2008- what do you think would have happend with diffrent canidates?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 07:18:17 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  U.S. Presidential Election Results
  2008 U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderator: Dereich)
  2008- what do you think would have happend with diffrent canidates?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3
Author Topic: 2008- what do you think would have happend with diffrent canidates?  (Read 11172 times)
Dancing with Myself
tb75
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,941
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: May 12, 2010, 05:43:50 PM »



Same as the 2004 version
Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,986
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: May 12, 2010, 05:50:30 PM »



Hillary Clinton vs. Rudy Giuliani
Logged
perdedor
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,638


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: May 12, 2010, 06:38:27 PM »

The Democratic candidate would have won handily regardless of who the nominees were. In a lot of ways, the actual 2008 results were a best case scenario for Republicans. There was enough hatred and ignorance to keep McCain's numbers somewhat respectable.
Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,986
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: May 12, 2010, 06:42:37 PM »

The Democratic candidate would have won handily regardless of who the nominees were. In a lot of ways, the actual 2008 results were a best case scenario for Republicans. There was enough hatred and ignorance to keep McCain's numbers somewhat respectable.

Not to mention that McCain was perceived as pretty moderate (at least in comparison to the other GOP candidates) but still more or less respectable to the base.
Logged
Psychic Octopus
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,948
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: May 12, 2010, 07:31:21 PM »

Clinton would have won by a bigger landslide, McCain was the best the GOP had to offer in the general election.
Logged
Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,615
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: May 14, 2010, 01:12:12 PM »

http://


Hillary vs. McCain
Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,986
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: May 14, 2010, 10:57:30 PM »


lol. If Obama, with all his controversies and inexperience, amanged to defeat McCain in a landslide, Hillary would have as well.
Logged
Devilman88
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,498


Political Matrix
E: 5.94, S: 2.61

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: May 15, 2010, 01:13:47 AM »


Are you trying to be a hack?
Logged
Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,615
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: May 15, 2010, 11:29:55 AM »

What do you mean and what are you getting at? It would've come down to Ohio.
Logged
Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,615
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: May 15, 2010, 11:30:48 AM »


lol. If Obama, with all his controversies and inexperience, amanged to defeat McCain in a landslide, Hillary would have as well.

None of that mattered. It was all about the economy and getting someone as far from Bush as possible.
Logged
Landslide Lyndon
px75
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,611
Greece


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: May 16, 2010, 05:17:04 AM »


LOL at Hillary losing Iowa, Florida, Ohio and New Hampshire to McCain. Not to mention that she would have won Arkansas and West Virginia.
Logged
Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,615
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: May 16, 2010, 05:52:37 PM »


LOL at Hillary losing Iowa, Florida, Ohio and New Hampshire to McCain. Not to mention that she would have won Arkansas and West Virginia.

I'm glad you brought that up. Arkansas was no longer winnable for the Clintons, hence the escape to NY where they'd be welcome. West Virginia is about as winnable for the democrats as Kansas nowadays. Virginia was due to Obama and Kaine being close and Kaine helping alot. Florida is a few points to the right of the nation and Obama only won it by a couple of points whereas Hillary Clinton was a weaker candidate. Ohio? well that would depend on voter turnout.
Logged
DariusNJ
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 414


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: May 16, 2010, 06:36:23 PM »



I'm glad you brought that up. Arkansas was no longer winnable for the Clintons, hence the escape to NY where they'd be welcome. West Virginia is about as winnable for the democrats as Kansas nowadays. Virginia was due to Obama and Kaine being close and Kaine helping alot. Florida is a few points to the right of the nation and Obama only won it by a couple of points whereas Hillary Clinton was a weaker candidate. Ohio? well that would depend on voter turnout.

So many things wrong with this, don't know where to start.

1) Clinton would have won Arkansas, Rasmussen (your favorite pollster) showed Clinton winning the state easily against McCain, while that same poll showed Obama losing by 15-20 points, which was accurate.

2) If she could win Arkansas, she would win West Virginia easily.

3) Virginia was due to heavy black turnout and voters in the liberal areas in Northern Virginia, not Kaine. If there were any coattails, they were from Warner and they were small.

4) Florida has an elderly population, favoring Hillary. Not to mention Hillary would have gotten much more support among Northern Florida whites.

5) Ohio would vote for Clinton by more than it voted for Obama, her base, rural blue collar workers, would have made this state a pretty easy win.
Logged
justW353
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,693
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.13, S: -3.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: May 16, 2010, 06:45:18 PM »

Nonhacked Hillary vs. McCain

Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,986
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: May 17, 2010, 12:02:52 AM »


lol. If Obama, with all his controversies and inexperience, amanged to defeat McCain in a landslide, Hillary would have as well.

None of that mattered. It was all about the economy and getting someone as far from Bush as possible.

Exactly. Hillary could run on her husband's good economic record and Hillary's policies were farther from Bush's policies than McCain's policies were.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: May 17, 2010, 03:43:32 AM »

Anyone but McCain equals Dem landslide. A different Democratic candidate shifts a few close states here and there, but doesn't change the map fundamentally. (The real struggle for the Dem nomination was for who becomes the anti-Hillary early on... and that field was arguably wide open, so there's a lot of quasi-plausible contenders here.)
Logged
Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,615
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: May 17, 2010, 12:32:14 PM »


lol. If Obama, with all his controversies and inexperience, amanged to defeat McCain in a landslide, Hillary would have as well.

None of that mattered. It was all about the economy and getting someone as far from Bush as possible.

Exactly. Hillary could run on her husband's good economic record and Hillary's policies were farther from Bush's policies than McCain's policies were.

It could be flipped around too based on doing nothing to stop terrorism in several cases and her having nothing to do with the good economy too.
Logged
memphis
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,959


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: May 19, 2010, 06:43:36 PM »

Hard to see any Republican winning after what George W Bush did to this country. Maybe, if a GOP nominee had had the balls to oppose the bailouts. That was the only chance the Republicans had.
Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,986
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: May 19, 2010, 06:52:04 PM »


lol. If Obama, with all his controversies and inexperience, amanged to defeat McCain in a landslide, Hillary would have as well.

None of that mattered. It was all about the economy and getting someone as far from Bush as possible.

Exactly. Hillary could run on her husband's good economic record and Hillary's policies were farther from Bush's policies than McCain's policies were.

It could be flipped around too based on doing nothing to stop terrorism in several cases and her having nothing to do with the good economy too.

Hillary and Bill Clinton could counter that by arguing that the GOP said Clinton was too obsessed with catching bin Laden in the 1990s, before saying that he was not obessed enough after 9/11. Bill Clinton could also say that Hillary helped him in regards to the economy as President and that she will continue his economic policies. Since many voters gave Clinton credit for the economic prosperity of the 1990s, they will believe what he says in regards to Hillary. Seriously, if Obama managed to defeat McCain in a landslide after going to a racist church for over 20 years, Hillary would have also defeated McCain (or any other GOP opponent) in a landslide.
Logged
Landslide Lyndon
px75
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,611
Greece


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: May 20, 2010, 01:42:42 AM »

Hard to see any Republican winning after what George W Bush did to this country. Maybe, if a GOP nominee had had the balls to oppose the bailouts. That was the only chance the Republicans had.

That's why I say that Mike Huckabee might have been a stronger candidate than most people give him credit for.
Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,986
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: May 20, 2010, 04:47:31 PM »

Hard to see any Republican winning after what George W Bush did to this country. Maybe, if a GOP nominee had had the balls to oppose the bailouts. That was the only chance the Republicans had.

That's why I say that Mike Huckabee might have been a stronger candidate than most people give him credit for.

He might have been, but he would have still lost because many voters perceived him as too religious.
Logged
Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,615
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: May 20, 2010, 06:11:56 PM »

Huckabee was a stronger candidate than he appeared he'd have won FL, VA, and OH bringing the GOP up to at least 260.
Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,986
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: May 20, 2010, 06:15:46 PM »


lol. If Obama, with all his controversies and inexperience, amanged to defeat McCain in a landslide, Hillary would have as well.

None of that mattered. It was all about the economy and getting someone as far from Bush as possible.

Exactly. Hillary could run on her husband's good economic record and Hillary's policies were farther from Bush's policies than McCain's policies were.

It could be flipped around too based on doing nothing to stop terrorism in several cases and her having nothing to do with the good economy too.

Hillary and Bill Clinton could counter that by arguing that the GOP said Clinton was too obsessed with catching bin Laden in the 1990s, before saying that he was not obessed enough after 9/11. Bill Clinton could also say that Hillary helped him in regards to the economy as President and that she will continue his economic policies. Since many voters gave Clinton credit for the economic prosperity of the 1990s, they will believe what he says in regards to Hillary. Seriously, if Obama managed to defeat McCain in a landslide after going to a racist church for over 20 years, Hillary would have also defeated McCain (or any other GOP opponent) in a landslide.

I'm guessing no one has any arguments with me over why Hillary would have defeated McCain in a landslide?
Logged
Psychic Octopus
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,948
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: May 20, 2010, 06:34:44 PM »

Anyone but McCain equals Dem landslide. A different Democratic candidate shifts a few close states here and there, but doesn't change the map fundamentally. (The real struggle for the Dem nomination was for who becomes the anti-Hillary early on... and that field was arguably wide open, so there's a lot of quasi-plausible contenders here.)
Yes, yes definitely. Had Romney or Thompson or Huckabee won the nomination, it would have been a blowout.
Logged
Tuck!
tuckerbanks
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 392
Netherlands


Political Matrix
E: 0.06, S: -6.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: May 20, 2010, 10:34:03 PM »

What arguments can you provide to back any claims that McCain was able to perform the best? IMO, almost anyone could have performed better except maybe Fred or Rudy.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.064 seconds with 12 queries.