October 2, 2007
50 State Strategy…
Seriously???
Maybe I’m wrong, but for now…to quote Monday Morning Cracker, I’m “calling bull$*!t on this.” Not to single out Mayor Giuliani since all the campaigns send out similar spin (including my candidate of choice), but this one is kind of funny… so I couldn’t resist.
If you guys can come up with some accurate predictions on this, have at it…
http://race42008.com/2007/10/02/50-state-strategy/trackback/
October 2nd, 2007 at 9:03 pm
Keep dreaming Giuliani.
October 2nd, 2007 at 9:06 pm
Hillary love runs deep in Arkansas…NO WAY RUDY WINS THIS STATE…
October 2nd, 2007 at 9:07 pm
Well, there are a few things disingenuous about the map. Of the red states, I think that Arkansas should not only be bumped down to purple, but to blue. Both Virginias and Indiana would also be purple if I were coloring. Other than that, I would be confident that Rudy could carry all of those states. The map also correctly concedes that the Southwest, Colorado and Missouri/Iowa are not givens for any Republican. The main hubris comes in only coloring 18 votes for Clinton. I suppose “swing” means states that Giuliani thinks he can crack at least 40% in? Rhode Island… seriously?
October 2nd, 2007 at 9:08 pm
By “I would be confident that Rudy could carry all of those states,” I meant the ones colored red other than those I specifically mentioned.
October 2nd, 2007 at 9:11 pm
Florida not a swing state…that will be the day!
October 2nd, 2007 at 9:12 pm
Didn’t Rasmussen just show Hillary ahead of Rudy in New York by 24 points?
There are so many things wrong with this map, I don’t know where to start. Honestly, what in the world could DuHaime have been thinking?
October 2nd, 2007 at 9:13 pm
The only way Arkansas will be red is if Mike Huckabee gets it.
October 2nd, 2007 at 9:13 pm
It depeneds on the Campign they run. I hear the Rudy campign is counting on Non-Tradtional voters to vote since most are Fiscally-Con, Socially Liberal voters to come out instead of staying home.
October 2nd, 2007 at 9:13 pm
“Optimistic’ to say the least. The amount of red on this is fine but as #3 says, there needs to be more blue and less purple. See: New England and California.
October 2nd, 2007 at 9:13 pm
California? I don’t think so. This is slightly unrealistic.
I think a Clinton/Bayh vs Giuliani/Huckabee would make Arkansas a purple. It would also make Virginia a purple – as Mark Warner is bound to help the top of the ticket, and Clinton did ok when helping Webb in 2006.
This is way way optimistic, but hardly unexpected. What’s interesting is that Arizona is a swing state. Repubs aren’t taking it for granted, and with Clinton level with McCain in the polls there (although behind Giuliani) and a very popular Dem governor, its certainly a swing state for 2008.
October 2nd, 2007 at 9:15 pm
Yeah. I was reading the Rudy campign thinks because the money the dems will have to spend to fight him in places like NJ, Conn, Ill, and CA will come from FL. But I do not see ith with Hillary, unless they already have Crist on board as the running mate.
October 2nd, 2007 at 9:16 pm
NY a swing state…yeah right…dems own that state…what does that say about someone who actually thinks he has a chance in NY, do they think he’s a dem?
October 2nd, 2007 at 9:18 pm
I do think this could be the map by the way if Edwards some how pulls it out and ends up agisnt Rudy.
October 2nd, 2007 at 9:19 pm
I don’t think Crist is a good choice for running mate. He only has 2 years governing experience. Furthermore I think Florida is not that marginal anymore, it seems to be trending red. Any views on that?
However, to think that Hillary will run out of money, and to think that she will have to spend money on CA is ridiculous. CA is Democratic, even if Clooney is Giuliani’s running mate. For him to think he can win it is a pipe dream.
October 2nd, 2007 at 9:22 pm
True, but for all this talk about dems fundrising advagtange right now I think the Republican Nom will catch up, my guess alot of people are just going to hold back and see who wins first. Alot of Dems are getting in now because they more passion to determine the nom, and now some backtracking by eailer Obama donors to stay on Hillary goodside by giving her some too.
October 2nd, 2007 at 9:24 pm
I live in Florida, and the trend has certainly been toward Republicans. Not enough to make it safe by any means, but I think enough so that considerations like running mate should be given to regions more at risk. Especially if the head of the ticket is someone like Giuliani with a natural appeal to Florida.
October 2nd, 2007 at 9:27 pm
Also do not forgot how much the Cuban vote might of be upset over the immigration debate, and how will they see Mel being replace in the RNC by someone handpick who wins the nomation?
October 2nd, 2007 at 9:27 pm
VERY optimistic, but not TOTALLY unrealistic. I don’t have any numbers, but my guess is that a more accurate map would have FL, WV, VA, and Arkansas in the “Swing” column and CA, RI, Maine, and probaly NY painted Blue. That takes 51 votes out of the Rudy column for a total of 159 and takes Hillary’s total up by 94 to 112 gauranteed votes. Rudy still has a 47 vote head start.
Now, lets put Romney or Thompson into the GOP slot. CT, WA, OR, HI, WI, IL, NJ all turn solid blue. Thats 75 more garaunteed votes to Clinton for a total of 187, 28 votes ahead of the Republican 159, assuming that we concede all of Rudy’s guaranteed states to Fred or Mitt.
The point is still made, with Rudy we get a head start, with anyone else Hillary gets a head start. Nominating Mitt or Fred doesn’t make the race unwinnable, but it make it a little harder.
October 2nd, 2007 at 9:28 pm
If Governator could run, a Giuliani/Schwartz ticket would be very competitive in California.
One advantage the GOP could have in Arizona is that Napolitano is not going to be Hillary’s VP. Two women just wouldn’t work. However, Bill Richardson would allow Hillary to really target the 4 Western swing states. Who’s a good VP pick for the GOP to hold on to the West? McCain’s the natural leader, but he’s too old to be VP.
October 2nd, 2007 at 9:31 pm
Enisgn from NV?
October 2nd, 2007 at 9:33 pm
JayPe,
CA is unfortuantely a lost cause. But I have some VP ideas tht could help us pick up some votes in the Palcific Northwest. And the Northern Midwest….I wounder who that could be?
October 2nd, 2007 at 9:34 pm
Palin,
According to polls of the general, you can throw TN into the swing states trending blue as well.
October 2nd, 2007 at 9:36 pm
I know I shouldn’t be critiquing this map so harshly, but I’m not here to be a cheerleader, so here goes…
1) Arkansas, Virginia, and Florida should be moved to purple. The last poll out of AR showed Hillary leading all GOPers by double-digits. Let Bill Clinton live there for the bulk of the general election season and it’s hers. FL and VA continue to show a very competitive race. Louisiana, OTOH, should probably be red. The Democratic base of the state was in New Orleans, and many of those voters are now gone.
2) Someone suggested that Indiana be moved into the purple column. I disagree. Indiana was a Republican state back when guys like Tom Dewey and Ike were running the party. It doesn’t just vote GOP because of social issues. It has a long, rich history with the Republican Party and until I see some signs of electoral movement in the state, I’m not predicting that it even become a swing state, let alone go blue. Evan Bayh as HRC’s VP would not flip the state, though he would win lots of voters in the red counties of western Ohio and southern Michigan who remember Bayh’s canonization by the media during his governance. Those are the voters Hillary needs to hold MI and turn OH blue. And that’s why she’ll pick Bayh.
3) Everyone likes an optimistic candidate, but ultimately, the blue states that I can envision flipping for Rudy include New Jersey, New Hampshire, maybe Connecticut, and maybe Maine’s less liberal congressional district in the Northeast, Washington and Oregon in the West, and Pennsylvania and Wisconsin in the Great Lakes region. I’ll believe that Michigan will go red when I see it. I suspect that the many Minnesocold natives on here would say the same thing about their state, though conservatives are cynical about the two “M” states for different reasons (MN because of its Democratic history, which may be a lagging indicator; MI because of its leftward shift in recent years, which appears to be a leading indicator).
October 2nd, 2007 at 9:37 pm
I was thinking of Ensign, as he has been just re-elected to the Senate. Morover it wouldn’t cost a Senate seat if he won, as the Governor is Republican.
A lot depends on the VP pick. For Dems, Richardson locks in NM & hardens the rest of the west states. Bayh makes Virginia a really good shot. Bredesen probably locks in Tennesse & Arkansas.
October 2nd, 2007 at 9:46 pm
JayPe,
Ensign’s a pretty good choice. But how many states does he swing?
He definitely turns NV bright red, and in a race without Richardson he probably could help swing Arizona, maybe Colorado, or even New Mexico. In a race WITH Richardson, he only brings Nevada for sure and will probably spend half of his campaign time duking it out with Richardson in Colorado and Arizona (and he can obviously forget about New Mexico).
I’m suggesting Palin..that probably gives us a lot of votes in Washington State and Oregon, secures the Northern west from any Richardon incursions, and gives us a candidate who can identify to some degree with Minnesotans, Michiganders, and Wisconsonians. Pawlenty probably also could work in that regard, though not as effectively in my personal opinion.
October 2nd, 2007 at 9:50 pm
Surely Palin has the same experience question mark that Crist has. Only 2 years as Governor, of which 6 months would be spent campaigning out of state. Someone with 8 years Senate experience is probably more able to take on the VP role.
As far as the 4 swing states go, Ensign obviously locks in NV & makes Arizona a lot easier to hold. Thats all, yes. But are there any better candidates in the area?
October 2nd, 2007 at 9:53 pm
Could it be that we are looking at Democatic-Heavy (meaning MoveOn.org) Candidate vs Democratic-lite Candidate? If so, then, yes, above will look about right.
October 2nd, 2007 at 9:55 pm
JayPe,
I’m not saying we have any better candidates in the Southwest than Ensign…except maybe former CO Gov. Bill Owens. I just personally am not sure that the Southwest is the best region to focus on (and aI say that as a Coloradan). I think that, if you want to talk regional politics, you need to be focusing on the Nothern Midwest and Pacific Northwest for the GOP. THat said, I really don’t buy into geographic ticket balancing and I think far more depends charisma and apeealing to broad constituencies.
October 2nd, 2007 at 10:00 pm
Dave,
One quibble. Around this time last year, I argued that both Rudy and McCain could put my state in play. After all, Gore won Wisconsin by 5,500 votes in 2000 and Kerry won it by 11,450 in 2004 (even after he famously mispronounced Lambeau Field). But the state took a sharp turn to the left in 2006. Not only did our exceedingly mediocre Governor Jim Doyle defeat his challenger by 8 points (which, in Wisconsin standards, is a huge margin), but that made Doyle the first Democratic governor to be re-elected in 40 years.
I now think that, while Rudy and especially McCain would be very competitive in the state, it’ll almost certainly go blue next year unless the Dem nominee makes a big mistake.
October 2nd, 2007 at 10:00 pm
And I think “experience” may not be what the GOP needs in this election, as a lot of people will associate it with “establishment”. I’m definitely looking for an outsider as VP, whether its a Governor like Palin,Pawlenty,or Sanford…or maybe a more independent-minded Senator like DeMint or maybe Coburn. I think Ensign, with his Senate leadership post, would be seen as too much of and “establishment Reublican”
October 2nd, 2007 at 10:00 pm
Earlier, Rudy was talking about a 50-state strategy. A 48-state strategy is slightly less unrealistic, but still insane. We need to nominate somebody who has a clue. A 38-state strategy makes sense. Bush carried 31 states, and there were 4 or 5 others where he was within 1 or 2 %. We need to vigorously contest the red states, and add Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Oregon, and Washington, and Maine. If Mitt is the candidate, throw in Connecticutt. It doesn’t make any sense to spend a dime on any of the others. Giuliani started out with huge leads just about everywhere, raised good money, and let Mitt go on the air unopposed in NH and Iowa until he lost his leads in those states. Recently he’s made the same mistake in South Carolina and Florida. Wait long enough and you will see him blow even his Florida lead. Let’s nominate somebody who knows how to run a campaign.
October 2nd, 2007 at 10:06 pm
Dave, you raise an interesting point. Given the Republican nominee will likely have a slight cash disadvantage, having someone who will pour millions into CA & New York in the hope of making it competitive is really not a good idea.
There’s enough of the map for Rudy to play with without taking CA, IL, Maryland, New York & probably Arkansas to Hillary.
October 2nd, 2007 at 10:10 pm
Rudy never had huge leads in IA or NH, and he didn’t have the money to put up ads in thems like Mitt did.
Now, he’s within the MOE in NH and ARG showed him 1 behind in IA. He still leads in FL and recent polls have shown him very competitive in MI and SC.
He’ll lead the GOP in COH and be able to start running ads when people are paying attention.
I think Rudy is doing better at this point than most “experts” thought he would.
He hasn’t been perfect, but he’s been better than expected.
As for the map, come on. It’s nothing but an attempt to pump up supporters. Is it exaggerated? Of course. But I’m sure other campaigns have made similar efforts.
October 2nd, 2007 at 10:19 pm
JayPe,
If Mitt isn’t the nominee, I’m afraid it will be more than a “slight cash disadvantage.” Also, Arkansas can be won, and relatively easily, but you have the right idea. By competing in blue states that aren’t all that blue, we can force the Dems to expend resources where they otherwise wouldn’t have to, and we might pick up some electoral votes where we wouldn’t otherwise. But when we contest states where we have no shot, Dems don’t need to waste any of their resources to carry them, and we wind up with zero electoral votes and an even larger cash disadvantage. I like Rudy, but he hasn’t shown me anything in the area of campaign management. Mitt has, which reinforces my conclusion that he is not only our strongest candidate, but the best man to run the country.
October 2nd, 2007 at 10:25 pm
I just did some quick calculations with the FEC filings for the first 9 months of the year and came up with some startling numbers for the general election.
Hillary Clinton: $17 million
Barack Obama: $3.5 million
Rudy Giuliani: $3 million*
John McCain: $1.5 million*
Mitt Romney: $0*
(none of the top GOP candidates have released their Q3 general election numbers yet, but the totals won’t be anything more than a few million at most)
But as you can see, Hillary already has a mind-bogglingly huge stash of cash available to drown her Republican opponent in. It’s quite likely that come March, Hillary will have a 2 to 1 advantage over the GOP. That’s a huge disparity and something I think deserves more attention.
October 2nd, 2007 at 10:26 pm
Jim,
How long have you been following this campaign? Check any of the February polls for either state, then apologize. The only poll in either state that has shown a lead for Rudy in the last six months was an ARG poll in July, which had him up by 1 per cent in each state. What kind of COH advantage is possible against a candidate who is allowed to self-finance anytime he pleases and has a quarter of a billion dollars? Rudy isn’t out of it yet, if that’s your point, but it isn’t for lack of trying.
October 2nd, 2007 at 10:26 pm
LJ,
Yes, I assume the Midwest will go blue en masse next year. I do think that McCain has a somewhat better chance than Rudy of taking those states, and while I think the Midwest isn’t “off the table” for Rudy, it’s probably a longshot for any Republican. Incidentally, Wisconsin has been producing polls that are somewhat better for Republicans than either Minnesota to the west or Michigan to the east inasmuch as Hillary wins the “M” states by more than 5 points in every poll, while she wins Wisconsin by less than 5. Given the ability of Democrats to cheat in the state when it’s close, I suspect that to have a shot, we’d probably have to be well ahead in Wisconsin on Election Day.
October 2nd, 2007 at 10:35 pm
LT,
How can you come up with starting numbers for the general when the primary hasn’t begun? The Republican cash disadvantage will be sizable at the end of the primary no matter how it plays out, but futile attempts to quantify it at this stage are just plain silly. I contend that Romney by virtue of the strongest organization on our side combined with the most impressive track record of raising funds of any of our candidates…oh, and BTW, did I mention the quarter of a billion dollars thing?…has the best shot at neutralizing the cash disadvantage factor.
October 2nd, 2007 at 10:50 pm
http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2007/10/dick_bennett_on_his_south_caro.html
Unrelated but ARG defends the latest SC poll showing Mitt way up. I would recommend checking it out.
October 2nd, 2007 at 10:50 pm
I lean to Fred, but I do think that Rudy would win in a landslide. Hillary would win no more than 10-12 states.
October 2nd, 2007 at 11:16 pm
Also, just because Mitt hasn’t raised any money for general yet doesn’t mean anything. He’s done a great job with organization and fundraising now. Don’t forget that Mitt can go back and tap every single donor again for up to $2,300.
October 2nd, 2007 at 11:28 pm
I think that this will be the final map. So long as you interpret all that purple as blue.
October 3rd, 2007 at 5:36 am
Isn’t the point of the purples on this map supposed to be not necessarily that Giuliani will win, but that he will force Hillary to spend time and money that Democrats have taken for granted in prior elections?
October 3rd, 2007 at 6:30 am
Cliff,
If it is, then NY and CA should be blue. Giuliani would be foolish to waste money there (and I say this as a Giuliani guy). NJ is another matter…
October 3rd, 2007 at 7:07 am
Whatever the strategy or thinking was behind this map, it fails miserably. Its difficult to take it seriously and therefore readers will dismiss it (and Rudy) out of hand. This also comes after Rudy gives 9/11 as a reason to take his wife’s call during an important speech. Together, it suggests his campaign team are amateurs.
October 3rd, 2007 at 8:43 am
He actually thinks he would be a sure bet to take Arkansas against Hillary? This map is nothing but spin.