candidate? Probably not overall, (Kennedy did mostly win it in 1960, but the Republican party label was still quite anathema to most Southerners at that time), but the GOP has never nominated a Catholic so there's never been a true test of this in recent times.

So yeah, a Baptist Southerner against a Catholic socially liberal New Yorker could turn the South Democratic.

Conversely, the Northeast could well be in play for Giuliani possibly, for the same reasons. Although I have a hard time seeing the Northeast voting for pro-war candidate in 2008 over an anti-war one, regardless of all else. If it wasn't for the War, Giuiiani would have a pretty good chance in the Northeast.

I have to admit it would be quite interesting to see a return to an old style 1976 type map again...is that somewhat what you had in mind?

[Jaggerjack]

An Edwards-Giuliani match would look nothing like the 2000/2004 contests.  thefactor is the closest to what a rough guess might be, though I disagree with a few of his conclusions.

Especially New York and Tennessee

[HardRCafé]

Edwards: 365
Giuliani: 173

Right, Edwards would totally sweep the Dakotas.  Why not Nebraska?

[Person Man]

Nothing south of the Ohio will vote for a Democrat. Period. The Dakotas, though becoming slightly more democratic, will not vote for a democrat. A GOPer will not win any of the blue 252 EVs in this election unless the Dems unravel as a party. It would be really fun to see how Colorado and Nevada  would vote, though. Giulani's partisipation would both help and hurt the GOP.  New Mexico will not vote for Giulani, either because Giulani would not be able to pull in any of the hispanic vote with his issues.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Nothing south of the Ohio will vote for a Democrat. Period. The Dakotas, though becoming slightly more democratic, will not vote for a democrat. A GOPer will not win any of the blue 252 EVs in this election unless the Dems unravel as a party. It would be really fun to see how Colorado and Nevada  would vote, though. Giulani's partisipation would both help and hurt the GOP.  New Mexico will not vote for Giulani, either because Giulani would not be able to pull in any of the hispanic vote with his issues.

What the hell are you talking about? Do you know anything about those states?

And don't bring up the whole "they have Democratic senators" bit because it's been that way forever.

[Person Man]

Oh. Its just the fact that the Dakotas voted the same as they did in 2000 in 2004 though the rest of the nation voted 5 points to the right if you factor in about a third of Nader's votes to Gore in 2000.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

It's called anti-incumbent bias. Go look at the results historically, especially 1952-1956 (same candidates). It's no more indicative of a trend than Bush's gains in Hawaii are.

The map showing Edwards doing better in the Dakotas than his national average is way off too. There are WAY more affluent suburban Republicans in those states than populist agrian independents.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Edwards: 365
Giuliani: 173

Right, Edwards would totally sweep the Dakotas.  Why not Nebraska?

Edwards has a populist appeal in the Dakotas, which will, along with overall dissatisfaction with Bush, and heavy campaigning by the Democratic senators, allow him to win by a slim margin.

[DanielX]

Edwards: 365
Giuliani: 173

Right, Edwards would totally sweep the Dakotas.  Why not Nebraska?

Edwards has a populist appeal in the Dakotas, which will, along with overall dissatisfaction with Bush, and heavy campaigning by the Democratic senators, allow him to win by a slim margin.

That map is, to be blunt, borderline insane (unless you're counting on a 3rd party having wacky effects). Ohio is far, far, FAR more likely to vote for a Democratic candidate in 2008 than the Dakotas. Bush won 63% of the vote in North Dakota in 2004; even a 10-point turn would leave it solidly in the Republican camp.

Not to mention several other states like Nevada would turn long before.. Granted, its a somewhat libertarian place and would find Edwards less appealing, but so would Colorado.

I'm also doubting North Carolina or Louisiana would turn even for Edwards. But that's less crazy than the Dakotas. There are many states the Democrats could reasonably expect to have a chance in for '08; the Dakotas, especially North Dakota, are not among them. Even South Dakota, a bit to the left of North Dakota, is not exactly a swing state.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Edwards: 365
Giuliani: 173

Right, Edwards would totally sweep the Dakotas.  Why not Nebraska?

Edwards has a populist appeal in the Dakotas, which will, along with overall dissatisfaction with Bush, and heavy campaigning by the Democratic senators, allow him to win by a slim margin.

What populist appeal in the Dakotas? The Dakotas are states full of Republicans in lily-white suburban McMansion-filled neighborhoods who drive their SUVs to Wal-Mart and the countless other big box retailers that littler the landscape and laugh about how great it is that poverty and crime don't exist where they live and thus don't care one bit about solving it. These aren't populist agrian states anymore. Quit thinking on stereotypes.

And Edwards would most certainly do better in OHIO.

[HardRCafé]

Edwards has a populist appeal in the Dakotas, which will, along with overall dissatisfaction with Bush, and heavy campaigning by the Democratic senators, allow him to win by a slim margin.

You are a very special contributor!