How would the polls have looked with different candidates?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Anuba, Oct 11, 2008.

  1. Anuba macrumors 68040


    Feb 9, 2005
    Would Hillary be doing better or worse against McCain than Obama is?

    Would Huckabee, Romney or Giuliani have been doing better against Obama than McCain is?
  2. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Feb 14, 2004
    OBJECTIVE reality
    Smart-ass answer: yes. ;)

    Genuine answer:

    It's harder to say on the Democratic side. Given what's gone down in the last two weeks, it's been an almost all-Democrats ball game. Any Republican would have a hard time running against that. So rather than ask whether Hillary would've done better, ask: who wouldn't have done as well as Obama, or almost as well? From a standpoint of looking presidential and inspiring people, though, Obama was clearly the best choice.

    On the Republican side, McCain has surprised almost everyone, including many on this board, by becoming far more vicious and erratic than anyone thought he would. He's made one bad move after another. Would Giuliani have done that? Maybe. For Giuliani, everything is 9/11, and that's not much of an issue in this campaign, as the Ayers thing clearly shows. Romney may have done better, though. Huckabee...I don't know. Sure, he can fire up the evangelicals, but I don't think those people are as powerful, or even plentiful, as they used to be.
  3. 0007776 Suspended


    Jul 11, 2006
    It would have been about the same since almost everybody votes based on what party the candidate is from not on what the candidate believes. But I do think that if Rommney had been the nominee then the GOP may be doing a bit better but not much.
  4. njmac macrumors 68000


    Jan 6, 2004
    If Edwards got the Democratic nomination - he would be losing to McCain. No doubt, even with the economy, no one would trust him.
  5. SMM macrumors 65816


    Sep 22, 2006
    Tiger Mountain - WA State
    Like so many unanswerable ponderings we engage in, They are quickly seen as questions, buried in a riddle, and wrapped in a enigma. They are sometimes fun to discuss, while knocking down a few pints, providing no one takes it too seriously.

    You may recall, the Huckabee, Giulani and Romney campaigns were beginning to hemorrhage pretty bad. Rudy had one tenuous attribute, 9/21. He wore that out faster than, McCain's, "I was a POW. It was clear that Huck was not ready for the 'big stage'. He was a darling of the evangelicals, of course. However, when he became a serious contender, he was quickly dispatched by his competitors.

    As for Romney, any of the same issues, McCain does. He must support Bush and the republican partys' platform. American people want change, which is not on their agenda.
  6. atszyman macrumors 68020


    Sep 16, 2003
    The Dallas 'burbs
    It is nearly impossible to answer but part of the reason I didn't want Clinton to win the primaries was the volumes of attack material that had been built up on the Clintons since 1992.

    I always got the feeling that the GOP was itching to run against Clinton. The name alone is enough to really energize the base, it's practically a four letter word in the GOP strongholds. I think I'd probably get my ass kicked harder for calling someone a "Clinton" than a "motherf**ker".

    I think Clinton vs McCain would be closer than it currently is just because of the history of the Clintons and possibly a more competent VP pick by McCain (maybe Colin Powell?).

    I'm not so sure the Dems had/have this wrapped up yet, I don't want to get too optimistic and be disappointed on November 5th, but I don't think it was quite a sure thing as some had suggested here. With the right candidates it could be much closer and the Dems could easily be losing.

    I think McCain was the right candidate to run against Clinton (he could have kept the appeal he had in 2000), however they might be faring better with Romney or another candidate against Obama.

Share This Page