Guiliani vs. Edwards

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

I like this one because I really don't know how it would turn out.  Guiliani would run as a tough forgein policy canidate, which is an issue than trancends party lines.  Edwards would run as a populist, getting good support from those who are worried about the economy and their jobs.  This kind of issue also can garner support from both sides.  Both are pretty liberal when it comes to social issues, so it would be interesting to see where the usual Bush crowd breaks. 

The outcome?  I think the Democrats continue their drift towards the center, and win in a strange result, Edwards the clear favorite going into election day. 

The pre-election map. 

and my best guess on the actual result

Edwards 333
Rudy 205

I just think the political atmosphere will still favor the Dems, especially if they continue to drift towards the center.  Plus, not having a socially conservative canidate run (or at least someone who can be percieved as one), I believe would kill the GOP in its current state.  I don't think Rudy can win a general election.

[adam]

Giuliani walks over the inexperienced, previously failed John Edwards. Both of them share the charisma factor, and thus that wouldn't keep Edwards a float. Low turnout and cross over support makes it an easy night for America's Mayor.

[Joel the Attention Whore]

Former Mayor or a former one-term Senator - what a God awful choice.  That being said, Giuliani would rip Edwards to shreds, making the election about terrorism and national security, where Edwards has no credibility.  I'd go move to Canada and teach at McGill if this scenario becomes reality.

[poughies]

I would vote against Edwards....

[Colin]

Former Mayor or a former one-term Senator - what a God awful choice.  That being said, Giuliani would rip Edwards to shreds, making the election about terrorism and national security, where Edwards has no credibility.  I'd go move to Canada and teach at McGill if this scenario becomes reality.

Why? Is Steven Harper any better than President Giuliani?

[Moooooo]

Giuliani walks over the inexperienced, previously failed John Edwards.

Bit of a hypocritical statement, eh?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Maybe something weird like this

[TheresNoMoney]

In my opinion, Guiliani is overrated as a candidate. He's not a very good public speaker, and he has a checkered past.  And it's for me to see him getting out of the Republican primary.

[Dr. Cynic]

The election will favor whichever party has the edge... If the Dems are still on top in 08, then Edwards will win. If the momentum has shifted conservative again, then Guiliani will pull it out...

I think the only real issue here is how visible Rudy was during 9-11... I like Rudy alot, and I like John Edwards alot... It'll just come down to how the nation is feeling.

[Inmate Trump]

Giuliani, easily.  Edwards will never be president.

Period.

[AuH2O]

Total whitewash. Edwards takes Mass, RI, VT, DC, maybe CT. I guess Edwards would have a shot at a few other states, IL, OR perhaps, but I doubt it.

[AndrewTX]

I don't get why people would actually think that Edwards would have a chance at winning North Carolina, and South Carolina.  His approval ratings were low in the Senate while running for President, he probably would have lost his re-election bid if he would have kept with it.

 His voting record was too liberal for the state, considering he had either the second or third most liberal voting record in the 108. 

[MODU]

It wouldn't be a sweep, but Rudy will easily beat Edwards.  Edwards charisma is at best the same as Rudy's.  He lacks any real managerial or executive experience compared to that of Rudy.  Edwards and Rudy share similiar views on gay marriage and abortion, so that trump card wouldn't work to bring in votes.  The only thing Edwards has over Rudy is youth and a stable family history.  Outside of that, he doesn't bring anything of substance to the table which Rudy doesn't have.

[tarheel-leftist85]

The swing states are in gray:

On Election Day, Edwards loses the popular vote to Guiliani:
Edwards--49.20% (299 EV)
Guiliani--49.35% (239EV)
Constitution party garners the largest share of 3rd party vote--0.75%
Libertarian--0.30%
Green--0.30%
Others--0.10%

Edwards does horribly out west (where even most "Democrats" are libertarians--not comprehensively liberal).  Edwards does extremely well in the peripheral South (where using race as a means of distracting people from economic darwinism is less successful than in the Deep South; I bet Fmr. Charlotte Mayor/"proud liberal" Harvey Gantt would be less likely to get 47+% and win overwhelmingly white counties in many blue states, as he was able to do in North Carolina; and Ford would have won in Tennessee had he not supported the Paris Hilton tax cuts and been more economically liberal and less didactic but just as proud of his religious heritage).  2006 made me extremely proud to be from the Peripheral, Non-Aristocratic South--and if Edwards (or another non-DLC Democrat) gets the nomination, I think I'll be proud once more; despite what the libertarian media says about compromise (as evidenced by their infatuation with economically-darwinistic "moderates" like Arnold and disdain for true Democrats like Heath Shuler, Larry Kissell, Jim Webb, John Tester, Nancy Boyda, and John Yarmouth).  Edwards has a decent shot at breaking 60% (more likely against Mitt Romney, though) in Arkansas, 55-56% in North Carolina (and yes, he had pretty high disapprovals, but on election day of 2004 51% of NC voters had a favorable opinion and 46% negative--the ambulance chaser/breck-girl name-calling by the elites, similar to how they successfuly demonize other true liberals like Jimmy Carter and Feingold and Pelosi, did not stick and he would've been re-elected by his 1998 margin), 53% in Tennessee and Kentucky, 52% in Florida, and razor thin victories in Oklahoma (the shocker of the night along w/ California going Rep.) and Virginia (SW Virginia would be the key, as Dem. margins might be slightly narrowed from 2005/6 in the wealthier DC suburbs).  John Edwards proves himself in the Great Plains winning 4/5 states (making it reasonably close in Nebraska).  I think this election is the polar opposite of 1992 (which featured three people who wanted to privatize that which is the public domain--just nominal disagreement--if any at all--on "family values," human rights, and foreign policy).  This election is almost the happy-ending to Thomas Frank's What's the Matter With Kansas? where liberals stand for more than abortion.  If we expose the true commonalities among our opposing party (and our opponents have every right to those economic opinions and they can legitimately discuss them w/ us w/o us giving any ground to them unlike the collusion b/w the philanderers Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton), there's no stopping us.  The resulting maps may look a little different, but the Democratic Party will truly be liberal--not racist, nor libertarian--but comprehensively liberal, committed to the notion of dignity for all.

I'm so excited for America now that we are in a post-DLC/Clinton/McAuliffe era, and now we have a true two-party system.  Thank you to the netroots and true Democrats/liberals/progressives who believed in Larry Kissell (NC-08), rather than dismissing him and NC-08 as being completely backwater, unlike the DLC and Dem. establishment that thinks victory lies in wealthy suburban districts, no matter how many jobs we have to ship overseas or how many stupid compromises we make (like "Don't ask, don't tell."--either you're a first-class citizen, or you are no citizen at all) or no matter how many MNCs we have to placate to get the big bucks.  It seems as though Democrats are finally realizing (with the hard work of the netroots) that America should be committed to dignity for all (decent jobs w/ no working poor, family values coupled with tolerance, environmental protection, protection of constitutional rights--incl. the 2nd amendment, and an end to foreign policy where the "enemy of my enemy is my friend") and that that should be the determining factor in policymaking.

Sorry for the rant, I had a lot to say!  And I'm a little pestered at the continued demoralizing of the Democratic victories and "misunderestimation" of Edwards and overestimation of cross-dressing, anti-2nd amendment, philandering Rudy Giuliani.  Just what exactly did he do after 9/11 (something concrete, please; I know symobolism is big in the Post-New Deal world)?  What did he do to make NYC safer, besides hiding the poor people and taking away people's 2nd amendment rights?  I think these are legitimate questions, so if anyone is completely certain of the answer, I'd be grateful to your response.

BTW, How does NYC city govt. work:  Is the mayor mainly a figurehead, breaking ties on city council or what not?  Does he/she have major legislative power? (i.e., Can he just decree statutes for the city?).

[AndrewTX]

There are over 50 council members in the New York City Council, all of whom the Mayor has to work close to in order to get things done. Considering that has been about 3 Republicans on the council, it wasn't easy to get things done for either Rudy or Bloomberg. The city was pretty trashy a while back. Times Square was the worst, it wasn't the place you wanted to walk around, and when you got out of a Broadway play, or anything after 10, you wanted to take a cab to Grand Central if you needed. When Rudy came in, he really cleaned up the place, kicked the strip joints out of the Times Square area, and made it safe to walk around again. 

 He also braved 9/11 for the people of his city. He wasn't in some safe zone uptown, watching from the TV. He was in the mess, and was in a building that they got trapped in, and it nearly collapsed.  He was a strong leader in a rough time for us, thats why if he runs, he would get my vote.  I also lived in Manhattan shortly from spring 2001 - summer 2002.

[Conan]

The swing states are in gray:

On Election Day, Edwards loses the popular vote to Guiliani:
Edwards--49.20% (299 EV)
Guiliani--49.35% (239EV)
Constitution party garners the largest share of 3rd party vote--0.75%
Libertarian--0.30%
Green--0.30%
Others--0.10%

Edwards does horribly out west (where even most "Democrats" are libertarians--not comprehensively liberal).  Edwards does extremely well in the peripheral South (where using race as a means of distracting people from economic darwinism is less successful than in the Deep South; I bet Fmr. Charlotte Mayor/"proud liberal" Harvey Gantt would be less likely to get 47+% and win overwhelmingly white counties in many blue states, as he was able to do in North Carolina; and Ford would have won in Tennessee had he not supported the Paris Hilton tax cuts and been more economically liberal and less didactic but just as proud of his religious heritage).  2006 made me extremely proud to be from the Peripheral, Non-Aristocratic South--and if Edwards (or another non-DLC Democrat) gets the nomination, I think I'll be proud once more; despite what the libertarian media says about compromise (as evidenced by their infatuation with economically-darwinistic "moderates" like Arnold and disdain for true Democrats like Heath Shuler, Larry Kissell, Jim Webb, John Tester, Nancy Boyda, and John Yarmouth).  Edwards has a decent shot at breaking 60% (more likely against Mitt Romney, though) in Arkansas, 55-56% in North Carolina (and yes, he had pretty high disapprovals, but on election day of 2004 51% of NC voters had a favorable opinion and 46% negative--the ambulance chaser/breck-girl name-calling by the elites, similar to how they successfuly demonize other true liberals like Jimmy Carter and Feingold and Pelosi, did not stick and he would've been re-elected by his 1998 margin), 53% in Tennessee and Kentucky, 52% in Florida, and razor thin victories in Oklahoma (the shocker of the night along w/ California going Rep.) and Virginia (SW Virginia would be the key, as Dem. margins might be slightly narrowed from 2005/6 in the wealthier DC suburbs).  John Edwards proves himself in the Great Plains winning 4/5 states (making it reasonably close in Nebraska).  I think this election is the polar opposite of 1992 (which featured three people who wanted to privatize that which is the public domain--just nominal disagreement--if any at all--on "family values," human rights, and foreign policy).  This election is almost the happy-ending to Thomas Frank's What's the Matter With Kansas? where liberals stand for more than abortion.  If we expose the true commonalities among our opposing party (and our opponents have every right to those economic opinions and they can legitimately discuss them w/ us w/o us giving any ground to them unlike the collusion b/w the philanderers Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton), there's no stopping us.  The resulting maps may look a little different, but the Democratic Party will truly be liberal--not racist, nor libertarian--but comprehensively liberal, committed to the notion of dignity for all.

I'm so excited for America now that we are in a post-DLC/Clinton/McAuliffe era, and now we have a true two-party system.  Thank you to the netroots and true Democrats/liberals/progressives who believed in Larry Kissell (NC-08), rather than dismissing him and NC-08 as being completely backwater, unlike the DLC and Dem. establishment that thinks victory lies in wealthy suburban districts, no matter how many jobs we have to ship overseas or how many stupid compromises we make (like "Don't ask, don't tell."--either you're a first-class citizen, or you are no citizen at all) or no matter how many MNCs we have to placate to get the big bucks.  It seems as though Democrats are finally realizing (with the hard work of the netroots) that America should be committed to dignity for all (decent jobs w/ no working poor, family values coupled with tolerance, environmental protection, protection of constitutional rights--incl. the 2nd amendment, and an end to foreign policy where the "enemy of my enemy is my friend") and that that should be the determining factor in policymaking.

Sorry for the rant, I had a lot to say!  And I'm a little pestered at the continued demoralizing of the Democratic victories and "misunderestimation" of Edwards and overestimation of cross-dressing, anti-2nd amendment, philandering Rudy Giuliani.  Just what exactly did he do after 9/11 (something concrete, please; I know symobolism is big in the Post-New Deal world)?  What did he do to make NYC safer, besides hiding the poor people and taking away people's 2nd amendment rights?  I think these are legitimate questions, so if anyone is completely certain of the answer, I'd be grateful to your response.

BTW, How does NYC city govt. work:  Is the mayor mainly a figurehead, breaking ties on city council or what not?  Does he/she have major legislative power? (i.e., Can he just decree statutes for the city?).

Edwards would win Maine, NH, CT, WA, and CA no doubt. NH iffy.

[Conan]

There are over 50 council members in the New York City Council, all of whom the Mayor has to work close to in order to get things done. Considering that has been about 3 Republicans on the council, it wasn't easy to get things done for either Rudy or Bloomberg. The city was pretty trashy a while back. Times Square was the worst, it wasn't the place you wanted to walk around, and when you got out of a Broadway play, or anything after 10, you wanted to take a cab to Grand Central if you needed. When Rudy came in, he really cleaned up the place, kicked the strip joints out of the Times Square area, and made it safe to walk around again. 

 He also braved 9/11 for the people of his city. He wasn't in some safe zone uptown, watching from the TV. He was in the mess, and was in a building that they got trapped in, and it nearly collapsed.  He was a strong leader in a rough time for us, thats why if he runs, he would get my vote.  I also lived in Manhattan shortly from spring 2001 - summer 2002.

Since you live in CT, I would think you would know that basically what the mayor wants, they usually always get. They dont have to work hard with the council. The last time anyones gotten any opposition from them was with the Jets stadium. Walking on the streets of NYC with a walky talky/nextel phone isnt braving 9/11. He even put his office of emergency management in the WTC after the 1st bombings. I do believe Rudy is a great leader though.

[AuH2O]

Guiliani would win Florida by 10+, win NC by 10, NY by 5, among others.

[Colin]

Yeah, tarheel, maybe that would happen in a world where there is no such thing as party identification or if Edwards was anything approaching a Dixiecrat.

Giuliani would completely destroy Edwards, period. I don't even think this is debatable.

[Inmate Trump]

One mistake a lot of people are making is assuming Edwards would win North Carolina, and thus just being from NC ensures his victory in states like Tennessee and Virginia.  He might pull out a win in VA, but I doubt it.  Other than that, I don't see him winning any southern states.  Gore was from TN, but he lost every state in the south; Dubya is from CT but lost every state in the northeast except NH in 2000.  Just being from a certain state doesn't mean you're going to win it, or help you win the states around it.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

For a party that just got destroyed in the midterms, Republicans around here are pretty cocky.  In pretty much any hypothetical 2008 scenario we bring up, its always the Dems gettin destroyed by the untouchable, amazing, McCain and Guilani.... what makes you think that their independent reputations will last through a GOP nomination?

[agcatter]

Not cocky, but Pretty Boy Edwards would get hammered.  Edwards would sweep the trial lawyer vote however.

Where are some of you getting this Edwards takes NC stuff?  Surely not for what he did for Kerry in that state in 04.  The Dem ticket was wiped out in NC.  The beltway types think Edwards is wonderful.  No one else seems to think so.

[adam]

Not cocky, but Pretty Boy Edwards would get hammered.  Edwards would sweep the trial lawyer vote however.

Where are some of you getting this Edwards takes NC stuff?  Surely not for what he did for Kerry in that state in 04.  The Dem ticket was wiped out in NC.  The beltway types think Edwards is wonderful.  No one else seems to think so.

^^^ Spot on.

Edwards doesn't have the "down home" appeal that most Democrats like to think he does. Southerns aren't going to vote for a pro-abortion, pro-gay Democrat just because his opponent is also pro-abortion and pro-gay.

[tarheel-leftist85]

I respectfully disagree with some of the arguments/rhetoric above:

First of all, the trial lawyer stuff ain't gonna work:  It didn't in 1998, it didn't in 2004.  And I have numbers, not just speculation from cable news networks and the libertarian media (I only watch C-SPAN now b/c I don't need pre-fabricated opinions).  But my research shows this (not that numbers really matter to anyone in today's world):

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/1998/states/NC/S/exit.poll.html
http://www.time.com/time/press_releases/article/0,8599,662804,00.html

The "beltway types" actually loathe John Edwards.  The DLC/Clinton coalition elicited the conspiring of Tom Vilsack to thwart Edwards in Iowa caucuses where has a very decent chance to win (which Vilsack will soon find out).  Bill "NAFTA-loving" Clinton flew out to a conference to make sure that Nevada wouldn't be 2nd caucus/primary b/c of two large unions allying w/ each other (a service industry union and a textile union:  I think it's called UNITE-HERE).  He's not doing the fancy fundraisers, the establishment would rather have Clinton or Bayh--someone with amorphous positions (who could get the big bucks from investment firms by compromising on trade, unionization, healthcare, etc.)--rather than a Carter or a Bobby Kennedy or a John Edwards with true principles.  Besides trial lawyers, Edwards receives most of his donations from textile unions.  I know labor unions aren't big among "New Democrats", but I'd love to see how well we'd have done in Minnesota, Missouri and even Virginia (where unions are not a large presence but may likely have saved Jim Webb).  These types of Democrats and the Republican higher-ups are extremely fearful (usually masked by an angry or dismissive attitude), and the Clinton types are overtly or secretly adored b/c they compromise our economic principles while giving fodder on cultural issues.
Also if the choice is b/w two socially-liberal candidates, the economic liberal will win (at least in the EC).  In 1976, for instance, Ford and Carter were similar (with Carter, perhaps, being slightly more conservative) in regards to social issues--but overall, the Religious Right couldn't depend on either (Just like they really can't on Reagan or Bush as states like Kansas and Indiana are discovering, as Reagan signed into law as governor one of the most loose abortion laws in the country.).  This is b/c this country is pretty selfish and me-oriented (starting with the baby boomers, but I'm afraid with my Ayn Rand-loving generation too).  Religion is only relevant if it involves no sacrifice nor expense among the haves.  1964, was also this type of election to some extent.

Like I said, I think Edwards has a high probability of losing the PV and winning the PC--the first Democrat to do so.  I think we may see states on the battleground table on both sides that the McCain/Giuliani/Shays-loving media never thought possible.

And the only ammunition they have is "pretty boy" and "ambulance chaser."  If we are gonna fight that way, I guess we'll have to get out the tapes of Giuliani's apparent cross-dressing penchant and testimony from his family/former mistresses about how his mistresses were allowed to live in the house with his children or how he took them to penthouses that overlook ground zero.  Or we can talk about economic issues and whether assuming the enemy of your enemy is your friend and how darwinian economics play a role in the destabilization of the family--more damage than Betty Friedan or same-sex marriage could ever do.  It can be a campaign of images and name calling or issues--it's all the same to me.

[AuH2O]

Democrats got it handed to them in 1994 but won the 1996 Presidential race. There really is not much of a connection.

Guiliani would destroy Edwards, period. It's just reality. The thing is, Edwards has no chance at the Democratic nomination, so it's not "cockiness" because we're talking about a matchup that never will occur. But, purely on a counterfactual basis, if it did occur, Guiliani would probably exceed 400 EVs and, if Edwards ran a bad campaign, Guiliani could push 500.

Guiliani would own Edwards everywhere... Northeast, South, West... Edwards would take Mass. and RI probably for sure, along with DC, but after that not too much. Edwards is like a poor man's William Jennings Bryan, except he's actually very liberal on social issues, thus negating most of his potential base. Guiliani would pull the amazing feat of dominating both the pro-life and pro-choice vote.