What is the most likely Democrat - Republican face-off in 2008?

[CARLHAYDEN]

Probably the strongest ticket the Democrats could run in 2008 would be Warner-Bayh.

[Democratic Hawk]

I've voted moderate Democrat versus conservative Republican

Dave

Keep an eye on Mark R. Warner (Govenor of Virginia).

He's the best hope the Democrats have for 2008.

I'm taking notice of Mark Warner. Currently, I'm leaning heavily towards Evan Bayh with Warner as running mate. Eight years Bayh and eight years Warner sounds good to me.

They're close in age Bayh (b.1955) and Warner (b.1954). I've preferred Bayh as President because he has proven executive office as a two-term governor of Indiana, as well as experience in the Senate. He appeals heavily to independents and can command roughly 35% of the Indiana GOP vote. By comparison, Warner will have served one-term as governor of Virginia and may by then be a Senator

Does any one know if Warner commands much bi-partisan support?

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

Probably the strongest ticket the Democrats could run in 2008 would be Warner-Bayh.

How about Bayh/Warner?

I'm liking this poll, I fear for the Democrats if they select an out-and-out liberal in 2008.

Dave

[Ben.]

Probably the strongest ticket the Democrats could run in 2008 would be Warner-Bayh.

I’d say Bayh/ Nelson or Bayh/ Easley… Warner is to much of an asset he should either run against Allen or see if John Warner retires rather than run again in 2008 if there where an open race he’d win against Allen it would be a tough race for both candidates IMHO.

So keeping Warner out of the way a solid southern running mate would be best for Bayh IMHO. As things stand at the moment I reckon Bayh is the best candidate and since he’s the one senator who just about an ideological match for me, that ok as far as I’m concerned.     

[CARLHAYDEN]

Didn't you read my earlier post about the history of nominess by previous elective office held?

Also, please note that the Democrats haven't elected a President who came from outside the south since 1960 (and that was by a questionable squeaker).

Democrats can win with a sourthern Governor.

With a northern Senator, they are at the disadvantage.

[Ben.]

Didn't you read my earlier post about the history of nominess by previous elective office held?

Also, please note that the Democrats haven't elected a President who came from outside the south since 1960 (and that was by a questionable squeaker).

Democrats can win with a sourthern Governor.

With a northern Senator, they are at the disadvantage.

You could have a point, that said Bayh/Easley would have more appeal in the south than Kerry/Edwards [sns]… states like WV, AR, MO and perhaps NC and LA would certainly be competitive.

I don’t think, despite his great and substantive record as Governor of Virginia, Warner is ready to run for President and if he did there could be shades of “Edward’s empty suite” I would argue he’s best to look for a run for the senate either against Allen in 2006 or if John Warner decides to step down in 2008, against Allen it would be closer, in an open race he’d probably win.     

[CARLHAYDEN]

While it is true that Warner does not have a lengthy record in elective office, he's not quite the airhead of Edwards proportion.

Further, Allen is very popular in a Republican leaning state.

Don't think even Warner could win election against him.

Also, while it is true that Bayh would be a better candidate than Kerry, Easley is very overrated.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Didn't you read my earlier post about the history of nominess by previous elective office held?

Also, please note that the Democrats haven't elected a President who came from outside the south since 1960 (and that was by a questionable squeaker).

Democrats can win with a sourthern Governor.

With a northern Senator, they are at the disadvantage.

Politically and culturally, however, Indiana pretty much is a southern state.

[CARLHAYDEN]

There is a lot of truth in your observation.

The problem however is two-fold.

First, members of a legislative body with a partisan division are pressured to 'vote the party line' in many cases.  These votes which seem harmless at the time can come back to bite them when they run for President.

Second, the mind-set and verbiage of long time legislators is distinctly different in most cases from that of sucessful Presidential candidates. 

[M]

Well, Indiana is a rural Midwest state. It is culturally more similar to the 20s Midwest than any other modern Midwestern state. And it does have a large Southern influence; the Southern part of the state is essentially Southern.

Seriously, though, I might vote for Bayh (as I would have for Lieberman, were Bush not incumbent).

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Seriously, though, I might vote for Bayh (as I would have for Lieberman, were Bush not incumbent).

Heh.  I would have voted for Lieberman either way.

Bush: understands the war on terror, somewhat incompetant at fighting it.
Kerry: has no clue about the war on terror.
Lieberman: understands the war on terror, AND would know how to fight it.

Clear choice, in my mind.

[M]

I prefer Lieberman for a host of reasons, but I feel an incumbent must give you a clear reason to reject him, and I don't think Bush has done that. That said, he could have been a wonderful president.

[Jake]

Anyone think the Democrats would nominate Rendell.  I think that if a certain party wins the midterms, they will nominate an idealogue. Rendell for the Dems and Frist or Santorum for the GOP.  The losing party or if they tie will pick a moderate.

[Ben.]

Anyone think the Democrats would nominate Rendell.  I think that if a certain party wins the midterms, they will nominate an idealogue. Rendell for the Dems and Frist or Santorum for the GOP.  The losing party or if they tie will pick a moderate.

Wouldn’t say Rendell is an ideologue, he pretty much an old fashioned Hawkish/ Trades Union Democrat, didn’t he endorse Lieberman? He may run, but only if he wins re-election in 2006, if he ran he’d be a good and highly competive candidate with the right campaign and the right running mate… but where Bayh to run plenty of Rendell’s base in the primaries would be gone… so I think he may not run, and look to make VP on a southern lead Ticket, where Warner or Lincoln to get the nod he’d be a very good choice (unlike Edwards he'd understand the job description).       

[M]

Rendell is a moderate. Frist is only where Bush is, a conservative but not a deep-ender or whatever (same as Kerry on the left, though both moved towards the center during the campaign). Santorum is a wingnut and would be a BAD choice, I would certainly support a Bayh, Richardson or Rendell against him.

[Alcon]

Rendell is a moderate. Frist is only where Bush is, a conservative but not a deep-ender or whatever (same as Kerry on the left, though both moved towards the center during the campaign). Santorum is a wingnut and would be a BAD choice, I would certainly support a Bayh, Richardson or Rendell against him.

You, sir, are my new favorite Republican ever.

[M]

Well, I always have been sort of a center person. This election I basically voted security, but had that not been an issue, I'd still have taken Bush over Kerry because of health care, character issues, and incumbency. But there are plenty of circumstances I can imaine myself backing the Democrat. My favorite 08ers, and least, come from both parties; my nightmare scenario is Hillary v Santorum.

[NHPolitico]

The Dems will be even more agreeable to uniting behind a moderate-sounding candidate than they were this year.  Bush's easy win makes it easy to pick another conservative.

[M]

Actually, this year they picked a standard leftist who sounded right as opposed to a radical Leftist (Dean was the ideological equivalent of Reverend Pat Robertson). Kerry did move to the center, like Bush, for the election; but a real democratic moderate is a different animal.

[Sam Spade]

Well, I think everyone's missing a number of obvious points.

First, Bill Frist will never be Presidential material.  He hasn't exactly distinguished himself in his 3 years as Majority Leader in the Senate (unlike Bob Dole, I might add) and he has a terrible and boring personality. (much like Pataki)

Second, in terms of the mainstream loved Republicans, McCain will never get the nomination because he is viewed as disloyal to the Rep party by its base.  But with Rudy Giulani, I am honestly shocked every time I talk to my Republican socially conservative friends back in the Deep South love the man. 

I have to believe that his social positions will hurt him, but I think the reason why he so loved in Republican circles right now is because of his loyalty to Bush and to the Reps, that loyalty to other Reps can never be underestimated.  I have to believe if he moderated his social positions a little and promised to nominate a true social conservative like a Rick Santorum as VP, he would stand a halfway-decent chance of actually getting the nomination.

If not, it will be some state governor, imo.  Take your pick from the list.

Third, if Hillary Clinton wants to be the Democrat nominee for President, she will be the Democrat nominee for President.  She controls the money and power, and well, money and power is everything in politics. 

I would note that as of this moment she and Bill are trying to get their good old friend Harold Ickes installed as the DNC chief.  This is precisely to keep a potential DNC chair like Howard Dean from getting the access to some of the money and power flow and potentially putting either himself or a candidate he believes in as opposition if Hillary runs.

If Dean does become chair, I will back away from my prediction that if "Hillary runs she will be the nominee", but she would still be the odds on favorite.  If she doesn't run, then and only then would I give a moderate nominee the chance. 

Things have changed a lot from 1992 and the Democrat party in the South is nearly on life support, with its only main supporters being its base liberal voters, often black.  Unless the primaries are open, this really hurts moderate Democrats more than one would imagine.

Don't get me wrong, I wish a candidate like Bayh or Warner would run and be the nominee; I just don't see it happening with these factors in play, unless a moderate Democrat gets his hands on the money factor within the Dem party.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Actually, this year they picked a standard leftist who sounded right as opposed to a radical Leftist (Dean was the ideological equivalent of Reverend Pat Robertson). Kerry did move to the center, like Bush, for the election; but a real democratic moderate is a different animal.

false, Dean was a moderate and to the right of Kerry. His record as governor was from radical. He simply got stereotyped as a radical leftist because of a few positions and that he had rather angry speeches, but his actual record is far from extreme.

[MODU]

Actually, this year they picked a standard leftist who sounded right as opposed to a radical Leftist (Dean was the ideological equivalent of Reverend Pat Robertson). Kerry did move to the center, like Bush, for the election; but a real democratic moderate is a different animal.

false, Dean was a moderate and to the right of Kerry. His record as governor was from radical. He simply got stereotyped as a radical leftist because of a few positions and that he had rather angry speeches, but his actual record is far from extreme.

I agree.  His challengers and the media did a good job of copying Dean's point of views to gain support leading up to Iowa, and then crucified him as an extremist following his pep-rally.

[M]

He was an ideological far nutcase. Forget the positions. His foaming-at-the-mouth anti-right, anti-independent, anti-moderate-left positions were born staight out of the radical counterculture of the 1960s. He would have run this country straight down into the ground faster than you can say "take back the white house, yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaarrrrghhhh!".

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

forget the positions? that defines an ideology.

what was so crazy about what he said? he simply opposed the Iraq invasion, and that got him written off as some pacifistic dove about the same level as Kucinich. But he was from that. And there was nothing extreme about his governor record. If he was such an extremist why didn't he govern that way?

[ATFFL]

forget the positions? that defines an ideology.

what was so crazy about what he said? he simply opposed the Iraq invasion, and that got him written off as some pacifistic dove about the same level as Kucinich. But he was from that. And there was nothing extreme about his governor record. If he was such an extremist why didn't he govern that way?

It was also the way he said things.  He ran to the far, far left to try adn grab the base.  He may have even run so far left he went past the base into the lunatic fringe, even though he clearly does not belong there.