New Iowa Poll: Edwards 30%, Clinton 26%, Kerry 12%, Vilsack 10%

[Eraserhead]

Were the Democrats seriously not contemplating not running in 1992 (I guess that makes sense from a 1991 perspective)? I remember reading about the Clinton campaign starting as early as July 1991. When would these...contemplations have taken place?

You really just have to try and think about it from a diehard Democrats point of view. The lost the presidency in a landslide in 1980 and then lost their bid to get it back in the biggest landslide in American history in 1984. Then came 1988...a year that showed Dukakis easily winning the presidency early on. All Democrats could do is watch as Dukakis sunk further and further down into the polls. Come election day, the Reagan Revolution had killed yet another Democratic challenger in a landslide victory.

So that's 3 landslides in a row, I can understand how their hopes got that low. Most people weren't giving them a snowball's chance in hell for 1992.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is true, I'm not much of a Democrat...but I am a fan of intresting elections and I'd like it if we wouldn't have to see yet another Republican landslide.

One correction; 1984 was not the largest landslide in history. In terms of both the popular vote and the electoral vote, Roosevelt in 1936 won by a larger margin than Reagan in 1984. It was one of the biggest landslides, but not the biggest.

Washington!

[adam]

Were the Democrats seriously not contemplating not running in 1992 (I guess that makes sense from a 1991 perspective)? I remember reading about the Clinton campaign starting as early as July 1991. When would these...contemplations have taken place?

You really just have to try and think about it from a diehard Democrats point of view. The lost the presidency in a landslide in 1980 and then lost their bid to get it back in the biggest landslide in American history in 1984. Then came 1988...a year that showed Dukakis easily winning the presidency early on. All Democrats could do is watch as Dukakis sunk further and further down into the polls. Come election day, the Reagan Revolution had killed yet another Democratic challenger in a landslide victory.

So that's 3 landslides in a row, I can understand how their hopes got that low. Most people weren't giving them a snowball's chance in hell for 1992.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is true, I'm not much of a Democrat...but I am a fan of intresting elections and I'd like it if we wouldn't have to see yet another Republican landslide.

One correction; 1984 was not the largest landslide in history. In terms of both the popular vote and the electoral vote, Roosevelt in 1936 won by a larger margin than Reagan in 1984. It was one of the biggest landslides, but not the biggest.

Oh yeah that's true. I tend not to think of FDR elections.

[MasterJedi]

Edwars can't win a national election.

Sure he can.  The odds will be insanely tilted to the Democrats in 2008.  If Hillary isn't the nominee, I think the Democrats are going to win.  (But she probably will be so there goes that)

You should wait to see if the Dems retake Congress, if they do you'll probably throw away a lot of 2008 hopes.

[© tweed]

Edwars can't win a national election.

Sure he can.  The odds will be insanely tilted to the Democrats in 2008.  If Hillary isn't the nominee, I think the Democrats are going to win.  (But she probably will be so there goes that)

You should wait to see if the Dems retake Congress, if they do you'll probably throw away a lot of 2008 hopes.

The tide only turns if Bush rebounds.  Democrats taking congress doesn't hurt us in 2008.

[MasterJedi]

Edwars can't win a national election.

Sure he can.  The odds will be insanely tilted to the Democrats in 2008.  If Hillary isn't the nominee, I think the Democrats are going to win.  (But she probably will be so there goes that)

You should wait to see if the Dems retake Congress, if they do you'll probably throw away a lot of 2008 hopes.

The tide only turns if Bush rebounds.  Democrats taking congress doesn't hurt us in 2008.

Actually it will, you'll have two years of stories having the Democrats blocking anything from happening in Washington.

[© tweed]

Edwars can't win a national election.

Sure he can.  The odds will be insanely tilted to the Democrats in 2008.  If Hillary isn't the nominee, I think the Democrats are going to win.  (But she probably will be so there goes that)

You should wait to see if the Dems retake Congress, if they do you'll probably throw away a lot of 2008 hopes.

The tide only turns if Bush rebounds.  Democrats taking congress doesn't hurt us in 2008.

Actually it will, you'll have two years of stories having the Democrats blocking anything from happening in Washington.

No.  The liberal media wouldn't do that to us.

And also, Bush has had an overwhelming GOP congress since the start of his second term and he's still accomplished absolutely nothing.  He doesn't need any help in being obstructed.

[7,052,770]

If Edwards is the nominee he swings NC only probably.
If Hillary is the nominee she might swing Arkansas, but certainly nowhere else in the South.
If Warner is the nominee, he swings VA, and, depending on the Republican nominee, a good shot at AR, TN, FL, NC, and maybe even more.

[© tweed]

If Edwards is the nominee he swings NC only probably.
If Hillary is the nominee she might swing Arkansas, but certainly nowhere else in the South.
If Warner is the nominee, he swings VA, and, depending on the Republican nominee, a good shot at AR, TN, FL, NC, and maybe even more.

Edwards wouldn't win NC.
But against an Allen type he'd win Ohio by 7 points, if the Bush-related climate remains the same.

[Boris]

If Edwards is the nominee he swings NC only probably.
If Hillary is the nominee she might swing Arkansas, but certainly nowhere else in the South.
If Warner is the nominee, he swings VA, and, depending on the Republican nominee, a good shot at AR, TN, FL, NC, and maybe even more.

There's no way Warner would have even a shot at TN or NC. He might come within single digits (8 or 9 points) in TN, but he'd lose NC by 10-14 points. Clinton couldn't even take NC in 1996, despite his nine point victory and the help of Ross Perot. Warner's best pickup states are Colorado, Florida, and of course Virginia. Arkansas is even shady territory; I think he'll lose it probably by a 52-47 margin to a generic GOPer like Allen.

How about West Virginia? I realize that it's drifted sharply to the right in the past two elections, but is there any chance of Warner reversing this trend?

Edwards...I see Edwards as useless. His record in the senate will be torn apart again, as will the experience factor. He won't add any states to the DEM column either (he'll be lucky to bring NC to single digits)

Hillary...she wouldn't do anything either. Despite the best efforts of the 42nd President of the United States, she'd probably lose Arkansas by more than Gore did (but maybe less than Kerry). I don't see her breaking 50% against any GOP nominee except maybe Rice. Unless she manages to drastically improve her image in the next eighteen months (going to be tough to do, since most people already have a preconceived opinion of her from her First Lady days), Hillary isn't going to win the election. With luck, DEM primary voters will start to notice this by January 2008.

Of course, we're all assuming that in 2008, the political climate will be the same as today. Compare 1994 and 1996 to see how much a political climate can change in just two years (and it's not even November yet. The GOP still has a half-decent chance of gaining congressional seats in November).

[Eraserhead]

No way in hell the guy would lose his home state by 14 points. Thats insane. Kerry came within 12! That is mind bogglingly insane.

[Boris]

No way in hell the guy would lose his home state by 14 points. Thats insane. Kerry came within 12! That is mind bogglingly insane.

WARNER would lose NC by 10-14 points (in a less than five point national race), not Edwards. Edwards would probably lose NC by the same margin Kerry did (assuming that the 2008 popular vote is similar to 2004, give or take a few percentage points). Edwards is only mildly popular in NC; I dunno if he would've even won re-election as a senator had he not ran on the Democratic ticket. 2004 was a demonstration of Edwards' popularity. If North Carolinians (is that a word?) didn't vote for Edwards in 2004 because he was from their state, they're not going to change their minds in 2008 (based upon the home state issue, anyways. Edwards could run an effective campaign and the national mood could favor the Democrats)

[Nym90]

Edwars can't win a national election.

Sure he can.  The odds will be insanely tilted to the Democrats in 2008.  If Hillary isn't the nominee, I think the Democrats are going to win.  (But she probably will be so there goes that)

You should wait to see if the Dems retake Congress, if they do you'll probably throw away a lot of 2008 hopes.

The tide only turns if Bush rebounds.  Democrats taking congress doesn't hurt us in 2008.

Actually it will, you'll have two years of stories having the Democrats blocking anything from happening in Washington.

No.  The liberal media wouldn't do that to us.

And also, Bush has had an overwhelming GOP congress since the start of his second term and he's still accomplished absolutely nothing.  He doesn't need any help in being obstructed.

If all the Democrats do is obstruct things and make no proposals of their own, then sure, they will get branded as obstructionists, and rightfully so. However, if they have the majority, they will be able to drive the agenda rather than Bush and so they wouldn't just be opposing things, they'd have the ability to pass their own legislative agenda.

[© tweed]

Edwars can't win a national election.

Sure he can.  The odds will be insanely tilted to the Democrats in 2008.  If Hillary isn't the nominee, I think the Democrats are going to win.  (But she probably will be so there goes that)

You should wait to see if the Dems retake Congress, if they do you'll probably throw away a lot of 2008 hopes.

The tide only turns if Bush rebounds.  Democrats taking congress doesn't hurt us in 2008.

Actually it will, you'll have two years of stories having the Democrats blocking anything from happening in Washington.

No.  The liberal media wouldn't do that to us.

And also, Bush has had an overwhelming GOP congress since the start of his second term and he's still accomplished absolutely nothing.  He doesn't need any help in being obstructed.

If all the Democrats do is obstruct things and make no proposals of their own, then sure, they will get branded as obstructionists, and rightfully so. However, if they have the majority, they will be able to drive the agenda rather than Bush and so they wouldn't just be opposing things, they'd have the ability to pass their own legislative agenda.

Then maybe Bush would have to veto something!  (gasp)

[Eraserhead]

No way in hell the guy would lose his home state by 14 points. Thats insane. Kerry came within 12! That is mind bogglingly insane.

WARNER would lose NC by 10-14 points (in a less than five point national race), not Edwards. Edwards would probably lose NC by the same margin Kerry did (assuming that the 2008 popular vote is similar to 2004, give or take a few percentage points). Edwards is only mildly popular in NC; I dunno if he would've even won re-election as a senator had he not ran on the Democratic ticket. 2004 was a demonstration of Edwards' popularity. If North Carolinians (is that a word?) didn't vote for Edwards in 2004 because he was from their state, they're not going to change their minds in 2008 (based upon the home state issue, anyways. Edwards could run an effective campaign and the national mood could favor the Democrats)

I really doubt a pretty likeable candidate from North Carolina would lose Noth Carolina by same margin as a strange looking guy from Massachusets.

[jokerman]

Arkansas is a lock for Warner.  As is Virginia, and West Virginia, Missouri, Louisiana, Florida, and Tennessee are in play or lean Warner.

Trust me.

[Boris]

Arkansas is a lock for Warner.  As is Virginia, and West Virginia, Missouri, Louisiana, Florida, and Tennessee are in play or lean Warner.

Trust me.

Arkansas a lock? Gore won the nationwide popular vote by 0.5 percentage points, and lost Arkansas by 5.5 percentage points. Kerry lost the nationwide popular vote by 2.5 percentage points, and lost Arkansas by nearly ten percentage points. Besides the obvious fact that the only two-term Democrat in our lifetimes has came from Arkansas, what makes Arkansas Democratic at the presidential level? What does Warner have there that Gore and Kerry didn't? What are we assuming the nationwide popular vote will be in say, a McCain vs. Warner race? Does Warner break 50% nationally? Does Warner even win the nationwide popular vote? In other words, what I'm asking is how big a percentage of the popular vote will Warner have to get in order to "have a lock" on  Arkansas?

Florida is in play for basically any Democratic candidate except Hillary and John Kerry. Out of all of them, Warner has the best shot to win it. Likewise, the same goes for Missouri.

Assuming an approx. 50-50 race between Warner and a generic GOPer, Warner loses Louisiana and Tennessee by single digit margins (maybe 54-46?). If Warner can break 52% of the nationwide popular vote, then Warner should have a shot at taking either of these states.

[Keystone Phil]

Arkansas a lock? Gore won the nationwide popular vote by 0.5 percentage points, and lost Arkansas by 5.5 percentage points. Kerry lost the nationwide popular vote by 2.5 percentage points, and lost Arkansas by nearly ten percentage points. Besides the obvious fact that the only two-term Democrat in our lifetimes has came from Arkansas, what makes Arkansas Democratic at the presidential level? What does Warner have there that Gore and Kerry didn't? What are we assuming the nationwide popular vote will be in say, a McCain vs. Warner race? Does Warner break 50% nationally? Does Warner even win the nationwide popular vote? In other words, what I'm asking is how big a percentage of the popular vote will Warner have to get in order to "have a lock" on  Arkansas?

I think he means in terms of the primary unless he has totally lost his mind.

[adam]

Arkansas is a lock for Warner.  As is Virginia, and West Virginia, Missouri, Louisiana, Florida, and Tennessee are in play or lean Warner.

Trust me.

Sorry, but judging by this I have come to the conclusion that you are wrong.

Arkansas: It could be close, but to call any red state a lock for a virtually unknown Democrat is assinine.

Viriginia: Probably a better chance than most other Democrats, but not set in stone. He has a strong record as governor that Virginians have lived through. However, expect the GOP to run viciously to keep control of the state in the election. It will be a toss up.

West Virginia: This state is gone for the Democrats, just like Vermont is gone for the Republicans. Any money wasted trying to snag this state is just that, a waste.

Missouri: Same deal as Arkansas. It could be a swing state, but a Democrat with little name recognition won't have a traditonally red state sealed.

Louisiana: Not very likely at all to go for ANY democrat of today. Even Clinton needed Perot's help in 92' to carry it. I just don't see your logic here.

Florida: See John Kerry. Warner's presence on the ticket will probably create a lot of Florida hype, but I would expect him to flounder pretty bad in the state on election day.

Tennesee: If an 8 year VP of a popular administration from Tennesee can't carry Tennesee, neither can an unknown governor from Virginia.

[Boris]

Arkansas a lock? Gore won the nationwide popular vote by 0.5 percentage points, and lost Arkansas by 5.5 percentage points. Kerry lost the nationwide popular vote by 2.5 percentage points, and lost Arkansas by nearly ten percentage points. Besides the obvious fact that the only two-term Democrat in our lifetimes has came from Arkansas, what makes Arkansas Democratic at the presidential level? What does Warner have there that Gore and Kerry didn't? What are we assuming the nationwide popular vote will be in say, a McCain vs. Warner race? Does Warner break 50% nationally? Does Warner even win the nationwide popular vote? In other words, what I'm asking is how big a percentage of the popular vote will Warner have to get in order to "have a lock" on  Arkansas?

I think he means in terms of the primary unless he has totally lost his mind.

No, he means in the general. The Arkansas Primary is late in the primary season; the presumptive democratic nominee regardless of who it is will capture all of its delegates, probably without any opposition.

But yeah, I basically agree with Captain Vlad. If a Democrat wants to win Missouri, which won't be easy in a 50-50 race, (s)he's going to have to appeal to rural voters. They can easily get 45% of the vote by capturing St. Louis and Kansas City, but they need to win more counties inside Missouri. Kerry only won like four counties, Gore won a bit more (and came within 3 percentage points), and Clinton took a majority of the counties in 1992 and 1996 to easily carry the state.

Florida is still up for grabs in 2008 IMO. The reason why Bush did so well there in 2004 was extremely strong turnout of conservative christian voters successfully organized by the Florida Bush campaign and Florida Governor Jeb Bush. If the Democrats can discourage conservative christian turnout in 2008 (by nominating a moderate who can call attention away from social issues), they can take Florida in 2008 or at least match Gore's performance there in 2000.

TN, Arkansas, LA, and WV are easily GOP in a 50-50 race. VA only goes DEM if Warner is the nominee. TN and AK may be single digit GOP victories (maybe by nine or so points), but LA and WV will probably be double digit strong victories.

[jokerman]

Arkansas is a lock for Warner.  As is Virginia, and West Virginia, Missouri, Louisiana, Florida, and Tennessee are in play or lean Warner.

Trust me.

Arkansas a lock? Gore won the nationwide popular vote by 0.5 percentage points, and lost Arkansas by 5.5 percentage points. Kerry lost the nationwide popular vote by 2.5 percentage points, and lost Arkansas by nearly ten percentage points. Besides the obvious fact that the only two-term Democrat in our lifetimes has came from Arkansas, what makes Arkansas Democratic at the presidential level? What does Warner have there that Gore and Kerry didn't? What are we assuming the nationwide popular vote will be in say, a McCain vs. Warner race? Does Warner break 50% nationally? Does Warner even win the nationwide popular vote? In other words, what I'm asking is how big a percentage of the popular vote will Warner have to get in order to "have a lock" on  Arkansas?

LOL ing northern liberal.

Seriously, I know my state.

Over 70% of the legislature is Democrat.  People affiliate with the Democrats on a strong scale, and are adverse to people like Kerry, but when you run someone like Warner on the ticket they swing as a uniform block.

And no ticket with Warner on it against a generic republican is going to be 50-50.  More like 52-47.

You guys sound like the same idiots on daily kos who don't understant the south at all.

[Keystone Phil]

LOL ing northern liberal.

Seriously, I know my state.

Over 70% of the legislature is Democrat.  People affiliate with the Democrats on a strong scale, and are adverse to people like Kerry, but when you run someone like Warner on the ticket they swing as a uniform block.

And no ticket with Warner on it against a generic republican is going to be 50-50.  More like 52-47.

You guys sound like the same idiots on daily kos who don't understant the south at all.

Preston, I know someone like Warner would be welcomed in your state along with other southern states but calling a state a lock is silly. What if a southern Republican like Allen or even the Governor of your state was to run? Is it still a lock?

You also have to remember that this is a Presidential race and the GOP would find ways to tie any Dem, especially a Dem with a chance at stealing southern states, to people like Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer, etc. Yes, we'd have to pay more attention to Arkansas, Virginia, Tennessee, West Virginia and Florida but I think we'd be favored to win so don't say you have a lock on anything in the south.

[adam]

LOL ing northern liberal.

Seriously, I know my state.

Over 70% of the legislature is Democrat.  People affiliate with the Democrats on a strong scale, and are adverse to people like Kerry, but when you run someone like Warner on the ticket they swing as a uniform block.

And no ticket with Warner on it against a generic republican is going to be 50-50.  More like 52-47.

You guys sound like the same idiots on daily kos who don't understant the south at all.

Preston, I know someone like Warner would be welcomed in your state along with other southern states but calling a state a lock is silly. What if a southern Republican like Allen or even the Governor of your state was to run? Is it still a lock?

You also have to remember that this is a Presidential race and the GOP would find ways to tie any Dem, especially a Dem with a chance at stealing southern states, to people like Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer, etc. Yes, we'd have to pay more attention to Arkansas, Virginia, Tennessee, West Virginia and Florida but I think we'd be favored to win so don't say you have a lock on anything in the south.

Well said. There is a lot of time for the Republicans to plan for the south, I am sure Karl Rove and their other campaign organizers are aware of the growing apathy among the religious right community, and I am sure they are scheming as we speak to fix that; most likely with smear campaigns and hard-line stances on immigration. Either way, how can you call anything a lock 2 years before the election? Depending on who the nominees are, New York could be up for grabs. I would be wise not to count your chickens before they hatch, ask Al Gore.

[Boris]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There's NO WAY you can accurately predict the nationwide popular vote of a presidential election more than two years before the election even takes place. In that case, you have Clinton losing re-election, both Bushes being re-elected in a landslide, Democrats taking 1988, 1984, and 1980, Democrats winning 1976 in a landslide and LBJ easily winning re-election. I'm sure you get my point.

Therefore, you have to assume popular vote percentages. In a 50-50 race with Mark Warner against John McCain, McCain takes Arkansas, no questions ask. In a highly competitive race, there's no way the GOP loses a state below the Mason-Dixon line with the possible exception of Florida. Now, if we assume that Warner wins 52% of the popular vote, then yes, he does have a shot at Arkansas, but even then, 52 might not be enough. He could definitely do it if he got 54.

Arkansas is a Democratic State at the state level (with luck, Dems will control of the Governorship starting in Jan 2007), but has done nothing to prove that Dems can be competitive there nationally. It has not voted for any Democratic candidate in recent history not from the state (Carter doesn't count; the 1976 electorate is completely irrelevant and not applicable to today's political climate), and even rejected their incumbent President's Vice President in favor of the Governor of Texas. I see nothing to prevent a GOPer such as Allen or McCain in taking the state by 5-10 percentage points, assuming that we have a 50-50 race in 2008.

My point is: The Democrats are going to have to do extremely well nationally in order to have a shot at taking states such as Arkansas, West Virginia, and Tennessee. Likewise, the GOP is going to have to do extremely well nationally in order to take states such as Oregon, Minnesota, and Michigan.

[Eraserhead]

Virginia would (without a doubt) be a lock for Warner. He isn't Edwards in NC, he is freakishly popular in that state. Not to mention northeastern liberal John Kerry came within 7 points there in a good year for Bush. The other states I'm not sure I would go so far. It depends on the opponent.

[© tweed]

Virginia would (without a doubt) be a lock for Warner.

I tend to agree unless Allen is his opponent.  Then it's a tossup/lean Warner.