Election 2008: Russell Feingold vs. Mark Sanford

[Frodo]

in a continuation of my earlier thread comparing how well Feingold would do against Jeb Bush, i am curious to see how well he would do against Mark Sanford should the two dark horses be nominated by their respective parties.  as always, i want maps....

consider this scenario:

as before, let's suppose that at the 2008 Democratic National Convention, Wisconsin Senator Russell Feingold and his running mate former Virginia governor Mark Warner are nominated on the Democratic Party ticket, while the Republicans nominate South Carolina governor Mark Sanford instead of former Florida governor Jeb Bush.  Sanford in turn nominates Virginia Senator George Allen as his vice-presidential running mate. 

with Bush's scheme to partially privatize Social Security in shambles, and a growing backlash among libertarian-minded voters against the national Republican Party for terminally high budget deficits, as well as a result of the Terry Schiavo case, including a sluggish economy, rising oil prices, a slowly improving situation in Iraq, and so on, how would the two tickets fare against each other in a head-to-head contest?   

keep in mind, the ticket i have chosen for the Republicans is an entirely southern ticket, reflecting the final conquest of the Republican Party by the (white) South, and its irrevocable identification with the region and its culture.  how this would reflect on their efforts to maintain themselves as a national party, and not purely as a regional one, is a dynamic i am interested in exploring here.     
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

here's the link to the related thread i mentioned if anyone is interested:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=18092.0

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I think Feingold/Warner win the Kerry states + Iowa + Ohio + NM +NV

Florida might be close.
If Warner was  the only Virginian running, Virginia might be close.

[Smash255]

Feingold.  I think the GOP would have a very hard time defeating Feingold.  Their are hardly any GOP candidates (who have the chance of getting the nomination) that can match Feingold's charisma, and that is something that is very underrated when it comes down to Presidential candidates

[Frodo]

to all: would there be any difference in the result of a general election if the Republicans ran Mark Sanford instead of Jeb Bush against Russ Feingold in 2008?  it would seem to me that if they want to get someone on the ticket whose last name is not Bush, and yet is a solid enough candidate to not only win their party's nomination but also the general election, Mark Sanford would be their man.  he seems more popular among Democrats and independents -at least here on Atlas Forum that is, and maybe out in the real world as well- and would counteract any Bush fatigue effect that could result from eight years under Bush 43.   

[Smash255]

to all: would there be any difference in the result of a general election if the Republicans ran Mark Sanford instead of Jeb Bush against Russ Feingold in 2008?  it would seem to me that if they want to get someone on the ticket whose last name is not Bush, and yet is a solid enough candidate to not only win their party's nomination but also the general election, Mark Sanford would be their man.  he seems more popular among Democrats and independents -at least here on Atlas Forum that is, and maybe out in the real world as well- and would counteract any Bush fatigue effect that could result from eight years under Bush 43.   

Jeb would probably sure up Florida for the GOP, againstr Sanford Feingold would probably take Florida due to the Jewish vote

[Rob]

The race is very close:



Feingold's populism and Wisconsin background buoy him in the Midwest, giving him solid victories in the battleground states of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan; he also squeaks out a narrow win in Iowa. He runs ahead of Kerry in almost every Northeastern state; however, he loses New Hampshire, where Sanford's fairly libertarian views resonate.

The South votes staunchly Republican as in 2004, although with reduced margins (except in Sanford's home state of South Carolina, where he gets over 60 percent).

The Rocky Mountains and Great Plains also vote solidly Republican. The GOP wins with smaller margins than 2004, except in the battlegrounds of Nevada and New Mexico, which actually give Sanford higher percentages than Bush received.

Feingold wins solid victories on the West Coast and in Hawaii.

The deciding state is once again Ohio. Sanford barely carries it, and the state's 20 electoral votes put him over the top.

[Smash255]

The race is very close:



Feingold's populism and Wisconsin background buoy him in the Midwest, giving him solid victories in the battleground states of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan; he also squeaks out a narrow win in Iowa. He runs ahead of Kerry in almost every Northeastern state; however, he loses New Hampshire, where Sanford's fairly libertarian views resonate.

The South votes staunchly Republican as in 2004, although with reduced margins (except in Sanford's home state of South Carolina, where he gets over 60 percent).

The Rocky Mountains and Great Plains also vote solidly Republican. The GOP wins with smaller margins than 2004, except in the battlegrounds of Nevada and New Mexico, which actually give Sanford higher percentages than Bush received.

Feingold wins solid victories on the West Coast and in Hawaii.

The deciding state is once again Ohio. Sanford barely carries it, and the state's 20 electoral votes put him over the top.

I think New Hampsiere would go to Feingold.  Mew Hampsiere & West Virginia are similar in that in the past they use to vote heavily on economic issues, but now that vote is changing more towards social views making West Virginia more Republican and New Hampsiere more Democratic.  I also think Feingold would take Florida, Ohio, Nevada & New Mexico

[A18]

Allen would be a terrible VP pick. No serious politician should accept a VP slot; it's just political suicide.

[opebo]

Feingold - 298
Sanford  - 240

[Frodo]

The race is very close:



Feingold's populism and Wisconsin background buoy him in the Midwest, giving him solid victories in the battleground states of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan; he also squeaks out a narrow win in Iowa. He runs ahead of Kerry in almost every Northeastern state; however, he loses New Hampshire, where Sanford's fairly libertarian views resonate.

The South votes staunchly Republican as in 2004, although with reduced margins (except in Sanford's home state of South Carolina, where he gets over 60 percent).

The Rocky Mountains and Great Plains also vote solidly Republican. The GOP wins with smaller margins than 2004, except in the battlegrounds of Nevada and New Mexico, which actually give Sanford higher percentages than Bush received.

Feingold wins solid victories on the West Coast and in Hawaii.

The deciding state is once again Ohio. Sanford barely carries it, and the state's 20 electoral votes put him over the top.

why would Feingold do more poorly than Kerry or Gore in the Southwestern battleground states?  i'd like to hear your reasoning on this.   

[Rob]

why would Feingold do more poorly than Kerry or Gore in the Southwestern battleground states?  i'd like to hear your reasoning on this.   

I'm pretty sure Sanford would do better in Nevada, since it's libertarian leaning. NM I'm not so sure about, actually. It's seeming less likely that Sanford would do better than Bush there.

[Notre Dame rules!]

Since Bush was considered so polarizing by so many people, yet he still carried NM and IA, I see no reason why Sanford couldn't carry them by even larger margins.  By the same token, why would Sanford lose any state that Bush carried?

[Moooooo]

By the same token, why would Sanford lose any state that Bush carried?

Different campaign, different issues, different candidates... Maybe?