Tim Saler - 2008 GOP Presidential Primary Projection.

[AuH2O]

Is this a joke?

[AuH2O]

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.

[AuH2O]

Yeah but that's not even going to be the Final 4 or however many stay in the race after NH.

I don't think EITHER McCain and Guiliani will seriously run, though the latter is much more likely than the former, and I don't think Frist will have any traction, and Santorum has to both win reelection and then decide to run, which he hasn't.

I think Santorum probably wants the Veep slot.

This is the 2005 map of someone very dumb and very out of the loop.

[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 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.

[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.

[AuH2O]

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.

[AuH2O]

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.

[AuH2O]

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.

[AuH2O]

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.