Ron Paul v Hillary Clinton

[Ats]

This could never happen in real life, but what if all the leading people in both parties somehow died and the 2008 race was left between Ron Paul of Texas and Hillary Clinton of New York. Who would you support? And who would win?

[Bono]

I predict they would get married during the campaign.

[Bono]

now seriously, Paul would win because he is a man. No offense intended, I'm just analyzing the reality. And the reality is that the voters would never elect a woman. Plus, Paul has really nice hair.(providing that's his real hair.)

[John Dibble]

To Ron Paul's advantage, he would get 99% of the Libertarian vote. I know that's a small section of the populace, but it could make the difference in swing states. I doubt the LP would even run a candidate if Ron Paul was the Republican nominee.

[badnarikin04]

now seriously, Paul would win because he is a man. No offense intended, I'm just analyzing the reality. And the reality is that the voters would never elect a woman. Plus, Paul has really nice hair.(providing that's his real hair.)

He might be right.

<see carol moseley braun in primaries>

[Ats]

now seriously, Paul would win because he is a man. No offense intended, I'm just analyzing the reality. And the reality is that the voters would never elect a woman. Plus, Paul has really nice hair.(providing that's his real hair.)

And he's taller than Hillary.

Sexism doesn't really exist, the reason women tend not to get elected as much as men is because they tend to be shorter, not because they are female. How many short guys are in politics?

[Keystone Phil]

now seriously, Paul would win because he is a man. No offense intended, I'm just analyzing the reality. And the reality is that the voters would never elect a woman. Plus, Paul has really nice hair.(providing that's his real hair.)

He might be right.

<see carol moseley braun in primaries>

Braun being a woman has nothing to do with the little attention and little support she received. She was never a serious candidate. A U.S. Senator defeated for re-election and then disappears (well becomes Ambassador of New Zealand...which is kind of like disappearing)

[Bono]

My map:



Paul: 320
Clinton: 218

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

My map:



Paul: 320
Clinton: 218

not a chance.

PA's a populist state, it'd never vote for him, Vermont elects a socialist, of course they won't either. Illinois is solidly Dem and most of the downstate folks are populist, Ohio and Iowa is also too populist, and Washington is too liberal, and even if he could win Maine (which I doubt), he could never win the first district. Hillary is extremely popular in Arkansas which is also a populist state and thus has no reason to vote for Paul, same with WV. On the other hand he would win Arizona and Florida.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

now seriously, Paul would win because he is a man. No offense intended, I'm just analyzing the reality. And the reality is that the voters would never elect a woman. Plus, Paul has really nice hair.(providing that's his real hair.)

He might be right.

<see carol moseley braun in primaries>

Braun being a woman has nothing to do with the little attention and little support she received. She was never a serious candidate. A U.S. Senator defeated for re-election and then disappears (well becomes Ambassador of New Zealand...which is kind of like disappearing)

for once we agree.

any Democrat who can lose in Illinois as an incumbent obviously isn't a top candidate.

[Bono]

My map:



Paul: 320
Clinton: 218

not a chance.

PA's a populist state, it'd never vote for him, Vermont elects a socialist, of course they won't either. Illinois is solidly Dem and most of the downstate folks are populist, Ohio and Iowa is also too populist, and Washington is too liberal, and even if he could win Maine (which I doubt), he could never win the first district. Hillary is extremely popular in Arkansas which is also a populist state and thus has no reason to vote for Paul, same with WV. On the other hand he would win Arizona and Florida.

Precisely for being populist they would not vote for a woman.
And besides, a lot of thos states have people who vote GOP no matter what.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

um, no.

you have a rather bigoted view of people in such states if you think that.

and i know of women elected to office in most of those as well.

[Rules for me, but not for thee]

My prediction:


Paul: 303
Clinton: 235

[Bono]

My map:



Paul: 320
Clinton: 218

not a chance.

PA's a populist state, it'd never vote for him, Vermont elects a socialist, of course they won't either. Illinois is solidly Dem and most of the downstate folks are populist, Ohio and Iowa is also too populist, and Washington is too liberal, and even if he could win Maine (which I doubt), he could never win the first district. Hillary is extremely popular in Arkansas which is also a populist state and thus has no reason to vote for Paul, same with WV. On the other hand he would win Arizona and Florida.

Ok, let's reanalize, more carefully, I was in a hurry back then:
PA, slightly populist, yes, but Ron Paul is not that much a social liberal as everyone thinks. he's actually pro-life, and that's a very important issue in PA.
Vermont is not that simple. In fact, it is an very complex state. yes, tehre arer a lot of hippies there, but there are also a lot of very conservative people, the ones who were there before the hippies moved in, making the results heavily dependant of turnout. Illinois are solidly Dem, but I don't think the downstate hillbilies would vote for a woman. Iowa and Ohio could use the GOP loyal vote, and the farmers vote, to fight the union vote.  Au contraire, the people east of the cascades in Washington are just waiting for someone like Ron Paul to vote for, because it really matches them, and they would go massively to the polls. Ok, I'll give you Arkansas, but WV is also a very rural state, and with probable prejudices against women. I can just picture all the pastors in the SCB churches preaching against Hillary.

[Ats]

No Tossups



Paul 296
Clinton 242

With Tossups



Paul 196
Clinton 189
Tossup 153

Clinton would enjoy doing very well among Hispanics because of Paul's immigration and race relations stances. (probably 75%-80% of the Hispanic vote, enough to definitely give her New Mexico and possibly even Minnesota). Compared to Bush, Paul's staunch anti-draft position would probably gain him more younger voters (enough to tip Wisconsin and counteract any advantages Hillary might have with Hispanic Floridians), and his relative libertarianism would make him popular in the Pacific NW. Plus he's a native Pennsylvanian, so I gave him that as well, though it'd be close.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

My map:



Paul: 320
Clinton: 218

not a chance.

PA's a populist state, it'd never vote for him, Vermont elects a socialist, of course they won't either. Illinois is solidly Dem and most of the downstate folks are populist, Ohio and Iowa is also too populist, and Washington is too liberal, and even if he could win Maine (which I doubt), he could never win the first district. Hillary is extremely popular in Arkansas which is also a populist state and thus has no reason to vote for Paul, same with WV. On the other hand he would win Arizona and Florida.

Ok, let's reanalize, more carefully, I was in a hurry back then:
PA, slightly populist, yes, but Ron Paul is not that much a social liberal as everyone thinks. he's actually pro-life, and that's a very important issue in PA.
Vermont is not that simple. In fact, it is an very complex state. yes, tehre arer a lot of hippies there, but there are also a lot of very conservative people, the ones who were there before the hippies moved in, making the results heavily dependant of turnout. Illinois are solidly Dem, but I don't think the downstate hillbilies would vote for a woman. Iowa and Ohio could use the GOP loyal vote, and the farmers vote, to fight the union vote.  Au contraire, the people east of the cascades in Washington are just waiting for someone like Ron Paul to vote for, because it really matches them, and they would go massively to the polls. Ok, I'll give you Arkansas, but WV is also a very rural state, and with probable prejudices against women. I can just picture all the pastors in the SCB churches preaching against Hillary.

Illinois currently has two elected women office holders, now one is a Republican, but the Democrat barely won and was perceived as a Chicago ultra-liberal so that obviously hurt downstate but she still pulled it off, plus she was also perceived as extremely unqualified to be Attorney General, so that proves that Hillary could win regardless of how well she did downstate. There are plenty of liberal areas downstate too, especially Rock Island.

and while you've given Hillary Arkansas, have you forgotten who their senator is that's up for reelection this year? Also SBC churches can't engage in politking, or else they'd lose their tax exempt status. Plus they aren't exactly huge in WV anyway compared to the Deep South anyway. What it basically would come down to is the unions trying to scare the sh!t out of everyone with Paul's economic views, and it'd work.

as for Vermont, I just don't see a state voting for both Paul and Bernie Sanders.

[King]

Ron Paul...Hillary is creepy...

[7,052,770]

I'd vote Clinton, but I don't know if she'd win.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The most Baptist part of WV (Southern WV) is also the most Democrat.

[English]

Hilary Clingon.