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, 04:34:09 PM
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 11173 times)
Landslide Lyndon
px75
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,620
Greece


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: May 21, 2010, 04:08:29 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.)
Yes, yes definitely. Had Romney or Thompson or Huckabee won the nomination, it would have been a blowout.

That's the CW but I'm skeptical. As I mentioned elsewhere, Romney and Huckabee had their own sets of strengths and weaknesses and nobody can say for sure how the campaign would have played out if one of them was the nominee.

Romney wouldn't have been so massively outspent, had a far better grasp of economics than McCain and his campaign would have been arguably much more efficient.
OTOH, his corporate past, his phoniness and his Mormonism would have hurt him.

Huckabee was the most charismatic of the three, his economic populism was well suited to the 2008 campaign, he could have pummeled Obama for his bailout vote and his candidacy would have kept the republican base enthusiastic.
OTOH, his lack of national security credentials, his overt religiosity and his inability to raise funds were serious cons.     
Logged
Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,615
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: May 21, 2010, 07:53:05 AM »

I don't think Hillary would've won in a landslide. The longer your past, the higher the negatives.
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 #27 on: May 28, 2010, 05:12:24 PM »

I don't think Hillary would've won in a landslide. The longer your past, the higher the negatives.

That's not always true.
Logged
Mr. Morden
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,073
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: May 28, 2010, 05:58:46 PM »

I wonder how John Edwards would have done, assuming no affair with Rielle Hunter.

For that matter, I wonder how Gore would have done.
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 #29 on: May 28, 2010, 06:21:34 PM »

I wonder how John Edwards would have done, assuming no affair with Rielle Hunter.

For that matter, I wonder how Gore would have done.


Edwards:



Gore:

Logged
Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,615
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: May 29, 2010, 09:08:07 AM »

I wonder how John Edwards would have done, assuming no affair with Rielle Hunter.

For that matter, I wonder how Gore would have done.


IT WOULD HAVE BEEN EXPOSED.
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 #31 on: May 29, 2010, 02:11:55 PM »

I wonder how John Edwards would have done, assuming no affair with Rielle Hunter.

For that matter, I wonder how Gore would have done.


IT WOULD HAVE BEEN EXPOSED.

He means that Edwards would not have had his affair with Hunter in the first place, thus Edwards would have had nothing to expose.
Logged
Dancing with Myself
tb75
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,941
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: May 29, 2010, 03:11:52 PM »

Gore vs McCain:



Gore/Obama-355

McCain/Thune-183


Gore vs. Huckabee:



Gore/Obama- 295

Huckabee/Brownback- 243
Logged
Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,615
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: May 29, 2010, 09:16:26 PM »

I wonder how John Edwards would have done, assuming no affair with Rielle Hunter.

For that matter, I wonder how Gore would have done.


IT WOULD HAVE BEEN EXPOSED.

He means that Edwards would not have had his affair with Hunter in the first place, thus Edwards would have had nothing to expose.

Well he did have the affair. You mean if it just didn't happen?
Logged
Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,615
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: May 29, 2010, 09:18:41 PM »

With John Edwards, we would simply pick apart every case he's ever been involved with and treat it as if he were on the wrong side. Or how bout he was making millions off of others' misfortunes. The difference between a guy like Edwards and someone like Bill Frist is if one were to witness an accident, Bill Frist would save a few lives as a doctor. John Edwards would demand to know if it were the tire or the car because someone is owed money and he is entitled to some of it. Those ambulance chasers just make me sick.
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 #35 on: May 30, 2010, 04:08:42 PM »

I wonder how John Edwards would have done, assuming no affair with Rielle Hunter.

For that matter, I wonder how Gore would have done.


IT WOULD HAVE BEEN EXPOSED.

He means that Edwards would not have had his affair with Hunter in the first place, thus Edwards would have had nothing to expose.

Well he did have the affair. You mean if it just didn't happen?

Yes. Read the bolded part.
Logged
Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,615
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: May 31, 2010, 11:53:55 AM »

Oh then we would've picked apart his cases as an attorney to make it look like he was on the wrong side of every issue.
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 #37 on: May 31, 2010, 02:39:07 PM »

Oh then we would've picked apart his cases as an attorney to make it look like he was on the wrong side of every issue.

Then the GOP would have failed epically, since no one would have cared about that. All they would have cared about would have been the economy. Thus, any Democrat would have defeated any Republican (except maybe Colin Powell) in a landslide in 2008.
Logged
tarheel-leftist85
krustytheklown
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,274
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: June 06, 2010, 10:56:05 AM »

John Edwards [no affair]/Hillary Clinton v. Mitt Romney/Condi Rice



Edwards/Clinton - 516 EV - 60%
Romney/Rice - 22EV - 39%
Others - 0EV - 1%
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 #39 on: June 06, 2010, 11:14:04 AM »

John Edwards [no affair]/Hillary Clinton v. Mitt Romney/Condi Rice



Edwards/Clinton - 516 EV - 60%
Romney/Rice - 22EV - 39%
Others - 0EV - 1%

No way Edwards picks Hillary for VP, unless it is a very close race between them for the nomination, and even then I'm not sure he picks her (since Obama didn't).
Logged
Ameriplan
WilliamSargent
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,199
Faroe Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: June 07, 2010, 11:21:17 PM »

I don't think Hillary would've won in a landslide. The longer your past, the higher the negatives.

That's not always true.

Yeah but it's true for any Clinton, who would've been haunted by Slick Willie's handling of terrorism that possibly led to 9/11, his personal problems that kept him distracted while the national security rug was being pulled out from under him.

Additionally, her healthcare credentials would have been called into question after she screwed up in Arkansas.

If Edwards would have won, we would have had a field day after his sexual escapades.

Obama was the only candidate whose background was clean enough not to be called into question.

He did have questionable connections though and he was lucky enough to face a man who didn't have the gonads to bring them up.

An extremely fortunate circumstance led to the presidency of one of the most incompetent men who could have possibly won it.

BO: I support offshore drilling!
BP: There was an oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
BO: Oh sh**t never mind.
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 #41 on: June 08, 2010, 01:17:07 AM »

I don't think Hillary would've won in a landslide. The longer your past, the higher the negatives.

That's not always true.

Yeah but it's true for any Clinton, who would've been haunted by Slick Willie's handling of terrorism that possibly led to 9/11, his personal problems that kept him distracted while the national security rug was being pulled out from under him.

Additionally, her healthcare credentials would have been called into question after she screwed up in Arkansas.

9/11 occured under Bush Jr.'s watch, not under Clinton's. Also, terrorism and Clinton's affair weren't big issues in 2008. As for healthcare, Hillary could claim that she learned from her mistakes and that her GOP opponent will not implement any reforms at all. If going to a racist church for 20+ years didn't hurt Obama, then none of those things would have hurt Hillary in the general election.
Logged
Ameriplan
WilliamSargent
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,199
Faroe Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: June 08, 2010, 07:14:02 AM »


9/11 occured under Bush Jr.'s watch, not under Clinton's.

That's true, but I mean, didn't Bill Clinton see something like 4 attacks on U.S. interests during his administration? (WTC 93, Embassies in Africa, Beirut, and the U.S.S. Cole). He didn't do much after those, if I recall. I wonder why?
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 #43 on: June 08, 2010, 01:12:07 PM »


9/11 occured under Bush Jr.'s watch, not under Clinton's.

That's true, but I mean, didn't Bill Clinton see something like 4 attacks on U.S. interests during his administration? (WTC 93, Embassies in Africa, Beirut, and the U.S.S. Cole). He didn't do much after those, if I recall. I wonder why?

Because he was a coward, that's why. I agree that Clinton deserves some blame for not preventing 9/11, but Bush Jr. deserves some blame as well. Bush Jr. received that Bin Laden Determined to Strike the U.S. Memo in August 2001, where it specifically talked about the possibility of al-Qaeda hijacking planes, yet he did nothing about it. He could have at least increased security at the airports. Anyway, I don't think her husband's failure to prevent 9/11 would have hurt Hillary much in 2008 because people were mcuh more worried about the economy and losing their jobs that year. And since the economy was booming under Bill Clinton's watch, many voters who were worried about the economy would have flocked to Hillary since they would think that she and Bill will be able to fix the U.S. economy again.
Logged
Ameriplan
WilliamSargent
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,199
Faroe Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: June 08, 2010, 02:46:20 PM »


9/11 occured under Bush Jr.'s watch, not under Clinton's.

That's true, but I mean, didn't Bill Clinton see something like 4 attacks on U.S. interests during his administration? (WTC 93, Embassies in Africa, Beirut, and the U.S.S. Cole). He didn't do much after those, if I recall. I wonder why?

Because he was a coward, that's why. I agree that Clinton deserves some blame for not preventing 9/11, but Bush Jr. deserves some blame as well. Bush Jr. received that Bin Laden Determined to Strike the U.S. Memo in August 2001, where it specifically talked about the possibility of al-Qaeda hijacking planes, yet he did nothing about it. He could have at least increased security at the airports. Anyway, I don't think her husband's failure to prevent 9/11 would have hurt Hillary much in 2008 because people were mcuh more worried about the economy and losing their jobs that year. And since the economy was booming under Bill Clinton's watch, many voters who were worried about the economy would have flocked to Hillary since they would think that she and Bill will be able to fix the U.S. economy again.

I agree, but I don't think I would have been convinced, especially since he created an unsustainable bubble that loomed large over his successors.
Logged
#CriminalizeSobriety
Dallasfan65
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,859


Political Matrix
E: 5.48, S: -9.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: June 08, 2010, 03:01:37 PM »


9/11 occured under Bush Jr.'s watch, not under Clinton's.

That's true, but I mean, didn't Bill Clinton see something like 4 attacks on U.S. interests during his administration? (WTC 93, Embassies in Africa, Beirut, and the U.S.S. Cole). He didn't do much after those, if I recall. I wonder why?

He was busy bombing medicine factories.
Logged
Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,615
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: June 11, 2010, 04:31:48 PM »


9/11 occured under Bush Jr.'s watch, not under Clinton's.

That's true, but I mean, didn't Bill Clinton see something like 4 attacks on U.S. interests during his administration? (WTC 93, Embassies in Africa, Beirut, and the U.S.S. Cole). He didn't do much after those, if I recall. I wonder why?

He was busy bombing medicine factories.

Yep anything to take public eye off of his misdemeanors.
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 #47 on: June 11, 2010, 05:07:06 PM »


9/11 occured under Bush Jr.'s watch, not under Clinton's.

That's true, but I mean, didn't Bill Clinton see something like 4 attacks on U.S. interests during his administration? (WTC 93, Embassies in Africa, Beirut, and the U.S.S. Cole). He didn't do much after those, if I recall. I wonder why?

He was busy bombing medicine factories.

Yep anything to take public eye off of his misdemeanors.

You Republicans are hypocrites. When Clinton tried to do something against terrorism, you guys said that he was doing too much back in the 1990s. Now you say he wasn't doing enough.
Logged
Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,615
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: June 14, 2010, 02:15:34 AM »


9/11 occured under Bush Jr.'s watch, not under Clinton's.

That's true, but I mean, didn't Bill Clinton see something like 4 attacks on U.S. interests during his administration? (WTC 93, Embassies in Africa, Beirut, and the U.S.S. Cole). He didn't do much after those, if I recall. I wonder why?

He was busy bombing medicine factories.

Yep anything to take public eye off of his misdemeanors.

You Republicans are hypocrites. When Clinton tried to do something against terrorism, you guys said that he was doing too much back in the 1990s. Now you say he wasn't doing enough.

He never did anything to fight terror. In 1998 the US Embassy in Africa got bombed and in 2000 he didn't do anything about the USS Cole either. Remember Oklahoma City. McVeigh had a pocket full of phone numbers from Iraq and the FBI wasn't allowed to investigate. All of these things went unaccounted for. Bush was handed the biggest mess in the history of any president. Oh, and the Clinton/Gore recession started in March of 2000.
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 #49 on: June 14, 2010, 07:52:13 AM »


9/11 occured under Bush Jr.'s watch, not under Clinton's.

That's true, but I mean, didn't Bill Clinton see something like 4 attacks on U.S. interests during his administration? (WTC 93, Embassies in Africa, Beirut, and the U.S.S. Cole). He didn't do much after those, if I recall. I wonder why?

He was busy bombing medicine factories.

Yep anything to take public eye off of his misdemeanors.

You Republicans are hypocrites. When Clinton tried to do something against terrorism, you guys said that he was doing too much back in the 1990s. Now you say he wasn't doing enough.

He never did anything to fight terror. In 1998 the US Embassy in Africa got bombed and in 2000 he didn't do anything about the USS Cole either. Remember Oklahoma City. McVeigh had a pocket full of phone numbers from Iraq and the FBI wasn't allowed to investigate. All of these things went unaccounted for. Bush was handed the biggest mess in the history of any president. Oh, and the Clinton/Gore recession started in March of 2000.

Clinton did try to kill Biden Laden several times. He wasn't very effecient at doing it, but I read that the GOP criticized him for being too obsessed with Biden Laden before 9/11. I agree that Clinton should have responded to terrorism more strongly and decisively, but the GOP didn't exactly support what he did try to do against terrorism. Bush could have also done much more to prevent 9/11, such as increasing airport security after that Biden Laden Determined to Strike the U.S. memo was given to him. As for the dot-com recession, the economy began to slow down and the stock market (NASDAQ) began to collapse under Clinton, but the recession itself officially started under Bush Jr.'s watch.
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 0.056 seconds with 14 queries.