Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 26, 2014, 09:50:37 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Election Archive
| |-+  2008 Elections
| | |-+  2008 U.S. Presidential Election Campaign
| | | |-+  Republicans only hope to keep the White House is
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Republicans only hope to keep the White House is  (Read 4116 times)
agcatter
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3751


View Profile
« on: August 09, 2007, 08:31:06 pm »
Ignore

Rudy.

I believe Hillary will name Ohio governor Strickland as her running mate nailing down Ohio.

Republicans cannot win the electoral college vote without Ohio.  (see 2000 & 2004)

Therefore, Republicans have to make up the difference by pulling New Jersey, Pennsylvania, or Connecticut to their side, something Thompson or Romney will definitely not do.

I'm not saying Rudy will win those states.  Just saying he he will run better in the suburbs in those northeastern states giving him a shot - something the other GOP candidates definitely don't have IMO.

Thoughts?
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Modadmin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15214
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P

View Profile
« Reply #1 on: August 09, 2007, 11:45:12 pm »
Ignore

I agree that Rudy is definitely your best chance for a victory, probably your only chance realistically. I don't see McCain, Romney, or Thompson being able to win. They are too far to the right, especially on the war.

Hillary may pick Strickland; he'd be an excellent choice overall. He's only been Governor a short while, but he was a Representative for quite some time before that, so it's not like he lacks experience, though he might be not quite ready for prime time in some ways.

Still, I don't see Rudy having much of any chance of winning New Jersey or Connecticut, especially against Hillary (he'd have a better shot if the Dems nominate Obama, or especially Edwards). Pennsylvania is an outside possibility, but still quite the long shot.

A better strategy for Rudy would be to try to win Ohio, or failing that, to go after Wisconsin. The 2004 Bush states minus Ohio and New Mexico but plus Wisconsin would still equal a win for the GOP.

The Republicans do have the advantage of being able to choose their running mate last, already knowing who the Dems have chosen. If Hillary picks Strickland to win Ohio, Rudy could counter by choosing Tommy Thompson to win Wisconsin, which then would mean Hillary would need both Iowa and New Mexico to win even with Ohio.
Logged
Verily
Cuivienen
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16806


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

View Profile
« Reply #2 on: August 10, 2007, 12:22:41 am »
Ignore

Clinton/Strickland is a strong, possibly unbeatable, ticket that I hadn't thought of before. Richardson may end up too tarnished by the primaries to be a good VP candidate, at which point Strickland, along with Vilsack and Warner, are Clinton's best bets.

Giuliani can't win New Jersey or Connecticut against Clinton. He could win both against Edwards, and Connecticut against Obama (much lower minority population than New Jersey), but Clinton has the same regional popularity as well as the personal popularity of the Clintons in both states.
Logged
RRB
Full Member
***
Posts: 228


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: August 10, 2007, 09:19:11 am »
Ignore

Too many of you have short memories and only think of 2000 and 2004.  States that may/will go Dem this time will/may be MO, OH, WV, NV, CO, NM, FL, AR, IA and maybe MT.  Let us not forget LA.  We think of it a as a conservative southern state but Dems outnumber republicans for registered voters, and there are lots of motivated blacks who hate Bush for obvious reasons. Bill Clinton carried the state both times.  Anyone currently in office is hated, and Bush represents the party that forgot about them during a dark period in our nations history in 2005.  VA is also a posiblility given the Dem surge in that state recently.

The states that usually go Dem that will go republican are.....................Oops, can't think of any.  In my state of MI, a poll by the Detroit News (a right wing rag) showed Hillary with a very low likability rating but winning hands down against Rudy.  I wasn't polled, but dispite my shaky feeling toward a neocon president Billery, I will vote for her over any righty.
Logged
agcatter
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3751


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: August 10, 2007, 10:12:43 am »
Ignore

The reason 2000 and 2004 are considered the baseline is because, well, that reflects the most recent trends in electoral reality.  As far as Louisiana, no way.  Hillary is not going  to carry Louisiana.   Last time I looked, Bobby Jindal was up over 20 points in the governor's race so I question just how radioactive the Republican label is in that state.  As in much of the South, having a Democratic edge in party registration means nothing at the presidential level.  Blacks hate Bush?  Leaving aside the fact that a large amount of blacks no longer reside in New Orleans, Bush isn't on the ballot this time.  Even when he was Kerry got over 90% of the black vote.  Not much room for growth there.  Kerry still lost the state by 13 points. 

West Virginia?  Very doubtful.  Liberal Hillary is not going to be favored in a state state that shunned equally liberal Kerry by 13 points.  It will be closer however as Giuliani's not as socially conservative and that will cut into the GOP margin.  Iowa, New Mexico, sure.  I'll buy that.  Democrat is probably favored.  However, those two states wouldn't do it without Ohio or without Florida or other state breakthroughs.  Missouri, definitely closer than 2004 but it's a culturally conservative state at the presidential level.

No one is arguing that the field isn't more tilted Democratic this cycle than 2004.  In fact, that was the whole point of my post.  Rudy is the only counter to that tilt.  He would need to break through in states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Connecticut and possibly Wisconsin.  Again, I'm not saying he would, just saying he has a shot where the other GOP candidates do not.
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27871


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: August 10, 2007, 10:22:39 am »
Ignore

I fundamentally agree with your reasoning. 

However, if Obama is her closest competitor (or adversary) for the nomination when the primaries hit, she cannot fundamentally take the chance of not picking him as VP and pissing off certain parts of the black community (see 1988).
Logged
MasterJedi
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18011
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.65, S: 6.43

View Profile
« Reply #6 on: August 10, 2007, 10:27:06 am »
Ignore

However, if Obama is her closest competitor (or adversary) for the nomination when the primaries hit, she cannot fundamentally take the chance of not picking him as VP and pissing off certain parts of the black community (see 1988).

Finally someone agrees with me! I've been saying this but everyone says it won't happen.
Logged

Sam Spade
SamSpade
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27871


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: August 10, 2007, 10:34:23 am »
Ignore

However, if Obama is her closest competitor (or adversary) for the nomination when the primaries hit, she cannot fundamentally take the chance of not picking him as VP and pissing off certain parts of the black community (see 1988).

Finally someone agrees with me! I've been saying this but everyone says it won't happen.

Actually, I've been saying this for nearly forever also.

Btw, best of luck, b/c I'm about 99% sure Tommy Thompson won't be a candidate after this weekend.
Logged
Jaggerjack
Fabian_the_Fastman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1408
Thailand


Political Matrix
E: -0.52, S: -4.00

View Profile
« Reply #8 on: August 10, 2007, 11:55:34 am »
Ignore

Too many of you have short memories and only think of 2000 and 2004.  States that may/will go Dem this time will/may be MO, OH, WV, NV, CO, NM, FL, AR, IA and maybe MT.  Let us not forget LA.  We think of it a as a conservative southern state but Dems outnumber republicans for registered voters, and there are lots of motivated blacks who hate Bush for obvious reasons. Bill Clinton carried the state both times.  Anyone currently in office is hated, and Bush represents the party that forgot about them during a dark period in our nations history in 2005.  VA is also a posiblility given the Dem surge in that state recently.

The states that usually go Dem that will go republican are.....................Oops, can't think of any.  In my state of MI, a poll by the Detroit News (a right wing rag) showed Hillary with a very low likability rating but winning hands down against Rudy.  I wasn't polled, but dispite my shaky feeling toward a neocon president Billery, I will vote for her over any righty.
Don't forget that LA is 61% white, and it IS in the Deep South.

What does voter registration mean? If that was everything, than we'd still hold quite a bit of the south.
Logged
sethm0
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 305


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: August 10, 2007, 09:48:37 pm »
Ignore


 1. Hilllary / Strickland is an interesting idea, but I wonder if it would be too transparently calculated. She wouldn't want the story of the summer to be that she picked him only so she could win one state.

 2. I agree that Rudy will be competitive in NJ, though I am less sure about CT.

 3. Louisiana does have more potential to go Democratic than other southern states, because roughly half the white population is Cajun / catholic, and the Cajuns tend to be more moderate. However, I think the Republican nominee will still take LA this time around. Democrats will have a better shot at Florida, West Virginia and Arkansas - keep an eye on Arkansas.

 4. I still don't see any great candidates in the Republican field, including Rudy. Once the media latches on to all of his personal problems and shady business dealings, he is going to have a tough time.
Logged

Nym90
nym90
Modadmin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15214
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P

View Profile
« Reply #10 on: August 11, 2007, 12:54:39 am »
Ignore

I fundamentally agree with your reasoning. 

However, if Obama is her closest competitor (or adversary) for the nomination when the primaries hit, she cannot fundamentally take the chance of not picking him as VP and pissing off certain parts of the black community (see 1988).

That's a good point, but isn't it true that according to most polls blacks are pretty strongly supporting Clinton over Obama (by an even larger margin then Clinton's national lead, i.e. blacks are more strongly for Clinton over Obama than whites are)?

In 1988, blacks pretty strongly supported Jackson, but he had almost no support among whites, so his base of support isn't really much at all like Obama's. And are you really saying Dukakis would've done better overall in 1988 if he'd picked Jackson as his running mate as opposed to Bentsen?
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27871


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: August 11, 2007, 10:23:29 am »
Ignore

That's a good point, but isn't it true that according to most polls blacks are pretty strongly supporting Clinton over Obama (by an even larger margin then Clinton's national lead, i.e. blacks are more strongly for Clinton over Obama than whites are)?

The polls that I've seen that actually provide those internals show black voters evenly split for now.

Quote
In 1988, blacks pretty strongly supported Jackson, but he had almost no support among whites, so his base of support isn't really much at all like Obama's. And are you really saying Dukakis would've done better overall in 1988 if he'd picked Jackson as his running mate as opposed to Bentsen?

I doubt it would have changed much in terms of actual %, but I can't see any states that Dukakis won b/c of Bentsen.

The states that I'm thinking of which have a significant black population and which Dukakis lost by 3% or less are Illinois, Maryland, Pennsylvania.  I know for a fact the blacks didn't bother to show up Election Day in Maryland.  I also wouldn't be surprised if in some way that contributed to his massive defeat in Florida - losing Broward County, which hasn't changed that much since 1988.

In other words, the numbers may not have changed much, but having a black man on the ticket certainly could have moved the numbers in these states around a bit (definitely Maryland, less sure about the other two).  Sure, Dukakis would have lost Texas by 60-40, instead of 55-45.  Big deal.
Logged
agcatter
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3751


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: August 12, 2007, 08:57:08 am »
Ignore

To the comment that Hillary - Strickland would look calculated, it definitely would look that way.   No doubt because it would be no question about it.  However that would be trumped easily by the fact that it would deliver the desired result - Ohio on a silver platter - locked down tight.  Ohio is so important electoral college wise that the appearance of calculation just won't matter.  Besides, Hillary is already looked on pretty universally as calculating.  I don't thik her image in that regard has much further to fall.

Giuliani would have to steal one or two of the above mentioned blue states to offset it.  As I said, he's the only GOP nominee capable of doing so.  Without Ohio, the other Republican candidates are dead in the water.
Logged
Stranger in a strange land
strangeland
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6361
United States


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: August 13, 2007, 01:15:36 am »
Ignore

However, if Obama is her closest competitor (or adversary) for the nomination when the primaries hit, she cannot fundamentally take the chance of not picking him as VP and pissing off certain parts of the black community (see 1988).

Finally someone agrees with me! I've been saying this but everyone says it won't happen.

I agree that Obama would be a good running mate for Hillary, but not for the reasons you mention. Obama's main support base is white liberals, and black americans are split as to whether to support Hillary or Obama. There are also questions as to whether or not Obama is "black enough." By contrast, Jesse Jackson in 1988 had very strong support in the black community but very little if any support outside of it.
Logged

Nym90
nym90
Modadmin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15214
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P

View Profile
« Reply #14 on: August 13, 2007, 08:33:26 am »
Ignore

That's a good point, but isn't it true that according to most polls blacks are pretty strongly supporting Clinton over Obama (by an even larger margin then Clinton's national lead, i.e. blacks are more strongly for Clinton over Obama than whites are)?

The polls that I've seen that actually provide those internals show black voters evenly split for now.

Quote
In 1988, blacks pretty strongly supported Jackson, but he had almost no support among whites, so his base of support isn't really much at all like Obama's. And are you really saying Dukakis would've done better overall in 1988 if he'd picked Jackson as his running mate as opposed to Bentsen?

I doubt it would have changed much in terms of actual %, but I can't see any states that Dukakis won b/c of Bentsen.

The states that I'm thinking of which have a significant black population and which Dukakis lost by 3% or less are Illinois, Maryland, Pennsylvania.  I know for a fact the blacks didn't bother to show up Election Day in Maryland.  I also wouldn't be surprised if in some way that contributed to his massive defeat in Florida - losing Broward County, which hasn't changed that much since 1988.

In other words, the numbers may not have changed much, but having a black man on the ticket certainly could have moved the numbers in these states around a bit (definitely Maryland, less sure about the other two).  Sure, Dukakis would have lost Texas by 60-40, instead of 55-45.  Big deal.

True, but I still have to think that picking Jackson as opposed to Bentsen would've cost Dukakis many more white votes in Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Illinois than it would've gained in black votes. And of course Florida was out of reach for Dukakis no matter who his running mate was in 1988.

I assume you haven't forgotten how unfavorably Jackson was viewed by white voters, right? Smiley

In retrospect, Bentsen probably wasn't the best running mate choice, since Texas and the South was out of reach for Dukakis for certain regardless. I think he was trying to imitate the last Massachusetts Democrat who ran against an incumbent Republican Vice President by recreating the "Boston-Austin" axis. I liked Bentsen a lot personally, and I feel he could've beaten Bush if he had been the nominee, but as a running mate for Dukakis, he didn't really add a lot.
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27871


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: August 13, 2007, 02:15:51 pm »
Ignore

Bentsen didn't help with white voters in those states, sorry.  The Farm Belt was not voting Republican that year regardless of who got nominated.  I also simply don't see the western PA/WV axis reacting negatively against Democrats at that time, regardless of who's on the second part of the ticket.

Also, some people (b/c they weren't alive then) have seemed to forget that Jesse Jackson was nowhere near as negatively viewed then as he is now.
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Modadmin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15214
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P

View Profile
« Reply #16 on: August 14, 2007, 12:01:48 am »
Ignore

Bentsen didn't help with white voters in those states, sorry.  The Farm Belt was not voting Republican that year regardless of who got nominated.  I also simply don't see the western PA/WV axis reacting negatively against Democrats at that time, regardless of who's on the second part of the ticket.

Also, some people (b/c they weren't alive then) have seemed to forget that Jesse Jackson was nowhere near as negatively viewed then as he is now.

Well, that's true on the second point, although even at the time I remember there being a fair amount of coverage about the fact that Jackson would've been unelectable. I think it's safe to say he never would've been a serious contender for the nomination if he had been white.

I have to think Jackson would've hurt quite a lot with the Jewish vote (remember his referring to New York City as "Hymietown" during his 1984 run?). That alone could well have cost Dukakis New York.

I agree Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin were probably secure no matter what. And Dukakis already did quite poorly in the suburbs of most major cities, which are also the areas where Jackson would've potentially hurt the most......so yeah, on balance it's hard to say, you could well be right.

Obviously Dukakis couldn't have won the election no matter who he had picked if he hadn't run a better campaign (his was one of the worst of all time in my opinion....).
Logged
StateBoiler
fe234
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1401


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: August 14, 2007, 09:07:42 am »
Ignore

Quote
Rudy

Hmm. If so, it would be very revealing to the wing of the Republican Party that puts principle over pragmatism, they might start feeling sold out.

Seriously, there are a good number of "normal people" Republicans that if you asked what the Republican Party stands for, their definition would not be inclusive to Rudy Giuliani, just as the definition of most is no longer inclusive to libertarians.

Of course the GOP brass will get on the horn and say "yes, he is pro-choice, but do you want Hillary for President?" It will be interesting to see what these Republican voters that believe in those principles do: stay home, vote for a 3rd party Constitution-type candidate, or throw away their principles and vote for Rudy.

All those independent organizations like the Christian Coalition, National Right-to-Life, etc. have a hard choice to make. If you're a pro-life organization and you support a pro-choice candidate, why should a donator give money to you ever again? Isn't the point of them receiving money from contributors is to get people with religious principles in office? This is an issue where, if Rudy does get nominated, the Republicans and Democrats are the same party.

2008 is going to be a very interesting election.


As for Hillary and the South, she has the potential at least for a few upset wins*. All of us white southerners get lumped together as conservatives. However, a good number are populists, an ideology that with the decline of the Southern Democrats people pay less attention to, but is still present. If Hillary comes out with a populist message that connects (not something fake like Edwards) and gets the blacks to turnout in large numbers, she has a chance to take a state like Louisiana.

* Note: the South as I'm describing it does not include Florida.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2007, 09:50:05 am by StateBoiler »Logged
agcatter
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3751


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: August 14, 2007, 04:50:01 pm »
Ignore

It doesn't do any good to nominate a candidate like Thompson representing "principle" if nominating Thompson means Hillary will win the White House in the general election.  Her in the White House is as far from conservative principles as you can get.  I don't know any Republicans who believe there is not a huge difference between Rudy and Hillary on almost any issue.

As far as Hillary carrying Louisiana, not going to happen.  Kerry lost the state by 15 points.  You don't make up that kind of margin with someone like Hillary no matter how much of a populist she pretends to be.  Besides, Louisiana males are less likely to vote for a woman for president than almost any state.
Logged
StateBoiler
fe234
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1401


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: August 14, 2007, 08:01:43 pm »
Ignore

It doesn't do any good to nominate a candidate like Thompson representing "principle" if nominating Thompson means Hillary will win the White House in the general election.  Her in the White House is as far from conservative principles as you can get.  I don't know any Republicans who believe there is not a huge difference between Rudy and Hillary on almost any issue.

As far as Hillary carrying Louisiana, not going to happen.  Kerry lost the state by 15 points.  You don't make up that kind of margin with someone like Hillary no matter how much of a populist she pretends to be.  Besides, Louisiana males are less likely to vote for a woman for president than almost any state.

You're making the mistake in thinking that all voters are pragmatists and will set aside something they fervently believe in.

There are some usual Republican voters that will refuse to support a pro-choice, pro gun control, pro-gay rights former mayor of New York City. I know some of them. You might as well be asking a communist to vote for Hitler (Godwin's Law).
« Last Edit: August 14, 2007, 08:08:35 pm by StateBoiler »Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 26973


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

View Profile
« Reply #20 on: August 15, 2007, 11:10:12 am »
Ignore

Yeah, I think you're basically right. And looking on polls, I think numbers may more around a bit with Guliani as the nominee. Some Pacific and Northeastern states could be in play, even if it would be tough.
Logged

This place really has become a cesspool of degenerate whores...

Economic score: +0.9
Social score: -2.61

In MN for fantasy stuff, member of the most recently dissolved centrist party.
wdecker1
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 59
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.39, S: 1.39

View Profile
« Reply #21 on: August 15, 2007, 12:18:32 pm »
Ignore

I believe that Rudy is the best hope for the Republicans to maintain the White House b/c many people like his position in the war on terror.  Fred Thompson, however, take the nomination from Rudy b/c he is more conservative across the board than Rudy is, which makes him more like President Bush.  This may not be a bad position for Thompson considering that the Republican base still supports the President.  But, if Thompson wins the nomination, he will lose the general election b/c the vast majority of Democrats and Independents in this country are against Bush.  As for Romney, he is not a reliable conservative or as well liked as Rudy.  Therefore, Rudy is the only hope for Republicans.
Logged
gorkay
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1104



View Profile
« Reply #22 on: August 15, 2007, 05:12:28 pm »
Ignore

If Giuliani is the Republicans' only hope, that's good news for Democrats, because his chances of winning the election are very, very slim. He has too much baggage, and his biggest selling point (maybe his only one) can easily be turned against him, as it can be argued that he has used his status as mayor of New York during the "war on terror" to promote himself and make huge amounts of money. Rudy reminds me of Thomas Dewey, and you know how successful his Presidential runs were.

I continue to think that Thompson has a good shot at the nomination if he will just declare himself a candidate, because he is the only conservative with a chance. The Republican base is conservative, and I can see them flocking to someone like him when faced with the alternatives of Romney and Rudy. However, barring unforeseen events, Thompson's nomination virtually guarantees a Democratic win next year, no matter who they nominate, because the political trends in the country right now are headed to the left. This won't keep the GOP from stampeding to Fred, though, just as the knowledge of certain defeat didn't keep them from stampeding to Goldwater in '64, nor the Dems to McGovern in '72.

I don't think the accusation that she is picking him just to win his home state would keep Hillary Clinton from selecting Strickland, or anyone else, as her running mate. Actually, if she thinks she has a chance to pick off some states in either the South or the West, she should probably look there for a running mate, because her chances in states like Ohio should be pretty good without any help. But there is one thing I am absolutely positive about, and you can write it down now-- if she wins the nomination, her running mate will be a male WASP. There is absolutely no chance that she would pick Obama.
Logged
agcatter
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3751


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: August 16, 2007, 07:32:11 pm »
Ignore

I agree about Obama - - first woman and first black on the same ticket.  That might be pushing her luck just a bit far.  She won't risk it.

The best thing Republicans have going is Hillary - her high percentage of negatives keeps the Republican general election candidate in the ball game.
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines