2008 Scenario: Feingold/Warner vs. Romney/Allen

[Frodo]

Suppose that Hillary Clinton loses in a surprise upset to Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold, who thereby chooses former Virginia Governor Mark Warner (who also ran a strong campaign, splitting the moderate vote with Hillary Clinton during the primaries, giving Feingold an opening to win the nomination) to try to shore up the moderate wing of the party.

The Republicans, meanwhile, nominate former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, who chooses as his running-mate Virginia Senator George Allen (who only narrowly won re-election in 2006 against a strong Democratic challenge from Jim Webb, winning by 51 to 49 percent, thus torpedoing Allen's chances in 2008 of winning his party's nomination) to shore up support from southern conservatives. 

Which of these tickets would most likely win your congressional district? 

[© tweed]

Feingold would win my congressional district.

The election would be very close.  It would hinge on a few factors: what positions the two candidates took on immigration, and whether a rightist third party sprung up and took votes away from Romney.

Feingold also may be better served to concede the south and pick Richardson to target the southwest and hispanics.

[adam]

I don't think that having the popular Allen on his ticket will help Romney. His enemies will bring up his massive flip-flops from a generally socially liberal Republican to a pal of the religious right. Romney has turned off his liberal and moderate friends...and hasn't convinced the right that he is genuine. Feingold, having the clean anti-war record that he does will help. The GOP won't be able to pull out the old "Well if you don't support the war, why'd you vote for it?" on him. I think in the end, the turnout will be low - low enough to give Feingold a clean victory.

Feingold/Warner - 51% - 325 EVs
Romney/Allen - 47% -  213 EVs
Other - 2%

[George W. Hobbes]

Romney wins.  Flip-flopping or no, Feingold is a bit too bombastic for moderates and Romney has a health care card to play that can court them.

[Lincoln Republican]

Romney, with the help of Allen, hold the Republican base intact.

The very liberal Feingold is shut completely out of the south, in spite of the fact Warner is on the ticket.  People are more concerned with the top of the ticket, not the bottom.

Romney maintains a conservative to moderate stance, has appeal to these groups, as well as to independents.

Romney wins the key swing state of Pennsylvania by a narrow margin, giving him a solid win.

Romney/Allen                311 EV 50% PV
Feingold/Warner           227 EV 47% PV 
Others                              0 EV    3% PV     

[adam]

Romney, with the help of Allen, hold the Republican base intact.

The very liberal Feingold is shut completely out of the south, in spite of the fact Warner is on the ticket.  People are more concerned with the top of the ticket, not the bottom.

That's a little contradictory, no?

[© tweed]

Feingold/Warner 284
Romney/Allen 254

If Feingold goes with Richardson instead and the Democratic convention is in Denver, Colorado goes Dem. as well.

[Lincoln Republican]

Romney, with the help of Allen, hold the Republican base intact.

The very liberal Feingold is shut completely out of the south, in spite of the fact Warner is on the ticket.  People are more concerned with the top of the ticket, not the bottom.

That's a little contradictory, no?

Nit Picker.

Only if you choose to interpret it that way.

My point is, Romney would not turn off conservatives, however, Feingold would most definitely turn off conservatives as well as the south.

[MasterJedi]

I'm not entirely sure who would win my congressional district. Mine is pretty conservative but it is in Wisconsin so whoever won it would be barely.

[skybridge]

I don't think that having the popular Allen on his ticket will help Romney. His enemies will bring up his massive flip-flops from a generally socially liberal Republican to a pal of the religious right. Romney has turned off his liberal and moderate friends...and hasn't convinced the right that he is genuine. Feingold, having the clean anti-war record that he does will help. The GOP won't be able to pull out the old "Well if you don't support the war, why'd you vote for it?" on him. I think in the end, the turnout will be low - low enough to give Feingold a clean victory.

Feingold/Warner - 51% - 325 EVs
Romney/Allen - 47% -  213 EVs
Other - 2%

^^^^^^^^^^

[adam]

Romney, with the help of Allen, hold the Republican base intact.

The very liberal Feingold is shut completely out of the south, in spite of the fact Warner is on the ticket.  People are more concerned with the top of the ticket, not the bottom.

That's a little contradictory, no?

Nit Picker.

Only if you choose to interpret it that way.

My point is, Romney would not turn off conservatives, however, Feingold would most definitely turn off conservatives as well as the south.

I have to disagree and say that Romney will definitely turn off conservatives. He had a past a social liberals that a lot of conservatives know about...they understand that he had to flip flop to appeal to the average GOP voter. Most conservatives don't believe that he is a genuine conservative. I'm not saying they'll flock to Feingold, but rather just stay home. In this election scenario....42% turnout, tops.

[Lincoln Republican]

What?
Are you joking?
Conservative voters would flock to the polls in record numbers to defeat ultra leftist Feingold.
They may not consider Romney as the ideal conservative candidate, but they would find Romney far more acceptable than they would Feingold, and they would vote for Romney to stop Feingold.

[adam]

Nah...the conservative base is tired of rolling over and voting for the lesser of two evils. I'd be willing to bet that they just wouldn't bother to care. Think of the 96' election...the right didn't care for Dole at all. Did they show up in record numbers to oust the "immoral" Clinton. Nope..in fact, he won by a larger margin than he did in 92'.

[skybridge]

Nah...the conservative base is tired of rolling over and voting for the lesser of two evils. I'd be willing to bet that they just wouldn't bother to care. Think of the 96' election...the right didn't care for Dole at all. Did they show up in record numbers to oust the "immoral" Clinton. Nope..in fact, he won by a larger margin than he did in 92'.

Yeah, really. If Bush's numbers keep tanking, his base will probably be pretty disillusioned by 2008.

[Nym90]

My district borders on Wisconsin; Feingold would win it.

I would also vote for Feingold who I think would be a very good President.

[Soaring Eagle]

I have no clue how my district would vote, but Feingold would win nationwide.

[FerrisBueller86]

Feingold would win every state except Utah.

Romney is the governor of MASSACHUSETTS!  The Republicans have been busy painting Massachusetts as a corrupt and lawless place where married gay couples lynch heterosexuals, drive-thru abortions are available at every street corner, and everyone has wild, orgasmic sex right in the middle of the street.

Romney could uphold the Republican meme of a lawless and immoral Massachusetts, but that would mean admitting he was a bad governor.  Clinton didn't become president by badmouthing Arkansas, and Reagan didn't become president by badmouthing California.  Romney also has to flip-flop.  Democrats would be eager to use the "Massachusetts flip-flopper" label against the Republicans.

Romney could talk about how great he was as governor, but that would mean praising Massachusetts and the people in it, and that would mean admitting that the Republican Party has been lying all along.

What would Romney's base be?  I'm sure Wall Street would love him, but Wall Streeters aren't a substantial voting bloc, especially in the core Republican states.  Many of you say that Southerners HATE Mormons.  The gun nuts of the Rocky Mountain states wouldn't like Romney either.

Feingold is a maverick Democrat who would appeal to Perot voters without alienating the base.

Romney would only win Utah, and he'd only win it because being Mormon would give him favorite son status.  If he's lucky, he might be able to eke out a win in Idaho, which is 30% Mormon.  He wouldn't stand a chance in Indiana, the South, or even the Great Plains.  Even Sioux County in Iowa, Kosciusko County in Indiana, and all of western Nebraska (even more Republican than Utah) would be carried by Feingold.  I can't imagine how Romney would win a single county lacking a significant Mormon population.

[nini2287]

I don't know how I would vote.  I respect Feingold but don't really like his politics; I disrespect Romney but don't mind his politics as much (or what I'm guessing they are).

Romney would win nationwide, he's very charismatic and Feingold's too liberal.

My CD would be very close.  It would probably depend if Romney ran as a conservative (Feingold wins) or a moderate (Romney wins).

[Lincoln Republican]

Feingold would win every state except Utah.

Romney is the governor of MASSACHUSETTS!  The Republicans have been busy painting Massachusetts as a corrupt and lawless place where married gay couples lynch heterosexuals, drive-thru abortions are available at every street corner, and everyone has wild, orgasmic sex right in the middle of the street.

Romney could uphold the Republican meme of a lawless and immoral Massachusetts, but that would mean admitting he was a bad governor.  Clinton didn't become president by badmouthing Arkansas, and Reagan didn't become president by badmouthing California.  Romney also has to flip-flop.  Democrats would be eager to use the "Massachusetts flip-flopper" label against the Republicans.

Romney could talk about how great he was as governor, but that would mean praising Massachusetts and the people in it, and that would mean admitting that the Republican Party has been lying all along.

What would Romney's base be?  I'm sure Wall Street would love him, but Wall Streeters aren't a substantial voting bloc, especially in the core Republican states.  Many of you say that Southerners HATE Mormons.  The gun nuts of the Rocky Mountain states wouldn't like Romney either.

Feingold is a maverick Democrat who would appeal to Perot voters without alienating the base.

Romney would only win Utah, and he'd only win it because being Mormon would give him favorite son status.  If he's lucky, he might be able to eke out a win in Idaho, which is 30% Mormon.  He wouldn't stand a chance in Indiana, the South, or even the Great Plains.  Even Sioux County in Iowa, Kosciusko County in Indiana, and all of western Nebraska (even more Republican than Utah) would be carried by Feingold.  I can't imagine how Romney would win a single county lacking a significant Mormon population.

Blah, Blah, Blah!

How many times do we have to read the same tripe every time you talk about Romney?

Romney would win only Utah?  Are you on crack cocaine?

Most anyone knows that Romney would trounce the ultra leftist ideologue Feingold big time.

[FerrisBueller86]

In reality, it doesn't matter how Romney would fare in the general election because he'd never make it through the primaries, for exactly the same reasons he'd be so easy to beat in the general election.  Why would Republican primary voters like Romney after being told how awful Massachusetts is?  The Romney campaign slogan seems to be "Vote for me because my state STINKS!"

What is Romney's base?  Why wouldn't Republican primary voters rather nominate someone with better rightwing credentials?  Why wouldn't they prefer a nominee from Kansas?  Texas?  Alabama?  Florida?  Ohio?  Pennsylvania?  Michigan?  Or any state that the Republicans haven't been busy badmouthing?

[Dr. Cynic]

My district is pretty solidly Democrat. Feingold would win, but I couldn't guess how much... Coincedentally, both of these tickets are the exact reverse of my prediction of Warner/Feingold VS Allen/Romney.

[MissCatholic]

Same as 2000

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Feingold/Warner: 321
Romney/Allen: 217

[HappyWarrior]

My district is heavily democrat and would love Feingold, as would I.