tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719252574677567989.post7945890699140397436..comments2024-03-18T07:11:29.068-04:00Comments on Frontloading HQ: Hillary Clinton vs. John McCainJosh Putnamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06301836432446874997noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719252574677567989.post-10684219134747176542008-11-21T18:22:00.000-05:002008-11-21T18:22:00.000-05:00With Missouri maybe it's the sandwich phenomenon. ...With Missouri maybe it's the sandwich phenomenon. That is, the two candidates would have run roughly the same there in aggregate, but with different coalitions.<BR/><BR/>The Missouri Sandwich--so-called because of the state's position bordering both Dems' "home states."<BR/><BR/>(Maybe a similar factor in the other states I mentioned in the first comment, plus Virginia, though the sandwich metaphor fails the geography test in those states.)MSShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14199636437911986505noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719252574677567989.post-16782281545030897092008-11-21T18:20:00.000-05:002008-11-21T18:20:00.000-05:00It surprises me that Indiana did not show up as at...It surprises me that Indiana did not show up as at least a nice shade of baby blue in the McCain margin map from June. It is indeed hard to imagine that Clinton would have won the state (or even made it especially close). Then again, I am also a tad surprised that North Carolina also is not very blue on that map and that Missouri is not greener. So, what do I know?<BR/><BR/>Otherwise, not much to add to a really fascinating discussion.<BR/><BR/>(Do you really think we'll have to wait all the way till late 2010 to see trial heats?)MSShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14199636437911986505noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719252574677567989.post-33440256149626046062008-11-18T17:58:00.000-05:002008-11-18T17:58:00.000-05:00Jack,I'd even add that the health care push in the...Jack,<BR/>I'd even add that the health care push in the '90s put her further to the left than Bill in the eyes of many. And then the New York tag got added on. Good thing they didn't relocate to Massachusetts when they left Washington.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719252574677567989.post-43195436872206773312008-11-18T16:22:00.000-05:002008-11-18T16:22:00.000-05:00Josh,I'd add that Hillary is now tainted by having...Josh,<BR/><BR/>I'd add that Hillary is now tainted by having been a senator from New York, which hearkens back to the "New York liberal" discussion we had yesterday. So people now think of her as a liberal, while they might have considered Bill a centrist. Whether or not this is valid is immaterial.Jackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04365194237710177589noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719252574677567989.post-68993065531242074422008-11-18T09:29:00.000-05:002008-11-18T09:29:00.000-05:00Yeah, I really ought to go back and add Indiana to...Yeah, I really ought to go back and add Indiana to that list of states Clinton wouldn't have been able to swing toward the Democrats. I'm pretty sure the Hoosier state is still red in my mind. I need to fix that. At least the map's right (...well unless Missouri flips).<BR/><BR/>Scott, <BR/>I think you're absolutely right to bring up the possible reaction to the financial ordeal of mid-September. Run that gauntlet and Clinton is likely in a similar position to where Obama was.<BR/><BR/>And Jack, I agree that those states are nowhere near the states they were 16 years ago. The other part of that argument is that while her last name is Clinton, she isn't Bill. That's not a gender thing necessarily, but it is a nod to the fact that Bill Clinton is a rare politician. [What if it had been Bill Clinton against Obama in the primaries? Now that's an interesting hypothetical.]Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719252574677567989.post-35752609690562106972008-11-18T08:34:00.000-05:002008-11-18T08:34:00.000-05:00I agree with Jack. If she had reacted to the finan...I agree with Jack. If she had reacted to the financial meltdown as effectively as Obama did, then I think she might have looked like more of a lock coming in to Nov. 4, but with less chance of a landslide. A few extra percentage points in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida, and maybe a shot at West Virginia and Arkansas. But no Indiana, no North Carolina, no Nebraska, maybe no Virginia. A more strongly divided map, in other words.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14690577323454357276noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719252574677567989.post-79263138840485557572008-11-17T22:25:00.000-05:002008-11-17T22:25:00.000-05:00When I discuss this issue I get this compulsion to...When I discuss this issue I get this compulsion to reargue the electability thing, so I might be a bit biased. But I'm not sure Hillary would have won VA or CO and doubt that she would have won IN. She certainly would not have won NC or Omaha. If she lost all those, that's a loss of 49 EVs. She would have been stronger in AR, KY, TN, and WV, but I doubt that she would have won any except for Arkansas: this is not the same KY, TN and WV that Clinton won in 1992 and 1996. Arkansas would have been a lock for Hillary without Huckabee heading the Republican ticket.<BR/><BR/>Of course we'll never know - the polls don't tell the whole story, and there's <A HREF="http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/few-more-hillary-hypotheticals.html" REL="nofollow">Nate Silver's point</A> that she would have had to run a campaign too.Jackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04365194237710177589noreply@blogger.com