Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 11, 2019, 02:23:36 pm
News: 2019 Gubernatorial Predictions close today at noon

  Atlas Forum
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2008 Elections
  SC Gov Mark Sanford (search mode)
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: SC Gov Mark Sanford  (Read 45763 times)
Sam Spade
SamSpade
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27,655


« on: March 02, 2005, 02:33:43 pm »


Generally it would seem to me you would want a "new" Democrat to battle a "new" Republican... someone young, telegenic, intelligent, energetic etc. Do the Democrats have such a candidate? Not that I've seen or heard... I think the GOP just got kind of lucky to have a few terrific Governors/potential Presidential candidates. In '92 the Dems got lucky enough with Clinton, but haven't been able to replicate that.

Governor Brady Henry, he could almost Neutralize the Southern/MidWestern, Charming, Christian, thing.  I mean, the guy teaches his kid's sunday school class for christ sake.  Plus, the NRA would probably have to stay neutral in this race considering Henry has an A+ rating from the NRA.

Very true.  Of course, the fact remains that it will be about a 1,000 times easier for Sanford to win the GOP nomination and get through the primaries than it will be for Henry to get the Dem nomination and get through the primaries.

Which really is too bad, frankly.  I'd like to have two fairly good nominees for Prez for a change.
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27,655


« Reply #1 on: March 03, 2005, 12:22:20 am »

I've always liked Breseden and I still do, but I'm an pretty conservative Democrat anyway.  Smiley

I can imagine the real left-wing wackos hating him.  Normal Democrats should like him.
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27,655


« Reply #2 on: March 03, 2005, 12:28:41 am »

I've always liked Breseden and I still do, but I'm an pretty conservative Democrat anyway.  Smiley

I can imagine the real left-wing wackos hating him.  Normal Democrats should like him.

Yep. The DINO's of the left would vote Green if Bredesen was nominated.

The previous Republican governors of Tennessee were disasters. 

Bredesen has gone in there, cleaned up things, and turned Tennessee around in general.

I would support a man like that all the time, regardless of political affliation.
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27,655


« Reply #3 on: March 03, 2005, 12:35:41 am »

Mitt Romney would lose.  The country's not going to elect a Mormon.  I wouldn't vote to elect a Mormon, frankly.

Also, he'd lose certain key states in the South because he's a Yankee, like Louisiana, if the Dems run anyone who simply shuts up on social issues.
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27,655


« Reply #4 on: March 03, 2005, 12:49:54 am »

Sen Sam,

 48% of the people voted for a conservative Jew in 2000 (at least as a Veep candidate).  Who would have ever thought that that would happen? 

I won't vote for Romney if he shows signs that he wants to be President of Mormon America.  I won't vote for Santorum if he show signs that he wants to be President of Catholic America.  However, If they want to be President of all America, then I see no problem with their religion.

Sorry, I just don't like Mormons.  They're just a cult to me, if less crazy than the Jehovah's Witnesses.

Not a religious bigot at all, I happen to be fairly religious myself.  But I do take that into account.

To Super:  The two problem spots with the whole GOP strategy right now are Ohio and Florida.  Most of the other states are much less important.   Even the Southwest is less important fundamentally, though I'd wonder how Sanford would fare in Colorado.

Sanford will make sure Florida is covered.  I'm sure in that situation there are ways for the GOP to take care of Ohio.

National parties are a very rare thing in American history; it probably won't happen again any time in the near future.
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27,655


« Reply #5 on: March 03, 2005, 01:14:01 am »

In how many elections since 1860 has a candidate won more than 55% of the vote:

1864 - Lincoln gets 55.02%  (half of country doesn't vote)
1872 - Grant gets 55.63% (helped by disenfranchising Confederates)
1904 - Roosevelt gets 56.42%  (popular prez.)
1920 - Harding gets 60.32% (return to normalcy)
1928 - Hoover gets 58.21% (chicken in every pot)
1932 - Roosevelt gets 57.41% (Great Depression)
1936 - Roosevelt gets 60.80% (height of his popularity)
1952 - Eisenhower gets 55.18% (Korean War)
1956 - Eisenhower gets 57.37% (Ike popular, incompetent challenger)
1964 - Johnson gets 61.05% (Kennedy ass., Goldwater bad candidate)
1972 - Nixon gets 60.67% (McGovern bad candidate)
1984 - Reagan gets 58.77% (Reagan popular)

I count 12 out 37 times a candidate has gotten more than 55% of the vote.  National margins and parties are an anomaly, not to be expected very often.
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27,655


« Reply #6 on: March 03, 2005, 02:18:55 am »

I don't think you hate the South.  I just don't see why a viable candidate still can't be Southern after so many Southern candidates.  To me it shouldn't really matter what part of the country the guy comes from, though sadly because of the electoral college it does matter.  I won't complain if both parties nominate Southerners, either.  Imagine John Breaux vs Mark Sanford.  I'd have a hard time choosing.

I'd have a hard time choosing in that one too because I like both of them.
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27,655


« Reply #7 on: March 05, 2005, 04:07:15 pm »

Its not like I want the South out of our party, or anything.  I would much rather have them in, believe me.  I'm glad that we have such a solid base.

All I'm saying is that it wouldn't hurt any to expand the base and win over more states.

Right now, Missouri is not in the "base".  Ohio is not in the base.  Iowa is not in the base.  Florida is not in the base.  Nevada and New Mexico are not in the base.  Without them, we can't win.

Of course, Super, by your definition of "base", Oregon, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and New Hampshire are the not in the base either for Democrats.

We just live in very divided times politically in the Presidential realm.  I honestly don't see that changing in the near future, either.
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27,655


« Reply #8 on: March 05, 2005, 04:21:35 pm »

Two elections makes "times"?

One problem with the internet and all that is that it causes us all to lose our perspective at times.

Actually, Al, its been the last three elections, or the time period from 1996-2004.  1996, 1998 and 2000 were evenly divided in terms of national congressional vote (49%-49%) and in 1996, Clinton only got 49% of the popular vote.

2002 and 2004, both had the Republicans up 51%-47% in terms of Congressional vote.

Whether that continues or not is a grand question, but I will continue to group the past 10 years together as "present times", because they are present times and there has not been very much variation in between them.
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27,655


« Reply #9 on: March 05, 2005, 04:30:23 pm »

Slight problem: where the two parties are strongest at Congressional level isn't the same as at Presidential level. Similer, yes. The same? No.

True, but you'd be surprised how all the gerrymanders tend to balance themselves out. 

It's a fair gauge in looking at trends, people like Michael Barone and Charlie Cook have been looking at those numbers for years in analyzing where the country is moving politically.

I'm not basing it entirely for my analysis at all, but it's something I always keep in the back of my mind when looking at numbers.
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27,655


« Reply #10 on: March 05, 2005, 04:36:52 pm »

I would actually argue that gerrymanders just distort the figures.

I would disagree.  For example, Maryland gerrymanders are balanced out by Pennsylvania gerrymanders.

In the end, it comes out to being fairly close, though not entirely accurate.

But as House and Senate elections have started to revolve more around national issues rather than local ones, the numbers have shown much more direct causality than say in the 1980s for example.
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
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