Huckabee/McDonnell vs Obama

[pbrower2a]

Which is unlikely with McDonnell on the ticket, since he did well when it came to winning suburban and northern Virginia, while Huckabee would do fine on his own in the more southernized parts of the state.

First of all, if you think a Presidential election will be anything like an off-off year election, then you are an idiot (which we already knew).  McDonnell did well in NOVA because the base was not motivated, and Deeds ran an awful campaign.  In a Presidential election year, the NOVA voters would be voting Democratic; Bob McDonnell would have to be an amazing Governor (Mark Warner quality) in order to swing Virginia by himself.  VP's rarely swing states; just ask John Edwards.

Or Geraldine Ferraro.

Heck, Senator Lloyd Bentsen (D-TX)  likely had far stronger positives in Texas than did GHWB in 1988, which shows how slight the Favorite Son effect is with a VP candidate. Likewise, JFK mattered far more than Henry Cabot Lodge in Massachusetts in 1960.

I could also ask Estes Kefauver, William Miller, Spiro Agnew (1968), and Jack Kemp, all of whom lost their own states at least once, except that it's impossible to communicate with the dead.  In view of the vileness of the late Spiro T. Agnew, I wouldn't want to talk to him if given the chance.

Heck, people who claim that after less than one year in office they can't state definitively how strong a President Barack Obama will be are projecting already that Bob McDonnell will be a first-rate governor before he has taken office!

[Zarn]

I have the feeling that I'm being generous to Huckabee.

[California8429]

Huckabee is the only one in the GOP field that actually doesn't get creamed with poor people.
He has the best match-ups against Obama.
He hasn't done anything bad or wrong and isn't controversial on character.
He became un-fat for 2008 showing he can actually DO something and has his own will power.
He was born in a poor family and worked his way up. He reformed Arkansas education (considered a democratic strong point and issue).
You have to admit there'd be the least trash between him and Obama vs anybody else, it may even get boring at times.
He won Iowa with very little money, he competed well in other states for actually having no money in there.
He did very well in small contributions.

Why do you all feel he'd be such a terrible candidate and could never win?

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Huckabee is the only one in the GOP field that actually doesn't get creamed with poor people.
He has the best match-ups against Obama.
He hasn't done anything bad or wrong and isn't controversial on character.
He became un-fat for 2008 showing he can actually DO something and has his own will power.
He was born in a poor family and worked his way up. He reformed Arkansas education (considered a democratic strong point and issue).
You have to admit there'd be the least trash between him and Obama vs anybody else, it may even get boring at times.
He won Iowa with very little money, he competed well in other states for actually having no money in there.
He did very well in small contributions.

Why do you all feel he'd be such a terrible candidate and could never win?

Huckabee wouldn't win the general election, but he certainly wouldn't do as poorly as some here seem to think.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Which is unlikely with McDonnell on the ticket, since he did well when it came to winning suburban and northern Virginia, while Huckabee would do fine on his own in the more southernized parts of the state.

First of all, if you think a Presidential election will be anything like an off-off year election, then you are an idiot (which we already knew).  McDonnell did well in NOVA because the base was not motivated, and Deeds ran an awful campaign.  In a Presidential election year, the NOVA voters would be voting Democratic; Bob McDonnell would have to be an amazing Governor (Mark Warner quality) in order to swing Virginia by himself.  VP's rarely swing states; just ask John Edwards.

And in 2008, GOP voters were not motivated at all by McCain. Your point holds no merit.

But then, of course, we can just look at your track record of being wrong to figure that out.

[pbrower2a]

Huckabee is the only one in the GOP field that actually doesn't get creamed with poor people.
He has the best match-ups against Obama.
He hasn't done anything bad or wrong and isn't controversial on character.
He became un-fat for 2008 showing he can actually DO something and has his own will power.
He was born in a poor family and worked his way up. He reformed Arkansas education (considered a democratic strong point and issue).
You have to admit there'd be the least trash between him and Obama vs anybody else, it may even get boring at times.
He won Iowa with very little money, he competed well in other states for actually having no money in there.
He did very well in small contributions.

Why do you all feel he'd be such a terrible candidate and could never win?

Huckabee wouldn't win the general election, but he certainly wouldn't do as poorly as some here seem to think.

Higher floor -- lower ceiling. The ceiling is "a little better than McCain"; the floor is "a little worse". He's a likable fellow, but that's just not enough. I don't think that he can cut into the so-called Blue Firewall I still see Gore '00 + NH + CO + NV / Kerry '04 + CO + IA + NV + NM as the minimum for the barest Obama win (about 275 EV), and that is entirely upon political cultures of the states involved.

The 2012 election is one that Obama can lose -- but one that nobody else can win without a poor Presidency on his part.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I still think Deeds will push things to end

[DS0816]

ELECTION 2012

Mike Huckabee [R-Arkansas] | * Barack Obama [D-Illinois]

123 | HUCKABEE (42.30% U.S. Popular Vote)
415 | OBAMA (55.95% U.S. Popular Vote)

[California8429]

ELECTION 2012

Mike Huckabee [R-Arkansas] | * Barack Obama [D-Illinois]

123 | HUCKABEE (42.30% U.S. Popular Vote)
415 | OBAMA (55.95% U.S. Popular Vote)

South Carolina, Georgia, Indiana to Obama over Huckabee? Really. You do realize this time Obama has to actually SHOW a track record, the words hope and change now only work for the Republican

[pbrower2a]

ELECTION 2012

Mike Huckabee [R-Arkansas] | * Barack Obama [D-Illinois]

123 | HUCKABEE (42.30% U.S. Popular Vote)
415 | OBAMA (55.95% U.S. Popular Vote)

South Carolina, Georgia, Indiana to Obama over Huckabee? Really. You do realize this time Obama has to actually SHOW a track record, the words hope and change now only work for the Republican

Obama won Indiana in 2008. Because Obama reached the maximum that any Democrat could ever win in Indiana, it's easy to see him losing the state in 2012, and that even if he wins it the state will be one of his narrowest wins.

Obama WILL have a record to run on and win -- or one to run from and lose. Should he simply convince those who voted for him in 2008 and the voters born between 1991 and 1994 vote for him as did the voters born between 1987 and 1990, then he wins everything that he won in 2008 and picks up Arizona, Missouri, and Montana. Should lots of McCain voters decide that Obama isn't as bad as they thought he would be, then Obama probably flips the Dakotas and Georgia as well  and makes Texas close while making most of the South far closer for Obama (if not winning it). 

[Zarn]

Texas will not be close. Montana, Arizona, and North Dakota are peeing themselves, because they are fi-con states. The excessive spending will not help Obama. Texas is also a big fi-con state. There is a definite ceiling in these states. Obama can continue the PATRIOT Act and Bush's Homeland Security measures all he wants, they aren't going to vote for him.

The so-cons in these states won't either, if his opponent is Huckabee.

[pbrower2a]

If deficits fall, then Obama wins the financial conservatives who have no other problems with him -- Eisenhower landslide.

[Zarn]

If deficits fall, then Obama wins the financial conservatives who have no other problems with him -- Eisenhower landslide.

The deficit is rising at an unparalleled scale. He is one of the most fiscally liberal presidents that we ever had, if not the most.

The healthcare proposals are not going help, either.

[CatoMinor]

If deficits fall, then Obama wins the financial conservatives who have no other problems with him -- Eisenhower landslide.

I highly doubt deficits will fall.

[pbrower2a]

If deficits fall, then Obama wins the financial conservatives who have no other problems with him -- Eisenhower landslide.

I highly doubt deficits will fall.

An improving economy and graceful exits from Iraq and Afghanistan would do the trick. Your guess is as good as mine.

[Zarn]

If deficits fall, then Obama wins the financial conservatives who have no other problems with him -- Eisenhower landslide.

I highly doubt deficits will fall.

An improving economy and graceful exits from Iraq and Afghanistan would do the trick. Your guess is as good as mine.

No, the deficit already increased. The money was already spent, and the projection is expected to get much worse.

[California8429]

If deficits fall, then Obama wins the financial conservatives who have no other problems with him -- Eisenhower landslide.

hahaha, IF.

And if McCain could come in the form of a 40 year old, I wonder what the electoral map would have looked like then

[DS0816]

Obama won Indiana in 2008. Because Obama reached the maximum that any Democrat could ever win in Indiana, it’s easy to see him losing the state in 2012, and that even if he wins it the state will be one of his narrowest wins.

According to Chuck Todd’s and Sheldon Gawiser’s How Barack Obama Won: A State-by-State Guide to the Historic 2008 Presidential Election, Obama won the female vote in Indiana by 5 points (52 to John McCain’s 47 percent). And with the male vote, Obama performed just the opposite. Female vote accounted for 53 percent of the state vote. Compare it with 2004: 52 percent of the female vote showed George W. Bush winning them by 17 points (58 percent). Bush won the male vote by 25 points (62 percent).

All the Indiana age groups shifted remarkably: In 2004, Bush won 18–29 voters [19% of electorate] by 5 points (52 percent) while 2008 Obama won them by 28 points (63 percent), a 33 percent shift. Though Obama lost the other age groups, he shifted them strongly. 30–44 group [31%] voted for Bush 33 percentage points (66 percent) while McCain held them by just 5 points (52 percent), a 28-point shift. The 45–64 block [37%] gave Bush a 15-point margin (57 percent) while McCain held them by just 1 point (50 percent), a 14-point shift. And with the 65+ range [13%], a near status-quo—26 points for Bush (63 percent); 24 points for McCain (61 percent)—but they shifted 2 points to Obama.

I’m not about to dismiss Indiana.     

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The shift in the margin between the Republican and the Democrat tells you that. If it’s just a three-point shift, Missouri and Montana have the greatest potential to flip (with Georgia on the edge). If it’s a 5- to 7-point shift for Obama, then you’re liable to see the flippings of Mo., Mont., Ga., as well as the combination (any or all) of the likes of North Dakota, South Dakota, South Carolina, Arizona, and the 1st Congressional District in Nebraska. That doubling of the margin [7.25 percent]—which is what Ronald Reagan did in 1984; and Richard Nixon did more than that against a disastrous challenger in 1972—brings more states into play. Wondering about Texas is not being unrealistic. It’s No. 2 in population, is likely to see an increase of 10 percent more electoral votes, and is a part of the changing electorate.

[pbrower2a]

If deficits fall, then Obama wins the financial conservatives who have no other problems with him -- Eisenhower landslide.

I highly doubt deficits will fall.

An improving economy and graceful exits from Iraq and Afghanistan would do the trick. Your guess is as good as mine.

No, the deficit already increased. The money was already spent, and the projection is expected to get much worse.

Should economic conditions improve, then tax revenues will rise and many subsidy payments (such as welfare) will diminish. Such may not undo deficits, but they will reduce them. Add to that, any end to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq will offer a "peace" dividend. Such happened when Bill Clinton was President.  Any payoffs from bailed-out entities will be reductions in the deficit.

That's not advocacy of any specific economic policy; that  is basic finance.

So long as deficits continue, the national debt will increase. Don't confuse those, as they are very different entities.

I have no illusion that fiscal conservatives and social conservatives are very different people with different priorities. Example: Bill Clinton was a fiscal conservative if a liberal on everything else.