The Rudy Giuliani campaign must be getting a bit desperate. In an attempt to convince voters that Giuliani is more electable than the other leading Republican candidates, the campaign has put out a series of maps (available via The Politico) purporting to show what states would and would not be on the map in potential matchups against Hillary Clinton. According to these maps, the breakdown of electoral votes in matchups against Clinton looks like this:
| GOP Nom | GOP | Dem | Swing |
| Giuliani | 210 | 18 | 310 |
| Thompson | 178 | 248 | 112 |
| McCain | 178 | 190 | 170 |
| Romney | 159 | 274 | 105 |
Here's the breakdown of the map Giuliani's strategists apparently see -- or more precisely want the Beltway establishment to believe they see -- in a head-to-head between their candidate and Clinton:
There is so much laughable about this map that it's almost difficult to know where to begin. With the exception of Massachusetts and Vermont (and apparently DC), Giuliani believes that every other state that went blue for both John Kerry and Al Gore -- and, heck, the six states other than Massachusetts that have voted for every Democratic nominee dating back to 1988 -- will be on the map for him, and that, what's more, a number of the states that have been quite competitive in recent elections will be off the table for the Democrats should he become the GOP nominee.
Let me start with that first point, looking in particular to four Southern states that will most certainly be in play in 2008 whether or not Giulani is the Republican nominee (and perhaps are in fact more likely to be in play for the Democrats given the potential that his candidacy would depress the White Evangelical vote in the region). To begin, I haven't seen much polling on West Virginia as of late, but I'd imagine that it could be in play in an election between Clinton and Giuliani (at least more so, one would imagine, than Louisiana).
But more to the point, both the broader trends and specific polling indicate that not only would Arkansas, Virginia and Florida be in play for the Democrats should Giuliani match up against Clinton next fall, the Democrats would in fact have an advantage in these states. Look at SurveyUSA polling out of Virginia from September, polling that shows the Democrats leading eight of nine matchups polled. In a head-to-head between Giuliani and Clinton, the Democrat leads 50 percent to 44 percent -- not much of a signal that this state would be out of reach for the Democrats. Or gander at polling conducted by Rasmussen Reports in Arkansas back in mid-August, polling that shows Clinton trouncing Giuliani 55 percent to 37 percent -- not too dissimilar a margin as the one by which Democrat Mike Beebe won the open-seat race for Governor in the state last fall. Or look also at polling Rasmussen conducted in Florida, also in mid-August. Not only does Clinton lead Giuliani by 5 points in the state, 49 percent to 44 percent, she performs better over Giuliani in the state than she does in other states he deems to be more competitive, like Colorado, Ohio and New Hampshire. (I might add that Tennessee, Kentucky, North Carolina, and even Montana are other "red" states that could potentially be in play in a Giuliani/Clinton race -- certainly more than, say, Rhode Island, which Kerry won by 21 points in 2004.)
Not only are some of the states Giuliani deems out of reach for the Clinton most certainly not out of reach, a number of the states Giuliani claims to be in play most certainly are not. To take one quick example, two recent non-partisan surveys out of New York peg Clinton's lead over Giuliani in the state at between 20 and 25 points -- not much of a contest if you ask me.
Taken as a whole, these maps indicate that (1) the Giuliani campaign is delusional (which isn't terribly surprising) and (2) that the Giuliani campaign is getting worried about their candidate's chances (which is somewhat surprising) and as such are trying to oversell his electability. Not very confidence inspiring stuff.
|
|
|
Permalink :: 41 Comments :: Post a Comment
|
In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.
If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.
