Richardson vs. Guiliani

[Jacobtm]

In this race, would Richardson be able to swing more than NM? I believe Iowa would probably go to Richardson due to Guiliani's personal indescretions. However, what I'm really interest in is Nevada and Colorado. Would demographic trends and Richardson's proximity and ethnicity be enough to throw these states into his column?

Also, would the Dems be in danger of losing PA in this scenario? There are lots of hickish areas in PA that probably would just not want any Mexican for President.

[MODU]

Richardson might swing NM, but Rudy would probably swing more states.

[SPC]

I really don't know who would win this one. NM and IA would probably swing to Richardson, but NV and CO have libertarian leanings, so I would assume they would choose a moderate libertarian over a moderate populist. OH would probably go to Richardson, just because of the recent anti-GOP sentiment there and their bad economy. That leaves PA. Richardson probably agrees with Pennsylvanians more on the issues, but Giuliani is from a neighboring state. So I think it would go 263-254,with PA being the deciding state.

[Rob]

I would assume they would choose a moderate libertarian over a moderate populist.

Richardson leans toward libertarianism, not "populism."

[SPC]

I would assume they would choose a moderate libertarian over a moderate populist.

Richardson leans toward libertarianism, not "populism."

How so?

[YRABNNRM]

I would assume they would choose a moderate libertarian over a moderate populist.

Richardson leans toward libertarianism, not "populism."

And how is Giuliani in anyway libertarian?

[SPC]

I would assume they would choose a moderate libertarian over a moderate populist.

Richardson leans toward libertarianism, not "populism."

And how is Giuliani in anyway libertarian?

He is socially liberal and fically conservative.

[YRABNNRM]

I would assume they would choose a moderate libertarian over a moderate populist.

Richardson leans toward libertarianism, not "populism."

And how is Giuliani in anyway libertarian?

He is socially liberal and fically conservative.

That's not libertarian unless you're thinking in super, super broad terms.

[Dr. Cynic]

As far as PA, there are still two Democratic strongholds, and I doubt that they would care if it came down to it. Richardson is a moderate with a great record, and registered Dems outnumber Repubs... I think Richardson would win here dispite his ethnicity.

NM and IA would also swing for him. Nevada as well... I dunno about Colorado though.

[adam]

Well, I win either way.

Richardson would do very well in the west, but I doubt he would swing Colorado. Perhaps against another Republican, but not against Giuliani. I would predict something I like this:

I agree with SP Conservative in that I think PA would be the big state to watch. At the moment, I would give Richardson the edge here.

[Padfoot]

Richardson might swing NM, but Rudy would probably swing more states.

Might swing NM?  You must be joking.  If Richardson is the Democratic nominee he will outright crush (by swing state standards) the GOP nominee in his home state.  I posted another Richardson vs. Guliani map a few days ago in a different thread that I don't like very much for several reasons.  Mostly I just threw it together without too much thought.  So for anyone who is comparing the two please ignore the other one and consider this one my real prediction.

[Jacobtm]

Richardson might swing NM, but Rudy would probably swing more states.

Might swing NM?  You must be joking.  If Richardson is the Democratic nominee he will outright crush (by swing state standards) the GOP nominee in his home state.  I posted another Richardson vs. Guliani map a few days ago in a different thread that I don't like very much for several reasons.  Mostly I just threw it together without too much thought.  So for anyone who is comparing the two please ignore the other one and consider this one my real prediction.

Pad, are you serious giving NJ to Guiliani? Polls now might show NJ citizens like Guiliani alot, but when it comes down to a Presdiential campaign, especially after George Bush, there's absolutely no way NJ would go for any Republican.

[Rob]

I guess I should post a map:

Richardson is endorsed by the National Rifle Association, breaking 40 percent in Wyoming and Nebraska. He takes over 45 percent in Montana, South Dakota, and Oklahoma; he does roughly as well as Kerry in the Northeast, but runs far ahead in the Midwest. He wins West Virginia 55-44, in a near reversal of 2004's outcome.

[MODU]

Richardson might swing NM, but Rudy would probably swing more states.

Might swing NM? 

Yes, might.  It all depends on how the campaigns for the two candidates progress up through election day.

[CPT MikeyMike]

Richardson is only Democrat currently running that could beat Guiliani.

Obama has no substance and Hillary's polarizing.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

I am not too sure about Mo, and I am not too sure about CO, I think NV is a pure tossup and so is NM, but I think OH and IA are the ones to go. Lastly, concerning NJ and WI I don't think they will go Republican if the Dems win, because they voted each time the last two elections for the losing candidate.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Well, I win either way.

Richardson would do very well in the west, but I doubt he would swing Colorado. Perhaps against another Republican, but not against Giuliani. I would predict something I like this:

I agree with SP Conservative in that I think PA would be the big state to watch. At the moment, I would give Richardson the edge here.

Let me remind you that when the Republican nominee really riles the base, he loses a lot of states a typical Republican nominee would win.

In 1996 the Republican party nominated the "tax collector for the Great Society." Bob Dole.

I believe it was said by Senator Feingold that anyone who thinks Bob Dole isn't passionate, should see him fighting for a tax increase!

For the first time since 1948 Arizona did not vote for the Republican nominee for President, as the voters thoroughly despised him.

If Giuliani is the nominee in 2008 (unlikely in my opinion), and faces Richardson, conservatives by the millions will bail out on the Republican party for the Presidential race.  Arizona (and most of the west) would vote for Richardson.

[adam]

Richardson is only Democrat currently running that could beat Guiliani.

Obama has no substance and Hillary's polarizing.

I am tempted to agree with you. Rob makes a great point about the NRA, it would be the first time in my life time that the Democrat would snag their endorsment over that of the Republican. This would do Richardson a big favor in a lot of western states and certainly the south.

Let me remind you that when the Republican nominee really riles the base, he loses a lot of states a typical Republican nominee would win.

In 1996 the Republican party nominated the "tax collector for the Great Society." Bob Dole.

I believe it was said by Senator Feingold that anyone who thinks Bob Dole isn't passionate, should see him fighting for a tax increase!

For the first time since 1948 Arizona did not vote for the Republican nominee for President, as the voters thoroughly despised him.

If Giuliani is the nominee in 2008 (unlikely in my opinion), and faces Richardson, conservatives by the millions will bail out on the Republican party for the Presidential race.  Arizona (and most of the west) would vote for Richardson.

Giuliani may lose a sizable portion of his base if he is nominated. Having said that, I would think that he would do rather well among independents nationwide.

[CARLHAYDEN]

The reason why I don't think Giuliani will do well with independents is that he has an extremely abrasive and rude personality.

[adam]

The reason why I don't think Giuliani will do well with independents is that he has an extremely abrasive and rude personality.

Why do you say that? I have met him several times and he was a very cordial. Where did you get the idea that he was rude?

[CARLHAYDEN]

The reason why I don't think Giuliani will do well with independents is that he has an extremely abrasive and rude personality.

Why do you say that? I have met him several times and he was a very cordial. Where did you get the idea that he was rude?

Ask those who have dealt with him.

As long as you agree with him he can be "cordial," but disagree with him and watch out.

As one tangible of example of how Rudy deals with others, take the case of his most recent ex-wife.   She learned of his decision to seek a  "divorce" from a press conference!

[adam]

The reason why I don't think Giuliani will do well with independents is that he has an extremely abrasive and rude personality.

Why do you say that? I have met him several times and he was a very cordial. Where did you get the idea that he was rude?

Ask those who have dealt with him.

As long as you agree with him he can be "cordial," but disagree with him and watch out.

As one tangible of example of how Rudy deals with others, take the case of his most recent ex-wife.   She learned of his decision to seek a  "divorce" from a press conference!

I thought that was more funny than anything. Then again, I have a twisted sense of humor. None-the-less, I really get the feeling that the personal lives of the candidates won't be as big a factor in this upcoming election as it has been in the past two. People want their questions answers, and if Giuliani can do that then he shouldn't have problems.

[CPT MikeyMike]

If Giuliani is the nominee in 2008 (unlikely in my opinion), and faces Richardson, conservatives by the millions will bail out on the Republican party for the Presidential race.  Arizona (and most of the west) would vote for Richardson.

Giuliani may lose a sizable portion of his base if he is nominated. Having said that, I would think that he would do rather well among independents nationwide.

If (or I should say when) Giuliani is the nominee, I really don't think the conservative base will back off especially if the Democrat nominee is Hillary Clinton or John Edwards.  More than anything, the conservative base will work to ensure that Clinton or Edwards lose the election rather than Guiliani winning.

The issue I see right now is that both parties are playing not to lose in '08 instead of playing to win in '08. 

[Padfoot]

Let me remind you that when the Republican nominee really riles the base, he loses a lot of states a typical Republican nominee would win.

In 1996 the Republican party nominated the "tax collector for the Great Society." Bob Dole.

I believe it was said by Senator Feingold that anyone who thinks Bob Dole isn't passionate, should see him fighting for a tax increase!

For the first time since 1948 Arizona did not vote for the Republican nominee for President, as the voters thoroughly despised him.

If Giuliani is the nominee in 2008 (unlikely in my opinion), and faces Richardson, conservatives by the millions will bail out on the Republican party for the Presidential race.  Arizona (and most of the west) would vote for Richardson.

The only problem with citing the elections from the 1990's is the presence of Perot which throws a strange kink into things.  He mostly hurt the Republican candidates and I think that if he hadn't been there in 1996 Arizona would have gone to the GOP.

I'm not so sure that we'll see a mass movement of millions of conservatives to Richardson but I will say that there would definitely be enough movement to give Richardson the West.

Richardson is endorsed by the National Rifle Association, breaking 40 percent in Wyoming and Nebraska. He takes over 45 percent in Montana, South Dakota, and Oklahoma; he does roughly as well as Kerry in the Northeast, but runs far ahead in the Midwest. He wins West Virginia 55-44, in a near reversal of 2004's outcome.

Is the NRA thing the only reason you think Richardson could take West Virginia?

If (or I should say when) Giuliani is the nominee, I really don't think the conservative base will back off especially if the Democrat nominee is Hillary Clinton or John Edwards.  More than anything, the conservative base will work to ensure that Clinton or Edwards lose the election rather than Guiliani winning.

The issue I see right now is that both parties are playing not to lose in '08 instead of playing to win in '08. 

Everyone already knows the conservatives hate Clinton and Edwards.  However, the question here is how they would respond if Richardson is the nominee against Guliani.  So far the consensus seems to be that his stance on gun ownership would win him enough points to get a significant number of conservative leaning voters since Guliani is pro-gun control.

[CARLHAYDEN]

If Giuliani is the nominee in 2008 (unlikely in my opinion), and faces Richardson, conservatives by the millions will bail out on the Republican party for the Presidential race.  Arizona (and most of the west) would vote for Richardson.

While conservatives are not fans of Clinton, Guiliani would be a worse President that Hillary.

If Hillary is elected, Republicans in Congress will be united in opposition.

If Guiliani is elected, Republicans in Congress will be divided (as they are now with Shrub in the White House).


Giuliani may lose a sizable portion of his base if he is nominated. Having said that, I would think that he would do rather well among independents nationwide.

If (or I should say when) Giuliani is the nominee, I really don't think the conservative base will back off especially if the Democrat nominee is Hillary Clinton or John Edwards.  More than anything, the conservative base will work to ensure that Clinton or Edwards lose the election rather than Guiliani winning.

The issue I see right now is that both parties are playing not to lose in '08 instead of playing to win in '08.