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

[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.

[minionofmidas]

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.

[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.

[minionofmidas]

Oh...I've seen the opposite claimed several times recently...I don't know what the truth is exactly.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

actually I didn't notice that post originally and I was busy this weekend but anyway:

First of all, yeah the Democrats do have move a little to the center, but from Kerry, that gives us plenty of room to move, unless you believe someone like Kucinich or Barbara Boxer is going to get nominated in 2008. Gore is significantly much closer to the Senate than Kerry.

and the Star Tribune polls may not be great (Although there was never a Bush losing Minnesota by 15 points poll, and in fact one of the polls was fairly accurate, it had Kerry up by 5, not too far off from the result and closer than the polls that had Bush winning it), but please don't tell me you honestly believe Coleman is insanely popular here, that he's a lock for reelection in 2008 or that he would lock up Minnesota being on the ticket.

[Michael Z]

Hillary R. Clinton/Evan Bayh --- 270
Bill Frist/Rick Santorum --- 268

In the third consecutively close Presidential election (once more reflecting the polarised state of the country) Hillary Rodham Clinton carries off a narrow victory due to a relentless campaign organised by her husband and DNC Chairman Howard Dean. The presence of the moderate Evan Bayh on the ticket also serves to reassure many voters who might otherwise be scared off by a potential Hillary Clinton presidency.

Despite Santorum's presence on the ticket, Bill Frist fails to gain PA for the Republicans, even though he does manage to win NH. Still, the GOP loses WV, IA, NM and NV and only narrowly holds on to OH and AR (the closest Democratic victories are in MA, IA and WV). Even though choosing Santorum was initially regarded as a coup by many political commentators, serving to revigorate the evangelical vote which won Bush the 2004 election, in hindsight it was seen as undermining Frist's candidacy the same way Quayle undermined Bush41 in 1992.

(And I just know Keystone Phil is gonna kill me for that last sentence. ).

[Notre Dame rules!]

How do you figure that Hillary carries WV?

[Rob]

Bayh/Henry vs. Sanford/Santorum:



Bayh wins 291-247, but the switch of a few close states- New Mexico, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania- would give Sanford the victory.

[Alcon]

Bayh/Henry vs. Sanford/Santorum:



Bayh wins 291-247, but the switch of a few close states- New Mexico, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania- would give Sanford the victory.

I agree, but Bayh gets Nevada, too, and Indiana is darker. New Hampshire would be darn close.

[Rob]

I agree, but Bayh gets Nevada, too, and Indiana is darker. New Hampshire would be darn close.

I would have given Bayh Nevada, but I think Sanford's libertarian views would sell well as opposed to Bayh's populism.

 As for Indiana, no matter how popular Bayh is there, the Republicans probably will automatically have 49 percent of the presidential vote locked up. That means Bayh will have very little room for error.

[Michael Z]

How do you figure that Hillary carries WV?

Simple. Wishful thinking.

[Notre Dame rules!]

ok, now it makes sense.   The rest of it seems pretty plausible.

[TomC]

Yeah, flip NH and WV and it makes more sense.

That's 269-269 isn't it?

[Defarge]

I look forward to looking at this post 3 years from now and hitting myself over the head at how wrong I was.  But no harm in trying

The 2008 Election:
After a bitter Primary Fight between the moderates and more extreme members in both parties, Evan Bayh and Bill Frist emerged as the Presidential Nominees for the 2008 Presidential Election. 

For the Democrats, Bayh faced a tough uphill challenge against Senators Clinton, Kerry and Edwards, but after his win in Iowa emerged from the other random smattering of candidates as the frontrunner.  In New Hampshire, Clinton/Kerry won the state, with Bayh winning second/third.  As the primaries rolled onwards, Bayh won the midwest, with Edwards/Warner winning the south, and Clinton/Kerry winning in the North East.  However, eventually Bayh came out on top, beating Clinton in several key Super Tuesday States, including California (unless they move it back as they're saying they might).  Leftist Democrats are furious with Bayh's nomination, vowing to vote for Ralph Nader who runs for a fourth time.  The selection of Bill Richardson as VP calms some of this outrage, but Nader still gets at least double the number of votes he got in 2004, swinging NH to Frist.

Meanwhile, with the Republicans, lots of craziness happens with Rudy and Romney and Frist and Gingrich, but Frist eventually pulls on top as the establishment candidate.  Wary of a double Senator ticket, and eager to continue a Bush dynasty, Republicans choose Jeb Bush to be the VP.

Various scandals come out, Richardson's involvement with some Clinton thing or whatever being the most serious.  However, the Latino vote comes out in force for the Democratic ticket, but not enough to swing any of the South Eastern states.  In the end, these are the results



Evan Bayh (D-IN) / Bill Richardson (D-NM): 286
Bill Frist (R-TN) / Jeb Bush (R-FL): 252

[Keystone Phil]

I look forward to looking at this post 3 years from now and hitting myself over the head at how wrong I was.  But no harm in trying

The 2008 Election:
After a bitter Primary Fight between the moderates and more extreme members in both parties, Evan Bayh and Bill Frist emerged as the Presidential Nominees for the 2008 Presidential Election. 

For the Democrats, Bayh faced a tough uphill challenge against Senators Clinton, Kerry and Edwards, but after his win in Iowa emerged from the other random smattering of candidates as the frontrunner.  In New Hampshire, Clinton/Kerry won the state, with Bayh winning second/third.  As the primaries rolled onwards, Bayh won the midwest, with Edwards/Warner winning the south, and Clinton/Kerry winning in the North East.  However, eventually Bayh came out on top, beating Clinton in several key Super Tuesday States, including California (unless they move it back as they're saying they might).  Leftist Democrats are furious with Bayh's nomination, vowing to vote for Ralph Nader who runs for a fourth time.  The selection of Bill Richardson as VP calms some of this outrage, but Nader still gets at least double the number of votes he got in 2004, swinging NH to Frist.

Meanwhile, with the Republicans, lots of craziness happens with Rudy and Romney and Frist and Gingrich, but Frist eventually pulls on top as the establishment candidate.  Wary of a double Senator ticket, and eager to continue a Bush dynasty, Republicans choose Jeb Bush to be the VP.

Various scandals come out, Richardson's involvement with some Clinton thing or whatever being the most serious.  However, the Latino vote comes out in force for the Democratic ticket, but not enough to swing any of the South Eastern states.  In the end, these are the results



Evan Bayh (D-IN) / Bill Richardson (D-NM): 286
Bill Frist (R-TN) / Jeb Bush (R-FL): 252

Richardson couldn't carry NM for Bayh?

[Defarge]

You're right.  Add NM to the Bayh column

[ATFFL]

You're right.  Add NM to the Bayh column

I would also flip MO. 

If the Greens run a strong candidate OR and WA may end up going Republican through ticket splitting and some hard core liberals staying home with Bayh on the top of the ticket.  Unlikely, but they would see a ton of each candidate.

[Moooooo]

I agree, but Bayh gets Nevada, too, and Indiana is darker. New Hampshire would be darn close.

I would have given Bayh Nevada, but I think Sanford's libertarian views would sell well as opposed to Bayh's populism.

 As for Indiana, no matter how popular Bayh is there, the Republicans probably will automatically have 49 percent of the presidential vote locked up. That means Bayh will have very little room for error.

Agree with your post and predicition 100%.  If only it would come true!

Bob, you seem fairly moderate.  Who do you vote for if your prediction comes true, Bayh/Henry or Sanford/Santorum?

[Rob]

Bob, you seem fairly moderate.  Who do you vote for if your prediction comes true, Bayh/Henry or Sanford/Santorum?

That's a toughie. I haven't figured that out myself, actually.

I'd add, though, that right now I'm leaning toward Bayh, just because a change of parties is generally a good thing.

[bgwah]

Hillary vs Rudy

The 40% colors indicate tossups



The candidates in the race shall remain secret.

[Ebowed]

I haven't got a prediction (yet), but it would be a real shame if the Republicans got Minnesota in '08.  The vote in 2004 was alarmingly close (it was close in 2000 too, but that's Nader's fault).  I'll admit that some blue states are liabilities, like Michigan and Wisconsin.  But I'd like to see Minnesota vote Democratic a few more times around.

[Rob]

I haven't got a prediction (yet), but it would be a real shame if the Republicans got Minnesota in '08.  The vote in 2004 was alarmingly close (it was close in 2000 too, but that's Nader's fault).  I'll admit that some blue states are liabilities, like Michigan and Wisconsin.  But I'd like to see Minnesota vote Democratic a few more times around.

Minnesota seems solidly Democratic. I don't mean that it's heavily Democratic, because it's not; but it always ends up voting for the Democrat, even if by small margins. I don't think MN will go Republican any time soon.

[AuH2O]

Well, there's a good chance the Democrats will lose Minnesota in 2008, insofar as Bush came close this time and there's a possibility Pawlenty will be on the ticket.

[AuH2O]

Bayh/Clark vs Romney/Frist

Having both running mates being Southerners would be pretty cool.  I imagine Bayh and Clark would do better than Kerry/Edwards in the South and in poorer and rural areas.  Bayh being from Indiana would also be a great asset.  Romney would lose his homestate and probably everywhere else in the North.



Bayh/Clark - 389
Romney/Frist - 149

Key:
Light red/orange - Dem wins by 3% or less
Dark red - Dem wins by 20% or more
Light blue - Rep wins by 3% or less
Dark blue - Rep wins by 20% or more

no

[Michael Z]

Evan Bayh (D-IN) / Bill Richardson (D-NM): 286
Bill Frist (R-TN) / Jeb Bush (R-FL): 252

A Bayh/Richardson ticket is very plausible. However, I can't see Jeb Bush as a running mate. The whole idea of Govenors as Vice Presidents generally strikes me as a bit... strange. Not sure why, but it does.