Two General Election Maps

by: Chris Bowers

Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 00:52


Taking the most recent poll from each state in the country from sources like Polling Report, Rasmussen and Survey USA, I have been able to piece together maps showing the state by state general election between both Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani, and also between Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney.

Clinton 335-203 Giuliani



New Republican States: Connecticut
New Democratic States: Arkansas, Iowa, Florida, Kentucky, New Mexico, Ohio, Virginia. Plus four congressional districts in North Carolina.
States within three points: Florida, Missouri, New Jersey, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Virginia

Clinton 430-108 Romney


New Republican States: Oblivion
New Democratic States: Alabama, Arkansas, Iowa, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, Louisiana, New Mexico, Ohio, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia. Plus seven congressional districts in North Carolina
States within three points: Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Dakota, South Dakota, Texas

Now, Clinton's advantage over Giuliani is narrow in a number of states, and her lead of Romney is fueled, to a certain extent, by her much higher name recognition. However, it is important to keep in mind that Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani are the two frontrunners for the Republican nomination right now, and that Hillary Clinton is supposedly the least electable Democrat of the four early state candidates in double digits. To put it another way, this is supposedly the worst-case scenario for Democrats right now. On top of this, what do you think will happen to either Giuliani or Romney's numbers when, for nine consecutive months next year (February 6th through Election Day), they are on every media possible, every day, arguing that we don't need to withdraw any troops from Iraq?

There is a lot of room to spare for Democrats right now, and even room to grow further. The second map is a realignment, and it is possible no matter who the two nominees are. I don't think it is possible to have a moderate realignment, mainly because moderates are not aligned in the first place. Progressive is the most favorable ideological term in America right now, and the winds are clearly blowing from right to left. The question is whether or not as a movement we have the political wherewithal to make it happen.

Chris Bowers :: Two General Election Maps

Tags: , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Two General Election Maps | 53 comments
Well... (4.00 / 1)
according to this we can look forward to:

Endless war in The Meatgrinder.....

The end of the middle class in this country....

The end of our freedom from government spying....

The probable collapse of what remains of the 'health-care' system...

Followed by the rest of the economy...excepting, of course, the military-industrial complex which will do just fine under Queen Hillary.

And one last thing:

Joe Lieberman appointed to the Supreme Court!

Wow!

So glad to be a progressive right at this moment.

I have yet to meet a single progressive in my meetings, four per month, who wants Hillary to be President. I can only hope that the American people get wise to her act, and it is an act, before we get George Bush-in-a-Dress.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

oh please (4.00 / 6)
You are so far over the edge I fear for your health.

I guess you'll be moving out of the country when Hillary wins.  The question is, why didn't you leave 7 years ago?

If what you say about progressives is true, then as a group you are sadly ill informed. Really, I feel bad for you.

Hillary wins in a landslide in 2008

[ Parent ]
Please keep your (4.00 / 1)
sympathy for the benighted people of this nation. If The Hill gets elected. They will need it.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.
[ Parent ]
I don't think (4.00 / 5)
that she usually wears a dress.

And I have yet to meet a single progressive who thinks that its appropriate to use sexist framing to describe the first serious female candidate for president because you dislike her politics.  I think we'd all appreciate it if you refrained from doing so on this blog.

Thanks.

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.

[ Parent ]
'Sexist Framing....' (4.00 / 1)
Well I guess if your sarcasm meter is broken you could make that argument.

Me?

I'm tired of listening to ''progressives' whinge about her gender and how it makes here a better/more progressive/more electable candidate.

They say that a picture is worth a thousand words....

Here is mine....

If she is elected the neocon cabal now in charge will be able to extend their influence for another four years. And if you think I need a tin-foil hat, that is your perogative, just google murdoch hillary and see what you come up with.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

[ Parent ]
A few questions (4.00 / 1)
Chris:

Very interesting maps, thanks for posting them.  A few questions to consider:

You say this is the worst case scenario, but how does Bloomberg affect this map?

What did the maps look like in June 1992 and the end of July 1988?

How will people who hated the Mets-Yankees World Series react to a Rudy/Hillary/Bloomberg race?

Voter Genome Project

Realignment Has Been In The Air Since Katrina (4.00 / 2)
This is just further proof.

They really don't like theys Mormons in Alabama and Mississippi, now do they?

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

The Ghost of Terri Schiavo (0.00 / 0)
haunts the Conservative Republicans.

That was the point, in my humble opinion, that the Conservative Republicans were caught over-playing their hand. It burst the bubble.

Just ask Dr. Senator Frist.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
Not So Much OVER-Playing (4.00 / 2)
They're just playing their hand.

There's a reason why the GOP hasn't been in full control of the federal government since 1929 1932.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
That's (4.00 / 1)
Doctor Former Senator Frist, to you.

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.
[ Parent ]
So he needs a job, eh? (4.00 / 2)
A new game show on FOX this Fall

Hosted by the Former Sen. Dr. Frist, M.D.

Competing teams of practicing physicians and actors portraying physicians on TV attempt to diagnose major illnesses on the basis of U-Tube videos of the "patients" in a little time as possible.

"Bill, I can name that disease in 15 seconds!"


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
I'm afraid we're decieving ourselves... (0.00 / 0)
big time.

"What do you think will happen to either Giuliani or Romney's numbers when, for nine consecutive months next year (February 6th through Election Day), they are on every media possible, every day, arguing that we don't need to withdraw any troops from Iraq."

If Chris' prediction happens, then realignment it is. But what in the world makes you think it will?  Have the Republicans at some point impressed upon you the idea that they don't know how to run a political campaign?  Do candidates take truth serum before going on the air?  Does our ferocious investigative press corps give you faith that the truth will come out?

I bet you my house that, like Dick Nixon before him, Mitt Romney will "have a plan" to get out of Iraq.  My guess is his epiphany will come sometime on February 6th.

We need to be prepared for this.  We need the arguments for a progressive President even if this issue is neutralized, and we may need a serious campaign to let the public know where these people have really been on this issue.

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.

[ Parent ]
Not to mention (0.00 / 0)
that six months of Rudy on TV looking fluid and human, while Hillary looks overcoached and robotic is something that terrifies me.  The moments in the debate where Hillary looks like she is actually responding to people's points ad listening need to be much more common.  That Guliani map, to me, i smore of an idication that a Hillary vs. Guliani race is going to be another 50/50 swing state election.  Flipping Florida and Pennsylvania (both within 3%), alone, to Guliani swings 96 electoral votes his way.  Ohio is another twenty, and Missouri is another eleven. 

If you were to factor in margins of error, the result of the first map is really "too close to call."  And that's before Guliani goes on attack and Hillary runs her traditional, issue crafted Democratic campaign. 

That first map is way more scary than it is reassuring.  Guliani, in many ways, could be a worse president than Bush.

[ Parent ]
and to make that comment clear, I'm just saying that (0.00 / 0)
a lot could swing boht ways, evne if the election were to be held tomorrow, and that Clinton, if ahead of Rudy, is only marginally so.
[ Parent ]
On the other hand (4.00 / 1)
any New Yorker will tell you that there's no need to worry about Rudy! looking "fluid and human."  Seriously.  None.

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.
[ Parent ]
Not sure (0.00 / 0)
He did win some elections in a pretty liberal city.

I didn't vote for the guy when I lived in NYC, but I know a lot of people who think of themselves as liberal but voted for him.


Voter Genome Project

[ Parent ]
Nope (0.00 / 0)
Sorry, but I just don't buy those arguments at all.  I have no doubts that Hillary Clinton can not only hold her ground with Rudy in a debate, but that she can clean his clock. Moreover, you seem to be suggesting that Rudy will go on the attack (which he will), and that Hillary will just pretend he's no there - that's just wrong.  If you really believe that, you haven't been paying attention to Hillary is.  She'd having no compunction whatever about laying him out. She's not going to run a Dukakis/Kerry style campaign where you try to rise above the fray and don't respond to attacks.  She's not afraid of getting down and dirty with these Rethugs, which is one of the main reasons I like her. As she famously said, "When someone attacks you, you have to deck your opponent".

Rudy is a one issue candidate, and Hillary is the perfect candidate to call him on his so-called terrorism expertise.  As her campaign spreads the truth about Rudy's "heroic" efforts post 9/11, his numbers will start to drop further and further.

[ Parent ]
That's Really Just My Point (0.00 / 0)
Realignment is in the air because of system failure. And conservative republicans are driving the system.  However, there is no assurance in advance that it will happen.  To the contrary, political systems can totally fail.  This is what we are fighting against.

If we misunderstand the political situation--which the Democratic consultant class almost entirely does--we arm ourselves for the wrong fight.  There are various ways to misunderstand this situation, and the Bush Dogs are just one symptom of the broader failure to understand the realigning situation we find ourselves in.

This is pretty much why I'm opposed to Clinton.  She's the most tightly ensconced in the insider rear-view mirror of politics.

But Chris's point still stands.  Even with her weakness, we look pretty darned good against the GOP.

As for Giuliani, the firefighters have not yet begun to fight.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
spin (4.00 / 3)
More spins. What's the foundation for you to claim Hillary is the weakest general election candidate? Just a couple of doubtful national polls?

In all head-to-head matchups at state level, Clinton is the strongest, not the weakest. In Q-polls, she beats Rudy in FL and OH, Obama loses to both.

Q this morning released another PA poll. Clinton is the ONLY candidate beating Rudy...
http://www.quinnipia...

In this latest survey, Clinton squeaks past former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, the Republican frontrunner 46 - 44 percent. In other possible presidential matchups: 
Clinton beats Arizona Sen. John McCain 47 - 41 percent. She also tops former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson 50 - 36 percent and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney 50 -35 percent;
Giuliani beats Obama 45 - 40 percent and edges Edwards 45 - 43 percent;
Obama tops McCain 43 - 40 percent. He also beats Thompson 46 - 34 percent and Romney 46 - 31 percent;
Edwards bests McCain 46 - 38 percent, Thompson 51 - 32 percent and Romney 53 - 29
 

Which polls .. (0.00 / 0)
are you basing your assumptions on?
[ Parent ]
Oh boy. (4.00 / 4)
First of all, he didn't say that. He said 'supposedly' and like it or not, that idea is out there.

Second, he's written multiple post debunking the the Clinton-is-unelectable thing. Like here and here, for example.

Third, and most importantly, these maps are great news for Clinton. They show her with a pretty convincing lead over Giuliani, and blowing Mitt Romney away. Clinton supporters should be excited!

[ Parent ]
The lead over Rudy isn't all that convincing (0.00 / 0)
there are a lot of states, representing a lot of electoral votes, that are too close to call now, much less six months from now.
[ Parent ]
Of course, a lot can change. No one's claiming (4.00 / 1)
otherwise. But polls provide a snapshot of how the race stands right now.

I'll take it.

[ Parent ]
But with something like 120+ electoral votes within the MoE, (0.00 / 0)
the only real snapshot we have is 'too close to call.'  That, too, I'll take, but it's a bit misleading to show Hillary ahead by 130 EV.
[ Parent ]
And all I'm really saying is that (0.00 / 0)
the first map indicates taht a H. Clinton-Guliani reace is going to be 2000 or 2004 redux.  And while the situation on the ground has change,d I see nothing to indicate that Hillary's going to run a substantively different campaign from that of Gore or Kerry.  And a lot changed on the ground between 2000 and 2004.  That first map, to me, is a cause for a lot of concern. 
[ Parent ]
I don't understand (0.00 / 0)
where you get the idea that Hillary Clinton would run a campaign anything like the ones that Gore and Kerry ran.  If Kerry had struck back quick and hard against the swift-boaters, he'd be President right now.  Instead, he allowed the story to fester and grow exponentially.  By the time he make a half-hearted effort to combat it, it was too late and significant damage had been done.

If you been paying attention so far this year, you know that Hillary is a fighter.  When any of the other candidates come after her, she doesn't ignore it - she hits back immediately.  Her rapid response team is excellent and they're getting better as time goes on.  She's not about to let Rudy or anyone else try to define her or get away with unanswered attacks.  She's just as good at taking off the gloves and any of them.

[ Parent ]
You're hysterical (4.00 / 1)
Chris creates a map using the polls you are quoting, and you're throwing them in his face as if they disprove something he said.

The "foundation" for the claim is the fact that Hillary has the highest negatives for any of the Dem frontrunners (or any presidential candidate actually).  It's not "spin" to deal with reality as it is.

Read the post more closely next time. 

[ Parent ]
Great (4.00 / 1)
I thought I had left people like you behind when I stopped posting over at MyDD.

Please do not bring your brand of shilling over here.

[ Parent ]
You most fervently wish! (0.00 / 0)
Such are everywhere. Contentious to a fault and not really very well informed. But....

They know what they know!


Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

[ Parent ]
FWIW (0.00 / 0)
Right now survey USA shows Guiliani ahead 354 to 184.  Surveyusa shows Guiliani winning NJ, PA, FL, Iowa and Oregon, CT RI and NH.  The only swing states they show Clinton winning are NM, Wisconsin, Minnesota.

In the closing days SurveyUSA didn't perform well (they had Cardin up only 2, and had strange results in both VA and Mo) and I really doubt the SurveyUSA data now.

 

Look at the fine print (0.00 / 0)
I saw that too. then I saw that the polls they were using were all taken from 7/14-7/16, but in 2006.
[ Parent ]
carpe diem (0.00 / 0)
This is our once in a lifetime opportunity.  I walked the streets for Clinton in 1992.  Alot of hope was born from that election, the 1993 budget deal transformed America.  Clinton and the Democrats get little credit for the dramatic change that one bill set in motion.  Our hopes got crushed in 1994.  Funny how the GOP exels at sucking all life out of hope.  2006 wasn't supposed to happen.  The GOP wasn't supposed to lose the house and certainly not the Senate, the progressive movement fired on all cylinders and made it happen.  Every election is important.  Each one plays a role in history.  2000 was decisive, the conservatives saw themselves within a whisker of complete control of the government and they knife fought their way to sieze complete control.  The GOP held the house by a whisker, 220 seats, they lost the White House but it didn't stop them.  The conservatives had the political momentum and emotional energy to carry Bush across the finish line. I am working for Edwards right now but if Clinton gets the nod, I'll be there for her.
We progressives now have that momentum and must use it top down to carry all of our candidates across the finish line.  It must start with the Kentucky governship, then IL-14 and upward from there.  Conservative policies have failed America and the world.  From global warming to energy shortages to terrorism to economic sustainablity, the world needs progress, it's needs progressivism.  The corporate culture will resist us at every turn.  We have to think big and long and not squander this once in a lifetime opportunity.  I don't want to digress into fiction but the TV show Heroes did an interesting take on an alternate future, which was very dark and ominous and one which didn't have to be, if you keep fighting to stop it.  We are at that kind of crossroads.  1994 sucked bad.  I remember being in the campaign office on election day and this elderly couple walked in with the old style campaign hats with the American flag on them.  And they asked me how things were going and if we won(we were running against David Drier) and I had to tell them that the Democrats lost both houses of congress. They sat down on the couch behind them and the gentleman said "we didn't expect to hear that", and it was like all life got sucked out of them.  All the volunteers were silent.  So 12 God damn years later, from a congress that swore they would balance the budget, not nation build, end the corruption in Washington, America is in the worst financial and strategic shape it has been in for over 76 years.  We failed in 1994, in 2000, in 2002, in 2004, 2006 was a turning point.  It hasn't given us all we wanted but we must grow from it.  The pundits and critics want us to believe it made no difference, of course it did.  THE TIME IS NOW.  ONWARD AND UPWARD.
Turning it around (4.00 / 1)
We can't move many things forward with Bush in the White House and Republicans suddenly requiring 60 votes to do anything in the Senate except fart.  What we can do is slow down their steamroll to a crawl (I wish we could stop it dead in the water, but not yet).  A huge ocean liner doesn't come to an abrupt stop or even a sudden turn.  The good part is that at some point our momentum will carry us forward and they will have to slow our boat (good old Newtonian physics). 

After 12 years of Newt baloney in the House, we have a lot of bad momentum to stop and we are doing it.  After all Republicans still control at least two of the three branches of government and have a virtual stop on the Senate between Joe Lieberman and their sudden sixty rule.

P.S. The easiest way to get progressive Democrats is to elect Democrats to the House from the bluest areas.  There are currently twelve Republicans left in New York and New Jersey.  Elect 12 Democrats to replace them and we will get at least 10 reliable votes.  If we elected Democrats to replace the 19 Republicans in California, we'd get at least 15 reliable votes.  Unfortunately, we've maxed out in New England (22 seats, 21 Democrats, all reliable). 

The second best way is to probably convert some of the Bush Dogs in a few of the most friendly congressional districts.

[ Parent ]
I'll bet Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry had their maps too. (0.00 / 0)
This isn't even close to worst case scenario.  Most of the "sample" isn't paying attention to the candidates or the campaign but will before they vote.  That means we're asking a bunch of high school seniors who they're gonna be sleeping with a year from now when they're college freshmen. 
Polls capture a moment in time. (4.00 / 1)
You're right that they might not be able to accurately predict the exact dimensions of the election a year from now, but they tell us that the potential for a realignment election is there.

Now we just have to seize the moment. 

[ Parent ]
Would you prefer (4.00 / 1)
That Clinton be losing badly to all the Republicans at this point?

It's always better to be ahead.

[ Parent ]
If Hillary DOES become our nominee and ends up winning (0.00 / 0)
I hope she changes her stances on a few issues that concern me.

For one, she needs to assure me that any more trade treaties are more supportive of labor in THIS country.

Also, I would like to see a commitment to rollback some of the executive powers Bush has seized.

And I would like to see her make a renewed commitment to our restoring and protecting our civil liberties.

She is showing me that she is in fact electable, and I know she is a very intelligent woman. I just want to be assured she will serve ALL of us as the people of this nation, and not just the elite.

For all the raving some do about her husband, it was Bill who basically killed our domestic manufacturing with NAFTA and other trade bills and I don't want to see Hillary bringing us down the same road.

yep (0.00 / 0)
"For all the raving some do about her husband, it was Bill who basically killed our domestic manufacturing with NAFTA and other trade bills and I don't want to see Hillary bringing us down the same road."

I soured on old Bill around 2005. The man is nothing but a self-serving amoral genius.

Still, I love listening to that fucker speak.

[ Parent ]
The close states should be colored in pastels (0.00 / 0)
Pictures really help get things into perspective, but you should have indicated which states are within the margin of error by painting them pink or pale blue. The close states are more interesting than the secure states.

It is pretty interesting that Clinton loses Ohio, Indiana and Missouri to Giuliani. Those are fairly large, swing states that really matter in the long run. It is significant if the Democratic party (or Hillary specifically) is failing to speak to these farm and older industrial states.

And, it is worth noting that Giulini bests Clinton in Colorado, Arizona and Nevada. Why would an East-coast Mayor do so well in supposedly pink-turning blue states out West? I think Hillary's negatives are higher in the West. It may not matter if the big states go Democrat, but it indicates the weakness in Democratic messaging if Colorado isn't tracking with Washington and Oregon.

Realignment (0.00 / 0)
A blowout in the electoral college may or may not signal a realignment. What matters is both the electoral college and congressional races (as well as increased voter turnout across the board). They do go hand in hand.
WHAT ABOUT THE OTHER CANDIDATES? (4.00 / 1)
I'm interested in seeing what happens when you pair Obama and Edwards with the Repubs!

Please don't write them off yet.

Swing states she didn't get. (4.00 / 2)
To me the most interesting thing about the Clinton-Giuliani map is that it shows us losing AZ, NV, CO, CT, MO, OH, and WV- all swing states that are eminently gettable. This means the prospects for an electoral college landslide are even greater.
New SurveyUSA (4.00 / 2)
Iowa:
Clinton (D) 52%, Giuliani (R) 40%
Clinton (D) 53%, Thompson (R) 40%
Clinton (D) 51%, Romney (R) 42%

Minnesota:
Clinton (D) 47%, Giuliani (R) 44%
Clinton (D) 50%, Thompson (R) 41%
Clinton (D) 52%, Romney (R) 36%

Wisconsin:
Clinton (D) 46%, Giuliani (R) 46%
Clinton (D) 48%, Thompson (R) 45%
Clinton (D) 49%, Romney (R) 42%

What were you guys talking about? Clinton beats Rudy in OH in this poll, although not a big margin. 48:45! Q-poll also shows she's eiter tied or beats Rudy in OH, FL.

The other big 2 Dems (4.00 / 1)
How do Edwards/Giuliani  Edwards/Romney  Obama/Giuliani and Obama/ Romney  maps look?  I know it`s a lot of leg work, but could you put those maps up?

And just for a giggle, throw up the generic Dem against generic Repub.... All blue baby.

I`m just wondering if that crap California proposition will pass, then there might be a Califonia split.

Unfortunately, they weren't polled. Only Clinton (0.00 / 0)
this month.

I'm sure Chris (or one of us) will do it when he has the information.

[ Parent ]
Not polled..... (4.00 / 1)
Hmmmmmmmmmmmm? I wonder what that's all about.

I think it's going to get real interesting as The Hill seems unable to keep her real agenda under wraps as she should do since her agenda is totally the opposite of what the voters want and....

Need.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

[ Parent ]
Much as I hate Bush/the plutocrats ... (0.00 / 0)
those two maps depress the hell out of me. No wonder nobody in the DC Democratic leadership gives a damn about what the people of this country want. They don't have to. We'll put them in office regardless of what they do.

Things may get very nasty by 2012 though -- what with US soldiers still dying in Iraq and probably being at asymmetrical war in much of the Islamic world after we attack Iran.

Can it happen here?

not gonna happen (0.00 / 0)
unless there is some sort of false flag attack here.

We don't have the troops without a draft. we just don't. it won't work.

[ Parent ]
Very Interesting (0.00 / 0)
Great analysis Chris.  Having watched Rudy up close and personal as a NYC resident, I can't believe the guy will ever make it through the primaries without imploding so I am betting on Romney to be the R nominee.  If this map holds, all I can say is it looks like the Reagan 1980 map in reverse.
I'd like to agree with you (0.00 / 0)
But Rudy was reelected by a healthy margin by a NYC electorate that is well to the left of those in most of the other states.  And he defeated an establishment Democratic woman with good name recognition to do so.  He won every borough but the Bronx, so it wasn't just a Queens/Staten Island thing. Did all of the scandals happen in his second term?  I recall that there were issues even in 1997, but it's been 10 years so I might be wrong.

Voter Genome Project
[ Parent ]
Look at his post 1997 NYC Numbers (0.00 / 0)
Rudy was re-elected easily in 1997 in part b/c he ran against Ruth Messinger, who was an extremely weak candidate who barely won the Dem primary.  Also, Rudy benefited tremendously from the drop in crime that occurred in his first 4 yrs as Mayor.  It is debatable as to how much he was responsible for but he got the credit. 

The wheels started to come off Rudy after his easy re-election.  He picked fights with street vendors, art museums, taxi cabs, New York Magazine for an ad with him in it, etc.  He also announced he was getting divorced to the press b/f telling his wife and kids, mocked a man with Parkinsons on his radio show, defended the police after they shot Amadou Diallo 41 times, etc.  Look at his popularity numbers on Sept 10, 2001 - they were in the crapper and NYCers were glad he was going to be gone.  In fact, the last Quinnipiac poll didn't have him breaking 43% in NY against any of the Dem Pres contenders and a sizeable majority of NYC residents prefer Bloomberg to Rudy as Mayor.  Those who know him best like him least.

I am a firm believer that the 9/11 shine he currently has will fade over time as his mistakes become known nationally and as the public tires of the discussion.  Once that happens, you have Rudy's prickly personality and a lot decisions/actions he is going to have to defend himself against.

[ Parent ]
Hillary had a good month in August (0.00 / 0)
Hillary had a good month in August and Guiliani had a real bad month, but there is only 3 pts difference between them in the two big states of Ohio and Florida.  I saw one poll where Guiliani is ahead of Hillary in Ohio.  Also, Florida is more conservative than whe George Bush ran so you cannot count Guiliani or Romney out of Florida.  Hillary will have to have a major turnout of women to win either Ohio or Florida and that is a big iff.
Checking the Math (Clinton vs. Giuliani) (0.00 / 0)
Based on the Clinton-Giuliani map, I count the votes as 311-227, not 335-203.  I notice that the map has Ohio in red, yet it's listed as a "New Democratic state", so that probably counts for 20 points of the discrepancy.  There must be a 4-point state in there that's misidentified as well.  Or am I reading the map incorrectly?
Two General Election Maps | 53 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox