Polls before the 2006 congressional elections kept telling us that the Republicans were going to lose (or at least pretty close) yet there were many here who refused to believe them. In 2004 we knew it would be close, yet some here refused to believe that Kerry could attract a "mainstream" following. So I think we should look at trends, across the boards, and if we must look at polls this early, average them out.
Fred has come on strong in the past few weeks, and at this point I see a two way race with him and Rudy. I think it may go back and forth for months, until the primaries begin. With the way the primaries will be scheduled this time around it is anybodies guess on who comes out on top.
Now, for just a moment I would ask for you to take off your "Fred colored glasses", and tell me which States that you think Fred could win that President Bush lost in the past election? I really think that Ohio is turning on us, and if Richardson would be named the VP choice (which I think is a very strong possibility) New Mexico, and maybe a few other Western states are gone also. So where is Freds strength in the electoral votes? Will he be seen as the new strong leader, ie... a change that voters are looking for, or will he be seen as same old, same old southern white guy President.
Please explain how Fred mania sweeps the Country like Reagan did. Remember in the end Reagan was against Carter, and the people wanted a change. The wanted a change to the economy, they wanted a change to the enabler mentality of foreign security, they just plain wanted a change. If the voters feel the same way this time, their idea of a change will not be Fred.
A war with Iran will change all your ideas about “change”, and probably most of the rest of the country as well.
Their idea of a change will even MORE certainly not be Hillary Clinton. Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton. She is more like a rerun, especially if she claims her White House experience as part of her Presidential resume.
“Change election..”
I agree. This is a change election, and if it is Fred versus Clinton, it will be a change from 20 years of Bush-Clinton, which has driven the taxes up from 28% to 35%, and has exploded the size of the federal government, infringing on states’ rights. These are the two themes that separate Fred, on the one hand, from Bush-Clinton, on the other. As Reagan said in 1984, when the Democrats were clamoring for change, “We ARE the change.” Fred IS the change.
On the states that Fred could flip, I happen to disagree with you on Ohio. I think it is only gone if the GOP continues down the domestic path Bush has led. That said, there are a number of targets of opportunity in the upper Midwest. Bush only lost Wisconsin (10EV) by 10,000 votes out of 3 million cast. He lost Michigan(17 EV) 51-48 by 165,000 votes out of 5 million cast. He lost Minnesota(10 EV) by 51-48, 99,000 votes out of 3 million cast. He lost Pennsylvania(21 EV) by 51-49, 140,000 votes out of 6 million. He lost New Hampshire(4 EV) by a fraction of a percent, only 9000 votes out of 700,000 cast.
Of these states, Fred will appeal to blue collar workers in Michigan and NRA members there as well, because he comes from humble beginnings and is the most prominent NRA supporter to run for President. Ditto Pennsylvania. I think his low tax reputation will carry the day in New Hampshire. As for Minnesota and Wisconsin, these are rural states that have been trending Republican in Presidential elections. Fred’s rural roots will be a very good fit there.
Also, I think Clinton will have to devote more resources to defend California. With Fred’s celebrity and personality, it cannot be taken for granted by the Dems the way it could when the Bushes and Dole were at the top of the ticket. Reagan won there consistently, in spite of the fact that the state was electing far left Democrat senators in the 1960s and early 1970s like Alan Cranston and John Tunney (who were every bit as left wing as Boxer and Feinstein). California does not necessarily vote ideologically. It can be swayed by the right candidate.
Take "Fred" out and replace with anyone else in the field and the analysis is exactly the same.
Ohio is dangerous because of state-level miscues by the Ohio GOP, so other states will need to replace them. On the other and, there were a lot of "razor-thin" margins in places closer than Ohio that all went Kerry's way (with not a little help from 'rat vote fraud) -- Wisconsin, Minnesota, and New Hampshire are all good targets. Pennsylvania isn't out of the question (closer margin than Ohio was).
I also don't see Thompson, specifically, losing any state Bush won other than Ohio.