Reasonable 2008 maps?

[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.)

[jokerman]

I don't really even like Bredesen that much.  He's not a populist.  Just kind of a bland, uncharismatic, moderate.

[Machiavelli]

I don't really even like Bredesen that much.  He's not a populist.  Just kind of a bland, uncharismatic, moderate.

That's what they said about Clinton.

[phk]

Clintons wasn't really a populist, and he did fairly well.

[WalterMitty]

Clintons wasn't really a populist, and he did fairly well.

exactly!

populism is stupid.  this isnt the 1890s.

[TeePee4Prez]

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.     

[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.

[TeePee4Prez]

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.   

[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.

[tarheel-leftist85]

Even as a Dem., I think these maps are generous.  If Dems. want to keep on picking people from the tundra, it'll be our loss.  It's not just picking any southerner, but ultimately it is a litmus test:  Has this person won a red-state?  If anyone is a Santorum fan, they might want to find ways to move the PA primary before the SC one.  If that doesn't happen, it'll be Frist (maybe Santorum if he wins against Pinocchio should Casey lose the primary).

[MaC]

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

[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.

[AuH2O]

How can Jewish turnout go up?

Just like religous right turnout can go up.

Anyway, it went more for Bush in 2004 than in 2000, and Feingold would reverse that.

Not really. If it's already 80%, then there is a very real ceiling of additional voters. Feingold gains you a few thousand Jewish votes here and there, but that's it.

[Moooooo]

What is Santorum's approval rating?

[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.

[Joe Republic]

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?

[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.

[Joe Republic]

But Bush didn't win Wisconsin.  In fact, with the Nader factor having been almost removed, Kerry actually (very slightly) widened the margin of victory.

[No more McShame]

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.

You're probably right about Santorum not going over well in Nevada, I just think Hillary would go down worse.   NOTA would poll very strongly there .

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?

I've spent a lot of time in Wisconsin, and it doesn't strike me as a state that would take Hillary well.  Joe farmer isn't going to trust her as far as he could spit tobacco  There is strong pockets of Catholism in Wisconsin, which would suit Santorum well.

On the flip side, Nevada has the lowest percentage of church going population.  This is why Bush hasn't done as strongly as past Republicans there even though he did win the state twice.  Santorum's image (which will be played over and over again by the Democrats if he is the nominee) will not help him there.  However, they tend to like less government in Nevada and will not fall for Hillary's "repositioning" herself as a moderate.

[Joe Republic]

Wisconsin still voted for Kerry and Dukakis, and they're certainly not averse to liberals.  In any case, many uninformed voters will remember Hillary for being Bill's wife - the guy who won Wisconsin by 10 points in 1996.  It's tenuous reasoning, but it's still there.  Remember that most people have no idea where most politician stand on the political spectrum.

As for Nevada, it seems to me that a large factor for them is personality.  They've certainly voted that way for most of history.

[Frodo]

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.

out of curiosity, how would the map look if either Hillary or Feingold is replaced with Evan Bayh? 

[No more McShame]

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