Could Jindal carry any Kerry state?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

A more valid question I believe. And of course the answer is no.

[tmthforu94]

It depends on the polical climate. If Obama is extremely unpopular, Jindal could win Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennyslvania. Maybe ever more states.

I'm not saying Jindal is the Republican Messiah who will demolish Obama. The only way he could win a Kerry state is if Americans are fed up with Obama, like how they were fed up with Bush.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Only if Obama's approvals are <40.  If they are, then he could take WI, MI, PA, or NH.

[Keystone Phil]

And of course the answer is no.

The confidence, without having an idea about the political climate, is really amusing.

[tmthforu94]

A more valid question I believe. And of course the answer is no.

Even if Obama's approval rating is 15%? You sure sound confident...

[Holmes]

Not even Bush got to 15% at his worst. That's kind of ignorant.

[Daniel Z]

Only if Obama's approvals are <40.  If they are, then he could take WI, MI, PA, or NH.

This is the correct answer. I don't see how Jindal is a very attractive candidate in any Democratic leaning states and it would take a very unpopular Obama for him to steal a state.

[Lunar]

Did the thread question specify that the election would occur in '12?  Jindal has a lot of other presidential elections he could run for.

edit: outside of the board topic, of course

[Eraserhead]

Obama would probably have to join the Crips or something...

[Nym90]

If he doesn't win the national popular vote? No. Even if he does, he'd probably have to win it by at least 3-4 percent to win any Kerry state.

Obviously if Obama is the next Carter, then sure.

[Rob]

California: lol, no.
Connecticut: no
Delaware: nope
DC: if he ran as the Democratic nominee, maybe. otherwise, no.
Hawaii: no
Illinois: no
Maine (at-large, CD1, CD2) no, no, and no
Maryland: nope
Massachusetts: lolz (no)
Michigan: no
Minnesota: no
New Hampshire: no
New Jersey: hell no
New York: not in any scenario
Oregon: no
Pennsylvania: not gonna happen
Rhode Island: never
Vermont: haha. no.
Washington: no
Wisconsin: one more "no"

I think that leaves Bobby 0-20, including DC.

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

I voted yes, since he technically could if things really go bad for Obama, but it would definately be difficult.

[You kip if you want to...]

WI, MN, MI or NH but if, and only if, things are going extremely terribly for Obama.

[Boris]

Only if Obama's approvals are <40.  If they are, then he could take WI, MI, PA, or NH.

If Obama's approval rating is less than 40%, and barring the emergence of no strong 3rd party candidates, Jindal would come close to winning all 50 states.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

What? No way Jindal comes close to winning all 50% with Obama having a 39% approval rating. Even Bush could've won some states in 2008 against Obama.

[Boris]

If Obama has a 39% approval rating on election day, he will most likely receive ~ 39% of the vote. Which, barring 3rd party candidates would mean that Jindal receives ~ 60% of the vote. Which would easily translate into victories in upwards of forty states, probably 48 (with Obama winning HI, VT, and DC) with a uniform swing but I'm too lazy to do the math. 

Has there been a modern election where an incumbent President receives a share of the vote significantly higher than his approval rating? We've had under-performances with strong third-party performances (Clinton 1996) but sitting Presidents tend to receive a share of the popular vote close to their approval rating. That being said, I doubt Jindal would receive anywhere close to 60% of the vote in the aforementioned scenario; either Obama would not be renominated or a third party candidate would receive upwards of 5% of the popular vote. But even a 5-6 point Jindal victory would have him winning New Hampshire at least; there's no way a Republican could win by that margin yet still be kept under 290 electoral votes.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

So would've Obama vs. Bush 2008 have had Bush getting under 30% and Obama getting the biggest landslide of modern times? It'd be more like 1964. Obama at 39% approval against Jindal would be like 1980.

[You kip if you want to...]

Obama against Jindal with Obama's approvals at 30%:

[Boris]

So would've Obama vs. Bush 2008 have had Bush getting under 30% and Obama getting the biggest landslide of modern times? It'd be more like 1964. Obama at 39% approval against Jindal would be like 1980.

Bush would have received like 25-35% of the vote, probably on the lower side of that range given the events of September 15. Third party candidates probably would have won about 15-20% of the popular vote. Bush might have won pluralities in maybe five states (and a majority in that partisan E district). So yeah, the 1964 and 1980 analogies are apt. Hence my original "close to 50 states" comment.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Obama against Jindal with Obama's approvals at 30%:

     30% would look much worse than that, especially since Dems tend to not rack up huge margins in states. It'd be more like this:

     For anyone to be at 30% is truly disastrous.

[Rowan]

Obama against Jindal with Obama's approvals at 30%:

MN and NJ would at least go Republican. Not sure about the other ones.

[© tweed]

So would've Obama vs. Bush 2008 have had Bush getting under 30% and Obama getting the biggest landslide of modern times? It'd be more like 1964. Obama at 39% approval against Jindal would be like 1980.

Bush would have received like 25-35% of the vote, probably on the lower side of that range given the events of September 15. Third party candidates probably would have won about 15-20% of the popular vote. Bush might have won pluralities in maybe five states (and a majority in that partisan E district). So yeah, the 1964 and 1980 analogies are apt. Hence my original "close to 50 states" comment.

the 'floor' would be higher than you estimate

[Tender Branson]

So would've Obama vs. Bush 2008 have had Bush getting under 30% and Obama getting the biggest landslide of modern times? It'd be more like 1964. Obama at 39% approval against Jindal would be like 1980.

That is easy:

Okay… suppose that, instead of the current Presidential nominees, you had a choice this year to vote for Republican George W. Bush or Democrat Barack Obama. For whom would you vote?

54% Obama
34% Bush

This national telephone survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted by Rasmussen Reports July 13, 2008. The margin of sampling error for the surveys is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/pt_survey_toplines/july_2008/toplines_possible_candidates_july_13_2008

[pbrower2a]

So would've Obama vs. Bush 2008 have had Bush getting under 30% and Obama getting the biggest landslide of modern times? It'd be more like 1964. Obama at 39% approval against Jindal would be like 1980.

That is easy:

Okay… suppose that, instead of the current Presidential nominees, you had a choice this year to vote for Republican George W. Bush or Democrat Barack Obama. For whom would you vote?

54% Obama
34% Bush

This national telephone survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted by Rasmussen Reports July 13, 2008. The margin of sampling error for the surveys is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/pt_survey_toplines/july_2008/toplines_possible_candidates_july_13_2008

The 35% level of support is roughly the minimum of support for any major-party candidate, and in that case it would probably look something like this:

Obama 473
Dubya 65[/b]

... although a third-party candidate might do a little electoral mischief.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

No way Bush carries Nebraska at large with those numbers. McCain got "only" 56% there getting more than 10 points more nationwide.