Clinton/Bayh vs Rudy/Mitty

[Josh/Devilman88]

What would the map look like?

[Verily]

Something like this:

[Mr. Morden]

Walter Mitty as Giuliani's VP?

[Bay Ridge, Bklyn! Born and Bred]

For the last time, unless the Democrats nominate a conservative, right-wing Democrat like Zell Miller, VIRGINIA WILL NOT VOTE DEMOCRAT IN 2008!   Especially not for Hillary. 

And I suspect Kentucky, Tennesse, Missouri, Ohio, West Virginia, and Arkansas are just as unlikely

[Josh/Devilman88]

For the last time, unless the Democrats nominate a conservative, right-wing Democrat like Zell Miller, VIRGINIA WILL NOT VOTE DEMOCRAT IN 2008!   Especially not for Hillary. 

And I suspect Kentucky, Tennesse, Missouri, Ohio, West Virginia, and Arkansas are just as unlikely

I believe she will win MO, OH, WV and AK by at least 3 or 4 percent

[Robespierre's Jaw]

Hillary Clinton/Evan Bayh (D): 329 EV, 53%
Rudy Giuliani/Mitt Romney (R): 209 EV, 46%
Others (Libertarian, Socialist): 0 EV, 1%

[Senator Ben]

For the last time, unless the Democrats nominate a conservative, right-wing Democrat like Zell Miller, VIRGINIA WILL NOT VOTE DEMOCRAT IN 2008!   Especially not for Hillary. 

And I suspect Kentucky, Tennesse, Missouri, Ohio, West Virginia, and Arkansas are just as unlikely

I don't agree.

[GPORTER]

For the last time, unless the Democrats nominate a conservative, right-wing Democrat like Zell Miller, VIRGINIA WILL NOT VOTE DEMOCRAT IN 2008!   Especially not for Hillary. 

And I suspect Kentucky, Tennesse, Missouri, Ohio, West Virginia, and Arkansas are just as unlikely

I believe she will win MO, OH, WV and AK by at least 3 or 4 percent

First, I agree with MirrorBallMan about KY, TN, MO, OH, WV, and AK. Thank you MirrorBallMan for confronting these democrats with the truth.

Now, let me talk about Missouri, as I stressed a few minutes ago with a democrat from Oregon in the 2008 prediction map area, look there for negative comments towards him. Missouri is trending demo0crat, but it will not vote for Clinton in 2008. It has grown anti Clinton since it voted for Bill in 1992, and 1996. Even then, it was one of Bill`s closer victories. But, the point, Missouri will not vote for Clinton in 2008. Period.

[Mr. Morden]

For the last time, unless the Democrats nominate a conservative, right-wing Democrat like Zell Miller, VIRGINIA WILL NOT VOTE DEMOCRAT IN 2008!   Especially not for Hillary. 

And I suspect Kentucky, Tennesse, Missouri, Ohio, West Virginia, and Arkansas are just as unlikely

I believe she will win MO, OH, WV and AK by at least 3 or 4 percent

She'll win Alaska?   

[Josh/Devilman88]

For the last time, unless the Democrats nominate a conservative, right-wing Democrat like Zell Miller, VIRGINIA WILL NOT VOTE DEMOCRAT IN 2008!   Especially not for Hillary. 

And I suspect Kentucky, Tennesse, Missouri, Ohio, West Virginia, and Arkansas are just as unlikely

I believe she will win MO, OH, WV and AK by at least 3 or 4 percent

She'll win Alaska?  

Sorry, AR...

[Stranger in a strange land]

For the last time, unless the Democrats nominate a conservative, right-wing Democrat like Zell Miller, VIRGINIA WILL NOT VOTE DEMOCRAT IN 2008!   Especially not for Hillary. 

And I suspect Kentucky, Tennesse, Missouri, Ohio, West Virginia, and Arkansas are just as unlikely

lol Zell Miller u crack me up! He could even challenge Rudy to a duel! Miller's views nowadays fit the constitution party better then the dems or gop.

Why would Rudy win Arkansas and West Virginia? He has basically no appeal there. And I think his mannerisms, lisp, and New York accent would definately be seen as off-putting in the south and midwest. Not that I think Hillary is a strong candidate for these parts: she's not. However, they voted for her husband and they might vote for her, plus Rudy will have to defend an unpopular war and an unpopular Republican president.

[InsaneTrollLogic]

I don't think Rudy's pro-choice credentials will save him in the west. He is doing better with guns though.

[auburntiger]

For the last time, unless the Democrats nominate a conservative, right-wing Democrat like Zell Miller, VIRGINIA WILL NOT VOTE DEMOCRAT IN 2008!   Especially not for Hillary. 

And I suspect Kentucky, Tennesse, Missouri, Ohio, West Virginia, and Arkansas are just as unlikely

I believe she will win MO, OH, WV and AK by at least 3 or 4 percent

First, I agree with MirrorBallMan about KY, TN, MO, OH, WV, and AK. Thank you MirrorBallMan for confronting these democrats with the truth.

Now, let me talk about Missouri, as I stressed a few minutes ago with a democrat from Oregon in the 2008 prediction map area, look there for negative comments towards him. Missouri is trending demo0crat, but it will not vote for Clinton in 2008. It has grown anti Clinton since it voted for Bill in 1992, and 1996. Even then, it was one of Bill`s closer victories. But, the point, Missouri will not vote for Clinton in 2008. Period.

How do you figure Misouri is trending Democrat?? It swung and trended more GOP from 2000 to 2004. Also, Missouri is socially conservative, economically statist, which is exactly where the GOP is headed.

[Bay Ridge, Bklyn! Born and Bred]

For the last time, unless the Democrats nominate a conservative, right-wing Democrat like Zell Miller, VIRGINIA WILL NOT VOTE DEMOCRAT IN 2008!   Especially not for Hillary. 

And I suspect Kentucky, Tennesse, Missouri, Ohio, West Virginia, and Arkansas are just as unlikely

I believe she will win MO, OH, WV and AK by at least 3 or 4 percent

First, I agree with MirrorBallMan about KY, TN, MO, OH, WV, and AK. Thank you MirrorBallMan for confronting these democrats with the truth.

Its not that these posters here are stupid, its just that they are incredibly naive, which makes them stupid.  Have you read a thread on this forum called "Tell Us About Yourself" in Forum Community?   It seems the vast majority of these posters here are between the ages of 14-17 (unless they're lying about their age), and thus have no real grasp of politics or US elections, have never voted, or otherwise have never studied American electoral politics in depth.   They just get their clever "predictions" from what the current polls are telling them, and they probably have no idea who Mondale, Carter, and Dukasis are.   

They are preteen children, and this perfectly explains all the ridiculous things I've been reading here.   They do not grasp the mind of the average American voter, and don't realize how much of an uphill struggle Democrats are going to be facing in 2008, especially with the current crop of candidates.

[Secretary Polnut]

Be careful, lol.

Some of us are a trfile older than that, and more than familiar with voting trends, patterns, demography etc etc.

Having said all of that, I'm not giving the Dem any of these states yet - not even AR. But I think that people have also got to get a grip on the fact that the removal of the imcumbent (who was tailor made for states like KY, WV, MO, WV etc etc) does throw a lot of things up in the air. And to presume that the Dems have to essentially nominate a DINO to win (some believe they are about to do so anyway) - is equally wrong (although based on some facts) - in the case of Clinton she's already an established NATIONAL political figure - her views count - her geogrpahy won't - unlike Kerry... basically what I'm saying is her "liberalness" will hurt her... not the fact she's from the NE... especially in the case of a Romney or Giuliani candidacy.

I think to make absolute statements at this stage is wrong, simply because of the letter after their name - I personally don't think Giuliani will play very well in a general in the "border" states, nor will Romney.

I don't think in this particular scenario Bayh could swing IN, I think he could make KY close, OH is already looking good - plus help in states like MO and IA. I don't think we can or should base expected results on 2004 - no more than we could judge 2000 on 1996.

[InsaneTrollLogic]

Be careful, lol.

Some of us are a trfile older than that, and more than familiar with voting trends, patterns, demography etc etc.

Having said all of that, I'm not giving the Dem any of these states yet - not even AR. But I think that people have also got to get a grip on the fact that the removal of the imcumbent (who was tailor made for states like KY, WV, MO, WV etc etc) does throw a lot of things up in the air. And to presume that the Dems have to essentially nominate a DINO to win (some believe they are about to do so anyway) - is equally wrong (although based on some facts) - in the case of Clinton she's already an established NATIONAL political figure - her views count - her geogrpahy won't - unlike Kerry... basically what I'm saying is her "liberalness" will hurt her... not the fact she's from the NE... especially in the case of a Romney or Giuliani candidacy.

I think to make absolute statements at this stage is wrong, simply because of the letter after their name - I personally don't think Giuliani will play very well in a general in the "border" states, nor will Romney.

I don't think in this particular scenario Bayh could swing IN, I think he could make KY close, OH is already looking good - plus help in states like MO and IA. I don't think we can or should base expected results on 2004 - no more than we could judge 2000 on 1996.

Yeah, I don't know how a 21st century democrat is going to win back the old 20th century while doing badly in places where the 20th century GOP base is eroding.

[Χahar]

For the last time, unless the Democrats nominate a conservative, right-wing Democrat like Zell Miller, VIRGINIA WILL NOT VOTE DEMOCRAT IN 2008!   Especially not for Hillary. 

And I suspect Kentucky, Tennesse, Missouri, Ohio, West Virginia, and Arkansas are just as unlikely

I believe she will win MO, OH, WV and AK by at least 3 or 4 percent

First, I agree with MirrorBallMan about KY, TN, MO, OH, WV, and AK. Thank you MirrorBallMan for confronting these democrats with the truth.

Its not that these posters here are stupid, its just that they are incredibly naive, which makes them stupid.  Have you read a thread on this forum called "Tell Us About Yourself" in Forum Community?   It seems the vast majority of these posters here are between the ages of 14-17 (unless they're lying about their age), and thus have no real grasp of politics or US elections, have never voted, or otherwise have never studied American electoral politics in depth.   They just get their clever "predictions" from what the current polls are telling them, and they probably have no idea who Mondale, Carter, and Dukasis are.   

They are preteen children, and this perfectly explains all the ridiculous things I've been reading here.   They do not grasp the mind of the average American voter, and don't realize how much of an uphill struggle Democrats are going to be facing in 2008, especially with the current crop of candidates.

I don't know who Dukasis is. Do any of you?

[Boris]

they probably have no idea who Mondale, Carter, and Dukasis are.   

How are any of these 20+ year old elections relevant to 2008? Clinton wasn't the VP of a failed administration and isn't going up against a popular incumbent. Clinton is not an incumbent President with failed policies. And Clinton is not inept like Dukakis was. There really is little comparison.

It'd almost be the equivalent of saying, "The Republicans on this site have no clue who Barry Goldwater, Alf Landon, and William Taft are."

[gorkay]

All past elections are relevant to what will happen in the future. That's not to say that they are reliable predictors of what can happen in the future, but you can't intelligently judge what's happening now without knowledge of what happened in the past.

BTW, I am 50 years old and have followed politics since I was ten years old or so, but just because someone is young doesn't mean he doesn't know his history.

[Bay Ridge, Bklyn! Born and Bred]

I think every single registered Democrat in America should get a tattoo that reads "SENATORS DO NOT WIN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS", get it tattooed across their forehead backwards so they can read it everytime they get up in the morning and look in the mirror.

Now, for all you children aspiring political junkies, why do you think this is?  Do you think it's merely an amazing coincidence?

In a hypothetical race Rudy versus Hillary, Rudy wins,

In a hypothetical race with Mitt Romney versus Hilary Clinton, Romney wins.

End of story.

[Kushahontas]

I think every single registered Democrat in America should get a tattoo that reads "SENATORS DO NOT WIN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS", get it tattooed across their forehead backwards so they can read it everytime they get up in the morning and look in the mirror.

Now, for all you children aspiring political junkies, why do you think this is?  Do you think it's merely an amazing coincidence?

In a hypothetical race Rudy versus Hillary, Rudy wins,

In a hypothetical race with Mitt Romney versus Hilary Clinton, Romney wins.

End of story.

however there is a first time for everything. of course, senators aren't going to be president until the first senator becomes one.

[Joe Republic]

however there is a first time for everything. of course, senators aren't going to be president until the first senator becomes one.

Two senators already have: Warren Harding and John F. Kennedy.

Of course, that's just two in 220 years, and none in the last 48 years.

[Bay Ridge, Bklyn! Born and Bred]

Ah, yes.  JFK, who ran as a defense hawk to the right of Richard Nixon, World War II war hero, a Pulitzer prize winning author, and smart as a whip.  And yet, he barely defeated Nixon and would have lost if Daley didn't get the dead to vote Democrat in Chicago.

There will never be another JFK, at least not in our lifetime, so the comparison to any current Democratic candidate to Jack Kennedy is absolutey ludicrous.

Try again.

[Boris]

All past elections are relevant to what will happen in the future. That's not to say that they are reliable predictors of what can happen in the future, but you can't intelligently judge what's happening now without knowledge of what happened in the past.

That's not the point I was trying to make. MikeyCNY seems to be under the notion that the Democrats' losses through the 1980s have an effect on the 2008 election. They don't. The circumstances under which those past elections occurred are very different from the circumstances under which the 2008 election will occur. Not to mention the political landscape has changed significantly since then.

Due to the fact that public opinion tends to sway rather quickly,  those who say the Democrats are either guaranteed to win or lose the 2008 election are delusional. It can still easily go both ways.

Now, for all you children aspiring political junkies, why do you think this is?  Do you think it's merely an amazing coincidence?

Incumbent Senators are what, one for five since 1960? Not a good percentage, but you're examining the correlation between being a senator and losing on a very superficial level. Three of those times (1964, 1972, maybe 1996), the losing party would have lost regardless of who they nominated. That leaves 1960 and 2004 as the only 'winnable' scenarios for senator nominees, and they're one for two.

The biggest problem senators have with running for senators, is, of course, defending their voting record. If Clinton, like Kerry, cannot adequately do this, she will most likely lose. If she can successfully defend herself against the GOP attack machine, then she stands a chance. But either way, making an adamant statement that candidate A will beat candidate B (given that both candidates are top-tier candidates) a year away from a general election is stupid and naive.

[Joe Republic]

Ah, yes.  JFK, who ran as a defense hawk to the right of Richard Nixon, World War II war hero, a Pulitzer prize winning author, and smart as a whip.  And yet, he barely defeated Nixon and would have lost if Daley didn't get the dead to vote Democrat in Chicago.

There will never be another JFK, at least not in our lifetime, so the comparison to any current Democratic candidate to Jack Kennedy is absolutey ludicrous.

Try again.

Are you speaking to me?  I should sincerely hope not, for your sake.