2008: Evan Bayh vs. Mark Sanford

[Frodo]

let's suppose that the Democratic Party follows the advice of the majority of Democrats on this forum, which is to nominate a moderate to conservative ticket, with Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh being nominated for president, with Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredeson as his running mate.

the Republicans, meanwhile, nominate what i deem as their most formidable ticket: South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford for president, with running mate Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum.

how would each ticket fare against the other?  please provide maps with percentages color shades. 

[nick]

Bayh/Bredesen - 291
Sanford/Santorum - 247

Tossup/Battleground states:  Missouri, Ohio, Indiana, West Virginia, Florida, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and New Mexico.

[Rob]

Bayh wins 275-263, assuming there's not a strong third party liberal.

[Frodo]

Bayh/Bredesen - 291
Sanford/Santorum - 247

Tossup/Battleground states:  Missouri, Ohio, Indiana, West Virginia, Florida, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and New Mexico.

interesting.  so, basically, Evan Bayh wins by a narrower margin than Russ Feingold over the same Republican ticket, who wins by over 300 electoral votes, according to the map you provided in this thread i made asking how well Feingold/Richardson would do against Sanford/Santorum:

http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=19288.0

Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania would be the key battle ground states as usual.  All of which could very easily flip and go to Sanford.

even with the disclaimer, it still shows Russ Feingold winning by a larger margin, if i have counted correctly. 

as far as i counted, Feingold/Richardson scores with 313 electoral votes, with Sanford/Santorum losing with 222 electoral votes or so (i am not sure how to count Nebraska and Maine's electoral votes).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

we're basically better off with Russ Feingold than we are with Evan Bayh, it looks like.     

[nick]

Bayh would probably ace neighboring Ohio were Feingold may barley slip by.  Feingold being jewish and Richardson being hispanic would give them a huge advantage in Florida.

Im not an anti-Feingold guy if thats what your thinking.  I believe he has the potential to be a really strong candidate if he can manage to divert the campaign away from his libertarian-like social views and focus on economic-populism.

[Frodo]

and in the worst case scenario (were the Republicans to win all the swing states you mentioned), Sanford/Santorum would triumph over Bayh/Bredeson with 304 electoral votes.

over Feingold/Richardson, it is somewhere around 300 electoral votes.  

not much difference either way.  

[Frodo]

Bayh would probably ace neighboring Ohio were Feingold may barley slip by.  Feingold being jewish and Richardson being hispanic would give them a huge advantage in Florida.

Im not an anti-Feingold guy if thats what your thinking.  I believe he has the potential to be a really strong candidate if he can manage to divert the campaign away from his libertarian-like social views and focus on economic-populism.

i didn't see this post when i made mine below, but i hear what you're saying.  ultimately, Feingold holds his fate in his own hands. 

[nick]

i didn't see this post when i made mine below, but i hear what you're saying.  ultimately, Feingold holds his fate in his own hands. 

My main problems with Feingold are (in no particual order)...

1.)  He's arrogant.  His ego is bigger than he is.
2.)  His social views are a little too far left for me and the majority of Americans (luckily for him I really dont vote on social issues).
3.)  He has a voting record a couple hundred pages long that will be exploited and spun by the GOP.

[Akno21]

i didn't see this post when i made mine below, but i hear what you're saying.  ultimately, Feingold holds his fate in his own hands. 

My main problems with Feingold are (in no particual order)...

1.)  He's arrogant.  His ego is bigger than he is.
2.)  His social views are a little too far left for me and the majority of Americans (luckily for him I really dont vote on social issues).
3.)  He has a voting record a couple hundred pages long that will be exploited and spun by the GOP.

Most politicans are arrogant with big egos, especially Senators. The social views scare me, he's worse than Kerry.

He seems a lot like Kerry, except he might be able to do better as a populist. Of course most populists don't have his record on social issues.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

let's suppose that the Democratic Party follows the advice of the majority of Democrats on this forum, which is to nominate a moderate to conservative ticket, with Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh being nominated for president, with Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredeson as his running mate.

the Republicans, meanwhile, nominate what i deem as their most formidable ticket: South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford for president, with running mate Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum.

If this happens, I and millions of others will end up voting for someone like Ralph Nader again.

[Akno21]

let's suppose that the Democratic Party follows the advice of the majority of Democrats on this forum, which is to nominate a moderate to conservative ticket, with Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh being nominated for president, with Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredeson as his running mate.

the Republicans, meanwhile, nominate what i deem as their most formidable ticket: South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford for president, with running mate Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum.

If this happens, I and millions of others will end up voting for someone like Ralph Nader again.

And we'll be stuck with four more years of hell.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

And we'll be stuck with four more years of hell.

This is why the Democrats need to nominate a liberal.

[nick]

If this happens, I and millions of others will end up voting for someone like Ralph Nader again.

Basically we are damned if we do and damned if we dont.  Nominate a liberal like Kerry again, and moderate/conservative democrats will flock to the GOP candidate.  Nominate a center/center-left candidate like Mark Warner and the liberals will flock to the Greens.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Nominate a liberal like Kerry again and moderate/conservative democrats will flock to the GOP candidate.

Kerry was not that liberal, especially on economic matters. Didn't he vote for the welfare "reform" law?

The Democrats are going to have to nominate someone more liberal than Kerry. Otherwise there's really no point in even having two parties.

[Smash255]

i didn't see this post when i made mine below, but i hear what you're saying.  ultimately, Feingold holds his fate in his own hands. 

My main problems with Feingold are (in no particual order)...

1.)  He's arrogant.  His ego is bigger than he is.
2.)  His social views are a little too far left for me and the majority of Americans (luckily for him I really dont vote on social issues).
3.)  He has a voting record a couple hundred pages long that will be exploited and spun by the GOP.

1.  He may be arrogant, but comes across as a very likeable guy, tons of charisma (everything Kerry didn't have)

2.  Well his social issues fit me just fine , and more than likely the GOP will spring up someone with far right social views that are far away from the mainstream as well (Santorum< Frist)

3.  Feingold has backbone & will fight back & defend himself MUCH better than Kerry did

[Rob]

If this happens, I and millions of others will end up voting for someone like Ralph Nader again.

Basically we are damned if we do and damned if we dont.  Nominate a liberal like Kerry again, and moderate/conservative democrats will flock to the GOP candidate.  Nominate a center/center-left candidate like Mark Warner and the liberals will flock to the Greens.

Very true. Liberals don't understand realpolitik. They don't stick with their party like they should. The GOP has admirable party discipline- that's why they almost always win.

[Frodo]

If this happens, I and millions of others will end up voting for someone like Ralph Nader again.

Basically we are damned if we do and damned if we dont.  Nominate a liberal like Kerry again, and moderate/conservative democrats will flock to the GOP candidate.  Nominate a center/center-left candidate like Mark Warner and the liberals will flock to the Greens.

Very true. Liberals don't understand realpolitik. They don't stick with their party like they should. The GOP has admirable party discipline- that's why they almost always win.

Very true.  Moderates and conservative Democrats don't understand realpolitik.  They don't stick with their party like they should.  The GOP has admirable party discipline- that's why they almost always win.
------------------------------------------------------------------
isn't this statement just as true and condescending as yours?  why pick only on liberals?   

you are aware, aren't you, that all the defeats of Democratic candidates in the 1970s, '80s, and the last two elections were primarily due to defections among rank and file Democrats who were primarily moderates and conservatives (as well as Dixiecrats, at least early on).  this question regarding why Democrats continue to lose, and whom to scapegoat for these losses is sort of like the chicken-and-the-egg analogy: is it liberals or conservative and moderate Democrats who continue to cause the Democratic Party to lose election after election?

[opebo]

Nominate a liberal like Kerry again and moderate/conservative democrats will flock to the GOP candidate.

Kerry was not that liberal, especially on economic matters. Didn't he vote for the welfare "reform" law?

The Democrats are going to have to nominate someone more liberal than Kerry. Otherwise there's really no point in even having two parties.

Correct as usual Populist!  Kerry was right-leaning economically.  He had very admirable views socially however.

[opebo]

If this happens, I and millions of others will end up voting for someone like Ralph Nader again.

Basically we are damned if we do and damned if we dont.  Nominate a liberal like Kerry again, and moderate/conservative democrats will flock to the GOP candidate.  Nominate a center/center-left candidate like Mark Warner and the liberals will flock to the Greens.

Very true. Liberals don't understand realpolitik. They don't stick with their party like they should. The GOP has admirable party discipline- that's why they almost always win.

Why on earth should a liberal stick with a party that isn't liberal?

You conservative Dems should join the Religious Party if you're so keen on oppressing gays and women, etc.

[A18]

And you wonder why people think you're a joke.

[opebo]

And you wonder why people think you're a joke.

So you think liberalism is a 'joke'?  It is a political ideology held by some 20 to 25% of the country!

[nick]

A true liberal will never win a Presidential election.  This country does not support Gay Marriage.  They do not support Partial Birth abortion.  etc...  Run someone like Boxer or Kucinich who are "true liberals" and its a guranteed 400+ EV's for the Republicans.  We must FIRST win a couple elections before we can push a progressive agenda.  Its kinda' hard to push your agenda from the sidelines, you know?

[Rob]

Why on earth should a liberal stick with a party that isn't liberal?

You conservative Dems should join the Religious Party if you're so keen on oppressing gays and women, etc.

Once again, Opebo, you prove your idiocy. May I remind you that you were a fanatical supporter of the "Religious Party" until a couple of months ago? You're a joke, and you expect to be taken seriously. Now crawl back into whatever hole you came from.

[Democratic Hawk]

A true liberal will never win a Presidential election

Correct

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

Bayh wins 275-263, assuming there's not a strong third party liberal.

Do you not think Bayh would carry Indiana, Bob? I dare say he would - unless the GOP nominee was Dick Lugar

Dave