cp
Jr. Member
Posts: 1,612
|
 |
« Reply #2 on: September 02, 2007, 02:36:20 PM » |
|
The map's not insane, though certainly a bit optimistic.
Clinton/Edwards would probably be the strongest 'traditional' ticket the Dems could put forward (Clinton/Obama might be stronger, but also a riskier choice). It would really place the Democrats dead centre on most domestic issues and seem like a breath of fresh air, albeit sufficiently experience, with FP.
Giuliani/Romeny, by contrast, would probably be the weakest ticket the Republicans could muster. While it would make the NE closer, it wouldn't make any of the states truly competitive. Giuliani is well-hated in New Jersey and Romney does not carry Massachusetts behind him. Together, they might pick up Connecticut, but at the cost of having no ticket strength in the South or outside the Mormon areas in the West.
Once again, I think the implied margin of victory here is about right (54/45-ish), but I disagree with the states chosen. As I said, Giuliani and Romney together could probably pick off one NE state: Connecticut, maybe New Hampshire, and New Jersey if the Dems do badly there for some reason.
Out west, the Dems could pick up Colorado and possibly Nevada and Arizona on this ticket. Their success there could be argued, but they'd win there WAY before they'd win West Virginia or Kentucky. Also, if Edwards really takes his home state by >50%, he'd make at least a strong showing in Georgia.
Lastly, I think the map is a tad optimistic. I'd like to think Clinton would mop the floor with anyone, but Giuliani and the Republicans would manage a pretty effective campaign. Florida would be closer, so would Ohio and Wisconsin.
|
