2008 Predictions... just for the hell of it.

[12th Doctor]

The Democrats continue their Leftward swing.  In 2008, Al Gore is secures the parties nomination with the backing of Howard Dean (you spends the pre-primary shifting resources behind Gore).  Gore selected Tom Harkin for a running-mate in an attempt to court the Liberal voters of the Midwest.

The Republicans manage to get out of the deep south (dodging Sanford, Barbour and company), but don't get any less conservative.  They go with Sen. Geroge Allen (who manages to fight off stiff challenges from Romney, Giuliani, Taft and Santorum in the north.  With the advantage of the later convention, Allen picks Norm Coleman to be his running-mate, in an attempt to check the Democrats in the mid-west.

On election day:



Allen/Coleman: 51%  290 EV's

Gore/Harken: 48% 248 EV's

Allen loses Ohio, because he campaigns on a strict Free trade platform.  He gains New Hampshire due to his emphasis on fiscal responsability.

Allen does little to earn victory.  In fact, the general impression is that he is too far right for America, but Democrat extremeness looks far less attractive to just enough of the population to give the Republicans four more years in the White House.

P.S.  Not saying that this will happen, or even that it is the most likely senario (though I think both candidates mentioned have a good shot at their repective parties nominations).  This is just one of many possible senerios I foresee.

Note:  In spite of what some wishful Democrats think, the party will not nominate Warner or Easly or Bayh, mainly because most of them don't think they really lost.  They just think that they didn't get the message out enough, or Kerry was just a bad candidate.  Thus, they are going to stay right where they are (or go further Left) and be far more vocal about it.  If they get their clocks cleaned in 2006, then they might move Right, but it is doubtful that will happen.  Meanwhile, polls do show that Giuliani has a good shot at the nomination, but he is the only Left winger we are going to get.  McCain will be too old and too unhealthy.  The southerners are too southern and too un-well-known.  That leaves Allen, Jeb Bush (who won't run), Santorum and maybe a couple of others.  All white bread conservatives.

[12th Doctor]

soulty's scenario makes no sense at all.

First of all, he has some idea that somehow losing by 2.5% is America resoundly saying they hate the Democrats. If so, I'm interested in how 1996 was a not a worse rejection of the Republicans.

Once again, 2004 was a very rare example of a maximum turnout election.  We only get those about once a generation, but they show us who really holds the political power in the country.  Guess what, it was the Republicans.  The Democrats were able to turn out every single voter they could get based on... what... anger towards Bush.  Bush isn't going to be running in 2008 and so Democrat turnout is bound to drop a bit.

Meanwhile, it is you attitude that is going to get the Democrats slaughtered if they don't go to the center, because they are going to have to move to the center to pick up more moderate voters and maybe convince some Republicans to stay home, because they will be more-or-less content, no matter who wins.

And, once again (as if I haven't said this a million times already, but you don't seem to want to pay attention) the Democrat did not lose badly enough in order to agknowledge that they needed a serious shift in strategy.  It is precisly because they did not get their asses kicked that they will not change.  Most of them think that they just need to "get the message out".  The problem is that the voters just won't be there and if they turn out to be wrong over the next few years, more people will just shut them off.

1996 was a rejection of the conservative line, because people associated Dole (wrongly) with Newt Gingrich, who most peopel believed (wrongly) was an uber-ultra-conservative.  Hence, we get George W. Bush in 2000 who is preceived as being much more moderate than Dole (although that was never true, more because Dole was far more moderate than most thought, rather than Bush being more conservative than people thought.

Nixon won in 1968, after the Republicans were blown out in 1964 because he did move to the center because everyone saw that the Right got its ass kicked.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Dean wasn't a Leftist government, but he sure is a Leftist now.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Just like with Dean, Gore wasn't hard-Left in 2000, but he sure as Hell is now.

I think you missed something with Harkin, Gore wins in Iowa, Michigan and Ohio because of Harkin.  Without Harkin, he loses all three to Allen.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, Minniapolis Star-Tribune polls are really reliable.  I think they had Bush losing Minnesota by something like 15 points two weeks before the election.

Coleman is young and energetic.  Edwards didn't bring anything to the ticket, because:

a) there wasn;t much left to bring

b) they didn't use him properly

c) he came from an area where Kerry had about a snowball's chance in Hell of winning.

[12th Doctor]

I agree with Soulty's scenario for the most part, but I think Gore would win Wisconsin and Oregon.  Why did you give those to Allen? 

They could go either way.  I didn't want to cop out and make the margin razor thin, though.

[12th Doctor]

Even if Nussle is elected governor, he would not run after only 2 years of it.

He has also had over 14 years in the House of Represenatives if that means anything.

Sorry PBrunsel, but 14 years in the house and a short governorship is not exactly a top-tier resumé in politics.

We look at Jimmy Carter's resume...

I don't think he'll be the 2008 nominee, but in 2016 or 2020 Jim Nussle may be a Republican Nominee.

I refere you to this earlier comment of mine.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=16955.0

[12th Doctor]

Interesting how, once again, I post the reasons for my arguments, and, once again, BRTD has not responded.

[12th Doctor]

Uh...the guy you're contradicting has a b and an r near the beginning of his username, but he's not called Better Red Than Dead.

I was talking about this:

soulty's scenario makes no sense at all.

First of all, he has some idea that somehow losing by 2.5% is America resoundly saying they hate the Democrats. If so, I'm interested in how 1996 was a not a worse rejection of the Republicans. Second, there's no reason to believe the Democrats are just going to move further left. If you think Dean as DNC chair proves this, you are rather deluded as anyone who's actually looked at his record knows Dean is not a far leftist. Even AuH2O and John Ford have admitted this.

Third left of Kerry is Kucinich, not Gore. I don't see how the Democrats could be on a steady leftward path by nominating the same guy they nominated in 2000 who is more moderate than the guy nominated in 2004. Fourth, it seems to imply Harkin is a bad VP choice and some liberal nut out of the mainstream, when in fact he'd be perfect as he is a liberal in touch with middle America and from a Bush state. That's exactly the type of guy we need.

Now as for Coleman, I'm interested in what makes him such an amazing senator he's worth putting on the ticket after only one term, and if you want to compare him to John Edwards, go ahead, since you're then basically admitting he'll run for the national ticket since he would realize he has little chance of winning reelection, and Edwards really didn't bring anything to the ticket in the end anyway. And with a 47% approval rating, he would hardly secure Minnesota.

[12th Doctor]

Sorry.
I see what you were talking about now...the quote and the link are more than a little misleading.

As for the argument you two are having...part of it is just an exercise in semantics.
But it's worth pointing out that Nixon moved to the center between 1964 and 1968 after moving to the right between 1960 and 1964. I don't believe he can honestly be said to have moved to the center over the whole period.
Gore has moved to the left between 2000 and 2004, will he move back to the center? Possibly. Possibly not. He'll have to if he wants to become President, though.

Not really.  Nixon didn't play any role at all in the 1964 campaign.  He vanished off the map, really.  That is what made it so easy for him to reinvent himself (and the Republican Party) in 1968- he had no connection with the 1964 debacle.