Republicans only hope to keep the White House is (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 07:49:51 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2008 Elections
  2008 U.S. Presidential Election Campaign
  Republicans only hope to keep the White House is (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Republicans only hope to keep the White House is  (Read 4775 times)
Nym90
nym90
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,260
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P
« on: August 09, 2007, 11:45:12 PM »

I agree that Rudy is definitely your best chance for a victory, probably your only chance realistically. I don't see McCain, Romney, or Thompson being able to win. They are too far to the right, especially on the war.

Hillary may pick Strickland; he'd be an excellent choice overall. He's only been Governor a short while, but he was a Representative for quite some time before that, so it's not like he lacks experience, though he might be not quite ready for prime time in some ways.

Still, I don't see Rudy having much of any chance of winning New Jersey or Connecticut, especially against Hillary (he'd have a better shot if the Dems nominate Obama, or especially Edwards). Pennsylvania is an outside possibility, but still quite the long shot.

A better strategy for Rudy would be to try to win Ohio, or failing that, to go after Wisconsin. The 2004 Bush states minus Ohio and New Mexico but plus Wisconsin would still equal a win for the GOP.

The Republicans do have the advantage of being able to choose their running mate last, already knowing who the Dems have chosen. If Hillary picks Strickland to win Ohio, Rudy could counter by choosing Tommy Thompson to win Wisconsin, which then would mean Hillary would need both Iowa and New Mexico to win even with Ohio.
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,260
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P
« Reply #1 on: August 11, 2007, 12:54:39 AM »

I fundamentally agree with your reasoning. 

However, if Obama is her closest competitor (or adversary) for the nomination when the primaries hit, she cannot fundamentally take the chance of not picking him as VP and pissing off certain parts of the black community (see 1988).

That's a good point, but isn't it true that according to most polls blacks are pretty strongly supporting Clinton over Obama (by an even larger margin then Clinton's national lead, i.e. blacks are more strongly for Clinton over Obama than whites are)?

In 1988, blacks pretty strongly supported Jackson, but he had almost no support among whites, so his base of support isn't really much at all like Obama's. And are you really saying Dukakis would've done better overall in 1988 if he'd picked Jackson as his running mate as opposed to Bentsen?
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,260
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P
« Reply #2 on: August 13, 2007, 08:33:26 AM »

That's a good point, but isn't it true that according to most polls blacks are pretty strongly supporting Clinton over Obama (by an even larger margin then Clinton's national lead, i.e. blacks are more strongly for Clinton over Obama than whites are)?

The polls that I've seen that actually provide those internals show black voters evenly split for now.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I doubt it would have changed much in terms of actual %, but I can't see any states that Dukakis won b/c of Bentsen.

The states that I'm thinking of which have a significant black population and which Dukakis lost by 3% or less are Illinois, Maryland, Pennsylvania.  I know for a fact the blacks didn't bother to show up Election Day in Maryland.  I also wouldn't be surprised if in some way that contributed to his massive defeat in Florida - losing Broward County, which hasn't changed that much since 1988.

In other words, the numbers may not have changed much, but having a black man on the ticket certainly could have moved the numbers in these states around a bit (definitely Maryland, less sure about the other two).  Sure, Dukakis would have lost Texas by 60-40, instead of 55-45.  Big deal.

True, but I still have to think that picking Jackson as opposed to Bentsen would've cost Dukakis many more white votes in Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Illinois than it would've gained in black votes. And of course Florida was out of reach for Dukakis no matter who his running mate was in 1988.

I assume you haven't forgotten how unfavorably Jackson was viewed by white voters, right? Smiley

In retrospect, Bentsen probably wasn't the best running mate choice, since Texas and the South was out of reach for Dukakis for certain regardless. I think he was trying to imitate the last Massachusetts Democrat who ran against an incumbent Republican Vice President by recreating the "Boston-Austin" axis. I liked Bentsen a lot personally, and I feel he could've beaten Bush if he had been the nominee, but as a running mate for Dukakis, he didn't really add a lot.
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,260
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P
« Reply #3 on: August 14, 2007, 12:01:48 AM »

Bentsen didn't help with white voters in those states, sorry.  The Farm Belt was not voting Republican that year regardless of who got nominated.  I also simply don't see the western PA/WV axis reacting negatively against Democrats at that time, regardless of who's on the second part of the ticket.

Also, some people (b/c they weren't alive then) have seemed to forget that Jesse Jackson was nowhere near as negatively viewed then as he is now.

Well, that's true on the second point, although even at the time I remember there being a fair amount of coverage about the fact that Jackson would've been unelectable. I think it's safe to say he never would've been a serious contender for the nomination if he had been white.

I have to think Jackson would've hurt quite a lot with the Jewish vote (remember his referring to New York City as "Hymietown" during his 1984 run?). That alone could well have cost Dukakis New York.

I agree Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin were probably secure no matter what. And Dukakis already did quite poorly in the suburbs of most major cities, which are also the areas where Jackson would've potentially hurt the most......so yeah, on balance it's hard to say, you could well be right.

Obviously Dukakis couldn't have won the election no matter who he had picked if he hadn't run a better campaign (his was one of the worst of all time in my opinion....).
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 0.031 seconds with 15 queries.