270towin

[jasonxctf]

www.270towin.com

 

its funny. amongst all of the head to head matchups, questions that people ask about candidates. I ask this question about Hillary. Using the Electoral College, I don't see a way in which she loses for 4 reasons.

 

1) She'll win every state that Kerry won in 2004.

 

2) She'll win Arkansas (may be close if Huckabee is the top ticket, but he won't be)

 

3) She'll win Iowa (unless Romney is the nominee, which he wont be) because she actually campaigned there. unlike Guilianni, McCain and really Thompson.

 

4) She'll win New Mexico with Richardson as a running mate.

 

Thus she can still lose battleground states in Virgina, Florida, Ohio, Arizona, Colorado and Nevada.

 

That puts her exactly at 270.

[NorthSideSox72]

www.270towin.com

 

its funny. amongst all of the head to head matchups, questions that people ask about candidates. I ask this question about Hillary. Using the Electoral College, I don't see a way in which she loses for 4 reasons.

 

1) She'll win every state that Kerry won in 2004.

 

2) She'll win Arkansas (may be close if Huckabee is the top ticket, but he won't be)

 

3) She'll win Iowa (unless Romney is the nominee, which he wont be) because she actually campaigned there. unlike Guilianni, McCain and really Thompson.

 

4) She'll win New Mexico with Richardson as a running mate.

 

Thus she can still lose battleground states in Virgina, Florida, Ohio, Arizona, Colorado and Nevada.

 

That puts her exactly at 270.

1. She's not a lock to win everything Kerry won. She will struggle in MI, PA, MD possibly MN. Any one of those going red could cause her issues.

 

2. Richardson won't be her running mate - I'd bet money its Evan Bayh.

 

3. EVERYONE has campaigned in Iowa, and a lot. Well, except Gravel and Thompson, who haven't really campaigned at all.

 

4. She is not see as an Arkansian. She grew up in suburban Chicago, and is now a Senator from NY. I think its unlikely she takes Arkansas or any other state in the mid-South.

 

[jasonxctf]

1. She's not a lock to win everything Kerry won. She will struggle in MI, PA, MD possibly MN. Any one of those going red could cause her issues.

 

2. Richardson won't be her running mate - I'd bet money its Evan Bayh.

 

3. EVERYONE has campaigned in Iowa, and a lot. Well, except Gravel and Thompson, who haven't really campaigned at all.

 

4. She is not see as an Arkansian. She grew up in suburban Chicago, and is now a Senator from NY. I think its unlikely she takes Arkansas or any other state in the mid-South.

 

 

I'll give you PA and MN, not MI and MD. Those states haven't elected a ® candidate since 1988. (last 4 elections have gone D)

 

Why do you think she'll take Bayh? There's no way he could deliver any state (including Indiana). My guess was either Wesley Clark or Bill Richardson so she could either (a) lock up Arkansas or New Mexico or may a run at southwest states (AZ, NV, CO, etc)

 

As for Arkansas, check this out...

 

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_con...ential_election

 

Arkansas 2008 Presidential Election

Friday, August 17, 2007

 

New York Senator Hillary Clinton was First Lady of Arkansas before she was First Lady of the United States. That background puts her in a good position to capture the six Electoral College votes Arkansas will cast in Election 2008.

 

Clinton leads all Republican challengers in Arkansas by huge double digit margins. The closest GOP hopeful is Rudy Giuliani, but he trails Clinton by eighteen percentage points, 55% to 37%. Clinton leads Fred Thompson by nineteen points (55% to 36%), John McCain by 23 points (56% to 33%), and Mitt Romney by 32 points (60% to 32%).

 

For question wording and responses click here.

 

Among women voters in Arkansas, none of the Republican candidates tops 34% support and none come within 20 points of Clinton. Clinton also leads all the Republicans among male voters in her former home state, although by somewhat smaller margins.

 

The potential for any Democrat to win any Southern state is significant. For Clinton, it is especially so given that she is a candidate with very high negatives. Nationally, more than 40% of voters say they will definitely vote against her in 2008. Recent polling found that 51% of voters in Oregon have an unfavorable opinion of Clinton and, as a result, Republican candidates might be competitive there. That’s a Blue State that has voted for the Democrat in every Presidential Election since 1988.

 

On the other hand, Clinton currently polls well in Michigan and reasonably well in Florida. Other recent general election polls have been conducted in New Hampshire, Colorado, and Ohio.

 

Overall, 65% of Arkansas voters have a favorable opinion of Clinton while 33% say the opposite.

 

None of the Republicans come close. Giuliani is viewed favorably by 48%, Thompson by 42%, McCain by 38%, and Romney by 32%.

 

In Arkansas, 33% say that President Bush is doing a good or excellent job while 47% say poor.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

I have to admit I'm surprised she is doing that well in AR, so that is possible.

 

Here is the thing with the VP candidates. Bayh was looking like a significant contender in the very early stages, then he suddenly dropped out, for no apparent reason. This happened immediately after a trip to Iraq with Clinton. He's a moderate who is very, very popular in IN, and I'd bet he would definitely deliver IN to Hillary, which would be a coup for the Dems. And that sort of moderate, fiscally-disciplined guy in a red state is exactly what Hillary wants. I am 90% sure a deal was struck on that trip. Its possible the deal was for a cabinet post I suppose - but I think its more likely a VP thing.

 

Now, Richardson did work in the Clinton White House. And he has been defending Hillary in the debates in an indirect way, trying to calm the candidates a bit. But I still think its Bayh's slot.

 

[jasonxctf]

interesting... i didn't know about the iraq trip thing.

 

i wonder how much pressure she'll get from the establishment to take Obama or another candidate. (similar to Kerry with Edwards)

[kapkomet]

interesting... i didn't know about the iraq trip thing.

 

i wonder how much pressure she'll get from the establishment to take Obama or another candidate. (similar to Kerry with Edwards)

The establishment knows she needs someone who is perceived to be "moderate" to win all the marbles. Don't forget that.

[jasonxctf]

so other than Evan Bayh who do you guys think fits this moderate model???

 

I feel that it has to be a male, a female/female ticket might just be too much for some. Thinking of southern govenors/senators......

 

I do wonder about Wesley Clark. The Clinton camp was the one pushing him to run in '04. He choose not to in '08, once Hillary made her intentions clear.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

so other than Evan Bayh who do you guys think fits this moderate model???

 

I feel that it has to be a male, a female/female ticket might just be too much for some. Thinking of southern govenors/senators......

 

I do wonder about Wesley Clark. The Clinton camp was the one pushing him to run in '04. He choose not to in '08, once Hillary made her intentions clear.

 

 

That's a really interesting thought right there.

 

 

 

[southsider2k5]

www.270towin.com

 

its funny. amongst all of the head to head matchups, questions that people ask about candidates. I ask this question about Hillary. Using the Electoral College, I don't see a way in which she loses for 4 reasons.

 

1) She'll win every state that Kerry won in 2004.

 

2) She'll win Arkansas (may be close if Huckabee is the top ticket, but he won't be)

 

3) She'll win Iowa (unless Romney is the nominee, which he wont be) because she actually campaigned there. unlike Guilianni, McCain and really Thompson.

 

4) She'll win New Mexico with Richardson as a running mate.

 

Thus she can still lose battleground states in Virgina, Florida, Ohio, Arizona, Colorado and Nevada.

 

That puts her exactly at 270.

 

Hill is really slipping hard in the polls, even against the dreaded R's, while even Edwards and Obama hold theoretical leads.

 

Don't underestimate the hatred of Hillary on the right. Clinton as the nominee is akin to runnign Jeb Bush on the right. It would be brutal.

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNew...=22&sp=true

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton trails five top Republican presidential contenders in general election match-ups, a drop in support from this summer, according to a poll released on Monday.

 

Clinton's top Democratic rivals, Barack Obama and John Edwards, still lead Republicans in hypothetical match-ups ahead of the November 4, 2008, presidential election, the survey by Zogby Interactive showed.

 

Clinton, a New York senator who has been at the top of the Democratic pack in national polls in the 2008 race, trails Republican candidates Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, John McCain and Mike Huckabee by three to five percentage points in the direct matches.

 

In July, Clinton narrowly led McCain, an Arizona senator, and held a five-point lead over former New York Mayor Giuliani, a six-point lead over former Tennessee Sen. Thompson and a 10-point lead over former Massachusetts Gov. Romney.

 

She was not matched against the fast-rising Huckabee, a former Arkansas governor, in the July poll.

 

The results come as other national polls show the race for the Democratic nomination tightening five weeks before the first contest in Iowa, which kicks off the state-by-state nomination battles in each party.

 

Some Democrats have expressed concerns about the former first lady's electability in a race against Republicans. The survey showed Clinton not performing as well as Obama and Edwards among independents and younger voters, pollster John Zogby said.

 

"The questions about her electability have always been there, but as we get close this suggests that is a problem," Zogby said.

 

Obama, an Illinois senator, and Edwards, a former North Carolina senator, both hold narrow leads over the Republican contenders in the hypothetical 2008 match-ups.

 

"It all points to a very competitive general election at a time when many people think the Democrats are going to win the White House," Zogby said.

 

The poll of 9,355 people had a margin of error of plus or minus one percentage point. The interactive poll surveys individuals who have registered to take part in online polls.

 

(To read more about the U.S. political campaign, visit Reuters "Tales from the Trail: 2008" online at http://blogs.reuters.com/trail08/)

 

(Reporting by John Whitesides, editing by Vicki Allen)

[vandy125]

www.270towin.com

 

its funny. amongst all of the head to head matchups, questions that people ask about candidates. I ask this question about Hillary. Using the Electoral College, I don't see a way in which she loses for 4 reasons.

 

1) She'll win every state that Kerry won in 2004.

 

2) She'll win Arkansas (may be close if Huckabee is the top ticket, but he won't be)

 

3) She'll win Iowa (unless Romney is the nominee, which he wont be) because she actually campaigned there. unlike Guilianni, McCain and really Thompson.

 

4) She'll win New Mexico with Richardson as a running mate.

 

Thus she can still lose battleground states in Virgina, Florida, Ohio, Arizona, Colorado and Nevada.

 

That puts her exactly at 270.

 

Uh, in a word, no. I have not heard one person say that they would vote for Hillary. She is seen as one of those stuck-up East coast people that you cannot trust. I have actually seen McCain speak here. Thompson is scheduled to speak within the next few weeks. We get em all here.

[jasonxctf]

The thought is that either Romney or Guilianni will be the nominee on the right.

 

If its Rudy, I'm guessing that the whole east coast bias still plays... with the exception of Rudy pulling out of Iowa with Hillary still competing. Romney though could be a whole different story.

[NorthSideSox72]

The thought is that either Romney or Guilianni will be the nominee on the right.

 

If its Rudy, I'm guessing that the whole east coast bias still plays... with the exception of Rudy pulling out of Iowa with Hillary still competing. Romney though could be a whole different story.

The MA Governor's mansion is further east than NYC.

 

Also, I think Huckabee actually has an outside shot. For that matter, McCain is still not completely out of it, though he's very unlikely to win.

 

[Cknolls]

www.270towin.com

 

its funny. amongst all of the head to head matchups, questions that people ask about candidates. I ask this question about Hillary. Using the Electoral College, I don't see a way in which she loses for 4 reasons.

 

1) She'll win every state that Kerry won in 2004.

 

2) She'll win Arkansas (may be close if Huckabee is the top ticket, but he won't be)

 

3) She'll win Iowa (unless Romney is the nominee, which he wont be) because she actually campaigned there. unlike Guilianni, McCain and really Thompson.

 

4) She'll win New Mexico with Richardson as a running mate.

 

Thus she can still lose battleground states in Virgina, Florida, Ohio, Arizona, Colorado and Nevada.

 

That puts her exactly at 270.

 

 

If Rudy is the nominee, would she win N.Y.?

[Soxy]

If Rudy is the nominee, would she win N.Y.?

I would say yes.

[southsider2k5]

I would say yes.

 

I would agree. The only way I see NY potentially coming into play for the R's is if Rudy wins the nomination, and someone other than Hill wins it for the D's.

[kapkomet]

I would agree. The only way I see NY potentially coming into play for the R's is if Rudy wins the nomination, and someone other than Hill wins it for the D's.

And even then, it's so slim of a chance that it's not really worth any more thought. It's 99% that NY goes to a (d) no matter who wins the nominations.

[jasonxctf]

General Election: Giuliani vs. Clinton Gallup 11/11 - 11/14 Giuliani ® 44, Clinton (D) 49, Und 3 Clinton (D) +5.0

General Election: McCain vs. Clinton Gallup 11/11 - 11/14 McCain ® 44, Clinton (D) 50, Und 2 Clinton (D) +6.0

General Election: Thompson vs. Clinton Gallup 11/11 - 11/14 Thompson ® 40, Clinton (D) 53, Und 3 Clinton (D) +13.0

General Election: Romney vs. Clinton Gallup 11/11 - 11/14 Romney ® 38, Clinton (D) 54, Und 3 Clinton (D) +16.0

General Election: Giuliani vs. Obama Gallup 11/11 - 11/14 Giuliani ® 45, Obama (D) 45, Und 4 Tie

General Election: McCain vs. Obama Gallup 11/11 - 11/14 McCain ® 44, Obama (D) 47, Und 4 Obama (D) +3.0

General Election: Thompson vs. Obama Gallup 11/11 - 11/14 Thompson ® 38, Obama (D) 51, Und 5 Obama (D) +13.0

General Election: Romney vs. Obama Gallup 11/11 - 11/14 Romney ® 35, Obama (D) 52, Und 6 Obama (D) +17.0

California: Giuliani vs. Clinton SurveyUSA 11/09 - 11/11 Giuliani ® 42, Clinton (D) 51, Und 7 Clinton (D) +9.0

 

[NorthSideSox72]

General Election: Giuliani vs. Clinton Gallup 11/11 - 11/14 Giuliani ® 44, Clinton (D) 49, Und 3 Clinton (D) +5.0

General Election: McCain vs. Clinton Gallup 11/11 - 11/14 McCain ® 44, Clinton (D) 50, Und 2 Clinton (D) +6.0

General Election: Thompson vs. Clinton Gallup 11/11 - 11/14 Thompson ® 40, Clinton (D) 53, Und 3 Clinton (D) +13.0

General Election: Romney vs. Clinton Gallup 11/11 - 11/14 Romney ® 38, Clinton (D) 54, Und 3 Clinton (D) +16.0

General Election: Giuliani vs. Obama Gallup 11/11 - 11/14 Giuliani ® 45, Obama (D) 45, Und 4 Tie

General Election: McCain vs. Obama Gallup 11/11 - 11/14 McCain ® 44, Obama (D) 47, Und 4 Obama (D) +3.0

General Election: Thompson vs. Obama Gallup 11/11 - 11/14 Thompson ® 38, Obama (D) 51, Und 5 Obama (D) +13.0

General Election: Romney vs. Obama Gallup 11/11 - 11/14 Romney ® 35, Obama (D) 52, Und 6 Obama (D) +17.0

California: Giuliani vs. Clinton SurveyUSA 11/09 - 11/11 Giuliani ® 42, Clinton (D) 51, Und 7 Clinton (D) +9.0

More recently...

 

Giuliani +4 over Clinton, after being Clinton +6 recently.

 

Clinton +2 over Thompson, where the lead had been +6 in the last poll (same link).

 

She's trending down a bit. And that +6 for McCain is the highest in the last month, the rest are all +1 or +2 or even McCain +2. The only one she still has a statistically significant lead over is Romney.

 

[jasonxctf]

this is actually a really good website. i used this to predict the house/senate races last year and hit with about 95% accuracy. its uses a running table and averages out the polls.

 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/20...linton-227.html

[knightni]

Why wouldn't Obama be considered for VP if she wins nomination?

[mr_genius]

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idU...ndChannel=10000

 

[Balta1701]

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idU...ndChannel=10000

 

This poll is essentially a statistician's worst nightmare. The methodology is horrible. It's literally like one of those polls on the side of CNN.com. It's a non-randomized sample of self-volunteering respondents taken online. Gallup put out a similar poll yesterday, a phone poll with an actual sample that had some attempt to be randomized, and it showed the exact opposite results.

 

But yet...despite one using garbage methodology and one using traditional methodology, the one that used the garbage methodology got all the press coverage, because it fits into the new narrative of Clinton struggling, and the other one got little press coverage because it showed the same thing that all the other polls have shown.

[NorthSideSox72]

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idU...ndChannel=10000

 

Zogby = garbage. His methods are a joke. When looking at polls, best to remove Zogby from consideration.

 

[mr_genius]

This poll is essentially a statistician's worst nightmare. The methodology is horrible. It's literally like one of those polls on the side of CNN.com. It's a non-randomized sample of self-volunteering respondents taken online. Gallup put out a similar poll yesterday, a phone poll with an actual sample that had some attempt to be randomized, and it showed the exact opposite results.

 

But yet...despite one using garbage methodology and one using traditional methodology, the one that used the garbage methodology got all the press coverage, because it fits into the new narrative of Clinton struggling, and the other one got little press coverage because it showed the same thing that all the other polls have shown.

 

 

Actually it's not a nightmare at all for a statistician, they know those polls are unreliable. Online polls or call in polls are known to be inaccurate.

 

Oh, and the Gallup poll of 897 is a fairly small sample for a national election. But I do think H.Clinton is leading nationally and if the election were held now she would win.

Edited November 28, 2007 by mr_genius