I've always been intrigued by the fact that the states most directly affected by the events of 9/11 have routinely rejected Bush and the Republican party--AND, this goes uncommented upon by the media pundits. These poll results are consistent with this rejection. Yet it all gets trivialized as nothing more than blue states going Democratic, big.

If the US elected its president in a democratic election, then making the New York and New Jersey races a bit closer would help. But it doesn't work that way, we run 51 winner-take-all elections. You either win a state or you don't, and no Republican is going to win New York or New Jersey this year. If you lose a state by 15 points instead of 20, so what?

That's why what we'll see, once again, is that almost all of the campaigning is going to happen in swing states.

On the other hand, it's quite possible that someone like John Edwards could win the presidency while losing his home state. In theory someone like Giuliani could do the same, but I think that a few months of intense focus on the guy is going to turn the public off. His divorces are one thing; Reagan was divorced and remarried. But that fact that he's estranged from his own children is, as far as I can tell, unprecedented for a presidential nominee. And he's not going to be able to keep his temper under wraps for months, especially with his opponents deliberately baiting him.

No way to pull a Florida (disenfranchisement, etc.) on margins that wide.

My point is that, if Guiliani's candidacy makes those states a bit closer, the Democratic candidate might have to spend a little time and money in those states just to make sure that they win, rather than just taking them for granted.

His candidacy, were he to be nominated, will make the races somewhat closer, but as noted above, what difference does it make if you win by 10 percentage points rather than 15? Rudy's not going to win these states, for any number of reasons--chief among them being the residents of these states know more about him than anywhere else.

When it comes to Guiliani to know him is to hate him.

realistically, if the Dem nominee is only winning NY by 10 points, then he/she is probably being beaten pretty badly in swing states across the country.

Very bad math. You a pollster or something? :-)

Various nominees will have strengths and weaknesses that cut across the imaginary liberal/conservative divide. New York is not that all-fired liberal in the first place or we wouldn't have Hillary and Schumer as senators. It is unimaginable that New York would elect, say, a Feingold as senator.

The evidence is all around you that your thesis is unsound but nothing I know quite matches Edwards' populist rhetoric resonating in the South and Midwest while falling on deaf ears in supposed liberal redoubts.

Best, Terry

Very good point. Rudy might do well in some Long Island communities and the regions north of Albany, but he's a dead duck in the major cities of the state? Why? Because he is despised in urban centers, while Hillary and Bill are literally loved by millions in these centers.

Similarly, Rudy might have a shot in the suburbs of northern New Jersey, Connecticut, and even the Philly 'burbs, but he simply can not compete for major populations because everyone in the cities has known for 15 years what a bastard he is, and we only see further evidence of this with his presidential candidacy.

That said, he might force the Dems to spend more money in these areas, and he certainly will comptete better than the other GOP candidates, but the effect would be negligible. It's places like Ohio and Michigan that the Dems really have to worry about vis a vis the GOP - especially Rudy.

As an Upstate NY resident, this poll is nothing to get excited about. New York is, for presidential elections, pretty much with California in being the bluest of the blue. ANY Dem should be expected to take NY without putting a dime into it. If not, a GOP victory is all but assured.

What was more disturbing was seeing (a month ago?) a poll showing Hillary trailing Rudy in New Jersey. The metric that matters the most is as far away from NY as, say, Utah on the red equation: What states can a given Democrat take that Gore or Kerry could not? It's really that simple. Florida? Missouri? Ohio? West Virginia? (. . . which Gore could have taken were it not for Nader, but don't get me started.)

I'm not that far away from Pennsylvania, and, frankly, it's hard to imagine Hillary winning there.

Incidentally, Edwards has the best line for white Southerners: "You've been voting Republican for forty years now. What do you have to show for it?" Of the top three, Edwards has the only shot at a Democratic landslide.

I wouldn't be too comforted by this poll, a year and half out and all.

I lived in New York City during almost all the Guiliani years, and despite his totalitarian ways, he appeals to many people who don't want to admit it.

I voted against him in the mayoral race, twice, and yet I had a grudging respect for his political ability, which first and foremost was the ability to advance the perception that he was controlling and improving a heretofore uncontrollable city.

I still can't help but think he did a great job while he was there, much as I now hate him for his post-9/11 Bush supporting bullshit.

You have to look at New York this way: a lot of upstate is Republican. He'll do well there. And then if it comes down to his own city, where he was elected by a landslide, he's going to have enormous emotional appeal. Half the state's votes are there. It's his city. He's going to campaign there often. It's simply not comparable to any recent Republican nominee.

Again, I'm just saying this poll is too far out to say the Dems have it wrapped up. I wish.

I'd love to see how he's doing in New York City vs. the Dems.

What states can a given Democrat take that Gore or Kerry could not?

Not that we're an electoral powerhouse by any stretch, but Colorado could move from Red to Blue in 2008.

In 2004, the Dems took over both houses of the state assembly, one U.S House seat, and one U.S. Senate seat. In 2006 we kept the state assembly, added a Democratic governor, and added one more U.S. House seat. We've gone from a 5R-2D House delegation to 4D-3R in just a few years. And we're a good bet to add another Democratic U.S. Senate seat with Mark Udall running in 2008 hoping to replace retiring senator Wayne Allard.

My own district (Tom Tancredo's) is hopelessly Republican, but statewide I think there is much hope here.

Colorado is definitely in play, more than in a long time. That is not unimportant.

My point was this poll - no disrespect intended for Eric and all - is that freakin' Kucinich could carry New York (and maybe 4 other states), so those margins are actually rather disappointing. I don't see Obama or Hillary taking a single state in the South. (And that's it right there.) I knew Kerry had lost when he gave up on Missouri. The overall point is to see who can garner 270 Electoral votes. I simply do not see Obama or Clinton doing so.

I don't know anybody who talks about Edward's haircut other than Repubs and the cable nets.

You might want to consider investing in a hearing aid and eyeglasses. I assure you the need is there.

At an organization meeting for Obama, I mentioned that I thought Edwards was likely to be Obama's most difficult opponent rather than Hillary. Immediately the organizer, who had pointedly announced "we" are not anti any other Democrats, said that Edwards would take too much time combing his hair. That was before the $400 haircut that is mentioned around here often in place of discussion of policy.

Best, Terry

that was actually a patronizing statement for Southerners -- almost as bad as Hillary's Selma black impressionism. If you think about it -- he's saying Southerners are just stupid to vote the way they do.

I don't think so. Check out the past, oh, forty years. How well have we done with white male liberal non-Southerners again? And sure as heck not with Hillary or Obama. Edwards, yes. Gore, yes, but he's not running. When even 21% of DEMOCRATS say they won't vote for Hillary Clinton, that's not exactly a good sign for the victory in the swing states, much less the South. I really like Obama, and that a Black liberal Democrat probably can't get elected in this America is no reflection on him. He's great. It's a reflection of America as it actually IS, not as we'd like it to be. Ask any Black middle age men and women what they think about this question. And this unchecked wishing (on the part of white liberals) could be the downfall again. How well did Bush do in the South last time, when 50.3% of Americans were dumb enough even after four years of this?

You can't rule it out, of course. Know your history, though. It really does depend who we nominate, more than who they nominate.

I really like Obama, and that a Black liberal Democrat probably can't get elected in this America is no reflection on him. He's great. It's a reflection of America as it actually IS

The technical term for that is horse puckey. I will agree that a Reverend Al Sharpton or even Jesse Jackson has less chance than Trent Lott of being elected president but all suffer from the same disability.

The notion that a black man, whatever that is, has to be a conservative makes as much sense as claiming a white man, whatever that is, has to be a liberal. A disinterested observer might note that both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have an advantage over the hair guy because of gender and race rather than the reverse. Because both are conservative helps with fundraising from the usual suspects but not notably with those who care about issues like ending the gawddam occupation and universal health care. That's where Edwards has his only edge. Obama's decline seems to me directly related to his appeal to the wingers while the wild rise was - in spite of his race, whatever it is, you think? I think it was because he was viewed as a liberal and a black man to boot.

Best, Terry

Terry, Do you know any Black people?

What do you mean by black people? Would my former Nigerian daughter-in-law qualify? Her parents weren't told before the wedding about her marrying one of "those people." I guess it's understandable with Pat masquerading as an Irishman. My father, who immigrated from Ireland, used to talk scornfully about white men trying to be Irish. I suppose he would forgive his grandson.

Would really be interested in a dissertation on what you think a black person is but I don't suppose you are up to it. Apartheidists had a terrific problem figuring it out.

If you have the need to equate Obama with Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton...

I didn't. I equated them with Trent Lott, another fellow who is big on imaginary race.

Have you considered remedial reading class?

sort of like calling Hillary and Obama conservatives. What planet have you been living on?

Earth.

Both are conservatives by any measure.

Best, Terry

 equating what I wrote with Apartheid, etc, thanks for the insults on race.

Um, no. Terry asked how do you define black? What makes a man black? How is ethnicity being categorized here what are the criteria? He also asserted that apartheidists had a helluva time making that distinction. Not an insult at all, but an assertion about how can anyone determine the ethnicity/race of anyone else. Surely, you have a better rebuttal? BTW he makes the same assertions about calling folks Hispanic.

Apologies - I was multi-tasking so did not give the answer originally intended: Personally, I think individuals are more than capable of ascertaining their own race and ethnicity. In this inner-city school district I work in, we have the parents declare their child's ethnicity. But they can only declare it once. That's probably one of the least bad ways of doing this. In elections, however, voters decide, and let's not kid ourselves about this or about how much residual racism still infects our country. Just ask Harold Ford, Carl McCall, the family of the late Tom Bradley . . .

Yes, Rudy's nomination would probably make the GOP nominee more competitive in the Northeast than would another.... but less of a sure thing in the Southeast, at least as likely to lose in the Midwest, and more likely to lose in the Southwest. Thus, Republicans would have to spend more of their resources than they'd like in such places as Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, West Virginia, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, and, I believe, Ohio. Admittedly, here in New Jersey, Giuliani remains fairly popular, seen as the guy who "tamed" the Big Apple; here voters are close enough to admire the good he accomplished next door but safely outside of the city, wherein we don't have to put up with the problems he caused its citizens.

i'll take live sex shows over nike town any day of the week.

more than that, i'll take private property rights and the bill of rights over giuliani's big government morality gestapo thank you very much.

giuliani thinks the sex and porn of the old times square is offensive.

i think the disneyfied fascist 'family-friendly' consumerism that the new times square represents is offensive.