« McCain's "Road To Victory:" An Actual Internal Memo | Main | Clinton's Team Confident About Health Care Politics » Off The Grid10 Sep 2007 10:41 am This column will spend a few days off the grid. In the meantime, readers can debate this question: If Rudy Giuliani wins the Republican nomination, he'll put Connecticut and New Jersey in play for the GOP and force the Dems to spend money in the expensive NYC market. Which Democrat(s) could similarly expand the map, in which states, and why? Comments (33)
If Rudy Giuliani wins the Republican nomination, he'll put Connecticut and New Jersey in play for the GOP and force the Dems to spend money in the expensive NYC market. No, he won't. New York's Bravest will see to it. 
How much money is Rudy going to spend there? Forcing Democrats to spend half as much money as you spend yourself is not a winning strategy.
Rudy is all talk right now. He is one of the most hollow and fake candidates ever. Forget about he competing in CT and NJ. Wait till those ads with Rudy in drag start showing up. Rudy in drag: or Rudy in a racist role: or Real Rudy here: He will not only loose all the blue states but will also loose many red states. Do you think a real conservative will vote for a pro-abortion, pro-gun control, pro-immigration, pro-gay politician who loves to cross-dress and was married to his cousin???????????????????
There is only candidate who has real potential to increase the expand the map on either side and it is John Edwards. He can win states like Ohio, Missouri, Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Tennessee, Colarado, Montana and even Texas. A SurveyUSA polls have shown that John Edwards winning many of the red states. Giuliani is simply a creation of media. Earlier MS was talking about how he will bring NY in play but now he is loosing his own home state to Hillary by 20 points! And remember that even Giuliani's own daughter is not voting for him!
Who is going pitch for Giuliani in NJ and CT? Bernie Kerik?? Giuliani's favorite guy who turned out to be a criminal?
New Jersey and Connecticut lost lot of people in WTC. They will never forget that Giuliani was single handedly responsible for putting Emergency Center at WTC and not giving the latest radios to firefighters. They will never vote for a guy who has blood on his hands. John Edwards, Wesley Clark, Obama can win some of the red states like OH, MO, FL, CO.
If Rudy wins, the GOP fractures. In three pieces, perhaps! Simple as that.
The entire notion that Rudy can put CA, NY, CT and NJ into play is just b.s. and propogated by the liberal media, all of whom just adore him. The reality is that he is not as competitive with Hillary in either of those states. He is losing by double digits in NY and CA, his supposed states that he would not give up. As for which states are up for grabs, I am not going to speculate but use the polling data which show that Hillary is beating him in PA, OH, FL, VA, KY, WV, AR, MO and NM.
Is this statement really true? Rudy may cause a slight bump for Republicans, but these states will stay loyal to the Dem nominee. http://www.political-buzz.com/
A Clinton-Warner ticket has a very strong potential to win Virginia and potentially North Carolina, while a Clinton-Bayh ticket has a very strong potential to win Indiana. Clinton will also be a front runner in Arkansas, especially with Warner on the ticket (if I were the Clinton campaign, I'd camp Bill Clinton in Arkansas for the entire fall - if he could deliver that state alone, thats already a huge plus.) Given that the Democrats are going to be ahead in Ohio, given the poor economic conditions there and the disappointed with the GOP in the state as a whole, and also Iowa, GOP will need to expand the map if it has any hope of winning in 2008. GOP's top target states are Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and potentially Michigan. The best candidate to help with expanding the map in that way is McCain - a McCain-Pawlenty ticket will probably carry Minnesota, and could win Wisconsin. Romney has may have a leg up in Michigan, but one has to wonder if he's gone too far to the right - and if his private equity background is a problem for union voters. Problem with the idea that Rudy expands the map has to do with female voters - we have not yet had an airing of how he treated his wife, and once that is aired, he will have lots of trouble with female voters. (The idea that Edwards can with any state not won by Kerry is silly, on two fronts. First, he did nothing for Kerry in his home state in 2004, and second, he was so unpopular in NC that he chose to not run for re-election, knowing that he would lose. Just like Romney will lose his home state, and his northeastern home base will do nothing for him in the general, Edwards' "southern" routes will do nothing in the south.)
As pointed out by Sullivan some think that only OBL can save rethugs.. Considering the state of flux in the GOP Presidential field, it's really not too late for Osama Bin Laden to get in and have a serious shot at winning the Republican nomination. He'd be able to espouse a more conservative foreign policy than anyone but McCain, and with his "Fair Alms" tax proposal, he'd have a more conservative economic plan than any of them. And, of course, given his views on social issues, I think GOP voters could rely on his judicial appointments.
In terms of a Bin Laden GOP candidacy, I see where you're going with that. He would instantly be the most well funded candidate in the race. And talk about voter intimidation tactics on election day! And Al Qaeda's legendary field program!
I am not convinced at all that Giuliani would put CT in play, but he certainly would do so with New Jersey, which has been flirting with the GOP for quite a while now. But, from past example, it is always the REpublicans who end up spending tons of money there, for nothing. www.campaigndiaries.com.
In terms of a Bin Laden GOP candidacy, I see where you're going with that. I'm sure he'd approve of the imperial presidency.
Hillary would expand the map. She leads the Republicans by more than any other Democrat in Ohio; it's been said that no Republican gets to the White House without Ohio. She can deliver Arkansas even though she hasn't resided there in 15 years. Let's not forget that we had national candidates in the past two elections who failed to deliver their home state! As the most admired woman in America she'll put many more states into play.
Actually, Hillary puts into play at least one red (not merely "purple that went narrowly for Bush in 2004") state: Arkansas. (It has only one less electoral vote than Connecticut and I am very doubtful that Giuliani would carry Connecticut, anyway.) In fact, "putting it into play" may be an understatement. See http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/clinton_enjoys_big_lead_in_arkansas giving her an 18(!) point lead over Giuliani there.
Since the Bushpigs will still be pushing their idiotic Iraq war in November of 2008, the only map that will matter is the map of Mess-o-Potamia. I'm still amazed that so many Bush supporters don't get how disgusted most of the country is with their idiot Preznint and his half-assed war.
Rudy is crazy. He's got Podhoeretz as an adviser, and he is promising to be even more of a tyrant than Bush. I'm sure he'll get some nods from the bomb shelter crowd and the idiots who would vote for Satan himself as long as there's an R next to his name, but who else?
Hillary will put AK into play for sure. Iowa too. That's really all she needs to win. Simply taking Kerry states + FL or OH is enough to win, people. Giuliani's claim that he can win California and NE states is a complete fallacy. Running as the Mayor of 9/11 isn't something that plays very well six years on. And being "tough" on terrorism--not "smart" doesn't seem to work well either. Edwards is a joke. He couldn't deliver NC, or even come close to it. He lost his home state by 10 points. Edwards' crushing defeat in NH and SC will hopefully spell the end of the blogging community's insane righteousness.
Giuliani would not put any state in play. Recent polling shows Hillary crushing Giuliani in the Northeast. However Hillary is leading the GOP in Virginia, Kentucky and Arkansas.
GawkerStanford & Private:
Whether the Dem nominee is Clinton, Obama, or Edwards, it is important for them to pick a VP running mate that could put a large Southern state into play. One possible choice is Virginia senator James Webb. If Webb enables the Dem nominee to pick up Virginia's 13 electoral votes, the Dems will win provided they hang on to the states won by either Gore or Kerry. The Gore/Kerry states will provide 264 electoral votes; with Virginia, the Dems will win with 277 electoral votes. Of course, Webb's presence may help tip Ohio or Indiana to the Dems also, making the Midwest an entirely blue region.
Every election for the past decade, the GOP has allowed itself to think that New Jersey is "flirting with it". And every year they pour a ton of money into this bluest of states and lose by almost the same percentage (about 55-45) whether it's for governor, senator or president. All of Rudy's supposed assets will be balanced by his negatives and in the end, the Dems will carry the state, despite the MSM's determination to make this a contest.
Private is right about Clinton. I think a Clinton-Warner or Clinton-Bayh ticket would expand the map by putting VA or IN into play, and with Warner you might get NC. Also Clinton will probably win Arkansas under any circumstances. Private is wrong about Edwards. He would immediately put North Carolina and Virginia into play, maybe South Carolina, and give a better shot at Missouri and Ohio. Probably West Virginia too. Places like Arkansas, Kentucky, and Texas would be at the outer reaches of winnable. Richardson as VP would lock up New Mexico, give a boost in Colorado, and might put Arizona and Texas into play. I want to believe that Obama could cause some sort of realignment through mammoth black turnout and/or increased support in places where racism doesn't win elections. But I can't see it happening. The best I can see is Minnesota and Wisconsin going from vaguely competitive to safe Dem, and Iowa getting a bluish tint. Maybe the same thing would happen in New Hampshire an Oregon. Maybe the black vote turns out big in Philly and Pittsburgh ... though, Rudy polls well in PA too. But I can't see him overcoming the margins in the white vote in Mississippi, South Carolina, Georgia, etc. Still, there is value in taking Wisconsin and Minnesota off the table.
Obama-Tester. Webb's a little too tightly wound.
Dems need to go west no matter who the nominee is. Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, and Nevada are ripe for the picking, in that order. A few thousand more votes and they would have gone for Kerry in '04. Build on that. The other target is the border south - Virginia and the Kentuckiana region. Virginia's still growing like gangbusters, and more growth has brought more Dems. Kentucky and Indiana are sick of their GOP leadership. With enough ads and shoe leather in Louisville, Southern Indiana, and Indianapolis, you can them into play.
Suppose Hillary snubs Obama for VP, then two weeks later either Romney, Thompson or Rudy pick Condi Rice for VP -- might black voters either sit home or switch under the right circumstances?
Condi Rice ain't getting picked for anything. Mike Huckabee For President!
Dems need to go west no matter who the nominee is. Obama-Richardson?
Hillary does nothing for the map. Dems already take NY and IL, and I don't buy the theory that she helps bring Arkansas, which has been trending red in relative terms in presidential elections. I also don't buy Edwards bringing the south into play. Edwards couldn't win in NC if he ran today. In relative terms, the whole south has been getting more difficult for Dems in presidential races over the last few decades. Moreover, Edward is running a more leftish campaign than Bill did in 1992, making in-roads in the south even less likely. Sure, in polls he may be up on hypothetical GOP rivals in red states, but so are alot of the other Democratic contenders. Obama might be able to help put states like LA, GA, NC, TN and VA into play and could solidify places like MO and MI, by amping up the black vote. I'm skeptical, though. Richardson might be the most likely to alter the standard geography by solidifying NM and putting NV, CO, AZ into play. Texas is a long shot. Still, not only could Richarson amp the Latino vote, he could also switch some Latinos who normally vote GOP for president. (Obama can't really make black voters any more Democratic) Still, for all the map changing advantages some candidates might have, if they're flawed nominees their weaknesses will show up in suppressed support nationwide which would mean losses in marginal states. Dems should focus on choosing the best candidate and not obsess too much about trying to game the electoral college.
The post-Castro Cuban community in Miami could be impacted by a Bill Richardson pick also. I just think if Hillary disses Obama all the old cliches about her being a frigid vindictive bitch will come flooding back.
Rudy as the GOP nominee wins, hands down, no matter who the Democratic nominee is. I can see him getting NY and even Massachusetts. Connecticut and New Jersey also. He is the best hope BY FAR for a GOP victory. Romney and Thompson are flash-in-the-pans. McCain may be a surprise to many.
|
Subscribe to this blog by Email Twitter || On Facebook || QIK Live Channel  Recent Posts
Monthly Archives
|
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
| 
If Giuliani wins the nomination, I'll eat my hat.
Posted by goethean | September 10, 2007 11:06 AM