Guiliani vs. Edwards

[Conan]

The swing states are in gray:

On Election Day, Edwards loses the popular vote to Guiliani:
Edwards--49.20% (299 EV)
Guiliani--49.35% (239EV)
Constitution party garners the largest share of 3rd party vote--0.75%
Libertarian--0.30%
Green--0.30%
Others--0.10%

Edwards does horribly out west (where even most "Democrats" are libertarians--not comprehensively liberal).  Edwards does extremely well in the peripheral South (where using race as a means of distracting people from economic darwinism is less successful than in the Deep South; I bet Fmr. Charlotte Mayor/"proud liberal" Harvey Gantt would be less likely to get 47+% and win overwhelmingly white counties in many blue states, as he was able to do in North Carolina; and Ford would have won in Tennessee had he not supported the Paris Hilton tax cuts and been more economically liberal and less didactic but just as proud of his religious heritage).  2006 made me extremely proud to be from the Peripheral, Non-Aristocratic South--and if Edwards (or another non-DLC Democrat) gets the nomination, I think I'll be proud once more; despite what the libertarian media says about compromise (as evidenced by their infatuation with economically-darwinistic "moderates" like Arnold and disdain for true Democrats like Heath Shuler, Larry Kissell, Jim Webb, John Tester, Nancy Boyda, and John Yarmouth).  Edwards has a decent shot at breaking 60% (more likely against Mitt Romney, though) in Arkansas, 55-56% in North Carolina (and yes, he had pretty high disapprovals, but on election day of 2004 51% of NC voters had a favorable opinion and 46% negative--the ambulance chaser/breck-girl name-calling by the elites, similar to how they successfuly demonize other true liberals like Jimmy Carter and Feingold and Pelosi, did not stick and he would've been re-elected by his 1998 margin), 53% in Tennessee and Kentucky, 52% in Florida, and razor thin victories in Oklahoma (the shocker of the night along w/ California going Rep.) and Virginia (SW Virginia would be the key, as Dem. margins might be slightly narrowed from 2005/6 in the wealthier DC suburbs).  John Edwards proves himself in the Great Plains winning 4/5 states (making it reasonably close in Nebraska).  I think this election is the polar opposite of 1992 (which featured three people who wanted to privatize that which is the public domain--just nominal disagreement--if any at all--on "family values," human rights, and foreign policy).  This election is almost the happy-ending to Thomas Frank's What's the Matter With Kansas? where liberals stand for more than abortion.  If we expose the true commonalities among our opposing party (and our opponents have every right to those economic opinions and they can legitimately discuss them w/ us w/o us giving any ground to them unlike the collusion b/w the philanderers Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton), there's no stopping us.  The resulting maps may look a little different, but the Democratic Party will truly be liberal--not racist, nor libertarian--but comprehensively liberal, committed to the notion of dignity for all.

I'm so excited for America now that we are in a post-DLC/Clinton/McAuliffe era, and now we have a true two-party system.  Thank you to the netroots and true Democrats/liberals/progressives who believed in Larry Kissell (NC-08), rather than dismissing him and NC-08 as being completely backwater, unlike the DLC and Dem. establishment that thinks victory lies in wealthy suburban districts, no matter how many jobs we have to ship overseas or how many stupid compromises we make (like "Don't ask, don't tell."--either you're a first-class citizen, or you are no citizen at all) or no matter how many MNCs we have to placate to get the big bucks.  It seems as though Democrats are finally realizing (with the hard work of the netroots) that America should be committed to dignity for all (decent jobs w/ no working poor, family values coupled with tolerance, environmental protection, protection of constitutional rights--incl. the 2nd amendment, and an end to foreign policy where the "enemy of my enemy is my friend") and that that should be the determining factor in policymaking.

Sorry for the rant, I had a lot to say!  And I'm a little pestered at the continued demoralizing of the Democratic victories and "misunderestimation" of Edwards and overestimation of cross-dressing, anti-2nd amendment, philandering Rudy Giuliani.  Just what exactly did he do after 9/11 (something concrete, please; I know symobolism is big in the Post-New Deal world)?  What did he do to make NYC safer, besides hiding the poor people and taking away people's 2nd amendment rights?  I think these are legitimate questions, so if anyone is completely certain of the answer, I'd be grateful to your response.

BTW, How does NYC city govt. work:  Is the mayor mainly a figurehead, breaking ties on city council or what not?  Does he/she have major legislative power? (i.e., Can he just decree statutes for the city?).

Edwards would win Maine, NH, CT, WA, and CA no doubt. NH iffy.

[Conan]

There are over 50 council members in the New York City Council, all of whom the Mayor has to work close to in order to get things done. Considering that has been about 3 Republicans on the council, it wasn't easy to get things done for either Rudy or Bloomberg. The city was pretty trashy a while back. Times Square was the worst, it wasn't the place you wanted to walk around, and when you got out of a Broadway play, or anything after 10, you wanted to take a cab to Grand Central if you needed. When Rudy came in, he really cleaned up the place, kicked the strip joints out of the Times Square area, and made it safe to walk around again. 

 He also braved 9/11 for the people of his city. He wasn't in some safe zone uptown, watching from the TV. He was in the mess, and was in a building that they got trapped in, and it nearly collapsed.  He was a strong leader in a rough time for us, thats why if he runs, he would get my vote.  I also lived in Manhattan shortly from spring 2001 - summer 2002.

Since you live in CT, I would think you would know that basically what the mayor wants, they usually always get. They dont have to work hard with the council. The last time anyones gotten any opposition from them was with the Jets stadium. Walking on the streets of NYC with a walky talky/nextel phone isnt braving 9/11. He even put his office of emergency management in the WTC after the 1st bombings. I do believe Rudy is a great leader though.

[Conan]

Democrats got it handed to them in 1994 but won the 1996 Presidential race. There really is not much of a connection.

Guiliani would destroy Edwards, period. It's just reality. The thing is, Edwards has no chance at the Democratic nomination, so it's not "cockiness" because we're talking about a matchup that never will occur. But, purely on a counterfactual basis, if it did occur, Guiliani would probably exceed 400 EVs and, if Edwards ran a bad campaign, Guiliani could push 500.

Guiliani would own Edwards everywhere... Northeast, South, West... Edwards would take Mass. and RI probably for sure, along with DC, but after that not too much. Edwards is like a poor man's William Jennings Bryan, except he's actually very liberal on social issues, thus negating most of his potential base. Guiliani would pull the amazing feat of dominating both the pro-life and pro-choice vote.

Dole was an extremely poor candidate yet Clinton was a very good one. That's the difference between that election and now.