Electoral Vote Projections

[Matt1331]

Did you just call me a Democrat you snot-nosed punk?

I guess I did, what are you going to do about it?

Matt

[Terrierbyassociation]

I guess I did, what are you going to do about it?

Matt

You unmitigated varmint :)

(btw, these emoticons suck)

I'm not a Democrat, nor a Republican. Both parties make too many errors in judgement for me to support either. I can stand *most* Democrats in office and I can barely stand any of the Republicans. If that makes me a Democrat then so be it. But I would put my political ideology with Arlen Specter's.

[Jason A]

I'm willing to agree to disagree, but here's my case:

Guiliani is from New York.
Guiliani is pro-abortion rights.
Guiliani is pro-gay rights.
Guiliani went through an extremely high-profile divorce.
During that divorce, Guiliani lived with a gay couple in New York City.

I honestly don't think he'll even run, because he's smart enough to know what the right wing of Republican Party would do to him during the campaign, particularly in the south.

The reason McCain lost the nomination in 2000 was that he lost South Carolina. And he lost South Carolina because (1) the right wing spread vicious rumors about his family and (2) he was seen as the most liberal of the two major candidates.

(1) Guiliani has more fodder for personal attacks in his closet than McCain did, and (2) Guiliani isn't nearly as conservative as McCain.

So that's my case. Time will tell, I guess.

[Matt1331]

1. I'm willing to agree to disagree, but here's my case:

A. Guiliani is from New York.
B. Guiliani is pro-abortion rights.
C. Guiliani is pro-gay rights.
D. Guiliani went through an extremely high-profile divorce.
E. During that divorce, Guiliani lived with a gay couple in New York City.

2. I honestly don't think he'll even run, because he's smart enough to know what the right wing of Republican Party would do to him during the campaign, particularly in the south.

3. The reason McCain lost the nomination in 2000 was that he lost South Carolina. And he lost South Carolina because (1) the right wing spread vicious rumors about his family and (2) he was seen as the most liberal of the two major candidates.

(1) Guiliani has more fodder for personal attacks in his closet than McCain did, and (2) Guiliani isn't nearly as conservative as McCain.

So that's my case. Time will tell, I guess.

1.
A. And Reagan was from California.
B. I don't think he's that far off of typical Republicans (against it, but willing to allow it for rape, incest and cases in which the woman's health is at stake and against partial birth abortion and this falls into line of where McCain is at as well)
C. As opposed to be anti-gay like Bush? :rolleyes:
D. And has dealt with it just fine and I haven't seen it used against him, not even by the Democrats after his speech slicing up Kerry at the RNC.
E. I don't know if this would be used against him in the primaries, but again I'm not questioning that it would be a new school vs. old school type fight here in the primaries.

2. What if a two-termed Bush gave him his endorsement though? I think Rudy rolls easily to a win if Bush endorses him. And I think he is shooting for Bush's endorsement by campaigning endlessly for Bush.

3. Well, it would also matter who would run against him, I have no doubts Bush was the poster-canidate for the Republicans in 2000 and thus McCain got messed with, can't tell right now if this would be the case in '08 and that if the RNC would do it again, Rudy isn't a nobody, Republicans love the guy and have rallied behind him to date.

Matt

[Robskillz]

1.
A. And Reagan was from California.
B. I don't think he's that far off of typical Republicans (against it, but willing to allow it for rape, incest and cases in which the woman's health is at stake and against partial birth abortion and this falls into line of where McCain is at as well)
C. As opposed to be anti-gay like Bush? :rolleyes:
D. And has dealt with it just fine and I haven't seen it used against him, not even by the Democrats after his speech slicing up Kerry at the RNC.
E. I don't know if this would be used against him in the primaries, but again I'm not questioning that it would be a new school vs. old school type fight here in the primaries.

2. What if a two-termed Bush gave him his endorsement though? I think Rudy rolls easily to a win if Bush endorses him. And I think he is shooting for Bush's endorsement by campaigning endlessly for Bush.

3. Well, it would also matter who would run against him, I have no doubts Bush was the poster-canidate for the Republicans in 2000 and thus McCain got messed with, can't tell right now if this would be the case in '08 and that if the RNC would do it again, Rudy isn't a nobody, Republicans love the guy and have rallied behind him to date.

Matt

The carousel goes round and round.....

[LynahFan]

Rudy's 2008 nomination depends on whether the Republicans want to advance their right wing agenda more than they want to stay in office. I think McCain had a better chance of winning in 2000 than GWB, so if that is any guide, the GOP will take a chance on nominating a candidate at least a little farther to the right of Guiliani. I would think this might be especially true if GWB is re-elected - they could get cocky and think they could shift even farther to the right of GWB.

[Matt1331]

The carousel goes round and round.....

Isn't that a RATT tune?

What's your point?

Matt

[Robskillz]

Isn't that a RATT tune?

What's your point?

Matt

Every post you have has about 13 numbered points along with amendments and corollaries. I think it's funny. Like you find Kerry's skin tone funny. :D

[Matt1331]

they could get cocky and think they could shift even farther to the right of GWB.

And that would be the point where I say fuggit and either not vote at all or waste my vote on a third party canidate in the hopes that an advancing third party would help both the Repubs and the Dems move away from the extremes.

Matt

[Matt1331]

Every post you have has about 13 numbered points along with amendments and corollaries.

And you liken these posts to a carousel?

I feel it's better to do it that way so the people I'm responding to know exactly what I'm responding to.

Matt

[Robskillz]

And you liken these posts to a carousel?

I feel it's better to do it that way so the people I'm responding to know exactly what I'm responding to.

Matt

It's a neverending cycle, thats the carousel. But it's ok. I will give you kudos for clarity.

[dropthatpuck]

Back to the thread title.....JFK needs a big night tonight to stop the bleeding. He's losing more swing States by the day and today's polls in NJ have it tied dead even. If he loses NJ's electoral votes, he's done.

[Kepler]

He's losing more swing States by the day.

Source? All the major electoral sites, including those that are pro-Bush, show Kerry as eroding Bush's post-convention bounce.

Is this empty rhetoric, or do you have anything behind it?

[Jason A]

B. I don't think he's that far off of typical Republicans (against it, but willing to allow it for rape, incest and cases in which the woman's health is at stake and against partial birth abortion and this falls into line of where McCain is at as well)
Matt, I disagree with you but you've made a strong case. My only quibble is with your portrayal of Giuliani's position on abortion.

First, he's not against partial-birth abortion -- or if he is, he has flip-flopped on the issue. In 1997, during his reelection for mayor, Giuliani said he would oppose a ban on partial-birth abortion. There was some rumor that he was going to flip-flop when he ran for senate, but I don't think he ever made it that far in the process before dropping out. (I could be wrong about that, though -- maybe he "clarified" his position and is now against it.)

Also, I just don't think it's accurate to describe his position as "willing to allow it for rape, incest, and cases in which the woman's health is at stake." In the U.S. in 2004, that's basically a pro-life position. And unless he's dramatically changed his views on this issue, it's not where he stands. Giuliani supports abortion rights for all of those reasons, as well as for any other reason. He's pro-choice.

I think he would do well in New Hampshire and maybe even Iowa, but unless he was the inevitable nominee by that point, he'd get eaten alive in South Carolina. The push polls would be merciless.

That said, your point about a Bush endorsement is interesting. I hadn't considered that. It could set him up as the establishment candidate, and then maybe it's a different story.

[Matt1331]

Source? All the major electoral sites, including those that are pro-Bush, show Kerry as eroding Bush's post-convention bounce.

Is this empty rhetoric, or do you have anything behind it?

How 'bout the fact that Kerry has pulled advertising in so many of them?

Or is that empty rhetoric?

Matt

[Matt1331]

Matt, I disagree with you but you've made a strong case. My only quibble is with your portrayal of Giuliani's position on abortion.

1. First, he's not against partial-birth abortion -- or if he is, he has flip-flopped on the issue. In 1997, during his reelection for mayor, Giuliani said he would oppose a ban on partial-birth abortion. There was some rumor that he was going to flip-flop when he ran for senate, but I don't think he ever made it that far in the process before dropping out. (I could be wrong about that, though -- maybe he "clarified" his position and is now against it.)

2. Also, I just don't think it's accurate to describe his position as "willing to allow it for rape, incest, and cases in which the woman's health is at stake." In the U.S. in 2004, that's basically a pro-life position. And unless he's dramatically changed his views on this issue, it's not where he stands. Giuliani supports abortion rights for all of those reasons, as well as for any other reason. He's pro-choice.

3. I think he would do well in New Hampshire and maybe even Iowa, but unless he was the inevitable nominee by that point, he'd get eaten alive in South Carolina. The push polls would be merciless.

4. That said, your point about a Bush endorsement is interesting. I hadn't considered that. It could set him up as the establishment candidate, and then maybe it's a different story.

1. It's my understanding Guiliani is against partial-birth abortion, I remember somebody asking him (in one of the countless interviews he has done over the last six months) if he was Senator would he have voted for the the ban and I'm pretty sure he said he would have. If that's a flip-flop, so be it, he's flip-flopping towards the middle and his base and that won't hurt him and it won't stick.

2. By your definition, Bush is pro-choice then. I'm pretty sure Guiliani isn't in the "any time and for any reason" camp when it comes to the issue.

I'll see if I can dig something up on it.

3. Well and how he would potentially do is SC, it also matters who his opponent (or opponents) is and whether or not he could be rallied around by those segment of the GOP, the new school verse old school would be fun and needed.

4. If Bush wins this election, he'll most likely handpick the next canidate and given Rudy's tireless efforts to get Bush re-elected you have to believe he is in the game, possibly even leading in the endorsement chase. I could also see Bush offering Rudy a gig if Bush wins the election and that'll help the Rudy in '08 effort as well.

Matt

[Jason A]

Fair enough, Matt, but this is my understanding of where they stand:

Bush:
Against abortion as birth control
For abortion for exceptions: rape, incest, life of mother
Against partial-birth abortion

Rudy:
For abortion as birth control
For abortion for exceptions: rape, incest, life of mother
For partial-birth abortion before he was against it

Those are the differences I see. Correct me if you disagree.

[dropthatpuck]

Source? All the major electoral sites, including those that are pro-Bush, show Kerry as eroding Bush's post-convention bounce.

Is this empty rhetoric, or do you have anything behind it?

No, it wasn't "empty rhetoric"....CNN and Fox both had segments on it yesterday.....However, I'm sure that has changed after last night.

[Matt1331]

Fair enough, Matt, but this is my understanding of where they stand:

Those are the differences I see. Correct me if you disagree.

Jason,

I tried looking it up to see if I could find anything more recent than the statements from 1999, I couldn't...yet. I wish he had some more time against Hillary, if for no other reason to nail down his feelings on the core issues.

Rudy will have to take a step to the right if he is pro-choice, pro-partial-birth-abortion to date, I'll just have to let Rudy speak for himself if and when he addresses the issue, however I don't think you are going to see Rudy say such things as "I am for partial-birth abotion" and "I'm for abortion as a form of birth control" as even centrists on the issue (such as me) wouldn't be able to stomach it.

Matt

[Todd]

What leads us to believe that they have - or for that matter, that it was faulty in the first place?I don't know if they've straightened anything out, but, IIRC, the widest national margin (most quoted on Murdoch Incorporated) was from a Time poll where the methodology was widely discredited by other pollsters (among them Zogby and Rasmussen - so it's not just Lefties) and I think Time has acknowledged and recanted that result - even though it is still quoted.