Clinton vs. Thompson
I mostly agree, with the caveat that if Senator Clinton picks Gov. Richardson as her running mate, it could swell the vote in the Southwest. (more on that in a minute)
As far as Thompson vs. Obama, I'm not so sure. My usual benchmark for gaming elections is to look at previous elections and try to figure out which states will change. Out of the states that went for Kerry in 2004, which are likely to go to a Thompson candidacy? The only possibilities that I see:
A) Minnesota: Kerry won there in 2004, but not by a wide margin. Norm Coleman is up for re-election to the Senate (possibly against Al Franken) which may increase turnout that would be pro-Republican. But: Minnesota has lots of progressives, who may turn out in large numbers to support Obama.
B) Wisconsin: Also a slim win for Kerry in 2004, and a state known for electing Republicans statewide. But: WI also voted Democrat in 2000 and 1996.
C) Michigan: See Wisconsin
D) New Hampshire: The most likely Kerry state (in my mind) to choose a Republican in 2008. But: They like Obama! If Obama wins the Democratic NH primary, it will be due to independents supporting him, instead of John McCain. If New Hampshire citizens would choose Obama over a politician that they have shown past affection to, why would they then choose Thompson in the general over Obama?
Now let's examine states that Bush won in 2004 that I think could plausibly switch Democratic if Obama were the nominee:
A) Iowa. Obama has already proved that he has organization and support in Iowa. Will it translate into a general election victory? Not necessarily, but Bush didn't crush Kerry there, so I feel the state is in play, due to it being a neighbor state to Illinois.
B) New Mexico: Bush barely won this one in 2004, (Gore barely won in 2000, and in 1996, it went Clinton) Richardson's role in the general election, even if he weren't the VP nominee, could help swing this state to Obama.
Ohio: Was a very close Bush victory in 2004. Went for Bush in 2000 and Clinton in 1996. Obama's best hope for victory here is a large turnout, but it isn't unthinkable that he could eke out a victory.
Nevada: Another state Bush barely won in 2004 that could swing Democratic due to larger turnout.
Virginia: Used to be a shoo-in Republican state, but after Jim Webb's victory and with Mark Warner on the Senate ticket this time, Obama will have a very good chance for an unlikely steal here.
Just for kicks, here is a list of other states that Clinton/Gore won in 1996 or 2000 that have since trended Republican that may or may not be back in play: Missouri, Louisiana, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Tennessee, and Kentucky. Geography and social trends indicate that the Republicans will keep a few of those, but states like Kentucky, Florida, and Arizona are by no means sure things for the GOP. And don't forget, Montana(!) just sent a Democratic Senator to Washington.
Thompson would have trouble beating Bloomberg, let alone Clinton or Obama. Where do you guys score your psychedelics?
When Republicans ran Florida, they could steal Florida. When they ran Ohio, they could steal Ohio. Now that Democrats have hammerlock on Ohio, no Republican has any prayer of carrying that state. In 2008, black people voting in Cleveland will wait thirty seconds to vote while rural farmers wait on line for three hours. If Republicans can't carry Ohio, they can't win election.
Rocky Mountain states have been trending Democrat lately because they have tons of Hispanics, and most of them have figured out Republicans hate them. 40% voted for Bush. Do you honestly think 40% will vote for some Republican obsessed with pandering to people who openly hate them?
65% of Americans have had enough of War in Iraq. No Republican candidate except Paul will pull plug. Any Democratic nominee will promise withdrawal. You think no one will care come November? Maybe people on FreeRepublic will support any Republican nominee, but that won't do trick for Thompson or anyone else.
Your economy has already started to fray so badly that most economists expect recession. You think housing collapse, retail spending collapse, and job collapse will help Republicans in 2008?
Republican victory in 2008 remains fantasy of people who believe what they want to believe, much like people who argued that John Howard would win reelection in Australia.
Thompson would have trouble beating Bloomberg, let alone Clinton or Obama. Where do you guys score your psychedelics?
Since I referred to Free Republic's Fred Thompson supporters as "deluded", I don't know why you would address this to me.
As for Bloomberg, I would welcome a Bloomberg ticket, but I will offer you the same challenge as I did Paul supporters and Thomson supporters: Using the last 3 US presidential elections (1996, 2000, 2004) and giving some regard to the 2006 mid-term elections, what combination of states will Bloomberg win to capture the electoral college? And who will Mayor Bloomberg choose as his VP? Hagel? Powell? Petraeus?
Do you honestly think 40% [of Hispanics] will vote for some Republican obsessed with pandering to people who openly hate them?
Much like you choose to conveniently ignore Northern conservatives, the assumption that the voting-eligible Hispanic population in the United States is monolithically Democratic is flawed. The millions of second and third generation (and therefore totally legal and heavily assimilated) Hispanics who vote in US elections contain large numbers of devout Catholics and economic conservatives, many of whom have no problems with George W. Bush or his party's social values. Tom Tancredo or Duncan Hunter may not get 40% of the Hispanic vote, but self-identified conservative Hispanics would vote for John McCain, or Mitt Romney, or Rudy over most Democrats.
Republican victory in 2008 remains fantasy of people who believe what they want to believe, much like people who argued that John Howard would win reelection in Australia.
John Howard was re-elected. 3 times, including in 2004. Tony Blair was re-elected as recently as 2005. George Bush was re-elected in 2004. Stephen Harper is the current governor-general or something of Canadia. Never underestimate the tendency of the Anglosphere to elect a right wing candidate, and never underestimate an Anglo leftist party's ability to blow a perfectly winnable election.
I only addressed you insofar as you put together lengthy post taking gerry's argument seriously enough to start by agreeing with him that Thompson could beat Clinton. You did call Thompson supporters "deluded", which I think was charitable description, but if he magically won nomination, he still couldn't win general election. Times have changed since 1984.
Bloomberg won't win anything. Ultra-rich Jew from New York City would be lucky to win New York. If I were getting paid to stoke his ambitions, I would tell him he could win every state in which Perot got over 20% of vote in 1992 (western states, scattering of eastern blue states, and maybe Texas and Florida). But he would have to pay me plenty for me to make this argument without laughing. Bloomberg will choose Hagel, which already looks like done deal, to pump up his anti-Iraq cred.
Latins in US clearly have not voted Democratic monolithically, but you caught what I was really arguing when you admitted that Latins would not vote for Tancredo or Hunter. John McCain, Mitt Romney, or Rudy Giuliani will not win Republican nomination. Would 40% of Latins vote for Huckabee? Maybe if he brings up his treatment of Latins in Arkansas, but not if he has to secure his base by calling for walls and employer-sanction legislation like in Arkansas.
I was referring to Howard's most recent reelection campaign, at beginning of which he was trailing in all polls but people still argued that he would overcome animosity toward him and his party to prevail in election day. Republicans start well behind in every US poll, yet pro-Republicans imagine that some specific Republican will overcome Iraq and recession talk to prevail on election day. I don't think so.
