Don’t worry, be happy. It’s a long way to November
- Posted by Chris on January 30th, 2008 filed in 2008 election, Candidates, General, Politics
Polls are showing a major butt kicking at the hands of the democrats this year. Everywhere you look, they are telling of peril and republican banishment to the void. I know that some will disagree, but I don’t think that this year you can read a lot into them. For the first time in 80 years, we don’t have an administration member running for president. The closest is Hillary who was there 8 years ago. We don’t really know who the nominees will be. Yeah, we have an idea, but until 2/5 anything can happen. Let’s face it, we have a divided electorate and it’s going to be close no matter who gets the nominations. In the last 2 elections, the polls have bounced like crazy. Remember 2000? Bush lead in the polls in the primaries but, trailed on Labor Day. In fact, Gore led from his convention to the first debate where he acted like a undisciplined teenager. Rolling his eyes, sighing. Doing everything but saying “Whatever, I don’t care” and “You’re not the boss of me”. Bush took a small lead there, extended it after debate 2 and was coasting until the drunk driving charge came out. If not for that, Bush cruises to a win. In 2004 Kerry and Bush traded leads until late August when Bush pulled ahead for good. The Swiftboat Vets helped there but Kerry was a real sucky candidate and Bush probably beats them without the Swiftboat Vets.
Now polls are fun, but the election is not about popular votes. It’s about states. There are going to be states the will be red or blue no matter the nominee. I don’t care who the nominee is, the reps will get Alabama(9), Alaska(3), Georgia(15), Idaho(4), Indiana(11), Kansas(6), Kentucky(8), Louisiana(9), Mississippi(6), Montana(3), North Carolina(15), Nebraska(5), North Dakota(3), Oklahoma(7), South Carolina(8), South Dakota(3), Texas(34), Utah(5), Virginia(13) and Wyoming(3) for a total of 172. With little exception, the dems will get California(55), Connecticut(7), Delaware(3), DC(3), Hawaii(4), Illinois(21), Maryland(10), Massachusetts(12), New Jersey(15), New York(31), Rhode Island(4), Vermont(3) for 168. Those states were won by more than 7% in either 2000 or 2004. I added the Nader votes in 2000 to Gore or states like Colorado would have been in this list.
These states went for the winner by least 4-7% or the winner had 51% in either 2000 or 2004: Reps: Arizona(10), Arkansas(6), Colorado(9), Tennessee(11) for an additional 36 totalling 208. Dems: Maine(4), Michigan(17), Minnesota(10), Oregon(7), Pennsylvania(21), Washington(11), Wisconsin(10) for 85 extra totalling 248.
That leaves 8 states in play: Florida(27), Missouri(11), Nevada(5), Ohio(20), West Virginia(5), Iowa(7), New Hampshire(4), Oregon(7), New Mexico(5)
The question is what would each candidate do to the list of states in play or what states will the candidate put in play that the other party had before.
Hillary: She takes back Iowa which Bush won in 2004. She secures Wisconsin and Minnesota. She may put Arkansas in play, but I find that doubtful. The big one for the everyone is Florida. Her primary voter block is older single women, like widowed retirees. Florida is in play big time and she may take it back depending on who she faces. Yes, there is a good chance at a president Hillary. But there are several issues with her. She is a Clinton. That eliminates a lot of people from your voting block. There are questions on the strength of the black vote after this primary season and the bad blood between her and Obama. The black vote won’t go republican, but it may stay home. I know Dick Morris would disagree, but I think she only puts a few swing states in play. Once the ads start and the debates are completed, she is very beatable. She’s a just as corrupt less likable version of Bill. I think the country is as tired of the Clintons as they are of Bush.
Barak: Secures Minnesota, takes back Iowa. Secures Wisconsin. Other than that, his primary support is younger people and they are the least dependable voters. He won’t take Florida or Missouri. West Virginia is doubtful. Based on that, he can’t get 270. I don’t fear big bad Barak. Then there is his race problem. There are people who are democrats (I work with them) who will not vote a black person. Period. It’s stupid. It sucks they’re that dumb and can vote, but that’s the way it is. The ones I overheard won’t vote or will pull for the republican. Once he is exposed as the empty suit he is, I don’t think he can win.
Edwards: I know he’s out, but I think he could have been the most dangerous. Unions love him. The rust belt and farm belt is his. Iowa is back to the dems. West Virginia is back to them as well. Missouri might be his. That leaves North Carolina. North Carolina has a democrat governor, a democrat house and a democrat senate. It has been trending democrat for the longest time. Edwards couldn’t deliver it as veep, but 4 years later, probably could have as the top of the ticket. He isn’t a woman or black so he doesn’t have the -ism problems. I think that he could have beaten the republicans. Maybe not, but fortunately, he won’t get the nomination. As veep, he’s worthless to the ticket.
Huckabee. Two ads from the democrats would destroy Huckabee. One showing Huckster freeing rapists because they told him they found Jesus and one showing his sermon(s) on women subjugating themselves to their husbands. If Huckabee is on the ticket, even as veep, it will be a 20-30 state cleanup. Iowa, Nevada, New Mexico, West Virginia, Missouri and Florida all go democrat. It would be very ugly.
Rudy: Rudy is out too after yesterday, but would have been an interesting play. He would have put New York in play. I don’t think he wins it, but he does make it close enough to cost the democrats money. However, Pennsylvania goes into play. He was popular enough to win that one. He keeps West Virginia, keeps Iowa. I think he could take Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan from the democrats. He puts a lot in play with little downside. Very few states that Bush took go to the democrats with Rudy. I don’t worry about the so called evangelicals. They didn’t turn out for Bush like they were supposed to in 2000 and he still won. Rudy could without them too. Unfortunately, he couldn’t win the nomination. Still as veep, he puts an interesting spin on the race.
Romney: Puts Massachusetts in play and maybe takes it. He probably takes Michigan since he has roots there. Puts some of the northeast in play like New Hampshire and maybe New Jersey. Rudy on his ticket grabs some more liberal states like Minnesota or Wisconsin. Along with those gains, I don’t think he will lose any state that Bush won in 2000 or 2004. Well, maybe Florida, but Massachussetts and Michigan make that back. Romney wins against Barak and probably Hillary.
McCain: Keeps Arizona, New Mexico. As I said before, I don’t think the evangelicals are nearly as strong as they are feared which is good since they won’t vote for him. They will sit home. There are a lot of people who say they won’t vote for him no matter what. A lot of those are all talk. Their hatred of McCain will pale when faced with a Hillary or Barak presidency. Put me in that column. I don’t trust or particularly like the man, but will vote for him against Hillary or Barak. McCain has baggage, but in a normal race, even with the ads, he will shred Barak and probably take down Hillary.
Did I say in a normal race? There is no normal race against the Clinton machine and there is one more issue brewing below the surface and I think this could be McCain’s problem. Here’s the commercial: Cut to older woman in a store: “Hi, I’m Sarah. A while back I had my life savings in Lincoln Savings and Loan. I thought my money was safe. However due to fraud and mismanagement, I lost everything I had. Now, at 75 years old, instead of enjoying retirement, I have to work to supplement my income. I was one of over 21000 seniors who lost everything we had in Lincoln. But it could have been stopped. John McCain repeatedly stopped efforts to investigate the problems before this happened. As a result, he received hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes from Charles Keating. We seniors lost our savings. John McCain received trips and cash. John McCain then had the audacity to try to make S&L reform his re-election platform. He was never held accountable for his corruption. Please don’t let him be rewarded by electing him president. ” Sarah turns to some customers coming in and says “Welcome to Wal-mart. Do you need a cart?”. The screen goes black. Misleading? Yup. Dishonest? Yup. Over the top? Heck yeah, but we are talking the democrats here. Bush had a 25 year old drunk driving bust pulled on him at the last second. He also had faked documents used by the news against him. In 2000, the NAACP told everyone it was Bush’s fault that black people were chained and drug behind trucks. The democrats are as dirty as it gets. The Clinton machine is worse. They will drill the Keating 5 scandal over and over and the media will go along and no, the Madison Guaranty, will never be mentioned in the press. It will haunt him and will probably hurt him. McCain’s biggest problem will be McCain. I hope he gets around it, but with the Clintons and a lapdog media, it won’t be easy.
So the end result of my babbling is this: if Romney gets the nomination, he beats Barak and probably Hillary. If McCain gets it, he beats Barak. Hillary would be a different story. He can pull it off, but it won’t be easy. Either way, I don’t believe the talking heads that the dems have this thing locked up and that America wants them so bad. Once they see the records and proposals of the dems, they will take a good look at the reps and probably vote that way. So, RELAX. It’s a long way to November. Polls may not like us now, but they don’t matter. Only the one in November counts for squat.
Greta says:
I think we have the best presidential analyst right here on MVRWC!!!
Conservative Belle says:
Oh, that commericial will be great! *secretly sends idea to Mitt* I keed. I keed.
Beth says:
Great post, Chris, although I come up with a different result.
I don’t think Romney can beat either of them. I hope I’m wrong, but I’m usually MUCH more optimistic about our guy’s odds than I am with Romney. It’s not that I don’t like him; I just don’t see it happening. Yeah, it’s still early, but people are getting to know Mitt quite well and I don’t see a lot of crossover appeal.
I think McCain can beat both of them handily, despite what the MDS-types (Rush/Levin/Coulter) are trying to sell. They WANT people to think he’s destined to lose, because they want people to jump ship. They’re not just wrong, they’re blatantly dishonest about the whole thing.
No way can Mitt beat Barack Obama especially; not considering Obamessiah’s “hero” appeal to his supporters, like Reagan had in 1980. Mitt can’t compete with that. John McCain can, though, even if it doesn’t come from the most rigidly conservative among us. Remember, it’s the squishy middle that elects Presidents, and if anything, I think JMac would have a tougher time with Obamessiah than HillBilly. Same with Mitt, although I can’t see him pulling in hardly any squishy voters, plus, he’s unfortunately got a slight disadvantage in the Bible Belt (which I think is freaking retarded, but it’s still reality).
Stix says:
Hopefully the republicans can keep the White House. It will be an intersting race though whoever the Republicans nominate. The Republican nominee agains the first-black women President wil be interesting. I think a good way to counter that would be to have JC Watts or Lt Governor Steele as a VP candidate whoever gets the nominee. I doubtit will happne, but that would be a counter to the first black/women President thingie.
Good post.
PaulW says:
We’re right now down to two viable candidates in both parties: Obama/Clinton for the Dems and McCain/Romney for the GOP. Huckabee could conceivably hang on to represent the social-religious conservatives if a brokered convention is still in the cards, but he’s got to grab a few more states come Feb. 5th…
Doesn’t the polling numbers show that McCain does well against Hillary, but not so well against Obama? I’m still not sure about Romney, but I do think Hillary could crush him (he’s a worse flip-flopper than she is).
It’s still a long way to even the bleeping conventions (what, July? or August?). This long campaign stuff just drives you batty… Anyway, there’s still anything can happen this Feb.5th, so let’s just wait (and vote, if you’re in the next primary states!) and see…
Terrye says:
According to Rasmussens latest, McCain beats both Hillary and Obama. I saw a post about it over at Captains Quarters
Chris says:
Thanks, Greta.
Beth, I understand where you are coming from, but from what I see, Barak-o-mainia won’t translate to a viable taking of states. No state in the south will go to him. No state in the flyover west will go. He takes back Iowa, yes, but will need a lot more and the young are not dependable.
Also, I think the MDS folks will quickly change their tune a few days out of the election when faced with pres Hillary or pres Barak. Especially Hillary.
Stix, JC Watts or Steele would crush any and all republican contenders in the primaries and would crush the democrat. Especially Watts.
Paul, I don’t know what the polls say as of now, but bear in mind a lot of elections turn on a single macaca moment. Remember Dukakis? He was doing quite well until that Mad Magazine tank ride. GHWB was pulling even with Clinton until his “look at his watch wishing he was somewhere else” moment in the debate. Gore blew it acting like a child. Kerry’s trip to NASA looking like a sperm cell did him no favors. It is so fluid.
I really find it hard to see people sticking with either dem after hearing “raise taxes, universal health care, amnesty, illegals get welfare, etc” Homey don’t play that and I think it’s a losing message.
Lord Bitememan says:
Chris, 2 things. First, don’t be so quick to write off New Jersey. It’s not the bluest of the blue, and a Republican with some appeal to the northeast could seriously put that state in play. Kerry’s and Gore’s margins there are considerably reduced compared to Clinton’s, and the state used to have a decent track record for being a swing state.
Second, you think the S & L scandal will hurt McCain, that’s nothing compared to what they did to Romney. See, there’s a problem with these businessmen who like to stake their campaign on economic security issues. . . the business bottom line is rarely in conjunction with the bottom line of your average voter. Romney ran a hedge fund that financed corporate buyouts in the 80s and 90s. All Romney has to do is stake himself as the “jobs” candidate, which he will, and they will dredge up every last job that was ever cut in a buyout plan Bain Capital had its hands in. Romney’s numbers will tank, particularly in states hard-hit by outsourcing, like Ohio, and the Dems will move in and mop the floor with him. I’m not speaking off the cuff here either, this is exactly what they did to Dick DeVos in Michigan, and they’ll do it to Romney as well.
Lord Bitememan says:
Sorry, noticed I said “did to Romney,” meant to say “will do.” No, I’m not from the future. :P
Chris says:
Lord BiteMeMan,
I looked at NJ and you’re right it was closer in 2004 than 2000. From what I have read it may be trending republican. But with a 7% spread in 2004 and a 16% (19 with Nader in Gore’s total) spread in 2000, I don’t see us taking that one just yet. It is the opposite of NC which has been a solid red state, but is drifting left as more and more New Yorkers move in. We’ll keep it this year. 8 years from now, maybe not so much.
Romney’s job cuts would hurt. I don’t know how much given what’s left for the dems. Edwards would mop Romney, but Hillary has a greater than 50% “I will never vote for her” rate and Barak is an empty suit. Those can be defined be decent attack ads. Those factors are going to be hard for Hillary and Barak to beat. Still, running as the economy candidate and the businessman has pitfalls when you were an axe man too. No matter if it was needed, people don’t like it.
Beth says:
Re: McCain and the S&L thing–he was cleared of everything. I know people will try to play that, but it’s easily debunked. I lived in AZ when that was going on, and he didn’t lose any support from Arizonans because of it, because there was no wrongdoing. Same for John Glenn–cleared.
IIRC, as hardcore as the campaigning got in the 2000 primary, I don’t think that was even made an issue. I’m sure some tried, but failed. I’d remember it if it was a big deal, ’cause I was a serious Bushbot then (okay, I still am) and if it had any legs, it would get my attention since I had lived in AZ.
Chris says:
Oh, come on now. He received that strongly worded letter from the senate. ;) I agree, it should be nothing. If McCain had won the nod in 2000, this would have come out. You and I know the issue is nothing, but look what they did with some forged documents and a 25 year old DUI. McCain will be in crosshairs. All those press people that were pumping him up will now take joy in destroying him. And the gullible idiots that thought Hillary’s cry was unplanned will lap it up.
William Teach says:
Polls are great things. I remember them all saying that Richard Burr was going to get killed by Erksine Bowles for the NC Senate seat, like 52-37. Bowles was way up. Then the real poll happened on Nov 2, and Burr won easily.
Chris says:
I remember that one too, William. Remember the Charlotte Observer trying to put Harvey Gantt in over Jesse and “ran their own poll” showing him winning? HA! How did that one work out for them? The item I forgot to mention on polls is how they are rigged more and more now a days. I don’t buy what they are selling.
William Teach says:
I remember that one, Chris. Every NC paper was pining for Gant to beat Jesse. As you said, didn’t work out so well for them and Gant.
darrell says:
Hmm, I REALLY wish thompson–the only conservative in the race–had campaigned harder. here’s what I wrote about the death of free speech in canada.
http://www.darrellepp.com/?p=85
http://www.darrellepp.com/?p=79
http://www.darrellepp.com/?p=78
and gaza http://www.darrellepp.com
Connie says:
Now is the time that the GOP needs to get behind the candidate with the best chance to win and support them 100%! We can not afford to lose this election to the Dims.
Right Wing Sucks says:
I keep hearing that Obama won’t get anything from the south. Like chris commented here. Thats so stupid. What you and your racist right wing twisted mind is saying that the south is so racist they won’t vote for him. See you think that cause like the rest of your party you are the racist one, and not everyone thinks like you.
Beth says:
RightLeft Wing Sucks:Speak for yourself, you race-baiting jackass. I’m guessing you don’t know anything about the South. Here’s a news flash for you: there are more blacks in the South than in any other part of the country. That doesn’t mean Obama is going to automatically get their votes–but since you’re obviously the racist here, you apparently assume all black voters will vote for the black guy running. You would, of course, be wrong. You’d also be wrong about white and other Southerners being inherently racist–you see, we actually live and work with black people, so we know better. In fact, I’ve seen far more instances of racism in the other parts of the country than I’ve ever seen here.
From your spittle-soaked shitty blog:
O RLY? Care to back that up, or are you merely projecting? Maybe you’ve never heard of Michael Steele, a man who lost in Maryland (a state with a large black population) in 2006, who ran as a Republican? Obviously, not all the black voters went for him, but Republicans did–and did so with gusto. And that’s just one recent example.
You fail.
Face it, you’re just another race-baiting leftard who also believes minorites need your “help.” Now go back to your deranged little blog and bark up another tree in futility. And keep up the projecting, mmkay? It’ll be fun to use it as an example of the hypocrisy of (il)liberals.
William Teach says:
Is there some book you leftard f*ckheads read to come up with this drivel, or does it just come naturally?
Chris says:
Um, RightWing? If you read closely, you see that I said that there are *SOME* who won’t and tha those I knew about were *DEMOCRATS*. That’s the dirty little secret. Republicans don’t give a crap about your race. It’s the democrats that are always trying to group you and categorize you.
The fact is that, so far this election, it is BILL AND HILL who are making it about race and interjecting the ill will into it. Please, get an operational brain before you spout and if you can’t do that, please, at least learn how to read properly and completely.
Thank you.
Kris says:
McCain would secure Wisconsin. We love a “maverick” here and his association with Feingold would absolutely help him.
Chris says:
Kris,
I know they like McCain’s maverick ideals, but that is only because he fights his own party with those maverick ways. There are places he agrees with his party. Don’t you think those same maverick loving people would rather have the real liberal thing in Hillary or Barak who oppose the republicans 99% of the time?
Lord Bitememan says:
Right Wing Sucks: Chris is right when he says Obama won’t take a single southern state. He’s right about it for the same reason he would be right to say Hillary won’t, and neither would Edwards. None of them will for the same reasons Kerry and Gore couldn’t. . . this is where the base of the Republican party lives. It’s not race, it’s politics. The vast majority of southerners are right of center. They won’t vote for the Democrat no matter the race or gender. The last Democrat to win southern states was Bill Clinton, and he needed a three way race and a home state to do it.
raz0r says:
As a Southerner, I can attest to what gas been said. We won’t vote for Hillary or Obama because they are liberals - plain and simple.
If the GOP would grow a set and run someone like Michael Steele or JC Watts, you better believe we’d get behind their campaigns and support them. I’d gladly trade the worthless Mel Martinez for either one of those two.
raz0r says:
gaah. typo. gas should have been has.
AMERICAN NONSENSE » The Well Is Dry says:
[...] an upbeat swing (I don’t dwell in the realm of pathetic doom and gloom), Chris at MVRWC does have some “good news” in that no matter the GOP Big Nod recipient, the DNC [...]