Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 19, 2019, 07:47:32 am
News: 2020 Presidential Predictions (General) are now active.

  Atlas Forum
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2008 Elections
  Tim Saler - 2008 GOP Presidential Primary Projection.
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 Print
Author Topic: Tim Saler - 2008 GOP Presidential Primary Projection.  (Read 9564 times)
Akno21
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,097
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: February 19, 2005, 06:21:35 pm »


Plus, the establishment will likely be on his side.

Do you really think that? Are you sure that the GOP will nominate the most high-profile far-right politician perhaps in the country. Just as the Democrats don't want to be seen as the party of hardcore liberals is that really the direction the party will take?

Secondly, even if the establishment is on his side, will the GOP really nominate someone, although eloquent and perhaps with good base appeal,  who does not appeal to moderates, independents and other such swing voters.....?

Santorum isn't far right. The establishment is happy that Santorum has been loyal to the party.

Santorum can win. Whether or not you like him you have to admit he is electable.

1. Santorum isn't far right!!!!! Where exactly do you place him then? He's certainly not anywhere near the McCain/Snowe wing of the party.

2. Yes Santorum is a good politician, a good speaker, and has charisma. He is nominatable (is that a word) BUT he is clearly to far removed from middle America to be elected President of the United States. 


Yes he will win the Billy Graham/Jerry Falwell types who may well support him in droves, but the point is, if the Democrats run anybody moderate or even a Kerry type then Santorum won't stand a chance. I just can't see how Mr and Mrs John Q. Taxpayer will support someone with such hardline politics.

And before you say it, yes his politics are hardline... Anyone who compares gays to those who engage in animal sex gets a cross in my book.



"Mr. and Mrs. John Q. Taxpayer" would prefer someone like Santorum over someone like Kerry, Gore, Clinton...



"Mr. and Mrs. John Q. Taxpayer" is a nonexistent person.

Logged
AuH2O
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,239


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: February 19, 2005, 06:25:08 pm »
« Edited: February 19, 2005, 06:29:15 pm by AuH2O »


I think Santorum probably wants the Veep slot.


There is no doubt that he wants the top spot. Will he settle for VP? Who knows. His aim is for President though.

Well, he wants to be President, which is not exactly the same as thing. If it's clear the establishment is backing someone else and he isn't going to win the nomination, the last thing he's gonna do is jump in and create problems.

If Santorum wins re-election in 2006, I think he'll run for President no matter what. Plus, the establishment will likely be on his side.

I'm not sure the establishment will want to back a sitting Senator. Keep in mind, the GOP is smarter than the Democrats. Santorum is young and generally perceived as too conservative, though in reality he's pretty normal for a Republican.

I don't see Santorum's chances of winning the nomination as higher than 5% or so. Now, he could try the Edwards approach... force himself onto the ticket. But the GOP will be less impressed by such a strategy. He might declare a run but drop out early if he's not confident he would win.

Santorum's odds would probably rise of becoming President after serving as VP.
Logged
Keystone Phil
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 52,697


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: February 19, 2005, 06:26:55 pm »


I think Santorum probably wants the Veep slot.


There is no doubt that he wants the top spot. Will he settle for VP? Who knows. His aim is for President though.

Well, he wants to be President, which is not exactly the same as thing. If it's clear the establishment is backing someone else and he isn't going to win the nomination, the last thing he's gonna do is jump in and create problems.

If Santorum wins re-election in 2006, I think he'll run for President no matter what. Plus, the establishment will likely be on his side.

I'm not sure the establishment will want to back a sitting Senator. Keep in mind, the GOP is smarter than the Democrats. Santorum is young and generally perceived as too conservative, though in reality he's pretty normal for a Republican.

I don't see Santorum's chances of winning the nomination as higher than 5% or so. Now, he could try the Edwards approach... force himself onto the ticket. But the GOP will be less impressed by such a strategy. He might declare a run but drop out early if he's not confident he would win.

Santorum's odds would probably rise of becoming President after serving as VP.

He can win the primary. His chances are definetley higher than 5%. Plus, he might win re-election and resign from the Senate if he wins the primary.
Logged
PADem
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 376


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: February 19, 2005, 06:28:06 pm »
« Edited: February 19, 2005, 06:30:05 pm by PADem »


Plus, the establishment will likely be on his side.

Do you really think that? Are you sure that the GOP will nominate the most high-profile far-right politician perhaps in the country. Just as the Democrats don't want to be seen as the party of hardcore liberals is that really the direction the party will take?

Secondly, even if the establishment is on his side, will the GOP really nominate someone, although eloquent and perhaps with good base appeal,  who does not appeal to moderates, independents and other such swing voters.....?

Santorum isn't far right. The establishment is happy that Santorum has been loyal to the party.

Santorum can win. Whether or not you like him you have to admit he is electable.

1. Santorum isn't far right!!!!! Where exactly do you place him then? He's certainly not anywhere near the McCain/Snowe wing of the party.

2. Yes Santorum is a good politician, a good speaker, and has charisma. He is nominatable (is that a word) BUT he is clearly to far removed from middle America to be elected President of the United States. 


Yes he will win the Billy Graham/Jerry Falwell types who may well support him in droves, but the point is, if the Democrats run anybody moderate or even a Kerry type then Santorum won't stand a chance. I just can't see how Mr and Mrs John Q. Taxpayer will support someone with such hardline politics.

And before you say it, yes his politics are hardline... Anyone who compares gays to those who engage in animal sex gets a cross in my book.


He's no where near McCain or Snowe so he's far right? Yeah...ok...I'd say he's conservative. Not far right, not moderate.

Unless you can provide me with a map (a reasonable map that is) where Santorum could lose, then stop saying how unelectable he is.

"Mr. and Mrs. John Q. Taxpayer" would prefer someone like Santorum over someone like Kerry, Gore, Clinton...



Map.... Here you go.... This is against the likes of Bayh, Warner, Richardson..

Img
Logged
AuH2O
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,239


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: February 19, 2005, 06:30:39 pm »

Originally I edited my previous post but do to rapid response I'll make this separate.


There is some thinking that Santorum's social conservativsm would actually make him a superior candidate to Bush, but I'm not sure what my thoughts are yet. Santorum is electable... a much better pure candidate than John Kerry, but circumstances will of course be a factor. Bush was quite close in PA and MI, and I have a hard time figuring out how Santorum could not be superior in those 2 states in particular.

IF the GOP is near certain 2008 will be very close, a Pawlenty-Santorum ticket could be potentially dominating; very strongly social conservatives that would make things ugly for Democrats in the Midwest. Not sure what the Democrats do in that scenario, aside from cry.
Logged
Keystone Phil
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 52,697


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: February 19, 2005, 06:31:24 pm »


Plus, the establishment will likely be on his side.

Do you really think that? Are you sure that the GOP will nominate the most high-profile far-right politician perhaps in the country. Just as the Democrats don't want to be seen as the party of hardcore liberals is that really the direction the party will take?

Secondly, even if the establishment is on his side, will the GOP really nominate someone, although eloquent and perhaps with good base appeal,  who does not appeal to moderates, independents and other such swing voters.....?

Santorum isn't far right. The establishment is happy that Santorum has been loyal to the party.

Santorum can win. Whether or not you like him you have to admit he is electable.

1. Santorum isn't far right!!!!! Where exactly do you place him then? He's certainly not anywhere near the McCain/Snowe wing of the party.

2. Yes Santorum is a good politician, a good speaker, and has charisma. He is nominatable (is that a word) BUT he is clearly to far removed from middle America to be elected President of the United States. 


Yes he will win the Billy Graham/Jerry Falwell types who may well support him in droves, but the point is, if the Democrats run anybody moderate or even a Kerry type then Santorum won't stand a chance. I just can't see how Mr and Mrs John Q. Taxpayer will support someone with such hardline politics.

And before you say it, yes his politics are hardline... Anyone who compares gays to those who engage in animal sex gets a cross in my book.


He's no where near McCain or Snowe so he's far right? Yeah...ok...I'd say he's conservative. Not far right, not moderate.

Unless you can provide me with a map (a reasonable map that is) where Santorum could lose, then stop saying how unelectable he is.

"Mr. and Mrs. John Q. Taxpayer" would prefer someone like Santorum over someone like Kerry, Gore, Clinton...



Map.... Here you go.... This is against the likes of Bayh, Warner, Richardson..

Img


Do you really think someone like Bayh, Warner or Richardson would get the nomination?
Logged
PADem
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 376


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: February 19, 2005, 06:31:54 pm »

An explanation of the above map. Assuming PA voted for Santorum, which would be a definiate tossup in a national election. This is how it would turn out. Indiana would only flip for Bayh, but Ohio, New Mexico, and perhaps even Nevada would vote for someone like Richardson
Logged
PADem
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 376


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: February 19, 2005, 06:32:50 pm »

Yes,

Bayh, Warner and Richardson are exactly the kind of nominees the Democrats need. I for one think Bayh has an excellent chance of getting the nomination.
Logged
Keystone Phil
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 52,697


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: February 19, 2005, 06:35:18 pm »

Yes,

Bayh, Warner and Richardson are exactly the kind of nominees the Democrats need. I for one think Bayh has an excellent chance of getting the nomination.

It's not a question of what Dems need. It's a question of what will happen. Bayh or Warner getting the nomination - no way.
Logged
PADem
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 376


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: February 19, 2005, 06:36:56 pm »

Yes,

Bayh, Warner and Richardson are exactly the kind of nominees the Democrats need. I for one think Bayh has an excellent chance of getting the nomination.

It's not a question of what Dems need. It's a question of what will happen. Bayh or Warner getting the nomination - no way.

Why not. Moderate Democrats who both appeal to the base and consistently win in predominantly Republican states. The party would have to be stupid to give the nomination to someone Kerryesque this time around.
Logged
Keystone Phil
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 52,697


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: February 19, 2005, 06:40:25 pm »

Yes,

Bayh, Warner and Richardson are exactly the kind of nominees the Democrats need. I for one think Bayh has an excellent chance of getting the nomination.

It's not a question of what Dems need. It's a question of what will happen. Bayh or Warner getting the nomination - no way.

Why not. Moderate Democrats who both appeal to the base and consistently win in predominantly Republican states. The party would have to be stupid to give the nomination to someone Kerryesque this time around.

Your party needed a Lieberman-like candidate in 2004 to discuss national security and they nominated Kerry. Neither Bayh, Warner or Richardson will be nominated in 2008.

By the way, your party was stupid enough to elect Howard Dean as DNC Chair.
Logged
Smash255
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14,881


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: February 19, 2005, 06:41:52 pm »

Yes,

Bayh, Warner and Richardson are exactly the kind of nominees the Democrats need. I for one think Bayh has an excellent chance of getting the nomination.

It's not a question of what Dems need. It's a question of what will happen. Bayh or Warner getting the nomination - no way.

Well Bayh & Warner have a much better chance of getting the Dem nomination than Rudy getting the GOP nomination.  Warner & Bayh might not fit in the greatest with the Dem base, but they are sure as hell much closer to the Dem base than the pro gay rights, pro gay marriage, anti FMA, pro choice, pro PBA, pro Gun Control Rudy Giuliani is to the GOP base
Logged
AuH2O
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,239


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: February 19, 2005, 06:42:01 pm »

Yes,

Bayh, Warner and Richardson are exactly the kind of nominees the Democrats need. I for one think Bayh has an excellent chance of getting the nomination.

It's not a question of what Dems need. It's a question of what will happen. Bayh or Warner getting the nomination - no way.

Why not. Moderate Democrats who both appeal to the base and consistently win in predominantly Republican states. The party would have to be stupid to give the nomination to someone Kerryesque this time around.

Moderate Democrats don't "consistently" do anything. Clinton only won so many states because of Perot, and he is the ONLY DEMOCRAT in recent memory to seriously put nominally conservative states in play (and he still got blown out in hardcore GOP states of course).

Warner is a nothing, Bayh is a dullard, and Richardson has baggage. And Richardson isn't THAT moderate. That said, he's not a bad candidate at all.
Logged
Keystone Phil
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 52,697


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: February 19, 2005, 06:43:47 pm »

Yes,

Bayh, Warner and Richardson are exactly the kind of nominees the Democrats need. I for one think Bayh has an excellent chance of getting the nomination.

It's not a question of what Dems need. It's a question of what will happen. Bayh or Warner getting the nomination - no way.

Well Bayh & Warner have a much better chance of getting the Dem nomination than Rudy getting the GOP nomination.  Warner & Bayh might not fit in the greatest with the Dem base, but they are sure as hell much closer to the Dem base than the pro gay rights, pro gay marriage, anti FMA, pro choice, pro PBA, pro Gun Control Rudy Giuliani is to the GOP base

They do have a better chance but what's your point? I never said Rudy would run or get the nomination. I have actually spoken against both.
Logged
nick
nickshepDEM
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,911


Political Matrix
E: -0.52, S: 3.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: February 19, 2005, 06:45:21 pm »
« Edited: February 19, 2005, 06:47:53 pm by nickshepDEM »


Do you really think someone like Bayh, Warner or Richardson would get the nomination?

Yes (see 1992), there were plenty of candidates that the base could have ran to, Tsongas, Brown, Harkin, but they chose the moderate southern governor.
Logged
Keystone Phil
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 52,697


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: February 19, 2005, 06:47:10 pm »


Do you really think someone like Bayh, Warner or Richardson would get the nomination?

Yes (see 1992).

Clinton was not as conservative as Bayh or Warner. Your party keeps moving to the left.
Logged
Akno21
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,097
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: February 19, 2005, 06:48:33 pm »

Yes,

Bayh, Warner and Richardson are exactly the kind of nominees the Democrats need. I for one think Bayh has an excellent chance of getting the nomination.

It's not a question of what Dems need. It's a question of what will happen. Bayh or Warner getting the nomination - no way.

Why not. Moderate Democrats who both appeal to the base and consistently win in predominantly Republican states. The party would have to be stupid to give the nomination to someone Kerryesque this time around.

Moderate Democrats don't "consistently" do anything. Clinton only won so many states because of Perot, and he is the ONLY DEMOCRAT in recent memory to seriously put nominally conservative states in play (and he still got blown out in hardcore GOP states of course).


Clinton only lost Texas by 3, North Carolina by 1, South Dakota by 3, Wyoming by 6, he did not get blown out anywhere except North Dakota, Idaho, Nebraska, and Utah.
Logged
nick
nickshepDEM
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,911


Political Matrix
E: -0.52, S: 3.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: February 19, 2005, 06:50:06 pm »

Clinton was not as conservative as Bayh or Warner. Your party keeps moving to the left.

Bayh and Warner are to the left of Bill Clinton on the political spectrum.  Why do you keep calling them conservative?  Because one  opposes still birth abortions and the other was endorsed by the NRA?
Logged
Keystone Phil
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 52,697


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: February 19, 2005, 06:50:17 pm »

Yes,

Bayh, Warner and Richardson are exactly the kind of nominees the Democrats need. I for one think Bayh has an excellent chance of getting the nomination.

It's not a question of what Dems need. It's a question of what will happen. Bayh or Warner getting the nomination - no way.

Why not. Moderate Democrats who both appeal to the base and consistently win in predominantly Republican states. The party would have to be stupid to give the nomination to someone Kerryesque this time around.

Moderate Democrats don't "consistently" do anything. Clinton only won so many states because of Perot, and he is the ONLY DEMOCRAT in recent memory to seriously put nominally conservative states in play (and he still got blown out in hardcore GOP states of course).


Clinton only lost Texas by 3, North Carolina by 1, South Dakota by 3, Wyoming by 6, he did not get blown out anywhere except North Dakota, Idaho, Nebraska, and Utah.

Yeah. Thank Ross Perot for that one.

(Go ahead and argue that Perot isn't the reason why Clinton did so well in those states.)
Logged
Keystone Phil
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 52,697


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: February 19, 2005, 06:54:59 pm »

Clinton was not as conservative as Bayh or Warner. Your party keeps moving to the left.

Bayh and Warner are to the left of Bill Clinton on the political spectrum.  Why do you keep calling them conservative?  Because one  opposes still birth abortions and the other was endorsed by the NRA?

In my opinion, both are to the right of Clinton. Anyway, your party keeps moving to the left. The party that picked Howard Dean as their Chairman won't have someone like Bayh or Warner as their nominee.
Logged
AuH2O
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,239


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: February 19, 2005, 06:55:49 pm »

Clinton was not as conservative as Bayh or Warner. Your party keeps moving to the left.

Bayh and Warner are to the left of Bill Clinton on the political spectrum.  Why do you keep calling them conservative?  Because one  opposes still birth abortions and the other was endorsed by the NRA?

I don't think you're familiar with Warner's run for Governor (the only victorious race he's ever run btw). He ran hard right on fiscal issues... practically libertarian. Once in office he shafted the teacher's union AND raised taxes, pissing off both sides. He's socially moderate because he has no choice in VA.

In the primary, he would be brutalized over and over and over and over again for the positions he took in Virginia. He is to Clinton's right on basically every issue... no chance in hell. Oh and without the charisma.

Bayh is just a robot, not especially moderate or liberal.
Logged
nick
nickshepDEM
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,911


Political Matrix
E: -0.52, S: 3.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: February 19, 2005, 06:59:23 pm »

I don't think you're familiar with Warner's run for Governor (the only victorious race he's ever run btw). He ran hard right on fiscal issues... practically libertarian. Once in office he shafted the teacher's union AND raised taxes, pissing off both sides. He's socially moderate because he has no choice in VA.

In the primary, he would be brutalized over and over and over and over again for the positions he took in Virginia. He is to Clinton's right on basically every issue... no chance in hell. Oh and without the charisma.

Bayh is just a robot, not especially moderate or liberal.

The tax hike must have really been needed if it got through the Virignia state legislature.   As a bonus to Warner "the Governor" magazine recently declared Virginia the most fiscally responsible state in the nation. 
Logged
AuH2O
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,239


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: February 19, 2005, 07:07:23 pm »

I don't think you're familiar with Warner's run for Governor (the only victorious race he's ever run btw). He ran hard right on fiscal issues... practically libertarian. Once in office he shafted the teacher's union AND raised taxes, pissing off both sides. He's socially moderate because he has no choice in VA.

In the primary, he would be brutalized over and over and over and over again for the positions he took in Virginia. He is to Clinton's right on basically every issue... no chance in hell. Oh and without the charisma.

Bayh is just a robot, not especially moderate or liberal.

The tax hike must have really been needed if it got through the Virignia state legislature.   As a bonus to Warner "the Governor" magazine recently declared Virginia the most fiscally responsible state in the nation. 

Virginia has been high on that list pretty much every year. In any case, your point is valid-- the tax hike was actually written by Republicans (less substantial than Warner's proposal), but that's the whole point. Warner has to be too conservative to win in Virginia. He completely outflanked Earley on fiscal issues and then neutralized social issues by running very moderately on them.
Logged
PADem
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 376


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: February 19, 2005, 07:43:38 pm »


Do you really think someone like Bayh, Warner or Richardson would get the nomination?

Yes (see 1992).
Your party keeps moving to the left.

And yours to the right... And I think 2004 has told us that we can't move that way... Deans Chairmanship hopefully won't push us further to the left though.....
Logged
Jake
dubya2004
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18,659
Cuba


Political Matrix
E: -0.90, S: -0.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: February 19, 2005, 08:36:07 pm »

The most likely Democratic nominee is Bill Richardson.  The Democrats know a few things.

First, nominating a Senator/VP is a bad idea. The last non-incumbent Democratic candidates to lose were: Kerry (Senator), Gore (VP), Dukakis (Far-Left), Mondale (Both Far-Left and a VP).

Second, they can't nominate someone far out of the mainstream like Hilary Clinton or Al Gore. They need to nominate someone who will put Republican states in play, not Democratic ones.

Third, the Democratic party will not nominate someone who doesn't appeal to a certain block of voters. 

Using these three criteria the following candidates are eliminated:

Kerry (Senator, Liberal, white)
Clinton (Senator, Liberal) appeals to women
Gore (VP, Liberal, white) appeals to angry Moveon type wingnuts
Warner (Governor, Moderate, white and un-charismatic)
Edwards (unemployed ,Liberal, no base of support)
Bayh (Senator, Moderate, white and blase Cheesy)
Richardson (Governor, Moderate, appeals to Hispanics and SW voters)
Feingold (Senator, Liberal, appeals to mavericks)

So really the candidates with the best shots are Warner, Richardson, Clinton, and Bayh.  Only Richardson meets the three criteria.  A Richardson/Feingold ticket would be devestatingly effective in the Southwest and Midwest, both areas where the Democrats need help.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

© Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Elections, LLC