Bayh vs. Sanford -2008 election hypothetical

[Frodo]

let's suppose that the Democratic Party nominates Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh as its presidential candidate, with Virginia Gov. Mark Warner as his running mate.

the Republican Party meanwhile nominates South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford, who chooses Virginia Sen. George Allen as his running mate.

who would win?  by how much?  and what would the electoral college map look like?

[AuH2O]

Sanford would win, but there's some game theory behind that which isn't really worth going into.

I say that because, frankly, Bayh is not going to get the nomination. Can Hillary be stopped? I seriously doubt it, and if its going to be done, it will take someone with major charismatic appeal.

Or, in other words, someone unlike Evan Bayh, who, by the way, I don't even think is all that keen on running.

[M]

Bayh couldn't possibly get the nomination; Sanford's the right sort, but not positioned correctly. The fields too crowded anyway. BUT if it did happen, I predict a Bayh landslide. (BTW, Richardson's a smarter running mate than Warner, for Hillary too.)

[opebo]

Bayh/Warner  - 283
Sangfroid/Alien - 255

[WilliamSeward]

Sanford

[PBrunsel]

[/img]
Bayh/Warner: 283
Sangfroid/Alien: 255

To be fair do you EVER think a Republican will win?

[Rob]

Sangfroid/Alien

That's so clever! You really should write a book.

[jokerman]

I'm just curious.  What's the big deal about Sanford?  Why is he always talked about as a dream candidate for the GOP?

[Alcon]

Opebo's map is unusually semi-realistic, although he needs to make the south a bit darker blue, especially SC. I'd also change UT to >60%. I also think that at least half the states listed as >40% would be >50%.

[A18]

I'm just curious.  What's the big deal about Sanford?  Why is he always talked about as a dream candidate for the GOP?

He's a true conservative and firm supporter of limited government. In 2004, he vetoed 106 budget items. The GOP-controlled legislature overturned 105 of them, and the next day he brought brought live pigs into the House chamber as a visual protest against "pork projects."

He also spoke out in favor of lifting the U.S. embargo of Cuba, and opposed a ban on physician-assisted suicide.

[A18]

Opebo's map is unusually semi-realistic, although he needs to make the south a bit darker blue, especially SC. I'd also change UT to >60%. I also think that at least half the states listed as >40% would be >50%.

Nevada and New Hampshire would go for Sanford. West Virginia and maybe Missouri would go Bayh.

I also think New Mexico would go for Sanford, >50%. South Carolina should be >60%, and Alabama probably >50%.

All this is assuming it's a close race, which I really doubt will happen again.

[Alcon]

Opebo's map is unusually semi-realistic, although he needs to make the south a bit darker blue, especially SC. I'd also change UT to >60%. I also think that at least half the states listed as >40% would be >50%.

Nevada and New Hampshire would go for Sanford. West Virginia and maybe Missouri would go Bayh.

Why, out of curiosity? Sanford is rather socially conservative, in a way that Nevada probably would not like as much as they did Bush's. But I think it would be extremely close, in part to the drift around Reno (which I see as more significant than Las Vegas, which I see as barely trending Republican in 2008).

New Hampshire is a state I see changing very little in this hypothetical.

West Virginia would be much closer, but I still think it would vote Republican. I'm not sure I understand why you suggest Missouri.

I also think New Mexico would go for Sanford, >50%. South Carolina should be >60%, and Alabama probably >50%.

Bayh's semi-populism would probably play rather well in New Mexico, so I have to disagree there. I agree on SC, but I don't understand why Sanford would do worse in Alabama than Bush.

All this is assuming it's a close race, which I really doubt will happen again.

Ever?

[A18]

Sanford is less socially conservative than Bush, which helps in both Nevada and New Hampshire. Both of those states aren't exactly known for populism.

New Mexico goes Sanford because of hispanics.

In 2008.

[Alcon]

Sanford is less socially conservative than Bush, which helps in both Nevada and New Hampshire. Both of those states aren't exactly known for populism.

You're actually right. I thought he was more socially conservative. That may help him in NV and NH.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Maybe. But I think it will still be close in NM, and I can't imagine too much of a non-Hillary landslide in 2008.

[Moooooo]

I'm just curious.  What's the big deal about Sanford?  Why is he always talked about as a dream candidate for the GOP?

There is no "big deal".  He has no major accomplishments, no record, no anything.  But in this day in age that does'nt matter much.  He could run on the Bush 2000 platform and win.  Southern, Conservative, Christian, Charismatic, Picture Perfect Wife and Family, DC Outsider, etc...

[A18]

If he gets his private school tax credit bill through, that will be a huge accomplishment.

[A18]

Oh, and vetoing over 100 budget items is a record.

[AuH2O]

Yeah, "no" major accomplishments is a bit harsh. When he's gotten things done no one talks about it. But certainly he has a ways to go before he has the kind of record you can talk about honestly and be proud of.

On the other hand, his problem is that he doesn't do politics as usual, which would work to his advantage.

[Moooooo]

On the other hand, his problem is that he doesn't do politics as usual, which would work to his advantage.

Good point.  Who is the better candidate in your opinion... Allen or Sanford?

[A18]

Sanford. He's a governor.

[Moooooo]

Sanford. He's a governor.

What about his lack of foreign policy credentials?  But I guess you'll get that with just about any governor.  Still, in the post 9/11 era do you think a strong background in defense and national security are must?

[A18]

It would matter more if presidents didn't have a ton of advisors to handle this stuff for them.

He needs to get some more stuff done (he has two years before the primary season begins), but then he'll be the perfect candidate.

[AuH2O]

Sanford. He's a governor.

What about his lack of foreign policy credentials?  But I guess you'll get that with just about any governor.  Still, in the post 9/11 era do you think a strong background in defense and national security are must?

As with W., the VP pick would be important there. Sanford/Rice or Sanford/Franks or something would be a possibility. Foreign policy might be somewhat reduced as an issue by '08, assuming we have many fewer troops in Iraq (which is almost certain) and there hasn't been another domestic terror attack.

Allen is a better campaigner than Sanford, and he has more presence. But Sanford has much more outsider appeal and comes across as more intelligent (which indeed he is), though neither is arrogant. Sanford certainly has a lot more upside, but Allen is safer...

At this point, the question ultimately for the GOP is "can you beat Hillary?" Sure, it's theoretically possible she won't be the Dem nominee. It's also possible Philip Rivers would be a better QB in 2005 than Drew Brees, but you don't see San Diego trading him. Allen can beat Hillary, they're both Senators, and Allen has infinitely more pull with the establishment.

So I don't see the incentive for the GOP to take a risk. That's the biggest roadblock for a Sanford or Pawlenty, and a death sentence for a Hagel-- not that he ever had a real shot anyway. Allen is a team player, which Sanford is not... the more I think about it, the more I think Allen has a sizeable edge at this point. Sanford has enormous potential, both as a candidate and President, but the GOP has groomed Allen and everything has gone right so far... becoming the first conservative GOP Governor of VA, beating Robb, doing well as NRSC chair, etc.

Interestingly, both Allen and Sanford are more economic conservatives than social conservatives.

[Joe Republic]

Sanford would be very much a dark horse candidate.  He's the unknown governor of an obscure Southern state, with little in the way of an established record that would really generate interest in him.

[MissCatholic]

I think whoever gets the nomination, NV, OH and IA wil be much harder to win for Republicans than in 2004.

WI, MI, NH will be much tougher for dems to hold. But i do think that the country will vote a democrat. Cracks are appearing in republicans.