NOT who would you vote for in 2008

[angus]

Suppose the two major-party nominees for 2008 were Senator Hillary Clinton and Professor Condoleeza Rice.  Who would win?  I'm not asking who you would vote for, but who would win?

[Joe Republic]

Clinton, in all honesty.

I hate to play the race card, but Clinton would do well in the Southern states.  Ironically, Rice does well in the urban centers for the same reason, but not too significantly.  Clinton has slightly better name recognition, and more political experience too.

[© tweed]

That's about one of the five candidates Hillary could beat in 2008.  Rasmussen even did a poll on the subject.

[angus]

I confess to having watched the O'Reilly Factor tonight and his interesting interview with the bizarre and unpredictable, but not unlikeable, Dick Morris, author of "Hillary vs. Condi:  the next great presidential race" or something like that.  He made a fair case for the nomination of both in their respective party primaries (e.g., Rudi, Condi, and McCain are the three most often heard-of Republicans, and it's thought that Rudi is too "liberal", McCain too offensive with his campaign finance reform, etc., and the others are weak compared to Clinton;  for the dems, they're all to weak compared to clinton).  So, it's an interesting scenario, but who would win?

[dazzleman]

I'm going to play devil's advocate and argue that Rice could win.

The scenario is two women running for president for the first time.  Prior to this, we never even had one woman run.

Most people who really don't want to vote for a woman lean conservative, not liberal.  Because there is no male candidate for whom to vote, they must pick from one of the women, the lesser of two "evils" from their point of view.

There's a decent chance a good percentage of them will pick Rice.  She is not associated with aggressive feminism the way Clinton is, and that could ease their concerns.  The fact that she is a Republican is also a plus for more conservative voters, and may allay concerns they have about voting for a woman.

The race issue is admittedly a wild card.  Still, it could be neutralized for two reasons.  One, white southern voters really hate politicians like Hillary Clinton.  She may be the one person who would force some of those who hold racial prejudices to overlook them and vote for a black woman.  Second, the Democrats' strongest supporters, dare I say only real supporters, in the south are blacks.  The behavior of southern blacks in the voting booth would be a big wild card.  Would these voters pass up the first opportunity they've ever had to put a black woman in the White House?  It's possible that in southern states, Rice could gain more than enough black votes to make up for white voters who won't support her because she's black.

All in all, I'd say Rice is not a strong candidate because she does not have domestic experience, or electoral experience.  I don't believe she has achieved the level of greatness that would allow her to enter politics at the very top, as Eisenhower did.  I certainly don't think she could win against a Democrat like Warner, who would be a viable alternative in the south.  But against Hillary Clinton, there would be some angles that she could at least attempt to exploit.

[phk]

A third party would doom Condi in the South.

She might get the Dukakis-syndrome, but this time with White Southerners than Blacks.

[MAS117]

Though call, I'd say Clinton though. Does the GOP base want a pro choice African American woman?

[© tweed]

Though call, I'd say Clinton though. Does the GOP base want a pro choice African American woman?

She'd run as a pro-life candidate.

[angus]

that's all very good analysis.  if you make the obvious reference to catfights, you might also come to the conclusion that those most opposed to a female president on principle (that whole Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces thing is daunting, isn't it?) then you might just come to the conclusion that those most opposed to it are also most opposed to Hillary to begin with. 

The other obvious point is that Hillary's the better politician.  but what does that mean?  what it means is that Hillary is a good politician, and against a politician of known temperament, she can be judged, but we don't really know Condi is a good politician do we?  But we do know she finagled her way into a Provost position at an Ivy League institution.

Finally, folks have mentioned voters in the south.  The conventional wisdom is that blacks like Democrats, and in places like the lower mississippi river valley, where it's, like, all black the dem would do well.  But this would be no ordinary race, given that Hillary comes off as a bit of an agnostic bitch (not too endearing to most southerners, black or white) and Condi comes off as a bit black.  Just a bit, mind you.  and also you can't lump "the south" like that.  There's no reason to predict that Florida would vote the same way as Kentucky, for example, or Louisiana the same way as Georgia.  Also, the South isn't the whole country, is it?  You have to also analyze the Midwest, New England, The Middle Atlantic, the Southwest, the Intermontain West, and the pacific West.  I'd say, taking a sampling of those regions, that Hillary probably wins among farmers, with her redneck husband campaiging for her, that Hillary wins massachusetts because that whole agnostic bitch thing might just fly in places like the People's Republic of Cambridge, that Condi wins New Jersey, with her ties to pharma and munitions manufacturing, that Condi wins Texas and much of the southwest, since Jackboots are rather fashionable at the moment in Texas, that the intermontain west isn't closely followed, since it amounts to five votes, but it is interesting to pit black against agnostic when you're trying to handicap the mormon votes, and that Hillary wins the pacific west, what with her husband's popularity there. 

just some of my thoughts on the race.

I'll vote after I've thought of it a bit more.

[dazzleman]

angus, my analysis was by no means a full one, nor intended to be.  I was practicing a little shorthand based on the assumption that Hillary is going to win New England like a normal Democrat.  I think this is especially true since New England does not have a large black population, and white liberals aren't half as committed to the advancement of blacks as they say they are.

I don't see any normally Democratic states flipping Republican in this race.  So in the end, I think it comes down to the south -- can Rice hold the GOP base in the south?  That I think decides the election, so that's why I focused exclusively on the south.  The south is unique in that its voting pattern is the most heavily polarized by race in the country.  Most southern states have large black populations, but end up voting Republican in presidential races because of overwhelming support by white voters for Republicans.  While there may be a lot of bubbling under the surface in a Hillary-Condi race, it could very well end up in the same place.

I don't really think it's an equal race in terms of experience, and that's a problem for Rice.  I also wonder what effect her unmarried status would have.

[TheresNoMoney]

Condi is the one of the few Republicans that Hillary Clinton could beat.

[angus]

daz, I think you may be either overestimating or underestimating mormon voting strength in the intermontane west and southwest.  and it's one of the demographics that, if we're going to stereotype, is really the hardest to predict when it comes to any black versus anyone perceived the way hillary's perceived.  lesser of two "evils" maybe?  but which is lesser.  also, yes you're right in the sense that of all the regions you can name, only one makes one-third of all electoral votes, the south.  but I still contend you have to break it down.  Florida, Louisiana, the Upper South, MS/AL, Arkansas/Tennessee, Virginia/NC, and Georgia/SC all have different patterns.  the midwest comes close to a third, though, and is actually usually a more closely followed battleground anyway, isn't it?  And of those other regions, you have some interesting race as well.  What do mullet-country folks in, say, Harrisburg, think of Hillary?  And how does it compare to what they'd think of Condi?  And what about those two most reliable GOP bastions, Kansas and Indiana, how does a Condi/Hillary race come off there?  And Alaskans like the GOP like nobody's business, but how do they really feel about the most drillbit friendly republican this side of Dick Cheney?  And what about California?  Seriously, I know Davis is more like Mr. Clinton than Mrs. Clinton, and Arnold's rise was predicated on his demise, but that's 54 votes worth fighting for, and I don't think the former Stanford Provost would go down without a fight.  I think the whole unmarried thing may be just like your first point:  folks that have a problem with unmarried folks may also be the sort that don't like Hillary on principle.  I'd have to think about that as well, though.  But don't oversimplify this down to a catfight between a white bitch and a black bitch.  It doesn't do justice to what would be, in my humble estimation, a very interesting and complex campaign.  Remember, the scenario is that they're past their respective primaries, and this is Hillary (D) versus Condi (R).  Their respectives bases may have been divided and shaken, no doubt they will have been to come up with those nominees, but assume those are the nominees.

[© tweed]

Here is my rough estimate.



I'm confident Hillary would win, and I'm confident that Billy could swing Arkansas her way.  Mizzo is more of a toss, but I'm going by hunch.  Rice (barely) holds on to the GOP base in places like VA, LA, TN, etc.  A 3rd party Roy-Moore type likely would run also, but since this poll doesn't factor that in, I won't.

Also disregard the percentages on the map.

[angus]

thanks for the play-by-play.  I was hoping someone would post something that we could critique.  I'm not seeing a tally, but I'll assume you have added it since you say Hillary wins.  could you be so kind as to give a tally, as I'm a bit tired at the moment.  We can quibble about the details later.  thanks.

[© tweed]

345-193

[angus]

thanks.  let's start with your home state.  I say that even though the overwhelming majority of it is blue in dave's maps, and even though only a tiny fraction is usually red, it's the red parts where people live.  If I had a dollar for every one of those ugly orange and black hillary face shirts I saw in Manhattan this summer, I'd have at least three dollars.  Yeah, Hillary wins the City 3 to 1 at least.  And that's 7 million people out of 19 million, so Rice would have to do impossibly well in Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, and the rest.  'nuff said, Hillary wins New York's 31 votes.  (those are the '08 numbers, right?)  okay, that's one down, fifty to go.  Well, let's call it two down, since DC is always the easiest call of all.  49 to go.  You're two for two, so far.  Let's start east and work our way west.  Maine:  Kerry win there with 396 thousand votes to Bush's 330 thousand.  Let's take into account two native new englander's are battling it out but only one admits to being a native new englander.  Let's also recognize Maine is Deep Sagebrush Country.  Mullets, fisherman, beer in aluminum cans, flannel, crabs, lobstahs, and lots of small-government types.  Mainers are deeply concerned with property rights.  But they also like good public schools.  Most mainers outside portland have never seen a negro and wouldn't know what to think of one running for president.  I can assure you from my first trip to maine as a Bostonian, most mainers on the street think "big city" types are not trustworthy and would associate Hillary with New York and not the backwater shacks of her hillbilly husband's youth.  And rightfully so.  They'd also be constantly reminded of her Wellesley education, mind you.  The Ricers would see to that.  Maine's a place I sometimes like to hang out.  Not at Mabel's Crab Claw Restaurant in Kennebunkport, mind you, as they don't serve my kind, but rather at the cycling and kayaking spots of the hinterlands.  I also recommend the Capitol City Motel in Augusta.  It's where I stayed and sampled sardines on a Pizza for the first time the night Princess Diana was killed.  Maine's a tough call.  I'll make it later.  At which time I'll have a comment or two about New hampshire, the next stop on our Manifest Destiny tour slash Condi/Hillary bitchslap contest.

[The Dowager Mod]

Clinton easily

[Jake]

thanks.  let's start with your home state.  I say that even though the overwhelming majority of it is blue in dave's maps, and even though only a tiny fraction is usually red, it's the red parts where people live.  If I had a dollar for every one of those ugly orange and black hillary face shirts I saw in Manhattan this summer, I'd have at least three dollars.  Yeah, Hillary wins the City 3 to 1 at least.  And that's 7 million people out of 19 million, so Rice would have to do impossibly well in Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, and the rest.  'nuff said, Hillary wins New York's 31 votes.  (those are the '08 numbers, right?)  okay, that's one down, fifty to go.  Well, let's call it two down, since DC is always the easiest call of all.  49 to go.  You're two for two, so far.  Let's start east and work our way west.  Maine:  Kerry win there with 396 thousand votes to Bush's 330 thousand.  Let's take into account two native new englander's are battling it out but only one admits to being a native new englander.  Let's also recognize Maine is Deep Sagebrush Country.  Mullets, fisherman, beer in aluminum cans, flannel, crabs, lobstahs, and lots of small-government types.  Mainers are deeply concerned with property rights.  But they also like good public schools.  Most mainers outside portland have never seen a negro and wouldn't know what to think of one running for president.  I can assure you from my first trip to maine as a Bostonian, most mainers on the street think "big city" types are not trustworthy and would associate Hillary with New York and not the backwater shacks of her hillbilly husband's youth.  And rightfully so.  They'd also be constantly reminded of her Wellesley education, mind you.  The Ricers would see to that.  Maine's a place I sometimes like to hang out.  Not at Mabel's Crab Claw Restaurant in Kennebunkport, mind you, as they don't serve my kind, but rather at the cycling and kayaking spots of the hinterlands.  I also recommend the Capitol City Motel in Augusta.  It's where I stayed and sampled sardines on a Pizza for the first time the night Princess Diana was killed.  Maine's a tough call.  I'll make it later.  At which time I'll have a comment or two about New hampshire, the next stop on our Manifest Destiny tour slash Condi/Hillary bitchslap contest.

I honestly just pissed myself reading this.

[angus]

ah, screw it, I don't have the patience for that.  I'll just list the states you get wrong: 

CO, FL, LA, MO, NH, NV, OH,

think that's all for now.

what's that make it?

Let's see... 

Clinton 278
Rice 260

well, that makes Hillary the winner in my scenario.  Okay, then, I think Hillary would win.  NJ and AR can be a bit iffy in this scenario, I think, so it's possible for Condi to pull off a win, but she has to campaign against Bill in Arkansas.  Remind them about chicken factories and polluted rivers and embezzlement and the rape of subordinates and such, and just keep using the word "clinton" without mentioning the word "bill"  that's the playbook for AR.  NJ is all about pharma and munitions and petrochemicals.  Keep it positive and keep it capitalist.  These two would make it:

Clinton 257
Rice 281

And that makes Condi the winner.  But she has to yield some campaign time in NV, NH, OH, and FL that way.  Tough call.  I still haven't voted.

[TomC]

I misread and voted wrong. Clinton would win comfortably.

[MissCatholic]

I confess to having watched the O'Reilly Factor tonight and his interesting interview with the bizarre and unpredictable, but not unlikeable, Dick Morris, author of "Hillary vs. Condi:  the next great presidential race" or something like that.  He made a fair case for the nomination of both in their respective party primaries (e.g., Rudi, Condi, and McCain are the three most often heard-of Republicans, and it's thought that Rudi is too "liberal", McCain too offensive with his campaign finance reform, etc., and the others are weak compared to Clinton;  for the dems, they're all to weak compared to clinton).  So, it's an interesting scenario, but who would win?

another day when fox attacks hillary clinton.

[angus]

I confess to having watched the O'Reilly Factor tonight and his interesting interview with the bizarre and unpredictable, but not unlikeable, Dick Morris, author of "Hillary vs. Condi:  the next great presidential race" or something like that.  He made a fair case for the nomination of both in their respective party primaries (e.g., Rudi, Condi, and McCain are the three most often heard-of Republicans, and it's thought that Rudi is too "liberal", McCain too offensive with his campaign finance reform, etc., and the others are weak compared to Clinton;  for the dems, they're all to weak compared to clinton).  So, it's an interesting scenario, but who would win?

another day when fox attacks hillary clinton.

?!

you gotta be kidding me.  Did you even see the interview?  You must have, and saw more than I did, apparently, since there's nothing in my post to imply that either O'Reilly or Morris "attacks" hillary clinton.  In fact, if anything, they were building her up.  I'm absolutely astonished that you could read into my post that they were impugining or maligning hillary clinton.  So I'll assume you just saw something that I missed when I went to take a dump and missed a bit of the interview.

Anyway, after some thought I've decided that I think Clinton would win, so I'm about to cast the tiebreaking vote for hillary in this poll.  The 278-260 is my best guess for the result.  I don't think think the US people necessarily have a huge problem with a black president, and anyway as blacks go, Condi is about the least black politician out there, unless you count General Powell as a politician.  But they do have huge qualms with female presidents (Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces being one of the explicit job descriptions in the US constitution), which is why this particular race is exciting.  You can't say a priori who would win based on gender considerations since they're both female.  (Though Condi comes accross as more so, and therefore would probably lose to Hillary.)  This reminds me, on of the last articles I read in one of those alt weeklies before we left manhattan was entitled Dyke Hillary.  It was pretty interesting.  Probably not accurate in terms of fact (after all it was in Village Voice or one of those publications) but it was rather telling, and got me to thinking about how much perceptions do matter.  Hillary being be far the more mannish of the two definitely has the edge.  She would win.

[opebo]

NJ is all about pharma and munitions and petrochemicals.  Keep it positive and keep it capitalist. 

NJ isn't voting for any Republican candidate for president in the forseeable future, and certainly not a no-hoper (i.e. black) like Rice.

[Smash255]

NJ isn't voting for any Republican candidate for president in the forseeable future...

Don't bet on it.

The only Republican that could really win NJ is Rudy & he has no chance getting past the primary

[angus]

Morris' book takes the opposite position:  Giuliani (among others) won't win the primary precisely because they can't defeat Hillary in the general election, but they'd win the primary if they were perceived as being able to defeat her in a general election.  (not necessarily my view, but an interesting one I think.)