More Clinton and McCain

[Person Man]

Sarkozy v. Royale

"2007 France"- Incumbent party runs against itself

"1988"- incumbent maintains control through sheer strength

"2000 scenario"- incumbent party loses on EVs in a tied election when incumbent is weak.

"1976 style scenario"- incumbent loses more squarely

"1968/1992/1980 scenario"

[Hash]

Sarkozy/Royal and Clinton/McCain aren't very comparable.

[Person Man]

Sarkozy/Royal and Clinton/McCain aren't very comparable.

Show me how? It just seemed to me that a celebrated party maverick was running against a liberal woman with a strong reigonal record.

[J. J.]

McCain/Clinton with a suppressed African American turnout:

And it isn't the GOP's doing.

[War on Want]

McCain/Clinton with a suppressed African American turnout:

And it isn't the GOP's doing.

No way. Even with a surpressed turnout, Illinois will not flip.

[Hash]

Sarkozy/Royal and Clinton/McCain aren't very comparable.

Show me how? It just seemed to me that a celebrated party maverick was running against a liberal woman with a strong reigonal record.

Strong regional record? Please not that bullsh**t again. Liberal? Not really.

The vote against the UMP in 2004 rejected Chirac, not as much his party. If it had been Chirac vs. Royal; Royal would've won in a landslide. But it was Sarkozy, who represented a much different wing of the party than Chirac did, plus the two were/are rivals to enemies (since 1995).

Royal was a nice woman with little political experience and with a strong ego that conflicted with the PS elephants; she also led a poor campaign in my opinion (and her campaign led to defection of some to Sarkozy, like Besson)

Sorry for hijacking this thread off-topic.

[Person Man]

Sarkozy/Royal and Clinton/McCain aren't very comparable.

Show me how? It just seemed to me that a celebrated party maverick was running against a liberal woman with a strong reigonal record.

Strong regional record? Please not that bullsh**t again. Liberal? Not really.

The vote against the UMP in 2004 rejected Chirac, not as much his party. If it had been Chirac vs. Royal; Royal would've won in a landslide. But it was Sarkozy, who represented a much different wing of the party than Chirac did, plus the two were/are rivals to enemies (since 1995).

Royal was a nice woman with little political experience and with a strong ego that conflicted with the PS elephants; she also led a poor campaign in my opinion (and her campaign led to defection of some to Sarkozy, like Besson)
Sorry for hijacking this thread off-topic.

One can say those are the same.

[War on Want]

I would post my 5 scenario maps but I can't copy and paste my Evcalc stuff...

[J. J.]

McCain/Clinton with a suppressed African American turnout:

And it isn't the GOP's doing.

No way. Even with a surpressed turnout, Illinois will not flip.

Obama is from Illinois. 

[Person Man]

Umm...and?

[War on Want]

McCain/Clinton with a suppressed African American turnout:

And it isn't the GOP's doing.

No way. Even with a surpressed turnout, Illinois will not flip.

Obama is from Illinois. 

So? It will still vote democrat, even if by a smaller margin.

[Hash]

Sarkozy/Royal and Clinton/McCain aren't very comparable.

Show me how? It just seemed to me that a celebrated party maverick was running against a liberal woman with a strong reigonal record.

Strong regional record? Please not that bullsh**t again. Liberal? Not really.

The vote against the UMP in 2004 rejected Chirac, not as much his party. If it had been Chirac vs. Royal; Royal would've won in a landslide. But it was Sarkozy, who represented a much different wing of the party than Chirac did, plus the two were/are rivals to enemies (since 1995).

Royal was a nice woman with little political experience and with a strong ego that conflicted with the PS elephants; she also led a poor campaign in my opinion (and her campaign led to defection of some to Sarkozy, like Besson)
Sorry for hijacking this thread off-topic.

One can say those are the same.

Does Clinton have no experience? Is McCain Bush's sworn rival and enemy since 1995? Will Clinton lead such an awful campaign?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Obama obviously isn't going to endorse McCain or anything.

[Person Man]

Sarkozy/Royal and Clinton/McCain aren't very comparable.

Show me how? It just seemed to me that a celebrated party maverick was running against a liberal woman with a strong reigonal record.

Strong regional record? Please not that bullsh**t again. Liberal? Not really.

The vote against the UMP in 2004 rejected Chirac, not as much his party. If it had been Chirac vs. Royal; Royal would've won in a landslide. But it was Sarkozy, who represented a much different wing of the party than Chirac did, plus the two were/are rivals to enemies (since 1995).

Royal was a nice woman with little political experience and with a strong ego that conflicted with the PS elephants; she also led a poor campaign in my opinion (and her campaign led to defection of some to Sarkozy, like Besson)
Sorry for hijacking this thread off-topic.

One can say those are the same.

Does Clinton have no experience? Is McCain Bush's sworn rival and enemy since 1995? Will Clinton lead such an awful campaign?

1- Many people say she is only a 1 term senator....
2- 2000 was kinda nasty. 2000 wasn't 1995, but still...
3- Many people seem to think so, at least against the golden arches.

[Person Man]

Obama obviously isn't going to endorse McCain or anything.

Yeah...

[Hash]

Sarkozy/Royal and Clinton/McCain aren't very comparable.

Show me how? It just seemed to me that a celebrated party maverick was running against a liberal woman with a strong reigonal record.

Strong regional record? Please not that bullsh**t again. Liberal? Not really.

The vote against the UMP in 2004 rejected Chirac, not as much his party. If it had been Chirac vs. Royal; Royal would've won in a landslide. But it was Sarkozy, who represented a much different wing of the party than Chirac did, plus the two were/are rivals to enemies (since 1995).

Royal was a nice woman with little political experience and with a strong ego that conflicted with the PS elephants; she also led a poor campaign in my opinion (and her campaign led to defection of some to Sarkozy, like Besson)
Sorry for hijacking this thread off-topic.

One can say those are the same.

Does Clinton have no experience? Is McCain Bush's sworn rival and enemy since 1995? Will Clinton lead such an awful campaign?

1- Many people say she is only a 1 term senator....
2- 2000 was kinda nasty. 2000 wasn't 1995, but still...
3- Many people seem to think so, at least against the golden arches.

1. Royal was a low-level Minister of Family and Sports or some similar useless post and a popular MP from a rural area before becoming regional president (regional presidencies are NOT comparable to a US governorship).
2. McCain wasn't booed at party rallies, humiliated in a EU election, and personally hated by Dubya?

[Bacon King]

I never really thought about it before, but I see how Royal/Sarkozy is a bit like Hillary/McCain.

[Person Man]

Sarkozy/Royal and Clinton/McCain aren't very comparable.

Show me how? It just seemed to me that a celebrated party maverick was running against a liberal woman with a strong reigonal record.

Strong regional record? Please not that bullsh**t again. Liberal? Not really.

The vote against the UMP in 2004 rejected Chirac, not as much his party. If it had been Chirac vs. Royal; Royal would've won in a landslide. But it was Sarkozy, who represented a much different wing of the party than Chirac did, plus the two were/are rivals to enemies (since 1995).

Royal was a nice woman with little political experience and with a strong ego that conflicted with the PS elephants; she also led a poor campaign in my opinion (and her campaign led to defection of some to Sarkozy, like Besson)
Sorry for hijacking this thread off-topic.

One can say those are the same.

Does Clinton have no experience? Is McCain Bush's sworn rival and enemy since 1995? Will Clinton lead such an awful campaign?

1- Many people say she is only a 1 term senator....
2- 2000 was kinda nasty. 2000 wasn't 1995, but still...
3- Many people seem to think so, at least against the golden arches.

1. Royal was a low-level Minister of Family and Sports or some similar useless post and a popular MP from a rural area before becoming regional president (regional presidencies are NOT comparable to a US governorship).
2. McCain wasn't booed at party rallies, humiliated in a EU election, and personally hated by Dubya?

similiar, mind you, not the same.

I never really thought about it before, but I see how Royal/Sarkozy is a bit like Hillary/McCain.

I just hope it turns out differently. Sarkozy seems to have it right economically, but he is being a Bush-bot. I guess a Bush-bot who could help...

[War on Want]

These are my five scenarios for a McCain/Hillary matchup.

This is the best McCain can do nationally, and it happens because the War in Iraq improves even more, and the economy doesn't change much from its current levels. He also hits Clinton hard with ads and attacks, she does poorly:

McCain wins 355 to 183 in a landslide.

My second one is where the national situation acts the same as the first scenario, but Clinton's campaign does about as well, as McCain's, and fights it out fairly well with McCain:

McCain wins 311 to 227

This scenario is the most likely, where the situation in the economy worsens, and the Iraq War stays about the same, but McCain still outperforms Clinton by a little because of his maverick status and independent appeal:

Clinton squeaks it out 275-263

The next scenario is where the national situation stays the same, as the third scenario, but Clinton's campaign outperforms McCain and really hurts him on the War In Iraq and some of his more radical War on Terror comments:

Clinton wins 304-234

This is Clinton's best case scenario where the Iraq War slightly worsens, and the Economy goes into a fairly severe recession, with a minor stock market crash. She also attacks McCain harshly and defeats him in the two debates:

Clinton wins 360-178