Will we win a Mitt Romney vs. Hillary Clinton general election if Michael Bloomberg runs?

[Tejanocrat]

I would rather face Giuliani than Romney and I would rather nominate Obama or Edwards than Hillary so please do not misinterpret this post as advocating in favor of Romney or Hillary. If I was prepared to lose in November, I'd be all for Kucinich because at least that general election loss would stand for something, but I'm concerned that we may nominate Hillary and lose anyway. I'm not prepared for that loss.

Giuliani is well ahead in every national poll:

Giuliani Thompson McCain Romney
28% ---- 12% ---- 11% ---- 15% - Quinnipiac (08/07 - 08/13) Giuliani +13%
28% ---- 22% ---- 10% ---- 13% - Rasmussen (08/09 - 08/12) Giuliani +6%
27% ---- 16% ---- 13% ---- 16% - American Res. Group (08/09 - 08/12) Giuliani +11%
27% ---- 19% ---- 14% ---- 11% - CNN (08/06 - 08/08) Giuliani +8%
30% ---- 19% ---- 14% ---- 6% - USA Today/Gallup (08/03 - 08/05) Giuliani +11%
26% ---- 14% ---- 16% ---- 7% - Cook/RT Strategies (08/02 - 08/05) Giuliani +10%
30% ---- 22% ---- 13% ---- 10% - Newsweek (08/01 - 08/01) Giuliani +8%

However, these national polls are meaningless because the poll respondents are largely unfamiliar with the candidates and almost wholly unfamiliar with their platforms. The Iowa and New Hampshire polls are a much better predictor because that is where the candidates have spent time and money familiarizing themselves and their views with the poll participants (so these states are a foreshadow of what other voters will likely think of the candidates when they grow more familiar with them and their views), and Romney's lead in these key states is as impressive as Giuliani's lead in the meaningless national polls:

Romney Giuliani Thompson McCain in Iowa
27 ----- 11 ----- 7 ----- 3 - Univ. of Iowa (07/29 - 08/05) Romney +16.0
26 ----- 14 ----- 13 ----- 8 - ABC News/Wash Post (07/26 - 07/31) Romney +12.0
21 ----- 22 ----- 13 ----- 17 - American Res. Group (07/26 - 07/30) Giuliani +1.0
25 ----- 13 ----- 14 ----- 10 - Research 2000 (07/23 - 07/25) Romney +11.0

Romney Giuliani McCain Thompson in New Hampshire
32 ----- 20 ----- 11 ----- 11 - Rasmussen (08/09 - 08/09) Romney +12.0
26 ----- 27 ----- 10 ----- 13 - American Res. Group (07/26 - 07/30) Giuliani +1.0
33 ----- 17 ----- 16 ----- 13 - Hart/McLaughlin (07/24 - 07/26) Romney +16.0
33 ----- 18 ----- 12 ----- 13 - CNN/WMUR (07/09 - 07/17) Romney +15.0
28 ----- 21 ----- 18 ----- 11 - Monitor/Research2000 (07/09 - 07/11) Romney +7.0

Hillary shares Giuliani's lead nationally (due in part to her 100% name identification), plus she's also competitive in Iowa and leads in New Hampshire.

Notwithstanding my preference for Obama or Edwards (as more electable candidates who better correspond with my views on more issues than Hillary) or Kucinich (who best reflects my views on almost all issues but who can't win the nomination and, if he miraculously did win the nomination, would get crushed in the general election), the nomination is Hillary's to lose. And she may lose it -- I'm not saying the race for the nomination is over, but Hillary is at this point the indisputable favorite to win the nomination (I say that her odds are at least 65%, with Obama having about a 20% chance and Edwards having about a 15% chance).

Romney is not the indisputable favorite (because of Giuliani's national numbers, which some people put stock in even though I don't, and the fact that Thompson hasn't been fully defined yet and so he's a bit of a confounding factor, but he's probably too late into the race, too poorly funded, and too poor of a campaigner to be a real threat), but he ought to be considered the favorite. His campaign staff and the fundraisers who have signed on with Romney certainly have a good record of picking winners in the Republican primary.

If we have a Romney vs. Clinton race, do we win that race? If Bloomberg gets into the race, does it seal the deal for Romney?

I'm skeptical about Clinton's chances against Romney, and I am downright pessimistic about her chances if Bloomberg gets into that race.

[Common Sense Party]

1. Why are you skeptical about Clinton vs. Romney?

Romney is too slick by half. I don't see Americans voting for a slickster salesman this time around.

[Tejanocrat]

3. I agree that Romney is too slick for my taste, but he's hardly slicker than Reagan, Bill Clinton, or

the Madison Avenue focus-group honed image that B*sh was costumed in back in 2000. In races not involving an incumbent or a sitting vice president running as a quasi-incumbent, the slicker guy wins much more often than not.

I find Romney's slickness off-putting, and you do to, but will everyone else? I have a bad feeling that the anti-Hillary feeling out here in flyover country (where I live) is stronger than any anti-slickness feeling.

[onehandle]

2. Bloomberg would be our Perot and a bit of Nader in 2008.

A strong moderate Independent Presidential candidate would guarantee a GOP "win" in 2008.

[Tejanocrat]

4. I think Bloomberg wouldn't threaten Obama or Edwards as much as he would threaten fellow New Yorker

Hillary, and I think that Bloomberg wouldn't help fellow New Yorker Giuliani as much as he would help Romney (in fact, I see Bloomberg's effect as completely neutral in an Edwards vs. Giuliani race), but I think the Bloomberg effect would be devastating in a Hillary vs. Romney race.

[Buzz Clik]

5. It's a tad early for this analysis. The election, after all, is not until November. 2008.

[Tejanocrat]

7. This is relevant to who we nominate, and that vote may start in just 4 months because Iowa may move

its caucus to mid-December.

How long before the nominating process should we hold off consideration of factors which may undermine the chances of our nominee winning depending on who we choose?

[mikelgb]

6. why does it seem the electorate is always willing to hold their nose

for the candidate to the right of them but not the one to the left?

there is never a, 'he is too right-wing to win'....

is left inherently evil and right inherently good?

look at the Repub race... Ron Paul is their whipping boy and he is to the left of the field...

RE: "If I was prepared to lose in November, I'd be all for Kucinich because at least that general election loss would stand for something..."

[Tejanocrat]

8. You don't think that many Republicans wouldn't "hold their nose for Giuliani despite the fact that

he is to the left of them" if he somehow gets the nomination?

PS Kucinich isn't to the left of me. My disinclination to vote for Dennis is comparable to my disinclination to vote Nader in 2000. I agreed more with Nader than Gore, but Nader was not going to win and his candidacy only increased the likelihood of a Republican win. I agree more with Kucinich than any of the candidates, and I applaud Edwards for taking some of Kucinich's ideas to the mainstream, but I think a Kucinich nomination would presage a landslide too grim to contemplate.

[mikelgb]

10. "but I think a Kucinich nomination would presage a landslide too grim to contemplate"

why

this is the question I am getting at

what make that scenario so certain in your head?

What would makes you work harder for Hillary in a general Election than Kucinich

I think just the opposite, If Kucinich got the nomination I think Greens, Liberal independents and most importantly jaded Dems will rally in force behind Dennis.

I think a Kucinich nomination would spur higher turnout too...

[Tejanocrat]

11. 1. I agree with 95% of what Dennis Kucinich says, 2. I know from personal experience that my views

are NOT widely held by the population at large and are therefore -- by definition -- out of the mainstream, and 3. if my views are not mainstream, and Dennis and I share 95% of the same views, then Dennis's views must also be out of the mainstream.

I'm not arguing against Dennis's candidacy. I'm glad he's running because his candidacy opens the scope of the debate and brings issues to the table that would otherwise be swept under the rug and his excellent ideas are sometimes affecting the thinking of the other candidates (most notably, Edwards). But I'm also someone who can count votes; we haven't got the votes to nominate Kucinich much less elect him in a general election.

I love Dennis. Would I work harder for a Kucinich candidacy than a Hillary candidacy? Yes.

Do I believe I can persuade my moderate Republican brother to support Edwards? Yes.

Do I believe I can persuade my moderate Republican brother to support Obama? Yes.

Do I believe I can persuade my moderate Republican brother to support Richardson? Yes.

Do I believe I can persuade my moderate Republican brother to support Hillary? No.

Do I believe I can persuade my moderate Republican brother to support Kucinich? Not in a million years.

If the Greens, Liberal independents, and jaded Democrats couldn't be motivated to vote against Bush in the last election, I fear that we couldn't get them excited if we made a clone with the mixed DNA of Lincoln, FDR, and Kennedy and ran this zombie-clone as our nominee.

What makes me certain of all this? I have tried to persuade friends and family to support Dennis or at least to support the ideas which Dennis promotes. I have had very little luck with this effort.

[mikelgb]

14. when i comes to the issues a majority agree:

http://www2.kucinich.us/node/4871

http://www.dehp.net/candidate/stats.php



maybe it is your circle of friends? :shrug:

[rinsd]

15. I am weary of anecdotal evidence as well but that poll is a worthless internet poll (nt)

[mikelgb]

17. why is it worthless?

it was a blind survey of a bunch more people than a normal survey would have

it was not created by a Kucinich supporter and he lays out the logic and coding he used to created his little poll too...

I would encourage you to use his poll in a live setting using like 10 of your friends or something to give you more faith in the results

[rinsd]

19. Your last line says it all.

"I would encourage you to use his poll in a live setting using like 10 of your friends or something to give you more faith in the results"

That's exactly the problem. Its a self selecting survey with no weighing (for demographics) of the sample.

To extrapolate those results to the public at large is therefore meaningless.

[mikelgb]

22. even with such a strong correlation

if it was a close poll I would say yes, but look at the sheer number of respondents who support Dennis' platform

even if it is just dems that are voting it is stall a good poll

even if it is just friends...

it still has SOME meaning

[Tejanocrat]

20. I like Dennis, but if you're weary of anecdotal evidence of Kucinich's electoral handicap, there's

this:

2004 Iowa Caucus
Candidate - (No. State Delegates/Percentage)
John Kerry - (1,128/37.6%)
John Edwards - (954/31.8%)
Howard Dean - (540/18.0%)
Richard Gephardt - (318/10.6%)
Dennis Kucinich - (39/01.3%)

New Hampshire Democratic Presidential Primary - 100% Precincts Reporting
John Kerry - 39%
Howard Dean - 26%
Wes Clark - 13%
John Edwards - 12%
Joe Lieberman - 9%
Dennis Kucinich - 1%

Florida Democratic Presidential Primary - 99% Precincts Reporting (3/10/04)
77% - Sen. John F. Kerry
10% - Sen. John Edwards
3% - Al Sharpton
3% - Howard Dean
2% - Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich

New York Presidential Primary - 97% Precincts Reporting (3/2/04)
60% - Sen. John F. Kerry
20% - Sen. John Edwards
8% - Al Sharpton
5% - Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich

Rhode Island Presidential Primary - 100% Precincts Reporting (3/2/04)
71% - Sen. John F. Kerry
19% - Sen. John Edwards
4% - Howard Dean
3% - Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich

Vermont Presidential Primary - 95% Precincts Reporting (3/2/04)
58% - Howard Dean
34% - Sen. John F. Kerry
4% - Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich

Maryland Presidential Primary - 84% Precincts Reporting (3/2/04)
60% - Sen. John F. Kerry
25% - Sen. John Edwards
5% - Al Sharpton
3% - Howard Dean
2% - Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich

Connecticut Presidential Primary - 99% Precincts Reporting (3/2/04)
58% - Sen. John F. Kerry
24% - Sen. John Edwards
5% - Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman
4% - Howard Dean
3% - Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich

Georgia Presidential Primary - 94% Precincts Reporting (3/2/04)
46% - Sen. John F. Kerry
42% - Sen. John Edwards
6% - Al Sharpton
2% - Howard Dean
1% - Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich

[bvar22]

9. A better question:

Would Hillary win against any Republican and a 3rd Party Anti-War/ProLABOR Candidate?

[beastieboy]

12. Romney would be exposed as a phony, she would win regardless of Bloomberg

I don't think Bloomberg would enter if she was the nominee, he knows it would be a fait accompli so he wouldn't piss his money away against her.

[rinsd]

13. Mitt gets his ass handed to him by the Big 3. No data on Bloomberg's inclusion.

Here's polling for head to head matchups, Big 3 avg a double digit lead over Mitt

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html

Here's Hillary-Rudy-Bloomberg though it may not help

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_giuliani_clinton_bloomberg-344.html

[Zenlitened]

16. I think Clinton would demolish Romney in the general election.

I think there is a core among the Repugs who would NEVER vote for a Mormon. Far bigger than any core among Dems who would NEVER for for Hillary.

Re the Bloomberg factor... I dunno. He could hurt the Repugs just as much. It might even become a Clinton-versus-Bloomberg race at that point, particularly if they both go hard after the "faith" vote.

Heck, now you've got me feeling all gloomy, too. :cry:

LOL! :hi:

[theOtter]

21. Perhaps, but…

I think there is a core among the Repugs who would NEVER vote for a Mormon. Far bigger than any core among Dems who would NEVER for for Hillary.

Perhaps, but don’t overanalyze the so-called “Mormon factor” too much. Fewer Republicans claim they’d never vote for a “Mormon” than Dems claimed they’d never vote for a Catholic, in 1960—and look what happened!

Hillary’s still a pretty polarizing figure; even if some evangelicals see it as a choice between two evils, I’ll bet most would vote along party lines. Bloomberg could easily sink her ship.

[elizm]

18. No.