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

[Sam Spade]

For all of you Gore enthuasists, the chances that he'd carry Missouri or Arkansas are always going to be much less than his chances of carrying Tennessee.

Look at the differences between Gore and Kerry among those three states with regards to 2004.  Gore gained nearly 10 points on Tennessee vs. Kerry, whereas the shifts in Missouri and Arkansas were similar to national shifts.

[minionofmidas]

For all of you Gore enthuasists, the chances that he'd carry Missouri or Arkansas are always going to be much less than his chances of carrying Tennessee.

Look at the differences between Gore and Kerry among those three states with regards to 2004.  Gore gained nearly 10 points on Tennessee vs. Kerry, whereas the shifts in Missouri and Arkansas were similar to national shifts.

Notice that I also gave him an Oklahoman runningmate and Dick Cheney as an opponent, so that might explain it. I could correct it to have him win Tennessee as well...but I like the look of that isolated splash of red down there.

[WiseGuy]

Mary Bono/Rudy Guiliani - 417

Howard Dean/Bill Richards - 121



Mary Bono pulls in California, and Rudy's post 9/11 glory garners New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Delaware and Pennsylvania

[Joe Republic]

Bayh/Clinton (D) vs. Pawlenty/Santorum (R)



It takes the governor of Minnesota to make it finally vote for the first Republican since 1972, taking neighboring Iowa and Wisconsin with him.  Likewise for the popular Democratic senator and former governor of Indiana, who takes that state, plus Ohio and West Virginia.

Santorum as running mate helps keep Pennsylvania close, but in the end proves more appealing in the South.  PA edges to the Dems by a tiny margin.  Clinton focuses on keeping the Pacific and North-East firmly in the Dem column also.

Bayh also succeeds in NM and NV in close races, and Pawlenty just edges it in MO, AR and FL.  NH and ME-D2 are also very close, but both go for Bayh.

Final tally:
Bayh/Clinton = 278
Pawlenty/Santorum = 260

Despite losing in a very close race, the Republicans actually increase their hold on Congress, which makes Bayh's new term a time for bridging the vast gap between left and right.

[Moooooo]

Joe, where did you make that map?  It looks alot different than the Atlas maps.  Anyways, nice scenario.  I like it, except for the Hillary VP and Republican dominated congress part.

[Joe Republic]

Joe, where did you make that map?  It looks alot different than the Atlas maps.  Anyways, nice scenario.  I like it, except for the Hillary VP and Republican dominated congress part.

I was having trouble saving and posting the maps I made on the calculator, so I made my own.

[Notre Dame rules!]

Joe,
 
Do you really think that Hillary would settle for second banana for 8 years until she could get her own chance?  2008 is the year.  She either goes for all the marbles, or she has to content herself with being the junior Senator of NY.

[Joe Republic]

Joe,
 
Do you really think that Hillary would settle for second banana for 8 years until she could get her own chance?  2008 is the year.  She either goes for all the marbles, or she has to content herself with being the junior Senator of NY.

Perhaps.  I agree her name is right out there even now.  Her name is being consistently shot down on this forum, and with good reason, but the fact is she has name recognition and a position in government.  Having said that, I'm about 50:50 sure that the Democratic Party aren't stupid enough to vote to put her at the top of the ticket.  But they're also not stupid enough to leave her off it at the same time, and risk losing that 'valuable' name.  I'm putting a lot of expectations on the voting Democratic membership, I know.  So anyway, if somebody else won the nomination - in my scenario, Bayh - Clinton also wouldn't be stupid enough to turn down an offer she can't refuse.  She may be a lot of things, but stupid she ain't.  She knows she could easily wait 8 years and then be in the perfect position to run in 2016.

Of course, a lot of things could happen, so don't count on any of this.

[Notre Dame rules!]

Won't she be about 70 years old by 2016?  It seems to me that it will be '08 or never for Hillary.  Admittedly, I prefer never.

[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.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

My prediction is that the only certainty is uncertainty

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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.

[Moooooo]

My prediction is that the only certainty is uncertainty

Come on Al, give us your predicition and a nice scenario to go with it. 

[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.

[Moooooo]

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? 

[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.

[Moooooo]

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

Yeah, Im starting to get worried about Wisconsin.  That state has been inching closer and closer towards the GOP over the past few Presidential elections.  Im hoping the Democratic nominee in 2008 selects Russ Feingold as their VP candidate.  He would deliver that state by a pretty solid margin.  Also, it would allow the Democrats to focus more money, time, and energy in other important swing states.

[PBrunsel]

My wishful thinking map:



Jim Nussle/Kenny Guinn: 307

Hillary Clinton/Bill Nelson: 231

My ticket will never happen, future Governor Jim Nussle of Iowa and former Governor Kenny Guinn of Nevada (because he is term limited).

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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

[PBrunsel]

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.

[Alcon]

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.

[PBrunsel]

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.

[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.

[minionofmidas]

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.