Most Likely 2008 Race

[Rob]

Noooo... I posted my version of this before I saw yours:) Anyways, I think it'll be Bayh vs. Sanford.

As to your map, no way Bayh carries South Dakota.

[Rob]

LOL, that's pretty good:) I might as well post my map, too:




Bayh beats Sanford 296-242.

[Rob]

I think Bayh would lose NH in that race.  He is the opposite of NH politics, populist, not libertarian.  Sanford seems to be a good candidate.

Good point. I'll switch NH to Sanford.

[Rob]

Bayh vs. Frist:



Bayh wins 316-222.

Bayh vs. Pataki:



Bayh wins 318-220.

[Rob]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Bandit, do you really believe that? Kucinich is the one Democrat Santorum could beat without an effort.

[Rob]

You guys are going to have to get it through your head that a bunch of no-names or favorite sons aren't going to win their party's nomination.

You're crazy to believe this.

Um, John Kerry wasn't exactly a household name when he started his run. Neither was Bill Clinton. Or George Bush, Sr. Or Jimmy Carter. Or... Well, I think you get the point.

It doesn't matter that a candidate is obsure almost four years before the election. Everyone will know who they are on Election Day. And in the end, that's all that matters.

[Rob]

But who were they running against for the partys nomination...nobodies.

You are not going to get a nomination if Gore or Clinton runs...

I'm going to bring this post up when that "no-name" Bayh beats Hillary for the nomination.

[Rob]

Do you think Kerry would have went over Gore, or hell mayor Daley?

Yeah. I do. Name recognition doesn't entitle a candidate to the nomination. It is obvious even to many of her supporters that Hillary cannot win a general election. That alone will sink her in the primaries.

[Rob]

What I'm trying to say is that, by Election Day, the candidates will be well known. Everyone will know their positions on everything.

[Rob]

Who would win in a Boxer vs. Rice 2008 showdown? That would be awesome.

The map:



Boxer wins 291-247. She would do a lot better in the South, but she's too liberal.

[Rob]

Jeb would lose. The nation will be sick of Bushes in 2008.

[Rob]

Against John Edwards, no, he would not lose.

It would be close. I think Edwards would at least have a strong chance of beating him. The "dynasty" issue should not be underestimated.

[Rob]

Wow, this discussion is highly productive.

[Rob]

I wouldn't discount Jeb's prospects too quickly.  While the country may or may not be suffering Bush fatigue by 2008, it already suffers from Clinton fatigue.  Somehow, most of you folks regard Hillary as a legitimate contender, yet dismiss Jeb's chances.     


I think a Jeb Bush/ J.C. Watts ticket would clean house in '08.   Bush would carry the South, no suprise there, but he would also carry the Catholic vote, and make even greater gains in the Hispanic vote.  The inclusion of J.C. Watts would allow the GOP to peel off about 20% or more of the Af-Am vote. 

Following their drubbing in the '08 election, the Dems would find themselves to be a party fractured beyond repair.

Hillary/Richardson  would be lucky to take CA, NM, HI, NY, MA, VT, CT, and maybe RI.

Welcome to the forum.

Jeb would lose in 2008. No doubt about it. The difference between "Clinton fatigue" and "Bush fatigue" is that unlike Bill Clinton, George W. Bush is actually in the White House. It would not be acceptable for most people to have Bush's brother coming directly after him. Now, against Hillary, he would win. But a strong Democrat- such as Evan Bayh- would thrash him.