Clinton/Bredesen vs Allen/Pawlenty

[Reaganfan]

Who wins? Let's see some maps.

[Moooooo]

Allen - 296
Clinton - 242

[AuH2O]

A/P would take MN. MI and PA would be pure tossups.

This is actually a pretty predictable race, all things considered. The way I look at it, the more of a known quantity each candidate is, the more legitimate a prediction can be made. Hillary is very much a known quantity, and Allen is up there.

Popular vote-wise, I'd say 53-46 or so, though Hillary would start fairly strong and gradually fade under the weight of her misdeeds.

In a sort of bizarre Rawlsian world of Presidential elections, where each party has to pick a candidate ignorant of the other side's likely prospects, Hillary remains a fairly strong option. You know she won't totally implode and will beat any substandard nominee offered by the GOP. There is always a chance she could upset a superior candidate, so the overall picture is not bad.

[opebo]

Clinton/Bredesen: 298
Allen/Pawlenty:     240

[TomC]

Clinton/Bredesen: 298
Allen/Pawlenty:     240

Great map!

[opebo]

Great map!

Thanks.  I think CO, WS, OH, FL, and IA could go either way on that one.  NV and NM would easily go Clinton imo.

[AuH2O]

So says the NAMBLA man. And not exactly the next Rove, either.

[Rob]

Clinton/Bredesen: 298
Allen/Pawlenty:     240

What a horrible map. Why the hell would Colorado, a state that voted for Bush by 5 points, vote for Hillary (of all people) over a native son? You also need to switch Nevada, New Mexico, Iowa, Wisconsin, Ohio, and New Hampshire- Minnesota and Pennsylvania would be tossups.

[Moooooo]

I dont see PA flipping.  Bush spent half the campaign in that state and still came up 3 points short.  Pawlenty in the VP slot would make MN a little more competitive, but I doubt she flips.  He was elected in 2002 with less than 50% of the vote and his approval rating is consistantly in the high 40's and low 50's.  He isnt exactly a lock for re-election, so I would'nt chalk up MN for the GOP if he's on the back end of the ticket.

[A18]

Take a look at New Hampshire in 1988. Then take a look at New Hampshire in 1992. Then tell me PA can't flip.

[Keystone Phil]

I dont see PA flipping.  Bush spent half the campaign in that state and still came up 3 points short. 

Allen vs. Hillary means a PA flip.

Also, what does Bob say when he's talking about Colorado's native son? None of these candidates are from Colorado.

[Erc]

Take a look at New Hampshire in 1988. Then take a look at New Hampshire in 1992. Then tell me PA can't flip.

Most of these scenarios assume the race is relatively close--and in that case PA shouldn't flip.

Of course, the basic assumption that the race is close is likely very unfounded.

[opebo]

Pennsylvania and New Hampshire will both be very likely to vote Democrat in 2008.

[TheresNoMoney]

Pennsylvania and New Hampshire will both be very likely to vote Democrat in 2008.

I'm so glad that New Hampshire is turning blue. I was happy when Kerry won and John Lynch beat the Republican incumbent for governor.

[Rob]

Also, what does Bob say when he's talking about Colorado's native son? None of these candidates are from Colorado.

My mistake. I mixed Allen up with someone else. Regardless, he carries Colorado easily.

[opebo]

Also, what does Bob say when he's talking about Colorado's native son? None of these candidates are from Colorado.

My mistake. I mixed Allen up with someone else. Regardless, he carries Colorado easily.

Well, that is one state that is headed Democrat eventually, but you may be right, 2008 may be too soon. 

[A18]

How is it headed Democrat?

[Rob]

How is it headed Democrat?

I assume he's referring to the expanding Hispanic population. However, they vote in relatively low numbers, and they're trending Republican. They won't help the Democrats as much as you might think.

[opebo]

How is it headed Democrat?

I assume he's referring to the expanding Hispanic population. However, they vote in relatively low numbers, and they're trending Republican. They won't help the Democrats as much as you might think.

The hispanics are a factor, but so is the increasing moderation of the whites due to growing numbers of liberals and some previously existing strain of libertarianism on social issues.  I think you will see first Nevada and then Colorado alienated from the Southern Religious Party eventually, simply because it keeps getting more religious and more southern.  Even Arizona will feel this 'West-Coast-ization' trend, though it will take a lot longer to flip.

[A18]

The Republican Party has not gotten any more religious in recent years in any way at all, nor does it appear to be trending that way.

[opebo]

The Republican Party has not gotten any more religious in recent years in any way at all, nor does it appear to be trending that way.

It has been getting more and more religious since the very late 1970s.  Only in the last 10 years has the takeover been completely effected.  You need to notice who is running your party, A18 - it is a bunch of born-again fundamentalist theocrats.

[A18]

So name something we've gotten more religious on.

[TomC]

Giving government dollars to churches, yelling that Dems are anti-Christian merely because we oppose far right judges, candidates who say God wants them to run, the fervor of candidates and cabinet members (a la Ashcroft). The reliance on social conservatism over economic conservatism to rally your base.

Just to name a few.

[opebo]

My personal favorite is censorship of pornography.  However social issues are the broad category - particularly abortion, the anti-gay agenda, as well as the destruction of the separation of church and state.  The most important thing is that if one wants an enlightened, secular society, without oppression of social freedoms, one has to vote against whichever party the religious support.
Some links:
http://www.theocracywatch.org/
http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/bauer1.htm
http://www.theocracywatch.org/taking_over.htm
http://www.madison.com/tct/opinion/index.php?ntid=37467&ntpid=3

[A18]

You named one thing we got more religious on: dollars-to-churches. You ignore this is part of a broad faith-based initiatives process, that includes Muslims, Jews, and everyone else.

Censorship of pornography is not a change. I know you're against cracking down on child porn. Most people aren't, opedophile. There was no internet in the 1970s.