McCain/Pawlenty vs. Dodd/Obama

[Reaganfan]

Two old white-haired 20 year+ senators with two young running mates, how does this race stack up? Let's see some maps!

[AndrewTX]

I would give it to McCain

McCain- 338
Dodd-  200

 Wisconsin goes to McCain with 53%, Michigan tilts to McCain, as does New Hampshire and Pennsylvania. The best states for Dodd are Mass, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and Illinois.

[memphis]

McCain's support for the troop surge is going to eliminate his chanes for winning the presidency in 2008. The way things are going, it might even kill his chances in the Republican primary.

[Bay Ridge, Bklyn! Born and Bred]

McCain's support for the troop surge is going to eliminate his chanes for winning the presidency in 2008. The way things are going, it might even kill his chances in the Republican primary.

American voters have never had problems electing pro-war candidates in the midst of very unpopular wars.

[Verily]

McCain's support for the troop surge is going to eliminate his chanes for winning the presidency in 2008. The way things are going, it might even kill his chances in the Republican primary.

American voters have never had problems electing pro-war candidates in the midst of very unpopular wars.

Except that they do. Humphrey lost, and is the only example in US history of a pro-war candidate running for election (not reelection) during an unpopular war. Yes, Humphrey himself wasn't fond of the war, but he did run on a pro-war platform by Johnson's request against Nixon's anti-war platform. And no, Nixon was not really anti-war, but he did run on an anti-war platform.

Nixon won reelection in 1972 (in the background of an unpopular war coming to a conclusion by Nixon's doing), and Bush in 2004 (with a war that was middlingly popular, not quite yet unpopular), but no one won election promoting an unpopular war.

[Padfoot]

McCain's support for the troop surge is going to eliminate his chanes for winning the presidency in 2008. The way things are going, it might even kill his chances in the Republican primary.

American voters have never had problems electing pro-war candidates in the midst of very unpopular wars.

Except that they do. Humphrey lost, and is the only example in US history of a pro-war candidate running for election (not reelection) during an unpopular war. Yes, Humphrey himself wasn't fond of the war, but he did run on a pro-war platform by Johnson's request against Nixon's anti-war platform. And no, Nixon was not really anti-war, but he did run on an anti-war platform.

Nixon won reelection in 1972 (in the background of an unpopular war coming to a conclusion by Nixon's doing), and Bush in 2004 (with a war that was middlingly popular, not quite yet unpopular), but no one won election promoting an unpopular war.

Bush barely squeaked it out.  By my accounts, popular support for the war ended in December of 2004.  As for this particular match-up

Obama-269
McCain-270

I just blew your mind.  Utah gets an extra vote after Democrats pass the compromise bill to give DC a voting member in the House.

[adam]

Come on now, Naso...are you this desperate to make John McCain look like a strong candidate?

[Gabu]

Come on now, Naso...are you this desperate to make John McCain look like a strong candidate?

No matter what the subject is, Naso is always desperate.

[HardRCafé]

I would give it to McCain

McCain- 338
Dodd-  200

I think you are right except for Oregon.