Tim Saler - 2008 GOP Presidential Primary Projection.

[Keystone Phil]

New Hampshire for Santorum? No, that won't happen.

[Keystone Phil]

New Hampshire for Santorum? No, that won't happen.

Thats what I was thinking.  Plus, McCain wins Idaho???

Also, I think Santorum can take SC.

[Keystone Phil]

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.

[Keystone Phil]

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.

[Keystone Phil]

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.

[Keystone Phil]

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...

[Keystone Phil]

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.

[Keystone Phil]

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..

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

[Keystone Phil]

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.

[Keystone Phil]

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.

[Keystone Phil]

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.

[Keystone Phil]

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.

[Keystone Phil]

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.)

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.