Tim Saler - 2008 GOP Presidential Primary Projection.

[Moooooo]

The most likely Democratic nominee is Bill Richardson.

To much baggage.

[Jake]

The most likely Democratic nominee is Bill Richardson.

To much baggage.

What, the China stuff at Los Alamos?

[Moooooo]

What, the China stuff at Los Alamos?

Yeah, I think that would be killer.  What are your thoughts on that stuff being replayed over and over in a presidential election?

[Rob]

All right, what exactly happened with that Los Alamos thing? I've heard lots of references to it, but I still don't know what Richardson did that was so horrible.

[Jake]

What, the China stuff at Los Alamos?

Yeah, I think that would be killer.  What are your thoughts on that stuff being replayed over and over in a presidential election?

Um, please nominate him    I really don't mind if they play it up.  2008 is the Democrats year anyway.  They're going to have to royally screw things up to not win.

[Moooooo]

Bob, here is a link to an article that describes the scandal a little bit.  I dont know a whole lot about it, but from what I do know it, not good at all. 

http://slate.msn.com/id/84864/

Someone correct me if Im wrong.  While Bill Richardson was Sec. of Energy under the Clinton adminstration, a Los Alamos nuclear lab leaked secrets to the Chinese that eventually led to their building of new nuclear weapons and Bill Richardson did pretty much nothing about it before and after.

[Rob]

Interesting. I agree, that would kill him.

[Moooooo]

You know its bad when not only were Republicans in congress calling for him to resign, but Democratic partisan hacks like Robert Byrd were tearing him apart too for his #%#$ up.

[TomC]

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.....

This is all such a bunch of bull. They've got us yammering about left and right issues and all the while both parties are using tax dollars and policy to bolster corporate America- big government for big business, neither left nor right really. There is enough check and balance and media and public pressure that left and right are fairly innocuous. Screw ideological labels and the lobbyists that pay for them- give me a real life freakin populist- it's our only hope really.

[PADem]

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.....

This is all such a bunch of bull. They've got us yammering about left and right issues and all the while both parties are using tax dollars and policy to bolster corporate America- big government for big business, neither left nor right really. There is enough check and balance and media and public pressure that left and right are fairly innocuous. Screw ideological labels and the lobbyists that pay for them- give me a real life freakin populist- it's our only hope really.

Spoken like a true Tennessian

[ian]

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.

In case you didn't know, the establishment chooses the DNC Chair, not the people of the United States.  So, don't blame us for that.  And secondly, the DNC chair isn't a political position; his role is to help out every Democrat running for political office in the United States by fundraising and campaigning.  So, even if he is a "far-leftist", it doesn't matter; ideology plays no part in that position.

[Keystone Phil]

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.

In case you didn't know, the establishment chooses the DNC Chair, not the people of the United States.  So, don't blame us for that.  And secondly, the DNC chair isn't a political position; his role is to help out every Democrat running for political office in the United States by fundraising and campaigning.  So, even if he is a "far-leftist", it doesn't matter; ideology plays no part in that position.

The establishment also has a lot of influence in the primary. And how can you say DNC Chair isn't a political position? That just doesn't make sense.

[ian]

Whoever he is, he's an idiot. Roughly everything about his projection is wrong. Actually I'm not sure how you would make it worse... maybe project Don King to win or something.

Calling people names isn't an intellegent way to express feeling.

[ian]

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.

In case you didn't know, the establishment chooses the DNC Chair, not the people of the United States.  So, don't blame us for that.  And secondly, the DNC chair isn't a political position; his role is to help out every Democrat running for political office in the United States by fundraising and campaigning.  So, even if he is a "far-leftist", it doesn't matter; ideology plays no part in that position.

The establishment also has a lot of influence in the primary. And how can you say DNC Chair isn't a political position? That just doesn't make sense.

And why is that?  Because he writes the platform?

[Keystone Phil]

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.

In case you didn't know, the establishment chooses the DNC Chair, not the people of the United States.  So, don't blame us for that.  And secondly, the DNC chair isn't a political position; his role is to help out every Democrat running for political office in the United States by fundraising and campaigning.  So, even if he is a "far-leftist", it doesn't matter; ideology plays no part in that position.

The establishment also has a lot of influence in the primary. And how can you say DNC Chair isn't a political position? That just doesn't make sense.

And why is that?  Because he writes the platform?

Uh...because he's the head of a party. That would certainly make it political.

[ian]

Uh...because he's the head of a party. That would certainly make it political.

How HE feels about issues matters not; he is just a tool of the party: that's his job.

[Keystone Phil]

Uh...because he's the head of a party. That would certainly make it political.

How HE feels about issues matters not; he is just a tool of the party: that's his job.

It reflects the way the establishment wants to go. The establishment has influence when it comes to primaries.

[Erc]

If Dean gets the chairmanship, he has the bully pulpit of the Democratic party.  So he'll have a lot of unofficial power to move the party in his direction.  Yeah, its officially just an administrative job, but so is the Presidency, for that matter...

[Michael Z]

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?

The difference is that, post-2004, many Republicans believe (rightly or wrongly) that far right policies win elections. This is also bearing in mind that Bush was largely seen as a bit of a whackjob who couldn't win a vote outside of Texas before the 2000 election, which didn't stop him winning.

While I wouldn't say Santorum has the same kind of mainstream appeal (I still think a Santorum Presidency is very very unlikely), I wouldn't write him off completely since stranger things have happened in politics. Also, three years is a long time - I doubt many people in 1965 seriously thought that Nixon would make a glorious comeback at the next Presidential election, just to illustrate how quickly people's perceptions of political figures can change.

[NHPolitico]

If McCain wants NH again, he has it. He's a perfect ideological fit for the state-- still. And they love his background, too-- still.