Michigan primary [Romney projected winner] (1 Viewer)

[SaintsFan11]

If McCain gets the nod then he beats Clinton or Obama

If Huckabee gets the nod then Clinton wins, and Obama might

If Romney gets the nod then Clinton and Obama have a decent shot

If Giulliani wins then he beats both

If Thompson wins then I think he wins against both, but it would be tight.

The problem with Clinton and Obama is that they do not change the electoral map. Democrats have to spend more resources in "blue states" than Republicans have to spend in "red states" because the margin is much less in the blue states.

I disagree completely.

The Republican candidates, IMO, from strongest to weakest against the Democrats are:

McCain
Giuliani
Romney
Thompson
Huckabee


McCain is a 50/50 shot to beat a Democrat
Giuliani would fare better against Hillary where the likeability factor will be neutralized
Romney is the GOP version of Kerry, not exciting and probably can't win
Thompson needs a miracle in the form of a major misstep by a Dem
Huckabee has no shot, sorry


As for the electoral map, I think it's much more fluid than you.

McCain and Giuliani sacrifice the Evangelicals and therefore put several red states into play. Romney and Thompson sacrifice Hispanics and therefore put several red states into play. Huckabee can't win a big state, and "flyover country" won't work.

You also have to figure that many of the swing states will go Democratic (Missouri, the rust belt, some western states like Colorado, Arizona and Nevada which have been trending closer). The general election will feature any of the Democratic candidates running against the Bush Presidency which will win them a lot of support.

It should be well known that I support Obama, but would not support Hillary, but I think either will likely beat any of the GOP candidates except for McCain which would be a toss-up (although he has said a lot of things lately which will work against him). The wild-card is a terrorist attack that galvanizes support around Bush and negates the anti-Bush rhetoric.

 

[JimEverett]

I'm not so sure. Depending on who is out there for the democrats, this election very well could be won in the now-called purple states. Don't assume Ohio will stay red anymore based on the GOP ethics issues. Virginia probably will, but could be slightly in play. IMHO, Ohio, Iowa, Minnesota, Arizona, New Mexico (maybe), Arkansas, possibly Indiana (probably not), Virginia, Colorado, Missouri and Nevada are where this election will be won or lost. Guiliani has the ability to draw from any of these states, and like you said, make other "blue" states at least competitive.

It could be an interesting election and might break most starkly based on age or gender depending on who wins the respective nominations.

TPS

The dynamics may have changed. I mean I am confident that Michigan will not be in play at all (it sort of was in 2004). But I cannot think of a single red state outside of New Mexico and Iowa (which Gore won) and maybe Nevada that Obama or Clinton could really threaten. Of course if they win those three and hold onto all the other blue states then I believe the Democrats win. But the margin for error still favors the GOP.
And there is no way they win those states unless its Huckabee or maybe Romney opposing them.

 

[JimEverett]

SaintsFan11 - it will be interesting to watch. If I am right it will make me sick. If you are right it will be fun to see.

I think Clinton has a ceiling in all of the red states and maybe even in some of the tight blue states that does not top 50%.

I think Obama is going to get trounced with the GOP attack machine.

 

[SaintsFan11]

>>has there ever been a case where the 2 top candidates teamed up after the nomination?

1980 GOP and 1992 Democrat without looking at who the actual "top" candidates were. And possibly 2004 (can't remember if Kerry and Edwards were the actual top 2 or not). There are probably others.

>>The problem with Clinton and Obama is that they do not change the electoral map. Democrats have to spend more resources in "blue states" than Republicans have to spend in "red states" because the margin is much less in the blue states.

I'm not so sure. Depending on who is out there for the democrats, this election very well could be won in the now-called purple states. Don't assume Ohio will stay red anymore based on the GOP ethics issues. Virginia probably will, but could be slightly in play. IMHO, Ohio, Iowa, Minnesota, Arizona, New Mexico (maybe), Arkansas, West Virginia, possibly Indiana (probably not), Virginia, Colorado, Missouri and Nevada are where this election will be won or lost. Guiliani has the ability to draw from any of these states, and like you said, make other "blue" states at least competitive.

It could be an interesting election and might break most starkly based on age or gender depending on who wins the respective nominations.

TPS

I think Florida is definitely in play, especially if the Republicans don't elect a hardliner on immigration. The GOP has done a lot to alienate Hispanics during this election and unless there is a solid anti-immigration candidate to move enough white supporters against the Democrats, Florida could flip. Hispanics are moving from a divided electorate to a solidly Democratic electorate.

Obama's statements regarding a dialogue with Castro will hurt him with Cubans though, and may put Florida out of play. Out west, however, you have a different dynamic.

 

[TPS]

>>The dynamics may have changed. I mean I am confident that Michigan will not be in play at all (it sort of was in 2004). But I cannot think of a single red state outside of New Mexico and Iowa (which Gore won) and maybe Nevada that Obama or Clinton could really threaten.

Ohio is ripe for their picking IMHO, but I don't think either Hillary or Obama are the ones who can get it done (vs. say a Senator Webb type conservative Democrat)

Iowa, is not a red state at all. They went red in 2004 (Bush), blue in 2000 (Gore), blue in 1996 (Clinton), blue in 1992 (Clinton), blue in 1988 (Dukakis), red in 1984 (Reagan), red in 1976 (Ford). 1976 fwiw, was one of the most interesting maps ever with the GOP carrying the west and New England and the Democrats carrying the east, south and Texas.

>>Of course if they win those three and hold onto all the other blue states then I believe the Democrats win. But the margin for error still favors the GOP.

I agree with this for the most part. McCain running sures up Arizona and most likely Nevada and New Mexico.

TPS

 

[Saint by the Bay]

The dynamics may have changed. I mean I am confident that Michigan will not be in play at all (it sort of was in 2004). But I cannot think of a single red state outside of New Mexico and Iowa (which Gore won) and maybe Nevada that Obama or Clinton could really threaten. Of course if they win those three and hold onto all the other blue states then I believe the Democrats win. But the margin for error still favors the GOP.
And there is no way they win those states unless its Huckabee or maybe Romney opposing them.

Ohio and Florida will both be in play.

Kerry barely lost Ohio with a gay marriage issue on the ballot that drove evangelical turnout.

Florida is basically always in play.

 

[saintned]

Go Romney!

 

[mister pc]

Romney should have thanked Newscorp and Clear Channel in his acceptance speech. They've been pushing him on the voters for quite a while now. Must be nice to be a powerful multi-millionaire with connections to some the largest media empires in America. Check out these clips, which are packaged as unbiased news, not advertisements.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZenB1s2rKDI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BhD-9nW9kM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlHy0BkJv9s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bIa7DfW-YU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGno6g37X34
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xq16qE7FvaA

For a fun exercise, try clicking on 4 or 5 at one time and listening to them. Gives a good impression of the saturation and subliminal methods being used by corporate media to try and place Romney in the oval office.

 

[TPS]

So are you suggesting that saintned, one of the least biased posters on the site, has been brainwashed by Fox News and Clear Channel Communications into supporting Mitt Romney?

TPS

 

[mister pc]

So are you suggesting that saintned, one of the least biased posters on the site, has been brainwashed by Fox News and Clear Channel Communications into supporting Mitt Romney?

TPS

If you're asking me, I would certainly not claim that every Mitt Romney supporter has been brainwashed. I do believe its fairly apparent that he is the prefered candidate of Newscorp and Clear Channel, and that they are actively promoting him while subtly taking shots at his competition (Huckabee, McCain). I dont know saintned or why he supports Romney so please dont put a suggestion like that into my mouth.

 

[TPS]

>>I dont know saintned or why he supports Romney so please dont put a suggestion like that into my mouth.

I was just asking.

TPS

 

['79 Saints]

McCain is despised within the hardcore Republican base, because of McCain-Feingold and his stance on illegal immigration.

There is no way he gets the nomination.

Hillary is despised by both the GOP-base and most independents... Bill won his two elections because he carried the independent vote... as Jim Everett pointed out, Hillary is an extremely polarizing figure -especially in the South, so expect the "solid South" for the GOP.

Obama is an empty suit campaign... you can't buy the hype the media is trying to portray as a legitimate challenger to Hillary. She spend the past 8 years getting her people in place, raising money and getting the machine put together to ensure her nomination.

I'm not offering this opinion as some sort of conspiracy theory, but rather what it takes to get the nomination. Let's be honest: was Bob Dole the best the Republicans could offer in '96? How about John Kerry in '04? Mike Dukakis in '88?

No. It's about organization and getting your people in place to make your campaign worthwhile... for the major candidates, that is. Of course, you will always get the 2nd tier candidates like Christopher Dodds and so on, but that's just fodder for the campaign trail.

The true candidates spend a lot of money to see how far they could go.. if some get negative feedback, they choose not to run (see Al Gore this year)... that's why you see Bloomberg going through this exercise right now.. Fred Thompson went through it earlier.

The GOP is in flux right now, simply because all candidates have negatives with their base (and its the base that votes in elections, not the independants).

Watch for Guliani and Thompson to start moving up the polls as the southern primaries begin.

Watch Hillary start pulling away on the Democratic side.

And as far as running mates, I bet Hillary picks some junior senator/underling as her running mate -NOT Obama. Just like Bush 41, she doesn't want someone who could overshadow her candidacy. Dukakis made that mistake in picking a running mate who looked and sounded more presidential than he did.

Hillary will also need someone from a big electorial state from the South or the West to break GOP strongholds on those election areas. Florida is a possibility. I also wouldn't be surprised to see Bill Richardson be her running mate.

I've worked on several political campaigns -Kemp in '88, Bush in '92, Roemer's in '87 and so on... it's fun, but a lot of work. Polling is so important, and believe me, the candidates know where they are strong and where they are weak on an election map...election results are rarely a surprise... they only are unsure if they can get out enough votes to counter their weak spots.

To be honest, I just laugh at the the media's coverage of the political races...

 

[NCSaint]

Now Mitt is saving the south...

I am on the Rudy bandwagon right now -- meaning I want to find out more of what/who he is.

 

[SoonerJim]

Romney and Huckabee are geographically limited to the north and south, respectively. McCain, though hated, has wide support. The others engaged too late to count.

On the Democratic side, they will have to decide whose identity politics will carry the day. Their views are nearly identical, with a minor distinction on healthcare. Based on the Michigan vote, Edwards' support draws from the others equally.

There are more voters in Clinton's base than in Obama's. If Democrats want to carry on the Bush/Clinton dynasty into potentially 28 years, then Republicans will certainly mobilize.

Republicans will learn to like McCain, particularly with Clinton's nomination. Obama would frankly be a superior choice against any Republican. Hillary would fare best against Romney, who exudes insincerity about as much as she. Huckabee would lose in Goldwater proportions to anyone, and without the subsequent "improvement" in the brand.

 

[bclemms]