2008: John McCain VS. Hillary Clinton

[BonosSaint]

I think FYM leans left. However, I am more inclined to think that FYM leans maverick more and that is the attraction of McCain.

 

[U2DMfan]

But there is a place where Bush is even more unpopular than Massachusetts, and its called FYM.

So the fact that McCain, a conservative, is crushing Clinton in a place like FYM I think is significant.

I think Bush is so unpopular on this forum because you have a decidedly international taste on this forum.

and when the election cycle rolls around, I doubt the match-up is McCain vs Clinton, and even if it is, I doubt you'll be seeing these numbers in 2008 on FYM or anywhere else in a "blue state".

McCain will have to get off the centrist fence to win his consitituents. When he does this, he'll alienate dissaffected liberals and Dems, and those people will suddenly remember why they don't like Republicans, including McCain. It's the nature of the beast. He's got to play the game to win. It's the only reason the Republicans won in 2004, they play the game better because they know the game better, why?

Because they consistently define the game, they make the groundrules for debate, they orchestrate the discussions around their strengths. It's amazing Clinton won twice in a row, shows you how much people really liked him. So if it's his wife in 2008, do you think it's going to be hard to win over some people with a Clinton on the ticket, a female, who even if she carried the same states that Kerry did would need only 1 relatively smaller state to win the election?

Oh, if you think this FYM poll means diddly squat, I have to laugh.

 

[STING2]

1) I did not personally label anyone as being "far left".

2) All I have done is explain my use of a term instead of having someone else claim it was used to mean this or that.

3) I never disingenuously retreated from some alleged phony claim nor have I created some new idea about what I meant by "far left" etc.

4) Its better to ask a person to clarify what they meant by a statement then to jump to your own presumptive conclusions about what the person meant.

This is the first time there has ever been a dispute about claiming that FYM is to the left or far left in comparison to the general US population, regardless of what your definition of "far left" is.

 

[STING2]

I think it's very relevant. Polling a small number of people and then using those results to say they are more liberal than an entire state doesn't work. What if next week, 10 people here changed their minds? The percentage would be significantly altered. But if 10 people in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts had a change of heart, there wouldn't be any difference.

Perhaps I'm not saying it well enough.

Some of the polls done in here, in particular one of the main Presidential polls involved hundreds of people. Its still unscientific though, but it was not simply a poll of a couple dozen people.

 

[STING2]

That's right, but trying to compare it to an entire state is, in my mind, not a very good comparison.

anitram explained it better than me

All I was saying to begin with, was that if McCain is scoring so high in the FYM population which had a stronger vote against Bush in the unscientific polls done here which I think are still accurate, then McCain would likely do even better in "populations" that had less of a vote against Bush than FYM had. Is it a scientific and fully accurate comparison? No Is it an interesting possible indicator? yes

Where Bush lost to Kerry in Massachusetts by a 62% to 37% margin, I predict McCain would win with at least a 50% majority vs Hillery Clinton.

If McCain can defeat Clinton in "population groups" that tend to be more(liberal, democratic, to the left, far left etc) than the most left leaning states in the Union, then I think that is a strong indicator that McCain could win in one of the biggest landslides in US Electoral history.

There is scientific polling data out there that does tend to support that overall conclusion about a McCain run in 2008. If McCain gets the Republican nod in 2008, he is capable of surpassing the landslide Reagan experienced in 1984 in which Reagan won Massachusetts and only lost one state, Minnosota, by less than 4 thousand votes.

 

[BonosSaint]

But if McCain does what he has to do to win the Republican nomination--which might be move right--will he then lose the popularity he has among people who lean left?

 

[STING2]

I think Bush is so unpopular on this forum because you have a decidedly international taste on this forum.

and when the election cycle rolls around, I doubt the match-up is McCain vs Clinton, and even if it is, I doubt you'll be seeing these numbers in 2008 on FYM or anywhere else in a "blue state".

McCain will have to get off the centrist fence to win his consitituents. When he does this, he'll alienate dissaffected liberals and Dems, and those people will suddenly remember why they don't like Republicans, including McCain. It's the nature of the beast. He's got to play the game to win. It's the only reason the Republicans won in 2004, they play the game better because they know the game better, why?

Because they consistently define the game, they make the groundrules for debate, they orchestrate the discussions around their strengths. It's amazing Clinton won twice in a row, shows you how much people really liked him. So if it's his wife in 2008, do you think it's going to be hard to win over some people with a Clinton on the ticket, a female, who even if she carried the same states that Kerry did would need only 1 relatively smaller state to win the election?

Oh, if you think this FYM poll means diddly squat, I have to laugh.

Well, you felt the need to post about it, so I guess the poll does mean something even to you.

I find it interesting that McCain is doing so well in a poll in a forum that has a stronger anti-Bush, anti-right, anti-Republican bias than the strongest democratic held state in the Union based on the presidential polls done in here. I think its interesting and a possible indicator of the overall strength of McCain in 2008. I'm claiming its how the election will go or that its an accurate scientific prediction of election in 2008.

If anything, the American people as a whole are more attracted to interesting individuals than they are to a political party. That is why Reagan won every single state in the Union in 1984 with the exception of Minnosota. Reagan lost Minnosota by less than 4,000 votes.

After 2008, there may be much talk of the McCain Democrats, just as their was of the Reagan Democrats in the 1980s.

Clinton's victory in 1992 was do to Ross Perot. Had Perot stayed out of the race, Bush Sr. would have won a narrow victory based on the type of people who voted for Perot.

Clinton's victory with only 43% of the popular vote in 1992 two years later would bring about the first Republican controlled congress in 40 years! Clinton's move to the right have the 1994 congressional elections set him up for a strong win in 1996. Had Clinton stayed where he was politicaly prior to the election in 1994, and the Republicans had elected a stronger candidate, Clinton would have lossed in 1996.

In a McCain vs. Clinton election in 2008, McCain would clobber Clinton in the states that Kerry barely won in 2004 like Pennsylvania and several of the mid-western states and would indeed have an opportunity to have a victory the size that Reagan had in 1984.

 

[STING2]

But if McCain does what he has to do to win the Republican nomination--which might be move right--will he then lose the popularity he has among people who lean left?

McCain lost in 2004 not because he was to far to the left of Bush, but because Bush had a larger profile, the support of the key parts of the Republican Party infrastructure as well as money. Bush and McCain defer very little on the main issues.

In 2008, I predict the most the elites in the Republican Party that picked Bush in 2000 to be their man are going to pick McCain, because McCain is now the man with the large profile, and with the support the Republican Party infrastructure and money, they know they have an opportunity to wip the democrats with McCain in a way they were never able to with Bush.

In addition, trying to defeat McCain in 2008 in the Republican primary's will be a much greater uphill battle than it was in 2000, a battle that if fought could weaken another potential candidate to much to win in the national election. Because of that risk, McCain substantially larger profile now, I think the only resistence will come from the "Christian Right", or those who still have ill feelings about what McCain said about Pat and Jerry in 2000. I also think Rush Limbough will rollover when the time comes. Everyone knows McCain can win in the Presidential race by a margin larger than any other potential nominee.

With Jeb Bush not running, I just don't see a Republican candidate with the electability that McCain has, and I predict many conservatives who would not have McCain as their first choice would prefer to hold their nose and win with him, than to return the White House to the democrats.

 

[phanan]

I find it interesting that McCain is doing so well in a poll in a forum that has a stronger anti-Bush, anti-right, anti-Republican bias than the strongest democratic held state in the Union based on the presidential polls done in here. I think its interesting and a possible indicator of the overall strength of McCain in 2008. I'm claiming its how the election will go or that its an accurate scientific prediction of election in 2008.

If anything, the American people as a whole are more attracted to interesting individuals than they are to a political party. That is why Reagan won every single state in the Union in 1984 with the exception of Minnosota. Reagan lost Minnosota by less than 4,000 votes.

After 2008, there may be much talk of the McCain Democrats, just as their was of the Reagan Democrats in the 1980s.

Clinton's victory in 1992 was do to Ross Perot. Had Perot stayed out of the race, Bush Sr. would have won a narrow victory based on the type of people who voted for Perot.

Clinton's victory with only 43% of the popular vote in 1992 two years later would bring about the first Republican controlled congress in 40 years! Clinton's move to the right have the 1994 congressional elections set him up for a strong win in 1996. Had Clinton stayed where he was politicaly prior to the election in 1994, and the Republicans had elected a stronger candidate, Clinton would have lossed in 1996.

In a McCain vs. Clinton election in 2008, McCain would clobber Clinton in the states that Kerry barely won in 2004 like Pennsylvania and several of the mid-western states and would indeed have an opportunity to have a victory the size that Reagan had in 1984.

I agree that McCain has widespread appeal and would do well. I'd probably vote for him and I consider myself just left of center. And while your theory makes sense about a landslide, I'm not sure that would happen. Clinton would still do very well in staunch Democratic strongholds, like Massachusetts, although the margin of victory would indeed be smaller. I just don't know that our unscientific poll here would compare to what the entire nation would do. Perhaps the Christian right would still be against McCain and back a third party candidate - that would take away some votes as well. As you have stated, third party candidates can have an effect on an election. You pointed out 1992 as the prime example, but in fact the same thing happened in 2000. While Ralph Nader didn't come close to Ross Perot's numbers, with the election as close as it was, his 5% of the vote had major consequences. This enabled Bush to win the presidency, the first time in 112 years a candidate became President without winning the popular vote!

The latest tally showed McCain winning here, 15-8. Since then, we've had another 3 for Clinton and 1 for McCain for a current tally of McCain leading, 16-11. A strong lead for a left-leaning group, but not a blowout. Not knowing what the far right will do if he's the candidate, it's difficult to see a landslide right now.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

The North Eastern United States especially the state of Massachusetts has had a far left bias for several decades now when it comes to US Presidential politics. FYM though, is further to the left of Massachusetts in this regard.

No, Massachusetts is more likely to vote for the Democratic candidate for President than the Republican candidate for President. (For that matter, doesn't MA currently have a Republican governor? Hardly indicative of a state that's "far-left".) Being likely to vote for a Democrat for President is not an indicator of "far-left" views, particularly not when the Democrat in question is as moderate as John Kerry.

 

[edgeboy]

Id vote McCain.



....Hillery is a witch.

 

[U2ElevatesMe415]

McCain
After all the things he has done for the state [Arizona], which I live in & the things he has done in general.
I think he has alot to offer..
but so does Hillary..

 

[jay canseco]

There was that Keating Five controversy.

 

[Kieran McConville]

No, Massachusetts is more likely to vote for the Democratic candidate for President than the Republican candidate for President. (For that matter, doesn't MA currently have a Republican governor? Hardly indicative of a state that's "far-left".) Being likely to vote for a Democrat for President is not an indicator of "far-left" views, particularly not when the Democrat in question is as moderate as John Kerry.

Clearly anyone to the left of Bush is a communist.

Really, fifty years ago Kerry could have been an Eisenhower Republican. But, oh well...

 

[Dreadsox]

No, Massachusetts is more likely to vote for the Democratic candidate for President than the Republican candidate for President. (For that matter, doesn't MA currently have a Republican governor? Hardly indicative of a state that's "far-left".)

A little MASSACHUSETTS history.

Massachusetts has elected a Republican as Governor since 1991.

William F. Weld 1991 1997 Republican
Argeo Paul Cellucci 1997 2001 Republican
Jane M. Swift 2001 2003 Republican
Willard Mitt Romney 2003 present Republican

Massachusetts however, OVERWEALMINGLY elects democratic Representatives to the state legislature and the national legislature. We may not be FAR left, but the tendency is to lean left. Massachusetts is more likely to elect someone considered far left to the legislature because of this.

As for Presidential elections, I would look at the governor's races of the last decade to put some of this into perspective.

Weld was considered a very good gvoernor. He succedded Presidential candidate Michael Dukakis, who to be blunt, really screwed up the economics of the state. MA was ripe for a Republican at this point. Governor Weld defeated John Kerry when he was running for Governor in 1996. Governor Weld is considered a more LIBERAL REPUBLICAN.

Governor Cellucci was the Lieutenant Governor, and never had to win an election. He left in 2000 to become the Ambassador to Canada. Governor Swift took over for Cellucci, She was the Lieutenant Governor, who was supposed to be the Republican nominee, until, Mr. Romney showed up, and challenged her for the nomination. The Republican Party delagates, voted at the State convention and nominated Mr. Romney.

Mr. Romney won the election, being probably the MOST conservative Republican elected in Massachusetts in my life. He won in my opinion, because of the debate, moderated by Tim Russert. Up until this time, the race was close, when a question about teenage abortion was brought up. Romney's opponent, took the posision that a teenage girl under the age of 18 should not have to get parental permission for the abortion. In my opinion, this sealed the election for Romney, who promised in the debate to protect a woman's right to choose, even though he was opposed to abortion personally. He also too a very strong stance that children under the age of 18 need to have parental permission.

In my opinion, Mr. Romney, if he does not run for President will be reelected. However, I expect Mr. Romney to run, and challenge McCain in the Northest. I expect Romney to win NH making it difficult for McCain who will hang around until the South votes and Ohio/MICHIGAN.

-----------------------------------------------------

McCain trounced Bush in NH and MA in 2000. Many, MANY Massachusetts residents changed their voter registration from democrat to INDEPENDANT, because in MA you can choose which primary to vote in if you are not affiliated with a political party. My grandfather, 80 or so at the time, a lifeltime registered Democrat awitched to be able to vote for MCCain in the primary. This story is not uncommon. McCain is the kind of Republican MA likes. He will not win the primary if Romney runs.

If McCain is the candidate VS Hillary, I would expect Hillary to win....based on the following maps of elections since 1972...

You can see that MASSACHUSETTS since 1972 has only voted for a Republican TWICE....for Regan in 1980 and for Reagan in 1984. Both times Regan ran against the Carter administration beating Carter (1980) and his vice-President Mondale (1984). The Carter Administration was probably the MOST unpopular administration in my lifetime, other than LBJ who was President when I was born.

 

[Dreadsox]

There was that Keating Five controversy.

Had no play AT ALL in the 2000 election.

 

[phanan]

Governor Weld defeated John Kerry when he was running for Governor in 1996.

I don't know if you just typed it wrong, but Weld, while Governor, ran against Kerry for his senate seat in 1996 and LOST, not won.

 

[phanan]

In my opinion, Mr. Romney, if he does not run for President will be reelected. However, I expect Mr. Romney to run, and challenge McCain in the Northest. I expect Romney to win NH making it difficult for McCain who will hang around until the South votes and Ohio/MICHIGAN.

Living in NH, I disagree. McCain was tremendously popular here when he ran for President in 2000, and quite decidedly trounced Bush. I wish the country had followed us. In any event, he is still very popular and well-liked in this state, and despite Romney being just to the south, he does not have the same appeal as McCain. McCain would easily beat Romney in the primary here.

 

[Dreadsox]

I don't know if you just typed it wrong, but Weld, while Governor, ran against Kerry for his senate seat in 1996 and LOST, not won.

Typo...sorry

 

[phanan]

You can see that MASSACHUSETTS since 1972 has only voted for a Republican TWICE....for Regan in 1980 and for Reagan in 1984. Both times Regan ran against the Carter administration beating Carter (1980) and his vice-President Mondale (1984). The Carter Administration was probably the MOST unpopular administration in my lifetime, other than LBJ who was President when I was born.

Well, I wouldn't necessarily word it that Reagan beat the Carter administration both times, since it didn't exist in 1984. Mondale ran on his own with his own team.

Going back to McCain and Romney, I've already stated that I think McCain would still win NH, but I would even go as far to say that he'd give Romney a real run for his money in MA as well, although Romney would probably take his own state still.

However, despite McCain's crossover appeal, I still can't see him beating Clinton in a national election in MA.

 

[Dreadsox]

Living in NH, I disagree. McCain was tremendously popular here when he ran for President in 2000, and quite decidedly trounced Bush. I wish the country had followed us. In any event, he is still very popular and well-liked in this state, and despite Romney being just to the south, he does not have the same appeal as McCain. McCain would easily beat Romney in the primary here.

You may be right, the question is, will his excitement from 200o transfer to 2008.

Romney in my opinion, will make it a tougher state to win.

 

[phanan]

Agreed. It would be a closer race between McCain and Romney than it was between McCain and Bush.

And I think the excitement would still be there, although I could see the "age" card being played against him.

But I'm sure he could use Reagan as a healthy comparison for that one...

 

[Val]

Back to the poll...

As far as America not being ready for a women president...what a load of crap! That's just predjudicy toward women...period! If your a smart, successful, outspoken women, then your labled a "witch!" It's just pure garbage, and I for one will not take it anymore.
I could say alot about what I think of the handling of the two past elections, but that might just stir up more bickering. (enough of that on Fox Smooze)
McCaine has not stood up to President Bush even when he mentions he doesn't support his ideas, he still votes for them. I have never seen Hillary Clinton do that. Ever. Oh, I know they say she has began to move toward the middle...you must have recognised the present administrations MO in that line.
Hillary has sided with many non- Democratics on issues, and has stayed true to her commitment.

Hillary has proven herself in the Senate and in other areas of government. She is respected in the world as a person of intelligence and foresight.
Hillary gets my vote.

 

[Dreadsox]

Well, I wouldn't necessarily word it that Reagan beat the Carter administration both times, since it didn't exist in 1984. Mondale ran on his own with his own team.

My own attempt at humor!!!! LOL

Going back to McCain and Romney, I've already stated that I think McCain would still win NH, but I would even go as far to say that he'd give Romney a real run for his money in MA as well, although Romney would probably take his own state still.

However, despite McCain's crossover appeal, I still can't see him beating Clinton in a national election in MA.

It is the race I would like to see most of all.

 

[Dreadsox]

Typo...sorry

There was a theory that they voted to elect Kerry back to the Senate to keep Gov. Weld as Gov. at the time.

I am still sitting here trying to remember who he beat for Gov. in 1994. Or did he run unopposed

 

[LyricalDrug]

Personally, as a centrist New Democrat, I don't think John McCain is a very impressive politician, even though he shares similar views to mine. I think he's gotten a free ride from the media, and it's trendy for everyone to like him.

The dream ticket for me would be Clinton / McCain, from a pure strategy standpoint. That would be unstoppable.

Either way, Hillary should pick a Republican VP.

 

[phanan]

I am still sitting here trying to remember who he beat for Gov. in 1994. Or did he run unopposed

I can't remember, either, so it obviously was someone who didn't make that much of an impression...

 

[STING2]

McCain 18 Votes

Clinton 10 Votes


This is not a scientific poll, but I think it still indicates how strong a candidate McCain is going to be in 2008 if he decides to run. I still think when any Republican candidate can do this well in a forum like this, a place that on a per capita basis is more liberal than any of the 50 states, it indicates that McCain could potentially repeat Reagan's incredible landslide victory in 1984.

 

[phanan]

I still don't think it indicates anything in terms of the entire country, because the sampling, despite usually being left of center, is just too small to give an accurate portrayal of what the overall voting population would do three years from now.

Personally, I can't see McCain coming close to a landslide victory. However, he would easily have a more resounding win than either Bush, perhaps similar to Clinton in 1996.

 

[STING2]

I still don't think it indicates anything in terms of the entire country, because the sampling, despite usually being left of center, is just too small to give an accurate portrayal of what the overall voting population would do three years from now.

Personally, I can't see McCain coming close to a landslide victory. However, he would easily have a more resounding win than either Bush, perhaps similar to Clinton in 1996.

FYM is not usually left of center, it is left of center. Typically in such populations regardless of size, Republican candidates do very poorly as we have seen with Bush. When any Republican candidate comes into a liberal strong hold an wins by such a margin, I do find that to be a strong indicator and something people should pay attention to even though it would not be accurate to extrapolate such a poll over the entire country.

At a minimum, any state that Bush won in 2004, McCain would obviously win in 2008. Any state that Kerry only barely won in 2004( by under 5 percentage points), I think McCain would easily win. When it comes to the democratic strongholds, I think McCain has a good chance to win there.