Reasonable 2008 maps?

[Keystone Phil]

Hillary vs. Santorum




Santorum - 307
Hillary - 231

Feingold vs. Santorum



Santorum - 281
Feingold - 257


Just two hypothetical matchups for 2008. I think both Clinton and Feingold have great shots at the Democratic nomination and if Santorum is re-elected, he has a decent chance at winning the GOP nomination. The reason why I ask if these maps are reasonable is to see why some can't possibly see Santorum winning the Presidency.

[Keystone Phil]

These maps are hilarious.

Sorry, I just don't see Hillary or Feingold taking Wyoming, Smash.


Please tell me what else is wrong.

[Keystone Phil]

These maps are hilarious.

Sorry, I just don't see Hillary or Feingold taking Wyoming, Smash.


Please tell me what else is wrong.

Santorum's foot in the mouth disease is really going to hurt him in a National election.  Remember how well the GOP used the Voted for it before I voted against it comment by Kerry.  Well Santorum's comments will be fuel on the fire. Santorum is one of the few people I thinK Hillary can beat (along with Frist & Newt) & Feingold IMHO will be an excellent candidate for the Dems.  Tons of charisma, very likeable guy, excellent speaker, doesn't suffer from foot in the mouth disease, and despite being socially liberal has a lot of populist appeal

What states were "wrong", Smash.

[Keystone Phil]

These maps are hilarious.

Sorry, I just don't see Hillary or Feingold taking Wyoming, Smash.


Please tell me what else is wrong.

In the map against Hillary I would say Florida, Wisconsin, Iowa & Colorado are wrong.  Against Feingold Ohio, PA & FL are wrong.  Feingold may even be able to take Missouri with his midwest appeal

Hillary takes FL, WI, IA and CO? Are you crazy?

Feingold does not take Missouri under any circumstance. The state is trending GOP more and more each year.

[Keystone Phil]

These maps are hilarious.

Sorry, I just don't see Hillary or Feingold taking Wyoming, Smash.


Please tell me what else is wrong.

In the map against Hillary I would say Florida, Wisconsin, Iowa & Colorado are wrong.  Against Feingold Ohio, PA & FL are wrong.  Feingold may even be able to take Missouri with his midwest appeal

Hillary takes FL, WI, IA and CO? Are you crazy?

Feingold does not take Missouri under any circumstance. The state is trending GOP more and more each year.

Against Santorum? 

Do you realize that Santorum is about as conservative as Bush and Clinton is usually seen in a more negative way?

Also, while Florida would be closer because of a higher than usual Jewish turnout for Feingold, the state is moving more towards the GOP.

[Keystone Phil]

Santorum is more socially conservative than Bush & will not come across as the compassionate conservative Bush was able to come off as (& doesn't have 9/11 to harp on).  Florida isn't moving all that much more to the GOP.  Against the Natl Average Florida was only about 2% more GOP in 2004 than it was in 2000, and 2004 was the height of the President's brother (the govenor) popularity shortly after the devistating hurricanes that hit Florida

I disagree that Santorum is more socially conservative. Concerning Florida, the Democrats had the perfect opportunity to get back at the GOP for 2000. They felt the race was stolen from them. They were going to win it this time. All eyes on Ohio and Florida. What happened?

Bush won by about five points and state/local Republicans had some victories. Overall, it's not going that great for Florida Dems. In fact, there was recently an article done on Jeb Bush and how Florida is trending towards the GOP. I saw it on Yahoo the other day.

[Keystone Phil]

Phil, you're obsessed with Santorum, seriously.

You're missing the point of the poll. It has nothing to do with obsession. I am a strong supporter of Rick Santorum. So what? The purpose of this was to see how many people thought the maps were reasonable and I believe they are. However, you have your hacks saying stuff like Clinton would take Florida. Give me a break.

[Keystone Phil]

I don't see Hillary winning Nevada.  It would be close though.

That was me being generous to the Dems and I don't think a Santorum candidacy will go over all that well in Nevada. He would probably still take the state though.

[Keystone Phil]

reality check for keystone phil.....

phil bredesen/blanche lincoln (D)  376
rick santorum/sam brownback (R) 162

Phil Bredesen - nominee for the Democrats? He really does have a better shot at being nominated by the Republicans in '08. Nice "reality check," Walter.

[Keystone Phil]

Don't you think Santorum could win New Mexico though?   

I think he could win there but let's just assume Bill Richardson is Clinton's running mate.

(And in that case, NM should be a darker shade of red. My mistake.)

[Keystone Phil]

These are reasonble maps, but I think Feingold would take OH, PA, and FL, but not MO.  Hillary is seen to much as a radlib.  Just because Santorum's from PA means very little.  He's done here in PA.  We're not a radical state by any means and I think Santorum could only beat Clinton or Boxer here.  Feingold has populist appeal, which to bring you back to reality Phil, works very well in PA.  He would also crush Rick in the Philadelphia suburbs which have a lot of Jewish voters.  Northeast Philly Jews would also come out in high numbers for him.  Moderate and liberal Catholics and those big with labor are quite disgusted with Santorum and would defintiely vote for Feingold.     

Santorum is well-liked in this state. What don't you get? The only reason why he's more likely to lose in 2006 is because he's running against Casey. That's it. Otherwise, he would be in good shape here.

Let me bring you back to reality. Populist appeal - Ron Klink. I'll give you the big labor and Jewish vote but those same groups went out big for Kerry and he didn't win by all that much (even though turnout was up bigtime). Add the Republicans rallying around Santorum (as they did with Bush) to the western conservative Dems and Santorum carries the state against Feingold.

If Kerry couldn't take OH is 2004 (of all years) then it's not going to swing towards the Dems in 2008. Sure economic issues would help Feingold but 2004 proved that Ohio is not all about jobs.

[Keystone Phil]

Yes, but Feingold will have NE Philly labor along with the suburban/NE Philly Jewish vote SOLIDLY behind him along with energizing Center City and suburban liberals.  In PA, you and I both know that's what decides PA.  These voters went for Reagan in the 1980s.  The margins produced in these areas will be too much for Santorum to overcome due to an even higher, mroe inspiring turnout than Kerry.  Feingold would also win the Lehigh Valley and Northeastern PA.  I'll admit out west we'd lose Beaver, Washington, and probably Fayette cotunies, but the east is jsut too much to overcome.  I could also see a Chester or Berks pickup in this case.   

They were solidly behind Kerry. As for the Lehigh Valley, the area keeps moving towards the right. Sorry, Flyers, but the once union-friendly Allentown area is not the good old economically liberal area it once was. Lehigh Valley would go for Santorum.

[Keystone Phil]

about the first map Phil,  why would Hillary take Navada? and why would Santorum take Wisconsin?

Nevada was given to Hillary because I was being generous. Plus, I don't think a  Santorum candidacy wouldn't go over all the well there (though he'd probably still win). Santorum takes Wisconsin because social issues are hit hard there. 2008 probably won't be another 2004. The jobs factor probably won't have as much an impact as it did last year, therefore, allowing Santorum to win.

[Keystone Phil]

What is Santorum's approval rating?

48% approve, 35% disapprove. This is his lowest in awhile. He's usually in the mid 50s.

[Keystone Phil]

I disagree on your analysis of Wisconsin, Phil.  I'm not so sure that social issues are as important there as you make out.  Even if they were, Santorum wouldn't have much of an advantage in a state that tends to favor liberals (e.g. Kohl and Feingold).

Also, out of interest, why would Santorum not go down well in Nevada?

Social issues are the big reason why Bush did well in Wisconsin in 2004.

Nevada doesn't look good to me. I guess I should have stated that that can be the case for most GOP candidates in 2008. The results over the past couple of elections in NV have looked better for the Dems. Though I guess there is one thing specifically about Santorum that NV wouldn't like: he doesn't come off as an average guy as much as Bush. I think that's a main reason why Bush survived in the state last year.

[Keystone Phil]

In keeping with the spirit of the thread, something like this:

Santorum 270
Bayh 268



My guess would be more like this:

Bayh 326
Santorum 212

1) Santorum is likely to carry PA in a Presidential election. Against Evan Bayh - probably not. Against most others - yes. I strongly advise people not to follow someone like Flyers' opinion on this matter. He is convinced that Santorum is despised in this state and that is not the case at all.
2) Bayh vs. Santorum would look a lot like your map except I think Santorum would keep Missouri and Bayh would probably win PA.
3) To address Joe Republic's point, in such a heavily conservative Catholic state like WI, Santorum would be more welcomed and accepted. If Bush can make it that close, Santorum can tip it to the GOP.

[Keystone Phil]

i gotta tell you, keystone, i just dont think Santorum would do quite this good in a national election against either of these candidates. These look like Santorum vs. Rendell maps to me.

Santorum wouldn't do well against Clinton or Feingold but he would do well against Rendell?

[Keystone Phil]

Obviously if Santorum was despised as much as Flyers says he is, he would have been tossed out of office by now.

Santorum has only been elected to a single Senate term. The real test of his popularity will be next year, when he's up for reelection.

Santorum was elected in 1994 and re-elected in 2000.

[Keystone Phil]

Obviously if Santorum was despised as much as Flyers says he is, he would have been tossed out of office by now.

Santorum has only been elected to a single Senate term. The real test of his popularity will be next year, when he's up for reelection.

Santorum was elected in 1994 and re-elected in 2000.

I will also add the candidates were very weak and Santorum came off as a moderate.  Not true this time around.

The only thing that's different this time is that Santorum is running against the absolute best candidate the Dems had to offer. Against anyone else, he would have won and by a pretty good margin. Stop denying the fact that Santorum is well-liked in PA.

[Keystone Phil]

39% is not a good approval rating.  Also, most Pennsylvanians oppose Bush's SS privatization plan by a 3-1 margin.  I think Hoeffel or Hafer would have gained ground on him quite rapidly.

39% approval? You brought this up before and it still makes no sense. What numbers are you looking at, Flyers? Quinnipiac had him at 48% last time (his lowest in quite some time. He's usually in the mid 50s).

Hoeffel or Hafer would have lost to Santorum by about six points.

[Keystone Phil]

It seems reasonable to assume that Santorum is despised by about half of Pennsylvania, given the evenly divided nature of the state.

Not when his approval ratings are usually in the mid 50s.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Keystone Phil]

It seems reasonable to assume that Santorum is despised by about half of Pennsylvania, given the evenly divided nature of the state.

Not when his approval ratings are usually in the mid 50s.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Surely you cannot deny that Bush's appeal, gravitas, national standing, etc, in 2004 are enormously greater than Santorum's would be in 2008.

[/quote]

1) You believe wrong. They are usually between 52-56%.
2) Kerry won WI last year on the jobs issue. That probably won't be as big of an issue in '08. A social conservative like Santorum can take the state.