Clinton vs. McCain → additional blue states (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 27, 2024, 03:33:57 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Election What-ifs?
  Past Election What-ifs (US) (Moderator: Dereich)
  Clinton vs. McCain → additional blue states (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: Which states would have gone Democratic if Hillary had run in 2008?
#1
Alabama
#2
Alaska
#3
Arizona
#4
Arkansas
#5
Georgia
#6
Idaho
#7
Kansas
#8
Kentucky
#9
Louisiana
#10
Mississippi
#11
Missouri
#12
Montana
#13
Nebraska
#14
North Dakota
#15
Oklahoma
#16
South Carolina
#17
South Dakota
#18
Tennessee
#19
Texas
#20
Utah
#21
West Virginia
#22
Wyoming
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results


Author Topic: Clinton vs. McCain → additional blue states  (Read 7865 times)
justW353
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,693
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.13, S: -3.83

« on: September 26, 2011, 11:11:07 PM »

Hillary Clinton wasn't going to win Colorado or Nevada.

Give her MO and AR, take away IN, VA, NC (along with CO and NV).

LOL atbthe guy that said she'd take Arkansas with 60% of the vote, and win Louisiana.  Also, no Democrat was winning Kentucky and Tennessee in 2008, and a Democrat would win Texas before Appalachia.

Bunch of homers in here.
Logged
justW353
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,693
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.13, S: -3.83

« Reply #1 on: September 27, 2011, 02:48:14 PM »

LOL atbthe guy that said she'd take Arkansas with 60% of the vote, and win Louisiana.  Also, no Democrat was winning Kentucky and Tennessee in 2008, and a Democrat would win Texas before Appalachia.

That's why Bill Clinton didn't win one single state in Appalachia, whereas he took Texas by a wide margin. Roll Eyes

Haha.

Bill Clinton had a lot of advantages.  He was a southern Populist, first running against two opponents who split votes, and then an uncharismatic Senator who was essentially a throw-away candidate.

Bill Clinton has more charisma than his wife by a huge margin.  In 1992, he was lost Texas because the incumbent President was from Texas.

Appalachia isn't going Democrat anytime soon, and by comparing 1992 Bill to 2008 Hillary, you're making yourself sound like a fool.
Logged
justW353
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,693
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.13, S: -3.83

« Reply #2 on: September 27, 2011, 06:10:17 PM »


In 1992, he was lost Texas because the incumbent President was from Texas.


Bill Clinton lost Texas despite the fact that there were two opponents from that state.

Even in 1996 he wasn't able to carry Texas (though Perot was still participating), whereas he won each state in the Appalachian region (+ Louisiana) in both elections.

15 years later, you expect his wife to do the same? 
Logged
Pages: [1]  
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 0.027 seconds with 15 queries.