The bloody battle of 08 - Guliani vs. Obama

[Harry Vest]

I have a feeling too...but I'm scared something will happen to him if there's a serious chance he might be elected President. You'd like to think the country was beyond that, but I'm concerned...

I feel exactly the same way - like a encore of RFK in 1968. Let's hope not but there's alot of crazy SOB's running around these days - not to mention an inside job by the Republicans. OH NO he's talking conspiracy.

 

[verte76]

A Democrat needn't carry the South to win the popular vote--Bill Clinton and Al Gore already proved that. Of course Southern Republicans will vote Republican; that's a no-brainer. At this point I don't personally find it likely that any of the Democratic candidates would perform all that well in the South, but then again that's what they said about Carter before he swept it.

A Democrat has to win some Southern states to get elected. Clinton/Gore carried Arkansas, Louisiana, Tennessee, and Kentucky, plus the border states of Maryland and West Virginia. Even Alabama has gotten more competitive with Bush's plummeting popularity. The Republicans can't sit on their front porch and win this state.

 

[yolland]

No, it's not technically true that they'd have to win some Southern states. For example in 1992 and again in 1996 Clinton could have lost every Southern state he won and still have won the election. And while he didn't win in the Electoral College, Gore won the popular vote in 2000 despite having bombed completely in the South.

Obviously outcomes like that aren't likely--Clinton was exceptionally popular nationwide, and Gore, granted, would've won the election if he'd won Florida. My point was just, with reference to the first post in the thread, that how well Obama does in the South (and he may do very well there, for all we know now) isn't in itself automatically decisive of the election.

I'm still skeptical about the likelihood of a major shift in the Southern political landscape come 2008, but as I said above, people have said that before and been proven wrong.

 

[MaxFisher]

At this point I'm pretty sure Rudi will be the next president.

He's moderate and likeable as a person which will appeal to the 60% of the pop. that don't allign themselves that seriously with either party. Although he's pro-choice and pro-gay marriage, die-hard Republicans will vote against Hillary by voting for him.

 

[BVS]

At this point I'm pretty sure Rudi will be the next president.

He's moderate and likeable as a person which will appeal to the 60% of the pop. that don't allign themselves that seriously with either party. Although he's pro-choice and pro-gay marriage, die-hard Republicans will vote against Hillary by voting for him.

Not exactly, there have been MANY who've stated very bluntly that they will either stay home or vote 3rd party before voting for someone who doesn't pander to their CC needs.

 

[CTU2fan]

Not exactly, there have been MANY who've stated very bluntly that they will either stay home or vote 3rd party before voting for someone who doesn't pander to their CC needs.

I still think it will be McCain. Rudy's not getting that CC vote - he's too liberal, too Yankee, and not a WASP. I hope Rudy does get the nom, because I don't think he'll win...

 

[namkcuR]

One thing Obama has going for him...I think he, more than any other potential candidate for either party that we know of at the moment, has the ability to appeal to the demographic of college kids who would be voting in only their first or second presidential election and who are just at the beginning of their adult lives in terms of keeping up with the news and current events and giving a damn about politics in general. I think Obama has the ability to get enough not-yet-jaded college kids who otherwise might not vote at all to vote for him, and that would be big.

 

[financeguy]

At this point I'm pretty sure Rudi will be the next president.

He's moderate and likeable as a person which will appeal to the 60% of the pop. that don't allign themselves that seriously with either party. Although he's pro-choice and pro-gay marriage, die-hard Republicans will vote against Hillary by voting for him.

The way he milked 9/11 might be held against him.

If the story about the NY fire fighters goes big, it could kill his campaign stone dead.

http://www.amny.com/search/ny-usrudy095122917mar09,0,4363175.story

 

[verte76]

No, it's not technically true that they'd have to win some Southern states. For example in 1992 and again in 1996 Clinton could have lost every Southern state he won and still have won the election. And while he didn't win in the Electoral College, Gore won the popular vote in 2000 despite having bombed completely in the South.

Obviously outcomes like that aren't likely--Clinton was exceptionally popular nationwide, and Gore, granted, would've won the election if he'd won Florida. My point was just, with reference to the first post in the thread, that how well Obama does in the South (and he may do very well there, for all we know now) isn't in itself automatically decisive of the election.

I'm still skeptical about the likelihood of a major shift in the Southern political landscape come 2008, but as I said above, people have said that before and been proven wrong.

That's true, but in practice, it's very hard to get elected without getting some of the Southern states. If a candidate gets all of the Southern states, as Bush did twice, he's awfully hard to beat. I don't see any big changes happening either, but it's been reported in the press that Alabama is a little more competitive these days. For that matter, if Gore had been able to win his own home state of Tennessee he would have won the Electoral vote.

 

[verte76]

Wow, that's pretty damning stuff coming from the firefighters. That won't help him. I hate to say this but I agree that not being a WASP and a conservative Christian is really going to hurt Giuliani.